    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     PERSPECTIVES ON CALIFORNIA WATER SUPPLY: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

    =======================================================================

                            OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING

                                   before the

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

              Monday, January 25, 2010, in Los Angeles, California

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-43

                                   __________

           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
    54-619                    WASHINGTON : 2010
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                  NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
              DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member

    Dale E. Kildee, Michigan             Don Young, Alaska
    Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American      Elton Gallegly, California
        Samoa                            John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
    Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii             Jeff Flake, Arizona
    Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey       Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
    Grace F. Napolitano, California          Carolina
    Rush D. Holt, New Jersey             Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
    Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Louie Gohmert, Texas
    Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam          Rob Bishop, Utah
    Jim Costa, California                Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
    Dan Boren, Oklahoma                  Doug Lamborn, Colorado
    Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas   Adrian Smith, Nebraska
    Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico       Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
    George Miller, California            Paul C. Broun, Georgia
    Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts      John Fleming, Louisiana
    Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon             Mike Coffman, Colorado
    Maurice D. Hinchey, New York         Jason Chaffetz, Utah
    Donna M. Christensen, Virgin         Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
        Islands                          Tom McClintock, California
    Diana DeGette, Colorado              Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
    Ron Kind, Wisconsin
    Lois Capps, California
    Jay Inslee, Washington
    Joe Baca, California
    Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
        Dakota
    John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
    Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
    Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
    Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
    Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico

                         James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
                           Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
                     Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
                     Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
                                     ------

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

                  GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chairwoman
             TOM McCLINTOCK, California, Ranking Republican Member

    George Miller, California            Cathy McMorris Rodgers,
    Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona                Washington,
    Jim Costa, California                Adrian Smith, Nebraska
    Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon             Mike Coffman, Colorado
    Jay Inslee, Washington               Doc Hastings, Washington, ex
    Joe Baca, California                     officio
    Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
        ex officio
                                     ------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Monday, January 25, 2010.........................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     9
        Chu, Hon. Judy, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of California..............................................    11
        Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of California..............................................     7
        McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     6
        Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of California....................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     4
            Congressional Research Service report entitled
              ``California Drought: Hydrological and Regulatory Water
              Supply Issues''........................................     6

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Brady, Brian J., General Manager, Imperial Irrigation
          District, Imperial, California.............................    38
            Prepared statement of....................................    39
        Caballero, Hon. Anna, Assembly Member of the California State
          Legislature, Representing the 28th Assembly District,
          Sacramento, California.....................................    18
            Prepared statement of....................................    20
        Collins, Larry, Vice President, Pacific Coast Federation of
          Fishermen's Associations, San Francisco, California........    83
            Prepared statement of....................................    84
        Connor, Hon. Michael, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
          U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C...........    12
            Prepared statement of....................................    15
        Del Bosque, Joe L., Owner, Empresas Del Bosque Inc., Los
          Banos, California..........................................    89
            Prepared statement of....................................    90
        Dunn, Lucy, President and Chief Executive Officer, Orange
          County Business Council, Irvine, California................    80
            Prepared statement of....................................    81
        Famiglietti, Professor Jay, Ph.D., Department of Earth System
          Science, University of California at Irvine, Irvine,
          California.................................................    65
            Prepared statement of....................................    67
        Gleick, Dr. Peter H., President, Pacific Institute, Oakland,
          California.................................................    59
            Prepared statement of....................................    61
        Kightlinger, Jeffery, General Manager, Metropolitan Water
          District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California...    35
            Prepared statement of....................................    37
        Luna, Miguel A., Executive Director, Urban Semillas, Los
          Angeles, California........................................    71
            Prepared statement of....................................    72
        Parks, Dan, Assistant General Manager, Coachella Valley Water
          District, Coachella, California............................    50
            Prepared statement of....................................    51
        Snow, Hon. Lester A., Director, California Department of
          Water Resources, Sacramento, California....................    21
            Prepared statement of....................................    23
        Stapleton, Maureen A., General Manager, San Diego County
          Water Authority, San Diego, California.....................    41
            Prepared statement of....................................    43

     OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON ``PERSPECTIVES ON CALIFORNIA WATER SUPPLY:
                        CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES.''

