[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXTINCTION IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE WATER POLICY: THE BAY-DELTA CRISIS AND
THE IMPLICATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA WATER MANAGEMENT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Monday, July 2, 2007, in Vallejo, California
__________
Serial No. 110-33
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-477 WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Chris Cannon, Utah
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jeff Flake, Arizona
Islands Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jim Costa, California Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Louie Gohmert, Texas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Tom Cole, Oklahoma
George Miller, California Rob Bishop, Utah
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Dean Heller, Nevada
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Bill Sali, Idaho
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Lois Capps, California Kevin McCarthy, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel
Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chairwoman
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Jim Costa, California Ken Calvert, California
George Miller, California Dean Heller, Nevada
Mark Udall, Colorado Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Joe Baca, California Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Vacancy Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Monday, July 2, 2007............................. 1
Statement of Members:
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 9
Graphs submitted for the record.......................... 123
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Tauscher, Hon. Ellen O., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Thompson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 12
Statement of Witnesses:
Broddrick, L. Ryan, Director, California Department of Fish
and Game, Sacramento, California........................... 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
Cooley, Heather, Senior Research Associate, Pacific
Institute, Oakland, California............................. 94
Prepared statement of.................................... 95
Crettol, James A., Farmer, Shafter, California............... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Isenberg, Phillip L., Chairman, Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task
Force, and Partner, Isenberg/O'Haren, Sacramento,
California................................................. 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Larson, Hon. John P. (Phil), Supervisor, County of Fresno,
Fresno, California......................................... 110
Prepared statement of.................................... 112
Martin, Christopher C., Immediate Past Chair, Los Angeles
Area Chamber of Commerce, and CEO, AC Martin Partners, Los
Angeles, California........................................ 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Miller, William J. (BJ), Ph.D., Consulting Engineer, San Luis
and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, Berkeley, California.... 103
Prepared statement of.................................... 105
Moyle, Dr. Peter B., Professor of Fish Biology, Center for
Watershed Sciences and Department of Wildlife, Fish, and
Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis,
California................................................. 56
Prepared statement of.................................... 58
Supplemental testimony submitted for the record.......... 72
Nawi, David, Attorney, Environmental Mediation, Sacramento,
California................................................. 89
Prepared statement of.................................... 91
Stelle, William W., Jr., Assistant to the Chairwoman, Bay
Delta Conservation Plan Steering Committee, and Partner,
K&L Gates, Seattle, Washington............................. 99
Prepared statement of.................................... 101
Thompson, Steve, Manager, California and Nevada Operations
Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Sacramento, California........................... 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Wolk, Hon. Lois, Assemblywoman, State of California.......... 13
Additional materials supplied:
Erlewine, Terry, General Manager, State Water Contractors,
Letter submitted for the record............................ 127
McNerney, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Statement submitted for the record.... 126
Michalczyk, Bert, General Manager, Dublin San Ramon Services
District, Letter submitted for the record.................. 132
Smith, Felix E., Carmichael, California, Statement submitted
for the record............................................. 133
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON ``EXTINCTION IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE WATER
POLICY: THE BAY-DELTA CRISIS AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA WATER
MANAGEMENT''
----------
Monday, July 2, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Natural Resources
Vallejo, California
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in
Vallejo City Council Chambers, Vallejo City Hall, 555 Santa
Clara Street, Vallejo, California, Hon. Grace F. Napolitano,
[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Napolitano, Costa, and Miller
Also Present: Representatives Tauscher and Thompson
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, CHAIRWOMAN,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen and good
morning. I'm Congresswoman Grace Napolitano from Southern
California, Chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
This meeting of the Subcommittee will now come to order.
The purpose of this meeting is to conduct an oversight
field hearing regarding the current crisis in California's Bay-
Delta estuary, the largest estuary on the West Coast and the
water supply for more than 25 million people. The population of
the Delta smelt, once the most abundant species in the Delta,
has reached critically low levels. The numbers of the small
fish officially listed as threatened for the past 14 years
under the Endangered Species Act have decreased to such
dangerously low levels in recent years that they may be at risk
of extinction in the very near future.
The Federal state pumping facilities that export water out
from the Delta may play a significant role in reducing the
Delta smelt population abundance and their inability to
recover. Other possible affecting factors--excuse me. Am I not
recorded? It's down. It was on. Logistics. Thank you.
The other possible affecting factors include invasive
species and pesticides. And we trust we will be able to learn
more about various studies and conclusions this morning.
The fact remains that the State and Federal courts are now
involved and in effect, we have the courts directing water
policy decisions for Californians. What little is left of
California water policy is in disarray. And the officially
threatened Delta smelt continue to die at the State and Federal
pumping plants as they are, especially now, almost at full
pumping capacity.
This hearing, aptly entitled ``Extinction Is Not a
Sustainable Water Policy: The Bay-Delta Crisis and the
Implications for California Water Management,'' will consider
essential questions that go beyond our immediate concern for
the Delta smelt. Other witnesses will address the difficult
challenge of managing the Delta in a sustainable way that
complies with the law without placing California's economy at
risk.
Let me begin by welcoming our members on the dais. First
Members of Congress, the Subcommittee, our friends and
California colleagues. Representative Jim Costa from Fresno and
Representative George Miller. Thank you, gentlemen, for being
here.
And I'd also extend a great welcome to other Members of
Congress who are guests today. Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher of
Alamo, Congressman Mike Thompson of Saint Helena in Napa, and
State Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, Chairwoman of the California
State Assembly Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife. I'll
get it yet, Lois.
Congressman McNerney unfortunately could not be with us
this morning. And I ask unanimous consent that his statement be
included for the recorded.
Thank you everybody for coming, especially to the witnesses
who are here today, and the audience who is here to learn as we
are. I am very glad to see this level of participation. And I
know that you and your constituency are concerned with the
future of the Delta. And it is important that you have not
shied away from this controversial topic.
Please let me take this moment to point out that our
colleagues from the Minority are not here, despite my personal
calls to several Members. And in fact, they are unhappy about
this hearing. And I say that wholeheartedly because I've spoken
to them and we were hoping they would be able to join us and
work with us on this issue.
I would like to recognize the Minority staff. Kiel, where
are you? Kiel? In the back. And you're welcome to join us up
here, Kiel.
I ask unanimous consent that Representatives Ellen
Tauscher, Mike Thompson and State Representative Lois Wolk be
allowed to sit on the dais with the Subcommittee this morning
to participate in Subcommittee proceedings. And hearing no
objection, so ordered.
I will begin the hearing with a brief statement. I then
will recognize the Members of the Subcommittee for any
statement they may have. Any Member of Congress who desires to
be heard will be heard. And, of course, additional material may
be submitted for the record within ten days.
Since we have a full schedule of witnesses today, I will
request that Members please keep their remarks brief. The five
minute rule with our timer will be enforced.
Then I would like to thank, of course, Congressman Miller
as being the most gracious host, and his staff from the Concord
office. Thanks, George.
I also want to thank the City Council, the City Manager and
their staff for working so cooperatively with our staff and for
allowing us to use these Council chambers. They're very
impressive, and I congratulate them.
On behalf of myself and Congressman Nick Rahall, Chairman
of the House Committee on Natural Resources, thank you for your
hospitality.
This hearing was requested by eight members of your North
California delegation, Congressmen and women, Miller, Tauscher,
Thompson, Woolsey, Honda, Lantos and McNerney. I'm here at
their request.
The Delta smelt is referred to as an indicator species for
the health of the Delta. The population of the Delta smelt has
literally crashed in the last five years and they are now below
their effective population size. If the Delta smelt becomes
extinct, there are no winners. If anyone here thinks the
challenges facing the Delta will just go away if the smelt
completely disappear, you are mistaken.
There is scientific uncertainty about the cause of the
smelt decline. Uncertainty seems to be the theme of many of the
agency documents and decisions related to the smelt. The Delta
is a complex system; I don't have to tell you that and it has
many interacting factors. But there has been clear evidence
that the decline of the smelt and other fish species is
correlated to our water management practices. So much so that
the Federal courts have had to step in. Was this neglect on the
part of the Federal agencies or manipulation?
If the courts start managing our water, nobody wins. The
courts will not give users or the smelt, for that matter, more
certainty about their future. Managing from crisis to crisis
will not be effective and it will not work. There is one
fundamental question we must ask ourselves: Can we get to the
bottom of why there has been no real action on the part of the
Federal or state agencies to address the overall health of the
Delta, of which the smelt is just one indicator?
This basic question touches on so many related water
issues. Why is it that we have become so dependent on the Delta
that our entire economy is at risk if water exports are stopped
to protect fish? What's our backup?
Shouldn't we have already started developing some more
alternative water supplies for California through water
recycling and conservation? Should we not be looking for more
groundwater storage and banking?
Broadly stated, we are here today to learn and to explore
what we have done to the Delta, what we have neglected to do
and to explore ways to restore and manage the Delta in a
sustainable manner. Our cities, our farms, our economy and the
future of California depends on it.
I trust today's hearing will yield cooperation that will
lead to solution with very real ideas. And with that, I yield
to my friend and colleague The Honorable Jim Costa for any
statement he may have.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Napolitano follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Water and Power
First, I would like to thank Congressman George Miller and his
staff from the Concord District Office. You all have been gracious
hosts. I would also like to thank the city manager's office of Vallejo
for allowing us to use the Vallejo City Council Chambers. On behalf of
myself and Congressman Nick Rahall, Chairman of the House Committee on
Natural Resources, I thank you for your hospitality.
The delta smelt is referred to as an ``indicator species'' for the
health of the delta. The population of the delta smelt has literally
crashed in the last 5 years, and they are now below their effective
population size. If the delta smelt becomes extinct, there will be no
winners. And if anyone here thinks the challenges facing the delta will
just go away if the smelt completely disappear, you are mistaken.
I understand there is scientific uncertainty about the causes of
the smelt decline. Uncertainty seems to be the theme of many of the
agency documents and decisions related to the smelt. Yes, the delta is
a complex system with many interacting factors, but there has been
clear evidence that the decline of the smelt and other fish species is
correlated to our water management practices. So much so, that the
federal courts have had to step in. Was this neglect on the part of
federal agencies, or manipulation?
If the courts start managing our water, nobody wins. The courts
will not give water users, or the smelt for that matter, more certainty
about their future. Managing from crisis to crisis will not work. I
have one fundamental question I want to get to the bottom of:
Why has there been no real action on the part of federal
or state agencies to address the overall health of the delta, of which
the smelt are just one indication?
This basic question touches on so many interrelated water issues.
Why is it that we have become so dependent on the Delta that our entire
economy is at risk if water exports are stopped to protect fish? Where
is our backup? Shouldn't we start developing more alternative water
supplies for California through water recycling? Shouldn't we be
looking more to groundwater storage and banking?
Broadly stated, we are here today to explore what we have done to
the delta, what we have neglected to do, and to explore ways to restore
and manage the delta in a sustainable manner. Our cities and our farms
and the future of California depends on it. I hope today's hearing
yields real ideas.
And with that I yield to my friend and colleague, The Honorable Jim
Costa for any statement he may have.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for your
hard work and your focus and your tenaciousness toward trying
to not only work on water issues throughout the country and the
west in particular, but here in California. And your leadership
and your passion and your desire to help us solve those
problems I think are highly commendable. And I enjoy serving
with you, as I know our colleagues look for your leadership and
your work and your efforts in this area.
I have a couple of points I want to make as it relates to
my statement, and both as it relates to the impacts facing the
Delta and as it relates to historical perspective. Because some
like our colleagues Mr. Thompson and Mr. Miller and with our
arctic blonde and Mr. Isenberg detect in terms of our age the
fact that we have been associated with many of these issues for
many decades. And I think that historical perspective is
important to note.
Climate change and global warming, I believe, are
occurring. And they will have ramifications throughout the
world as well as throughout our country. In California it could
result in the next 50 years with an increase of sea level from
one to two to three feet. Increasing three feet of sea level in
the Delta will have dramatic impacts as it relates to the
Delta--not only the ecosystem, but also as a linchpin as our
plumbing system for water purposes for the rest of the State.
In addition, we have other natural factors that could cause
great change. Earthquakes. The Midland Fault lies throughout
the Delta and is cross-sected by the San Andreas and the
Hayward Fault lines.
Let me give you a scenario. It's July 4, 2008, 1:30 in the
afternoon. Americans are celebrating Independence Day. People
in California are with their families and at their homes.
1:37 in the afternoon a 7.0 earthquake goes through the
Midland Fault dramatically impacting the Delta. Suddenly the
earth begins to shake. Within seconds levees and dikes melt
away. Within a minute a wall of water from the Bay sweeps
across the Delta taking out the remainder of the earth and
structures that had survived the initial catastrophe rocked by
the 7.0 earthquake by the Midland Fault.
The loss of lives could never be replaced and the impacts
to those who were directly at the earthquake at ground zero.
But the water upon which 25 million of our citizens depend upon
would no longer exist. It takes a while to realize the loss of
drinking water, irrigation water is a greater catastrophe than
the value of the lost physical facilities; buildings and
infrastructures that would be impacted by such a quake.
This is not a scenario that any of us hope or wish we will
experience. But the odds that such an event will occur in the
next 50 years are significant. Just as the odds are significant
that climate change will raise the water level in the next 50
years.
As that vision or nightmare illustrates, the health of the
Bay-Delta and the regional implications to the rest of
California is what we are really talking about here today. The
social, the economic, the environmental consequences cannot be
overstated.
Congressman George Miller, our good friend, has done a good
job in both increasing the water supply and improving the water
quality for his district. In the early 1990s the Water
District, along with others, constructed the Reservoir to
improve the supply and improve the water quality by moving the
intake to the Old River and the Delta. And this area has
benefitted from his good work and others.
The rest of California must increase its water supplies and
restore the Delta ecosystem by doing the same. Unfortunately,
we have not had the same success. And let me give a
perspective.
We know, as the Congresswoman stated in her opening
statement, our Chairperson today, that exports have affected
the Delta fishery. But I do not believe they can account for
the current decline in the smelt.
We also know that invasive species, including the Striped
Bass that were introduced in the 1930s as a game fish, and
Asian clams that have been brought in here by shipping, have
had an impact, and we cannot measure it and we have not been
able to figure out how to solve that. And there are 1,800
unscreened diversions within the Delta that take the same
amount of water comparable in size to the Federal pumps each
year, and we don't talk about that.
In addition, urban and agricultural pesticide use in the
Delta and around it are significant factors and may have been
the chief culprit in this year's drastic decline in the smelt
population.
And one other thing we do not ever talk about, and that is
the urbanization that has occurred in the last 25 years in the
Delta. Dramatic growth has taken place.
Now let me give a little historical perspective since many
of us in this room have been involved with these issues for the
last 25 years.
In 1982, Governor Brown made an unsuccessful effort to
build the controversial peripheral canal.
In 1984, the Kesterson drain that comes from my area that
eventually was to come to the Delta was closed because of high
selenium concentrations that deformed wildlife, as it should
have been. As a matter of fact, both Congressmen Miller and I
were there at that hearing in Los Banos in 1982.
In addition to that, Governor Deukmejian in 1988 tried a
limited version of the peripheral canal using much of the
existing channels. That later became known as Duke's Ditch, as
my colleague Assemblymember Isenberg and others called it.
Mrs. Napolitano. Sorry, Mr. Costa. You are 45 second over.
Mr. Costa. Well, I know. But Madam Chairman, you went ten
minutes. Let me close.
Mrs. Napolitano. Five minutes. I'm the Chair, sir.
Mr. Costa. I understand, but can I close?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, sir.
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
In 1992 there was a reauthorization of the Central Valley
Project by our good friend George Miller. It reallocated
800,000 acre-feet of water to improve water quality in the
Delta and water supply, 400,000 additional acre-feet went for
wildlife refuges. All this occurred, 1.2 million acre-feet of
reallocation, during the drought that we experienced.
In closing, let me just try to say that all of these
efforts with Assemblymember Jones and myself, we put together a
coalition of environmentalists, urban and agricultural water
users that said we would all get better together. That resulted
in this funding. And it is important to note as I close that in
1996, Prop 204 passed and $995 million dollars was provided. In
2000, Prop 13, which I authored, provided $1.97 billion. Prop
50, in 2002, $2.6 billion was for water-related issues.
Finally, Proposition 84 passed $5.4 billion just last year. All
of this is important to note because in the last ten years the
State has provided $8 billion, and there has been hundreds of
millions of Federal dollars that have been applied to try to
improve the Delta. That does not talk about Governor Davis'
successful negotiation of the CALFED effort.
And on water conservation effort in closing, we've done a
lot. Today the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California conserves more water each year than the entire city
of San Francisco uses. California agriculture, which I in part
represent, is trying to keep up with its urban brother.
California farms produced 67 percent more crops using less
water than they did in 1970. From 1990 to 2000 we have doubled
the amount of drip irrigation and we're doing a whole lot of
other things as well.
So let me say that I am looking forward to hearing the
statements by you and others in today's hearing. We have
Assemblymember Isenberg's Task Force. And as I listen to the
hearing today, I ask myself--what are we as Federal elected
officials doing to help our State partners? Will we figure that
out today?
Continuing regional fighting and polarization that has
existed over the last 30 years will not solve the problem. Nor,
should we be looking at this hearing from the same old paradigm
of you are wasting water, because we are not.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costa follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
It is the Fourth of July and families across California are in the
parks, yards or watching parades to celebrate our independence.
Suddenly, in the Delta the earth begins to shake. Within seconds, the
levees and dikes melt away. Within a minute, a wall of water from the
Bay sweeps across the delta, taking out the remainder of earthen
structures that had survived the initial catastrophic damage wrought by
a 7.0 earthquake. The water on which 25 million of our citizens depend
no longer exists. It takes a while to realize that the loss of the
drinking and irrigation water is a greater catastrophe than the value
of the loss of physical facilities, buildings and infrastructure
sustained by the quake.....
This is not a scenario I ever want to experience, but the odds are
such an event may very well occur in the next 50 years.
As that vision, or nightmare, illustrates, the health of the Bay-
Delta and the regional implications to the rest of California is what
we are really talking about here today. The social, economic and
environmental consequences cannot be overstated.
Congressman Miller's area has done a good job of both increasing
water supply and improving water quality for his district. In the early
1990s Contra Costa Water District constructed Los Vaqueros Reservoir
and a new intake on Old River in the Delta to fill it with better
quality water.
The rest of California must increase its water supplies and restore
the Delta ecosystem by doing the same. Unfortunately we have not yet
had the same success.
I. The causes of the decline in the health of the Delta are numerous:
Exports affect the Delta fishery, but cannot account for
the current decline
Invasive species, including striped bass and Asian clams,
clearly have an impact
1,800 unscreened diversions, which taken together are
comparable to the size of the CVP's pumps must be acknowledged
Urban and agricultural pesticide use in and around the
Delta are significant factors and may have been the chief culprit in
this year's drastic decline in the Smelt population.
The impacts of urbanization in the last 25 years is also
a factor
II. As we look at today's conditions and to future solutions, it is
absolutely critical that we examine what we have already done.
1982 Governor Brown made an unsuccessful effort to build
a peripheral canal
1984 Kersterson was closed because of high selenium
concentrations that deformed wildlife
1988 Governor Deukmejian's tried a limited version of a
peripheral canal using much of the Delta existing channels in what
became know as ``Duke's Ditch''
1992 CVPIA, authored by our colleague, George Miller,
reallocated 1.2 million AF from farms south of the Delta.
800,000 AF is now used each year to restore the Delta
fishery.
400,000 AF is used for wildlife refuges.
The last 3 actions were taken during one of the worst droughts up
to that time,
1995 Governor Wilson tried to combine the state and
federal water projects for increased effectiveness and improved water
utilization
1995 I began an effort with Assemblyman Bill Jones and
Sunne McPeak and a large coalition of environmentalists, urban and
agricultural water users to fund a new approach that would allow the
Delta's many uses to all ``get better together.''
That effort resulted in broad, bipartisan water
propositions:
Prop 204 (1996) $995 million;
Prop 13 (2000) $1.97 billion;
Prop 50 (2002) $3.4 billion of which $2.6 billion
was for water-related projects including the Delta
ecosystem;
III. Prop 84 (2006) $5.4 billion of which $3.3 billion was for water-
related projects including the Delta ecosystem.
We have spent as much as $8 billion in state money over
10 years. And at the federal level hundreds of millions of dollars have
been provided through CaIFED.
In 2000, Governor Davis successfully negotiated the
CALFED ROD with two primary goals:
Assimilating state and federal efforts
Spending state and federal; money to restore the Delta
environment, increase water supplies, upgrade the Delta levee system,
and improve Delta water quality
Throughout this time California's water conservation ethic
exploded:
Today the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California conserves more water than the entire city of San Francisco
uses in a year.
And California agriculture is keeping up with its urban
brother. California farms produce 67% more crops using less water than
they did in 1970.
From 1990 to 200 alone the number of acres that converted
to using water saving drip irrigation systems doubled.
IV. Despite the many problems in the Delta, and the many attempts we
have made to solve them, we are more focused on solutions than
ever.
In 2006, the out of court settlement of the San Joaquin
River restoration suit will result in 160,000 AF to be devoted to
improving water quality and the salmon fisheries on the San Joaquin
River.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is developing a new and
very innovative proposal to solve the Westside drainage problem that
would clean-up the current drainage problem, relieve the federal
government of a multibillion dollar liability and equitably compensate
the farms that take on that obligation.
As we move into 2007, we must also give Governor Schwarzenegger and
the Legislature credit their efforts to fund new water storage and
conveyance facilities to solve the Delta crisis. The Delta's challenges
not new, but OLD.
It is significant to have former Assemblyman Isenberg chair the
Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force to make recommendations that will
restore the Delta and California's water supply. So as we begin this
hearing, I ask myself, ``What are we, as federal elected officials,
doing to help our state as partners?'' Hopefully we will figure that
out today, but in my mind that does NOT include:
Continuing the regional fighting and polarization of over
30 years
Nor should we be looking at this from the same old
paradigm of ``You're wasting water, we're not.''
So I ask my colleagues and the witnesses that will testify today:
``What is the key for building the consensus we need to solve
California's water problems in the 21st Century, knowing that our state
is growing and time is running out?''.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Costa. So I ask my colleagues and witnesses to testify
what is the key to building the consensus we need to solve
California's water problems in this 21st century. We know two
things. Our State is growing----
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Costa.--and we are running out of time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Costa. And we need to
listen to the witnesses and your statement will be entered into
the record.
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Miller?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Miller of California. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And
thank you so much for taking time out of your schedule to chair
this hearing in the 7th District.
And I want to welcome the other member of the Committee,
Mr. Costa. And I want to welcome our colleagues Ellen Tauscher
and Mike Thompson and Lois Wolk for taking their time also to
be here.
I believe they are here because we all recognize that one
of the great and last remaining delta systems in the world is
in serious, serious trouble. It is in serious threat of
collapse. And it is in serious threat of failing to meet its
historic needs, not only to Northern California but also to
Southern California.
And we have heard the history of actions taken with respect
to the Delta, but the fact of the matter is we continue to see
year after year the Delta go into decline.
It is rather interesting. As the laws continue to be passed
to strengthen and protect the Delta, the Delta continues to go
into decline because of a series of decisions that we have made
every year, year after year, and which we now see as a result
of lawsuits that have been filed where the laws have been
evaded, ignored and in fact violated that were designed to
protect the Delta. And I think that is unfortunate.
I think we have come to a point, Madam Chairman, where we
have to make some fundamental decisions. There is no question
that the Delta must continue to function as a multipurpose
entity in terms of its complexity, both locally and statewide.
But it cannot continue to give and give and give and not suffer
the detriments of that. And that is why we are here today. We
are at a point where the State has been put on notice with the
temporary shutting down of the pumps. The temporary closing of
the pumps was done in accordance with the law because the law
was not adhered to. And the government is, in fact, engaged in
activities and a take that was not authorized. We are
continuing to watch that litigation, but I think it is also
clear that the years of processed discussions have not taken us
much closer. In fact, I think it has diverted our attention
from the kind of Delta protection that is necessary for this
region of our State.
It is clear that the Delta is stressed, and that stress can
lead to serious economic consequences in the rest of the State.
I think we now have to once again consider the idea that
perhaps not all water is equal in the State of California. That
there is water that is being used in large quantities that
provides very little economic return to the State, and water
that could be better used in other parts of the State and the
economy. Those are difficult and tough decisions. But just as
energy forces us to look to new technologies, new uses and new
values on that policy, so does water and its scarcity require
us to do that.
My colleague, Mr. Costa, mentioned climate change. We have
all seen studies and discussions of what will happen in the
future to California--where our snowpack will be, where it will
not, who will be the beneficiaries. And I think those all have
to be taken into consideration.
Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, I think this is probably the
first in a series of hearings on this complex problem. But the
leadership you have provided and the Committee has been
fantastic for our State. Your absolutely unparalleled
leadership in the recycling of water and just passing out of
the Committee this week major authorizations for recycling
projects in our State, I think, is key to getting ahead of the
curve so that we can also be a contributor to lessening the
pressure and the threat to the Delta.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. And I want to
thank all of them for agreeing to be here today and to testify,
and to answer questions.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Congressman, for being pretty
much on time. And thank you for your leadership.
For all of you that do not know this, this is only my ninth
year. I have learned from this man. And so when he tells me
that we are doing a good job, I feel very good. Because water
is critical to the State.
So with that, I would like to introduce Congresswoman Ellen
Tauscher.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELLEN TAUSCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Tauscher. Thank you very much Chairwoman Napolitano for
the opportunity to appear today and welcoming me as a temporary
member of the Water and Power Subcommittee.
I would also like to thank the City of Vallejo, and my
colleagues for being here. And especially my friend Chairman
Wolk from the Assembly.
I think that what is really important is that Chairwoman
Napolitano needs to be thanked for the quickness for which she
responded to Bay area Members of Congress who asked for today's
hearing.
I am grateful that you share our concern for the future of
the Bay-Delta as well as the long-term management and quality
of California's water supply.
Today's hearing is about righting what can only described
as a floundering ship. We can all agree the Bay-Delta is in
crisis. It faces challenges that if unmet will cause the
continued degradation of its ecosystem and threaten the water
supply Californians throughout the State depend on. It would be
a terrible injustice to all Californians if today's hearing
devolves into the typical and tired blame game, fish versus
farmers and then Delta water versus Southern California. And
whether you believe the Delta smelt are the proverbial canary
in the coal mine or not, these recent actions have highlighted
the need for a foresighted plan to deal with all the issues we
face in the Delta; water quality, habitat restoration, water
exports, levee stability and invasive species.
I applaud the recent work being done by the State to lay
out the plan. The Delta Vision process, I hope, will bring us
some clarity about our long-term options. And I am pleased that
the Chair of the Governor's Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force
Phil Isenberg is here today.
Additionally, I hope the Bay-Delta conservation plan
process will help us address the issues surrounding compliance
with the Endangered Species Act. I have seen in eastern Contra
Costa County and my district how the habitat conservation
planning process has worked, and I hope that it can be emulated
in the Delta. But these are long-term efforts and the Delta
needs help now. So today I am looking for answers about what we
can do right now. We need to know that there is an action plan
being developed to stop the decline of the Delta smelt, ensure
reasonable and regular exports, protect and enhance water
quality and deal with the loss of habitat. It is time to make
some near term decisions that will save this vital ecosystem
and preserve California's water delivery system.
Additionally, I want to know from Federal regulators and
the people they are meant to work with that they are the type
of partners that are helping in this process. The Federal
Government has a lot at stake in this process, and I want to
know that the Federal Government is an active and willing
partner in all aspects of the Delta.
Madam Chairwoman, again, thank you for holding this
hearing. And I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tauscher follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ellen Tauscher, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Chairman Napolitano, thank you for the opportunity to speak this
morning and thank you for welcoming me as a temporary Member of the
Water and Power Subcommittee.
Let me also thank you for the quickness with which you responded to
our request for today's hearing.
I am grateful that you share our concern for the future of the Bay-
Delta as well as the long-term management and quality of California's
water supply.
Today's hearing is about righting what can only be described as a
foundering ship.
We can all agree ``
The Bay-Delta is in crisis--it faces challenges that if unmet, will
cause the continued degradation of its ecosystem and threaten the water
supply Californians throughout the state depend on.
It would be a terrible injustice to all Californians if today's
hearing devolves into the typical and tired blame game--fish versus
farmers and in-Delta water users versus Southern California.
The issues we face are too complex and too important to be bogged
down in another California water war, especially one created by
bureaucrats who are unwilling to follow the law.
Today's hearing is about controlling our own destiny.
Recent events have made clear that state and federal judges are
willing to step in and manage California's water systems because
federal and state regulators won't.
This is a terrible proposition for all of us.
The judiciary was never meant to manage water.
But we're here now because federal and state regulators have
repeatedly neglected their responsibility to operate the systems within
the law.
Our goal here today is to prod these same regulators into action.
I bring a unique perspective to today's hearings.
Depending on where they live in my district, families get their
water through the Delta or through the State Water Project.
In Livermore, the Zone Seven Water Agency gets eighty percent of
its water from the State Water Project, while in places like Antioch,
the Contra Costa Water District takes water directly from the Delta.
Some would say this puts me on opposite sides of the fence, between
protection of the Delta and its water quality and continued robust
exports out of the Delta.
I disagree.
Instead, it amplifies the urgent need for federal and state
regulators to immediately comply with the letter and spirit of the law
and provide regularity and predictability within the system.
When the regulators fall out of compliance, it hurts all of us,
because we begin to lose our ability to self-determine the future of
water in our own state.
No doubt, we're here in large part because of the alarming decline
in the Delta smelt population and Judge Wanger's ruling that the
Biological Opinion used to operate the state and federal pumps is
``legally flawed.''
In the near term, it's clear that these legal decisions make it
imperative for the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project
to be brought into compliance and address their impacts on the smelt
populations.
I agree with those who say the pumps aren't the only reason why the
smelt population is crashing--that other factors also affect these
fish.
However, I disagree with the argument that because we haven't done
enough to improve water quality, combat invasive species and reduce
runoff into the Delta that it is reasonable to continue to kill smelt
through the pumps.
That argument is both illogical and, as the judge pointed out,
holds no legal merit.
Whether you believe the Delta smelt are the proverbial ``canary in
the coal mine,'' or not, these recent actions have highlighted the need
for a foresighted plan to deal with all the issues we face in the
Delta--water quality, habitat restoration, water exports, levee
stability, and invasive species.
I applaud the recent work being done by the state to lay out that
plan.
The Delta Vision process, I hope, will bring us some clarity about
our long-term options, and I'm pleased that the Chair of the Governor's
Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, Phil Isenberg, is here today.
Additionally, I hope the Bay Delta Conservation Plan process will
help us address the issues surrounding compliance with the Endangered
Species Act.
I have seen in Eastern Contra Costa County how the habitat
conservation planning process has worked, and I hope that can be
emulated in the Delta.
But these are long-term effort, and the Delta needs help now.
So today I'm looking for answers about what we can do right now. We
need to know that there is action being taken to stop the decline of
the Delta smelt, ensure reasonable and regular exports, protect and
enhance water quality, and deal with the loss of habitat.
It's time to make some near-term decisions that will save this
vital ecosystem and preserve California's water delivery system.
Additionally, I want to know from federal regulators and the people
they are meant to work with what type of partners they have been in
this process.
Just attending meetings and working groups is not enough.
The federal government has a lot at stake in this process and I
want to know that the federal government is an active and willing
partner in all aspects of the Delta.
Madam Chairman, again, thank you for holding this timely hearing.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses and I yield back
the balance of my time.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Tauscher. That is much
appreciated.
And I will go to Mike Thompson.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MIKE THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Thompson of California. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I
appreciate you being here and taking up this issue. And I
second all that has been said about your leadership on not only
this issue but water issues in California in general. And I
think today's hearing points out the importance that this has,
not only on the Bay-Delta region, but the entire State of
California and our economy. It is important to fisheries, to
wetlands, to flood protection, drinking water and to
agriculture. And this, I believe, is just one example of an
overtapped water system that we have in California.
So it is a prime example, and one that we really need to do
a better job. And the State and Federal Government really need
to double down our efforts to do everything that we need to do
to provide the incentives that will allow us to get the most
out of every drop of water that we have in our great State. And
we cannot wait for a crisis to take place in order to respond
to that. We have done just a marvelous job in waiting for
crises to come along and then jump on them. But we need to be
out in front of this.
And the other caution that I want to put on the table is
that this is not something that can--or I guess it can, but it
should not be managed politically. We have seen too many
examples of what a catastrophe that can lead to. And you do not
have to look any further to the worst case scenario in
California history for this, and that was the politicalization
of the Klamath Basin. And for those of you who do not
understand that there's a nexus, the Klamath is linked very
closely to the Delta through the Trinity River. And as we all
know, during the drought of 2001 there was a political decision
made to divert more water than should have been diverted and it
led to the death of 80,000 spawning salmon. And we have been
paying the price for that ever since. We have been paying the
price in regard to closed salmon fishing; loss of revenue. Last
year, folks on this panel were very instrumental in getting the
help for the fishers and related businesses that suffered. But
it was a $60.5 million hit related to that inappropriate fish
kill that has proven to be illegal in three different courts.
So we need to make sure that we do a better job. We cannot
run this stuff politically, and we should not acquiesce to the
courts to deal with our water policy in the State. If we do not
get ahead of this in the Delta, that is exactly what we are
going to be doing. We are going to be doing water policy by
court mandate and that, I do not believe, is appropriate.
So, Madam Chair, thank you. I hope that the outcome of this
hearing is that we will have better management of our very
limited water resources in the State.
I also want to thank the City of Vallejo for making the
facility open. The last time I was in this room was 15 years
ago. I just won a special election and then Mayor and now Mayor
Tony Intintoli swore me in. And it is great to be back. It is a
great city.
You are lucky to represent it.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Congressman. And thank you for
holding your statements within the time frame.
And I move on to now Assemblywoman Wolk.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LOIS WOLK, AN ASSEMBLYWOMAN FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Wolk. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning. I want to thank the Chair for her energy and
commitment to California water issues and for inviting me to
participate here this morning.
We are united here in our belief that the Delta is the
heart and soul of California's water system. And it is in
jeopardy. It is not sustainable in its current direction.
We are also here, I believe, to convey a sense of urgency
of action. We would like to see a plan, and we would like to
see action result from that plan.
The issues have been laid out by my colleagues beautifully;
climate change, water quality both from the agricultural and
urban runoff sectors; invasives, increasing urbanization, the
19th century piles of dirt that we call levees are crumbling
and the species are in crisis.
I would like to focus on one issue that has not been
mentioned, and that is the issue of governance. There is no
steward for the Delta. There is no one responsible for the
Delta. No one entity is in charge. And that is a problem
because there are hard decisions that need to be made about the
future of the Delta.
I applaud my colleagues for being here this morning, for
their commitment and energy on California water issues. And I
look forward to the hearing.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Assemblywoman.
Just to let the audience know that this hearing was put
together in 3 1/2 weeks after the request came to my
Subcommittee. And the plea was made that we change and bring
the hearing here to deal with this very important issue. So
thank you for bringing it to our attention. I believe you are
so right.
The statements of my colleagues and Ms. Wolk, if you wish,
will be entered in the record. So if you will submit it to
staff, we will ensure that they get into the record.
We will proceed to hear from our witnesses. We have three
panels today. And I'll introduce each one of them before they
testify. And at the conclusion of their testimony, the Members
will proceed with a line of questioning.
And your prepared statement, panel, as I said will go into
the record.
I would ask that you summarize and highlight your points,
panel. Like I said, your testimony will be in the record. So
for expediency to be able to hit the major points that you want
to make to this Committee would be very much appreciated.
Please limit your remarks to five minutes. I have no
problem using this little old gavel. The fact is that we have a
long morning and I would like to ensure that everybody gets an
opportunity to talk.
This rule will also apply for the questions, ladies and
gentlemen. Five minutes from each Member. If there are
additional questions, we may go to a second round if possible,
if the time permits.
For our first panel, I would like to introduce an old
friend, a colleague of the State Assembly, The Honorable Phil
Isenberg, partner in the firm Isenberg/O'Haren. Mr. Jim
Crettol, a farmer, from Shafter. Welcome, sir, and Mr. Chris
Martin, Principal of AC Martin Partners, Inc. of Los Angeles.
Our thanks for responding promptly and agreeing to serve as
panelists in such a short time. Thank you.
And if you will proceed, Mr. Isenberg, your testimony will
be welcome.
STATEMENT OF PHIL ISENBERG, PARTNER,
ISENBERG/O'HAREN
Mr. Isenberg. Thank you. Chair, Members, Ms. Tauscher, Ms.
Wolk and to my three aging water warriors of the battles in
California, it is----
Mrs. Napolitano. All right. Phil.
Mr. Isenberg. It is an honor to be here.
Chair, I will in fact do the shortest summary possible.
Attached to my statement are three charts that tell you how
much water comes from California on a regular basis, how it is
used in very gross and general terms, how it impacts the Delta,
how much goes through the Delta and where it kind of goes, and
then more importantly is a fast historic look from about 1923
to the current time on Delta diversions.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Isenberg, may I suggest the next time
you make the print a little larger for these aging members.
Mr. Isenberg. Well, what can I tell you. And I should say,
all of this documentation is taken either from the State Water
Plan, which is updated every five years by the Department of
Water Resources or from a book. And I think we have copies that
are here. And they are slightly more legible in that, Chair
Napolitano.
The Department of Water Resources and now almost all of us
who play in the field talk about three kinds of years in
California for water; wet years, average years, dry years. So
just remember this: In any year in California that is wet, the
Department of Water Resources says ``Well, there is about 331
million acre-feet of water that comes into the State through
rainfall, through snowfall and imports.'' Much of that, of
course, is not captured by anyone because it is absorbed by the
earth. It does not flow off into rivers. In an average year
about 200 million acre-feet is available. And in a dry year
about 160 million acre-feet is available.
The Delta receives a relatively modest proportion of the
water that totally comes into the State of California. Fifteen
percent in a wet year flows through into the Delta. About 13
percent in an average year. And about eight or nine percent in
a dry year. And, yes, there are years which are dramatically
different. 1983 was a whole lot wetter and 1977 was a whole lot
drier. But on average, that is a pretty good way to measure it.
When water flows into the Delta, if you ask yourself the
question, where does it go and what happens to it? And this
chart points it out.
The in-Delta users, and that is largely the 1,000 entrance
points and pumps that Mr. Costa talks about, take about
1,700,000 acre-feet of water in a wet year, an average year and
a dry year. They are, after all, in the center of all this
water so they get their straws in there and they suck out that
amount of water.
The thing that is astonishing to a lot of people who do not
pay attention to it, however, is that historically in these
figures when water is exported from the Delta for urban uses,
people and for businesses and industry, it remains relatively
the same in a wet, average and dry year. Now, yes, there are
variations. You can see in a dry year only about 80 percent of
the water seems to be available to urban uses.
Agricultural uses in a year like this are, in fact,
slightly increased compared. It ranges from 27 million acre-
feet to about 34 million acre-feet.
And then there is one of the old arguments about water.
What's left? And the old style was well anything that goes into
the ocean is waste, and therefore it should be used and so on
and so forth. And the fact of the matter is now people are
starting to talk about, although it is controversial, that the
rest of that water is sort of environmental water. And I say
sort of because the science cannot tell you with great clarity
what is around.
Now, the Delta environmental water, whatever is left over
that flows through the Delta and then out the Bay, that is the
one source of water which has decreased substantially as you go
from a wet year to a dry year to an average year.
The second chart talks about the Delta water balance. It
explains where it comes from. It's in support of the last
chart, and in my final 36 seconds, is a terrific one from the
Status and Trends report. It's an illustration of what happened
from 1923 to the current time. And essentially if you step back
and look at this as a historian, not all but much of the growth
of water usage in California since World War II has been
attributable to growing Delta exports. Sure, they fluctuate
from year-to-year. But average it out, the Delta has been a
primary source of the growth.
So, what does all that mean as you try to figure out what
smelt mean and agency responsibility and so on. And I will just
give you my own kind of fast summary.
The first is as you do water policy the most important
thing to remember is the Delta is important, but it is not the
only part of the water supply in California. In public policy
we always argue an issue as if there was nothing else on the
table when in fact there is much else on the table.
Number two, water is in limited supply in California. If we
do not get it from other states, and they seem increasingly
reluctant to give it to us or sell it to us, if we do not have
a miracle breakthrough on desalinization or something like it,
we are all of us, Northern, Central and Southern California
going to have to live with less water. I mean, it is
inescapable as population grows.
Third, we have to get over the mindset that says everybody
is entitled to keep what they have now even if the supplies are
not available. This is like so much as a state, or I presume,
Federal budget discussion where you have entitlements and you
just do not have the money to pay for them, what do you do?
Well, you go borrow money.
OK. Madam Chair, I will stop.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Isenberg follows:]
Statement of Phillip L. Isenberg, Chair,
Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force
Good morning Chair and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Phil
Isenberg, and I currently chair the Governor's Delta Vision Blue Ribbon
Task Force. You asked me to discuss the general history of water
disputes in California, and the role of the Bay-Delta in those battles.
It is a pleasure to be here.
The Sacramento Bay-Delta is a key focal point for any discussion of
California water policy. Although the Delta is a unique place, with
unique problems, it is the demands placed on the Delta by the rest of
California--for water and for environmental protection--that drives
your hearing today. While your current focus is on the falling number
of Delta smelt, a protected species, battles in and about water and the
Delta are nothing new.
A Brief History of Water Development in California: Mining for gold,
flood control, agricultural levees and water exported for use
elsewhere.
When California became a state in 1850, our small population was
mostly concentrated in San Francisco and the Sacramento region.
Discovery of gold near Sacramento fueled the first of our population
spurts, and one of the most important of our water battles.
By the mid-1860s, thousands of miles of privately-developed canals
and water ditches had been constructed to assist in the mining of gold.
At the same time, residents in Sacramento discovered to their dismay
that living at the confluence of the Sacramento and American rivers was
a prescription for being flooded. As miners built canals, residents
along the Sacramento River started to build levees to protect against
floods.
It takes no genius to figure out that building a levee to protect
one small community might move the flood threat across the river, or
downstream to another, less protected community. The battle of small
towns, and individual farmers and property owners to protect their own
land, continued for many years.
At the same time mining debris was pouring out of the foothills,
and appearing on the board plains of the Sacramento Valley. This debris
started to fill parts of the river system, increasing flood threats,
and irritating downstream residents.
Add the use of large hydraulic mining equipment to the equation,
and you see the parameters of the first major struggle over water in
the northern part of California. State government intervention soon
occurred, as did the start of federal intervention
To complicate things, individual farmers in and near the Delta
began to build their own system of levees, allowing the development of
agriculture in the Delta. The legacy of this activity remains today,
with many Delta islands far below water level and their levees out of
compliance with current safety requirements. Some critics note that
government aid to restore breached levees and flooded islands costs
more money than the value of the land being protected.
If mining debris, flood threats, and the growth of Delta
agriculture was not enough, as early as the 1870's, Californians
contemplated plans to move water from the Sacramento River to the San
Joaquin Valley. In the early 1900's, several reports and investigations
culminated in the first State Water Plan.
You know the history of what would become the Central Valley
Project. In 1933 the California Legislature approved the project, but
the Great Depression made it impossible to be financed by the state
alone. The federal government provided the funds through the Emergency
Relief Appropriation Act--the first of many controversies surrounding
this project.
The Central Valley Project provided much needed jobs in the
Depression Era, and the water it eventually delivered helped to
maintain California's status as a prime agricultural producer.
Likewise, the State Water Project provides agriculture and urban areas
with a significant proportion of their water. The bulk of the urban
population that depends on Delta water supplies are in just nine of the
State's 58 counties--but they are the most populous counties--
representing 25 million of the 36 million people who live here. These
counties get anywhere from approximately 20 percent to 50 percent of
their water supply from the Delta.
Two other historic battles over water should be noted. The effort
of the City of Los Angeles to move water from the Owens Valley has
become legend. Most notable, this dispute has festered for almost 100
years, and led to an impressive modern effort to save Mono Lake (in the
Owens Valley), limit the amount of water taken by Los Angeles, and
ratify the legal principal that environmental protection is one of the
foundations of water policy in California.
Another hoary political battle was the effort of the City and
County of San Francisco to dam Hetch Hetchy, and transfer much of the
water directly to the San Francisco Bay Area. John Muir, America's
preeminent symbol of environmental protection, led and lost the battle
to save Hetch Hetchy (located near Yosemite, and often called equal in
beauty and environmental values).
I mentioned these two regional battles only because they tend to
color the water debates in California to this day, and their history is
often cited by one interest or another to illustrate various alleged
sins and the imperfect solutions that followed.
The dream of endless water supplies meets the reality of environmental
protection.
California battles about water have, over many years, led to an
array of statutes, both federal and state, and endless court decisions
that compose what the California Water Atlas called ``Legal
Constraints'' (see pp 64-66) on water use. Equal in importance to the
physical construction of the Central Valley Project and the State Water
Project has been the growth of environmental protection as one mark of
modern California society.
A simple listing of some of the major environmental laws or court
decisions affecting water is instructive:
Article X, section 2 of the California Constitution of
1878 (requires that all uses of water in California be reasonable and
beneficial [1928 amendment])
Public Trust Doctrine (dates back to ancient Rome; not
specifically in statute but recognized by tradition and court cases)
Area of Origin Laws (in various sections of the
California Water Code dating back to 1927)
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (federal)
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act of 1969
California Environmental Water Quality Act of 1970
California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1972)
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (federal)
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (amended in 1986 and
1996)
California Endangered Species Act (1984)
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (state)
(1991)
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (1992)
Delta Protection Act of 1952 and the Delta Projection Act
of 1992
National Audubon Society et. al. vs. Superior Court of
Alpine County/Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles
(Mono Lake Decision [1983])
United States vs. State Water Resources Control Board
(Racanelli Decision [1986])
Natural Resources Defense Council vs. Rogers, et. al.
(The San Joaquin River Decision regarding Friant Dam [2006])
State Water Resources Control Board Cases(relates to
State Water Resources Control Board's Decision 1641 regarding Delta
water quality [2006])
There are several pending lawsuits in the courts today that may
also have a profound impact on water supply and delivery in the State,
including a challenge to the State Water Project's ability to continue
pumping water because it may not have permits to legally take fish at
the pumps.
As a practical matter, the desire of the American and California
public to ``protect the environment'' inevitably means that water use
may be limited or restricted to achieve that goal.
A Question of Supply and Demand: Limited quantities of water; unlimited
demands.
For much of our history, California's assumed that water was
available in unlimited supply of water, if we could just move it from
one place in the state to another. Something about this is ironic,
since California is classified as an arid region of the world, and
shortage of water is nothing new. Let me outline a few of the basic
facts of our water supply.
Our available water supply and the proportion going through the Delta
In California, our major supply of water is from rain and snow that
falls north of the Delta, and a relatively small amount is imported
from other states. The major demand for water is south of the Delta.
Please remember these numbers: 330, 200 and 145.
These figures represent the total water available in the State in
wet, average and dry water years. These are millions of acre feet of
water.
The 2005 California Water Plan, our state's ongoing water strategy
document, likes to talk about water supply in three categories: wet
years (1998 is the example), an average water year (2000 is the
example) and a dry water year (2001 was selected).
In a wet year, about 330 million acre-feet of water pours into
California from snow, rain and imports from other states and about 15
percent of that amount eventually flows through the Delta.
In an average water year, about 200 million acre-feet comes into
California, and roughly 13 percent of that flows through the Delta.
In a dry water year, about 145 million acre-feet of water comes
into the State and about 9 percent of that flows through the Delta.
When we discuss the Bay-Delta it is useful to remember the
relatively small proportion of total state water that flows into the
Delta: 15 percent in a wet year, 13 percent in an average year and 9
percent in a dry year.
The Delta is an important part of the State water supply, but it is
not the total amount of the state's total water supply. It is
important, especially in a time of crisis, not to overemphasize an
aspect of the situation if we are to make wise and useful choices.
For detailed figures see the charts on pages 18 and 19 of the
Status and Trends of Delta-Suisun Services (2007), published by the
Department of Water Resources.
Where does the water that flows to the Delta actually go?
Whether it is a wet, average or dry water year, the water use in
the Delta remains remarkably the same: about 1.7 million acre-feet.
Astonishing to some, even in average or dry water years, the amount
of water exported from the Delta increases over what is exported during
wet years. In wet years, about 4.8 million acre-feet of water is
exported from the Delta; in average and dry years, water exports are
about 6.3 million and 5.1 million, respectively.
After water that comes to the Delta is taken by in-Delta users, or
exported to urban and agricultural water interests, some always flows
to the San Francisco Bay and the ocean. In wet years that amounts to
about 43.4 million acre-feet, in an average year about 18.1 million
acre-feet and in a dry year, about 6.9 million acre-feet.
How is water exported from the Delta used?
The simple answer is that we all do, in one form or another. The
typical distinction is between urban water uses, agricultural water
uses, and environmental water uses. At the present time I can find no
current, published data that breaks down how exported water from the
Delta is used, but we can look at statewide water use for some insight.
Statewide urban water uses change little regardless of rainfall or
snow melt. Urban users receive an average of 7.8 million acre-feet in
wet years, 8.9 million acre-feet in average water years and 8.6 million
acre-feet in dry years.
Statewide agriculture uses are significantly higher than total
urban use. In a wet year, agricultural use is about 27.3 million acre-
feet; in an average year it is 34.2 million acre-feet and in a dry
year, it is 33.7 million acre-feet. Again, there is relative stability
of exported agricultural water in wet, average and dry years.
Statewide environmental water, if you accept the much disputed
position that everything left over is for the environment, does not
appear to be protection against reductions. Add together instream
flows, wild and scenic river flows, Delta outflow and managed wetlands
water use and you find the following: In a wet year, the environmental
use is 59.4 million acre-feet. In an average year, it is 39.4 million
acre-feet; and in a dry year it is 22.5 million acre-feet.
Attached to this presentation is Table 1-1 from the California
Water Plan Update, 2005, illustrating these facts. One conclusion seems
inescapable: we have developed a water transfer system that
fundamentally protects urban and agricultural users in dry years. It is
a serious question--and the Delta smelt dispute illustrates this
point--whether this can continue to occur.
If we don't build dams and water facilities, how do new people and
businesses get their water?
California has developed all the best hydrologic resources. There
is a dam in almost every location where it is feasible to build one.
The sites left for building dams are ones that have very high
environmental impacts (like Auburn Dam), or have a very high cost (like
off-stream reservoirs). Therefore, in recent years, there have been few
major dams or water projects constructed in California. Whatever the
cause of not building new water projects, an interesting trend has
developed in Southern California. Water interests there say that they
have increased their population by 3 million over the past 15 years,
but are still using the same amount of exported water from the Delta.
Although figures differ, many suggest that conservation, local sources,
and water system efficiencies have made this possible.
The Delta Vision. The Governor's Delta Vision Initiative involves
far more than our own Delta Vision Task Force. I have attached to this
statement a copy of his Executive Order, a list of the members of the
Task Force, and our charging document from Resources Secretary Mike
Chrisman, and finally, a flow chart of our work, and that of about 14
other entities working on Delta-related issues.
The Task Force is charged to give their independent views regarding
a vision for the Delta and we intend to do that. We have two work
products: in November of this year we must present a vision--a Delta
vision--that takes a long perspective of the Delta and not simply a
vision of the operational details. Once the vision proposal is
presented to the Delta Vision Committee, chaired by Secretary Chrisman,
they present it to the Governor and he will do what he chooses with it.
By the end of 2008, the Task Force will develop a strategic plan to
implement the vision; after that the Task Force will be out of
business.
To accomplish this, the Task Force is working with a 43 member
Stakeholder Coordination Group, appointed by Secretary Chrisman, who
advises and makes recommendations to us. Our focus is to look at the
major subject areas of the Delta:
the environment, including aquatic and terrestrial
functions and biodiversity;
land use and land use patterns, including agriculture,
urbanization, and housing
transportation, including streets, roads, highways,
waterways, and ship channels
utilities, including aqueducts, pipelines, and gas/
electric transmission corridors
water supply and quality, municipal/industrial discharges
and urban and agricultural runoff
recreation and tourism, including boating, fishing and
hunting
flood risk management, including levee maintenance
emergency response, and local and state economies
In the short period of time we have been working a few themes are
coming into sharper focus.
First, the Delta is an important part of the water puzzle of the
State; it is not the entire puzzle. How could it be when less than 20
percent of all the water available to us in any given year flows
through the Delta?
Second, water is in limited supply and short of a miracle, or some
unanticipated advance of science, that is unlikely to change. Which
means that all of us have to live with limits on our use of water.
Third, California seems to view a promise to deliver water as a
magically enforceable contract--even if the water is not available.
Reality seems to be catching up with this notion.
Fourth, the Delta is a mess. The ecosystem is deteriorating, and
nothing in the past 30 years has given much hope of rapid improvement.
Fifth, if you add up all the federal and state statutes, water
contracts, lawsuits and settlements, you rapidly see that every section
of society has been promised or guaranteed whatever they want. Since
environment protection has also received protected status, it does not
take a genius to figure out that all of these promises for endless
supplies of water--cheap water--cannot be kept.
The Task Force has been told by every interest that the Delta is in
trouble, and there is a growing risk of catastrophic failure to the
Delta, whether by earthquake (the most likely threat), global warming,
continuing levee failures and land subsidence or urban encroachment.
The lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina, and other research,
suggests that catastrophic failure would not be good for the Delta
ecosystem, the State's economy, or the water exported either.
If we should not continue to promise everything to everyone, then
some tough choices have to be made about water use and the Delta. What
are the most important statewide interests in the Delta? Can they be
identified? And can we avoid the current practice of pretending to
honor the ``want list'' of every interest group, geographic region and
economic group?
Finally, a major problem with the status quo is the almost total
lack of trust that all the aging water warriors have with each other.
There is nothing new about the lack of trust--the North doesn't trust
the South, the South doesn't trust San Diego--and on and on. The
absence of trust means it is almost impossible to take an area like the
Delta and manage it in a coherent way that tries to answer--whatever
the priorities are--the issues or solve the problems because we cannot
delegate authority to anyone to do that.
The America tradition of having divided government, and allowing
every level of society to ``have a piece of the action'', means that as
far as the Delta is concerned, everyone is involved; no on is in
charge.
The choices that we need to make over the course of this year, next
year and the coming decades, are difficult. Many of those choices will
be unpopular, and challenge deeply-held convictions about how the world
ought to be. If we do not make these difficult choices, then
extinction--whether of a species or a way of life--may be the water
policy of California.
Thank you again for inviting me to speak today.
Selected Sources of Information about the Delta and California Water:
Battling the Inland Sea: Am3erican Political Culture, Public Policy &
the Sacramento Valley, 1850-1986 (1989) Robert Kelley,
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
The California Water Atlas (1978) Department of Water Resources.
The California Water Plan Update (2005), Department of Water Resources.
Available online at: http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/
Delta Vision: http://www.deltavision.ca.gov/
The Great Thirst: Californians and Water, 1770s-1990s (1992) Norris
Hundley, Jr., University of California Press, Berkeley, C A.
Status and Trends of Delta and Suisun Services (2007), Department of
Water Resources. Available online at: http://
www.deltavision.ca.gov/DeltaVisionStatusTrends.shtml
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.004
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Isenberg.
I was hoping you would be able to wrap it up in the last
minute.
I would like to move on to Jim Crettol from Shafter. Sir?
STATEMENT OF JIM CRETTOL, FARMER, SHAFTER, CALIFORNIA, AND
SEMITROPIC WATER STORAGE DISTRICT
Mr. Crettol. Madam Chairman, thank you for inviting me to
be here today.
I am part of a family farmer operation in the Shafter area
with my father and brother. And my grandfather immigrated in
1914 and started farming in 1920. We have been farming
continuously since then.
We grow a variety of crops on our 2,000 acres. We utilize
flood, furrow, sprinkler and drip irrigation to irrigate our
different crops.
I'm also here representing the Semitropic Water Storage
District. Congressman Miller and Congresswoman Tauscher have
had presentations. And Jim Costa is my Congressman. He knows
thoroughly what goes on in Semitropic. We provide water to
farmers and we also provide storage for our groundwater banking
partners throughout the State.
Our banking involves in-lieu banking as well as direct
recharge. Our initial program was a 1 million acre-foot
groundwater banking program. Our partners are the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California, Santa Clara, Alameda,
Zone 7 up in this area. And we have capacity of storing 1
million acre-feet in the initial program. As of the beginning
of this year, we had 800,000 acre-feet in storage. We are being
requested from our banking partners to have a maximum
withdrawal this year of 160,000 acre-feet of water. We intend
to honor that commitment.
In addition to our initial program we have what's called
our stored water recovery unit. It is a 650,000 acre-foot
groundwater storage program that is under construction as we
speak. We just finished completing a seven mile ten foot
diameter pipeline to move water in and out of our district in
large volumes. Our initial program can return water at 90,000
acre-feet per year. Under the new program with the large
pipeline we can enhance that by an additional 200,000 acre-
feet. We're operating like a very large reservoir.
The impacts of the Delta smelt on the pumps this year on
our farming operation resulted in our having to move from
taking surface water to pumping from the underground, which we
did not want to do but it was necessary, so we did. Because of
the shortage of water that was forecast with potential cut offs
at the pumps, we are holding wells in reserve. We're not
planting 80 acres of carrots. We are not going to plant 160
acres of corn silage.
We had a couple of employees that terminated employment
with us. One of them chose a job somewhere else and another one
retired. We have seven permanent employees--we have five now.
We are not going to be replacing those two with the
uncertainties in the water situation going on. We are just to
hire temporary workers as needed.
The maximum request of 160,000 acre-feet, we are going to
return 90,000 acre-feet through direct pumping later on in the
year to our banking partners and 70,000 acre-feet will be what
is done through what is called in-lieu exchange. We let our
banking partners have our entitlement from the State Water
Project and we pump from the underground to replace that. And
we totally intend to do that.
Our program was designed to return water over a ten month
period. And with emergency shutdowns in the Delta due to smelt
populations and takes, or whatever, it totally wreaks havoc.
Water that was designed to be returned over a long period of
time is being sucked out prematurely so that in drought years
the water that was there will no longer be there. So it is
impacting things off in the future.
Our farming operation is not necessarily idling land and,
you know, having our crops go by the wayside. But I know in
Westland's Water District crops are being devoid of water. I
know of cotton crops that are just going idle to save water for
permanent crops. So there is a fairly large amount of land that
is going idle as a result of the takes in the Delta.
Immediate solutions could include screening in Delta
diversions, preventing toxic events from occurring, start a
fish breeding program. I do not know that much about the fish
in the Delta, but it seems plausible.
As an intermediate solution there is a program called the
Eco-Crescent of installing a siphon at Old River at Clifton
Court Forebay to connect the forebay to Middle River. It sounds
like a good intermediate solution. But in the long term if take
at the pumps is causing problems in the Delta and moving water
south, build a canal to route water around it.
If levee failure due to earthquakes, as Congressman Costa
alluded, is a problem, build a canal to help enforce our water
supply.
If continuing declining water quality is a problem at risk
in the Delta, a canal is needed in addition to the potential
for global warming and the increase in sea level, which could
entirely inundate the Delta.
Do not jeopardize long-term solutions with only
intermediate fixes. Commit to long-term solutions in the Delta.
That is very critical.
Where is the money going to come from? From the State.
Recently the Governor voiced his support of conveyance
facilities through the Delta--also from the Federal Government
and all the agencies, we hope. From then Delta water users,
from exporters south of the Delta and Kern County and the
Semitropic Water District. We are committed and we are ready
and willing and able to pay our fair share of facilities
through the Delta.
With that, we the municipal and agricultural water users of
California need your help. We totally bought in to prop 13,
prop 50, prop 204, me and along with Congressman Costa. Well, I
helped him out whenever I could making phone calls and
participating and giving money toward restoration in the Delta.
We put up a lot of money. But we need better results for
ourselves and for the general population and municipal
interests that are our banking partners here in California.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crettol follows:]
Statement of James A. Crettol
I. Background
My name is Jim Crettol. I am a third generation California farmer,
born, raised and live in Wasco, California. I appear here today
representing my family, Crettol Farms, which I am a partner of, and the
Semitropic Water Storage District, for which I serve as a Board member
and Secretary.
We appreciate the subcommittee holding this hearing in California
on the very important and much misunderstood topic. I appreciate the
opportunity to provide this testimony.
Despite the best efforts of the various federal and state agencies,
and the efforts of water agencies throughout the State, I am here today
to inform you what you already know--the Delta is in Crisis.
My family primarily grows almonds, carrots, cotton, and wine
grapes. Our farm is located in the Semitropic Water Storage District
and the Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District (a Friant Division CVP
contractor). I have been involved in various agriculturally related
organizations and from 2000 to 2004 was a board member of the
California Workforce Investment Board.
Semitropic is the second largest member unit of the Kern County
Water Agency (KCWA), contracting for a portion of its contracted water
supply with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). In
addition to its long standing program to import water form the State
Water Project (SWP) and thereby attempt to stabilize groundwater
conditions, Semitropic has developed what I believe is the largest
water banking project in the State, and probably the world, in
conjunction with various ``Banking Partners'' throughout the State.
These urban and agricultural partners have recognized the benefits of
banking available water supplies, generally in wet years, in
Semitropic, and in turn having access to banked water returned from
Semitropic, generally in dryer years. This program has also provided
benefits to Semitropic farmers. We long ago recognized the benefits of
working with partners to improve water management throughout the State.
KCWA is the second largest SWP contractor. KCWA contracted with the
DWR for delivery of approximately 1 million acre-feet of SWP water.
KCWA contracts with thirteen local water districts, including
Semitropic, which provide water for domestic purposes and approximately
675,000 acres of irrigated farm land in Kern County. On June 13, KCWA
declared a water supply emergency because of concerns about likely
impacts to the Kern County economy if pumping at the State Water
Projects' Banks Pumping Plant was shutdown. KCWA staff, working with
its local water districts, estimated the economic impact of a 30-day
shut down of Banks Pumping Plant could be over $400 million.
II. Impacts on operations of the SWP
On May 31, DWR voluntarily stopped pumping water at the Banks
Pumping Plant and immediately began using water that had been
previously stored within the SWP storage facilities to meet delivery
requests of the SWP contractors. By June 13, when KCWA declared a water
supply emergency for Kern County, DWR was struggling to meet all of the
SWP contractors' delivery requests. Both the CVP and SWP were
withdrawing water from San Luis Reservoir (San Luis) at an alarming
rate. In fact, the amount of water that could be released from San Luis
had to be curtailed to ensure continued safe operation of the
reservoir. DWR was so concerned with the drawdown rate that they
informed KCWA that they would not be able to meet all of its
contractors' water needs. These ``shortage allocations'' would have
resulted in a significant reduction of water to Kern County. KCWA staff
estimated the shortage to be about 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs),
or one-third of KCWA's total demand.
III. Potential impacts to Kern County
Following, I will describe the potential impacts in Kern County of
shut downs of the Banks Pumping Plant. This information is provided
only to illustrate the problem--other water agencies throughout the
State have and would be suffering similar or even more severe
consequences. Probably the areas most significantly impacted are (1)
CVP agricultural contractors South of the Delta, which for the most
part have little groundwater resources and unlike Semitropic and Kern
County, generally have limited access to water banks, and (2) CVP and
SWP urban contractors located north of San Luis Reservoir, including
the greater Bay Area, where storage is limited.
KCWA staff analyzed the potential impacts to Kern County that would
result from a 30-day shut down at Banks Pumping Plant. The analysis was
based on information provided by Kern County farmers and DWR of impacts
in Kern County overall. These impacts would primarily occur on the
Westside of Kern County where groundwater is not available and where
significant portions of irrigated lands are planted to permanent crops.
Areas such as Semitropic, with groundwater resources, would be less
impacted, but as discussed below, our ability to meet the needs of our
banking partners will be curtailed. From the analysis, KCWA concluded
the following:
A 30-day shut down of Banks Pumping Plant in July would
reduce delivery of water to KCWA, and its local water districts
including Semitropic. By the start of July, releases from San Luis
would be limited to about 15,000 acre-feet (af) per day due to the
drawdown criterion which limit the amount of water that can be taken
out of the reservoir to a drawdown rate of 2 feet per day. By the
middle of July, drawdown would be limited to about 11,000 af per day.
Assuming that 11,000 af per day would ultimately be the average San
Luis Reservoir release rate for July, and understanding that DWR would
prorate deliveries to the SWP contractors based upon their individual
contractual rights, KCWA would receive less than 1,600 af of SWP water
per day for delivery to Kern County during the height of the irrigation
season. The amount of this shortage was reduced by supplementing the
water supply with groundwater withdrawals from our groundwater banking
programs. However, even with those extraordinary efforts KCWA staff
estimates the shortage in deliveries to KCWA would be about 3,000 af
per day.
These severe shortages would result in immediate crop
loss in Kern County. KCWA staff worked closely with its local water
districts to determine how a reduction in SWP deliveries would impact
local crop yields. Based on the water supply analysis, KCWA concluded
that water deliveries to local water districts would immediately be
reduced by about 25%. A reduction of this magnitude at the height of
the irrigation season would impact permanent crop yields by about 10%.
The 10% reduction in crop yield would have varying economic impacts
based upon the type of crop and how the quality of each crop would be
affected. For example, grapes would suffer about a 75% loss in the
first 30 days while almonds would suffer about 10% loss. KCWA staff
also looked at how crops would be impacted next year if a similar
interruption in irrigation deliveries occurs. For example, while the
current year economic impact to almonds would not be as great as that
realized from grapes, almonds would also suffer a similar loss next
year.
As noted above, Kern County and Semitropic are well known
as groundwater banking regions. Semitropic and other Kern County
districts have groundwater banking programs with other water districts
from the San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles. These groundwater
banking projects were developed in part to protect their regions from
drought. As a result, groundwater banking projects are designed to
store water in wet years and withdraw it in dry years. During those dry
years water can be withdrawn over a period of eight to ten months and
the withdrawal capabilities are designed for a rate of withdrawal that
can last for up to 12 months. However, groundwater banking programs are
not designed to withdraw very large amounts of water over a short
period of time. While our groundwater banks were invaluable to us
during the recent pumping shutdown, they are not designed for emergency
shutdowns such as what occurred this year because it is not possible to
withdraw enough water fast enough to meet the shortages. This is
compared to a surface reservoir where larger quantities can be
withdrawn quickly.
Additionally, groundwater banking projects are managed
conjunctively with diversions from the Delta; therefore, their utility
to local water districts and out-of-county banking partners may be
limited when such diversions from the Delta are limited. This is
certainly true for Semitropic which has banking partners stretched from
the Bay Area to Southern California. The Semitropic Banking Program is
an in-lieu and direct recharge program whereby banking partners deliver
their SWP water for use in Semitropic. This allows farmers within the
district to use surface water and reduce their reliance upon
groundwater. During dry years when the banking partners desire to get
some or all of their water out of Semitropic, the District will make
water available to them in two ways. First, Semitropic can ``return''
banked water by delivering its SWP water back to the banking partners
and relying upon the water that was left in the ground to meet local
irrigation demands. To the extent SWP water allocations to KCWA and
Semitropic are curtailed, the ability to return banked water is
curtailed. The second way that water is ``returned'' to banking
partners is for Semitropic to physically pump water from the ground and
convey it to the California Aqueduct. Once again, the ability to use
groundwater wells within the district to return water to banking
partners is limited by the amount of water needed for irrigation
purposes within Semitropic and the amount of SWP water that has been
allocated to the district. Regardless of the method for returning
banked water, the Bay Area banking partners (which include Alameda
County, Zone 7 and Santa Clara), are particularly vulnerable to
curtailment of pumping in the Delta because they have no other means
for receiving their water other than by exchange through the California
Aqueduct.
Emergency shutdowns are also a very poor way to manage
precious water supplies. Kern County's groundwater banking programs
were developed to protect the region from a drought caused by dry
hydrologic conditions. When water agencies use water from their
groundwater banks to make up for shortages that result from regulatory
shutdowns it significantly reduces the amount of water that will be
available during an actual drought. Using groundwater supplies to cover
shortages from emergency shutdowns leave our region and the rest of the
State at much greater risk during droughts.
IV. Solving the problem--The State of California cannot continue to
operate on such an uncertain water supply any more than the
Delta environment can thrive on a continued diet of marginal
actions. The State, with its federal partner, must take actions
on three different levels to restore the Delta ecosystem while
providing California's families, farms and businesses with a
clean, safe, reliable water supply that meets our State's
growing demand.
Immediate actions--The State can no longer afford to look at
pumping reductions as the only way to improve the Delta fishery. For
decades the answer to any ecosystem problem in the Delta has been to
reduce pumping. This strategy has resulted in a declining Delta fishery
and increasing economic impacts from Tracy to San Diego. Such a status-
quo-on-steroids approach will neither restore the Delta nor provide the
water supply the state needs.
Other factors that stress the Delta species must be addressed.
Programs must be developed to reduce the effect of invasive species on
the Delta ecosystem. Invasive species have a dramatic effect on native
species. The loss of the macro-invertebrate eurytemora, the Delta
smelt's preferred food is a direct result of the Asian clam, brought to
the Delta in the early 1980's and which is now one of the most
pervasive species in the Delta ecosystem.
The Asian clam is only one example of an invasive species that
negatively affects the Delta. The striped bass was introduced to the
Delta ecosystem by humans in the early 1900s to provide a sport
fishery. Now the Delta is one of the premier striped bass fisheries in
the world, but it was developed at the expense of the Delta's native
species. Striped bass eat both juvenile salmon and the Delta smelt. In
spite of this direct conflict between striped bass and native protected
species, the State of California continues to foster the striped bass
fishery. The sport fishing industry is important in California, but its
contributions to the declining Delta ecosystem must also be weighed.
During the past year it has become apparent that toxic runoff from
urban and agricultural areas in and around the Delta play a significant
role in the declining Delta ecosystem. Earlier this year a series of
toxic events occurred in the north Delta in areas where the Delta smelt
are known to spawn and rear. Those events occurred at a critical time
in the development of the smelt. While it appears likely that the toxic
events had a significant role in this year's severe population decline,
it is difficult to verify this because of a lack of scientific data.
Because we have little factual data about the toxics involved in this
year's events, officials are unable to quickly develop strategies to
mitigate the impacts of those events and haven't been able to develop
strategies to ensure that they don't happen again next year. The State
must re-double its efforts to understand and respond to the significant
effect toxics have on the Delta ecosystem.
Other Delta water diversions also affect the Delta ecosystem. There
are more than 1,800 water diversions in the Delta that provide water to
the Delta urban and agricultural water users. The vast majority of
these diversions are small, but in total they are estimated to be
comparable to the 4,600 cubic foot per second capacity of the Jones
Pumping Plant, and virtually all of them are unscreened. Few if any
studies have been done on these diversions to determine if they draw in
the Delta smelt when they are operating. But it is easy to understand
that Delta smelt larvae and juveniles are just as likely to be sucked
into the in-Delta diversions as they are the larger State and federal
pumps. The State must examine the effects that in-Delta pumping has on
the Delta ecosystem and develop actions to reduce the effect in-Delta
pumps have on the Delta ecosystem.
Interim Actions--The State must develop a long-term solution to the
conflict between water supply and the Delta ecosystem. But it is likely
that such a solution will require ten or more years to implement. In
the interim the State must develop a strategy for maintaining
California's water supply while helping to recover the Delta smelt. A
variety of options are possible but developing these actions must start
now. One of these ideas being discussed is construction of a small
siphon under Old River at Clifton Court Forebay that would connect the
Forebay to Middle River. When paired with rock barriers at strategic
locations in the Delta the siphon allows the State and federal pumps to
draw water from the Sacramento River more efficiently without drawing
in smelt located at the western edge of the Delta. Attached is a map
(Figure 1) showing in concept how such an interim plan would be
implemented. It is estimated that this idea, sometimes referred to as
the ``Eco-crescent'', could be designed and constructed in a relatively
short period of time, perhaps as quickly as two years, at a relatively
modest cost estimated to be between $20 million to $40 million. There
is still a lot of work that needs to be done to analyze this idea, but
that work must begin now and must be a priority for all of the State
and federal agencies that would be involved.
Long-term Actions--The State has made an admirable effort to
develop a series of processes that if successful will result in a
decision on a long-term fix for the Delta. Unfortunately the current
water supply and ecosystem crisis in the Delta do not give us two years
simply to make a decision. The State must accelerate its decision
making process and move out of the bureaucratic decision-making mode
and into a leadership role that makes decisions on the information at
hand and follows though by implementing those decisions.
I believe that the State can no longer afford to focus on modifying
how the State and federal pumps are operated and hope that the
ecosystem gets better and the economy stays healthy. It is time to act
based on what we know. If ``take'' at the pumps is causing a problem
for the Delta smelt then we need to construct a canal and move pumping
intakes to an area that is less ecologically sensitive and that can be
constructed using the newest screening technology. If levee failure due
to earthquakes is a risk then we need to separate the state's water
supply from those risks by constructing a canal that moves the state
water supply around the Delta rather than through it. If continually
declining water quality is a risk for the State's urban water suppliers
then we need to construct a canal to move a more healthful water supply
to the State's urban areas from Silicon Valley to San Diego.
What we cannot afford to do is wait. Constructing a canal around
the Delta will take years to plan and design and several years to
construct. There are interim actions the State can take to maintain the
Delta ecosystem and the State's water supply, but none of them provide
a long-term solution for the Delta smelt or the State's 25 million
people that depend on the Delta for some or all of their water supply.
The time to act to protect the Delta smelt and the State's water supply
is now.
I encourage you and other representatives of the Federal government
to work with the State and water agencies to promptly address the
crisis in the Delta in a manner that restores the Delta ecosystem and
provides necessary water supplies for the growing demands of
California's families, farms and businesses.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.005
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Crettol.
Mr. Martin? You have five minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS MARTIN, PRINCIPAL,
AC MARTIN PARTNERS, INC. OF LOS ANGELES
Mr. Martin. Thank you, Chairman Napolitano and Members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify
regarding the Bay-Delta crisis and the implications of water
supply reliability.
My name is Chris Martin. I am the immediate past chairman
of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.
Our families immigrated to California in the late 1840s.
And I'm a fifth generation Californian. Been around here
thinking about water for a while.
The Southern California economy relies on many things, but
most importantly it relies upon its water supplies. That water
supply comes to us in two ways. Locally from rainfall and
groundwater and through imports delivered primarily by the
Metropolitan Water District. Metropolitan delivers its imports
from two major sources. From Northern California via the State
Water Project and from the Colorado River. All of these water
supplies are in peril.
Metropolitan's ability to deliver water through the
Colorado River Aqueduct has been severely impacted by the lack
of surplus water on the Colorado River. The Colorado River
Basin is entering its eighth year of drought and we are seeing
some of the driest years ever recorded on the Colorado River.
Southern California rainfall has been scarce this year. In
fact, Los Angeles has experienced the driest year on record and
other parts of the region are recording their lowest rainfalls
ever.
Now add to this the stress being placed on Northern
California water supplies that feed the State Water Project.
The Sierra Nevada snow pack is 29 percent of normal, the lowest
amount of snowfall we've seen in nearly 30 years.
What is comforting to people like me is that our water
agencies plan for dry conditions. Metropolitan and its member
agencies have developed plans, built up their reserves and
taken other conservation measures all designed to cope with dry
times. But what is unaccounted for is the kind of current
crisis we now face with the state water system. The
infrastructure is broken.
The State Water Project requires conveyance of drinking
water supplies to pass through the Bay-Delta, where these
supplies come in contact with endangered fish species and
pollutants. The process not only derates the quality of water,
but also puts the entire project in conflict. It is a conflict
that frequently forces the choice between water for people and
water for fish.
Right now because of dwindling populations of the Delta
smelt, State and Federal courts are curtailing water deliveries
under the parameters of the California and the Federal
Endangered Species Act.
There are upcoming hearings in Federal court over the
summer as to decide whether the future water deliveries to many
parts of California should be reduced because of the Delta
smelt. These potential reductions would have dramatic impacts
on the South and East Bay Area, Southern California and our
Central Valley agricultural industry.
Having a judge decide how much water should be delivered in
this State is akin to the scenario that faced the California
prison system. In that instance, our Federal courts were forced
to run our prisons because the system was in disrepair.
Having a court decide when our pumps should be turned on or
off is neither an effective or an efficient way to run the
system. Now with our pumps being turned on and off, the judges
deciding on limitations, we can expect to experience rolling
water blackouts, if there is such a thing, in California.
Our economy cannot be subjected to this. Water agencies
cannot plan for meeting the needs of our robust economy if
there are water shortages in California's future. And we cannot
be impacted by this kind of uncertainty.
We have a crisis and long-term fixes are needed. We need
solutions we can rely upon.
First, we need to protect the Delta. The ecosystem needs
comprehensive protections. And further actions are needed to
protect the Delta smelt.
It is becoming increasingly clear that water exports from
the Delta are just one of many factors affecting the smelt.
Second, we need to fix the water supply infrastructure. We
need an isolated facility that can separate drinking waters
from the Delta. We need to protect the supplies that serve two
of every three Californians so these supplies can remain
reliable to one of the world's largest and most important
economies.
Finally, we need long-term planning and action to address
the impacts of climate change, specifically the potential
permanent reductions in California's snowpack and rising sea
water levels. This means we need to address flood control and
shortage.
But today, right now, the immediate need is to fix the
crisis in the Delta. We need immediate action to address the
ecosystem and to ensure a stable water supply of California.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]
Statement of Christopher C. Martin, Immediate Past Chair,
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, CEO, AC Martin Partners
Chairman Napolitano and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
this opportunity to testify regarding the Bay-Delta crisis and the
implications of water supply reliability. My name is Chris Martin, and
I am the immediate past chair of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of
Commerce and the third-generation leader of AC Martin Partners, one of
Southern California's oldest planning, architecture and engineering
firms. We celebrated our 100th anniversary in 2005.
As a business owner, I work in a state that has a $1.2 trillion
economy, the 6th largest in the world. California's urban coastal plain
represents 60 percent of that economy with Southern California
generating more than $800 billion annually. Our architectural firm has
contributed to the economic vitality of the Los Angeles area and
throughout the state.
The Southern California economy relies on many things, but most
importantly it relies on water. That water comes to us in two ways--
locally from rainfall and through imports delivered primarily by the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Metropolitan
derives its water supplies from two major sources--from northern
California via the State Water Project and from the Colorado River.
But all of these water supplies are in peril.
Metropolitan's ability to deliver water through the Colorado River
Aqueduct has been severely impacted by the lack of surplus water on the
Colorado River. The Colorado River Basin is entering its eighth year of
drought. We're seeing some of the driest years ever recorded on the
Colorado River.
Southern California rainfall has been scarce this year. In fact,
Los Angeles has experienced the driest year on record and other parts
of the region are recording their lowest rainfalls ever.
Now add to this the stress being placed on Northern California
water supplies that feed the State Water Project. The Sierra Nevada
snow pack is 29 percent of normal, the lowest amount of snowfall we've
seen in nearly 30 years.
What is comforting to people like me--as both a business owner and
a resident of Southern California--is that water agencies plan for dry
conditions. Metropolitan and its member agencies have developed plans,
built up their reserves and have taken other measures all designed to
cope with dry times.
But what is unaccounted for is the kind of current crisis we now
face with the state water system. The infrastructure is not working.
The State Water Project requires conveyance of drinking water
supplies to pass through the Bay Delta, where these supplies come in
contact with endangered fish and pollutants.
This process not only degrades the quality of the water, but also
puts the entire project in conflict. It is a conflict that frequently
forces a choice between water for people and water for fish.
Right now, because of dwindling populations of the Delta smelt,
state and federal courts and curtailing water deliveries under the
parameters of the California and federal endangered species acts.
There are upcoming hearings in federal court over this summer as to
whether future water deliveries to many parts of California should be
reduced because of the Delta smelt.
These potential reductions would have dramatic impacts on the South
and East Bay Area, Southern California and our Central Valley
agricultural industry.
Having a judge decide how much water should be delivered in the
state is akin to the scenario that faced California's prison system. In
that instance, our federal courts were forced to run our prisons
because the system was in disrepair.
Having a court decide when our pumps should be turned on and off is
neither an effective, nor efficient way to run the state's water
system.
You will recall the state's energy crisis of 2001, where California
suffered massive rolling electricity blackouts.
Now, with our pumps being turned on and off and judges deciding on
pumping limitations--we can expect to experience rolling water
blackouts in California.
Our economy can't be subject to rolling water blackouts. Water
agencies can't plan for meeting the needs of our robust economy if
there are water blackouts. California's future can't be impacted by
this kind of uncertainty.
We have a crisis and long-term fixes are needed. We need solutions
we can rely on.
First, we need to protect the Delta. The ecosystem needs
comprehensive protections. Further actions are needed to protect the
Delta smelt, to restore the habitat and to make the Delta healthy
again.
It is becoming increasingly clear that water exports from the Delta
are just one of many factors affecting the smelt. To give the fish a
chance, we must address all the issues. These include:
Increased toxic contamination in the Delta, from sewage
outflows and pesticide runoff from agriculture.
Increased presence of invasive species throughout the
Delta
Impacts on oxygen levels in the rivers leading to the
Delta because of deep channels for shipping
Other water diversions and pumping patterns within the
Delta itself.
Second, we need to fix the water supply infrastructure. We need an
isolated facility that can separate drinking water supplies from the
Delta. We need to protect the supplies that serve two out of every
three Californians so these supplies can remain reliable to one of the
world's largest and most important economies.
Finally, we need long-term planning and actions to address the
impacts of global warming, specifically the potential permanent
reduction in California's snow pack. This means we need to address
flood control and storage.
But today, right now, the immediate need is to fix the crisis in
the Delta. We need immediate action to address the ecosystem and to
ensure a stable water supply for California.
California cannot survive with rolling water blackouts.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much to our panel. And I
would like to begin the questioning series.
And, Mr. Martin, I could not agree with you more that
Southern California has built up storage through the dam,
conserved and recycled. And I was hoping eight years ago when I
started on this Subcommittee that a lot of the other
communities would begin to understand the need to be able to
prepare for the future. You talk about rolling water blackouts.
We had them after the last drought, so we are hoping not to go
there again. And with the help of everybody concerned, I think
we can be able to manage being able to address that before it
gets to a critical point.
But thank you so very much to all of you.
Mr. Isenberg, you played an instrumental role in drafting
legislation that would help restore Owen's Valley and Mono
Lake. What are the lessons learned there that you think might
help us address the current situation?
Mr. Isenberg. The battle to save Mono Lake moved into the
1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. It was preceded by the very important
California Supreme Court decision that essentially said the
Public Trust Doctrine, a notion that water supplies in
California are a public trust, they are not simply an item of
private ownership, that the Public Trust Doctrine applied to
water transfers. And accordingly after almost a 100 years of
battling with the City of Los Angeles, the settlement was
reached to guarantee a set of lake level, a water level in the
lake in the Mono Basin.
I played a relatively small part of that puzzle. Because at
the time there was a bill floating through the legislature that
was going to pump some money into Delta levees and,
coincidentally, forgive the nonpayment of interest from state
water contractors which had been outstanding for about 25
years. Since nobody paid any attention to that and the contract
did not say what the percent rate of interest was or that
payment was required on a date certain, it was all kind of tidy
and all the interests were dividing it up.
To make a long story short, we essentially held all of that
up and the end result was a $60 million pot of money that was
used to help pay for conservation efforts in the Los Angeles
City Department of Water and Power as a way of helping them
deal with the reduction of transfers that came out of the
valley. That was successful, and you know, some of our friends,
one of whom is sitting here, yelled at me once, ``That is just
paying people money to do the right thing.''
But whatever your analyses of the situation, it is very
clear to me that as you make changes in uses of water, whether
they are driven by catastrophic failures of the Delta or global
warming, or anything at all, you are probably going to have to
cushion the impact. That is what we do. But the end result was
a plausible situation.
I think Southern California can collectively take some
legitimate credit for meeting the growth of population down
there in the last ten or 15 years, primarily through
conservation, reuse and so on. Up North, we like to be smug
about it, but we are not that good and we should be.
Having said that, it does not really matter because the
supply is still limited, but the demand seems to be growing.
And the question really is can we make allocations between uses
that are as intelligent, sensitive to the interests and so on
but are forward looking.
Ms. Wolk registered, as others of you did, one of the main
problems. In the water world nobody trusts anybody except
themselves, and they are all in favor of changes of governance
as long as they are given the power to do whatever is done.
Everybody says that.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. The sad part is when it goes to
litigation the only ones that benefit are the attorneys.
Mr. Costa?
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Mrs. Napolitano. Chairwoman.
Mr. Costa. Chairwoman. And thank you for all the good work
you do.
Mr. Isenberg, you and I have worked together for a long
time and I want to follow up on the Chairwoman's question to
you. We have done a lot, and that is why I wanted to go through
some of the history. Some of it has been successful, some of it
has not. CALFED over the last seven years we hoped would--or
many of us hoped through the record of decision would have been
more successful in addressing the Delta problems. We have also
applied it, depending upon how you want to split the
difference, between $5 and $8 billion in State money and not to
mention a lot of other hundreds of millions of Federal dollars.
What is different today over the last 25 years that is going to
allow your blue ribbon commission to give us the holy grail, so
to speak?
Mr. Isenberg. You mean what gives us some wiggle room?
Well, first, compare this to the peripheral canal battle
where a number of us were involved on that issue, myself
included. Apart from the absolute regional joy of Northern
Californians batting around Southern California the fact is we
all argued that if water continued to flow through the Delta
before being exported, that the Delta would itself as a system
be protected. One thing that's startlingly different: No one
today argues the Delta is better. It is a mess. And it is a
mess for a variety of reasons. And I find that to be different.
Number two: The threat of catastrophic failure was probably
generated by the example of Katrina more than anything else,
but blended with the fact that the Delta is quite near
prominent earthquake faults----
Mr. Costa. You could have the perfect storm?
Mr. Isenberg. Yes, you could. And I think that is a second
realization. You might say well it's odd, it is not as if the
earthquake faults were unknown 20 years ago. But, you know, it
takes a long time for society to recognize problems. I think
that's the second thing that is notable.
Now reading tea leaves beyond that it was not without note,
it was either late '05 or early 2006, MET issued a policy paper
on the Delta, which I didn't bring today but you'll have to
take a look at it. Much like trying to figure out where the
Chinese Communist Party is moving when you look at who sits at
the dais, it was notable and people commented that the policy
position paper did not request additional water supplies from
the Delta. Now I know enough about the internal workings of MET
to know that there is vast differences of opinion, but the fact
of the matter is the success, as Mr. Martin indicated, over the
last 15 years of accommodating Southern California's growth
from a mixed water supply with efficiencies has allowed them to
do that.
Mr. Costa. Yes. I want to get to that question there, but
my time is running out as the Chairwoman reminds me. So let me
ask Mr. Crettol a question. You talked extensively about the
success of Semitropic's groundwater banking effort. But I want
to understand, and I think it is important for us to understand
that this only works in a conjunctive use fashion. I think that
if you are able to store water during the above average
rainfall years that Mr. Isenberg spoke of, can you make the
program work over a long term. Do you want to give any more
sense of what your time lines are with your own groundwater
banking facility with high and dry years? Or wet years and dry
years, excuse me.
Mr. Crettol. Yes. In wet years we saw that we need a much
larger capability of bringing water in the district. That is
why I alluded to the stored water recovery unit and the ten
foot diameter pipeline that we have just now put in place. We
are able to take water into the district at seven hundred
second feet at max flows during wet years.
So, as a for instance, in a real heavy rainfall year, your
Februaries and Marches when there is flooding in the Delta and
whatever, we can take huge gulps of water, bring it in, store
it. Storage is one of the principal reasons we are doing that.
I want to comment just briefly on what was brought up
earlier, the term of trust in the Delta. Our whole groundwater
banking program and the reason it works so well is because
there is trust amongst all our other water banking partners and
water districts in the area. But while we do trust, we verify.
It is all through contractual arrangements and whatever----
Mr. Costa. Right. I have heard that before.
Mr. Crettol. You have to verify.
Mr. Costa. Yes.
I got 30 seconds left. Gentleman from Metropolitan Water
District, could you give a breakdown of your water management
tools on the conservation that currently met----
Mr. Martin. I am not Metropolitan Water District.
Mr. Costa. I am sorry.
Mr. Martin. I am in the architecture and engineering
business.
Mr. Costa. Yes. OK.
Mr. Martin. I cannot answer that.
Mr. Costa. All right. I will pass on that question then.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Costa.
And I can tell you the MET has developed that dam, so we
have a water supply. We have gone into extensive water
recycling for many of our communities. They've found extra
storage to be able to capture rainfall so that we can bank for
future use. Those were just three of the things that I know the
MET has done.
Mr. Costa. Well, I do, too. I just wanted to get the
percentages for the record. Actually, we helped finance a lot
of that.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
And just as an aside, Mr. Isenberg, when you talk about the
quake and the intrusion of seawater in Katrina over in
Louisiana, I visited, some of us did after it happened. I can
tell you it is a horrendous sight, especially to the residents
that live right near where the levee broke. When I see what
California has done in allowing development below some of those
levees, it is astounding to me that those elected officials
allow that development and put people at risk. Because they
will come back to the Federal Government requiring and
requesting assistance in being able to ameliorate the damage
and yet whose fault is it going to be?
Mr. Isenberg. Assemblywoman Wolk is carrying legislation,
as she has for many years, on this subject. As a matter of
fact, a couple of bills to try to mitigate that problem.
Mr. Miller of California. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Phil, thank you very much for your testimony and even more
for taking up the cause here in trying to figure this out with
the commission.
I want to focus a little bit on one of the last things you
said in your written testimony. You say that if we should not
continue to promise everything to everyone, then some choices
have to be made about water use and the Delta on the theory
that we have been operating on the idea that everybody gets
everything they ever had. That, obviously, seems to me to be
inconsistent with what I think would be one of the goals that
we would have sufficient water and sufficient flexibility to
use that water to enhance the economic growth of the State in
the future. As economies change and go in different directions
we want to be able to respond to that for the people of the
State. But it seems to me, you know, we have many old policies
that impact the situation we are in now. We have the
continuation of contracts that were written in the 1950s when
California was a very, very different place. We see parties
seeking to extend those contracts for another 50 years. So far
we do not know that any suggestion of reallocation of those
contracts or diminishment of those contracts or changes in
those contracts have been made for the most part. Most of them
have been seeking a simple renewal of those.
We take water and we subsidize the delivery of that water
and we put it forth to crops that are also subsidized, that the
government buys back and sells back at a reduced price at a
loss.
So we have this kind of financial incentive to misuse
water, if you will, if you were looking at the marketplace.
We have the idea that the Delta is going to continue to
yield additional water. That somehow there is an ability to
squeeze additional water through the pumps or even if you look
at through Delta facility, the idea is that would deliver more
water out of the Delta. I assume some of that is on the theory
that the water remaining would be more passive and that might
work somewhat more for the fish, although we do not know that.
And I would just like you to comment on that construct. But
at the same time I want to say that California as it has done
with energy since the 1970s has been the leader in the
efficient use of water in the various sectors of the economy,
whether it is in manufacturing or farming, or what have you.
But we have these sort of old constraints that are still on our
ability to redesign this policy.
Mr. Isenberg. Well, Congressman, we are not a European
country with thousands of years of history, but we are 150 plus
years old. We carry on the ship of state the legal barnacles of
statutes and contracts and constitutional provisions and all of
it that get imposed at a time when the politics and the public
mood expressed one opinion. The legacy stays for a very, very,
very long time.
The hardest thing, of course, is that somebody's very old
self-interest protection is somebody else's fundamental right.
As I wander around talking about water now these days everybody
says to me ``Well, you know as long as you protect our end
Delta users, the area of origin protection, the American River
Basin. You know, as long as you start from where I am, it's OK
to change.''
As a matter of fact, Chair, if you would permit me, I'm
going to give you a great quotation by an American historian
Van Wyck Brooks----
Mrs. Napolitano. Go ahead.