                                  ----------

                            Monday, January 25, 2010

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                        Subcommittee on Water and Power

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                            Los Angeles, California

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in
    the Boardroom, The Metropolitan Water District, Los Angeles,
    California, Hon. Grace Napolitano [Chairwoman of the
    Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Napolitano, Costa, and McClintock.
        Also Present: Representatives Chu and Calvert.

      STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mrs. Napolitano. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and
    welcome to the Subcommittee on Water and Power's hearing. I now
    will call it to order.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to hold an oversight
    hearing on ``Perspectives on California Water Supply:
    Challenges and Opportunities,'' in Southern California.
        I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Ken Calvert and
    Congresswoman Judy Chu be allowed to sit on the dais and
    participate in the Subcommittee proceedings today, and without
    objection, I so order.
        Congressman Costa will be joining us shortly.
        After my opening statement, I will recognize all other
    Members of Congress and the Subcommittee for any statement they
    may have, or they can submit it for the record, as they choose.
    Any Member of Congress who desires to be heard will be heard.
        Additional material may be submitted for the record by
    Members of Congress, by any witness or by any interested party.
    The record will be kept open for 10 business days following
    today's hearing, and a five-minute rule, with a timer, will be
    enforced. Green means go, yellow indicates you have one minute,
    and the red means stop or I will gavel.
        I certainly want to extend my thanks to Metropolitan Water
    for allowing us to use this beautiful facility and for the
    hospitality for the witnesses and for us in hosting today's
    hearing. It means a lot. It is convenient and central. I also
    wanted to thank the Board members who are here. Board members,
    would you please stand up. I don't want to miss anybody.
    Members?
        Water, ladies and gentlemen, is California's gold. Either
    we have too little or too much recently, and this past week we
    saw almost a year's worth of rain. Yet we are nowhere near
    filling our dams, our rivers, our lakes or aquifers. It does
    not mean that our concerns over drought and how water is
    managed in California are over; far from it.
        We are in the midst of a real challenge: Increasing
    population, aging infrastructure, water supply restrictions,
    water quality concerns, environmental concerns, etcetera. The
    list goes on. It continues to grow with each year.
        We are here today to continue a discussion, and this will
    not be the last of our hearings in Southern California, in an
    attempt to clarify California's water status, the water
    situation that over the past three years has been intensifying
    and reaching a dangerous and critical point. The dilemma we
    face in Washington is how can we work together to meet the
    challenge cooperatively and in a civil manner; that is, without
    litigation.
        Management of water in California is a cooperative effort,
    balancing between State, Federal and local suppliers. The
    resulting plumbing system is managed to meet the needs of over
    30 million citizens who expect and are used to having a good
    quality product to be delivered to them at a reasonable price.
        Our desire today is to have a dialogue about how the water
    situation in Southern California factors into the state's wide
    approach to addressing the whole state's drought issues and
    concerns. Everyone here today has a story to tell, and many of
    you have asked to be heard, and we are asking that you submit
    something for the record. Likely, all of you have suggestions
    for some of those solutions. It is that dialogue about ideas
    and suggestions on how we can most effectively work together
    that we would like to have from you today.
        The importance of this discussion and why we are in
    Southern California is that the issue of water requires us to
    hear from all parties and constituencies. Developing a logical
    and doable approach to addressing the California water crisis
    requires a statewide coordinated approach.
        I believe we are seeing the manifestation of this in
    California's legislative efforts in November, the December
    Interim Federal Action Plan and last September's Memorandum of
    Understanding between the State and the six Federal agencies,
    or maybe it is seven. These are all good efforts to bring
    direction, and now we need consistent and dedicated leadership
    to be successful. Independent actions taken without commitment
    will not result in a long-term solution.
        There is not one answer that will solve the hurt that many
    have felt and continue to feel under current water conditions.
    A couple of storms are of some relief, but they are a
    reflection of weather impact by variable ocean conditions. They
    are not the long-term solutions to address the issues that
    underlie our whole water dilemma.
        There has been a great deal of conjecture and a lot of one-
    way dialogue that the current water problems are due to the
    current regulatory environment, and a lot of finger pointing in