Mr. Isenberg. Oh, good. ``It is a principle that shines
impartially on the just and the unjust that once you have a
point of view, all history will back you up.'' And water is
classically that way. All of us have a point of view. We want
research that supports the conclusions we have already reached.
And so one of the challenges I have been making in this
Delta Task Force to all of the people, environmentalists I've
been friends with for a very long time and all the other
interests, I said look, the deal has to be that you have to
articulate a position that recognizes the legitimate statewide
interests that are expressed in the Delta. You cannot simply
walk in, whether you're valley agriculture, Southern California
or the environmental movement and the Northern California Delta
region, you can't just walk in and say here's what I want and
that's the end of it.
In some sense if we are not all responsible for water the
fundamental issues, and by the way the statutes do not declare
fundamental interests. They pile preferences and priorities one
on top of the other and the Governor has given us 11 things to
look at. I suspect about seven or eight of those are all kind
of undifferentiated priorities for someone.
Maybe the most important thing we could do is if we try to
identify the smallest number possible of truly statewide
interest. The problem with that, of course, is some people who
have spent their lives and careers dealing with this issue
might not like the list.
Mr. Miller of California. Thank you.
Well, a comment. I think the two examples that have been
brought up here, one is the courts and the law found you didn't
get to sacrifice Mono Lake. You do not get to create a
statewide sacrifice area, if you will. The other one is that we
have seen large projects, central Arizona projects, central
Utah project and even to some extent the Garrison project; huge
projects that were designed in the '40s and the '50s, came on
line and then the economies and the populations of those states
changed and they reconstituted themselves out of huge
subsidized agricultural programs into an urban program designed
for the growth and the change in the states. I'm not suggesting
anything that radical.
Mr. Isenberg. Right.
Mr. Miller of California. But there was a questioning of
the priorities and the use. A dramatic action, in fact, taken--
--
Mr. Isenberg. And that time is coming. If I had to guess
what the next stage in California would be, Mr. Costa would say
this is my typical cynical nature, it just seems to me the
legal status of the environmental protections is such that we
are starting to see a far more elaborate minimum flow guarantee
in the Delta. Just inevitable. Five, ten years you are going to
have all the complicated minimum flows. But ironically it is--
--
Mrs. Napolitano. Time is up.
Mr. Miller of California. So if you can just complete the
thought, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Your thought, sir?
Mr. Isenberg. Ironically you cannot just guarantee high
minimum flows for environmental protection and assume you can
continue every other flow for every other use for every other
person. You know, I started with a limited water supply for a
reason; that is all there is. You cannot get anymore. It is
nuts, it is psychiatrically insane for us to act as a
government as if we can dictate and guarantee to everyone
everything when we are sitting on a finite source of water.
Mrs. Napolitano. Good point. Thank you.
Ms. Tauscher?
Ms. Tauscher. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
As I said earlier in my statement, I appreciate you coming
so quickly after we asked you to, but part of my problem is
that I already had some meetings scheduled in my district. So I
will be leaving shortly to go attend to business in my
district. But thank you again for being here.
I thank the panelists for your great information.
And I would like to talk to Mr. Isenberg in your role as
Chair of the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force. I guess from
my point of view, not sitting on the committee, I wanted to
understand whether the Federal regulators can be working more
toward a lasting Delta solution? I am very impressed by your
most recent comments. I wish I could hear more of them. The
idea that we look at this as a holistic issue. That we look at
the difficulty in calibrating and dividing up with vastly
changing circumstances over time, how do you squeeze the last
drop out of the last drop? And I know it is a challenge, but
from my point of view I would like to understand the Federal
regulating role and if there is enough cooperation and if we
are doing all we can toward delivering a lasting solution?
Mr. Isenberg. Yes, no I do not know.
Yes, the feds are involved as are about 140 other
governmental agencies.
And, yes, as Ms. Wolk pointed out, nobody is in charge.
And, yes, it is very clear nobody wants anybody else to be
in charge. They are not also enthusiastic about assuming any
financial risk or financial liability by stepping up and saying
``Hey, I will take over everything.'' I mean, the flood control
battle with the State, now the deep pocket for flood control in
spite of independent legal flood control districts not doing
their jobs is classic.
So how do you make sense of that? I wish I could offer you
a real solution.
The fact of the matter is we are an older society and we
are tightening up on the water supply. Everyone is tightening
up. And, you know, it is not all bad. It means that we have to
be more honest and direct in our public conversations about
water. It is going to be hard because people are going to have
to get out of the trenches of the warfare of the past and get a
little mobile and move around and do things differently.
I will say to the Governor's credit in his charging
document, his Executive Order of last year, he added some
things that have not previously been on the agenda of water
policy for state officials. Mr. Costa mentioned one, urban land
use.
Now I understand there are a lot of local elected officials
in here who believe that sound urban land use is important and
no one should interfere with their ability to decide whatever
needs to be done as to who lives where and what gets built
where, certainly not an evil state agency or an even worse
Federal agency. However, there is no doubt about the fact that
urban land patterns have a direct and tangible impact on water
quality, and to a certain extent on water supply. They limit
the ability to manage the system. How do you protect a Delta
ecosystem if it is surrounded by reasonably significant growth?
Ironically, that is something where the big three warriors of
the battle, Southern California interests, the Valley ag
interest and the environmental community all kind of privately
at least say yes, something ought to be done about that.
As you might imagine, within this Delta community they have
a slightly different view. It's trying to resolve that. There
is no miracle on this one. No miracle at all.
Ms. Tauscher. Thank you, Mr. Isenberg.
Madam Chairman, on a limited basis, may I ask unanimous
consent to have some of my questions for the other panels
submitted for the record.
Mrs. Napolitano. So ordered.
Ms. Tauscher. Thank you.
I yield back my time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. We will have those questions
for the record. In fact, we may not be able to go to a second
round because we have three more panels to go. Any questions
you might not get to will be requested of them in writing.
Thank you.
Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson of California. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will
be brief in my questions.
Mr. Crettol, there has been a lot of discussion prompted by
the issue that Mr. Isenberg raised, and that's how folks,
everyone wants to start with what they have and not wanting to
give anything up. As a farmer do you think that we as
policymakers should be in the business of choosing agricultural
winners and losers when it comes to the distribution of water?
Mr. Crettol. In our particular district we take water in
large quantities and we are looking to do that more often. How
we do that is we do it in heavy flow years. The issue of us
being able to have an adequate water supply for ourselves is
not assured, like anyone else.
Mr. Thompson of California. Well, my question is more
specific than that.
Mr. Crettol. You mean as a farmer?
Mr. Thompson of California. Should there be some sort of
policy decision made that would distribute water based on what,
for instance, crops you grow? You think we should get that much
into the weeds?
Mr. Crettol. No, I do not think so. So if folks--we grow
crops based on market demand. If there is no demand and there
is no need for the crop----
Mr. Thompson of California. Well, Mr. Miller kind of talked
about that in his opening statement regarding the whole issue
of some of the subsidies. So there might be----
Mr. Crettol. The issue of subsidies is a very good one. I
will be very brief.
When we go to America supermarkets and we look up and down
the shelves, you have some of the best quality, the biggest
variety. I have been in many countries in the world. I have
been in supermarkets all over the world. We have absolutely the
most quality at the cheapest price. Americans are getting----
Mr. Thompson of California. I am not disputing any of that.
I am just interested in it from a farmer's----
Mr. Crettol. Particularly in our operation----
Mr. Thompson of California. Looking at what crops use water
more or less than other crops, and we should take any of that
into consideration----
Mr. Crettol. If you want to be crop specific, like people
do not grow alfalfa because it uses five acre-feet per acre as
opposed to wheat which maybe uses 2 acre-feet. Well, cows need
alfalfa and people need milk and, you know.
Mr. Thompson of California. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Martin, one of the issues that I did not hear anybody
mention, and that is the option of reducing water to the area
that you are concerned with, the Southern California area. Do
you see that as a real option or are we going to have a
continued grow and demand for more and more water?
Mr. Martin. I think Southern California has been very
diversified in its way of developing its water resources. I am
particularly pleased in the way we have increased our ground
water capacity through salt water barriers and other things.
Decreasing water supply, it could happen. I mean, it is
certainly something that is on the table.
Mr. Thompson of California. So is that an option through
Delta water----
Mr. Martin. I think we all have to be reasonable about
water supply. I would not want to sit here and say no we are
not going to reduce Southern California's demand. I think we
are going to learn to be conservative in our use of water. If
it is our part of the bargain to take some reduction of water
supply, then let us do it equitably. It does not stop us from
being more conservative in the way we utilize our water
supplies.
Mr. Thompson of California. I am hoping that we are able to
get more specific on different ways to better reduce our use of
water in the subsequent panels.
Mr. Isenberg, Ms. Wolk mentioned the lack of governance. Is
there anything that you think that could--and I understand the
difficulties and you articulated them well--is there anything
that you can think of that may help? Should we try and help
create a Delta conservancy, for instance?
Mr. Isenberg. That is one of the many ideas floating
around. I think that may serve a lot of purposes. I doubt that
governance per se, particularly governance of complex water
issues and environmental protection, is totally solved by a
conservancy in the classic sense of the Santa Monica Mountain
Conservancy or even the Coastal Conservancy, which is another
prototype. That is a much more comparable governance
illustration.
I should tell you I deliberately thought about that and
then decided I do not want to get lost in that issue. It is
altogether too easy for me, an ex-government type, to think
that you should spend all your time on governance. I think that
follows some very important policy decisions.
The history in California is because we do not want to
acknowledge there is a limit to water, we do not want to choose
between parties who use water, we always do endless studies and
talk about a new governance structure as if the decisions
become easier if you study the hell out of them and let
somebody else be in charge. The fact is you have to make
choices, and the choices are difficult, painful generational
choices.
Mr. Thompson of California. Should we create agricultural
winners and losers in regard to distribution of water?
Mr. Isenberg. I will be direct on this. I have thought
about it a lot.
This is the point that Mr. Martin was making, I think
everybody in the whole state has a duty and an obligation to be
prudent in the use of water. It is not simply Southern
California and agriculture. It is all of us, and you know, I
plead guilty. I come from Sacramento. We had to have shoved
down our throats the notion of water meters in the state, which
is as close to indefensible as anything I can think about. When
I was Mayor I actually put the first residential water meter in
at Ron Roby's house when he was Director of the Department of
Water Resources at his request. We did it in the dark of night,
and it was against the law, but he just wanted to see in the
middle of one of the droughts how much water he was using.
We have to pull up our pants and work to help solve the
problems of the State of California.
I guess if there is any message I have is we are all in
this state together. There are choices to be made and, yes,
there is going to be a lot of change and change can be
disruptive, but we either make it together where collectively,
particularly in the area of conservation, collectively we make
the commitments.
In some ironic sense, the savings in Northern California
and the limitation of diverted water may be one of the most
significant sources of fresh water for the Delta, whether it is
a through Delta situation on exports as it is now, whether it
is around the Delta. I mean, where else is fresh water going to
come from? Because you know one thing you've learned on an
ecosystem, unless you decide you want an inland salt water sea,
which as best I can tell nobody does, you are talking about a
mixture.
So all of those things mean tough choices. Governance is
part of it. I think that ought to come to the end. Although if
you wish to create the situation where the Federal courts
appoint a receiver of the State of California's water and
environmental system in the Delta, it sounds like one hell of
an interesting job.
Mr. Thompson of California. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Thank you.
We move on to Assemblywoman Wolk.
Ms. Wolk. Very briefly, Madam Chair.
Mr. Isenberg, I was a little disturbed to hear you say you
did not want to get lost in the issue of governance. But then I
heard you say at the end of the process, so I am going to hold
you to that second part of your statement.
Mr. Isenberg. Ms. Wolk, all of us on the task force sat
there and we met at our first couple of meetings. We read the
Governor's Executive Order and the charging document, and we
said well for God's sake, all these people have been fighting
for 150 years on exactly the same kinds of things. Ecosystem
and environmental protection is the newest issue. How are we
going to decide it? Let us go talk about what a governance
structure should look like. Everybody was just about to go run
off there to the exclusion of the stuff we are supposed to do,
which is develop a vision of the Delta by the end of this year
and a strategic plan to implement it by the end of '08. It is
part of it, but I do not want to get lost there first. It is
too easy, too attractive and too conventional.
Ms. Wolk. Interesting, and I would say the most difficult.
We always tend to----
Mr. Isenberg. In many ways, the most difficult.
Ms. Wolk.--work toward the most difficult choices in this
area.
Mr. Isenberg. Yes.
Ms. Wolk. But briefly I am glad you raised the issue of
land use control. We have been struggling with that in the
legislature. The State General Fund is entirely responsible for
flood protection and losses. But the local communities, as you
know, guard jealously and constitutionally their ability to
plan and locate houses where they choose.
One of the opportunities we do have, Mr. Isenberg, I would
like to comment on this is the fact that the voters did pass
bonds, $5 billion of which--close to 4 of that will be focused
on the Delta. That gives us an opportunity to set priorities
and not do business as usual and make good policy change. What
kinds of policy change do you think should accompany this kind
of money----
Mr. Isenberg. Specifically on flood control issues?
Ms. Wolk. Yes.
Mr. Isenberg. One of the members of our task force, a very
smart engineer named Ray Seed who teaches at Berkeley and was
involved in the post-Katrina engineers review of their flood
safety. His Dad is a giant name in the field, and he was
talking to us about catastrophic failure, the threat of it,
flood control and all of that and the question of how can
people live in the middle of land that is 20 to 25 feet below
sea level, particularly in Sacramento, parts of Stockton. He
was saying we'll do this, do that. I said come on, Ray, just
explain to me. Think of some illustrations of what you could do
that would convince normal people that they have a risk and
they must pay attention to the risk. To my astonishment he says
``Mmm, how about this? Every house built in the flood plain has
to be at least two stories tall?''
Ms. Wolk. Yes.
Mr. Isenberg. Well, that is not the conventional thing you
would think. You know, we look for multibillion dollar programs
and land use regulations. I said, ``Oh, that is kind of
interesting and has a trap door so you can get to the roof,
right?'' ``Right.''
Ms. Wolk. And a boat.
Mr. Isenberg. And then I said ``Well, what else?'' And he
came up with one of the most interesting ideas around. He said
``Everybody who lives in a floodplain has to own a boat.'' You
know, there is something remarkably intriguing about trying to
think of a public policy problem and societal awareness in a
way that is simply not another gigantic multibillion dollar
spending program with impenetrable acronyms and details.
And the conventional thing is the warning in your title
document has to be 20 point type that you live in a flood zone,
you may die, you know it is kind of like all of that.
There is something about thinking of this to me, yes, I
think you ought to start in the state legislature imposing
strings, terms, conditions, policy terms on the spending of
money. I think that is something that is legitimate for
Congress to consider, too. Particularly to guarantee that flood
control money is not the horn of the cornucopia endlessly
rolling out from governmental agencies to reward imprudence.
That seems to me to make no sense.
What those terms are, what the conditions are, what the
restrictions are I do not know. But it ought to be done. The
State is in a gigantic mess because the State is legally
obligated now for the flood damage, even if the local entities
did not do a good job.
Ms. Wolk. That is correct. That cost us a half a billion
dollars right out of the general fund last year.
Mr. Isenberg. Yes, it did.
Ms. Wolk. Yes. For a relatively small, though certainly not
small to the people involved or the property owners, amount of
damage.
Mr. Isenberg. Yes. Yes.
Ms. Wolk. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Members. With that, we will
suggest that any other questions be submitted for the record,
Members.
And panel, thank you very much.
Mr. Isenberg, just this little last footnote on the flood
plain issue.
Mr. Isenberg. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. The concern I have on a personal level is
that the Army Corps of Engineers may not be allowing for the
insurance companies to be able to cover those individuals. So
they may not have insurance to get any recovery should anything
happen.
Mr. Isenberg. I do not want to prejudge the testimony to
come, but one of the great gains for all who live in a
floodplain is that there is a magic 100-year flood protection
that sounds so long that, you know, I will be dead by the time
of the flood comes. The fact of the matter is----
Mrs. Napolitano. You may be in the 99th year.
Mr. Isenberg. Look, we have people who live in national
forests that are subject to fires. We have people in Southern
California who build houses on hills that get mud slides and
burn up, too. I mean, that is just the way human beings seem to
be. The question is can you temper the impropriety of the
judgment and get some semi-rational activity out of this? And
it is important for the Delta particularly on flood control
because we all know that if there are more opportunities for
flood plains, we get slightly better water quality and we help
and assist, whether it is environmental protection or the
quality of water being exported, being served by that approach.
Anyway, thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you panel. You are now dismissed. I
appreciated all your testimony.
We will call forward the next panel. Mr. Steve Thompson,
Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California and Nevada
Operation in Sacramento accompanied by John Davis, Deputy
Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region Office of the Bureau of
Reclamation. Mr. L. Ryan Broddrick, Director, California
Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento accompanied by Gerald
Johns, Deputy Director, California Department of Water
Resources and Dr. Peter Moyle, Associate Director, Department
of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology and Center for
Watershed Sciences at UC Davis, Davis, California.
Welcome. Gentlemen take your seats and we will begin the
next round of testimony.
We have taken an hour and a half in the first panel. I hope
to be able to move this a little more expeditiously because we
still have two more panels.
As we begin, and before I move forward, I would like to
thank the three individuals in the back of the room who are
holding up signs for being very unobtrusive, and thankfully you
are here, you are part of this and welcome. I appreciate that
you're not distracting. You are really welcome to this hearing.
Now, Mr. Thompson, I would start with you. I have many
questions. I probably will have to submit some of them in
writing simply because my list is too long. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.
We start with testimony.
And Mr. Thompson, you are on, please.
STATEMENT OF STEVE THOMPSON, MANAGER, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA
OPERATION OFFICE, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, SACRAMENTO,
ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN DAVIS, DEPUTY REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MID-
PACIFIC REGION OFFICE, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, AND RON MILLIGAN,
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Mr. Thompson. OK. Thank you.
Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Steve Thompson and I am the Manager for the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service for the California, Nevada and the
Klamath Falls area in both Oregon and California.
Accompanying me today are John Davis and Ron Milligan, both
from the Bureau of Reclamation. And they're with the Central
Valley Operations Office.
I have submitted my written testimony for the record. I am
going to briefly summarize those comments, so we can get back
on time here.
Delta pelagic species or the open water species in whole
are in decline. Not just Delta smelt. Smelt are indicators of
overall reduced health of the Delta. While export pumping is
often cited as the reason for the decline of the species, the
research and what we have heard earlier today of scientists
strongly suggest that there are a number of factors. Those
factors including nonnative invasive species such as
invertebrates, plants and other fish, contaminants and changes
in the food supply.
Because it is a listed species, the Delta smelt have been
the focus of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. However, I
must remind everyone that single species management of the
Delta is not a viable long-term strategy. Any long-term
solution must take into account both the upland and the wetland
habitat.
The second point in the testimony is that the adaptive
management process that both the State and the Federal
Government have put in place over the last several years is
working, has worked and has helped us handle the challenges of
the last two months as they were intended to do.
Using scientific information the Service works closely with
our partners and agencies to make real time management
decisions consistent with our adaptive management approach to
water operations and for the benefit of stakeholders and for
wildlife.
The third point is recovery of the Delta smelt and the
improving of the overall health of the Delta continues to be a
high priority for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We have
formed a recovery team to update the 1996 Delta Native Fish
Recovery Plan. We are going to include the new scientific
information that is a result of the extensive studies now
underway and other new information.
We are updating both the recovery criteria and
implementation strategies for covered species. This plan will
help guide future recovery actions and will also, hopefully,
ameliorate the downward trend for Delta smelt. Our current
schedule calls for the completion of the revised recovery plan
the summer of 2008.
I am also encouraged by the growing number of people who
are discussing new ways of meeting California water and
wildlife needs other than the current through Delta
transportation system.
In addition, the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, the Delta
Vision as Phil was talking about and other conservation
strategies hold tremendous promise for the future.
Madam Chair, that concludes my oral statement, and I am
happy to answer any questions that you or the other
Subcommittee Members might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Statement of Steve Thompson, Manager, California-Nevada Operations
Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good Morning Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Steve Thompson, and I am the Manager of the California-Nevada
Operations Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I am pleased
to be here today on behalf of the Department of the Interior to discuss
the current health of the Upper San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem and
its native fishes, and how the Service is responding to declines in the
Delta smelt, a pelagic, or open water, fish that is a key indicator of
the health of the Delta ecosystem.
I will focus my testimony on three areas--first, an overview of the
status of the Delta and its species; second, a description of how the
Service and its partner agencies are working together to meet the
estuary's scientific, resource, and managerial needs; and finally, the
extent of challenges the Service faces in restoring the health of this
ecosystem.
Status of the Delta and Delta Species
The Delta is California's major collection point for water, serving
two-thirds of our State's population and providing irrigation water for
millions of acres of farm land. The region supports wetland and
riparian habitats, as well as numerous fish and wildlife species.
However, these wetland habitats, as well as the hydrology of the Delta
itself, have been greatly altered by over 150 years of settlement and
development. In recent years, dramatic and unexpected population
declines have occurred in the delta smelt and several other pelagic
fish, including juvenile striped bass and longfin smelt. Compounding
the problem is a decline in the minute aquatic organisms, such as
zooplankton and copepods, which make up much of the food supply for
these small fish.
The delta smelt is one of several pelagic fish species in decline
in the Delta. The species was listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) in 1993. The delta smelt is a key indicator of the
Delta ecosystem's health, and the Service believes its current decline
is an indicator that the Delta's health is in crisis. The environmental
and physical conditions of the Delta are extremely complex and not
fully understood.
The Service is actively involved in efforts to identify
environmental risks and possible corrective actions to recover the
delta smelt. Although the effects of water project operations may
result in adverse impacts to delta smelt, it is apparent that other
factors may play a role in limiting the potential for recovery,
including competition and predation from exotic aquatic invasive
species, contaminants, changes in habitat quality and availability, and
changes in food supply. We are also working to better understand the
changing climate and to predict and adapt to its effects on the natural
environment. The only thing we know with certainty is that there are no
simple solutions to the problems facing the Delta.
Indices from surveys conducted since 2000 demonstrate a downward
trend for delta smelt. The indices are the products of four different
sampling surveys conducted in the Delta in different seasons of the
water year. Each of these surveys indicates a pattern of decline in
delta smelt over the past several decades. However, it is important to
remember that the surveys provide only snapshots from similar vantage
points over time. Although they provide a good trend analysis, the
surveys generate an entirely different type of data from that developed
from the continuous monitoring done at the major pumping plants.
The most recent data from the spring survey of juvenile delta smelt
that ended on June 9, 2007, found only 37 juvenile delta smelt (20 mm
or greater in length). This recent population figure is far below the
884 found in the 2006 survey conducted during the same season, and much
fewer than the next worst year of 2002 when 455 juvenile smelt had been
identified through the same period. The Service is very concerned about
the data and, although we do not completely understand the reasons for
the decline, we are working closely with our partners to understand
what the data means for the delta smelt and we are working to reverse
these declines.
How the Regulatory Process is Working
In response to these declines, the Pelagic Organism Decline (POD)
work team was formed in 2005 to conduct focused and in-depth research
to investigate causes of the unexpected decline in pelagic organisms.
This team brought the best scientific expertise together to work on
this problem, and it is generating a tremendous amount of new and
potentially useful information. However, it is also essential to
recognize that the POD work team does not make either decisions or
recommendations. Instead, it provides scientific information that
informs a special working group, discussed in detail below, which makes
the decisions.
An adaptive management approach is used to rapidly assess new
information and apply measures intended to address the decline. Created
pursuant to the Service's 1995 biological opinion on operations of the
federal and state water projects, the Delta Smelt Working Group
analyzes the most current data available on delta smelt and physical
conditions in the Delta and provides real-time recommendations to the
Service regarding modifications of project operations. The working
group was specifically set up to review all available information and
advise the Service on implementation of actions that can be taken to
minimize effects on the species of pumping water out of the Delta. The
working group uses information from many sources, including the
California Resources Agency's 2006 Pelagic Fish Action Plan, which
describes a suite of possible actions intended to improve habitat and
minimize entrainment, or the drawing of fish into the pump flow. This
suite of possible actions includes project modifications to better
protect adult delta smelt in winter before spawning as well as spring
modifications to better protect juveniles.
The Service, and others, assisted the California Departments of
Water Resources and Fish and Game in preparing the 2005 Delta Smelt
Action Plan which specifically addresses actions that have been or
could be taken by resource agencies to further research needs and
reduce population declines, including restoration projects for the
Delta, Suisun Marsh, and San Pablo Bay that are intended to improve
habitat conditions for the delta smelt and other State, federally-
listed, and candidate species.
Information from the working group is reviewed by the Water
Operations Management Team (WOMT), which is comprised of management
level representatives from the Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the California Department of Water
Resources, and the California Department of Fish and Game. This team
has several adaptive water management tools that can be used to help
protect delta smelt including, but not limited to, water available
through sections (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act and the Environmental Water Account. WOMT's
responsibility also involves balancing habitat needs for multiple
species, including other listed species. WOMT is careful to consider
the effect of water management operations on these species so that
actions taken to benefit delta smelt in the spring/summer do not result
in unintended adverse effects later in the year.
Under the current adaptive management process for water project
operations, decisions regarding operation of the pumps in the Delta
must consider many factors, including public safety, water supply
reliability, and cost, as well as fish health and status requirements.
The first step is data collection, including the continued collection
of hydrologic data by the California Department of Water Resources, the
Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The POD work
team also provides input to the water operations decision-making
process through regular updates. Using this data, the working group can
recommend a change in Project operations, which is then forwarded to
the WOMT.
The agencies also inform and advise stakeholders who may be
affected when the agencies make a particularly challenging decision
about project operations. The WOMT considers recommendations and seeks
consensus on potential actions, and may adopt or modify a
recommendation and direct that the Environmental Water Account and
water available under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act be
used to implement a reduction in the export of water. For particularly
controversial recommendations, State and federal agency leaders also
may engage in the decision-making process. Decisions regarding changes
to Project operations often must be made quickly if they are to be
effective.
The Bureau of Reclamation and California Department of Water
Resources then implement the reduction in water through the pumps.
Implementation can occur within three hours of a decision, if
necessary. If the WOMT does not fully implement the working group
recommendations, the WOMT must document the rationale for its decision;
it must also notify the Service if it is not fully implementing the
working group's recommendations.
This process, developed over time, is an effective method of
collecting information, analyzing that information, and making rapid
decisions about how to help the delta smelt under different conditions.
The recent management of flows and export facilities to minimize
impacts on delta smelt has been collaborative and effective. The
collaborative process among the federal and State agencies is working
as intended. However, there are still questions and concerns about the
long-term impacts to the delta smelt.
Addressing the Long-Term Challenges Facing the Ecosystem
The Pelagic Organism Decline work team, discussed above, is
generating a significant amount of new information, and the policy and
regulatory entities ultimately will use that information to make
decisions about what actions should be taken to protect the species.
Recently, the Service formed a Recovery Team to update the 1996
Delta Native Fishes Recovery Plan to include new scientific information
that is the result of the extensive studies now underway and other new
information developed since the approval of the current recovery plan
in 1996. The team is updating both the recovery criteria and
implementation strategies for the covered species. This plan will help
guide future recovery actions that will hopefully ameliorate the
downward trend for delta smelt. The current schedule calls for
completion of the revised Recovery Plan in summer of 2008.
In addition, the Service is participating in the development of the
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, an effort by the major Delta water users
that began in 2006. Completion of the plan is scheduled for late 2009.
The plan is based on the concept of an ESA Habitat Conservation Plan
and is intended to meet the requirements of the ESA, the California
Endangered Species Act, and, potentially, the California Natural
Community Conservation Planning Act. The plan should provide certainty
for water users, who will, in exchange, commit to a specific set of
mitigation activities for the benefit of the delta smelt and other
species.
Further, the Service is revising the existing biological opinion
for Delta operations. In May 2007 the Federal District Court for the
Eastern District of California found the biological opinion's ``no
jeopardy'' finding arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law for
several reasons, among them a failure to adequately consider impacts to
critical habitat and a failure, when setting take limits, to consider
take in the context of most recent overall species abundance and
jeopardy. However, the 2005 biological opinion will remain in effect
until a solution can be reached in the remedies phase of the trial. A
hearing on this phase is scheduled for Aug. 21, 2007. In the meantime,
the Service reinitiated consultation on federal and state water
projects under the 2005 biological opinion last year and is proceeding
with that effort, even while it awaits further direction from the
court.
The Service is also continuing to develop habitat that will help
the Delta species, and we are in the early stages of investigating
other possible helpful activities. Finally, we continue to actively
participate in the processes begun under the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
Conclusion
Recovery of the delta smelt continues to be a high priority for the
Service. Our knowledge of this species and its needs continues to
increase. The Service is working closely with partner agencies to make
real-time management decisions consistent with our adaptive management
approach to water operations, and we are updating and implementing
recovery strategies as quickly as the science becomes available.
Madam Chair, this concludes my remarks. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today, and I will be happy to answer
any questions that you or the Members of the Subcommittee may have on
this important subject.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Broddrick?
STATEMENT OF RYAN BRODDRICK, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME, SACRAMENTO, ACCOMPANIED BY GERALD JOHNS, DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Broddrick. Madam Chair and Members, I am Ryan
Broddrick, Director of the Department of Fish and Game public
trust responsibilities for both inland terrestrial and 1100
miles of coastline. The responsibilities of the Department
include threatened and endangered species, management of
endangered species and general wildlife in this State.
I have been involved in the water management issues since
1995. Had the pleasure of being with many of your members in
the discussion, including Post-Bay/Delta Accord, August 2000
record decision on CALFED. I was subsequently appointed
Director of Department of Fish and Game.
I think it is important to highlight, there is great
testimony that is available here. I submitted seven pages and
six charts and tables that kind of give you a reflection of the
decline. I think a key to note is that we saw and had agreement
that there is a step decline in Delta smelt. A step decline is
just a statistical analysis, but that statistical decline that
was agreed to in 2004 and brought to the attention of the Bay-
Delta Authority and the Klamath agencies resulted in
unprecedented investment in the pelagic organism decline.
Pelagic organism decline for the first time looked at the
general ecological health of the Delta, not just individual
fish species. Instead of counting fish with respect to the
relative history over 40 years, we started looking at and
correlating and synthesizing what was happening with the entire
water column.
As Mr. Thompson identified, there are more stressors in the
ecosystem than the pumps. Having said that, this year in
particular showed lowest record declines in populations both in
our survey work, understanding that our survey work is a trend
over time so it is relative, but we took the information and,
to the unprecedented notice of the Department of Water
Resources as well as 300 Delta ag diverters, wrote a letter
that we were concerned and to suspend and reduce pumping and
retainment wherever possible. This was not pointing a gun at
individuals. This was an issue of us stating that at this point
given the low numbers in Delta smelt that each of those Delta
smelt we believed, instead of looking at it from a population
dynamic, were important to preserve and conserve as a
repository for stock recruitment next year. So you had a 12 day
secession of State Water Project pumping which followed what is
referred to as the ban period where there was dramatic but
significant reductions in pumping south.
So when you take those two periods together, I think we
have taken fairly significant, I would not say unprecedented,
but nearly unprecedented reductions in pumping.
I failed to introduce Deputy Director Gerry Johns to my
right, who is with the Department of Water Resources who sets
on the Water Operations Management team.
But the role between U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish
and Game, the Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA and DWR is done on a
real time basis given the information we do have. Try to
optimize the protection of the resource while considering the
demands for deliveries. This summer has been difficult.
From a historical perspective, we have been blessed since
the Bay-Delta Accords. We have come close to being pushed
against the wall on supply. We have been close to being pushed
against the wall on the endangered species conflict and,
literally, in every case Mother Nature bailed out the
governance. So we have made some tough decisions and we have
been able to defer some tough decisions.
I think it is important, especially for Madam Chair, the
Federal Government, and Congressman Miller to know that the
CVPIA and the investments in integrated water management and
the development of groundwater banking and the fish screening
are all critical. We have done some exceptional things in
California. We have put, just to the Wildlife Conservation
Board that is set in, in over $1.5 billion in the restoration
of fish and wildlife resources.
So I look forward to your questions. I look forward to the
challenge of reconciling the needs and demand. I think it can
be done. I think California has done an exceptional job in
investing with bond monies, especially over the last ten years.
I look forward to Federal participation to complete some of the
tasks that we identified as planning document but are not yet
implemented.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Broddrick follows:]
Statement of Ryan Broddrick, Director,
California Department of Fish and Game
I appreciate the opportunity to provide input to this Subcommittee
on the important and urgent matter of declining fishery resources in
the San Francisco Bay/San Joaquin Delta Estuary. Of particular concern
to us is the recent serious and unexpected decline (approximately 90%)
in young Delta smelt produced this season. As alarming as the reduced
numbers are, this decline is part of a more generally observed decline
in other important fish and aquatic resources in the estuary.
Anadromous fish (steelhead and salmon), sport fish (striped bass),
other native fishes, and some important fish food organisms
(invertebrates) of the Delta are in serious trouble and have been
receiving our attention in planning and regulatory activities. The
California Department of Fish and Game is actively involved in efforts
to determine causes, implement response measures within our
authorities, and develop a long-term strategy for Delta sustainability.
The Federal Government's involvement is crucial to developing a
comprehensive and long-term solution to fix the ``broken Delta''.
There are many causes for the fish and invertebrate declines and
our understanding of these causes is limited. Our cooperative efforts
to determine the causes of the decline have pointed towards invasive
species, toxics, predation and water diversions as having primary roles
in the declining health of the Delta. We continue to monitor, evaluate
and explore these issues in order to make further scientifically
justified determinations as to the role of each factor and how issues
may be addressed in order to ensure future Delta health.
Governor Schwarzenegger has initiated a comprehensive Delta Vision
effort to rethink what the Delta should look like in the future. A Blue
Ribbon task force has begun meetings designed to lead towards
recommendations for actions by the legislature and Governor. In
addition, many state and federal agencies, along with a growing number
of environmental groups, signed a formal Planning Agreement in
September 2006 and are developing the Bay Delta Conservation Plan
(BDCP) for at-risk fish species under the provisions of the State
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA) and Section 10 of
the federal Endangered Species Act. These efforts will provide a
framework, plan, and commitment for future action.
Background - The Pelagic Organism Decline
The Interagency Ecological Program (IEP), a multi-agency state and
federal group, has monitored and studied biological and hydrological
resources in the Estuary for almost 40 years. The data set generated by
the IEP is one of the most complete data sets documenting relationships
between fish and aquatic resources and water development projects in
the world. The information developed during this time has provided the
foundation for our understanding of the ecological implications of
water resources management in this system. In early 2005, scientists
from our IEP first observed serious declines in Delta smelt and certain
other pelagic fish species (see Figure 1). In response, directors of
the state and federal water and fish agencies directed approximately
$2.5 million for establishment of a Pelagic Organism Decline (POD) team
to investigate the reasons for the decline. The POD team developed a
study plan that identified three likely hypotheses responsible for the
observed declines and embarked upon an aggressive and comprehensive
effort to identify and address all likely causes for this decline. The
three most likely stressors, possibly acting in concert, were
identified as water diversions, invasive species/food chain changes,
and toxics.
One year after the POD studies began, the team presented their
first Synthesis Report and developed two scenarios among other possible
causes: winter exports and bad environmental conditions in Suisun Bay.
Data from the State and Federal water project facilities showed that
water exports had increased during the winter months of November-March
during the years of the pelagic organism decline (See Figure 2).
Salvage data also showed that increased numbers of those fish showing
the decline (Delta smelt, threadfin shad, striped bass and longfin
smelt--see Figures 3 and 4) had also been taken in increasing numbers
during that time. The second most likely hypothesis called the ``Bad
Suisun Bay Hypothesis'', suggested that conditions in the Suisun Bay
area, a prime nursery area for young fish, had changed in some way to
reduce its capability to sustain fish populations. The report suggested
that some undefined combination of food production, invertebrate
grazing rates, salinity regime changes, and introduced exotic species
may be responsible for the declines. At that time toxics were not
implicated as a major influence in the observed declines.
During the end of the first year of the POD investigations,
researchers were beginning to develop information that could be helpful
in understanding the declines and also for managing conditions to
potentially reduce impacts. In the fall of 2006, the CALFED Program
hosted the Science Conference and two significant findings were
presented. First, a University of California researcher (Dr. Bill
Bennett) suggested that the delta smelt females that reproduced early
in the spawning season seemed to be most important in contributing to
the next generation of smelt. This became known as the ``Big Momma
Hypothesis''. This suggested that more attention needed to be paid to
water management earlier in the year than had been done heretofore. The
second finding, by a USGS researcher (Dr. Pete Smith) suggested that
there was a significant relationship between flows moving UPSTREAM
toward the state and federal pumping plants in Old and Middle Rivers
and fish caught later in the trawls surveys. In other words when flows
upstream were greater, the negative impacts on smelt populations were
greater. Both of these findings would play a significant role in how
fish and water agencies would manage the water projects in 2007.
During the 2006 water year, conditions were better and greater
outflows moved the smelt further downstream in the estuary and away
from the influence of the pumps. The abundance indices reflected a
positive response and the numbers of Delta smelt increased slightly
from the previous year. Things were looking slightly better for smelt.
2007 Activities
Water Diversions-Armed with new scientific findings, the fishery
and water management agencies began to manage the water projects to
facilitate protection of delta smelt and other aquatic resources in the
estuary. The life cycle of Delta smelt (Figure5) was constantly
considered in this process. Clearly water diversions from the Delta can
cause direct and indirect mortality of Delta smelt and other aquatic
organisms. For this reason, the Delta diversions of the State Water
Project (SWP) and the Central Valley Project (CVP) are some of the most
carefully regulated and monitored water diversions anywhere. Early in
January 2007, a team of agency managers (Water Operations Management
Team - WOMT) began operation of the state and federal pumping plants by
trying to reduce upstream flows in Old and Middle rivers so that the
important early reproducing smelt (``Big Mommas'') would not be drawn
upstream toward the pumps and potentially removed from the estuary.
Pumping rates were reduced using assets from the Environmental Water
Account (EWA). By late May, the WOMT used over 300 thousand acre feet
of Environmental Water Account water to implement fish protection
actions, primarily protecting the spawning females during January,
February and March. During winter and early spring the projects reduced
net upstream flow in Old and Middle Rivers and no delta smelt were
observed at the State Water Project and only a few at the Federal
facility. Conditions looked good and the new management tools (reducing
Old and Middle river flows to protect spawning females) seemed to be
providing the desired impact avoidance. Field surveys showed the
spawning smelt still securely distributed in Cache Slough and the
Sacramento Ship Channel--out of the influence of the pumping plants.
On about May 15, field surveys (the 20 mm survey) carried out to
monitor the relative abundance of juvenile smelt produced in the system
produced alarming results. Numbers of young smelt were about 90 % below
our previous year's estimates (See Figure 6). More alarming was the
fact that the young smelt were located in an area influenced by the
pumps--the lower San Joaquin River! The WOMT immediately took action
and reduced pumping significantly at the pumping plants. Diversions
from the SWP facilities were reduced to 350 cubic feet per second
(cfs), a 90 percent reduction from customary seasonal pumping levels,
as a precaution. The federal CVP reduced pumping rates to 850 cfs.
Additionally, WOMT ordered the Head of Old River Barrier culverts
opened and maintained flows in the Stanislaus River so that flows would
remain higher in the San Joaquin River to help keep the young smelt
from the pumps.
When greater smelt take occurred at the SWP intake facility in late
May, DWR and the DFG jointly announced further curtailment of SWP Delta
diversions and asked for voluntary curtailments by other Delta
diverters. DWR stopped SWP Delta diversions entirely on May 31, 2007
for 12 days with future protective actions continuing to be guided by
the best science and adaptive management. Other water diversions from
the Delta are not monitored or regulated as carefully. Nevertheless, on
June 1, 2007, DFG wrote to over 300 water diverters in the Delta asking
them to ``voluntarily cease or substantially reduce your diversions
from the south delta channels...'' DFG also restricted all non-
essential scientific studies and fish sampling/monitoring that may
incidentally take Delta smelt. Concurrently, the CVP reduced Delta
diversions to the operation of a single pump, drawing about 850 cfs.
After taking no smelt for two weeks, the CVP increased pumping to 2500
cfs on June 13, 2007. Nine hours later several smelt were taken at the
Federal pumps, a clear indication that young smelt were still in the
south delta area and caution regarding increased pumping should be
used.
On June 17, 2007, the SWP and CVP increased pumping but still far
below seasonal normal rates. Agency Directors became directly involved
and daily operational decisions were made to reduce take of smelt at
the facilities. As smelt grew and began to move downstream out of the
influence of the pumps and temperatures approached the lethal limits of
young smelt, pumping rates were allowed to increase to meet demands for
water use in the state. As of June 27 some young smelt continued to be
taken at the SWP.
Agency biologists studying the population dynamics of smelt now
believe that the abundance of smelt in the estuary has reached such a
low level that numbers are now being affected by the ``stock
recruitment relationship''. In other words, the most important factor
affecting smelt numbers is the number of juveniles produced by the
adult females. During other times when populations are higher, this
relationship is not as significant and other factors contribute to the
regulation of abundance (these are discussed below). Therefore, it is
DFG's position that actions must be taken to protect as many individual
smelt as can be through manipulation of the water projects. Each
reproducing organism is important to the survival of the species.
Invasive Species-The San Francisco Estuary has been called the most
invaded estuary on earth. Among the hundreds of introduced species,
many cause competition, predation, or habitat modification that are
detrimental to Delta smelt and other pelagic fishes. Collectively all
of these species are profoundly affecting the ecological functioning of
the estuary. For example, the Asian clam Corbula, which became
established in Suisun Bay in the 1980s is a filter feeder so effective
and numerous that it can filter the entire volume of Suisun Bay in less
than a day. This has had a devastating effect on the primary production
of Suisun Bay. Further upstream the freshwater Asiatic clam, Corbicula,
can have a similar effect. In the late 1990s a new zooplankton
Limnoithona invaded the estuary. This new zooplankton may not be a good
food source for many important pelagic fish like Delta smelt and has
replaced the smelt's preferred food source. Limnoithona is now the most
abundant zooplankton in the estuary. This shift at the base of the food
web may prove to be a major factor affecting Delta smelt. The toxic
blue green algae Microcystis has increased in abundance in the past
several years in the interior Delta causing concerns with both fish and
human toxicity although none has been documented in this system. Other
introduced species such as striped bass and black bass prey upon smelt
directly. The Brazilian water weed Egeria, has also proliferated in
recent years. This aquatic plant not only clogs water ways for boating
but slows water velocity and allows suspended sediment to settle out.
It is hypothesized that increased water clarity may reduce Delta smelt
feeding success and increase predation upon them. Although eradication
is impossible, DWR and the Department of Boating and Waterways are
partnering to implement a control program for Egeria budgeted at $3
million per year.
DFG and DWR are working aggressively to prevent new invasions. The
two agencies responded swiftly when the quagga mussel Dreissena was
discovered in Lake Mead and the Colorado River. If this prolific filter
feeder were to invade the estuary it would likely cause further
alteration in the food web. Much more effort needs to be exerted in
order to deal with the problem of introduced species.
Toxics-Since 2005, scientists have been conducting toxicity
screening of the waters in the Delta and Suisun Bay as part of the IEP
Pelagic Organism Decline (POD) studies. Studies in 2005 and 2006
focused on the summer months when juvenile smelt are present in the
Delta. To better characterize toxicity during the smelt spawning
period, bi-weekly sampling and aquatic toxicity testing was initiated
in January 2007. Preliminary evidence indicates potential toxicity in
the Delta this winter and spring. The most troubling fact about these
detections is that they occurred in the spawning grounds for Delta
smelt this year when both adults and their young were present. Even
though the number of adult Delta smelt this year was a little larger
than last, the number of young smelt collected this year was about 90
percent less than last year (see above discussion). Although there is
no evidence of direct toxicity to the Delta smelt, Delta toxicity could
affect smelt directly or affect food availability for the species.
Researchers have initiated toxicity testing using cultured Delta
smelt and are collecting samples upstream of the toxic sites in an
attempt to identify the source and cause of the toxicity. The State
Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board are actively evaluating all
of this year's information to identify any necessary actions to prevent
this type of toxic effect on endangered species from happening again
next year.
Other new research provides an anecdotal suggestion that episodic
toxicity could play a role in smelt survival. A study tracking tagged
salmon in the south Delta collected apparent evidence in May of
extensive salmon smolt mortality in a single area. This kind of event,
if proven to be related to toxics, has the potential to seriously
affect a species such as the Delta smelt and warrants further
investigation.
The State Water Board held a workshop on June 19, 2007 to receive
recommendations, and information to support these recommendations, on
immediate, short term actions it should consider to slow or stop the
decline of smelt and to improve fishery resources. The State Water
Board is looking for information on both water quality and flow-related
actions. Any increased involvement on the part of the federal
government in these efforts would be welcome.
Current Restoration Efforts
In addition to near-real time management of the Estuary through
processes discussed above, DFG is also involved in larger scale
ecosystem planning to enhance the estuary. Early implementation of the
Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP) began three years prior to the
signing of the CALFED ROD in August 2000 in recognition that ecological
systems take time to show change. In the first nine years of
implementation, ERP has made significant progress in improving the
natural system. ERP has awarded more than $615 million to 493 projects.
To date, 276 projects or about 56 percent have been completed. Grant
recipients reported approximately $285 million in matching funds, which
resulted in a combined total of about $825 million spent on habitat and
species associated with the Bay-Delta and its watersheds. Many ERP
actions addressed priority Multi-Species Conservation Strategy (MSCS)
species listed in the milestones. Restoration planning for the Suisun
Marsh through the Suisun Charter process will result in the restoration
and protection of 7,000 acres of wetlands in San Pablo Bay and Suisun
Marsh, exceeding the Stage 1 target for tidal marsh restoration in San
Pablo Bay. Restoration of tidal action to restore brackish marsh
ecosystems within the next two years on the Blacklock property and
Meins Landing will aid in the recovery of several listed and special
status terrestrial and aquatic species. Restoration of tidal action and
associated wetlands habitat on the 1,166 acre Dutch Slough Tidal
Restoration Project will improve our understanding of ecological
processes and how ecosystems function at different spatial scales.