    the past. While making interesting theatre, they do not provide
    action nor resolve the underlying problems.
        In a December 2009 Congressional Research Service report,
    they concluded that, and I quote, ``the current drought has
    created a fundamental shortage of supply. Regulatory or court-
    imposed restrictions, as well as the long-established state
    water rights system, exacerbate the effects of the drought for
    agricultural and urban water users.''
        The combined effect of drought, the state water rights
    system, the physical constraints of hydrologic plumbing system,
    carryover surface and groundwater supplies, changing dynamics
    of climate, and legally mandated regulations for water quality
    and the environment all affect the delivery of water to
    agricultural, urban and environmental systems of California.
        It is very evident today, our water management in
    California is supply limited. The challenge of all water users
    is how to adapt and mitigate to live within our water means,
    and not to have a reduction in service or quality and have a
    loss in the critical environmental services for that water
    quality.
        Some have questioned why we are having this discussion in
    Southern California rather than in the north. That is where the
    drought is hitting the hardest. The answer is simple. The
    drought is a statewide concern and demands that all portions of
    the state be heard from, especially when two-thirds of
    California's population is in Southern California.
        When looking at the issue of water debate in California
    over the last few years--I would say three or more--there have
    been numerous meetings, hearings, and discussions in Northern
    California and in the Central Valley. Curiously missing was
    hearing from the people and the issues facing the citizens of
    Southern California.
        Citizens in this area feel the drought from both imports
    from the Colorado River Basin and from Northern California. In
    Southern California, we are experiencing the near-perfect storm
    of reduced supplies, increased demand from rising populations,
    and the steadily increasing complexity of legal, environmental
    and administrative requirements. The recent court decisions
    regarding the management of the Colorado River and the
    Quantification Settlement Agreement potentially throws years of
    negotiations and cooperation in jeopardy, and with it water
    supplies for Southern California.
        Water is a basic human right. How many of us think about
    the water source when we turn on the tap in the morning to make
    our coffee or drink our tea? How many of us think about the
    journey that the drop of water has taken as it moves from the
    Sierras or the Rocky Mountains to the reservoirs, the canals,
    the water treatment plants, the pipes in our houses or
    apartments? We all take it for granted. The reality is, as we
    are finding out, that quantity, quality, and real-time supply
    of water is critical to our health and well-being and to our
    basic economy. Every citizen in California deserves a clean and
    dependable source of water.
        Today we are going to have three panels discuss three
    different aspects of the water issues in California. The first
    panel will discuss the Federal and State approach to the
    current water solution. This will include a discussion of the
    State of California's state water plan, followed by a
    discussion of the November historic water legislation.
        Last, we have asked the Department of the Interior to
    discuss the Federal-Delta water plan, the impacts of the recent
    QSA decision on the Colorado River water supply, and the role
    of water reclamation and reuse to supplies here in Southern
    California, and maybe even the support of the Administration's
    2012 increase to $200 million to alleviate the $600 million
    backlog of Title XVI recycling projects.
        I would appreciate it if the people behind you can see.
    Thank you so very much. Thank you for being here.
        The second panel will focus on the issues associated with
    water delivery to the citizens of Southern California. This
    will include discussions associated with the water delivery
    reductions from the two primary water supply sources of
    Southern California, imports from Northern California and water
    supplied from the Colorado River system, and the impacts
    associated with recent court decisions and what constraints
    this puts on supplying water to the citizens of the southland.
        The last panel will address the science and information
    needs that can help Federal, State and local water managers
    make better decisions, and identify specific local and regional
    impacts to the urban water users, to the fishermen, and to the
    farmers.
        We will use today's hearing to discuss, listen and,
    hopefully, learn more about the water crisis in all of
    California, and the coordinated efforts to address it. This
    discussion needs to begin now, if we are to work together to
    implement real solutions and real change, not just talk. We
    have a challenge in front of us, and together I am positive we
    can begin to identify those solutions.
        With that, I would like to now yield to the Ranking Member,
    to my right, of the Subcommittee on Water and Power,
    Congressman Tom McClintock, for his opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Napolitano follows:]

          Statement of The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, Chairwoman,
                        Subcommittee on Water and Power