The ERP has funded 82 fish screen projects to reduce mortality of
salmonids. The ERP has also implemented channel and floodplain
restoration projects to improve spawning and rearing habitat for
salmonids including projects on key tributaries to the Sacramento and
San Joaquin rivers. Removal of impediments to fish passage on Butte
Creek, Clear Creek, and other Sacramento River tributaries has
contributed to the rebounding of spring-run and fall run Chinook salmon
populations observed in recent years. The Battle Creek Salmon and
Steelhead Restoration Project is an exceptional conservation
opportunity to reestablish 42 miles of prime and uniquely reliable
salmon and steelhead habitat on Battle Creek and its tributaries.
Successful implementation of this project will help restore populations
of winter-run Chinook salmon, spring run Chinook salmon and steelhead,
all of which are in danger or threatened with extinction as defined by
the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). Battle Creek offers this
unique restoration opportunity because of its geology, hydrology,
habitat suitability for several anadromous species, historical water
allocation, and land use compatible with a restored stream environment.
Of these qualities, the area's unique hydrology is perhaps the most
important Battle Creek feature supporting its restoration potential.
The Lower Yuba River Accord EIR/EIS was released for public review on
June 26th. The purpose of the Yuba Accord is to resolve instream flow
issues associated with the operation of the Yuba River Development
Project in a way that protects and enhances lower Yuba River fisheries,
maintains local water-supply reliability and protects Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta fisheries. The ERP this year also funded the Narrows 2
bypass project on the Yuba River to protect habitat for the wild salmon
and steelhead on the lower Yuba River.
Summary
This brief discussion of stressors, management actions, and
organism responses is intended to convey our understanding that the
pelagic organism decline, including the recent sharp drop in Delta
smelt abundance, is an extremely complex phenomenon. We do not expect
that the solution to such a complex problem lies in just one category
of action. We will continue to be guided by the best science and
adaptive management as our scientists work to understand the situation
and our agencies seek solutions to Bay Delta problems both in the near-
term and for the future.
Whatever actions we may take, we must include interests of all
parties. As you know, there are no independent actions that can be
taken in this complex system. Fishery agencies constantly balance needs
of various listed species, and important non-listed species. Actions
that affect the water projects also can potentially affect other users
of water in the State including state and federal wildlife refuges.
Before any actions are implemented careful consideration of associated
fish and wildlife impacts is needed.
DFG is supportive of the federal government taking actions
necessary to protect and restore the pelagic species and in particular
the Delta smelt. We will work with you and others to accomplish this
important result.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.011
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Next we have Dr. Peter Moyle
STATEMENT OF DR. PETER MOYLE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
WILDLIFE, FISH, AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, AND CENTER FOR
WATERSHED SCIENCES AT UC DAVIS, DAVIS, CALIFORNIA
Dr. Moyle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to start by emphasizing that the decline of these
fishes in the Bay-Delta system is the result in the long term
of management focusing and minimizing immediate damage to
populations rather than really trying to take steps to actually
improve conditions. Even the idea of minimizing damage, it may
have been thrown out the window recently if you look at the
fact we are still killing smelt at the pumps as they work
today. It suggests that our management structure is not working
very well. If present trends continue, we are going to be faced
with extinctions of native species, more endangered species
listings and the disappearance of important fisheries.
Unfortunately in the near future I think these conditions are
going to get worse before they get better. Because the estuary,
as Mr. Costa pointed out, is faced with catastrophic structural
and ecological changes, especially in the Delta and Suisun
Marsh.
But what I want to comment on and what my written testimony
is mostly about is to emphasize that taking actions to regulate
ecological change before the disaster could actually improve
conditions in the system for desirable species while being
highly compatible with delivering the services the Delta
provides, such as water supply.
These comments reflect a study I was part of that came out
a few months ago. It's the Envisioning Futures for the
Sacramento San Joaquin Delta written by five faculty at the
University of California at Davis and Ellen Hammack of the
Public Policy Institute of California where we had the
advantage of being independent of many funding sources or
whatnot, so we could pretty much say what we thought. I think
this document has been widely read, in part because of that
independence.
We present nine scenarios in that document for a future
Delta and Suisun Marsh, five of which we regard as feasible,
and I should point out that the five feasible alternatives do
not include the status quo, the business as usual. Four of the
five protect water supply while allowing some portion of the
Delta to remain as habitat for native fish and other desirable
organisms. The five options provide suggestions for
significantly improving habitat in the Delta and Suisun Marsh
provided action is taken before a large scale levee collapse
occurs. I think that is important to note.
The options we present are only a tiny fraction of the
hundreds of permutations and combinations of actions that could
be taken. They are really designed to represent examples of
alternatives possible and to provide visualization of the
management options.
We have some really good graphs in that report if you are
interested.
Rather than get into any of the details of specific
options, what I would like to do is just emphasize some of the
areas where we really think that you can do specific things
that will broadly benefit the system in relative short time
periods. That is less than 25 years.
First off, is fixing Suisun Marsh. That is going anyway
because of levee collapse. It is right at sea level. There is
enormous potential at Suisun Marsh as a refuge for native
fishes and other critters.
The Cache Slough region, which is in the northeast Delta,
is a region which has tremendous potential to connect to the
Yolo Bypass. A lot of its natural drainage patterns are still
there. This is an area we think we can restore fairly readily.
It is also one of the most important spawning areas for Delta
smelt today. The Yolo Bypass itself, which is this gigantic
flood plain that protects Sacramento, is partly in the Delta.
About half of it is in the Delta. Changing the operation of the
bypass and installing a gate on one of the weirs has a
tremendous potential. Having the floodplain bypass in the San
Joaquin River in the upper Delta has a lot of interesting
possibilities for improving conditions for fish.
Then getting down to the individual Delta islands, managing
islands in the Delta, Central Delta for fish and ecological
purposes could be done in various ways. These include, of
course, taking a lot of the islands out of production and
turning them into aquatic systems. That is going to happen.
Nature is going to do it to us anyway. We should get ahead of
the curve and create islands that actually have beneficial
characteristics to the fish in the Delta.
So thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Moyle follows:]
Statement of Peter B. Moyle, Professor of Fish Biology, Center for
Watershed Sciences and Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation
Biology, University of California, Davis, California
Summary. The San Francisco Estuary supports a diverse fish fauna in
which key species are in severe decline. The estuary is faced with
catastrophic structural and ecological changes, especially in the Delta
and Suisun Marsh, as the result of anticipated levee failure caused by
the combination of earthquakes, land subsidence, sea level rise, and
increased high outflows events (from climate change). The resulting
flooding of Delta islands and Suisun Marsh is predicted to disrupt
California's water supply system and, consequently, the state's
economy. From a fish perspective, the changes are likely to create
conditions in which desirable species can persist at least at present
low levels, after a period of possible high mortality created by the
initial flooding events. Taking actions to regulate ecological changes
in the estuary before the disaster could actually improve conditions
for desirable fishes while being highly compatible with delivering
services the Delta provides, especially water supply. Specific actions
include improving habitat for fish in Suisun Marsh, Cache Slough, the
Yolo Bypass, and the San Joaquin River, while creating islands in which
flooding can be managed. The key is increasing habitat heterogeneity
over present and now-likely future conditions. No matter what actions
are taken there will be a high degree of uncertainty as to their
ecological benefits but the present situation in estuary represents an
unprecedented opportunity to reverse the impacts of over 150 years of
negative ecological change.
Introduction
The San Francisco Estuary (SFE) is the largest estuary on the west
coast of North America and one of the most altered (Nichols et al.
1986). It is highly urbanized but contains extensively diked
agricultural lands and marsh habitats. It is also highly invaded by
alien species, especially the aquatic habitats. Not surprisingly, the
native species of plants and animals have declined in abundance;
several are extinct and others are listed as threatened or endangered
under state and federal laws (Herbold et al. 1992). Human caused
changes to the SFE are still taking place at an accelerated rate and
there are strong indications that major, catastrophic changes to the
SFE are imminent (Mount and Twiss 2005; Lund et al. 2007). The changes
are likely to be most dramatic in the upper part of the estuary, the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (the Delta), where large-scale levee
failure can seriously disrupt local, regional, and state economies. A
principal concern is disruption of California's water distribution
system. Much of the fresh water used by San Joaquin Valley farms and
the vast urban areas of southern California originates (directly or
indirectly) from the estuary's inflowing rivers. This water is pumped
from the Delta by the State Water Project and the federal Central
Valley Project. Additional water is removed to supply aqueducts to
cities around San Francisco Bay and to water farms in the Delta. Large
scale flooding could also eliminate farming in thousands of acres of
island land, threaten urban areas, and disrupt railroads, pipelines,
and other infrastructure (Lund et al. 2007, available on line at
PPIC.org). Likewise, a sudden catastrophic change to the Delta and SFE
will affect already declining native species and encourage the further
spread of alien species.
A major question being asked by management agencies and regional
stakeholders is ``how can we prevent large-scale change from taking
place in the SFE, especially the Delta?'' Answering precursors to this
question (mainly, how do we protect endangered fish and fisheries?) was
one of the reasons for the establishment of CALFED in 1996, a massive
joint state-federal management and research effort (http://
calwater.ca.gov/) which has been criticized for not quickly solving the
problems of the SFE (Little Hoover Commission 2006). A report produced
by the University of California, Davis and the Public Policy Institute
of California (Lund et al. 2007) turned the original question on its
head, asking instead ``How can the Delta be managed to accommodate
large-scale change before undesirable changes are forced by
catastrophic events?'' In this essay, key findings of Lund et al.
(2007) are summarized in relation to aquatic organisms, especially
fish. I first describe the SFE, provide a brief introduction to the
fish fauna, and then discuss the major drivers of change. I then
describe what is likely to happen to key fish species if present
management trends continue, followed by suggestions for major actions
that could be taken to improve the SFE for fishes even in the face of
large-scale change.
The San Francisco Estuary
The SFE is the outlet of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers,
which in turn drain much of central California. A primary source of the
water for the rivers is the Sierra Nevada, which intercept moisture-
laden clouds coming off the Pacific Ocean. The estuary has three
distinct segments, San Francisco Bay (including San Pablo Bay), Suisun
Bay and Marsh, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Figure 1). Each
segment has a confined outlet through which the tides surge back and
forth, creating complex hydrodynamics: the Golden Gate (San Francisco
Bay), the Carquinez Straits (Suisun Bay), and the river confluence at
Sherman Island (Delta), respectively. These narrows have allowed the
three regions to have distinct identities, emphasized by human
modifications to them. The Delta is perceived as region where fresh
water from the rivers tidally sloshes back and forth in leveed
channels, flowing between islands of agricultural fields. The islands
are highly subsided (many are 5+ m below sea level), surrounded by 1800
km of fragile levees made of local materials, often peat. Historically,
the Delta was a vast marshland that was flooded annually by undammed
rivers (Lund et al. 2007).
Suisun Bay, in contrast was, and still is, a large area of open
water that is transitional between the fresh waters of the Delta and
the salt waters of San Francisco Bay; it is a shallow region of wind-
stirred, brackish water, lined with tidal marshes. The largest of these
marshes, in fact nearly as large as Suisun Bay itself, is Suisun Marsh.
This 30,000+ ha marsh is largely managed today as freshwater marsh,
mostly for duck hunting in both private duck clubs and public wildlife
areas. The key for maintaining its freshwater character is inflow from
the Sacramento River via Montezuma Slough. Montezuma Slough has large
tidal gates on its upper end which control salinity in the marsh by
allowing fresh water to flow in but prevent the tides from pushing it
back out again. Over 360 km of levees separate the marsh islands from
the tidal channels, in which water is still seasonally brackish. The
channels are highly productive of fish, however, which are a mixture of
freshwater and marine species (Matern et al. 2002).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.012
The marine species in Suisun Marsh come from San Francisco Bay,
which is largely a saltwater system, with variable but high salinities;
the actual salinity value depends on location and season. San Francisco
Bay is ringed by cities and its fringe marshes are fragments of its
original tidal marsh system.
All three parts of the SFE were once more variable in their
salinities and river-driven hydrodynamics than they have been for the
past 50-60 years (Bay Institute 1998). During wet years, the spring
snow-melt from the Sierra Nevada could temporarily make fresh the
surface waters of San Francisco Bay, while during late summer of
drought years ocean salt could be detected at the upper ends of the
Delta (DWR 1993), especially once agriculture diverted large amounts of
water. The advent of the federal Central Valley Project and the State
Water Project, however, allowed the system to stabilize, so that, for
the purposes of policy and public perception, the Delta and Suisun
Marsh became permanent freshwater systems, Suisun Bay became a brackish
water system, and San Francisco Bay became an exclusively marine
system. The two water projects (and other related projects) constructed
huge dams on the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and all their major
tributaries in the 1930s-1960s, with such perverse consequences as
increasing the summer flows of the Sacramento River and drying up the
San Joaquin River. The dams allowed for the regulation of salinity in
the upper SFE. By releasing large quantities of water, especially in
the summer, the dam operators could both keep salt water out of the
Delta and Suisun Marsh and permit the pumping of the water, from the
southern edge of the Delta, for agricultural and urban use.
For further information on the environmental and ecological history
of the SFE see Herbold et al. (1992), Hollibaugh (1996), Bay Institute
(1998), and Lund et al.. (2007) or see http://www.deltavision.ca.gov.
The rest of this essay will focus primarily on the Delta and Suisun Bay
and Marsh, because the lowermost part of the SF Estuary, San Francisco
Bay, has a whole additional set of problems related to its intense
urbanization.
The Fishes
SFE has a high diversity of fishes, representing marine,
freshwater, anadromous, and estuarine species, as well as native and
alien species (Matern et al. 2002, Moyle 2002). About 75 species,
largely marine, are known from SF Bay in recent years, of which only 5
are alien species. In Suisun Marsh and Bay, 53 species are known, a
mixture of marine, freshwater, and anadromous (sea-run) species. They
represent 28 native species and 25 aliens (Matern et al. 2002). In the
Delta, there are about 46 regularly occurring species, a mixture of
freshwater and anadromous fishes, of which 27 are aliens. The total
fish fauna consists of about 120 species that can be found in one
environment or another on a fairly regular basis, of which about 30
(25%) are aliens, mostly in fresh and brackish water. The invasion of
alien species has accompanied past large-scale environmental change and
has been a driver of declines of native species, including extinctions
of native species such as thicktail chub and Sacramento perch (Moyle
2002, Marchetti and Light 2007). Changes over the past 50 years, since
the advent of the major water projects, have led to severe declines of
most native species, including four runs of Chinook salmon and the
delta smelt. This result has been that five fishes, including delta
smelt and two runs of Chinook salmon, are currently listed as
threatened or endangered by state and federal governments (Moyle 2002).
In more recent years, declines in fisheries have also been of major
concern, especially of fall-run Chinook salmon, white sturgeon, and
alien striped bass. Some of the fishes most likely to affected by
future large scale changes to the SFE and also likely to drive policy
decisions are listed in Table 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.013
Drivers of Change
The major drivers of change in the SFE that are together or
individually likely to result in major shifts in environmental
conditions, including catastrophic shifts are: earthquakes, island
subsidence, sea level rise, climate change, and invasions of new alien
species (Lund et al. 2007). Human land and water use could arguably be
listed as another driver of change but these uses are strongly affected
by the first five drivers (i.e., are the reason the first five are of
concern) so will not be treated further as drivers here. The major
catastrophic consequence of the five major drivers is extensive levee
failure in the Delta and Suisun Marsh. From an ecological perspective,
the consequence is sudden change of in the hydrodynamics of the two
regions as the islands fill with water, creating new habitat
conditions, followed by invasions of undesirable species into the new
habitat space.
Earthquakes. There are at least five faults in the Delta region but
there have been no major earthquakes in the region since the great 1906
San Francisco Earthquake. This means that pressure is building up on
the faults, steadily increasing the probability that one will move as
time goes by (Mount and Twiss 2005). The major impact likely from
earthquakes is collapse of levees in the Delta and Suisun Marsh because
of their poor foundation soils and weak construction.
Island subsidence. The islands of the Delta were originally
marshlands on a thick base of peaty soils. Over 182,000 ha of islands
were diked and drained for farming in the 19th century and soils were
typically burned annually to release nutrients from the peat, causing
the interiors of the islands to subside rapidly. Even after burning
stopped subsidence continued through oxidation of plowed soils and dust
carried off by the frequent winds. As a result, all islands with peat
soils used for farming have subsided, with subsidence greatest (3-7 m
below sea level) in west and central Delta (Figure 2). Subsidence
continues as long as farming continues. The effect of subsidence is to
create a series of depressions surrounded by water, which will pour in
if given the chance to break through the levees.
Sea level rise. Sea level is rising in the SFE and has been for at
least thousands of years. Because of global warming, the rate of rise
is accelerating. There is scientific debate about how rapidly and how
much sea level will continue to rise, but a 30-50 cm rise in the next
50 years is plausible. The higher mean sea levels result in much higher
high tide levels, increasing the probability that levees in the Delta
and Suisun Marsh will overtop and then collapse, especially if combined
with flood flows coming down the rivers.
Climate change. The climate of California is becoming significantly
warmer, a trend that is likely to continue for some time (Dettinger
2005). While average precipitation is not expected to change much, more
will fall as rain and less as snow in the high mountains. Year to year
variability in rainfall is also expected to increase, as will the
frequency of extended droughts and big floods. Once result of this
change is increased hydrostatic pressure on levees during storms and
floods and increased likelihood of failure.
Invasive species. The SFE has the reputation of being the most
invaded estuary in the world and new invasions continue at a high rate
of frequency (Cohen and Carlton 1998). Recent invaders (e.g.,overbite
clam, Brazilian waterweed) have already had major impacts on ecosystem
structure and function. New invaders or expanding populations of
existing invaders are likely to take advantage of the new habitats
created by large-scale levee failure (Marchetti and Light 2007),
further exacerbating the effects of levee failure and increasing the
difficulty of protecting native species.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.014
Ecological effects of large-scale change
The likelihood is high that two or more of the above drivers of
change will act together to create catastrophic levee failure and other
changes within the next 50 years (Mount and Twiss 2005; Lund et al.
2007), assuming the SFE continues to be managed as it is today. The
probability of such an event is high enough so that it is presumably
more a matter of ``when'' and ``how much'' rather than ``if.'' In
recognition of this, the Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS) team of
the California Department of Water Resources has modeled the effects of
up to 50 simultaneous levee breaches on Delta islands (http://
www.drms.water.ca.gov). Other signs of high levels of interest include
(1) the appointment by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in February 2007
of the Delta Vision Committee with a Blue Ribbon Task Force to find
ways to prevent or reduce the impacts of the impending disaster, (2)
the recent passage of bond issues to fix levees and other
infrastructure affecting urban areas,(3) the establishment of a Bay-
Delta Conservation Plan process and (4) numerous other actions and
processes by agencies at all levels of government. The scenario of most
concern is simultaneous and cascading failures of levees throughout the
Delta because of the impact of such failures on southern California's
water supply, on agriculture and other uses of Delta islands, and on
urban areas in and around the Delta (Lund et al. 2007). Here, however,
we discuss mainly the impacts on the ecosystems of the Delta and Suisun
Marsh, especially with respect to fish.
Delta. For the central and western Delta, the basic ``disaster''
scenario is that following multiple levee failures, water would rush
in, filling as much as 2.5 billion cubic meters of space in the island
basins. If the levee collapses occurred as the result of the
combination of high outflows and high tides, the islands would likely
fill mostly with fresh water. If the levee collapses occurred as the
result of an earthquake during a low-flow period, much of the water
filling the islands would be drawn up from Suisun Bay and even San
Francisco Bay creating lagoons with varying degrees of salinity
The open-water habitat thus created would be up to 10 m deep and
subject to strong tidal currents, as well as mixing from frequent
winds. The hydrodynamic and salinity regimes of each flooded island
would depend on the number and location of levee breaches, closeness of
the area to Suisun Bay (source of salt water) and to inflowing rivers,
and relationship to infrastructure such as the ship canal that goes
through the system. As levees continued to erode, many of the flooded
islands would presumably come to resemble Frank's Tract, a large island
in the central Delta that flooded in the 1930s and was left that way.
It is currently freshwater lagoon with complex hydrodynamics that is
dominated in summer by dense growths of Brazilian waterweed, Egeria
densa.
Presumably, the flood water would initially be highly turbid from
the disturbance of peat and sediment on the islands (DWR 2007) but once
the suspended material had settled there would be massive blooms of
algae because of the release of nutrients from the soils and the
increased water transparency. Depending on the species making up the
algal blooms (diatoms vs green algae vs cyanobacteria), a bloom of
zooplankton should quickly follow. Within a year, island lagoons with
brackish water lagoons would be heavily colonized by the overbite clam,
an alien species which currently dominates the benthos of Suisun Bay.
Presumably, the clams would then consume much of primary production and
carbon of the new lagoons, as they do in Suisun Bay, reducing
zooplankton populations. Island lagoons that contain fresh or low
salinity water, would likely be colonized in 1-2 years with the species
that dominate similar areas in the Delta: Brazilian waterweed and, in
areas with sufficient flow, Asian clams. The combination would result
in lagoons choked with weeds, with low zooplankton populations (like
Frank's Tract today). It is possible that flooded islands located close
to both sources of freshwater inflow (Sacramento River) and tidal
sources of salt water could maintain a pool of water that would
fluctuate enough in salinity on either an annual or interannual basis
to keep either the overbite clam or Brazilian waterweed-Asian clam from
becoming dominant. Biomass production in such lagoons would be
concentrated in a pelagic system of phytoplankton, zooplankton, shrimp,
and fish, such as was the case of Suisun Bay before the invasion of
overbite clam in the 1980s. Obviously, these scenarios can all be
strongly affected by local conditions of wind, tide, and river, as well
as the diverse configurations of the lagoons (which will change
constantly as levees deteriorate after the initial breeches).
Suisun Marsh. Suisun Marsh, for the most part, is not subsided as
much as the Delta, although much of it is 0-2.3 m below sea level
(which is rising) and some (ca. 16%) is more than 2.3 m below sea level
(C. Enright, DWR, pers. comm.). Before European settlement it was high
marsh, mostly flooding on high tides and high river flows. A scenario
of wide-scale levee failure in the Delta is likely to include Van
Sickle Island, located at the entrance to Montezuma Slough, the main
artery of the Marsh. Van Sickle Island is already subject to frequent
levee failures, although failures are quickly repaired. The rapid
repair response (by public agencies) occurs in good part because if the
island floods, the entire freshwater distribution system of the central
Marsh (Roaring River Slough) ceases to work efficiently and the
southern third of the Marsh (between Montezuma Slough and Suisun Bay)
becomes tidal and brackish. Future failure will likely make much of the
central Marsh tidally brackish. Less dramatically, increasingly high
tides (from sea level rise) and increasingly large flood events (from
climate change) are likely to cause levee over-topping and failures
within the Marsh at increasing rates. Thus the ultimate fate of much of
Suisun Marsh is to be inundated with tidal waters and to become a tidal
brackish-water marsh, with seasonally higher salinities in many areas
than were historically present. Much of it is likely to be permanently
inundated. How the future marsh will actually look will depend on the
interactions of a number of factors: (1) the rapidity and extent of sea
level rise, (2) the depth of tidal and other flooding, (3) the
residence time of the water in different areas i.e. the relationship
between the flooded areas and the deeper channels/sloughs that drain
them, (4) response of the natural vegetation to the inundation and
salinity gradients, and (5) the influence of existing artificial dikes
and channels, including railroad and road beds. This future Marsh,
however, will certainly have a mosaic of habitats including, most
importantly, extensive tidal brackish water marsh areas. These areas
will be drained by channels that should gradually recover their
historic dendritic nature and be kept open by strong tidal action.
Effects on fishes of large-scale change
In the broadest sense, the creation of more aquatic habitat in the
Delta and Suisun Marsh will be good for fish, resulting in a net
increase in numbers and biomass, once the initial flooding period is
past. The important question is what will happen to the species that
people care most about (Table 1). These are native species that are
listed as threatened or endangered or are in severe decline or fishes
that support fisheries. The effects suggested in the following accounts
are highly speculative, but based on extensive knowledge of the fishes,
which are well studied (Moyle 2002, see also recent review papers by
various authors in the on-line journal San Francisco Estuary and
Watershed Science).
Delta smelt. The single most important species from the viewpoint
of affecting management of water in the Delta is the delta smelt, which
is listed as threatened by both state and federal governments and is on
the verge of extinction (Bennett 2005). It has a one-year life cycle,
is a pelagic planktivore, and is endemic to the SFE, spawning in the
Delta and rearing in Suisun Bay and Marsh (Moyle 2002, Bennett 2005).
It is highly likely that most delta smelt will be sucked into the
rapidly filling islands under multiple levee breach scenarios, whether
they were upstream spawning in the upper Delta, downstream rearing in
Suisun Bay, or moving between the habitats. A few smelt might be able
to avoid the displacement if they were located in the distant
peripheral habitats such as the mouth of the Napa River, Montezuma
Slough, or Cache Slough in the north Delta. The DRMS study (DWR 2007)
predicts that many, if not most, fish sucked into the flooding islands
will die of stress, especially that created by particulate matter in
the water abrading gills and creating high turbidity. The delta smelt,
as a small (< 9 cm TL) delicate, mid-water, visual feeder, would seem
especially vulnerable to these conditions. Unfortunately, data is
lacking to support the high turbidity mortality hypothesis. Previous
levee breaches on single islands have not been accompanied by reports
of fish kills, but no one was looking in the haste to repair the levees
and pump out the islands. It seems unlikely, however, that a complete
fish kill would result from filling process, given the volumes of water
involved and the nature of the matter (organic matter, mainly peat
particles) most likely to be suspended. The filling would be most
disastrous for Delta smelt if they were spawning because it would suck
them away from suitable spawning areas and would likely create
hydrodynamic conditions (diminished tidal range in channels) that would
make return difficult. Likewise, surviving larval smelt would likely
find unfavorable conditions for feeding in the newly filled islands and
could starve before large populations of microzooplankton (especially
rotifers) developed.
Assuming massive blooms of toxic algae (e.g., Microcystis) do not
occur, a month or so after island filling and hydrodynamic
stabilization, conditions for plankton feeding fish such as smelt
should start becoming favorable with the development of blooms of one
or more species of small food organisms. Delta smelt that survived up
to this period in the islands should then find conditions extremely
favorable for growth and survival, especially in islands that
maintained salinities of < 2 mg/l and temperatures of <20+C. Thus
impact of a large-scale levee breach event on delta smelt depends in
good part on the timing of the event. Presumably, a higher proportion
of the population would be able to survive an event in July-November,
than in December-June.
In the long run, however, permanently flooded islands in the right
place could increase the amount of favorable habitat for delta smelt.
If a flooded island had conditions (mainly fluctuating salinity) that
excluded dominant invasive benthic species, it would likely become
highly productive pelagic habitat, habitat which is apparently in short
supply for smelt at times today (Bennett 2005, Hobbs et al. 2006,
2007). Delta smelt would presumably also benefit from a flooded Suisun
Marsh as rearing habitat, if flooding increased productivity of
intersecting channels, especially Montezuma and Suisun sloughs, and
salinity fluctuations reduced the impacts of invasive species.
One indirect positive effect for smelt of large-scale island
flooding would be that the large pumps of the State Water Project and
the federal Central Valley Project in the South Delta would be shut
down for long periods of time because of salty water at their intakes.
Because in some years pumping from the two plants can negatively affect
delta smelt populations through entrainment and other effects (Bennett
2005), shutting down the pumps will remove one potential major source
of mortality, perhaps compensating for some of the flooding mortality.
Longfin smelt. Longfin smelt have a 2-3 year life cycle, much of
which is spent in San Francisco Bay and/or the Gulf of the Farallons,
outside the Golden Gate (Moyle 2002, J. Rosenfield, unpublished
analysis). They spawn in the western Delta in winter and often spend
the first year of their life in Suisun Bay and Marsh. Being anadromous
and iteroparous with multiple age classes, they are less vulnerable to
extirpation by a large-scale event than are delta smelt. Like delta
smelt and other planktivores, however, longfin smelt have suffered a
large decline in their population in recent years. Thus large scale
levee collapse in the Delta could initially harm longfin smelt, as
indicated above for delta smelt, although a least a portion of the
longfin smelt population would have reduced vulnerability because of
distance from the flooded islands. For over half the year (May-
November), most of adult smelt would be beyond the likely reach of a
flooding event.
Permanently flooded islands in the western Delta could ultimately
become important rearing habitat for larval and juvenile longfin smelt,
depending on whether or not large zooplankton populations developed.
Increased productivity of sloughs/channels in Suisun Marsh would
presumably also benefit these smelt.
Striped bass. With high fecundity, interoparity, large size, and a
life span of 40+ years, non-native striped bass have a high capacity to
survive environmental disasters. Nevertheless, they have suffered a
long-term decline in the SFE, although they still support a valuable
fishery (Moyle 2002). In the SFE, striped bass migrate 125-200 km
upstream to spawn in the Sacramento River in late April-early June. The
embryos drift downstream and hatch about the time they reach Suisun
Bay, where the larvae rear at low salinities. Juveniles rear throughout
the estuary but seem to be most abundant in Suisun Marsh and Bay, where
they feed on zooplankton. By the time they are 10 cm TL, they have
largely switched to feeding on small fish. Adult striped bass are
largely piscivorous and a major prey in the SFE is small striped bass.
Adults will spend their entire life in the SFE, especially in San
Francisco Bay, but when ocean conditions are right, some will go out
into the ocean as well (Moyle 2002).
Overall, striped bass seem relatively immune to long-term effects
of large-scale levee breaching. If the breaching occurred in early
summer, then large numbers of larvae and juveniles could die, but in
following years they could benefit from increased pelagic habitat,
especially if portions of it were highly productive of zooplankton and
small fish. Larger juveniles and adults are strong swimmers and could
presumably quickly leave a submerged island after the initial event,
assuming they survived the flooding event itself.
Sacramento splittail. Splittail are largely confined today to the
SFE, where they rear in Suisun Marsh and other places with fresh to
brackish water sloughs (Moyle et al. 2004). A separate population lives
in the Petaluma River estuary, tributary to San Pablo Bay. Adults,
which live up to 9 years, migrate up river to spawn (mostly) on
floodplains in or just above the Delta (Moyle et al. 2004). Timing of
spawning depends on timing of natural flooding, sometime between
January and May. Juvenile splittail rear on the floodplain for a month
or so and then migrate rapidly downstream to rearing areas, where they
feed on benthos.
During a major island flooding event, many splittail are likely to
be drawn in, although it is also likely that many others would remain
in place because of living in small sloughs distant from the event and
also being strong swimmers. If the levee breaching occurs in
conjunction with natural high flows in January-May, large number of
migrating adult or juvenile splittail could be captured. Although
sudden entrainment on the flooded islands could result in high
mortality, the high tolerance of splittail for poor quality (low
dissolved oxygen, high turbidity, variable salinities, etc.) suggest
adults and large juveniles are likely to survive the experience. The
flooded islands are not likely to be great habitat for splittail until
significant benthic fauna develops, especially amphipods and mysid
shrimp. However, permanently flooded islands that remain brackish
enough to exclude Brazilian waterweed should ultimately become suitable
habitat for splittail, especially shallower areas.
Chinook salmon. Four runs of Chinook salmon pass through the SFE on
their way upstream to spawn in the Sacramento River: fall run, late-
fall run, winter run, and spring run (Moyle 2002). All runs are
depleted from historic numbers and the winter and spring runs are
listed as endangered and threatened species, respectively. The fall run
is supported in good part by hatchery production and occurs in
tributaries to the lower San Joaquin River, as well as the Sacramento
River. Fry and smolts of the salmon are found seasonally in the
estuary, on their way downstream to the ocean. When the Delta was a
giant tidal marsh, it was likely a major rearing area for fry before
they moved out to sea as smolts. At the present time, rearing habitat
for fry in the SFE is minimal and fry survival is low; higher returns
of adults from hatchery fry generally occurs when the fry are planted
in the SFE below the Delta (Brandes and McClain 2001, Williams 2006).
Highest survival of fry and smolts in the SFE occurs in years of high
outflow in both the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, suggesting that
it pays the fish to move through the Delta rapidly. Survival of fry and
smolts is also highest when the fish are largely confined to the main
river channels and do not get moved into the Central Delta (Brandes and
McClain 2001). Although juvenile salmon can be captured in SFE at
almost any time of year, most movement is in December through April.
As with other fish, the immediate effect of a major levee failure
in the Delta depends on the time of year in which it occurs, with the
greatest impact likely to be in February ``April, assuming migrating
juvenile salmon, especially fry, sucked into the flooded islands would
mostly die. The effect would be greater for San Joaquin River salmon
than for Sacramento River fish because there would more likely be a
continuous river channel for the fish to follow on the Sacramento side,
due to location and greater flows. Once the island lagoons had become
established, they would generally be unfavorable habitat for juvenile
salmonids because they would contain little of the shallow water edge
habitat preferred by juvenile salmon. Instead, they would be open water
or weed-choked and contain fairly high densities of predators such as
striped bass or largemouth bass. The effect would be determined in
large part by how easily it would be for juvenile salmon to be carried
into the lagoons from the rivers and how easy it would be escape from
them. High outflows down both rivers should minimize the effects of the
lagoons, while low outflows should increase the likelihood that
juvenile salmon would wind up in them, especially on the San Joaquin
side of the Delta. It is possible that Suisun Marsh will be heavily
used by juvenile salmon once it floods, because much of it will be
productive shallow water habitat, if saline.
Effects on adult salmon would presumably be small because of their
focus on swimming upstream through the Delta, although there would no
doubt be some mortality if the breaches occurred during a period of
significant migration.
Largemouth bass. Largemouth bass are introduced piscivores that
have greatly expanded their populations in the Delta following the
invasion of Brazilian waterweed. The waterweed provides habitat for the
bass by creating cover for juvenile and adult bass, reducing flow rates
through channels, and causing sediment to settle from the water,
resulting in clearer water. It is only the most visible species of a
complex of alien ``pond'' species that thrive in waterweed dominated
freshwater sloughs, including redear sunfish, bluegill, white catfish,
black bullhead, and common carp. By and large these are the same
species that are dominant in upstream reservoirs (Moyle 2002).
Largemouth bass and associated species would expand their
populations further in flooded freshwater islands, once the Brazilian
waterweed became established. While these species can survive in
brackish water habitat, most of them avoid it and will probably be
present in only low numbers in brackish lagoons without dense beds of
waterweed.
Marine fish. San Francisco Bay supports a diverse fauna of marine
fishes that includes most of the common species found along the central
California coast. The abundances of different species fluctuate both in
response to ocean conditions and to freshwater flows into the Bay. Not
surprisingly, some of the most abundant species are species that can
tolerate moderately low salinities (euryhaline), such as Pacific
herring, northern anchovy, staghorn sculpin, yellowfin goby, and starry
flounder. Juvenile of these forms frequently appear in the upper
estuary, especially in Suisun Bay and Marsh, usually during periods of
low river flows. Thus, the expanded brackish water habitat in the upper
estuary is likely to increase habitat space for euryhaline marine
species, especially during dry years.
Overall fish responses. It should be evident from the above
descriptions that responses of fish species to large-scale island
flooding will be highly variable, a reflection of the complex habitat
and the complex fish fauna. Unanticipated responses are also likely to
the changed conditions. For example, inland silverside are now abundant
in the shallow flooded areas of Sherman Island in the western Delta (W.
A. Bennett, pers. comm.) and it is possible that it could colonize some
of the newly flooded areas, depressing other fishes through predation
and competition (Bennett and Moyle 1996). In addition, new alien
invaders could cause major shifts in abundance of established species.
For example, two piscivores are poised to invade the SFE: northern pike
and white bass (Moyle 2002, Lund et al. 2007). However, the general
patterns of fish response to sudden large scale flooding would roughly
be the following:
1. Fishes within the suction zone of Delta levee breaks (which
could be a large area, given the capacity of the islands to accept
large volumes of water) would be sucked into the island with some
mortality from sediment in the water column, sudden changes in water
quality (salinity, temperature, etc.), and other factors associated
with the sudden movement of large volumes of water. The species
affected would depend on time of year of flooding and the location of
the flooded islands.
2. Once the waters had settled down, there would be an initial
period of low plankton densities, followed by blooms first of
phytoplankton, then zooplankton, perhaps within a period of 1-3 months.
3. In the longer term (1-5 years), the new lagoons would assume the
character of areas in the SFE with similar depths, flows, and
salinities. Thus, those in the more eastern and central parts of the
Delta would likely become dominated by Brazilian waterweed and a
variable assemblage of alien freshwater fishes. Lagoons in the western
Delta that maintained low (2-10 mg/l) salinities most of the time would
have conditions similar to those in Suisun Bay. Planktonic productivity
is greatly reduced in Suisun Bay by the filter-feeding overbite clam,
but it still serves as an important rearing area for pelagic fishes, at
least in some areas (Hobbs et al. 2006). These areas would provide
expanded habitat for species such as striped bass, longfin smelt, and
delta smelt, as well as additional feeding areas for sturgeon,
splittail, and other benthic feeders that can consume clams and their
associated faunas. A few lagoons that were created in intermediate
locations, where salinities and other conditions would become highly
variable among years and seasons because of the combination of river
inflow and tidal exchange, could be highly productive systems that
would support dense populations of plankton and planktivores, including
delta smelt and striped bass. Such areas could become a source for
enhanced populations of euryhaline fishes.
4. Over a longer term (5+ years), conditions in the lagoons would
change further as levees continued wash away, parts of the lagoons
filled in with sediment, and islands not flooded previously gave way to
new hydraulic forces created by the lagoons (waves, changed current
patterns, etc.), assuming most levees were not repaired. Essentially,
much of the Central and South Delta could become one large embayment,
similar to Suisun Bay, but fresher on its upper end. By size alone,
this area would increase the amount of habitat for fishes. Presumably,
the increased habitat would increase populations of some of the
desirable open-water species although much of it would be dominated by
waterweed and alien pond fishes or by relatively low productivity
habitat dominated by overbite clam. In this period, Suisun Marsh would
also have become at least partially flooded, with the potential for
large increases in tidal brackish water habitat, favorable (depending
on salinity regime) to desirable species such as longfin smelt, delta
smelt, spittail, striped bass, and possibly juvenile Chinook salmon.
Thus the overall effect of massive flooding would likely to be to
increase the populations of at least some desirable species while
greatly increasing the abundances of less desirable aliens, such as
largemouth bass and common carp. While there are fisheries for such
species, they are deemed less desirable because the fish are non-native
and have large populations outside the SFE, unlike the species deemed
desirable.
Improving the estuary for fish
The above speculative discussion is based on the scenario that
California will continue on its present track of managing the Delta
environment through a combination of applying band-aid levee repairs,
poorly regulating invasive species, removing large quantities of fresh
water, managing Suisun Marsh as freshwater marsh, and monitoring
desirable species as they decline. In short, the status quo consists of
continuing business as usual until large-scale levee collapse forces
large-scale action, much of it likely to be poorly planned and futile
in the long run (Lund et al. 2007). As indicated above, the massive
collapse of levees in the Delta and Suisun Marsh would not be a long-
term disaster for fish and fisheries and could even be a slight
benefit. The collapse could be a disaster for the California economy,
however, mainly because it would disrupt the state's water supply
system and other infrastructure (Lund et al. 2007). Thus a movement to
actually ``fix'' the Delta and Suisun Marsh before the inevitable
disaster is highly desirable and several processes are underway at the
state level to determine options. Lund et al. (2007) present nine
scenarios for a future Delta and Suisun Marsh, five of which they
regard as feasible. The four of the five protect water supply while
allowing some portion of the Delta to remain as habitat for native fish
and other desirable organisms. The five options provide suggestions for
significantly improving the habitat in the Delta and Suisun Marsh for
desirable species, provided action is taken before large-scale levee
collapse occurs. The options of Lund et al. (2007) are only a tiny
fraction of the hundreds of permutations and combinations of actions
that could be taken; they are designed to represent examples of the
reasonable alternatives possible to provide a visualization of
management options.
Here I will not go through the alternatives but instead discuss
actions that will allow fish-friendly habitat to develop while not
necessarily reducing most of the services to humans that the SFE
provides. These actions could be part of any scheme that seeks to
modify the Delta to improve or protect its water supply functions as
well its ecological functions. The general approach towards creating an
environment in the SFE that is more friendly to desirable fish species
(and other biota) presented here is to increase habitat heterogeneity.
The basic concept is as follows: as much area as possible should
support conditions resembling those of the historic SFE, especially in
the Delta and Suisun Marsh, because these are the conditions to which
the native fishes are adapted. However, the improved habitats are
likely to be in different locations than they were historically because
of changed elevations due to subsidence and sea level rise. Thus
habitats once present in the deeply subsided center Delta will have to
be located in the less-subsided peripheries.
A key part of a habitat creation program will be to have as much
area as possible that fluctuates in salinity enough so freshwater and
brackish water benthic invaders are discouraged while desirable (mainly
native) pelagic species are favored. The exact extent, frequency, and
range of salinity fluctuation needs to be determined by further studies
of key organisms (both desirable and undesirable species), but present
distributional limits of the organisms suggest that fluctuations
required are likely to be in the range of 0 to 12 mg/l over 1-2 years,
with high and low values sustained for 4-5 months at a time.
The following are some general, large-scale actions that could
improve habitat heterogeneity and create areas with desirable
conditions of water quality, including fluctuating salinity. This list
is neither complete nor inclusive (Lund et al. 2007).
1. Suisun Marsh. This region of the SFE is headed inexorably to
becoming brackish tidal marsh, unless huge amounts of money are spent
on raising levees; such action may not even be possible as a permanent
solution, given the compressibility of the marsh soils underlying the
levees. Most of Suisun Marsh is currently intensely managed in diked
sections, principally as freshwater habitat for waterfowl. Even under
these conditions the intervening sloughs, especially in the few undiked
areas, provide good, often brackish, habitat for desirable fish (Matern
et al. 2002, R. E. Schroeter, unpublished data). Improving the Marsh
for fish will require systematically breaching or removing levees,
initially in the areas most vulnerable to flooding and preferably after
reconstruction of the original marsh drainage system and removal of
infrastructure. Models for the creation of the new tidal (and subtidal)
marsh areas can be found in the currently undiked section of marsh
(Rush Ranch) that is part of the San Francisco Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve (http://rtc.sfsu.edu/nerr/sf_bay_reserve) and by an
on-going experimental levee breach at Blacklock (http://
www.iep.water.ca.gov/suisun/restoration). Even after radical
restructuring of the Marsh, it may be desirable to continue to operate
the large salinity control gates at the upstream end of the Montezuma
Slough. This slough and Suisun Slough are the deep (2-6 m) main
arteries of the Marsh and are the principal habitats of pelagic fishes
such as delta smelt and longfin smelt, so it may be possible to operate
the gates to increase the ranges of salinity that favor these species
and discourage undesirable alien species.
2. Cache Slough. Cache Slough and adjoining areas make up
essentially the northwest corner of the Delta. The region is of high
restoration potential as tidal freshwater marsh and slough because (1)
island subsidence is low compare to other parts of the Delta, (2) it
maintains much of its original drainage pattern, even though most of
the channels are leveed and artificial cross channels exist, (3) it is
a major spawning and rearing region for delta smelt, (4) it has strong
tidal currents that move water from the Sacramento River in and out of
its channels, (5) it drains the lower end of the Yolo Bypass (next
section), and (6) it contains the large recently (1998) flooded Liberty
Island that is being used as an example of a ``passive'' restoration
project (http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/jfmp/libertyisland.asp). The
region can be relatively easily converted into an expanded version of
the favorable tidal habitat for desirable fishes (as well as waterfowl
and other biota) through levee breaches, elimination of cross channels,
and other projects that improve circulation. It is also a region where
it should be possible to create favorable habitats for delta smelt,
mainly spawning beaches and productive rearing areas for larvae, that
also discourage their egg and larval predators, especially inland
silverside.
3. Yolo Bypass. To keep Sacramento from flooding, an artificial
floodplain, the Yolo Bypass, was constructed in the 1930s. Essentially,
when the Sacramento River reaches a certain stage of flow, it spills
over two low barriers (Fremont Weir, Sacramento Weir) and into the
24,000 ha, 64 km long bypass (Sommer at al.2001a, b). The flood waters
flow down the bypass and re-enter the Sacramento River via Cache
Slough. The principal permanent water in the Yolo Bypass is the Toe
Drain, which runs along the levee on eastern edge. About half the
bypass is in the Delta; the Toe Drain in this region is essentially a
leveed tidal slough, a branch of Cache Slough. The land in the bypass
is a mixture of farmland and wildlife areas but when it floods it is
high quality rearing habitat for Chinook salmon fry and splittail, as
well as other fishes. The flood waters may also mobilize nutrients from
the bypass, helping to support Delta food webs. From an ecological
perspective, a problem with the Yolo Bypass is that is does not flood,
even partially, every year. Construction of a gate on the Freemont Weir
would permit limited controlled flooding from the Toe Drain every year,
improving growth and survival of salmon and splittail and improving
flows through Cache Slough to benefit delta smelt.
4. San Joaquin floodplain. The channel of the San Joaquin River
above and through the Delta is highly channelized, and provides little
favorable habitat for desirable fishes: the water tends to be deep and
polluted in places (e.g., Stockton Ship Channel) and dominated by
invasive aquatic plants and invertebrates in others. One way to improve
the habitat for fish is to create one or more bypasses like the Yolo
Bypass. This would involve removing or breaching levees from islands
(e.g., Stewart Tract) that border the river to promote annual flooding.
Such floodplain habitat is likely to be especially beneficial as
rearing habitat for juvenile salmon coming from the San Joaquin River
basin. An example of the benefits of restored floodplain in the Delta
is provided by the small restored floodplain along the lower Cosumnes
River, on the eastern fringe of the Delta, which has proved to be
beneficial to several native fishes and provides experience in methods
of modifying agricultural lands into fish-friendly floodplains (Moyle
et al. 2007).