        Water in California--either we have too little of it or too much.
    This past week has resulted in almost a year's worth of rain. While the
    increase in our water supply is appreciated, it does not mean that our
    concerns over drought and how water is managed in California are over.
    Far from it. We are in the midst of a real challenge--increasing
    population, aging infrastructure, water supply restrictions, water
    quality concerns, environmental concerns ``. the list goes on and
    continues to grow with each year. We are here today to continue a
    discussion about the California water situation. A water situation that
    over the past three years has been intensifying and reaching a boiling
    point. The dilemma we face in Washington is how can we work together to
    meet the challenge cooperatively and in a civil manner.
        Management of water conditions in California is a cooperative
    effort--balancing between State, Federal and local suppliers. The
    resulting plumbing system is managed to meet the needs of over 30
    million citizens who expect a good quality product to be delivered to
    them. Our desire here is to have a dialogue about how the water
    situation in Southern California factors into the states-wide approach
    to addressing the larger drought issues and concerns. Everyone here
    today has a story to tell about how the drought has affected them or
    their constituents and likely all of you have suggestions for
    solutions. It is that dialogue about ideas and suggestions on how we
    can most effectively work together that we want to have today.
        The importance of this discussion and why we are here in Southern
    California is that the issue of water requires that we hear from all
    parts and constituencies. Developing a logical and doable approach to
    addressing the California water crisis requires a statewide coordinate
    approach. I believe we are seeing the manifestation of this in the
    California Legislatures efforts in November, the December Interim
    Federal Action Plan and last September's Memorandum of Understanding
    between the State and Federal agencies. These are all good efforts to
    bring direction and now need consistent and dedicated leadership to be
    successful. Independent actions taken without commitment will not
    result in long-term solutions.
        There is no one silver bullet that will solve the hurt that many
    are feeling with the current water conditions. A couple of days of rain
    are certainly a nice relief but they are a reflection of weather
    impacted by variable ocean conditions and are not the long-term
    solutions to addressing the issues that underlie our water dilemma.
        There has been a great deal of conjecture and a lot of one-way
    dialogue that the current water problems are due to the current
    regulatory environment. While making for interesting theatre they do
    not help in resolving the underlying problems. In a December 2009
    Congressional Research Service report, CRS concluded that ``the current
    drought has created a fundamental shortage of supply. Regulatory or
    court-imposed restrictions, as well as the long-established state water
    rights system, exacerbate the effects of the drought for agricultural
    and urban water users''.
        The combined effect of the drought, the state water rights system,
    physical constraints of the hydrologic plumbing system, carryover
    surface and groundwater supplies, changing dynamics of climate, and
    legally mandated regulations for water quality and the environment all
    affect the delivery of water to the agricultural, urban and
    environmental systems of California. The issue is very simple--today
    our water management in California is supply limited. The challenge to
    all water users is how to adapt and mitigate to live within our water
    means and not have a reduction in service or have a loss in critical
    environmental services and water quality.
        Some have questioned why we are having this discussion in Southern
    California rather than further north. The answer is simple--the drought
    is a statewide concern and demands that all portions of the state be
    heard from. When looking at the issue of water debate in California
    over the last 3 years, there have been numerous meetings, hearings, and
    discussions in northern California and the Central Valley. Curiously
    missing was hearing from the people and issues facing the citizens of
    Southern California.
        Citizens in Southern California feel the drought from both imports
    from the Colorado River Basin and from northern California. In Southern
    California we are experiencing the near perfect storm of reduced
    supplies, increased demand from rising populations, and a steadily
    increasing complexity of legal, environmental and administrative
    requirements. The recent court decisions regarding the management of
    Colorado River water and the Quantification Settlement Agreement
    potentially throws years of negotiations and cooperation in jeopardy
    and with it water supplies for Southern California.
        Water is a basic human right. How many of us think about it the
    waters source when we turn on the tap in the morning to fill that
    coffee or tea pot? How many of us think about the journey that the drop
    of water takes as it moves from the Sierras or the Rocky Mountains to
    the reservoirs, the canals, the water treatment plants and the pipes in
    our houses or apartments? We take it for granted. The reality is as we
    are finding out is that quantity, quality and real-time supply of water
    is critical to our health and well being. Every citizen in California
    deserves a clean and dependable source of water.
        Today we are going to have three panels discuss three different
    aspects of the water issues in California. The first panel will discuss
    the federal and state approach to the current California water
    situation. This will include a discussion of California's state water
    plan, followed by a discussion of the November historic state water
    legislation. Lastly we have asked the Department of the Interior to
    discuss the Federal-Delta water plan, the impacts of the recent QSA
    decision on Colorado River water supply and the role of water
    reclamation and reuse to supplies here in Southern California.
        The second panel will focus on the issues associated with water
    delivery to the citizens of Southern California. This will include
    discussions about impacts associated with water delivery reductions
    from the two primary water supply sources of Southern California,
    imports from northern California and water supplied from the Colorado
    River system and the impacts associated with recent state court
    decisions and what constraints this puts on supplying water to the
    citizens of the southland.
        The last panel will address the science and information needs that
    can help Federal, State and local water managers make better decisions,
    as well as help to identify specific ``local and regional ``impacts to
    urban water users, fishermen and farmers.
        We will use today's hearing to discuss, listen, and hopefully learn
    about the water crisis in California and the efforts being made to
    address it. This discussion needs to occur now if we are to work
    together to implement real solutions. We have a challenge in front of
    us, and together I am positive we can figure out solutions.
        With that said, I am pleased to now yield to the Ranking Member of
    the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Congressman Tom McClintock, for
    his opening statement.
                                     ______