5. Managed Delta islands. The previous four actions have focused on
areas at the edges of the upper estuary because of assumption that the
subsided islands of the Delta will fill with water and together will
become a large open-water system over which little control can be
exerted, aside from regulating freshwater inflow under some conditions
(Lund et al. 2007). However, with some foresight, it may be possible to
retain the levee integrity of some islands, by making them into islands
of regulated aquatic habitat. Essentially this concept follows the lead
of Delta Wetlands, a private group that has sought to use Delta islands
for water storage and wildlife habitat (http://www.deltawetlands.com/).
The levees of habitat islands would be reinforced on the inside by
having gradual slopes towards the interior, which would be planted with
native vegetation to stabilize the soils. Gates on the upper and lower
ends of the islands would be used to regulate water quality on the
islands, including salinity. This concept would be especially useful
for islands (e.g., Twitchell Island) in the western Delta located close
the Sacramento River so that salinity could be manipulated by trapping
either river or tidal water in the island as needed (as is currently
done with tidal gates in Suisun Marsh). The islands of water could then
be managed as nursery areas for desirable fishes. Ideally, the gates
would also allow an island to be dried out completely on occasion to
control undesirable alien species.
Invasive species
A major uncontrolled (for now) factor that can negatively affect
efforts to create a more desirable, diverse (heterogeneous) ecosystem
in the Delta is the invasion of new alien species that become agents of
ecosystem change, such as the overbite clam or Brazilian waterweed have
in the past. There is an identified queue of harmful invaders that are
likely to arrive in the near future (Lund et al. 2007). Thus part of
any program of ecosystem creation must include vigorous efforts to
exclude new invaders from all sources, including the shipping,
horticultural, pet, and aquaculture industries. There should also be in
place a mechanism that allows quick action to eradicate a new invader
before it spreads from the site of an invasion.
Conclusions
The San Francisco Estuary, especially the Delta and Suisun Marsh,
is predicted to undergo drastic change in the next 50 years, with the
probability of a major ``disaster'' increasing through time, just on
the basis of earthquakes and land subsidence alone (Mount and Twiss
2005). When sea level rise and increased frequency of flooding due to
climate change are factored in, major change in this period seems
inevitable. The disaster scenario, however, is mainly for human goods
and services, especially water supply to urban and agricultural areas.
From a fish perspective, the ecological changes resulting from flooding
of numerous Delta islands and Suisun Marsh are likely to create
conditions that should be at least as favorable for desirable species
as present conditions, after a period of possible high mortality
created by the initial flooding events. Potentially more favorable
habitat will result from a disaster scenario simply because there will
be increased area of open water and tidal marsh, some of it with enough
fluctuation in salinity to be especially favorable to delta smelt,
striped bass, and other pelagic species now in decline. There is much
uncertainty, however, about how much favorable habitat will be created
under disaster scenarios because of the tendency of alien invaders to
quickly dominate so many habitats. Thus, making efforts to control the
way the habitat changes, as suggested above and in Lund et al. (2007),
could have major benefits while being highly compatible with changing
the ways in which services the Delta provides are delivered, especially
water supply. The principal basis for action is to increase habitat
heterogeneity over present and likely future conditions, as well as to
increase the total amount of aquatic habitat. No matter what actions
are taken there will be a high degree of uncertainty in the ecological
benefits but the present situation in the estuary represents an
unprecedented opportunity to reverse the impacts of over 150 years of
negative ecological change.
Acknowledgements
The ideas expressed in the essay come from discussions with my co-
authors on the UCD-PPIC report: Jay Lund, Ellen Hanak, William Fleenor,
Richard Howitt, and Jeff Mount, as well as with the many friends and
colleagues who work in the San Francisco Estuary, but especially
William Bennett, John Burau, Christopher Enright, and Robert Schroeter.
This essay has not been peer-reviewed. Any mistakes and misconceptions
are entirely my own.
Literature Cited
Bay Institute. 1998. From the Sierra to the sea: The ecological history
of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Watershed. Bay Institute of San
Francisco, Novato CA. http://www.bay.org/sierra_to_the_sea.htm.
Bennett, W. A. 2005. ``Critical assessment of the delta smelt
population in the San Francisco Estuary, California,'' San
Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science [online serial] 3 (2):
1-71. http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol3/iss2/art1.
Bennett, W.A., and P. B. Moyle. 1996. Where have all the fishes gone:
interactive factors producing fish declines in the Sacramento-
San Joaquin estuary. Pages 519-542 in J. T. Hollibaugh, ed. San
Francisco Bay: the Ecosystem. San Francisco: AAAS, Pacific
Division.
Brandes, P. L. and J. S. McClain. 2001. Juvenile Chinook salmon
abundance, distribution, and survival in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Estuary. Pages 39-137 in R. L. Brown, ed. Contributions
to the biology of Central Valley salmonids, California
Department of Fish and Game Fish Bulletin 179, Vol. 2.
Cohen, A. N., and J. T. Carlton 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a
highly invaded estuary. Science 279: 555-557.
Department of Water Resources. 1993. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Atlas. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Water
Resources.
Department of Water Resources 2007 [Draft of Delta Risk Management
Strategy Report, publically available by time this paper is
published].
Dettinger, M. D. 2005. From climate-change spaghetti to climate-change
distributions for 21st century California. San Francisco
Estuary and Watershed Science [online serial] 3(4): http://
repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol3/iss1/art4.
Herbold, B., A. D. Jassby, and P. B. Moyle. 1992. Status and trends
report on aquatic resources in the San Francisco Estuary. San
Francisco Estuary Project. 257 pp.
Hobbs, J. A., W. A. Bennett, and J. E. Burton. 2006. Assessing nursery
habitat quality for native smelts (Osmeridae) in the low-
salinity zone of the San Francisco Estuary. Journal of Fish
Biology 69:907-922.
Hobbs, J. A., W. A. Bennett, J. Burton, and M. Gras. 2007.
Classification of larval and adult delta smelt to nursery areas
by use of trace elemental fingerprinting. Transactions,
American Fisheries Society 136:518-527.
Hollibaugh, J. T. ed.1996. San Francisco Bay: the ecosystem. San
Francisco: AAAS, Pacific Division.
Light, T. and M.P. Marchetti. 2007. Distinguishing between invasions
and habitat changes as drivers of diversity loss among
California's freshwater fishes. Conservation Biology 21:434-
446.
Little Hoover Commission. 2005. Still imperiled, still important. The
Little Hoover Commission's review of the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program. Sacramento, California.
Lund, J., E. Hanak., W. Fleenor, R. Howitt, J. Mount, and P. Moyle.
2007. Envisioning futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. 284 pp.
Matern, S. A., P. B. Moyle, and L. C. Pierce. 2002. Native and alien
fishes in a California estuarine marsh: twenty-one years of
changing assemblages. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 131:797-816.
Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. Revised and expanded.
Berkeley: University of California Press. 502 pp.
Moyle, P.B., R. D. Baxter, T. Sommer, T. C. Foin, and S. A. Matern.
2004. Biology and population dynamics of Sacramento Splittail
(Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) in the San Francisco Estuary: a
review. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science [online
serial] 2(2):1-47. http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/
Moyle P.B., Crain P.K., and Whitener K. 2007. Patterns in the use of a
restored California floodplain by native and alien fishes. San
Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science .http://
repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/
Nichols, F H., J. E. Cloern, S. N. Luoma, and D. H. Peterson. 1986. The
modification of an estuary. Science 231:567-573.
Nobriga, M. L., F. Feyrer, R. D. Baxter, and M. Chothowski. 2005. Fish
community ecology in an altered river delta: spatial patterns
in species composition, life history strategies, and biomass.
Estuaries 28: 776-785.
Sommer, T. R., W. C. Harrell, M. Nobriga, R. Brown, P. B. Moyle, W. J.
Kimmerer and L. Schemel. 2001a. California's Yolo Bypass:
evidence that flood control can be compatible with fish,
wetlands, wildlife and agriculture. Fisheries 58(2):325-333.
Sommer, T. R., M. L. Nobriga, W. C. Harrell, W. Batham, and W. J.
Kimmerer. 2001b. Floodplain rearing of juvenile Chinook salmon:
evidence of enhanced growth and survival. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 325-333.
Williams, J. G. 2006. Central Valley salmon: a perspective on chinook
and steelhead in the Central Valley of California. San
Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 4 (3) Article 2. http:/
/repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol4/iss3/art2
______
Supplementary testimony of Peter B. Moyle,
University of California, Davis
1. In their testimony before the Subcommittee, Mr Steve Thompson
(US Fish and Wildlife Service) and Mr. L. Ryan Broddrick (California
Department of Fish and Game) indicated that their agencies had done
everything in their power to protect the delta smelt, through adaptive
management and other means. I respectfully disagree. As I indicated in
my verbal testimony, most steps taken to protect the smelt were made
only to minimize damage to the population rather than to actually
improve conditions (as would seem to be necessary for recovery). Even
actions to limit damage seemed to currently be in abeyance given the
extremely low numbers of smelt taken in sampling programs and the
numbers of smelt taken by the state and federal export pumps. As the
result of increasing export of water from the SWP pumps at Tracy, in
the two days before the hearing 390 and 258 smelt (data presented by
Mr. Johns at the hearing), respectively, were entrained (killed) at the
pumps. On the day of the hearing, 311 delta smelt were entrained. Since
May 10 of this year nearly 2500 delta smelt have been taken at the
pumps. Numbers are certainly higher because only smelt greater than 20
mm long are counted. Actions that could have been taken to protect the
smelt this year, but were largely not performed were recommended in two
letters by myself and Dr. Christina Swanson that were sent to the five
agencies directly involved with smelt management on March 14 and June
1, 2007. These recommendations were not original with us but stemmed
from recommendations by the agencies' own biologists.
2. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Broderick indicated that changing the
status of the delta smelt from Threatened to Endangered, as requested
in an emergency petition filed over a year ago (March 8, 2006), would
not have affected management of the species. Again, I respectfully
disagree. Endangered listing would be dramatic acknowledgement of the
critical state of the smelt population, with the potential to mobilize
additional resources for protection of the smelt, as well as public
support for actions taken. If the smelt was listed as endangered under
the federal Endangered Species Act, it is highly likely that the
continued mortality of smelt at the SWP pumps not would be allowed to
continue.
3. Mr. B. J. Miller presented testimony in which he stated that
there is no linear relationship between the amount of exports and delta
smelt numbers. He further stated that because of the lack of a
relationship, agency and other biologists never show graphs relating
exports to smelt numbers even though they claim a relationship exists
(i.e., are in denial about the lack of a relationship). There is
evidence to the contrary. Attached to this submittal is a graph showing
a negative relationship between exports and smelt numbers that was part
of the emergency listing petition submitted in 2006. The relationship
is weak but present. In any case, a direct relationship is not needed
to show that the pumps in the south Delta can impact smelt populations.
In a recently published, peer-reviewed paper (unlike Mr. Miller's
analysis), Dr. William Bennett has provided some strong indications
that the increase in early season pumping has impacted smelt because it
kills the biggest, most fecund smelt (and probably their offspring),
which contribute the most to future generations. This is the ``big
mama'' hypothesis mentioned at the hearing. Exports from the Delta are
clearly not the only cause of smelt decline but there is every reason
to thing they are an important contributing factor, especially when
populations are as low as they are today.
4. It is not at all certain that the delta smelt will make it
though another year. If it does survive, it will be again in record low
numbers. This crisis emphasizes the need not only to take actions to
improve conditions for delta smelt as much as possible but to start
taking large-scale actions to make sure smelt habitat is present in the
future, as suggested in the UCD-PPIC report and indicated in my
previous written testimony.
From: Emergency petition to list the delta smelt (Hypomesus
transpacificus) as an endangered species under the endangered
species act, submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by
the Center for Biological Diversity, The Bay Institute, and the
Natural Resources Defense Council, March 8, 2006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.015
Figure 6. The relationship between winter (December-March) export
amounts and subsequent abundance of delta smelt. a) sub-adult and adult
delta smelt as measured by the FMWT Index (using data from 1967-2004);
and b) juvenile delta smelt as measured by the TNS Index (using data
from 1969-2004). For each graph, the regression, 95% confidence limits
and the prediction limits are shown calculated for the entire datasets.
The open symbols and the dark gray regression line highlight the years
since the delta smelt was listed under the ESA (1994-2004). Data
Sources: California Department of Fish and Game, California Department
of Water Resources, Dayflow.
Large scale ecological changes have occurred in the Delta during
the past 30 years, such as the establishment of the invasive clam
Corbula amurensis and its impacts on the planktonic food web, but they
do not strongly affect the results of these types of correlation and
regression analyses. For example, the significant relationship between
winter exports and the subsequent population abundance of adult delta
smelt was apparent in the 20 years prior to the clam's invasion (1967-
1985, Equation 5).
Adult delta smelt (1967-1986):
Log FMWT = 3.109--0.353(Dec-Mar exports, MAF) (Equation 5)
n=18; p=0.013; r\2\=0.0329, SEE=0.308
Linear regression using smaller subsets of more recent years (e.g.,
post-Corbula invasion, 1987-2004 or 2005; post-ESA listing, 1994-2004
or 2005) were not statistically significant but both the slopes and
intercepts of the relationships were very similar to those generated
using the entire dataset (e.g., 1994-2004(5): open symbols and grey
regression line in Figure 6). The significant relationship between
winter exports and abundance was not ``driven'' by the low abundances
measured during the past three or four years. For example, after
excluding the three most recent years for the FMWT abundance indices
(2002-2004) from the dataset, the regression was still significant
(p=0.02) and the slope and intercept were similar to those generated
with the entire dataset. Given that the significant relationship
between winter exports and adult abundance was detectable by 2002 (and
before), this indicates that the low abundances measured during the
past three years, a period during which winter exports were at near
record high levels, were predictable as early as three years ago.
The abundance of juvenile delta smelt was also significantly
affected by spring-summer exports (March-July). The linear regression
for this relationship is:
Log TNS = 1.429--0.369(Mar-July exports, MAF) (Equation 6)
N=36; p=0.047; r\2\=0.111; SEE=0.462
In 1993, the USFWS (1993) identified 21 major federal, state, local
or private organization proposals for increased exports. Since that
time, Delta water exports and corresponding impacts on delta smelt have
increased and they are projected to continue to increase in the future.
The recent 5-year review (USFWS 2004b) noted that the potential threat
of increased demands on surface water resources in the Central Valley
and Delta was growing, citing planned or proposed new water diversion
projects such as the Freeport Regional Water Project, increases in
pumping capacity at the SWP pumping plant as part of the South Delta
Improvement Project, the California Aqueduct/Delta-Mendota Canal inter-
tie to allow increased pumping at the CVP pumping plant, Empire Tract
on the San Joaquin River; and potential expanded water storage capacity
projects at Los Vaqueros, north of the Delta off-stream storage, Shasta
Reservoir, in-Delta storage, and south of the Delta surface and
groundwater storage projects. The USFWS (2004b) concluded that the
increased storage and diversion capacity would likely result in lower
freshwater outflows to the estuary, higher water exports from the
Delta, and greater entrainment of delta smelt.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. We will start off with the
questions and each Member has five minutes. Hopefully, we will
be able to move forward.
Mr. Thompson, one of the things that I have been noticing
in reading a lot of the background information is that the fish
was listed as threatened back in March '06 and then again in
March '07 there was a request to upgrade it. That has not been
done. Why?
Mr. Thompson. Well, there is actually very little
difference in the protection between the status of threatened
or endangered. We have very limited resources in both staff. We
spend a great deal of time in courts right now. We spend a
great deal less time than we should on recovery and in
initiatives.
The actual status change will do absolutely nothing as far
as the political or biological or legal consequences to the
Delta smelt.
Mrs. Napolitano. It does with this Committee, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. I do not think that we want to use it as a
copout to be able to have the true status of that endangered
species be not listed as endangered. So we will talk to you
about that later.
Then I have a couple of other questions. I am trying to
keep mine to a minimum because we will put it in writing. But
the current biological opinion you are operating under allows
you to take what? Am I right in understanding that in his May
24th decision U.S. District Court Judge Wanger deemed that the
2005 biological opinion was unlawful and inadequate? Am I
further correct that he specifically cited that your approach
to take limits fails to consider the most recent overall
species abundance in jeopardy? Then third have you changed your
operation to address this criticism in the biological opinion?
Mr. Thompson. We are currently under consultation with the
Bureau of Reclamation to address Judge Wanger's concerns. We
were doing that ahead of the court case already also. We are in
constant communication with DWR and the Bureau of Reclamation
and California Fish and Game and NOAA Fisheries attempting to
balance the water demands for smelt, salmon and all the other
uses that are out there. So we are in constant dialogue and
conversation.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, that is not very reassuring to me. I
tell you why. Back when I first started in this Subcommittee
there was a request for a survey paid for by several of the
Southern California agencies on water that took almost 12 years
to render to those parties, and only after constant haranguing
by me to the Department did we finally get a draft. Then the
draft was changed after the final came out. So I have very
little, I am sorry, support for that kind of an attitude or an
answer.
I certainly hope that this will be a much faster, since
that was just a report on the status of Southern California
water, this; we are talking about a crisis. We need to ensure
if you need the help, to ask this Committee or at least some of
its Members to be able to advocate and try to get you support,
whether it is increasing the budget or being able to take steps
to help address the issue. California depends on it, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. Now one of the other questions that I
have, and I only have a small amount of time and then we will
pass it on. I read with interest and having worked at the State
level and the Federal level, do the agencies talk to each other
about working collaboration?
Mr. Thompson. Yes, they do, ma'am. There are phone calls
going back and forth between Ryan, Lester, the Bureau of
Reclamation and myself. Then there is at the WOP, the Water
Operations Team talk to each other all the time.
Mr. Napolitano. That is what brought it to mind. I was
reading the report.
Mr. Thompson. Then we also get advice from the Delta
technical folks that are scientists that give us advice.
There is constant communication both daily and weekly.
There are conflicting laws and statutes and obligations and
contracts that force us to deal with the situation and balance
it the best we can.
Mrs. Napolitano. I can understand that. But unfortunately
talking about it and taking action are two different things.
Now if talking over the phone means you are getting things
done, I could accept that. But if it means that all you are
doing it and discussing it and not really sitting together and
working out a solution that is going to be able to address the
issue. That is my concern.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, ma'am, we do. We not only talk, we also
take actions on an either hourly, daily or weekly basis.
Mrs. Napolitano. Do you have the ability to tell this
Committee whether any of that indicates of what the outcome has
been to be able to address this crisis?
Mr. Thompson. Yes, we can. But it would take much longer
than the time. I guess all of us could----
Mrs. Napolitano. No, I would like to have that in writing,
if you would. We will share it with the rest of the Members.
Mr. Thompson. OK.
Mrs. Napolitano. I will now stop and hand it over to Mr.
Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
I spoke in my opening comments about the efforts in 2000
with the CALFED agreement and it speaks to the heart of what
the Chairwoman and her last question--and disappointment. I do
not think I am giving my own perception, but I think there has
been a disappointment throughout the environmental community,
urban water users as well as agricultural water users, that by
this time we have not made more progress, especially after the
record of decision had been signed and the efforts to implement
it.
I would like to ask all of you, and there is not a lot of
time so I would like a succinct statement in less than a
minute, of why you think over the last five years we have not
been able to implement the record of decision. I understand
there is not different statutes, state and Federal statutes. I
understand that there are differences on the science, but we
have provided a whole lot of money.
Who wants to start off first? Mr. Moyle? Less than a minute
response.
Dr. Moyle. That is a difficult question. There is so much
going on. I think the knowledge base is there now to make
decisions.
Mr. Costa. People just do not want to make tough decisions?
Dr. Moyle. I think that is a part of it, yes.
Mr. Costa. OK.
Dr. Moyle. It is difficult to make those tough decisions,
especially when you are choosing between what seems to be water
and fish. I personally think there are lots of ways to make
these things work. But----
Mr. Costa. Well, maybe we ought to change the paradigm, as
I said in my opening statement.
Mr. Johns, you want to comment?
Mr. Johns. Yes. Actually, I would take some exceptions. I
think CALFED did work. I think part of the CALFED was a seven
year experiment to see if through Delta could actually be made
to work effectively. I think what we are seeing now is that the
Delta is not sustainable.
Mr. Costa. Under the current uses?
Mr. Johns. Right. Exactly. But the assumption in CALFED was
that the Delta would stay about the way we see it now. I think
what we are seeing, as you alluded in your testimony, that----
Mr. Costa. Almost $8 billion in water for fish, and it has
not worked.
Mr. Johns. You have a Delta that probably does not meet the
kind of tests that were assumed in the CALFED days.
Mr. Costa. Mr. Broddrick, you want a try at this?
Mr. Broddrick. The CALFED process was blessed with a lot of
bond money following your initiation of 206 and CVPIA. There
was an incredible amount of information developed. The science
got galvanized, I believe, two years ago when folks took the
individual parts and said we need to synthesize. Now the head
focus of that was $2.5 million put into the pelagic organism
decline.
I think we accomplished a lot in CALFED. We did not meet
some of the objectives with respect to water supply, obviously,
levees. We did come to the conclusion that I think we had to
come to post-record decision in August of 2000. Before we went
to that record decision, we met with the Secretary of Interior
in a transition of Governors between Pete Wilson and Davis.
They have challenges put to the biologists. We said, very
briefly, the biologists will figure out how to take care of the
Delta smelt and the fishes of the Delta.
Mr. Costa. So have you and your partner next to you with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service figured out what the answer is?
Mr. Broddrick. The response at the time was with all due
respect, Mr. Secretary, the biologists told you that the simple
issue with respect to Delta smelt and their entrainment is that
you need not convey so much out of the South Delta. We are at
that point now. I wish that was not the case.
Mr. Costa. You would concur, Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Costa. You want to elaborate at all?
Mr. Thompson. No. I think the only thing I might add was
that, you know, we have converted a historical tidal wetland to
what we have today.
Mr. Costa. You have converted a what?
Mr. Thompson. A tidal wetland.
Mr. Costa. I see.
Mr. Thompson. To what we have today. We are convinced that
this will----
Mr. Costa. Yes. I am glad you made that statement. Because
people talk about historic nature of the Delta, and it is any
given person's chosen time in history that they want to choose
historic. But you are referencing the real history is a tidal
wetland?
Mr. Thompson. Yes. With wide fluctuations in both fresh
water and salt water. That's what the native species adapted to
and that----
Mr. Costa. Before people ever came here?
Mr. Thompson. Before we came here.
Mr. Costa. There were Native Americans here, of course.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, and before Europeans.
Mr. Costa. Mr. Davis, you care to comment at all? Only
because of time, I am sorry, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Davis. Yes, sir, I would. I think that CALFED has
worked. I agree with the statements made by my colleagues here.
I think there has been some achievements and there has been
some disappointments.
I think CVPIA has worked. There again has been some
achievements and disappointments. It is a lot harder than
people thought.
Mr. Costa. That was the most historic reallocation of water
in the history of the State?
Mr. Davis. Exactly, between going from Delta 1485 to 1641
and then CVPIA has been significant changes.
Mr. Costa. My time has expired. But, Madam Chairwoman, I
would like to submit a question that they can answer in a
written statement and that is, where do you think we as Federal
partners in this process need to go next to help the State in
its efforts as we address not only the Delta but the other
regional impacts that will exist? I will submit that as a
written question.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Congressman Costa. So without
objection we will accept them, as I stated in the beginning.
I am sorry, CALFED was supposed to be a help in getting
solution to some of these problems. Apparently it is not.
I would like to now turn to Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller of California. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you all for your testimony.
I find it rather interesting that the suggestion is here
that we have gone through the CALFED process and that tells us
that the through Delta operation no longer works and we have to
jump to, I guess, around the Delta facility of peripheral canal
or some similar operation, probably renamed and rebranded, but
in any case. But I also find it interesting that at that same
time that this was taking place both the state legislature and
the courts decided that this operation was not attending to the
law with respect to Endangered Species Act and the fact that
the science that was being built upon was in fact flawed. We
had political people walking through the agency on some of
these decisions affecting the Delta changing the outcome of
science.
So I do not quite get how we arrived at what appears to be
a very confident decision that we have exhausted the CALFED
process. This is not a plea for the CALFED process. But if the
end result is that somehow now there is really no option to
entraining the Delta smelt or other species, therefore we have
to go elsewhere when in fact the basic law that was there to
provide for the protection of these species was ignored in that
process? That is kind of what you are doing in court now is
sorting that out, is that not right? Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. I was hoping you were going to Ryan there.
Well, we are going through that process right now with the
biological assessment from the Bureau of Reclamation and the
coverage for Department of Water Resources on the Delta smelt
portion in the Federal court with Judge Wanger. We are also in
the consultation process right now actively with everybody
trying to figure out the complex answers to the biological
assessment and what the biological opinion would be.
Mr. Miller of California. Well, I find it kind of
interesting because we have been put on notice now for several
years with drastic decline in the Delta. Now we have decided
that there are multiple reasons for that, and that may in fact
turn out to be valid, but because there are so many reasons,
there is sort of no reason. So at this time we have the State
engaging in discretionary pumping of water. We acknowledge
surplus water and then we pump that water out of the Delta,
last year in the spring, this year again, in light of this
information.
That very same period of time we did not introduce invasive
species. When you say all this has some discretionary invasive
species thrown into the system. You know, we did not do that.
But what we did do is continue to export water out of the Delta
at a time when we may have been able to see if we reduced those
water flows, if you did not have that surplus water leaving the
Delta, maybe it would have changed.
So I do not understand how we arrive at this conclusion all
of a sudden that that is it folks, we have to abandon the
Delta.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I do not think we are saying that. I
think we are saying that that is one of the important things is
the Delta pumps and how they affect the Delta. That is
certainly important. There are many, many other factors there.
The invasives you talk about are increasing and some are
taking hold and some are--you know, they go up and down in the
Delta system.
We have a contaminant situation that we did not have
before, and we cannot quite figure out exactly what that is.
But it seems to be an important situation on toxins.
So I do not think it is any one, Congressman. I think it is
a combination of things that are in the Delta.
We are struggling as a group of agencies to figure out how
to balance solutions the best we can.
Mr. Miller of California. But, again, you were looking at
all this while not meeting the basic law for the protection of
the species and the condition of the Delta, the Endangered
Species Act.
Mr. Thompson. The Endangered Species Act only has so much
influence and power that it can do in the Delta situation. We
are applying the biological----
Mr. Miller of California. But if you ignore it, how will
you know what that is?
Mr. Thompson. We are not ignoring it. We are doing the
biological----
Mr. Miller of California. Well what are you telling the
judge?
Mr. Thompson. We are telling the judge the same thing I am
telling you. We are doing a biological assessment. We will do a
biological opinion based on all the best scientific information
we get together to determine whether the species is in jeopardy
or not.
Mr. Miller of California. That is the State's position
also?
Mr. Broddrick. Congressman Miller, maybe I gave you the
wrong impression when I gave the answer with respect to August
of 2000. I did not expect isolated conveyance or peripheral
canal or whatever term of art is being as the immediate
response. But the response was the entrainment on the Delta
fishes as it relates to State Water Project is if you remember
the CALFED objectives, there was also water supply objectives
and there were Delta levee and water quality objectives.
On the simple issue of the difficulty of reducing
entrainment on fishes the Delta is just a bad geographical
location. It is very difficult to get the fish out of the
system. Tides can overwhelm inflow from the San Joaquin. So----
Mr. Miller of California. How many are we entraining now?
Mr. Broddrick. Pardon?
Mr. Miller of California. How many are we entraining now
since you turned the pumps back on?
Mr. Broddrick. As of yesterday afternoon, I cannot give you
the actual numbers, but this weekend there was entrainment of
Delta smelt. That was after----
Mr. Miller of California. How close of an actual number can
you give me?
Mr. Broddrick. Exact. Gerry's got them written down. I have
them partially in my mind, but my mind is not that accurate.
Mr. Johns. Some good news if there is good news here, is
that the level of fish per acre-foot that we take has dropped.
But on Saturday----
Mr. Miller of California. You give up the per acre-foot
with all the respect of the pumping?
Mrs. Napolitano. Just get to the numbers, please.
Mr. Johns. OK. But in terms of the numbers, on Saturday it
was 390 and on Sunday it was 246 Delta smelt.
Mr. Miller of California. So this illegal take sort of
continues?
Mr. Johns. I would not characterize illegal take. The court
has said--both the state and the Federal courts--that these are
within the take authorizations currently in place. They have
not removed our take authorizations.
Mr. Miller of California. They have not. But the take
authorizations were based upon the science that is in question,
correct?
Mr. Johns. We are working with the agency to try to work
out different standards, different take numbers to reflect the
better science.
Mrs. Napolitano. Are we going to wait until----
Mr. Miller of California. Well, I would just say, Madam
Chair, that it is incredible that we are basing a series of
decisions based upon science that apparently was flawed, maybe
even intentionally, at the beginning of this process. Again,
the species that is in question here is continuing to be taken
in this process. So we have ramped the pumps back up to their
historic levels, is that correct?
Mr. Johns. Not historic levels, but levels that we would
expect at this time of this year.
Mr. Miller of California. I meant I guess I should say your
ordinary operating procedures, what you're allowed to take?
Mr. Johns. For this year that is correct, yes.
One point if I may, the temperature conditions in the Delta
are such that we think that those fish in the South Delta are
probably at risk in any event.
Second, we think that the data would indicate that most of
these fish if not all these fish are in the forebay already and
probably will not survive that experience this summer.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Miller of California. It does not sound like the
protection level envisioned for that threatened species which
we were told earlier is the same as an endangered species when
answering the Chairwoman's question.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Johns. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Point very well taken.
Yes, Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson of California. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I, too, am pretty troubled by what seems to be or what
sounds sitting up here to be a foregone conclusion that none of
this stuff is working, therefore we need to go back to
peripheral canal discussions.
Mr. Miller mentioned that--or somebody has mentioned there
are multiple reasons and Mr. Miller suggested that equated to
the same as no reason. I would just for the record state that
there is one reason for sure that things are not improving, and
that is not because we are getting too much water going into
the Delta. The idea of moving it around the outside I find
troubling in this discussion.
I want to focus a little bit on the whole issue of the
science and how we got to where we are and how we did not get
to where we should be. In my opening comments I talked a little
bit about the problem upriver, the Klamath problem and how the
science was intentionally altered in order to provide a water
decision that was in line with what this Administration's
Federal Administration wanted to see. So I guess my question is
to you, Mr. Thompson. Have there been any--and I want to limit
it to Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove as what has happened
up in the Klamath but I want to be a little broader. I do not
want you to answer based on those two individuals and maybe not
tell me something I want to know. But have there been any
communications between the White House and Interior on the
issue of science in the Delta and water flows?
Mr. Thompson. Between the White House and Interior? Not
that I am aware of.
Mr. Thompson of California. You know, that sounds like you
are trying to split hairs.
Has there been some political influence that has been
focused toward you folks and what we should be doing there?
Mr. Thompson. I get political influence from everyone. If
you are asking me----
Mr. Thompson of California. Steve, we go back a long time.
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Thompson of California. OK. You know what I am getting
at and you know what happened in the Klamath. You know the
direct influence that the White House exerted in order to get
their water policy put in place. Has there been anything
similar to that in regard to the Delta?
Mr. Thompson. Not similar to Klamath, but we have had
interest from the Assistant Secretary's office on a regular
basis on Delta smelt.
Mr. Thompson of California. What sort of influence is that?
Has there been a direction that they want, an outcome that they
want to see and are they hoping to influence scientific
decisions or even not just scientific, maybe avoidance of the
laws that pertains to the Endangered Species Act?
Mr. Thompson. That currently is under an active IG
investigation. I feel it would be inappropriate to talk about
at this time.
Mr. Miller of California. If the gentleman would yield?
Mr. Thompson of California. I yield to Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller of California. The Assistant Secretary there,
you are referring to whom?
Mr. Thompson. Deputy Assistant Secretary that is no longer
there would be Julie MacDonald.
Mr. Thompson of California. Mr. Davis, could you tell me
does the Bureau intend to approve any interim water contracts
south of the Delta or extend contracts in the next year?
Mr. Davis. We will be approving interim contracts under the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. We were
directed, the law says that when contracts expired the first
interim renewal contract is for three years--up to three years.
Subsequent contracts will be up to two years. It was the
intention of the law at the time that this process be in place
until all appropriate environmental documentation.
Mr. Thompson of California. So there will be new contracts?
Mr. Davis. There will not be new contracts.
Mr. Thompson of California. Just extended contracts?
Mr. Davis. Well, there will be existing contractors whose
long-term contracts expire. We will enter into an interim
renewal contract similar to the contracts that we have started
in the mid-1990s.
Mr. Thompson of California. So is it safe to say that all
expiring contracts will be renewed, interim or otherwise?
Mr. Davis. Under the statute they will be renewed on an
interim basis. And then----
Mr. Thompson of California. My time is running out. But I
would like to get an idea of how many of these contracts, how
big they are and you will comply with all of the laws and
rules, including NEPA, ESA and the CVPIA requirements in
extending those interim contracts?
Mr. Davis. We do NEPA and ESA and both with the National
Marine Fisheries Service and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Mr. Thompson of California. If you could put that together
with an inventory of those contracts and the amount of water
that we are talking about?
Mr. Davis. Absolutely.
Mr. Miller of California. I guess under the rules here, the
gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Thompson of California. I was going to keep going.
Mr. Miller of California. It has expired. I was going to
let you keep going.
Mr. Miller of California. Assemblywoman Wolk.
Ms. Wolk. Now is our chance.
Mr. Thompson and Mr. Broddrick----
Mr. Miller of California. May I just assume that the answer
to the question is you will compile the information?
Mr. Davis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Miller of California. Congressman Thompson will submit
that to you in writing. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. For the record, yes, we will.
Mr. Miller of California. Thank you.
Assemblywoman Wolk?
Ms. Wolk. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Broddrick, you need to help
me here. Millions of acre-feet of water are in an average year
in the Delta. You get a report, it says there are 37 smelt.
Could they fit in here? Maybe two cups.
Dr. Moyle. Maybe two cups.
Ms. Wolk. To me this is a crisis. To me this conveys a
sense of urgency. Mr. Thompson, Mr. Broddrick, and I will quote
from you, Mr. Thompson, you state that the adaptive management
strategies that were agreed to are somehow working. Mr.
Broddrick, there is a declaration that we can continue the
pumping, that there is surplus water and therefore continue the
pumping. I do not understand how the process among Federal and
state agencies involving the recent management of flows is
working as intended. I need your help with that. People in my
district do not understand that.
Mr. Broddrick. Assemblywoman Wolk, Ryan Broddrick. I will
start off.
First of all, a lot of what we do on a day-to-day
operation, it is perspective based on the information that we
have and comparing it against 40 years of history.
Unfortunately, it seems like each day creates a new history
point for us.
When we on the adaptive management this year, a lot of the
work that came out as a result of the CALFED and pelagic
organism declined science was to look at natural dispositive
flows or less than negative flows on the Old Middle River. It
also shifted the focus, I think, toward fish that were--the
big--I hate to use the term. It is not mine. It was actually
developed I think by Dr. Moyle. The big mama theory. That was
to protect a component of fish that in the past we had not
focused on with the pumping that occurred November through
March.
So we made those adjustments. The fish continued this year
to spawn in the area in that was up in the deep water ship
channel, something that was very unusual for a large pod fish,
at least the one that we identified. Then we had a very high
mortality, as best we could establish, of the juveniles that
were essentially all the eggs in that basket.
So, yes, we adaptively manage. We try to use a temperature
criteria and we try to look at the flows. As you and I have
discussed, I am concerned about Steelhead and I am concerned
about spring run salmon and fall run salmon, and I am
interested and concerned about the other 295 threatened and
endangered species that exist north and south of the Delta that
rely on water supply. So we make our best management and
sometimes we fail. But it is an honest judgment.
With that, I will be quiet.
Ms. Wolk. Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. We are also very concerned about the Delta
smelt and the condition of the smelt. In this job you find
yourself with over 300 endangered species in the State of
California. Some species, like California condor, sea otter,
others have been very, very low.
The one thing I know is that people working together saves
species. The part I was talking about what is working is the
heads of each of the agencies. All the way up and down through
their staff are working as hard as we know how to find
solutions and try to balance the endangered species issues with
all the other legal and other requirements we have. So that is
the part I meant about what is working.
Ms. Wolk. I just have one more question. And that is about
CALFED. I have attended several meetings of CALFED and was a
strong supporter at its genesis. I thought that it was
essential and it was in fact a dramatic step forward in
partnership between the Federal, state and local entities.
I think it has done all it can do that is not
controversial. It has been successful in the areas where there
is consensus. The difficult decisions are the ones that have to
be made, and they cannot be made in CALFED the way CALFED is
currently structured.
I am curious as to whether you agree with that statement or
not.
Mr. Thompson. I think maybe the question in my mind is
where we would be if we did not have CALFED, and it has done
remarkable things. There are things that worked very, very
well.
As we sent through a Little Hoover Commission, and I
testified at that also, there were serious challenges. Things
that did not work very well. So to me it is a mixed blessing.
The part, again, that is working, the fallout of that was
that agency heads and their staff are all working together to
try to solve this problem.
The litigation has not been helpful. There is a continuous
litigation that takes time, valuable time from our staff who
are always going to court.
So parts of it worked very well. Other parts need help.
Ms. Wolk. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Miller of California. Excuse me. I have been elevated
to Chair.
Assemblywoman Wolk, on CALFED I think just very briefly,
the Bay-Delta Authority and the governance and what they had
available for governance, I think we will come back to your
question later as it is yet to be resolved.
The CALFED process, I think it is very important to
remember that it was a framework that we structured a lot of
bonds, state bonds in particular and integration with CVPIA and
integration with Federal funding. That was a very good thing.
We have also accomplished some dramatic things for the
environment, for the public and for California.
We also committed in the process to a lot of planning
documents. Those planning documents are now documents that are
ready for implementation that do go to improving water quality,
that do go to diversifying water supply, that do go to
conjunctive water use. I think it is very important that we not
throw away those two and three and four years worth of work and
community consensus and ground up grassroots integrated
regional water management plans, for example, with the general
CALFED inability to take care of Delta smelt. I think that
would be a mistake.
Ms. Wolk. Madam Chair, could I just make a comment?
Many of my colleagues up here were and remain leaders and
were leaders at that time. There was also leadership at the
highest levels. We are talking about the President and the
Governor. That is something that we need again because the
challenges and the issues that have to be decided, the
decisions are difficult and it is time once again I think for
that kind of leadership, which we do not have. Congressman
Miller and Congressman Thompson have highlighted the political
issue of the biological opinion and conflicts of interests and
how these decision--the basic information that we are relying
on is suspect-- perhaps worse--and that is a terrible, terrible
situation we have to do something about.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. We are running a little bit
behind. We still have two more panels, which I am combining
into one panel. But if you will, make a real question.
Mr. Costa, you have a real question? Then we will move on.
Mr. Costa. Yes. I just want to put in context, because we
were talking about the current challenge with the below average
water year.
The last two years if I do remember correctly, were above
average and the third year was average. So I am wondering if
you will answer in the context of how you try to manage all of
the species including the Delta smelt, why did we not see
improvement when we had the above average rainfall in which we
had during the key months during the entrainment issues and
such a lot of water on average and yet we did not see a
noticeable change?
Mr. Johns. Last year, as you know, was a really wet year.
Classically, Delta smelt do not do real well in wet years. They
do pretty well in moderate years.
Last year we took as combined between the State and the
Federal projects, a little less than 400 fish the entire year.
We have not taken any Delta smelt from April of 2007 to May of
this year. So in terms of project impacts on Delta smelt, you
would think that it would be an all time low. If it was truly a
driver, you would see increases, dramatic increases. But we did
not see huge increases. As I recall the numbers of adult smelt
were about the same this year as last. As Dr. Broddrick talked
about, we did have this tenfold decrease or basically about a
90 percent drop in the number of young smelt that we expected
this year, likely due to a toxic event in the Sacramento Cache
Slough area. Because we have talked there are a lot of things
going here in the system. We keep turning the one knob, the
project knob because we have it, we can turn it. But there are
other things we need to be addressing here and we are not
addressing those based on the science we have. It is improving,
and we need additional resources and knowledge to do those more
effectively.
Mr. Costa. Thank you. I think that is a good answer.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you much.
Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller of California. Thank you.
I just want to go back, because I think it is critical.
Congressman Thompson has referred to the intervention of the
Vice President that was painstakingly documented this last week
and the catastrophic situation that his intervention set up,
not only the loss of the salmon but it turned out we spent $60
million of taxpayer monies and people lost their businesses,
some people lost their boats, their livelihoods and others all
because they made a political decision to intervene and to whip
out the science that would not have allowed that to happen.
We now have the situation where, what is she, Assistant
Secretary? Mr. Thompson, what's the title?
Mr. Thompson. Her last title was a Deputy Assistant
Secretary.
Mr. Miller of California. Her last title is going to be
convict, but as Deputy Assistant Secretary was wandering around
in the science changing these reports, changing language to the
opposite of whatever the finding was, and in dealing with the
species that is absolutely key to how we try to figure out the
operation of the Delta. What assurances can you give this
Committee that those scientists whose work was overridden, if
they are still with the agency, and the other scientists will
be immune from this kind of activity as we now respond to the
court decision that these biological opinions are flawed? You
know, we have contract negotiations going on based upon
science. We have all of these other decisions based upon
science. Now we find out that people were wandering around
there with no scientific background, but with a political
agenda. How do we now know that we are going to get the free
thinking and the best thinking of those scientists without that
political interference.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I think that is a great question,
Congressman. We met with our, what I will call our project
leaders, the people that run our field offices and ecology
series and endangered species around the middle of May. I had
Dale Hall, our Director, come out. We asked our project leaders
to review all the decisions since I have been here in 2001,
asking them some key questions about the science and the
biology and did they feel that the Deputy Assistant Secretary
interfered with any of their decisions as we found out new
information through the press and everything else. So that
evaluation I just signed on Friday----
Mr. Miller of California. The Secretary told these people
that they will be allowed to do their jobs without political
interference.
Mr. Thompson. The Secretary has not talked to them. No. But
Director Dale Hall and I have talked to them.
Mr. Miller of California. You have told them exactly that?
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Miller of California. That they will be free to pursue
the evidence where it takes them?
Mr. Thompson. I told them exactly that. I also asked them
for an evaluation of any decisions that have been made in the
past since I have been here that they felt were interfered with
or the science was manipulated to come to a different decision
than they would have come up with.
Mr. Miller of California. We simply cannot proceed with
trying to solve what we all agree is a very complex problem if,
in fact, we have this kind of intervention and we in fact have
science that is invalid and tainted by those activities. As we
know, this is a layering effect. You start to build upon what
you know and what you have learned to try to make other
decisions. If the fundamental decisions are being undermined
and the information is being undermined, there is no chance for
success at the preservation of the Delta system.
Mr. Thompson. I agree.
Mr. Miller of California. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson of California. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate Mr. Miller's last question and statement. I
would hope, Madam Chair, that maybe we could do something as
the Members in attendance of this Committee and a letter to the
Secretary wanting this information out, and the fact that it is
going to take the Secretary coming forward to make a statement
to these different professionals who have not been allowed to
do their work.
Mrs. Napolitano. We will so entertain it.
Mr. Thompson of California. Thank you.
The question I had to Mr. Thompson and Mr. Davis, I believe
it is related but it is a shift from where we were. On the San
Luis drainage proposal, and I am assuming that you folks were
at the table or at least would have been in the discussion on
this. I am very concerned as to how that is handled and the
impact that is going to have on the record of decision on the
Trinity River. I would like to hear some comment from you as to
how we can be assured on the Trinity, again going back to the
link, that is the direct flow into this Delta system. I also
want to make sure that our restoration efforts and the much
time and many dollars that we spent up there are not wasted.
That is a critical component of bringing back the fish in the
Klamath. Can you comment on that briefly?
Mr. Thompson. Well the first thing on the Trinity part, as
you know and you are well aware we have made tremendous
progress on the bridge removal and habitat restoration----
Mr. Thompson of California. Notwithstanding that, I am
concerned about the specific San Luis drainage proposal and the
Westlands interest in their trying to get additional or I guess
permanent water rights and what the potential impact that may
have on the ROD on the Trinity?
Mr. Davis. Well, Congressman, the answer there is that the
Trinity water is staying on the Trinity side and it will be
used for the flows.
We are negotiating----
Mr. Thompson of California.--the water comes from, that
they get what they want of the drainage----
Mr. Davis. In the drainage proposal, and again it is still
in discussions and the details have not been worked out,
environmental documents have not been worked out. But in theory
we are talking appropriated----
Mr. Thompson of California. Details notwithstanding, we
have heard testimony ad nauseam as to the zero sum game they
are working with, where there is only so much water. We are not
making anymore. In drought years it is worse than nondrought
years, obviously. But to suggest that we are going to increase
and make permanent someone's water right it is going to have to
be at the expense of someone else.
Mr. Davis. Well, what we are doing is taking one of the
water rights, in theory they have not been finalized yet,
taking one of the water rights for San Luis, which is a direct
diverse right in the Delta and then subject it to the water
that is available in the Delta. If the water is not there, they
are not going to be able to appropriate it.
Mr. Thompson. Well, how do we make sure that the Trinity
water and the provisions of the ROD are protected in that area?
Mr. Davis. Well, the Trinity water is Central Valley
Project Water. We are going to protect that, the United States
is protecting that.
What we are doing is we are slicing off one of----
Mr. Thompson of California. And one point. A lot of the
Trinity water was Central Valley Project water.
Mr. Davis. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Mr. Thompson of California. What finally grew back into
where the science, among other things, dictate we need to be.
Mr. Davis. Yes. Absolutely. Most of that water now is
staying on the Trinity side. Might even be coming over to be
considered party of the CVP yield. It is being reserved for the
Trinity flows in the restoration. So there is the difference.
It is just going to be a direct diversion right in the Delta
that we are talking about transferring.
Mr. Thompson of California. Well, I am very concerned that
we have protections, appropriate protection in place for the
Trinity. Before anything further happens south that may
obligate other water to other places, I think we need to have
that.
I'd like, Steve, for you to work with my office to figure
out how we can guarantee that protection is in place.
Mr. Davis. Well, we are working with Senator Feinstein and
congressional members right now. We will be sure to add your
office on that notification.