        [NOTE: The Congressional Research Service report entitled
    ``California Drought: Hydrological and Regulatory Water Supply
    Issues'' dated December 7, 2009, has been retained in the
    Committee's official files. It can also be found at: http://
    www.crs.gov/Pages/Reports.aspx?ProdCode=R40979

    STATEMENT OF HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
    First, I would like to express our appreciation for putting the
    Central Valley into its busy schedule so that it can hear
    firsthand of the economic damage and human misery that has been
    caused by the Federal Government's decision to shut off 200
    trillion gallons of water to Central Valley farms in order to
    indulge the environmentalist tech project, the Delta Smelts.
        In the absence of the Committee's cooperation, the Minority
    Republicans just held such a hearing under our own auspices
    this morning in Fresno. I can tell you that Secretary Salazar's
    statement to the Committee last year in which he admitted the
    government had the discretion to turn the pumps back on but
    would not do so because, quote, ``that would be like admitting
    failure,'' did not sit well with the people there, and the
    Administration's absence was also noted.
        This disastrous folly has destroyed a half-million acres of
    the most fertile farmland in America and destroyed the
    livelihoods that supported 30,000 struggling families. The
    prices on grocery shelves here in Southern California are
    directly affected by the loss of 500,000 acres of Valley
    agriculture due to this decision, and on behalf of the people
    of the Central Valley, from whom I have just heard this
    morning, I again renew the Minority's urgent plea that this
    Committee come to the Central Valley to see firsthand the
    suffering that this policy has caused.
        Today's hearing is about challenges and opportunities on
    California's water supply. I found the questions raised in the
    witnesses' invitations indicative of a concern that this
    Congress has lost perspective on creating abundant water
    supplies. Today, this Congress and this Administration seem to
    have adopted the position that government's principal objective
    should not be to create abundance, but rather to ration
    shortages.
        The Majority's questions to witnesses failed to mention the
    need for more water storage or the costs and benefits of all
    water supply infrastructure options. I must again remind the
    Subcommittee of the obvious reality, that managing a water
    shortage is not the same as solving a water shortage.
        Having read some of the testimony presented to the
    Committee today, I believe that we need to measure all water
    proposals against the simple and obvious alternative of
    renewing our commitment to the construction of new dams and
    reservoirs. One of the last great dams was the Oroville Dam
    which cost roughly $600 million to construct in 1968. Due to
    the inflation adjustment, that is about $3.5 billion in today's
    money. That dam produces 3.5 million acre-feet of water.
        In other words, the modern-day, inflation-adjusted cost of
    the Oroville Dam, including its massive power plant, comes to
    about $1,000 per acre-foot, and yet this Committee has ignored
    new dam construction in favor of such things as water recycling
    projects that cost upwards of $18,000 per acre-foot. That is
    insane.
        In my district, it is the site of the Auburn Dam which
    began construction some 40 years ago. The most complex part of
    that dam, the giant footings cut into the surrounding bedrock,
    were completed in the early 1970s, but then the objections of
    the environmental left brought the project to a halt. That dam
    today could be providing 2.3 million additional acre-feet of
    water storage, 800 megawatts of the cheapest and cleanest
    electricity available, and 400-year flood protection for the
    Sacramento Delta, and all that is lacking is the political will
    to proceed.
        I think that this Congress has forgotten the policies of
    the Pat Brown generation of builders, the visionaries who
    created the Central Valley and state water projects. Instead,
    we now write off any ideas of new storage and ignore the plight
    of our nation's bread basket in the San Joaquin Valley. So
    while valley communities--again, the bread basket of the
    nation--run food lines with food imported from China, we seem
    content to accept rationing as the way to resolve our water
    crisis. I believe we can do a lot better than that. Thank you,
    Madam Chairwoman.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I am sorry, but the audience will please
    refrain from any emotion of any kind. This is a hearing. No, I
    am serious. We will ask you to be escorted out. Simply, we need
    to proceed. We need to move forward and, yes, we agree with a
    lot of things. So please, please, bear with us.
        Mr. Costa.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                        THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson, for this
    hearing this afternoon. I think it is important that Southern
    California clearly understand, as the people do in the San
    Joaquin Valley that I represent, that their water supply is at
    risk as well. I represent Ground Zero where the worst impacts
    of the drought have been felt over the last three years--not
    just because of below-average rainfall, but because of