Mr. Thompson of California. Well, I am talking about one
very, very specific sliver. That is the protection, broad
protection----
Mr. Davis. The Trinity? Yes.
Mr. Thompson of California. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Miller of California. Would the gentleman yield for a
second?
Mr. Thompson of California. I yield, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller of California. We have a divergence of interest
here, obviously, because we come from different parts of the
State. But it seems to me we have a full blown crisis going in
the Delta. I was just wondering how much manpower or person
power you are diverting to this question of Westlands draining
as opposed to working the Delta issue? I mean, Senator
Feinstein's office I think there was discussion about the
allocation of resources here. You have one place that is a
three alarm fire going on and we are trying to sort it out; and
the other one, with all due respect, is manageable for a
foreseeable period of time.
Mr. Davis. Congressman, that is correct. We have resources,
we have a lot of balls in the air. We have the drainage issue.
We have the ESA issue here. We have the salmon issues we are
dealing with. We have Klamath we are dealing with.
We have separate teams working on this and we are looking
at a workload. In some lower priority work, we are not going to
do anymore. That is just a natural evolution of things.
We are working on--well, Steve talked about Klamath. We
have resources working on the Truckee. We are participating in
the CALFED storage issues.
Mr. Miller of California. And we got the green sturgeon.
Mr. Davis. Green sturgeon. We are waiting for National
Marine Fishery Service to give us the proposed 4D rule on that.
We have notified the National Marine Fishery Service we want to
consult.
Mr. Napolitano. Go ahead, finish your thought.
Mr. Davis. We want to consult with them on that.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you much. I think we need to move
on. We have another panel, we are already at 11:30.
Any questions, please submit them in writing, and I am sure
that we will get them to you, and would request that you answer
them expeditiously, if you will.
The statement, and I did not get a chance to speak on this,
is maybe the CALFED that was created 13 years ago, the
expectations might have been a little too high. It has done
well in the ecosystem restoration, but less of a success in the
framework of the Delta. Is that because CALFED was never
intended as a regulatory program and do we need more regulation
of the activities that impact the Delta or do we seem to need
better leadership to guide us into a sustainable Delta? Those
are questions that I am going to be asking of you and would
appreciate your coming back with an answer.
For the record, all testimonies submitted are going to be
posted on my website on www.house.gov/Napolitano. So if you are
wanting to go and read some of this, you can access through the
website.
Ms. Wolk, do you have another question real quickly?
Thank you very much.
Panel, thank you very much for your presence and your
testimony. Again, I would request that you reply to us as fast
as you can once you get the questions. Thank you for taking the
time.
I would like to move on to--yes, please take your jackets
off. If you have noticed, I am fanning up here. It is warm.
I would like to call the two panels. David Nawi, attorney,
Environmental Mediation, Sacramento; Heather Cooley, Senior
Associate, Pacific Institute of Oakland; William Stelle,
Partner, K&L Gates in Seattle, Washington.
On panel 4, B.J. Miller, Consulting Engineer in Berkeley
and The Honorable Phil Larson, Fresno County Supervisor in
Fresno.
Thank you for being here.
We will proceed with Mr. Nawi. Mr. Nawi, your testimony,
please?
STATEMENT OF DAVID NAWI, ATTORNEY,
ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIATION, SACRAMENTO
Mr. Nawi. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today.
As you have recognized the issues you are dealing with
regarding the Bay-Delta are at a critical stage. The crisis is
reflected in the decline of the Delta smelt and in litigation
based on the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts that has
the potential to directly affect the operations of the Central
Valley Project and the State Water Project.
It is deeply disappointing that despite the tremendous
efforts of so many people, I was one of them up until 2001,
that has gone into the creation and implementation of the
CALFED program, and despite the enactment in 1992 of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act authored by Congressman
Miller we are now at such a critical stage.
Institutionally we are at a point, as we have been in the
past, where litigation has ousted collaboration as the dominant
means of addressing water issues in California and especially
the Bay-Delta. As a consequence, the courts are on the verge of
becoming directly involved in overseeing, if not dictating the
operations of the projects. Because the Bay-Delta is a uniquely
valuable ecological resource that at the same time serves as
the heart of the State's water supply and delivery
infrastructure, it is perhaps inevitable that the factors
affecting the Bay-Delta would be a source of conflict.
There has long been a recognition that long-term solutions
must be developed to comprehensively address the numerous and
complex factors that address the Bay-Delta and the totality of
the State's water supply and delivery system. Among other
things, a comprehensive approach must assure compliance with
the Federal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered
Species Act, water quality requirements and State water law. In
recognition of the need for a comprehensive long-term approach,
the Governor and the Legislature have established Delta Vision
to address the full array of issues to achieve a sustainable
Delta. However, any long-term solutions will take time to
develop, fund and implement and action cannot be prudently be
delayed.
In the early 1990s we were faced with a situation that has
many features in common with what we are facing today. Fish
species were in sharp decline and ESA requirements caused
unpredicted reductions in project pumping and consequent
uncertainty and cutbacks in water supply for agricultural and
municipal and industrial uses south of the Delta. Actions of
the State and Federal agencies were not coordinated and often
were at cross purposes.
To remedy this situation the leadership at very high levels
of the State and Federal Governments became actively and
intensely engaged and took a series of actions to create a
sound coordinated and collaborative approach to moving forward.
From Club FED through the 1994 Framework Agreement and the
December 1994 Bay-Delta Accord to the August 2000 CALFED record
of decision substantial and tangible progress was made toward a
less adversarial and more collaborative science-based approach
that fully involved stakeholders.
The enactment in 1992 of the CVPIA was also intended to
help ensure the health of the Delta and the species dependent
on it. Unfortunately, despite the implementation of CVPIA,
despite the benefits of the collaborative process established
by CALFED and despite the Environmental Water Account and other
achievements of CALFED, an indicator species listed by the
State and Federal Governments is now in grave peril, and once
again conflict and litigation have come to dominate Bay-Delta
issues. In the absence of a sound collaborative scientifically
based process for operating the projects in a manner that
provides needed water supply and at the same time maintains
clear compliance with statutory mandates that are unforgiving,
and deliberately so, litigation and an increased roll of the
courts is likely if not inevitable.
Courts have not been created with the intent that they
operate water projects, and they are not well-equipped to make
the scientific and biological judgments involved in assuring
consistency between project operations and the requirements of
the State and Federal ESAs. But if they find that environmental
statutes have not been complied with, they will have little
choice but to order such compliance. There is no small
potential that courts will have to make their own determination
of the actions needed for compliance.
No one wants the Delta smelt or other species dependent on
the Delta to become extinct. No one wants the massive
disruptions and hardships that drastic reductions in water
supply would cause. Critical decisions that will affect project
operations are now before the courts in the context of
adversarial litigation. The only alternative to the courts
making these decisions will be agency actions that will assure
compliance with statutory mandates and especially the mandate
of both the Federal and State ESAs to avoid jeopardy, and even
more critically from preventing species from becoming extinct.
The agencies must take effective actions to this end and
their actions must be comprehensive and must be based on
collaboration, balance and transparent and scientifically based
decision making. Based on recent history, this will occur only
if the political leadership of both California and the Federal
Government take an active role and provide strong support and
clear and unambiguous direction to the agencies to assure
statutory compliance.
That concludes my statement. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nawi follows:]
Statement of David Nawi
Madame Chair, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you very much for
providing me this opportunity to appear before you today.
As you have recognized [and heard from previous witnesses today]
the issues you are dealing with regarding the Bay-Delta are of vital
importance and are at a critical stage. Federal and state court judges
have found of violations of both the federal and California Endangered
Species Acts, and current information indicates that the federal and
state listed Delta smelt may be on the verge of extinction. Depending
on the outcome of appeals and further rulings, the courts may be in the
position of determining how the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the
State Water Project (SWP) will be operated.
I will briefly describe relevant legal provisions at issue in
current litigation and regulatory proceedings and then offer some
thoughts on the possible future course of events.
The Federal Endangered Species Act
I will begin with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). 15
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1531 et seq. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits any person
from ``taking'' a species listed as threatened or endangered. 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1538. The statute defines ``take'' to mean, among other things, to
harass, harm, wound or kill a species. Section 3(18), 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1532(18). Section 10 of the Act provides that take of a species
may be permitted if it is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity
and is authorized pursuant to an approved conservation plan, known as a
habitat conservation plan, or HCP. Of relevance to the CVP and SWP,
take may also be authorized by an incidental take statement included in
a biological opinion issued pursuant to section 7 of the Act.
Section 7(a)(1) directs all federal agencies to utilize their
authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA by carrying out
programs for the conservation of listed species. 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1536(a)(1). Section 7(a)(2) directs any federal agency proposing
to carry out an action authorized, funded or carried out by the agency
to insure that that the action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1536(a)(2).
The directive in Section 7(a)(2) to avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of a species was the basis of the seminal Supreme
Court case of TVA v. Hill (1978) 437 U.S. 153, a 1978 decision that
enjoined a federal agency from constructing a dam that would have
eradicated a tiny fish, the snail darter. Referring to the statutory
directive in Section 7(a)(2), the court wrote, ``This language admits
of no exception.'' 437 U.S. 153, 173. (Shortly after the decision in
TVA v. Hill, supra, Congress amended the ESA to allow the so called
``God Squad'' to exempt federal actions from Section 7(a)(2). Section
7(h), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1536(h). This exemption process has rarely been
used.)
Section 7 also specifies the procedure pursuant to which federal
agencies must consult with either the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
in the Department of the Interior, or the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), in the Department of Commerce, to assure that covered
actions comply with Section 7(a)(2). (Administration of the ESA is the
responsibility of the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the
Interior, depending on the species. Section 3(14), 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1532(14).) The statute provides for a biological opinion to be
issued on a finding that the agency action will not violate section
7(a)(2), i.e., not result in jeopardy or adverse modification of
critical habitat, and that sets forth the impacts of the taking,
reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the impacts, and mandatory
terms and conditions that must be complied with by the federal agency.
Section 7(d) prohibits a federal agency, after the initiation of
consultation, from making any irreversible or irretrievable commitment
of resources with respect to the action that would foreclose the
formulation or implementation of reasonable and prudent alternative
measures that would not violate section 7(a)(2). 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1536(d). Section 7(o) exempts from the take prohibition of Section
9 take that is in compliance with the terms and conditions of a
biological opinion. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1536(o). Pursuant to his provision,
biological opinions generally contain an incidental take statement that
has the effect of authorizing take.
In addition to provisions for civil and criminal penalties, the ESA
contains a provision allowing suits by citizens to enjoin violations of
the Act or implementing regulations. Section 11(g), 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1540. Courts have held that a biological opinion may be challenged
under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) on the grounds, among
others, that it is arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. 5
U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A). Bennett v. Spear (1997) 520 U.S. 154.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS issued separate biological
opinions under ESA Section 7 regarding the Bureau of Reclamation's 2004
Operating Criteria and Plan (OCAP), a document that describes the
coordinated operations of the CVP and SWP. Both biological opinions
have been challenged in court. In Natural Resources Defense Council v.
Kempthorne, E. D, Cal. No. 1:05-CV01207 OWW (TAG), Judge Oliver Wanger
issued an order on May 25 finding the 2005 FWS OCAP biological opinion
to be in violation of the APA and unlawful. The court has requested
that the parties submit briefs on the question of remedy and has
scheduled a hearing on the issue in late August. Presumably the court
will consider and rule on the manner in which the projects may operate
pending the completion of a new biological opinion, expected some time
in 2008.
A second case before Judge Wanger challenges the NMFS biological
opinion. Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations v.
Gutierrez, E.D. Cal. No C-06-0245. While the court in this case issued
a ruling in June dismissing claims under the National Environmental
Policy Act, the ESA claims have yet to be briefed or considered by the
court.
The California Endangered Species Act
I will briefly turn next to the California Endangered Species Act,
or CESA. CESA prohibits the taking of state-listed threatened or
endangered species. Cal. Fish and Game Code (``FGC'') Sec. 2080. CESA
contains provisions that allow the take of listed species through
various mechanisms.
Take is allowed if a person has obtained an incidental take permit
or incidental take statement allowing take of the species under the
federal ESA, and the incidental take permit or statement is determined
by the Director of the Department of Fish and Game to be consistent
with the relevant provisions of the Fish and Game Code. FGC
Sec. 2080.1. The Department may issue an incidental take permit if
certain criteria are met, including minimization and full mitigation of
the impacts of the authorized take. FGC Sec. 2081. Take is also allowed
if it was authorized through a plan or agreement entered into by the
Department of Fish and Game in a specified time period, a so-called
``grandfather'' provision. FGC Sec. 2181.1
A lawsuit recently decided at the trial level claimed that pumping
by the SWP was taking state-listed species (Winter Run Chinook Salmon,
Spring Run Chinook Salon and Delta smelt) without incidental take
authorization from the Department of Fish and Game and therefore in
violation of CESA. Watershed Enforcers v. Department of Water
Resources, Alameda County Superior Court No. RG06292124. In ruling for
the petitioners, the trial court rejected the claim by the DWR that a
series of five documents served to bring DWR's take of the species
within the coverage of the grandfathering provisions of section 2181.1
The court issued a judgment on April 17 of this year ordering that DWR
cease pumping within sixty days unless DWR had received authorization
from the Department of Fish and Game for the incidental take of the
three species. DWR has appealed the ruling, and it is currently stayed
pending appeal.
California Water Law
In addition to the federal and state ESAs, both projects are
subject to the regulatory authority of the Sate Water Resources Control
Board (State Board). Under the state's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
(Water Code Sec. Sec. 13000 et seq.), the State Board is charged with
adopting water quality control plans, including a plan for the Bay-
Delta, to meet the requirements of section 303 of the federal Clean
Water Act. (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S. C. Sec. 1313).
Section 303 provides the water quality control plan must meet specified
requirements and is subject to approval by the federal Environmental
Protection Agency. Water quality control plans are not self-
implementing and do not contain regulatory requirements applicable to
water rights holders, whose diversions are subject to water rights
permits issued by the State Board.
Both the state and federal projects are required to obtain and
comply with the water right permit requirements of state law. The
applicability of these requirements to the CVP was the subject of the
1978 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in California v. U.S., 438 U.S.
645, which held that under section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, 43
U.S.C. Sec. 383, a federal project must comply with state requirements
that are not inconsistent with clear congressional directives regarding
the project.
The State Board has broad authority and responsibility in
administering water rights permits. If the Board finds a violation or
threatened violation of any term or condition of a permit, it may issue
a cease and desist order. Water Code Sec. 1831. The Board also has the
authority, and in fact is directed, to take action to prevent waste,
unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of use of water. Water Code
Sec. 275; Cal. Constitution Article X, section 2. Water rights permits
are also subject to review and modification pursuant to the public
trust doctrine. National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, (1983) 33
Cal.3d 419.
The State Board held a workshop on June 19 to receive
recommendations on short term actions it should consider to improve
fishery resources, including actions to slow or stop the decline of
Delta smelt, improve water quality conditions, and reduce impacts
resulting from water diversion and use in the Bay-Delta. The workshop
notice stated that the Board sought formation on, among other things,
reducing diversions, for export or in-Delta use, from Delta channels;
requiring releases from upstream storage; requiring waste dischargers
to provide monitoring reports; and requiring measures to ease potential
dry year conditions to ensure reasonable protection of water quality
and beneficial uses in the Delta. Following the workshop, the State
Board has not indicated what actions it is considering.
Looking to the Future
What can we say about the future? For the long term, it is apparent
that solutions must be developed that comprehensively address the
numerous and complex factors that affect the Bay-Delta and the totality
of the state's water supply and delivery system. Among other things, a
comprehensive approach must assure compliance with the statutory
regimes discussed above--the federal ESA, the California ESA, and state
water law, including provisions to comply with the federal Clean Water
Act. In recognition of the need for a comprehensive long-term approach,
California's Delta Vision has been established to address the full
array of issues to achieve a sustainable Delta.
However, any long-term solutions will take time to develop, fund,
and implement, and at least until there is a long-term solution,
litigation almost certainly will continue to be a way of life for water
issues in California and especially the Bay-Delta. The Bay-Delta is a
uniquely valuable ecological resource that at the same time serves as
the heart of the state's water supply and delivery infrastructure.
These two functions seem inevitably to lead to conflict.
In the early 1990s we were faced with a situation that had many
features in common with what we are facing today. Fish species were in
sharp decline, and Endangered Species Act requirements caused
unpredicted shut-downs of the project pumps and consequent uncertainty
and cut-backs in water supply for agricultural and municipal and
industrial water users south of the Delta. Actions of state and federal
agencies were not coordinated and often in conflict.
To remedy this situation, the leadership of state and federal
governments became actively engaged and took a series of actions to
create a sound, coordinated and collaborative approach to moving
forward. From Club FED (the Federal Ecosystem Directorate), through the
July 1994 Framework Agreement, and the December 1994 Bay-Delta Accord
(``Principles for Agreement on Bay-Delta Standards between the State of
California and the Federal Government''), to the August 2000 Record of
Decision (ROD) on the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, substantial and
tangible progress was made toward a less adversarial and more
collaborative science based approach that fully involved stakeholders.
The enactment in 1992 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act,
Pub. L. No. 102-575, Title XXXIV (CVPIA), was also intended to help
assure the health of the Delta and the species dependent on it.
Unfortunately, despite implementation of the CVPIA, the benefits of
the collaborative process CALFED created, and the Environmental Water
Account other substantive achievements of CALFED, an indicator species
is in grave peril, and once again conflict and litigation have come to
dominate Bay-Delta issues. In the absence of a sound, collaborative,
scientifically based process for operating the projects in a manner
that provides needed water supply and at the same time maintains clear
compliance with unforgiving statutory mandates, litigation and an
increased role of the courts is likely if not inevitable.
Courts have not been created with the intent that they operate
water projects, and they are not well-equipped to make the scientific
and biological judgments involved in assuring consistency between
project operations and the requirements of the state and federal ESAs.
But if they find that environmental statutes have not been complied
with, they will have little choice but to order such compliance, and
there is no small potential that courts will have to make their own
determinations of the actions needed for compliance.
No one wants the Delta smelt or other species dependent on the
Delta to go extinct. Avoidance of species extinction is the most
essential goal of the state and federal ESAs, the primary purpose for
which they were enacted. And no one wants to see the massive
disruptions that drastic reductions in water supply would cause.
Critical decisions regarding these goals are now being made by the
courts in the context of adversarial litigation. The only alternative
to the current situation will be coordinated and effective agency
action to comply with statutory mandates based on collaboration,
balance, and transparent and scientifically based decision-making. And
this will occur only as a result of strong, positive and far-sighted
political leadership of both California and the federal government.
Thank you again for this to opportunity to appear before you. I
would be glad to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
We now have Heather Cooley.
Ms. Cooley?
STATEMENT OF HEATHER COOLEY, SENIOR ASSOCIATE,
PACIFIC INSTITUTE OF OAKLAND
Ms. Cooley. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
I have submitted more detailed comments and will touch on the
major points here.
We have heard much today about the many problems plaguing
the Delta. While there is no single solution, reducing water
exports from the Delta must be a fundamental element of any
sustainable water management strategy. We know that the
physical barriers and the huge pumps that move water south
directly kill fish and also radically alter flows in the Delta,
thus altering water quality, water temperatures and access to
habitat vital for fish survival. Yet the economic and political
pressures to maintain water exports remains high. In part,
because water planners assume that economic and population
growth will lead to increases in water demands and that to meet
this demand we must build more infrastructure to extract more
water.
These assumptions are false. I have submitted--I would like
to draw your attention to Figure 1 that I submitted. A total
water use in California is less than it was in 1975. Today is
less than it was. I repeat that. Many people do not believe
that, but despite population growth and growth in the economy,
water use is less today.
Forty years ago we used nearly 2,000 gallons of water per
person per day. We are now down to half that amount. This has
been achieved in part by transitions in our economy from a
manufacturing base to a more service oriented sector. But it
has also been driven by conservation and efficiency
improvements.
In many of the discussions today, I have heard conservation
and efficiency come up. It is quite heartening. However, we
have made improvements in the past, current water use still
remains wasteful.
Studies indicate that installing water efficient appliances
and figures could reduce urban use by an additional 30 percent.
These numbers have also been adopted by the State,
incidentally.
Savings from the agricultural sector are also possible.
Inefficient sprinkler and flood systems are still used on 65
percent of the crops irrigated in California. Given that
agriculture consumes 80 percent of the water in California,
even small improvements can yield big savings.
In addition, many conservation and efficiency studies we
have done at the Pacific Institute indicate that conservation
and efficiency improvements can help meet demands for decades
to come. Installing efficient technologies, including drip
irrigation, can reduce total demand by 20 percent with a
growing population and economy by the year 2030.
In addition to conservation and efficiency a number of
other options are available to augment existing local supplies,
including recycling and reuse, better management of our ground
water resources and desalination.
Today's Delta crisis is unfortunate, but it provides an
opportunity to work toward a more sustainable path that
includes more efficient use of our existing resources. Waiting
another five to ten years will make solving these challenges
more difficult and expensive.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cooley follows:]
Statement of Heather S. Cooley, Senior Research Associate at the
Pacific Institute, Oakland, California
Summary
Scientific evidence indicates that the health of the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta is unstable and rapidly deteriorating. While there is no
single solution to the problems that plague the Delta, reducing Delta
water exports must be a fundamental element of any sustainable
management strategy. The economic and political pressures to maintain
water exports to urban and agricultural users remain high, and exports
from the Delta continue to increase. Yet research shows that our
current water use is wasteful. Conservation and efficiency improvements
can provide substantial water savings and allow us to reduce Delta
exports. Furthermore, local resources, such as recycled water and more
effective groundwater management, can provide a reliable new supply of
water. It is critical that we move toward a more sustainable management
strategy today; waiting another five to ten years will make solving
California's complex water challenges more difficult and expensive.
Current State of the Delta
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta provides a number of key services
to California, including drinking water for 18 million Californians,
water for agricultural uses, recreational opportunities, and habitat
for 500 species. The Delta also serves as a hub for electricity and gas
transmission and numerous transportation lines.
Scientific evidence indicates that the health of the Delta is
unstable and rapidly deteriorating. The recent collapse of the Delta
smelt is of particular concern because it is an indicator species whose
survival is a reflection of ecosystem health. Instead of pursuing an
effective management strategy, state and federal agencies apply a Band-
Aid and simply wait for the next crisis. This pattern of crisis
management is proving to be both expensive and largely ineffective.
While there is no single solution to the problems that plague the
Delta, reducing Delta water exports must be a fundamental element of
any sustainable management strategy. Scientific evidence shows a clear
relationship between increasing water exports from the Delta and its
declining ecosystem health. We know that the physical barriers and huge
pumps in the delta that permit massive exports of water to farms and
cities in the south kill fish directly and radically change flows in
the delta, affecting water quality, water temperatures, and access to
habitat vital for fish survival.
The economic and political pressures to maintain water exports to
urban and agricultural users remain high, and exports from the Delta
continue to increase. In addition, some members of the water community
are calling for increased surface storage and conveyance to meet
growth-related needs and address potential impacts associated with
climate change. This approach is merely a continuation of traditional
water planning, which has brought tremendous benefits to California in
the past, but has also wrought unanticipated social, economic, and
environmental costs, as evidenced by the current status of the Delta.
Strategic planning and management can help California reduce Delta
withdrawals without the need for additional surface storage.
Traditional Water Planning Assumptions are Incorrect
Water planning, as practiced in the 20th century, is based on two
assumptions:
First, that the economy, population, and water use are
inextricably linked such that economic and population growth will
result in increases in water demand and any reductions in water
availability will hurt the economy.
Second, that meeting the needs of a growing population
requires building more physical infrastructure to take water from
rivers, lakes, and groundwater aquifers.
Today, these assumptions are outdated and inaccurate.
Over the past 30 years, the economy and population have grown while
water use has declined. Figure 1 shows California's gross state
product, population, and water use between 1975 and 2001. Total water
use in California was less in 2001 than it was in 1975, yet population
increased by 60% and gross state product increased 2.5 times. In 1975,
we produced only $3 in goods and services for every 100 gallons of
water we used. Today we produce $9 for every 100 gallons used, in
constant dollars (Figure 2). Forty years ago we used nearly 2000
gallons for every person in the state every day. Today we use half that
amount (Figure 3). We can break, and in fact, have broken the link
between growing water use, population, and economic well-being. This
has been achieved in part by improvements in conservation and
efficiency, as well as the changing nature of our economy.
Conservation and Efficiency Can Meet California's Water Needs
Although Californians have improved efficiency of our water use
over the past 25 years, current water use is still wasteful. The
Pacific Institute's 2003 report, ``Waste Not, Want Not,'' provides a
comprehensive statewide analysis of the conservation potential in
California's urban sector. This study finds that existing, cost-
effective technologies and policies can reduce current (2000) urban
demand by more than 30 percent.
Substantial savings are available from the agricultural sector as
well. More than 65% of all crops in California are still grown with
inefficient flood or sprinkler irrigation systems. Studies have shown
that installing efficient irrigation technologies, such as drip system,
can reduce water use and increase agricultural yield. Given that the
agricultural sector uses 80% of California's water supply, or about 34
million acre-feet per year, even small efficiency improvements can
produce tremendous water savings. Additional water savings are possible
if farmers continue the trend of moving away from water-intensive crops
like cotton, pasture, rice, and alfalfa in favor of more valuable low-
water crops like vegetables, fruits, and nuts.
Conservation and efficiency can meet our needs for decades to come.
In the 2005 report ``California Water 2030: An Efficient Future,'' the
Pacific Institute presents a vision of California in which improvements
in water-use efficiency are considered the primary tools for reducing
human pressures on the state's water resources. This study finds that
California's total water use in 2030 could be 20% below current levels
while still satisfying a growing population, maintaining a healthy
agricultural sector, and supporting a vibrant economy. Some of the
water saved could be rededicated to agricultural production elsewhere
in the state; support new urban and industrial activities and jobs; and
restore California's stressed rivers, groundwater aquifers, and
wetlands--including the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Research shows that significant water savings can be found for much
less than the cost of building new supply or expanding our current
supply. These savings are real and represent a tremendous amount of
untapped potential in California's urban and agricultural sectors. This
suggests that improved efficiency and conservation are the cheapest,
easiest, and least destructive ways to meet California's water supply
needs.
Water conservation and efficiency has the additional benefit of
producing significant energy savings. Capturing, treating,
transporting, and using water require a tremendous amount of energy.
This is particularly true in California, where water supplies and
population centers are separated by hundreds of miles, requiring a
tremendous amount of infrastructure to move water from where it is
available to where it is needed. As a result, California's water-
related energy consumption accounts for roughly 19% of all electricity
used in California, approximately 32% of all natural gas, and 88
million gallons of diesel fuel. Thus improving statewide water
conservation and efficiency can achieve substantial energy savings.
Additional Water Supply Options Are Available
In addition to conservation, communities throughout California have
a number of other options available to augment their existing supplies.
These options include:
Recycled Water: Reclamation can augment water supplies, as well as
provide a means to treat wastewater and reduce environmental discharge.
Water agencies in California currently produce about 500,000 acre-feet
of recycled water, the majority of which is used for agricultural and
landscape irrigation. Expanding current efforts could produce a
substantial amount of new water. For example, the Irvine Ranch Water
District, in Southern California, meets nearly 20% of its total demand
with recycled water. A new residential community in Ventura County,
California has decided to use recycled water for all of its landscaping
needs at an estimated cost of $200 per acre-foot, far below the cost of
new surface storage. This suggests that significant opportunities exist
to increase recycling and reuse throughout the state, effectively
lessening the need to identify and develop new water supplies.
Conjunctive Use: Surface water and groundwater are hydrologically
linked. Conjunctive use takes advantage of this connection by storing
excess surface water, including stormwater, in groundwater basins for
later use. This option can improve supply reliability and flexibility,
reduce land subsidence, and minimize the impacts of urban runoff on
local steams and the marine environment.
Desalination: Appropriately designed and sustainably managed
desalination (both seawater and groundwater) can provide a reliable,
high-quality water supply that is independent of weather conditions.
Conclusions
Today's Delta crisis is unfortunate, but it provides an opportunity
to work towards a new path. Smart management and efficiency
improvements can enable us to meet current and future water needs more
sustainably. Waiting another five to ten years will make solving
California's complex water challenges more difficult and expensive.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.018
______
Mr. Napolitano. Thank you, ma'am.
And moving on to our next witness Mr. Stelle.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM STELLE, PARTNER,
K&L GATES, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Mr. Stelle. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is William Stelle. I am here representing
the California Resources Agency.
I have a written testimony which I have submitted to you,
and I will summarize it.
Madam Chairwoman, you run a tight ship. That's is well
understood.
By way of a little background, I have been either
privileged or cursed to be involved in Endangered Species Act
issues for over two decades, plus both on the legislative side
and on the Executive Branch side.
I was the original Administrator for the National Marine
Fishery Service during the Clinton Administration up in the
Pacific Northwest where I did all the salmonic listings under
the Endangered Species Act. Prior to that I worked for
Secretary Babbitt to do the Northwest Forest Plan that was
itself quite difficult. Before that I worked as Chief Counsel
of the Fish and Wildlife Subcommittee for then Congressman
Gerry Studds. So I come at this with a lot of cherished scar
tissue.
Much of what I have heard today is very familiar to me.
Some of it is unique to the Delta, some of it is not.
Let me describe for you, before getting into the heart of
my testimony which is the Bay-Delta Conservation planning
effort that is underway now. Let me just describe to you some
of the complexity of what is going on. Because there is a lot
going on.
We have litigation and we have the Federal and State water
operators and fish and game agencies in Federal court over the
course of this summer talking about what to do over the next
period of time and how to operate over the next period of time
to try to mitigate some of the risks in the system as it is
currently configured. That is the inner circle.
Next concentric circle out is an anticipated completion of
the consultation process that Ryan and John described to you
earlier in response to the invalidation of the earlier
biological opinions by the Federal court. That should be
completed by sometime Spring 2008. That should lay out our sort
of interim strategy of, say, three to five years. Again, how to
operate, what kind of an early initiatives can be put into
place.
The next concentric circle is the Bay-Delta Conservation
Planning effort, of which I am affiliated. It is intended to
answer the longer term question of what biologically should we
be doing to provide for or contribute to the conservation of
listed species and their habitats in the Bay-Delta region in
order to secure legally defensible and scientifically sound
incidental take authorizations for the long term. That is what
California Bay-Delta effort is all about.
The fourth concentric circle out is the Delta Visioning
process. It is absolutely part and parcel, of which the
conservation planning effort must be a part. But that is
intended to articulate a longer term social vision for what,
you, the State of California and your people should be doing
with the Bay-Delta over the long term.
So, again, it is quite difficult to understand how these
individual pieces of the puzzle fit together. It is vital that
they fit together. They have to be mutually reenforcing because
if they will not, they will fail.
Turning now toward the issue of Bay-Delta conservation
planning. What is it and what is different now, to get to
Congressman Costa's question, between 1995 and 2000?
Fundamentally in my view what is different now is the risk
meters have been turned up. The biological risk meters, the
political risk meters, the legal risk meters and the economic
risk meters for everybody are way up there. They are kind of in
an untenable circumstance. Because of that, there is a
convergence of perspective of all of the principal parties that
it is not working and we need to do something different. That
convergence has led the parties, a broad coalition of water
users, State and Federal water agencies, State and Federal fish
and game agencies and the NGO community to enter into a
planning agreement last fall that said we are going to try to
figure out to do something better over the long term in a way
that is scientifically sound and legally defensible because if
it is neither, it is a waste of time. That is the California
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan led by the Resources Agency and a
Steering Committee comprised of all of those different
communities. Again, they are not there because they love each
other. They are there because there is mutual shared
substantial risk. In the face of that risk, they have a choice.
They can choose to develop a plan that will be defensible and
that they will support or they can choose not to. What will
they choose? I do not know. We will see.
But we have a very aggressive planning schedule. This
Subcommittee will be able to see, and so will everybody else,
how they make those choices through the course of 2008. Because
our objective is to complete a legally defensible conservation
plan under both Federal and State laws by the end of 2009. That
will be the longer term reliable plan.
One quick observation, and that is----
Mrs. Napolitano. You are 50 seconds over, sir.
Mr. Stelle. We need to be comprehensive to be successful.
To be comprehensive, we need the Feds and we need solution
people to come to that table, not problem people. That covers
the field of sector.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stelle follows:]
Statement of William W. Stelle, Jr., Assistant to the Chairwoman,
Bay Delta Conservation Plan Steering Committee
Good morning, Madame Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee. I
want to thank you for being afforded an opportunity to appear before
you today on behalf of the California Resources Agency on this
important topic.
Before I begin my testimony, I would like to also express the
appreciation of California Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman for
the time you have afforded us. Both he and the Resources Undersecretary
Karen Scarborough regret that scheduling conflicts prohibited their
ability to appear here today.
My comments will summarize the current Resources Agency efforts and
those of other participants to develop a long-term, sustainable
conservation plan for California's Bay Delta. We believe that this kind
of effort, if successful, will hold substantial long-term benefits from
both an ecological and water supply perspective. I hope today to not
only explain the basis for this fundamental conclusion, but to
encourage the support of this Subcommittee in helping us succeed.
A good and instructive starting point is today. You have heard this
morning of the deepening problems associated with current approaches to
Delta conservation and restoration and of the fisheries and other
species which are Delta dependent. These problems are by no means new,
and the many participants in the Delta have been wrestling with them
for decades in many different forms and phases, spanning a full
spectrum from consensus-based approaches to hard-ball litigation.
Despite these good efforts and well-meaning intentions, we are not
succeeding, and the risks of catastrophic failure from a biological,
water supply and economic perspective are increasing. Put simply, the
Delta is in crisis.
This view is shared by a wide variety of interests, and it is
precisely that confluence, of a Delta in crisis, which has led the
parties to take a fresh start, searching for a new way, even amid the
tumult of the day-to-day activities.
Perhaps a thorough and authoritative way to understand the context
is to refer you and the Subcommittee members to the report of the
California Public Policy Institute entitled ``Envisioning Futures for
the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta'', which was released in February of
this year. It may be found at www.ppic.org. It is an elegant analysis
of how the current model of how the Delta operates is not working, and
how we all might envision a new future that embraces an altogether
different approach. Its message is quite straightforward: we can
capture success only if we are bold enough to think big and think
differently: the ingredients for success do not lie in merely
incremental turns in the knobs of the current system.
On October 6, 2006, after several months of deliberation, a broad
Delta constituency came together and entered into a planning agreement
to develop a roadmap to that new future. Entitled ``Planning Agreement
regarding the Bay Delta Conservation Plan'', it is signed by state and
federal water and fishery agencies; the major water suppliers for
agricultural and municipal interests, and a wide array of conservation
organizations--in short, all the interests that have been dueling about
the Delta for decades.
I will submit to the Subcommittee this Planning Agreement since it
is the best and most concise statement of what the Bay Delta
Conservation Plan is all about. The Agreement describes the intentions
of the parties to develop a conservation plan over the next three
years. It is intended to serve as a scientifically sound and legally
defensible strategy for the ecological restoration of the Bay Delta and
it will provide for the long-term conservation of at risk species and
their habitats. It is also intended, from a legal perspective, to lead
to the issuance of incidental take authorizations for listed species
associated with the water supply, habitat restoration and other
activities covered by the plan under the Federal and state engendered
species statutes. Thus, it is intended to answer the question of what
we need to do to address the challenge of the Delta's biological needs.
More broadly framed, it is intended by the parties to serve as a
reliable strategy to get us from the turmoil of the present to a more
scientifically robust future that will provide a far higher degree of
reliability and stability for both biological and water supply
objectives.
There are several attributes of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan
that deserve mention. First, it is a voluntary, collaborative effort
among an impressive breadth of Delta players, reflecting a common
vision noted above. Second, it is extremely open and transparent, with
all of the materials and meetings open and available for all to review,
apprise, and critique. Third, it will be informed by an independent
scientific panel that is, as we speak, being convened to provide
independent scientific advice to the parties on the plan and its
components.
Organizationally, it is led by a Steering Committee in which all of
the plan participants are represented. The Steering Committee is
chaired by California Resources Undersecretary Karen Scarborough. The
group meets regularly and works by consensus.
The Steering Committee, in turn, has commissioned several
workgroups that carry out the day to day tasks for the planning effort
and forward their work products to the Steering Committee for approval.
The planning process envisioned by the Steering Committee entailed
a phased, tiered approach. Through the course of 2007 will are
examining a wide range of conservation strategy options focused around
alternative water conveyance designs since the choice of which
conveyance option to pursue is so central to the overall conservation
strategy. The Steering Committee is currently winnowing down those
options from an initial ten to four, and through the summer and fall it
will further narrow the field. In the late fall of this year, the
Committee intends to select one or two conveyance options to pursue in
far greater detail in the planning process itself. The idea will be to
use these options as a centerpiece around which a broader, more
comprehensive conservation strategy for the Delta will be constructed.
It will be a strategy that will embrace all of the main limiting
factors for restoring the ecological productivity of the Delta.
The Steering Committee anticipates that this broader conservation
strategy will and must address a number of fundamentals to be
successful: water conveyance strategies; habitat protection and
restoration strategies; water management and water quality strategies;
invasive species strategies; strategies to address toxic stressors in
the system, and very importantly, disciplined science and adaptive
management strategies to enable us to stay smart and nimble as we
learn.
The schedule is both ambitious and essential because we have an
unacceptable status quo. By years end the Steering Committee will have
winnowed down the initial choices of conveyance options to at most two.
It will then devote 2008 to the construction of the components of a
broader conservation strategy around these one or two options that will
then constitute its proposed plan. That plan, in turn, will be
submitted to state and federal fishery agencies and other relevant
authorities for their approval. As part of that approval process, it
will be analyzed under both state and federal environmental statutes
over the course of 2008 and 2009 to evaluate its effect and to provide
open and continual opportunities for broad public review and
participation. It will also undergo a focused evaluation of its ability
to contribute to the conservation of listed species under federal and
state endangered species acts. The Steering Committee intends that this
entire planning process will result in a scientifically sound and
legally defensible plan for the Delta by the end of 2009, leading
immediately to aggressive implementation.
The Steering Committee is comprised of people who are experienced
and sophisticated. They undertake this effort well informed about its
challenges and risks, but also disciplined by the turmoil which
abounds. Yes, this is a tall order, but this path may well be the best
of several roads the Delta could travel. Fundamentally, the Bay Delta
Conservation Plan represents a collective judgment of the parties to
seek a new way out of our current crisis, and to fashion that new way
to resolve Delta issues in an affirmative manner.
Do the parties have the enormous discipline to stay focused and on
track? Time will tell. The State of California is itself deeply
committed to the success of this effort, believing a Delta in crisis is
simply not acceptable from an ecological, water supply, and economic
perspective.
In closing, I would like to offer several observations to the
Subcommittee.
The parties recognize that we have a collective problem and
avoidance is not a winning strategy. But this is also very hard.
We need the federal government to help. We need the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service in particular, to
dedicate their best and brightest people to this effort. If it is
business as usual at the usual pace, we will not succeed. We must be
comprehensive to be successful, and to be comprehensive we must have
firm, active and reliable federal participation.
We need experienced agency people who recognize and understand the
problems and figure out how to solve them. We need people to have a
sober assessment of what the real issues are and how to deal with them.
We need solution people.
We need a focus on the Delta and solutions, and not avoid hard
choices. We need each other; we need to work together for the Bay Delta
Conservation Plan to work.
Fundamentally, we need trust. This is the most important criterion
for success. Anything that this Subcommittee can do to improve the
prospects that we have with these essential ingredients would be most
welcome and encouraged. These difficult decisions are not made in a
random way, but rather with an iron will to succeed.
That concludes my testimony. I again appreciate the privilege of
appearing here this morning, and I welcome your questions.
Attachment: BDCP Planning Agreement
[NOTE: The attachment, ``Planning Agreement regarding the Bay Delta
Conservation Plan,'' dated October 6, 2006, has been retained in the
Committee's official files.]
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Miller?
STATEMENT OF B.J. MILLER, CONSULTING ENGINEER, SAN LUIS AND
DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Miller. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, my name
is B.J. Miller. I am a consulting engineer. I am here today on
behalf of the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, which
is an organization of about 30 public agencies that export
water from the Delta. It is a Federal pumping plant. Includes
the Westlands Water District and the Santa Clara Valley Water
District that serves much of Silicon Valley.
I have a written testimony I have submitted and I will just
briefly summarize that.
I want to direct your attention first to the third page
that shows a graph abundance. I will be focusing on Delta
smelt, and I want to point out a couple of things about this
graph.
First, I want to point out the decline. This is the most
official abundance index. It is sub-adults just before they
migrate upstream to spawn in the winter. There are a number of
other indexes of abundance, but this is the most official one.
You can see it reached an all-time low in 2005 and in 2006
stayed there at the very low level. So one thing to note about
the graph is the decline.
The second thing to note is that since 1996 the average
abundance of Delta smelt has changed about 60 percent a year up
or, unfortunately in recent years, down. So if we are looking
for something that affects Delta smelt, we need to look for
something that is changing at about 60 percent a year that is
capable of causing that sort of effect.
This is a data rich estuary as estuaries go. We have a lot
of data on everything. If somebody comes to you and says A
affects B, I am sure of it, they should be able to produce some
sort of analysis that shows a relationship between A and B.
In this case, A is exports and B is Delta smelt abundance.
A lot of people are so sure about that that we are spending $50
to $100 million a year based on the assumption that exports is
the key to Delta smelt. The data do not support that
assumption.
The most definitive analysis of this was done by Dr. Brian
Manley, the author of seven books, and one of the world's
foremost statistical ecologists. I will read what Brian Manley
said. ``I can sum up my conclusions from the analysis I have
done over the past few years by saying that so far it appears
that river flows and exports cannot account for most of the
downward trend in Delta smelt numbers in recent years. Some
other change to the system seems to have happened in about 1999
that caused the decline.''
That is a very important analysis because Manley found an
effect. If he had not found an effect, you could conclude that
he had not done the right analysis. But he found an effect. It
was statistically significant. It was just so small that he
concluded that in another email that he sent on this, he
concluded it was wiggles on the trend line. Something else is
dominating Delta smelt abundance.
I was concerned that Manley and the others, he did that for
the pelagic organism design studies that there was a mistake in
that analysis that Delta smelt migrate upstream to spawn and
some years they migrate close to the pumps and some years they
do not. So maybe there was only an effect in the years when
they were close to the pumps. So I did an analysis that Manley
confirmed only looking at it for export effects in years they
were close to the pumps, we found nothing.
So I am pretty sure that exports are not the cause of the
Delta smelt decline. Managing exports is not the way to save
the Delta smelt, or to prevent their extinction for that
matter.
What is causing the decline in Delta smelt? What happened
to them? Well, we listened to what the biologists said. They
had autopsied some smelt and found that they were severely food
limited in the summer and possibly in the spring. So my
associates and I set about with this wealth of data to see if
we could find some connection between food availability and
Delta smelt abundance. Delta smelt eat zooplankton, which are
little small floating animals about three levels up on the food
chain. Almost all of the ones they eat, incidentally, are
aliens, not natives that were probably introduced from ballast
water of ships that have sailed up into the Delta.
We found two excellent relationships, one in the summer,
one in the spring. The second to last page shows a graph that--
I did this graph--and I have to say I think it is remarkable,
modest as I usually am.
The only Delta smelt abundance number on this graph is the
water trial abundance of 1996. All of the rest of these values
on the gray line were predicted using only two factors. Where
the smelt were, not how many, where they were in their habitat
and what the density of their favorite food was in that habitat
in late April. With those two things alone, you predict Delta
smelt abundance. You predict the decline that we have seen.
So my conclusion from the data, actually, is that this is
not exports. This is all about food.
Now what has caused the food decline? That is another
mystery.
Mrs. Napolitano. Wrap it up.
Mr. Miller. I will wrap it up.
As to how this could possibly have happened, I mean this
hearing is based on the assumption that the exports are
controlling Delta smelt abundance, I will just point on the
report on the second to last page from the review panel of
outside exports. ``This program relies too heavily on local
perspectives and resources for problem analyses, research and
solutions. This can give rise to a culture of common
assumptions that impeded alternative possibilities.''
Well, if that is not a story of the Delta smelt problem in
the Delta, I do not know what is.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Statement of William J. (BJ) Miller, Ph.D., Consulting Engineer,
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority
Introduction
Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is BJ
Miller, and I am a consulting engineer working on behalf of the San
Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today regarding ``Extinction is not a Sustainable Water Policy:
The Bay-Delta Crisis and the Implications for California Water
Management.''
For the past 26 years I have been a consulting engineer focusing on
California water problems. Prior to becoming a consulting engineer I
was a member of the California State Water Resources Control Board from
1978 to 1980. For many years I have taught a one-day course, ``The
Management of Water in California'' for the UC Berkeley Engineering
Extension and elsewhere on request. My primary focus has been on the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta because of its importance for California
water management.
Since approximately 1992 I have worked primarily on issues related
Delta fisheries because of the relationship between actions to protect
Delta fisheries and operations of the State Water Project (``SWP'') and
Central Valley Project (``CVP'') operations. With my colleague, Thomas
Mongan, Ph.D., a licensed civil engineer with a doctorate in physics,
and others, including Bryan Manly, Ph.D., one of the world's foremost
statistical ecologists, I have conducted numerous analyses of factors
affecting fish in the Delta. Most of our efforts have focused on delta
smelt, the small, native fish listed as threatened under both the State
and Federal endangered species acts.
Summary
To date, virtually the entire effort to recover the delta smelt has
been focused on operations of the SWP and CVP. However, there are no
valid statistical analyses showing that exports from the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta or entrainment of delta smelt at the export pumps have
important effects on abundance trends of delta smelt. Several analyses
show a strong relationship between the decline in delta smelt abundance
and significant declines in the densities of the zooplankton (small
floating animals) delta smelt prey upon, especially in spring. Reliable
analyses indicate routine management of Delta exports to minimize
entrainment (``take'') of delta smelt is a futile attempt to prevent
extinction or achieve recovery. Certainly exports should be managed to
prevent the rare, unusually high incidences of take. Beyond that, the
key to saving the delta smelt is to find out what affects their food
supply and, if possible, do something to address those limiting
factors.
Decline of the delta smelt
As you know, the abundance of delta smelt has declined sharply in
recent years. The graph below shows the key measurement of smelt
abundance, the Fall Midwater Trawl index. This index measures abundance
of sub-adult delta smelt. I compared this index to the population index
for spawning adults in winter, derived from the highly efficient Kodiak
trawls that began in 2002. There is an excellent relationship,
indicating the FMWT index is not only useful because of its length of
record (since 1967), but also because it appears to be a good indicator
of the following winter's spawning adult population.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.019
The hearing today is largely because of this graph, so I would like
to point out a couple of things about it. First, there has obviously
been a decline in delta smelt abundance. It began in 1999 and was
especially sharp after 2001. The 2005 index was the lowest of record.
The 2006 index was higher, but still very low. Second, note the
variation from year to year. Since 1996, the average change (up or
down) in this index has been about 60%. So, if we want to figure out
what happened to delta smelt, and possibly a few other pelagic fish
whose abundance has declined, we should look for factors capable of
causing a change of about 60% per year. We should also look for factors
that changed at about the same time as delta smelt abundance did, that
is, factors that changed for the good from 1996 to 1999, and for the
bad thereafter.
It is possible that factors with subtle, long-term effects control
delta smelt abundance in complicated ways. However, most (about 95%)
delta smelt live for only one year. For a fish with a one-year life
cycle, the most likely factors controlling abundance are those with
important effects each year.
This is a data-rich estuary, so we have long-term data on many
factors that might affect delta smelt. For example, we have long-term
data on exports from the southern Delta, daily flows into and through
the Delta, salvage of delta smelt at the export pumps, distribution and
abundance of delta smelt throughout their one-year life, densities and
location of delta smelt prey, and turbidity, salinity, and temperature
of Delta water. We also have data on the prey found in the guts of
delta smelt. We have long-term data on the zooplankton (small floating
animals) on which delta smelt feed, as well as on the phytoplankton
(small, floating plants) consumed by zooplankton. That is not to say we
have all the data we need, but as estuaries and fish problems go, we
have lots of data.
Searching for export effects
Numerous analysts have worked for years to determine if there is a
relationship between delta smelt abundance and operation of the SWP and
CVP export facilities. I'll summarize the analyses most relevant to the
delta smelt question.
Dr. Bryan Manly (independent consultant) and Dr. Mike
Chotkowski (Bureau of Reclamation) searched for river flow and export
effects on delta smelt abundance. They found a statistically
significant relationship between rates of exports and delta smelt
abundance, but they concluded that this relationship could account for
a very small percentage in the variation of smelt abundance. In other
words, the effect was small and unimportant relative to the trend in
delta smelt abundance. Dr. Manly summarized the relationship as
follows: ``I can sum up my conclusions from the analyses that I have
done over the past few years by saying that so far it appears that
river flows and exports cannot account for most of the downward trend
in delta smelt numbers in recent years. Some other change to the system
seems to have happened in about 1999 to cause the decline. What is
therefore needed now is further work to better understand the system
and to identify any important variables that are not currently being
considered to account for the decline.'' This finding is important for
two reasons: First, an effect of exports was found. This indicates the
analyses were capable of finding such effects. If no effect at all were
found, one might wonder if the proper analysis had been carried out. We
would expect some effect of exports. After all, delta smelt are
entrained at the export pumps, and because of the fragile nature of
this fish (unlike salmon and striped bass), few of those salvaged can
be returned to the Delta. Second, the effects turn out to be
unimportant relative to the changes in abundance of delta smelt. Manly
characterizes the effects as one percent or so per year.
Subsequently, I analyzed whether export effects were not
found because exports only affect delta smelt abundance in some years
but not in others. If this were the case, analyzing data from all years
could obscure effects only occurring in some years. Delta smelt spend
most of the year near the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Rivers, 30+ river miles from the export pumps. Smelt migrate upstream
to spawn in winter. Sometimes a significant fraction of their
population migrates toward the export pumps, and sometimes they do not.
So, I searched for export effects only in years when delta smelt were
closer to the export pumps. I (and Manly) found no such effects.
Pelagic Organism Decline (POD) studies noted that salvage
of delta smelt was high in the years of the decline. They assumed this
coincidence (high salvage, low delta smelt abundance) indicated
entrainment of delta smelt at the export pumps could be an important
cause of declining delta smelt abundance. However, finally, POD
analysts checked for statistically significant relationships between
any measure of salvage and the subsequent FMWT. They found no
statistically significant effect. I conclude from this that high
salvage and low delta smelt abundance were coincidences, rather than
indication of a cause and effect relationship. This conclusion is
reinforced by the importance of food limitation to delta smelt
abundance, described below.
Drs. Wim Kimmerer (SF State University), Pete Smith
(USGS), Mongan and I all independently estimated the percent of the
total population of delta smelt entrained each year at the export
pumps. All of us estimated percentages in the range of 30-40% in one
year. However, no one has been able to find statistically significant
relationships between annual estimates of percent entrainment and
subsequent FMWT index or annual changes in the index. These analyses
suggest two conclusions: First, the estimates may not be correct. There
are uncertainties inherent in each of them. Second, because they might
be correct, it would be prudent to assume high entrainment events,
although unusual, can occur and should be prevented.
Several representatives from environmental organizations
and state and federal resource agencies have presented analyses
purporting to show a relationship between exports and the subsequent
FMWT abundance index. All of these correlations are spurious for the
same reason: They do not consider the important effect of ``regime
changes'' affecting delta smelt abundance. These correlations result
from stretching the analysis over all years, both before and after the
delta smelt decline that occurred in 1981. Such analyses violate a
fundamental assumption in regression analysis. The fundamental
assumption necessary to draw reliable conclusions from regression
analyses is that the models considered include all of the important
variables in the system, with no important hidden variables. If there
is a change in the system at some point in time due to unknown causes,
the effects of known variables can be analyzed either by fitting
separate models before and after the change, or by including terms for
changes in the mean level of the response variable and changes in
regression coefficients. Clear change points can be detected from
patterns in regression residuals. Failure to allow for change points
can lead to spurious conclusions about the effects of variables. In
other words, if delta smelt abundance underwent a step decline in 1981,
for reasons having little or nothing to do with exports, and if this
step change is not accounted for in the regression analysis, any factor
that tended to be high (or low) before the step change and low (or
high) after the step change may show a correlation with delta smelt
abundance, even if this factor had little or nothing to do with
abundance of delta smelt. Exports were generally low before 1981 and
generally higher after 1981. Hence, the spurious correlations.
Dr. Bill Bennett (UCD) proposed a ``Big Mama'' theory
hypothesizing that high exports before mid-April entrain early hatching
delta smelt larvae that, if not entrained, would grow into larger
spawners the next winter. Larger female delta smelt produce more and
better eggs. This theory has been popular among those who believe
exports must have important effects on delta smelt abundance. However,
the theory has two problems. First, long-term data on delta smelt size
in December show a step decrease in size that has no relationship with
the recent decline in delta smelt abundance. It occurred around 1990;
the smelt decline began in 1999, when the December size was level.
Second, the theory does not account for the demonstrated importance of
food limitation in determining the size of spawning delta smelt. Put
another way, there are two ways to become a Big Mama: hatch early and
grow for a longer time or eat well after you hatch. Well-fed delta
smelt at the delta smelt culture facility grow so fast that they spawn
in October rather than waiting until March. So, besides the evidence of
food limitation discussed below, we know from actual data on delta
smelt that food is important to spawning size.
Dr. Ted Sommer, and associates (Department of Water
Resources), in a study conducted for the Pelagic Organism Decline
effort, looked for declines in residence time of water in the Delta
during the period of the recent decline in delta smelt abundance.
Residence time could be affected by exports. They did not find evidence
of a major shift in residence time. In fact, they observed that
residence times may have increased slightly in the San Joaquin River.
Implications for managing exports
Taken together, these analyses indicate the following principles
for managing exports with regard to delta smelt:
1. No rigorous scientific analysis indicates entrainment of delta
smelt at the export pumps caused the recent decline in delta smelt
abundance. Moreover, there is no scientific analysis that demonstrates
that controlling exports will contribute to the prevention of
extinction or achievement of recovery of the species. Therefore,
routine management of exports or river flows to minimize entrainment
(or take) of delta smelt as a means of preventing extinction or
achieving recovery is futile.
2. Because analyses indicate that unusually high entrainment
events have occurred in the past, exports and other water project
operations should be managed to prevent such occurrences in the future.
This should be done by real-time monitoring of the distribution of sub-
adult, spawning adult, and larval-juvenile delta smelt, coupled with
judicious use of mathematical Particle Tracking Models and close
monitoring of river flows and turbidity related to entrainment.
The importance of food
If exports or entrainment did not cause the decline in delta smelt
abundance, what did? I summarize below recent analyses related to this
question.
Dr. Bill Bennett ``autopsied'' 100+ delta smelt and found
most of them were food limited in the summer.
Mongan and I, keying on Bennett's finding, analyzed the
co-occurrence of delta smelt and their primary prey (the two alien
zooplankton, Eurytemora affinis and Pseudodiaptomus forbesi) in July.
We found a good correlation for the period 1981-2006 between, on the
one hand, July co-occurrence of delta smelt and density of the two
zooplankton and, on the other hand, the subsequent FMWT abundance
index. This was the first correlation with an obvious explanation
(delta smelt must feed to survive) ever found between any factors and
the subsequent FMWT.
Dr. Anke Mueller-Solger, Department of Water Resources,
noted that after 1996, the FMWT index depends solely on July delta
smelt abundance. That is, the co-occurrence with prey was not necessary
in recent years. She concluded from this and other analyses that food
limitation was not the problem. However, this conclusion rests on the
questionable assumption that delta smelt feed equally well on yet
another recently introduced alien zooplankton, Limnoithona tetraspina,
as they do on their established favored prey, Eurytemora and
Pseudodiaptomus. Without this assumption, there is a clear drop in prey
densities. Limnoithona now occur at extraordinarily high densities in
July in delta smelt habitat. However, Limnoithona were not found in the
guts of delta smelt examined in 2005, when Limnoithona levels were
merely high, but were found in 2006 when they were extraordinarily
high. Individual Limnoithona are much smaller than both Eurytemora and
Pseudodiaptomus, so more energy is required by delta smelt to capture
Limnoithona. It is possible that, rather than being a good source of
food for delta smelt, Limnoithona are starvation rations that may
interfere with survival by being so numerous and requiring so much more
energy to capture.
We attempted to find out what determined delta smelt
abundance in July. We discovered an even better correlation between
late-April co-occurrence of delta smelt and their primary springtime
prey, Eurytemora, and the subsequent FMWT abundance index for 1997-
2005. This is the period when July abundance determines the FMWT index.
As mentioned above, the FMWT index is closely related to subsequent
winter spawning abundance. Using the relationship developed for 1997-
2005, we can predict the FMWT abundance index from the previous year's
index and the co-occurrence of delta smelt and Eurytemora in late
April. Predicted and actual FMWT index values are shown below. The
predicted line uses only one estimate of delta smelt abundance, the
FMWT index of 1996. From that index and annual late-April densities of
Eurytemora and distribution of delta smelt (not their abundance), the
next nine years of FMWT indices can be predicted. Exports and
entrainment of delta smelt at the export pumps is not a factor in this
prediction. It is solely determined by Eurytemora densities in areas
where delta smelt are in late April. I conclude from these analyses
that the problem with delta smelt is a significant drop in the
densities of their prey, initially in the summer and, in recent years,
in the spring. Why this drop occurred is a mystery. If it were caused
by exports, exports would show up as an important factor affecting
delta smelt abundance, but the data do not support that possibility.
Something else must be affecting the zooplankton that delta smelt prey
on. If we could identify those factors and do something about them, we
might be able to save the delta smelt. No reliable, statistically
significant analyses suggest we can save delta smelt or cause their
recovery by managing exports or entrainment.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.020
Conclusion
One might reasonably ask how it is possible that so much emphasis
is put on exports as the cause of the delta smelt abundance decline if
there are no reliable analyses supporting this belief and several
analyses indicating that food is the problem. An answer can be found in
the report of outside experts, the Review Panel for the Pelagic
Organism Decline Program. These panelists are listed below.
Mark D. Bertness, Brown University
Stephen M. Bollens, Washington State University Vancouver
James H. Cowan, Louisiana State University
Ronald T. Knelb, University of Georgia Marine Institute
Parker MacCready, University of Washington
Russell A. Moll, California Sea Grant College Program
Paul E. Smith, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Andrew R. Solow, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Robert B. Spies, Applied Marine Sciences
Their first conclusion concerning ``weaknesses'' of the Pelagic
Organism Decline Program in their December 2005 report is as follows:
``The program relies too heavily on local perspectives and
resources for problem analysis, research and solutions. This
can give rise to a culture of common assumptions that impedes
alternative possibilities.''
I agree with this conclusion. The belief that exports have
important effects on delta smelt and other fish has been a fundamental
tenet of Delta water project management for years. It has proven to be
an unfounded belief for striped bass and salmon, and many analyses of
the wealth of data in this estuary indicate it is also unfounded for
delta smelt. Nevertheless, as evidenced by the title of this hearing,
it remains a powerful paradigm, contrary to the science, and to the
detriment of delta smelt.
[NOTE: A letter dated July 16, 2007, submitted for the record by
Mr. Miller has been retained in the Committee's official files.]
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Larson?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PHIL LARSON,
FRESNO COUNTY SUPERVISOR, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Larson. Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, my
name is Phil Larson. I am a member of the Board of Supervisors
of Fresno County, and I really appreciate being here today with
my neighbor and friend, Mr. Jim Costa, and again to testify
before Mr. Miller, to whom I testified before in 1992 on the
Committee he chaired--so strongly chaired, I should say.
I speak with unanimous support of my colleagues on the
Fresno County Board of Supervisors. This crisis is commonly
seen as a very costly and damaging collision between the
environment and the water management system. It is key to the
future of California's rural or urban economies.
Indeed, the future of our way of life is at stake. This
crisis should be viewed as first of many conflicts in the Delta
where the dream that is California hangs in the balance.
I was elected to represent District of Fresno County in
November of 2002 and was reelected in June 2006. The District 1
included a rich and productive farmland in the western portion
of Fresno County on the way to the San Benito County line. As a
lifelong farmer and former president of the Fresno County Farm
Bureau, I continue to fight for safe and secure water supplies
in our region because I know without additional water supplies
the social, cultural and economic impacts to our region could
be devastating.
Fresno County is blessed in having rich soils and the
climate ideal for irrigated agriculture. The hard work of the
farmers who come to Fresno County from all over the world has
made the county the richest and most productive agricultural
county in America.
The county leads the Nation in the number of farms, 6592
farms with sale to 100,000 or more, 2,320 in harvested crop
land of 1.16 million acres.
Water in western Fresno County is delivered through the
Westlands Water District via the Central Valley Project.
Westlands encompasses more than 600,000 acres of farmland in
western Fresno County.
The Westlands farmers produce more than 60 high quality
commercial food and fiber crops sold for the fresh, dry, canned
and frozen food markets, both domestic and export. In addition,
more than 50,000 live and work in those communities depending
on the agricultural commodities.
The communities near the District's boundaries include
Mendota, Huron, and Tranquility. You will visit Mendota
tomorrow, Madam Chairwoman. Tranquility, Firebaugh, Three
Rocks, Cantua Creek, Helm, San Joaquin, Kerman, Lemoore and
Coalinga, most of which are in my district.
The water provided by Westlands is conveyed through the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers Delta and pumped from the Delta
at the C.W. ``Bill'' Jones Pumping Plant. When diversions at
the pumping plant are reduced to avoid the take of listed
species like the Delta smelt the effects on farming and the
economy of Fresno County are dramatic and devastating. As an
example, there are farmers on the west side of Fresno County
who this year have plowed under their growing crops because
they lack supplies of water to irrigate those crops to
maturity. The shortage of water, if it is not due to the
drought or other climatic conditions, although 2007 has been a
dry year, the two preceding years were wet and storage in
Central Valley Project reservoirs north the Delta at the
beginning of the water year was about average--rather the water
shortages that have caused farmers to plow under their crops
was caused by restrictions on the operations of the Delta
export pumps, including the complete shutdown of the Harvey O.
Banks Pumping Plant to protect the Delta smelt.
Immediate action must be taken to prevent the economic
disaster this can bring, and we must work together to find a
long-term solution that will help us avoid similar crises in
the future.
The consequences of such action affect more than just the
farmers who have lost their crops and their investment in those
crops. Such actions affect farm workers who will not be
employed to complete the production and harvest of those crops,
and small businesses that exists to provide goods and services,
to provide the activities of farms in western Fresno County.
While recognizing the importance of maintaining a healthy
ecosystem, it must be balanced with the economic impacts. There
is a very human face to the decisions that are made.
Last winter Fresno County's agriculture was impacted by a
naturally occurring disaster, the freeze of 2006. The impacts
on people were real and I believe that it will mirror the
potential impacts of limiting water flow through the Delta.
Fresno freeze related agricultural losses were over $111
million, but the real story is how those losses directly
impacted families. Freeze-related unemployment claims in Fresno
County were 1,805 and 3,168 in Tulare County, and that does not
account for those who did not file because of legal status
concerns.
Assistance provided by La Cooperativa Campesinos de
California via the Employment Development Department (EDD)
grants serviced 1,114 participants, utility payments of
$50,152, rental of $260,602 and mortgages of $55,679 for a
total of $366,443. The total for Tulare County exceeded $1.1
million and the State total was over $3 million. Since January
the Fresno County food bank has served approximately 64,359
individuals, a total of 689,841 pounds of food distributed.
To put a clearer face on what impacted agricultural losses
have on real families, the Cornerstone Church in Fresno County
EOC still distributed on May 27th more than 4,000 pounds of
food.
My testimony is on your record and there are some
substantial anecdotes to go with it. I would submit those to
you as my testimony. I am ready for any question.
Thank you, Ma'am.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:]
Statement of John P. (Phil) Larson, Supervisor, County of Fresno
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Phil
Larson, and I am a member of the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Fresno. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the current
crisis in the Delta. I speak with unanimous support from my colleagues
on the Board of Supervisor, as evident in a letter we submitted to Gov.
Schwarzenegger regarding this issue (attachment A). This crisis is
commonly seen as a very costly and damaging collision between the
environment and the water management system that is the key to the
future of California's rural and urban economies. Indeed, the future of
our way of life is at stake. This crisis should be viewed as the first
of many conflicts in the Delta where the dream that is California hangs
in balance.
I was first elected to represent District One of Fresno County in
November 2002 and was re-elected in June of 2006. District One includes
the rich and productive farmland in the western portion of the county
all the way to the San Benito County line. As a lifelong farmer and
former president of the Fresno County Farm Bureau, I continue to fight
for safe and secure water supplies in our region because I know without
additional water supplies the social, cultural and economic impacts to
our region could be devastating.
Fresno County is blessed to have rich soils and a climate that is
ideal for irrigated agriculture. The hard work of farmers who came to
Fresno County from all over the world has made the County the richest
and most productive agricultural county in America. Our gross
agriculture production value in 2006 exceeded the four billion-dollar
mark for the fifth consecutive year. The County leads the nation in
number of farms (6,592), farms with sales of $100,000 or more (2,321)
and harvested cropland (1.16 million acres).
Water in western Fresno County is delivered through the Westlands
Water District via the Central Valley Project. Westlands encompasses
more than 600,000 acres of farmland in western Fresno and Kings
Counties. The District serves approximately 600 family-owned farms that
average 900 acres in size. Westlands' farmers produce more than 60 high
quality commercial food and fiber crops sold for the fresh, dry, canned
and frozen food markets, both domestic and export. In addition, more
than 50,000 live and work in the communities dependent on the
District's agricultural economy. The communities in and near the
District's boundaries include Mendota, Huron, Tranquillity, Firebaugh,
Three Rocks, Cantua Creek, Helm, San Joaquin, Kerman, Lemoore and
Coalinga, most of which are in my district.
The water provided by Westlands is conveyed through the
Sacramento--San Joaquin Rivers Delta and pumped from the Delta at the
C. W. ``Bill'' Jones Pumping Plant. When diversions at the Jones
Pumping Plant are reduced to avoid the take of a listed species like
the Delta smelt the effects on farming and the economy of Fresno County
are dramatic and devastating. For example, there are farmers on the
westside of Fresno County who this year have plowed-under their growing
crops because they lack adequate supplies of water to irrigate those
crops to maturity. The shortage of water is not due to drought or other
climatic conditions. Although 2007 has been a dry year, the two
preceding years were wet and storage in Central Valley Project
reservoirs north of the Delta at the beginning of the water years was
above average. Rather, the water shortages that have caused farmers to
plow-under their crops was caused by restrictions on the operations of
the Delta export pumps, including the complete shut down of the Harvey
O. Banks Pumping Plant, to protect the Delta smelt. Immediate action
must be taken to prevent the economic disaster this can bring and we
must work together to find a long-term solution that will help us avoid
a similar crisis in the future.
The consequences of such action affect more than just the farmers
who have lost their crops and their investment in those crops. Such
actions affect farm workers who will not be employed to complete the
production and harvest of those crops and small businesses that exist
to provide goods and services to support the activities of farms in
western Fresno County. While recognizing the importance of maintaining
a healthy eco-system, it must be balanced with the economic impacts.
There is a very human face to the decisions that are made. Last winter,
Fresno County's agriculture was impacted by a naturally occurring
disaster--the Freeze of 2007. The impacts on people were real and I
believe that it will mirror the potential impacts of limiting the water
flow through the Delta.
Fresno County freeze related agricultural losses were over $111
million. But the real story is how those losses directly impacted
families. Freeze related Unemployment claims in Fresno County were 1805
matched with Tulare County 3168--we had 5000 Unemployment claims
filed--and that does not account for those who did not file because of
``legal status'' concerns. Assistance provided by La Cooperativa
Campesinos de California via Employment Development Department (EDD)
Grants serviced 1,114 participants, utility payments of $50,162, rental
$260,602, and mortgage $55,679 for a total of $366, 443. The total for
Tulare County exceeded $1.1 million and the state total was over $3
million (attachment B). Since January, the Fresno Community Food Bank
has served approximately 64,359 individuals, a total of 689,841 pounds
of food distributed (attachment C).
To put a clearer face on what impact agricultural losses have on
real families, the Cornerstone Church and Fresno County EOC were still
distributing on May 27, 2007 more than 4,000 boxes of food to the
freeze impacted community of Orange Cove. This was a continuation of
the more than 10,000 boxes of food distributed in three other efforts
(attachment D). On the Westside of Fresno County, the communities and
residents of Firebaugh, Mendota, Tranquillity, San Joaquin, and Huron,
are directly impacted by agriculture. These communities are
predominately Hispanic and already live below the poverty line. Mendota
is a city with a 7,800 population and average household size of 4.32.
Many of these families struggle to survive off an annual median
household income of $23,700 (attachment E). The surrounding cities and
unincorporated communities in my district share similar demographics
and economic hardships.
As water reductions have occurred--quality of life has been
impacted. Most of the folks that live in the region are agricultural
workers. Many have been employed by the same farming operations for
generations. I wish I could have you meet some of them. They are
hardworking and proud people who love working the land, provide for
their families, and are living the challenges of the changes that are
impacting agriculture. I hope that you can understand that the answer
to serving their needs is not moving them to cities--placing them
within our over burdened social welfare system. It is providing them
with the opportunity to earn a living, allowing them to maintain their
family structure so that they can educate their children and prepare
for the changes that will occur in farming. It has always struck me as
ironic that groups who advocate for ``environmental justice'' support
reduced diversions from the Delta to protect fish species without
regard to the effect inadequate water supplies have on the low-income,
minority population of western Fresno County.
By my comments I do not want to suggest that protecting the Delta
smelt from extinction is unimportant. Rather, I mean to convey that we
must find the means to provide adequate water supplies to support the
agricultural economy of the San Joaquin Valley that does not conflict
with efforts to protect this and other species of concern in the Delta.
Such means do exist. For instance, I have read many comments from
experts like Dr. Peter Moyle that one way to avoid the conflict between
protecting fish and supplying water for agriculture is to move the
intakes of the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project out
of the southern Delta, to an area along the Sacramento River south of
the City of Sacramento. I am afraid that if something like this is not
done, the prediction of Lester Snow, the Director of the California
Department of Water Resources will come true. He has stated as recently
as mid-June that if we do not find some means of fixing the Delta
conveyance problem, we fill face on an annual basis water supply
shortages of the type that caused farmers in my supervisorial district
to plow-under their growing crops.
The leadership of the federal and state governments is faced with a
fundamental question: Do we want to preserve the agricultural economy
of this state? As you probably could guess, my answer to that question
is yes. From my perspective, protecting our ability to produce domestic
food supplies rises to the level of a national security interest.
Difficult decisions, which may be unpopular in some quarters, will have
to be made if we are to protect a safe and reliable food supply, while
providing jobs and serving as the economic engine of our state. While
we all agree that extinction of species like the Delta smelt is not a
sustainable water policy, we must work together to find a solution that
supports the economy of California and the ability of our farmers to
feed and cloth the nation and the world, while preserving our
ecosystem.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to respond to questions.
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Very much appreciate it. Thank you.
We want to be out of here by 12:00, and obviously we are
not. So that is one of the reasons I have been trying to move
it right along.
I appreciate all your testimony. There were a couple of
things that came to mind as I listened to the testimony, one of
them being, and I am sorry I did not ask the question of the
Bureau when they were here, but you realize there are major
issues in California on water. Of course, water recycling which
the Administration does not view as essential, the Salton Sea
which is in decline, the San Joaquin Restoration, the San Luis
drainage and the Bay-Delta. So what are California's
priorities? I think either you are going to have to make some
tough decisions and the funding is going to have to be
committed by everybody, and the support has to be from all
involved.
I am making that statement because when I listen to what is
so important at the time we are talking to the issue, and yet
there are other areas who feel they are just as important to
them and to their economy and to the welfare of the State. So I
just make that point because those are the things that we face
in our Committee with regard to the California economy and the
California water delivery system.
I am very much concerned because I am criticized by my
colleagues on the other side that I am running a dog and pony
show. That is furthest from our mind. We need to get at the
truth. We need to get as much information, share it, make it
open, transparent so that we know where we are leading.
Unfortunately, we don't need to be finger pointing, but rather
we need to try to reach decisions that are going to help us
make the right solution possible.
So with that, I do have some questions but I will begin
with Ms. Cooley. You mentioned that developing alternative
water resources, such as water recycling and desalination--both
good subjects to raise--are options for a new reliable water
supply. Why do you think the Bureau is so reluctant to fund
water recycling projects? They left them out of their water
2025 plan and they normally allocate $11 million for the whole
nation to invest into recycling water. Can you give us some
concrete examples of communities that have tried to develop
alternative water supplies but have been inhibited due to lack
of funding?
By the way, may I state that the Bureau has almost $400
million of backlog of water projects approved by this Committee
that they have not moved on.
Ms. Cooley. OK.
Mrs. Napolitano. Yours.
Ms. Cooley. I think part of the problem with the recycling
is the public perception issue in that recycling is cost
effective relative to other supply options, but many agencies
are having to kind of put in a dual plumbing system. I do not
know of any particular agencies that have held back because of
a lack of funding. I do know of agencies that have proceeded.
Irvine Ranch Water District, for example, meets 20 percent of
their needs by recycling water. So I know that there is a
tremendous amount of interest right now.
I also understand that you are putting through a bill that
looks at making additional funding available. I am sure
agencies would welcome that with open arms. That might be a
better question for the Bureau as to why they withheld that
financing.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
You have advocated elimination of water subsidies. What do
you a consider a water subsidy and how would doing so help
environmental conditions in the Delta?
Ms. Cooley. OK. In part, some of the water subsidies are
via pricing policies, inexpensive water. We can look at the
Central Valley Project, for example, and how the rates that
farmers are paying for that water is very, very low.
Mr. Thompson had asked earlier about the various contracts
that are under review and that they are thinking of increasing.
It might be interesting for them to look at what farmers are
being charged for that water. Because of the cheap water, it is
actually a disincentive for conservation and it is encouraging
them to grow low value water intensive crops.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Stelle, you and many of the witnesses who testified
today have said that there is unacceptable status quo. What
would you consider acceptable and how would we be able to
achieve that?
Mr. Stelle. Acceptable to my view is when we get sued, and
you can count on it. We are standing before a Federal district
court. We make our case as to why the conservation plan we
developed is scientifically well grounded and legally
sufficient, and he or she agrees. We are then free to proceed
to implement it in a manner that is reliable, both from a
biological perspective and a water supply perspective. That is
success.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
I will call Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I have a
number of questions so I want to go quickly here, starting with
Mr. Miller.
First of all, the issue of the take, Mr. Miller, that we
are talking about that one of my colleagues stated is a three
alarm fire, this is not the first time we have had a take issue
due to my recollection, is it not?
Mr. Miller. That is correct.
Mr. Costa. Can you cite just quickly offhand the last time
we have had take issues in the last 10, 15 years?
Mr. Miller. You mean the years?
Mr. Costa. No, not the years. Just the crises and the time
and how that----
Mr. Miller. Well, I think anytime a lot of smelt show up at
the pumps there is a perception of a crisis.
Mr. Costa. I think there is a problem. But the point I am
trying to make is this is not the first time we have had a take
issue.
Mr. Miller. Right. Right. I think the problem with the take
issue is that take goes up, take goes down, Delta smelt go up,
Delta smelt go down, but they do not do that together.
Mr. Costa. Yes. OK. Let me ask you another question. Mr.
Johns made a comment in the previous panel that we are using
one knob and you relate it to your own study and other studies
to try to deal with the issue, and that is the export of water.
What are the other knobs out there that you would describe that
are available that we are not utilizing right now?
Mr. Miller. I do not have a great----
Mr. Costa. Besides trying to find more food for the smelt.
Mr. Miller. That is where I do not have a great answer to
that question. I do think that turning the knob--if turning the
export knob were free, turn it. But it is not free. It is
extremely expensive turning that knob, especially if you are
not----
Mr. Costa. So in terms of the 1,800-plus acre-feet of water
that is extracted within the Delta, in terms of the
organization, in terms of the urban waste and pesticide use
none of those are knobs?
Mr. Miller. They might be knobs. I would be all over this
food issue. I would be trying to do toxicity studies, for
example, on these zooplankton. I would be studying them to
death. Instead, we have three or four meetings a week on
exports. We got a lot of talent and brain power focused on
exports.
Mr. Costa. OK. I need to go because we have time issues.
Ms. Cooley, I appreciate your acknowledgement about the
conservation and as I said in my opening statement, there has
been a lot of conservation done. We can do a lot more and I am
all for putting incentives and carrots as it relates to those
incentives.
Let me ask you a simple question. Should we stop exports
today or should we transition at some point in time, stopping
all of the water exported south of the Delta in your opinion?
Ms. Cooley. I do not think it is necessary to stop all of
the export, but I do think we need to----
Mr. Costa. You know about 10 to 12 million acre-feet per
year on the average goes through the Delta?
Ms. Cooley. Yes.
Mr. Costa. We have contracted for 6.2 million acre-feet.
This year we will probably do a little less than 5 million
acre-feet. Last year we had almost 15 million acre-feet of
water go through the Delta.
Ms. Cooley. Yes, and so I do not think it is necessary to
stop all of the exports. However, I do believe we need to start
working in that direction. Exports have been increasing since
the 19----
Mr. Costa. Well, I think that is an important question that
the environmental community needs to raise as we try to,
frankly, look for solutions. I am always trying to look for
solutions. Is the goal to stop all exports south of the Delta?
Now that is the goal. I may disagree with it, but then I want
to know that is the goal. If that is the goal, do we do it in a
transitional phase or do we do it in five or ten years? I think
those are important responses.
Mr. Larson, I am running out of time here. I want to go
quickly. The subsidized crop issue, you subsidized water and in
certain cases it had a lot more application 15 or 20 years ago.
First of all, we had 1.5 million acre-feet of cotton grown in
the Valley as little as 12 years ago. Today we have what? About
500,000 acre feet?
Mr. Larson. Five hundred thousand acres.
Mr. Costa. Five hundred thousand acres.
Mr. Larson. Most of that is Pima cotton----
Mr. Costa. Not subsidized.
Mr. Larson. Not subsidized.
Mr. Costa. Right. Are there any other crops besides the----
Mr. Larson. In the Westlands----
Mr. Costa. In the Valley?
Mr. Larson. Oh, yes, in the Valley. There is wheat and
there is some rice.
Mr. Costa. A little wheat?
Mr. Larson. Yes, a little bit.
Mr. Costa. Rice?
Mr. Larson. Rice. We have a little rice in Westlands.
Mr. Costa. They have more water?
Mr. Larson. Yes. They have all the water.
Mr. Costa. What was the price of water prior to 1992 in
Westlands?
Mr. Larson. Well, they had to pump the water from deep
wells.
Mr. Costa. I know, but----
Mr. Larson. 1992?
Mr. Costa. Right.
Mr. Larson. It was about $47 an acre-foot.
Mr. Costa. What is it today?
Mr. Larson. Today if you farm 900 acres or less, it is $70
an acre-foot. If you need more water than that, it is at the
market demand, and some of it went as high as $500 a month
ago----
Mr. Costa. So in 15 years the price of water has doubled
and beyond your 900 acres it has tripled.
Mr. Larson. The interesting thing, Congressman Costa, is
the fact that when you take $70 an acre-foot and a normal crop
4 acre-feet----
Mr. Costa. Even with drip?
Mr. Larson. Even with drip. The plant takes whatever it
takes; drip, flood or however you put it on. When it takes it
that way, that is the same as five houses per acre would be.
Mr. Costa. Let me just close, because my time has expired
almost.
Members, I have provided billions of dollars of money in
water bonds when I was in the State legislature. I just want to
provide sensitivity, that is all. Sensitivity. We have to fix
these problems in the Delta, and I want to work with all of you
to do it. But doing it at a subzero scorecard, zero scorecard
where there is no impacts to any other region in California I
find personally objectionable.
I mean, we are all in this together. I really believe that,
and my course in history as a legislator on these issues has
always indicated my desire to help every region of this State.
I would just hope and pray that you would provide the same sort
of sensitivity to the challenges that we have in the Valley.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Costa. I might add in
Southern California I think we pay about $600 an acre-foot. So
there is a big difference for the consumer, the household
consumer.
Mr. Larson. Well when you look at urban and agriculture,
there is a delivery system----
Mrs. Napolitano. Precisely. That is what sometimes gets in
the way.
Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller of California. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The question here I think is--I do not know. I have been at
this 35 years and nobody has ever said we are going to cut off
all exports from the Delta. Nobody that I know of. But the
question is now whether or not, we are in a situation where we
are in court, where we are being sued, the three alarm fire was
to the collapse the Delta that goes beyond the smelt and what
are we going to do about it?
Ms. Cooley suggested you might not want to put subsidized
water on a subsidized crop that the government then buys back
with the taxpayer money. So that over 2003 and 2005 in
California with $600 million in cotton that the taxpayer put
into that system. If that subsidy was not available, they might
think of some other crop and some other use of that water.
As high as the price of water has gotten, it continues to
be subsidized. You know, if you look at the cotton crop in
California, this does not make them the sole problem with
respect to the Delta, but they kind of look like the SUVs of
the energy crisis, you know. That may not be where you want to
be in this day and age.
Mr. Stelle has been through a series of these crises. I
have been through most of them with him. The fact of the matter
is until you come to this kind of event do people start to
realize the misplaced priorities. The question is recycling.
The question is use conservation. All of these go together. So
you start to ask your questions.
Should we continue the massive subsidization of water in
California? You know, in the urban areas, I do not know, all I
hear from my wife is how much our water bill keeps going up and
we are using less and less every year. That is going on all
over.
There has been dramatic improvements in the agriculture
community in the use of water and the conservation of water,
and the rest of that. That is all good, but we are still not
out of the woods. As we all know, we like to say we do not want
the courts to run this system, but you know it was the courts
that straightened out the Trinity River. It was the courts that
straightened out the Northwest Woods. It was the courts that
straightened the salmon problems. The fact of the matter is
sometimes when systems get in front of the court they start to
think about the realities of what is taking place as opposed
to, as Mr. Isenberg said, how do I hold on to what I have. That
is really a decision.
I hope we can avoid the courts. But I do not know that we
are going to make it because if we are going to have an
agriculture bill that comes to the Floor and it is going to
suggest that we just do business as we have been doing it the
last couple of years. I do not think that is sufficient for
California. I do not think that is going to work for
California. That is why we are raising these issues.
Listen, when nobody would join us we built--out of the
ratepayers of Contra Costa County. We could not get the Federal
Government to join us. We could not get other people to join
us. Now people want to expand it, they want to participate. We
welcome them, and I am excited about that proposal. That will
help with some of the flexibility that I keep talking about.
You know, Mr. Miller, let me just say as I understand it--I
appreciate all these things that you cited about pumping. I am
not suggesting that that's a sole determinant at all. But when
Fish and Wildlife reviewed your report, they concluded the
study was on questionable science, unacceptable procedures and
that it was ``a serious flawed analysis of a limited set of
selectively chosen data designed to support a predetermined
conclusion.''
Mr. Miller. Which report is that?
Mr. Miller of California. Well, that is apparently the
analysis, as I understand it, of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service of your reports----
Mr. Miller. No, no, no. That was--that was three years
old----
Mr. Miller of California. Another one of your reports?
Mr. Miller. There was no estimate of the population of
Delta smelt. A bunch of us thought there should at least be
some sort of estimate. So I put one together and they did not
like the idea that I estimated the population.
Mr. Miller of California. The analysis was not solid.
Ms. Cooley, let me ask you, if I might----
Mr. Miller. They can check this analysis if they want.
Mr. Miller of California. Ms. Cooley, if I might, the
Chairwoman has talked about recycling. We saw what California
did both with energy in the 1970s and with water in the 1970s
as we started to change direction. Is there a sense of what the
real potential is there? Again, none of these are silver
bullets but at this stage of the game it would seem to me that
we would really start to focus on some of these that provide a
real yield, if you were, in terms of the water world where
yield is very important.
Ms. Cooley. Right. In terms of recycling and reuse, I have
not seen a good study to look at the actual potential. I
believe current use is about 500,000 acre-feet, mostly for
irrigation, agriculture and landscape. But I have not seen a
thorough analysis of what the actual potential is.
My sense is that it is large and to be used for outdoor
irrigation needs, also for agriculture and also for some
commercial and industrial.
Mr. Miller of California. I mean if we are doing 500,000
acre-feet of water, the consumption of the State of California
de minimis?
Ms. Cooley. It is small, yes. If we look at say what Irvine
Ranch and some other agencies are doing where they are using up
to 20 percent, it shows that there is a huge amount of
potential.
Mr. Miller of California. Mr. Stelle, is your group looking
at this, these other alternatives in terms of water----
Mr. Stelle. Yes, we will be.
Mr. Miller of California. You will be?
Mr. Stelle. Yes.
Mr. Miller of California. Let me ask you something, if I
might, and Madam Chairwoman I will stop here.
You talked about the time line going back to the court on
the biological opinions and you thought that would be resolved
when? You said something middle of 2008?
Mr. Stelle. Yes. The judicial concentric circles are--I
believe that the State and Federal water agencies will be in
front of the court next week with some proposals on how to
operate through the course of 2007 and early 2009. There will
be hearings on that in the middle of August, and then the judge
will do what the judge will do.
The second circle is meanwhile back at the ranch, the
Federal and the State are in consultation on how to operate
over the longer term, say three to five years, and that
consultation should be completed by spring of 2008.
Mr. Miller of California. Are those two things inconsistent
with one other, are they complementary of one another?
Mr. Stelle. Well, I do not know. I do not know the content
of either. But if the answer to your question is no, we are not
in good shape. There has to be a high degree of interdependence
and consistency among those things, otherwise they will not be
very defensible.
Mr. Miller of California. OK.
Mrs. Napolitano. Stop?
Mr. Stelle. For the moment.
Mr. Thompson of California. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to just touch on one issue that is somewhat related
or very related to the conservation issue, and I am not sure
who can best answer it. But I think Mr. Larson you mentioned
the different types of irrigation that agriculture does in your
area.
Mr. Larson. That is correct.
Mr. Thompson of California. You mentioned drip irrigation.
I was involved at one time when I was in the State Senate on
trying to figure out how to remove the penalty from farmers who
go from flood to drip irrigation, now they are reassessed,
their property tax is reassessed and they have to pay more. So
it is somewhat a disincentive to do that.
Is it your understanding that more people would do more
projects such as this if they did not have that penalty?
Mr. Larson. I think the disincentive for drip irrigation,
although it is very good, the disincentive for irrigation is
the $1,000 an acre it costs to install it.
Mr. Thompson of California. Well but it is a greater
disincentive if you pay the $1,000 an acre to install it, then
you turn around and your property is reassessed----
Mr. Larson. I understand that was the case, and is still
the case. That is still the case.
Mr. Thompson of California. The Fresno Bee was one of two
papers that editorialized against my effort, which I thought
was somewhat curious. They did not think that farmers should
get more help from----
Mr. Larson. Well, the Fresno Bee is sometimes curious.
Mr. Thompson of California. They were way off base on that
one.
Mr. Stelle, I asked the earlier panel about the idea of
creating a conservancy for the Delta. You have done extensive
work throughout the country here on these sorts of things. But
would something like that help?
Mr. Stelle. I think I would align myself with Phil's
comments earlier. Maybe over the long term, yes. But getting
wrapped around the axle on governance issues in the middle of
the wild fire we have now that is the Bay-Delta I think is not
placing the right priorities on the subject matter.
The subject matter needs to be--the focus needs to be on
the content of what are we going to do and when are we going to
do it. I would, therefore, defer on governance a little bit
with all due respect to those who have spent a lot of time on
it.
Mr. Thompson of California. Then a question for anyone who
wants to take a shot at it. Is there anything that we should
learn from what happened up in the Klamath that would allow us
to be a little bit more proactive, a little less contentious
that you would recommend?
Mr. Stelle. I have been through several Endangered Species
Act wars. I am totally convinced that if it is not
scientifically robust and entirely transparent, it will not be
defensible. If it is not defensible, it is not worth a whole
lot in terms of reliability.
The notion that you can monkey around with this stuff, you
cannot monkey around with it and get away with it.
So I think a real touchstone for the Bay-Delta Steering
Committee is the touchstone of scientific robustness and
transparency because people will disagree with what the
Committee decides and does not decide. We will be in court. We
need to defend it if we are going to achieve our reliability
objectives.
Mr. Thompson of California. Anybody else?
I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Wolk.
Ms. Wolk. Very briefly, Madam Chair. I wanted to speak to
the smelt issue, Mr. Miller. When we had our hearing at the
Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee in August of '05, the
science was pretty clear and seemed to be fairly established
that there were connections between the exports and the smelt.
I am curious you are not a biologist, and I respect that.
That does not mean you cannot do the research. But the
biologists who study this issue, those who are not local,
seemed to agree with this. I just need to know what other peer
review have you undergone?
Mr. Miller. Well, I think the question that you ask the
biologist is to show you the graph. Show you the graph, any
graph, that has smelt abundance on the Y axis and some version
of exports on the XX. You will not see that graph. So what you
will get are opinions and this is a long--Congressman Costa
talked about the paradigm. There is a very powerful paradigm
that has been in place all my career that the exports have a
significant effect on fish populations. It was first for
striped bass, turned out to be ocean conditions. Then it was
for salmon, and they have actually measured it and found out
that it was less than a one percent effect of the exports on
salmon.
Now we are at Delta smelt. Somebody from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service said the other day, ``Gee, if you are right
about Delta smelt, how are we going to control exports?''
Yes, ask them for the graph. Ask them for the graph. You
will not get it.
Ms. Wolk. Ms. Cooley, a brief question about the
alternatives to the current desire to build concrete dams,
which seems to be making a comeback.
Since the current water plan for the State of California
shows that in the past, I think 15 years since the year 1990,
1.5 million acre-feet of water has been added to California's
water supply through groundwater storage. Could you talk a
little bit about that and the relative differences between that
and the above-ground dams construction?
Ms. Cooley. OK. Generally for groundwater management in
conjunctive use, which we heard someone from Semitropic today
talking a little bit about, generally those are less expensive
with fewer social and environmental impacts. So they generally
take high flows and store them underground. They take advantage
of the fact that we have overdrafted much of our reservoirs and
what we are seeing today, even during this crisis, that
agencies are able to use that water to meet their demands.
There is a tremendous amount of potential left for that, in
part, because again we have overdrafted our reservoirs quite a
bit and we have a huge underground reservoir that we can take
advantage of.
Ms. Wolk. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
With that, we are getting to the very end of it. I would
like to again state that the testimony will be available on the
House Committee on Natural Resources website at: http://
resourcescommittee.house.gov. We can get that information to
you.
As a wrap up, I would like to accept into the record a
letter received on June 29th from the State Water Contractors,
General Manager Terry Irvine for the record.
Last, I have really enjoyed, and I thank my members for
staying as long as you have, to the panelists, to the people
out in the audience who are listening to this, maybe not for
the first time, and to my staff, our staff who is putting all
these together. It takes an exorbitant amount of time and
effort to put them together.
Yes, Mr. Miller? OK.
To the city for allowing us to use this nice, beautiful
facility. But I would like to put out something to all of the
people who were either on the panel who are still around, but
to those that are still here is that what I am listening to is
that we need a lot more communication and networking, and
working together to get to the solution. Because everybody
seems to be doing their own thing. I am not kidding when I am
saying that the agencies do not talk to each other. Because
when I was in the State House I had to actually physically
bring agencies, sit them next to each other and say OK now
talk. This was just at the State level. Never mind at the
Federal level. That is a whole different----
Mr. Larson. Try county to county government.
Mrs. Napolitano. Try county government? No, thank you.
The other area I would like to bring out and put into
everybody's mind is that all elected officials at every level
should begin to educate and inform their constituency about
what we are facing; the shortages, the drought--and begin a
process of asking them to start conserving.
People are not dumb. They get it. But you need to remind
them and you need to be able to put before them something
tangible that they can put to our surroundings, say I can do
this to save water.
Recycling has always been an issue that I have advocated
way back in my City Council days in the '80s. Now that is
beginning to be talked about a lot more.
The connotation was that is used water. Ladies and
gentlemen, we have no new sources of water. It is the same
water God has given us that this Earth continues to recycle.
How we use it, how we protect it and how we get the pollutants
to clean it up is part of the solution for what we are facing.
And until we all get together on the same page, I do not think
we have an answer that we can provide to my great
grandchildren. I already have a great grandson. But I want to
ensure that my great grandson's grandchildren are able to have
clean water when they need it, and not have to buy it out of a
bottle.
So with that, I thank you very much. This wraps it up.
Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller of California. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would ask unanimous consent to include as part of the
record two graphs from Department of Fish and Game on the
decline of the fisheries and the increase in pumping as we have
gone from a million four to six million three hundred thousand
acre-feet of water.
Mrs. Napolitano. Without objection, so ordered.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.033
Mr. Miller of California. I would like very much to thank
you again, Madam Chair, for taking your time and the time of
the Committee to come to my district to have this hearing and
to listen to the witnesses.
Mrs. Napolitano. I thought it was his district.
Mr. Miller of California. No, I think you are headed there
tomorrow, unless there is something in this map that I have not
seen. So what do you think about pumping now?
Mrs. Napolitano. All right. Children, children, children.
Mr. Miller of California. Now, I want to thank you very
much. I know that this was a very, very fast response by the
Committee to the request from me and my colleagues for this
hearing. Clearly the staff had to do a lot of work because you
also had a backlog of legislation that was reported out last
week from the full Committee. So I really appreciate all of
their effort on making this a successful hearing.
Thank you very much to my colleagues who came here. Lois,
thank you so much.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Lois, for being with us and
staying the course and being able to shed a little more light
from the State perspective.
I am serious when we say we need to communicate more.
Ms. Wolk. Madam Chair, I look forward to it.
I want to thank the leaders in the water area. I really
appreciate your allowing me to join you.
I want to thank the Chair for coming to Solano County. I
look forward to working in a partnership way to solve the
problems of the Delta. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. So with that, we have somebody who would
like to stand up and speak up? Would you mind coming up and
taking a mike, sir. You have five minutes, sir. Five minutes.
Sir, let me clarify something. Because one of the things
that again I was criticized for is that we did not have a pro
and we did not have a con. There was a reason for that. We
needed to get a picture of what was important. So if it is a
pro, I am sorry, sir. If it is a con, same difference.
What we are trying to do is shed light and be able to get
information for this Committee to then move forward.
You are on. Five minutes.
Mr. Franco. Yes, ma'am. I appreciate the opportunity. I
come here with no agenda other than to ask that when these
Committees meet----
Mrs. Napolitano. Your name, sir.
Mr. Franco. My name is Mark Franco. I am the head man of
the Winnemem Wintu Tribe of Mount Shasta and down into the town
of Redding.
When we have these types of meetings, and we respect the
government agencies, it is important that to have all of the
voices represented to give you a full picture of what is
happening within the Central Valley.
I have no pro or con in regard to what we have been
discussing today. My only concern is in the protection of the
water and the protection of my relatives who live in the water
and fly above it, and walk on the land. We have asked for
additional hearings at which time the tribal concerns can be
presented. One of them was to ask for a hearing on the Central
Valley Project Indian Land Acquisition Act on which all of the
keystone projects of the Central Valley were built, but which
the government has never completed, and of which my tribe is
the beneficiary.
So I come here, and I appreciate the words of all of those
who spoke and all of those who patiently waited. I do
appreciate the work that you are doing and your Committee is
doing, but I just ask that you keep the original people of this
State in mind when you make decisions on how you are going to
handle our relative, the water.
I thank you very much for my opportunity.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your statement, sir.
Again, this Committee hearing was put together in 3 weeks,
so it really was a very short window. I have only been chair
since January. I have yet to see anything in writing requesting
that. So if you will put it in writing, it will be taken under
consideration.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A statement submitted for the record by The Honorable
Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
I would like to thank Chairwoman Napolitano for holding this
hearing today and for her attention to this important issue. I would
also like to thank the other Members of Congress who are here today and
the panelists for their efforts and for lending their expertise.
The dramatic decline of the smelt population in the San Joaquin
Delta is cause for concern, not only for the future of this species but
also for the health of the Delta and the effect of degraded water
quality on businesses, particularly agriculture. Scientists believe
that the plight of the smelt is indicative of considerable future
challenges in California, and it is clear that the current
infrastructure used to manage the state's water supply, and maintain
water quality, cannot adequately balance the array of stresses on the
system.
While many have debated the cause of the decline in smelt
population, one thing is clear: action is needed, and we must have the
best science available to make an informed decision about how to solve
water issues in the Bay-Delta. We cannot afford to lose sight of the
idea that improving water quality is vital for both environmental
protection and also for maintaining healthy water for agriculture and
drinking. Although water rights issues have been contentious throughout
California's history, all Californians recognize that action is
necessary.
We should also recognize that the challenges facing the Delta will
only become greater with time. Climate change will cause sea levels to
rise and will reduce runoff from melting snow, thereby increasing
salinity in the Delta. Levees in the Delta are in critical need of
repair, and natural processes outside of our control, such as
earthquakes or floods, could devastate the Delta with severe
consequences for the entire State.
Fundamentally, in order to deal with water issues in the Delta we
should address how to improve water quality, prevent an increase in
salinity, and ensure a clean supply of water for drinking and
agriculture. To achieve these objectives, it is essential that enough
fresh water enter the Delta to preserve the health of this essential
water system.
Pumping operations have already reduced the amount of fresh water
entering the Delta, which in turn reduces the dilution of the
pollutants that threaten the ecosystem. Plans to divert more water
around the Delta will increase salinity and have harmful consequences
for potable drinking water and aquatic life.
Declining water quality and availability also has negative
consequences for agriculture, the economic backbone of the Central
Valley and a critical industry statewide. Farmers depend on a stable
supply of clean, fresh water for their crops. California's economic
future depends on our ability to effectively solve Delta challenges for
farmers; the availability of clean water should be one of our foremost
concerns.
It is crucial for federal, state, and local policymakers to come
together to address this growing problem. As we work to restore the
Delta we will have to answer tough questions about sustainable
development and how to balance appropriately the myriad concerns of
stakeholders who are vested in this complex issue. And we will have to
make sure that the decisions we make take into account the diverse
water use needs of our citizens.
While the situation facing the Delta is serious, there is reason
for optimism. Local authorities, the state government, and now Congress
are hard at work bringing concerned parties together and developing
plans of action based on sound science. Conservation and reclamation of
water has shown great promise, as have conjunctive use projects and
desalination. These efforts should be encouraged and expanded
statewide.
The long-term solution to Delta challenges is collaboration and
innovation, and I believe that federal, state, and local policymakers
are up to this task.
I would like to thank the Chairwoman again for holding this
hearing, and I extend my appreciation to the witnesses for their expert
testimony.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Terry Erlewine, General
Manager, State Water Contractors, follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.028
[A letter submitted for the record by Bert Michalczyk,
General Manager, Dublin San Ramon Services District, follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.022
[A statement submitted for the record by Felix E. Smith,
Carmichael, California, follows:]
Statement of Felix E. Smith, Carmichael, California
To Chairwoman-Representative Napolitano and other members of this
subcommittee.
My name is Felix E. Smith. I appreciate the opportunity to provide
these comments. Please include these comments into the record of this
hearing.
I held the first deformed migratory bird, an American coot
hatchling, found at Kesterson NWR in 1983. At that time I was a U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service biologist recently assigned to look into the
emerging issues involving agricultural drainage and wastewater. That
experience impacted my life. Some of my concerns regarding Selenium
contamination of the lands and waters and associated resources, uses
and values are described in my article, ``The Kesterson Effect:
Reasonable Use of Water and the Public Trust'', published in the San
Joaquin Agricultural Law Review, Volume 6, Number 1 - 1996. I submit
this article for the hearing record by this reference.
Water is the environment in which fish and other aquatic resources
must carry on all their life processes. Such resources, associated uses
and values are inextricably tied to the physical, chemical and
biological aspects of that aquatic environment. Healthy and diverse
aquatic populations are indicative of good water quality conditions
(flow, temperature, oxygen and chemical parameters). Good water quality
allows for near optimum use of water as an M & I supply, an irrigation
supply and as an environment for fish and other aquatic life. For
healthy and sustainable fish populations to exist (also wildlife
populations), the total aquatic environment (the water, the bed, the
riparian vegetation and associated insect life, the food web) all
interact and therefore must be suitable for aquatic life at the
individual, population and community levels.
The Federal Clean Water Act, as amended, and the Public Trust
embrace affirmatively and positively that the people are to be
protected against all unwise and unreasonable uses of Federal and State
waters. Uses of water can be considered unreasonable because they
pollute; because they offend our sense of aesthetics or natural beauty;
because they interfere with the right of the public to enjoy a natural
resource of state or national significance; because they threaten in a
harmful way to upset the ecological balance of nature, or because to
allow this unreasonable use confers a valuable privilege which is
inconsistent with protecting the public trust.
Agencies like the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
California's EPA were established to protect the public interest and
quality of the Nation's lands and waters. Such agencies are not to
squander clean air, allow the pollution of our rivers, streams and
groundwater, allow the pollution or other degradation of our land
leaving a degraded legacy for our grandchildren or allow the pollution
of the body's of our children, our fish and wildlife resources or our
food supply. These same agencies should not look like shills for
corporate farms or massive water districts (Boswells Farms, Westland
Water District).
Any effort at maintaining sustainable water quality, agriculture
and wetland ecosystems (fish and wildlife resources) must involve an
understanding of the interaction between the soil and the flow of water
over, through, and under the soil well beyond the point of application.
Preserving soil fertility is critical to sustaining its productivity.
Preserving and maintaining water quality is critical to the
productivity of water as an ecosystem and as a commodity for domestic
and industrial uses. Unlike soil, which can be built up over time,
water can't be built or enhanced. A river can be lost to a farmer; to a
species of fish or to fish resources; lost as a place to recreate or as
a water supply. It can be diverted, polluted, misused or over
appropriated. Aldo Leopold's Round River makes the principles of
ecology clear and vivid, suggesting that nature is a ``Round River'',
like a stream flowing into itself, going round and round in an
unceasing circuit, going through all the soils, the flora and fauna of
the earth while supporting many resources, beneficial uses and values.
Destroying one part can destroy it all and all its benefits to society.
A use of the lands and waters of a watershed that so degrades the
sustainability of a downstream ecosystem or a component of that
ecosystem to make it unsuitable for sustaining viable agriculture,
wildlife, fish and other aquatic life, or which makes fish unsuitable
for human consumption, or which is a hazard to other fish and wildlife,
or which degrades ecological, aesthetic, recreational uses, small craft
navigation, and scenic values, is inconsistent with public trust
protection, the reasonable use of water is therefore a nuisance. When
chemicals enter the bodies of children, or enter the domestic or
wildlife food supply to toxic levels without our consent, it is a
trespass.
Here is an example brought to you in part by the Federal Bureau of
Reclamation and the Central Valley Project.
It was known for a long time that the soils of the Westside of the
San Joaquin Valley were derived from parent material formed in an old
seabed. The California Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 89,
Lower San Joaquin Valley Water Quality Investigation--1960, discusses
concerns about the chemicals and various salts in the soils and
drainage from the area. The soils and parent material extend throughout
the Westside, south to the end of the Valley. The sodium ion was a
major concern along with a variety of sulfates, boron and numerous
trace elements. Even at that time drainage was believed to be a serious
and emerging problem. Drainage from the Panoche area was highly
concentrated from a quality standpoint and ``unusable for beneficial
purposes'' (see pg. 95 of DWR ``Bull. No 89). At that time the San
Joaquin River was already seriously polluted from agricultural drainage
and wastewater.
The observation ``that the drainage was highly concentrated from a
quality standpoint and unusable for beneficial purposes'', sparked
little attention. With the application of vast quantities of Bureau of
Reclamation water to the highly saline / seleniferious soils, the need
for drainage works quickly become apparent. Surface waters and the San
Joaquin River showed additional evidence of pollution.
By 1982 some people, including a few Grassland duck club owners,
believed that something was wrong in the northern Grasslands. They had
noticed sick and dead birds in 1981 and 82. In 1983 the first deformed
young of migratory birds were found on Kesterson NWR by researchers
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Kesterson Reservoir (NWR) was
the then terminus of the San Luis Drain. People were disturbed by the
pictures of dead and grossly deformed waterfowl and shorebirds obtained
from Kesterson Evaporation Ponds that were appearing on the nightly
television news at dinnertime. Selenium (Se) in the agricultural
drainage accumulated via the food chain to high levels in their tissues
resulted in dead adults, dead and deformed young. Several species of
fish had elevated Se levels in their tissues.
In September 1984, California's State Board, in its Agricultural
Water Management Guidelines for Water Purveyors, stated, ``Failure to
take appropriate measures to minimize excess application, excess
incidental losses, or degradation of water quality constitutes
unreasonable use of water'' (Emphasis added).
The State Board followed with its Order WQ 85-1(February 1985). The
State Board found that agricultural drainage and wastewater reaching
Kesterson Reservoir ``is creating and threatening to create conditions
of pollution and nuisance'' (Emphases added). The Order then warned
``If the Bureau closes Kesterson Reservoir and continues to supply
irrigation water to Westlands Water District without implementing an
adequate disposal option, continued irrigation in the affected area of
Westlands Water District could constitute an unreasonable use of
water'' (Emphasis added).
From 1986 to today (2007), Selenium contamination is sufficient to
cause deformities and threaten reproduction of key species within the
area of the greater Grasslands, in the San Joaquin River to the Bay-
Delta estuary. Deformed migratory birds have been found in every year
field investigations were conducted for such evidence. Selenium
concentration was also high in eggs that were sampled, which in turn
could have lead to deformities. Fish resources continue to show high
levels of Se because of a Se-contaminated food chain. Selenium has been
found in what is usually called edible tissues and in reproductive
organs of birds and fish.
Human health advisories have been issued against consuming Se
contaminated edible tissues of fish (bluegill and largemouth bass) and
of migratory birds (ducks and coots). Women of childbearing age and
children are cautioned against eating such tissues. State Board reports
indicate that in the Bay-Delta, surf scoter, greater and lesser scaup
and particularly white sturgeon appear to be the most at risk to Se
toxicity because they feed on filter feeders (i.e. bivalves).
Concentrations Se found in 62 white sturgeon muscle samples and 42
liver samples far exceed tissue thresholds for reproductive effects.
Recent findings add the Sacramento splittail to the list of species
exhibiting elevated Se levels.
The USGS report (Report) ``Forecasting Selenium Discharges to the
San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary; Ecological Effects of a Proposed San
Luis Drain Extension'' by Drs. Samuel N. Luoma and Theresa S. Presser
``2000), indicates that the reservoir of Se on the Westside of San
Joaquin Valley is sufficient to provide loading at an annual rate of
about 42,500 pounds of Se to the Bay-Delta disposal point for 63 to 304
years at the lower range of its projection. This is with the influx of
Se from the Coast Range curtailed.
Selenium bioaccumulation is a major water quality problem. The
combination of California's climate, hydrology, Se loading, Se
reactivity, and Se bioavailability poses a significant threat to the
aquatic ecosystem of the Lower San Joaquin River and Bay-Delta.
Selenium contamination is damaging beneficial uses, degrading food
sources of humans and wildlife, aesthetic, recreation and ecological
values. Risks to fish and bird reproduction could lead to extinction
via contamination of the invertebrate food supply. Filter feeders are
great concentrators of Se. Aquatic insects were the primary food item
of shore birds. The Report concludes that bivalves appear to be the
most sensitive indicator of Se contamination in the Bay-Delta. In the
Bay-Delta and the lower San Joaquin River tidal action will increase
the resident time of Se, exposing all aquatic organisms and increasing
the ability of food organisms to accumulate greater amounts of Se and
pass it up the food chain to predators.
Studies indicate that the highest concentrations of Se (12 to 23
ppb) were measured in green sunfish (lepomis cyanellus) from the San
Luis Drain where seleniferous drainage is most concentrated. The second
highest concentrations of Se (7.6 to 17 ppb) were measured in green
sunfish (lepomis cyanellus) and 14 to 18 ppb Se in bluegills (Lepomis
macrochirus) taken from North Mud Slough. The high levels (body burden)
of Se could be related to the Se sequestered in the sediments and
benthic organisms that are mobilized by the detritus-based food chain.
(USGS, Biological Resources Division ``Effects of an Agricultural
Drainwater Bypass on Fishes Inhibiting the Grassland Water District and
the Lower San Joaquin River, California'' by Saiki, Michael J., Barbara
A. Martin, Steven E. Schwarzbach, and Thomas W. May. In North American
Journal of Fisheries Management, Vol. 21:624-635, 2001.
One can conclude that water borne Se is the single most predictor
of pollution, that it can and continues to have an adverse affect on
the aquatic ecosystem, associated fish and wildlife resources, uses and
values (Saiki, et al-2001)
The bottom line is that saline / seleniferious soils of the
Westside of the San Joaquin Valley contain a reservoir of Se, other
trace elements and a variety of salts, that with irrigation, will
continue to leach from the soils to the shallow groundwater for years
and years to come. This Se leachate / drainage will continue to degrade
down slope lands, surface and groundwater, fish and wildlife habitats
and other beneficial uses of the receiving waters including the San
Joaquin River and Delta.
Today we have the longest Selenium hazardous waste site know to
man, extending from at least the Mendota pool and the Grasslands (near
Los Banos), downstream via the San Joaquin River to the Delta, Suisun
Bay and adjacent marshes. This involves 130 miles of San Joaquin River,
miles of waterways in the Delta and 1,000s upon 1,000s of acres of San
Joaquin Valley lands and aquatic ecosystems.
With the above information one could allege that the continued
irrigation of saline / seleniferious soils of the Westside of the San
Joaquin Valley and Se contaminated discharges to the San Joaquin River
constitute a waste and unreasonable use of the State's water, and a
nuisance. All of this is not within the meaning of beneficial use of
Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902 and the contemporary equal
priority setting of CVPIA, Section 3406 (a) (3) and the Clean Water
Act, as amended.
This Committee or a court should review the drainage issue and
associated impacts to determine if such a use of water is both
beneficial and reasonable within the context of continuing shortage of
water, the broadened meaning of beneficial use of Section 8 of the
Reclamation Act of 1902 and the contemporary equal priority setting of
CVPIA, Section 3406 (a) (3) and the Clean Water Act, as amended.
To me this irrigation use of water, associated drainage, Selenium
and other impacts is just as inconsistent with reasonable use and
public trust protection as is the filling of tidelands (Mark v. Whitney
6 Cal, 3d 251 - 1971); as is allowing mining waste and debris that
impacted water quality and impede navigation (Woodruff v North
Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. (Fed Rpt. Vol. 12--1884) and People v Gold
Run Ditch and Mining Co. (4 Pac Rpt at 1152--1884); as is a ranch or
farm which allows animal wastes and other filth to contaminate the
waters of a stream which impacts the water supply and beneficial uses
of downstream users (People ex rel Ricks Water Co. v Elk River Mill and
Lumber Co. (40 Pac Rpt 486 ``1895); as is the deposition of mill wastes
and other debris which destroys aquatic life and a fishery ( People v
Truckee Lumber Co.(16 Cal 397, 48 Pac 347 - 1897) , and as is the
diversion of water which destroys numerous uses and values protected by
the public trust reaffirmed or clarified in Audubon (National Audubon
Society v Department of Water and Power, City of Los Angeles (33 Cal 3d
419, 658 P 2d 709, 189 Cal Rpt.346; cert denied 464 U.S. 977--1983).
The point made by the Elk River Court that if the conformation of
the defendant's land is such that he cannot carry on a dairy without
putting such filth directly into the water, then he must find some
other use for the land (emphases added). This rational thinking of over
110 years ago is particularly relevant to today's Se, salt, drainage
and wastewater issues associated with the irrigation of selected lands
in the San Joaquin Valley. Following the thinking of the Elk River
Court, if the Westside farmers cannot carry on their operations without
polluting the local ground and surface waters, then they must find some
other use for the land. And there is no taking issue for a use that is
deemed unreasonable and a nuisance (Audubon).
Some Suggested Actions
Control of agricultural pollution also might be achieved by
instituting best management practices, land retirement, and by economic
incentives (substantial fines, forfeiture of all or a portion of
appropriated water rights or contract allotments). Land retirement is
an important option. Removing Federal irrigation water from being use
on the Se source lands. Taking the land out of production that is the
source of the majority of the salt and selenium problems should have
quick and positive results and many public benefits. This can be
attained by direct purchase of land or the irrigation rights, leasing
land, purchasing the irrigation water allotment to such lands while
prohibiting the use of groundwater on those lands.
Retiring lands containing significant levels of selenium or other
toxic materials would have just a one time cost. A long-term lease
might also work, for there would be little if any maintenance costs.
Land not needed for conservation purposes such as restoring native
grasslands and related fauna of the San Joaquin Valley, could be sold,
with title restrictions, for selected compatible uses such as dry land
farming, grazing, etc. Within the Westlands Water District problem
soils have been estimated at 100,000 to 275,000 acres (USBR, April
1991).
At a cost of $1,000.00 per acre it would cost $100,000,000.00 to
retire 100,000 acres or $275,000,000.00 for the 275,000 acres. Lands
acquired should be purchased with today's realities in mind. This
includes limited or poor ground water, extensive selenium and sodium
sulfate problems. Any value added to the price of land should not be
based on speculation, the availability of Federally subsidized water,
or on the potential construction of a Federal drainage facilities. A
reality is that problem soils without water are just about worthless.
For each acre of irrigated land retired, there would be
commensurate saving of about 2.0 to 3.5 acre feet of water per acre
(depending on crop) or about 200,000 to 350,000 acre feet for each
100,000 acres taken out of irrigation. This water is firm yield water
imported from northern California. For each irrigated acre taken out of
production there would be a reduction of 20 to 60 pound of pesticides
(active ingredients) plus 80 to 250 pounds of carrier materials, (oils,
etc.) not applied to the soils. There would be a reduction of the
amount of drainage and wastewater generated of about .6 to .8 acre feet
per acre of land retired or 60,000 to 80,000 acre-feet for each 100,000
acres retired. There would be a saving in electrical energy by not
having to pump water from the Delta. There should be benefits to fish
resources and associated fisheries as up to 600,000 to 900,000 acre-
feet would not have to be pumped from the Delta.
The water savings could be used to restore or otherwise benefit
fish resources and fisheries throughout the waters of the Bay-Delta
watershed. Any remaining water could be sold for municipal uses.
Economic incentives may be effective because of the existence and
potential threat of law suits using the public trust doctrine, waste
and unreasonable use, and the State's enforcement powers. A finding of
a waste and unreasonable use of water by a court or the State Board or
a finding based on the public trust could bind all entities discharging
selenium, boron and sodium sulfate laden drainage and wastewater in to
state waters.
Based on the State Board's 1984 (Agricultural Water Management
Guidelines for Water Purveyors) and 1985 State Board Order WQ 85-1
definition of what constitutes an unreasonable use of water, the
effects from irrigating saline, seleniferious soils are such that this
use must be considered a waste and unreasonable use of water and the
resultant drainage and wastewater a nuisance. This violates Article X,
Section 2, of the State Constitution. The premise of the Federal Clean
Water Act, as amended, is violated. The impacts violate Section 8 of
the 1902 Reclamation Act, which requires compliance with State laws.
Section 8 also says; Provided, That the right to the use of water
acquired under the provisions of this Act shall be appurtenant to the
land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure and
the limit of the right.
Thank you.
______
June 25, 2007
To: SARA Board and other interested parties
From: Felix Smith
Subject: The Lower American River, the FMS and temperature criteria
Over the past several years the consulting firm SWRI (now HDR-SWRI)
developed for the Water Forum, the best flow management option for the
American River given the constraints of Folsom Reservoir, and the
Bureau of Reclamation's integrated operations of the CVP through the
OCAP. This operation will be much better than the Bureau's pre-CVPIA
operations and will improve on the Bureau's post-CVPIA operations.
However, the controlling factor is really the lack of cool water to
meet temperature needs of the flows in the LAR. There just is not
enough cool water in Folsom storage for blending with massive amounts
of release (up to 4,000 cfs during June and July) and still attain the
desired flow and temperature criteria to meet salmonid needs during
late summer and fall months.
Water is the environment in which fish and other aquatic life carry
on all their life processes. Healthy and diverse aquatic populations
are indicative of good instream conditions (water quality, temperature,
oxygen and chemical parameters). Good water quality allows for near
optimum use of water as a domestic and industrial supply, an
environment for fish and other aquatic life, and as a recreational and
esthetic resource. In this situation, the LAR environment must include
the timing and amount of instream flow, the temperature and water
quality and flow conditions necessary for adult migration and holding,
spawning, egg incubation, rearing of fall -late fall run Chinook
salmon, steelhead and American shad and their dependent food web.
HDR-SWRI developed the Flow Management Standard for the LAR. The
FMS mirrors the purpose and intent of Judge Hodge decision in EDF v
EBMUD of 1990. His decision was based on the best information available
to him, his understanding of the Audubon decision (Mono Lake decision)
of 1983, the Cal Trout v SWRCB decision of 1989 and California Fish and
Game Code Section 5937. The basic meaning of Section 5937 and the Cal
Trout decision, is protecting and managing aquatic ecosystems,
associated resources, uses and values covered by the State's public
trust protection comes first in any appropriation and use of water.
Judge Hodge has stated that the public trust doctrine occupies an
exalted position in any administrative or judicial determination of
water resource allocation and use.
Judge Hodge physical solution contains a flow pattern that amounts
to about 1.7 to 1.8 MAF out about 2.7 MAF, or about 66 percent of an
average annual runoff of the American River Basin. Hodge flow schedule:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.029
An additional 60,000 acre-feet was to be maintained in reserve in
Folsom Reservoir from mid October thru June 30 for release when
recommended by the CDFG.
The Hodge decision, in essence, established a water right
allocation for the Lower American River ecosystem, its resources, uses
and values irrespective of those operating the Folsom / Nimbus project,
water right holders or the needs of downstream contractors. The
released flows would extend throughout the LAR from point of release at
Nimbus Dam to the Sacramento River.
Water temperature plays a critical roll in the conservation and
protection of salmon and steelhead. At some life history stages water
temperatures can vary quite a bit, while at other times water
temperature is critical to life requirements. Such temperatures are
fairly defined and should be met if there is to be good survival and
growth of salmonid fishes. Temperature criteria, however, was not a
component of the Hodge decision.
Water temperature targets / objectives to be attained at the Watt
Ave gage.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 36477.030
Evidence indicates that spring and summer releases warm up as they
progress downstream from Folsom Reservoir through Nimbus Reservoir as
measured at the Fair Oaks and Watt Ave gages. In the fall flows
released from Nimbus Reservoir cool as they progress down stream. It
takes about 24 to 30 days for water temperatures of 58 to 60 FD
measured in the North Fork American River to reach the Chinook salmon
spawning grounds.
It has been long realized the Folsom Reservoir is cold water
deficient. Under the Bureau's operation of Folsom Reservoir, this cool
water deficiency is acerbated when releases of 3,500 to 4,000 cfs draw
on the cool water to meet export needs south of the Delta. This cold
water deficiency will in time impact the LAR ecosystem and several life
stages of the Chinook salmon and steelhead utilizing the LAR as well as
the operation of the Nimbus Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery (NSSH). The
American River is also the water supply for the American River Trout
Hatchery (ARTH).
Based on Bureau data (April 25, 2007) for the years 2001 to 2007, a
Folsom Reservoir pool greater than of 600,000 acre-feet of storage end
of September does not guarantee sufficient cold water to meet the needs
of the anadromous fishes of the LAR. In some years there will be
insufficient cold water during the summer hold over of steelhead young.
This could easily stress the 2-year classes of steelhead both in the
LAR and being reared at the NSSH.
The minimum amount of water needed to meet the SWRI / Water Forum's
Flow Management Standard of 1,500 to 2,000 cfs is about 1,282,000 acre-
feet. Because there are temperature objectives / targets to be met, the
flows released from Folsom Reservoir may have to be increased above the
minimums during the summer and fall months in order to maintain
adequate water temperature to keep the holding adult Chinook salmon and
summering over steelhead young in good condition. These flows would
extend throughout the LAR from Nimbus Dam to the Sacramento River.
From the Bureau's end of May (web) data, June releases were
forecasted at 3,000 cfs, at 3,292 cfs for July and at 3,049 cfs for
August. The amount of water involved in these three months is about
568,000 acre-feet. End of September storage was listed at 359,000 acre-
feet. In the past several years Folsom releases in August are frequent
cut back by mid August. Therefore the releases could be considerable
higher than forecast for July and August to meet Delta export
contracts. The released water will have to be blended to meet the
temperature criteria for steelhead in the LAR. Even at 68 DF the
salmonid population in the LAR will be under considerable stress.
At the May 31, Fish Working Group meeting, Bureau and FWS
representatives presented DRAFT operational data for the Folsom Project
through the summer and early fall months. They expounded on how the
operation and flows would be under historical baseline operation, or
about 3,200 cfs during July, instead of 4,000 cfs in the baseline
conditions. Can you imagine 4,000 cfs of natural summer flow in a low
runoff year? This amounts to 7,932 acre-feet a day and 237,960 acre-
feet for 30 days. There goes much of the cool water pool and once it is
gone there is little chance to get it back.
For most of the month of May and the first 10 days of June the
Folsom/ Nimbus release was about 1,500 cfs. Delta CVP export was about
850 cfs through the Tracy Pumping plant during this same period. Flows
released from Folsom were increased to 2,000 cfs for 3 days to meet
Delta Water Quality. On June 12 the flows were reduced to 1,500 cfs to
conserve water. On June 15, flow was increased to 3,500 cfs toping out
at 4,000 cfs on June 16, 2007. The Bureau has scheduled an increase to
4,500 cfs on June 26, 2007. This is 8,923 acre-feet per day and 267,705
acre-feet for 30 days. The duration of such release is unstated. The
reason given by the Bureau was to ``meet Delta requirements''. Unstated
purpose is to ``meet export contracts''. CVP Tracy pumping plant is
scheduled to pump 4,200 cfs on June 25.
From the Bureau's June 19, 2007 (web site), June releases were
forecast at 3,305 cfs, July at 2,774 cfs and 2,082 cfs for August. The
amount of water involved in these three months is about 496,000 acre-
feet. End of September storage was listed at 420,000 acre-feet or about
60,000 acre-feet more water in storage than the May forecast. Releases
to the LAR are forecast at 1,285 cfs for October, 994 cfs for November
and 800 cfs for December. The 800 cfs is the minimum flow of the Flow
Management Standard except during extreme drought conditions. The
Bureau's June 19, 2007 web site forecast was already out of date and is
far from reality.
The massive summer transfer of water draws heavily upon Folsom
storage, greatly reducing the cool water pool. This reduced cool water
storage will in turn impact the LAR ecosystem. It will extend to any
holding over young Chinook salmon, the summering over of young
steelhead and early arriving run fall adult Chinook salmon that must
hold in the LAR for water of spawning temperature. We could see water
temperatures into the upper 60's, i.e. 68 DF with excursions into the
low 70's DF this summer. Since the American River is also the water
supply for the NSSH, the Hatchery's mitigation function could be
impaired. The Hatchery's function is to mitigate the impacts to salmon
and steelhead resources (lost spawning and nursery grounds) resulting
from the construction and operation of the Folsom / Nimbus Unit of the
CVP. This mitigation function is equal to a contract and carries with
it a perpetual obligation.
What is the Bureau's Plan to offset or lessen the impacts to public
trust resources, uses and values in the Lower American River under its
operating scenario for 2007,or 2008 and 2009? Under the public trust
doctrine, I do not believe the Bureau of Reclamation can walk away from
the problems it has to a significant degree created. It is the
responsibility of the owner of a dam to comply with Fish and Game Code
Section 5937, whether or not it is specifically stated in a water right
permit or license issued by the State Board. Therefore the Bureau has
an obligation to protect the resources of the LAR under any operational
plan for the Folsom / Nimbus project.
Under the CVPIA, Section 3046 (b) (1) has a target of doubling the
natural production of anadromous fish relative to the average level
attained during 1967-1991. As a part of the doubling program, the CVP
operators are to give first priority to measures that protect and
restore natural channels and riparian habitat values through
restoration actions and through modifications to CVP operations.
The (b) (1) (A) water is re-operation water and is to meet
regulatory and project needs. The effort here is to re-operate the
Folsom / Nimbus project to best meet the needs of fish / aquatic
resources in the LAR and meets Delta water quality objectives. The
operators of the CVP are to provide flows of suitable quality, quantity
and timing to protect all life stages of anadromous fishes. The Section
3046 (b) (2) water is not to be used until all aspects of CVP re-
operation have been undertaken to meet the doubling plan using re-
operation water.
The Bureau representatives expounded during the May 31 Working
Group meeting about how this years flows were under historical baseline
operations. However the Bureau has not presented a progress report on
the development of the base case scenario. This project re-operation
and baseline / accounting must be transparent. It is from this base
case (flow / ecological conditions) that all other stream flow actions
/ releases will be based and from which benefits (improved stream flow,
temperatures and timing of flows) or liabilities (impacts to stream
flows, temperatures and timing of flows) are or can be measured.
Without a transparent base case, the FWS can be accused of camping with
the Bureau and managing the LAR with smoke and mirrors.
The basic meaning of Code Section 5937 and the Cal Trout decision
is that protecting and managing aquatic ecosystems, associated
resources, uses and values covered by the State's public trust
protection comes first in any appropriation and use of water. The State
Board acted that way with its implementation of the Mono Lake decision.
One must be aware that the Supreme Court Decision in S.D. Warren Co
v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, et al, (No. 04-1527, May
15, 2006), a case involved water released from a dam for generating
electrical energy. The Court indicated that because there are inherent
risks in limiting, modifying the movement and circulation of a river,
it is within the State's legitimate business to regulate. State
Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Waters Act is required for
discharges from dams. The operation of the Folsom / Nimbus Reservoirs
store and modify the flow of the American River and generates
electrical energy while doing so. This manipulation can and does impact
water quality character (temperature); therefore a 401 CWA
certification by the State Board may be required. A CWA Section 401
certification by the State Board could include the purpose and intent
of CDFG code section 5937, and temperature criteria to protect the
LAR's salmon and steelhead fishes. Measures could become a part of the
Bureau's modified water use permit for the operation of the Folsom /
Nimbus facilities.
The Audubon Court effectively tied the protection of public trust
assets to the perpetuation of the natural and ecological aspects of
Mono Lake for their innate values, not the private off-site uses of
water.
Now may be the time and the occasion for a court or massive public
opinion to demand that the Bureau operate the Folsom / Nimbus project
in such a way to meet the Water Forum's Flow Management Standard (as a
minimum flow standard) with its temperature component to conserve and
protect the salmonid populations of the Lower American River. The plan
could be called the ``ESA fish protection / public trust protection and
operations plan'' for the LAR. Some questions however should be
investigated as a part of this plan. For example:
What would happen to Folsom Reservoir's cool water pool and the LAR
salmonid resources under a Bureau's plan of operation that is limited
to meeting the FMS and temperature criteria in the LAR?
Would the Water Forum's FMS meet Delta Water Quality Standards? If
not, how much water is needed to meet such standards? How much of the
released water could be exported and still meet Delta Standards?
The Bureau should model such a plan of operation and report back to
the Water Forum, the Fish Working Group, and report the results for
public review and comment.
The Water Forum through SWRI should model such a plan of operation
for so it and the Fish Working Group can remain well informed.
I believe that mitigating the impacts of the construction and
operation of the Folsom / Nimbus project is a first priority and
continuing obligation of the Bureau. Protecting the people's public
trust interests in the area of origin should be at a higher priority
than meeting water contracts south of the Delta. This is especially so
when such water is used to produces subsidized crops or contributes
additional salts and trace elements like selenium to the wetlands and
waters of the San Joaquin Valley.
One thing is certain, the greater the uncertainty is the protection
of the Lower American River resources, uses and values, including its
Chinook salmon and steelhead, the greater the uncertainty of the Bureau
of Reclamation's ability to continue to take water from the American
River.
______
July 18, 2007
To: SARA Board and other interested parties.
From: Felix Smith
Subject: The Lower American River, the FMS, Temperature Criteria and
Call
This is an addendum to my memo on subject dated June 25, 2007. This
should help clarify some of the thinking behind that memo.
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) was passed in
1992. The first two purposes of the CVPIA as set forth in the statute
(Section 3402 (a) and (b)) are to protect, restore, and enhance fish,
wildlife and associated habitats in the Central Valley and Trinity
River Basins, and to address impacts of the CVP on fish, wildlife and
associated habitats.
It is now time (2007) for the Water Forum and the people of the
greater Sacramento Region to see the purpose and intent of the CVPIA
become a reality on the American River. If the collective Water Forum
and other interested parties do not continue to ask how much flow and
temperature stress, harm and other mortality Chinook salmon and
steelhead resources of the Lower American River (LAR) can be prevented
by the Bureau of Reclamation's operation of the Folsom / Nimbus
facilities, I doubt we will ever see the Bureau take the first step to
correct an ecological problem.
Question
Is it the broad public interest to make trade-offs, go along with
or approve a new or modified Bureau of Reclamation water right permit
for the operation of Folsom / Nimbus facilities that does not meet the
flow and water quality (temperature) needs of Chinook salmon and
Steelhead of the LAR?
To say it another way; how can the stress, harm and mortality to
Chinook salmon and steelhead from flow fluctuations and elevated water
temperatures in the LAR be prevented? Or the question is; what is
needed to prevent damage to the sustainability of such public trust
resources on a year in and year out basis? Asking what is an acceptable
risk for public trust resources, uses and values to endure for the sake
of out-of-basin agricultural benefits should not be a part of the
trade-off?
The GOAL
Operate Folsom / Nimbus Reservoirs and associated facilities to
protect and foster public trust and ESA purposes (Chinook salmon and
steelhead resources) until adequate temperature, flow regimen and
perceived / necessary facilities and operational criteria are put in
place. The goal is to ensure the restoration and sustainability of the
LAR ecosystem, associated Chinook salmon and steelhead resources, uses
and values. While not attainable, we must strive for 100 percent
reliability and sustainability of such resources.
This effort may require operational or structural modifications to
Folsom / Nimbus facilities to ensure successful holding, spawning of
adult Chinook salmon, successful egg incubation, and safe rearing and
downstream passage of young salmon and steelhead. This could include
maintaining specific daily average water temperature goal of 65 FD with
the upper range not to exceed 68 FD in the LAR between Nimbus Dam and
the Sacramento River during the summering over period and reducing flow
fluctuations. Temperatures of 58 FD or less are needed for successful
Chinook salmon and steelhead spawning and egg incubation. Flow without
meeting temperature criteria is not habitat of Chinook salmon and
steelhead.
Call to Action
Now is the time for the Water Forum and the people of the greater
Sacramento Region to demand that the Bureau operate the Folsom / Nimbus
project in such a way to meet the Water Forum's Flow Management
Standard, with its continuous flow and temperature component, to
conserve and protect the Chinook salmon and steelhead resources of the
Lower American River.
Now is the time for the Bureau to institute an ESA fish /
public trust protection and operations plan for the LAR based on the
flow and temperature criteria of the FMS. The Bureau should report
annually to the public on the success of the plan and ways to improve
it to better serve fish conservation needs of the LAR.
Now is the time to require the Bureau to modify Folsom
Dam's powerhouse intakes (at least one) to access the coldest water in
Folsom Reservoir.
Now is the time for the Bureau to construct an automated
and temperature activated shutter system on at least one powerhouse
intake.
Now is the time for the Bureau to modify the daily /
weekly operation of Nimbus Reservoir. Nimbus Reservoir is a heat sink.
This may require modifying the intake structure to the Nimbus Dam power
generating facilities (it pulls from surface water). Another
modification may require a continuous flow equal to a run of the river
situation during periods of high temperature and low flow releases.
Now is the time to require the Bureau operate the Folsom
/ Nimbus project in such a manner to meet the Water Forum's Flow
Management Standard with its continuous flow and temperature component
to conserve and protect the Chinook salmon and steelhead resources,
uses and values of the Lower American River.
There may be other operational changes or structural modification
that should be made to help bring greater control (operational
flexibility) over the temperature of water released by the Folsom /
Nimbus project to the LAR.
This all may take Congressional encouragement and action. Now is
the time for the Bureau to do everything necessary to protect the
public trust assets of the Lower American River. The Bureau and the
Greater Sacramento Community needs all the help they can get.
Background material and reasoning
The construction and operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP)
reworked the natural flows of the Central Valley. This massive
undertaking was largely to help the eastside San Joaquin Valley farmers
who had seriously over drafted their groundwater. The Sacramento Basin
water covered the needs of the Lower San Joaquin River water rights
holders (riparian and adjudicated) so the eastside farmers could be
served water from the San Joaquin River via Friant Reservoir and the
Madera and Friant--Kern Canals. The needs of the fish resources
(riparian needs) were not incorporated into the Friant project. Folsom
Reservoir on the American River quickly became and is the Bureau's
safety valve to get water to the Delta ASAP to meet export needs and
water quality standards until water released from Shasta Reservoir
arrives in the Delta.
The CVP has benefited the farming economy of California and
probably the U.S. balance of payments. However the CVP unquestionably
has had a devastating environmental legacy. The negative impacts
include dewatering reaches of a major river system--the San Joaquin
River with it spring-run of Chinook salmon now extinct. The Sacramento
River's Winter-run Chinook salmon was bought to near extinction. On the
Trinity River after years of abuse there was Congressional action to
bring back the Trinity River ecosystem to support the salmon and
steelhead runs of yesteryear. Flow reversal in the south Delta. Much of
the agricultural drainage in a major portion of the Westside of the San
Joaquin Valley was discovered to be toxic with disastrous environmental
consequences to wetlands, migratory birds and resident wildlife, and
surface and groundwater supplies. The drainage problem was greatly
magnified and expanded with the imported of Sacramento and Trinity
Basin water. (Dunning, Harrison C. - 1993 - Confronting the
Environmental Legacy of Irrigated in the West, the Case of the Central
Valley Project, in Environmental Law, Volume 23 at 942--1993, Northwest
School of Law, Lewis and Clark College.) This agricultural drainage (a
variety of salts) plus 49 agricultural pesticides and other chemicals,
some banned in 1970 (DDT, toxaphene and chlordane) are still found in
mud and in clams and fish tissue samples from the San Joaquin River and
Delta (USGS 1998). Such a chemical soup could be a contributor to the
Delta's Pelagic Organism Decline. On the San Joaquin River, after more
than 50 years, a Court settlement to restore the San Joaquin River with
releases from Friant Dam and Reservoir has been accepted by the parties
pending Federal Congressional action and financial support.
The CVPIA calls for bold moves to address the severe environmental
impacts caused by past operation of the CVP. The results could be
downsizing the safe yield of the Project, downsizing irrigated
agriculture on the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley as a result of
economics, salt intrusion, continued drainage problems; selenium
toxicity to wetland biota, including fish, resident and migratory
wildlife; the need to provide and protect urban supplies, and the need
to correct and provide for improved instream environmental conditions.
It could include facilities like automated shutters; modifying the
intake structures to access the coldest water in reservoirs; modifying
the reservoir release to better meet the needs of Chinook salmon and
steelhead. All of this could come by deliberate Bureau action,
Congressional action, change in policy, or by a court order (Dunning,
Harrison C. ``1993). There have been some corrective actions put in
place. However, the jury is still out regarding the success of such
actions.
As recently as July 3, 2007, Representative George Miller said that
there is water that is used in large quantities that brings relative
little economic return to the state. Water could be shifted away from
cotton and alfalfa farms in the San Joaquin Valley, by changing subsidy
policies or if government decides not to renew contracts from the
Federally owned Central Valley Project. (Contra Costa Times, July 3,
2007)
Adolph Moskovitz in a March 3, 1994 presentation to the Sacramento
Area Water Forum emphasized the importance of the Public Trust. He
stated the Public Trust cannot be diluted by treating it as merely
another beneficial use under Article X, Section 2 of the California
Constitution, co-equal with irrigation, power production and municipal
water supply. The Public Trust Doctrine occupies an exalted position in
any judicial or administrative determination of water use allocation.
He went on to say that the Public Trust Doctrine applies to the
American River water stored in Folsom Reservoir as well as natural
flow, so that instream standards (requirements) are to be met by stored
water releases in addition to restrictions on diversions. (This
restriction could apply to Delta diversions) Also protection of public
trust resources may prevail over the constitutional requirements to put
the State's waters to their fullest beneficial use, when the two are
irreconcilable.
The State Board's 1994 decision regarding Mono Lake shared the
water with out-of-stream uses only after the instream resources, their
uses and values were protected and assured a great chance of long-term
sustainability.
The Water Forum's Flow Management Standard (FMS) including
temperature criteria was modeled by SWRI. The conclusion was that the
flows and temperature would be met about 65 to 70 percent of the years
modeled. SWRI came up with the best management option for the American
River given the constraints of Folsom Reservoir, and the Bureau of
Reclamation's OCAP for integrated operations of the CVP. There will be
years when protection will be less, may be marginal or simply not
available because of the lack of Folsom storage and cold water to meet
temperature criteria of flows released. The Chinook salmon will have to
wait the arrival of fall rains and cooler temperature. This could delay
Chinook salmon spawning until late November and into December. Adult
salmon holding in water that in the mid 60 DF would be expected to
suffer high mortality, with their eggs suffering lower survival rates.
This is what happened in the 2001spawning year. The Water Forum's FMS
will be better than the Bureau's pre CVPIA operations and should
improve on the Bureau's post CVPIA operations. However, the controlling
item will be lack of cool water or access to the coldest water in
Folsom Reservoir for blending to attain the desired stream temperature
without by passing power generating facilities. Flow fluctuations of
the LAR could continue to be a problem during spawning and rearing
periods.
All of this may take Congressional encouragement and action. Now is
the time for the Bureau and the Greater Sacramento Region to do
everything necessary to protect the public trust assets of the Lower
American River.