    regulatory constraints that make it extremely difficult for the
    Federal and state water projects to provide water for the
    intended purposes for which they were created.
        The fact of the matter is that last year, while the
    Governor and the Legislature were able to--and I want to
    commend them for passing a very important water package that we
    hope the voters will approve this November--those are longer-
    term solutions, and they are far from being achieved. We hope
    that they will be implemented but, in the meantime, California
    is living on borrowed time.
        Our water system is broken. The plumbing system and the
    Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta system is broken. Initially
    developed to provide water supply for the entire state,
    approximately 20 million people. Today, we have 38 million
    people living in California, with the prospect that in the year
    2030 we will have maybe 50 million people--another 12 million
    people. The water supply that we have today is already being
    maxed out with all of the demands that are being placed upon
    it.
        The projects, when they were created in the Thirties,
    Forties and Fifties, were intended to provide a sustainable
    water supply for every region of California, but in 1992 we
    passed the Central Valley Improvement Act. Good, bad or
    indifferent, we now require those same projects not only to
    provide a sustainable water supply for every region of
    California, but we now ask them to restore fisheries and water
    quality, primarily an ecosystem, which is commendable, to a
    level that existed in the 19th Century.
        The problem is, as you know, people point fingers, and they
    are accusatory about what people shouldn't farm here. Well, I
    take umbrage with that. Everybody likes to eat, and frankly, we
    take for granted the food supply in this state and the food
    supply that is provided in the most productive region in the
    entire country, in the San Joaquin Valley that I represent,
    that has been the hardest hit by this drought.
        God forbid that Southern California faces the impacts that
    we are feeling in communities like Firebaugh and Mendota and
    down to Delano where you have unemployment levels from 41
    percent to 36 percent to 32 percent, and they have food lines
    with some of the hardest working people you will ever meet in
    your lives, that normally would be working to put food on
    America's dinner table, in food lines, in the richest country
    in the world. Unacceptable.
        So, ladies and gentlemen, this hearing in Southern
    California is important, because the water supply for our
    entire state is at risk, and what we are feeling today in the
    San Joaquin Valley, if we don't correct and fix these problems,
    will be felt in Southern California, and the boon of
    California, the golden dream of California for a bright
    prosperity, economic prosperity in the 21st Century, will be
    erased. That is how serious this crisis is today.
        So let's be clear. While the Administration has attempted
    to provide some solutions in the last year, much more needs to
    be done. We cannot have another year of a 10 percent water
    allocation to the San Luis Unit. It simply will not work, and
    the Administration needs to wake up and understand this.
        We need to do everything we can to think out of the box. We
    have a unique situation, and I will close on this point. As a
    result of the biological opinion which went into effect
    yesterday or today, we now--even though we had record rainfalls
    last week, as you noted, Madam Chairwoman--we can't pump
    because of the turbidity. We don't have enough water. We can't
    pump because of the impacts on the species. We have too much
    water; we can't pump because of the impact on the species.
        Ladies and gentlemen, when are we going to use common
    sense, and when will we be able to pump water to provide for
    the San Joaquin Valley and for Southern California? That is
    what we are talking about. So I, Madam Chairwoman, appreciate
    this hearing. We have a lot of work that we have to do, and we
    have to do it through cooperation. Politicizing the issue of
    water, as we have noted for over a century, is not going to
    solve these crises.
        We have been fighting over water resources in the West and
    in California all the way back to the days of Mark Twain when
    he noted whiskey is made for drinking, and water is made for
    fighting. Let us put the fighting behind us. Let us get some
    practical solutions this year. My constituents cannot live
    without some solutions this year. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Congressman Costa, and we agree
    with a lot of what is being said, and this is the first hearing
    in Southern California. There have been at least 16 hearings in
    Central and Northern California in the last few years since I
    have been in Congress. So allow us to be able to hear what is
    going on.
        May I add to your comments, Congressman Costa, that L.A.
    County has, what, almost 14 million people. That is more than a
    third of the state's population. L.A. City alone has almost 4
    million. So, you understand, we recognize many of our water
    agencies have done what they needed to do to address the water
    shortage before we reached the proportions that some of the
    other cities that don't have water meters in Northern
    California.
        Mr. Calvert?

      STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you for
    allowing me to sit on the dais with the Committee, and Mr.
    McClintock for giving me this honor to do that. Typically, I am
    happy to have a hearing focusing on important water challenges
    in Southern California but today, I must admit, I have mixed
    emotions.
        The reason that I am conflicted is because, as I understand
    it from Mr. McClintock and other leaders in the water world,
    this group has been trying to get a hearing in the Central
    Valley for folks there to talk about the suffering of what is
    going on with this--one of the most devastating water shortages
    of our lifetime.
        The Minority Members of this Committee, as I understand it,
    repeatedly request field hearings in the Central Valley to hear
    from these folks. I would recommend that we do that soon, and I
    would be happy to join in that hearing to listen to the people
    who are suffering in the central part of our state.
        Last year, Senator Feinstein said, quote, ``Our state's
    water crisis is seriously impacting the San Joaquin Valley and
    its communities, which depend on agriculture for their economic
    survival. A lack of water threatens to decimate the Valley
    economy, and some cities are already struggling with
    unemployment rates between 25 and 45 percent. This crisis is
    something that requires action and decisiveness.''
        That was several months ago and, obviously, the problem has
    only grown worse. Unfortunately, it appears to the people that
    we continue not to acknowledge the crisis in the Valley. With
    the current economic conditions throughout our state, we cannot
    afford to ignore the water challenges before us. In addressing
    the challenges, I believe there are some areas where increased
    Federal involvement can be helpful. However, I also believe
    there are other areas where California would be better off if
    the Federal Government just simply got out of the way.
        One matter that has emerged is a good example where Federal
    involvement can be helpful. The uncertainty caused by the
    recent judicial decision affecting the Quantification
    Settlement Agreement, the QSA, is something, I believe, the
    Department of the Interior must take an active role in dealing
    with. An active participant in the QSA negotiations, as I was,
    I can testify to the immense challenges and tough decisions
    involved in that agreement. Strong leadership by the Department
    of the Interior will be needed to ensure that the stakeholders
    are able to maintain the stability and certainty that is
    currently provided by the Quantification Settlement Agreement.
        In Congress, the Water and Power Subcommittee has, on a
    bipartisan basis, even if they are expensive, Tom, authorized
    Federal funding for water recycling, other important water
    projects that have helped California water districts stretch
    the most out of our limited water supply.
        The Federal Government should also play a role in the
    development and exchange of technological advancements in water
    supply infrastructure. However, as we are aware, Federal
    assistance will continue to be limited due to our poor
    financial condition. That being said, there are a number of
    things that we can do on the Committee and through the
    Administration and Congress to improve water in California and
    the economic conditions that will not cost the American
    taxpayers a single dime.
        I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of this
    Committee and Congress to exempt the Delta pumping operations
    from the failed Endangered Species Act restrictions until the
    Bay-Delta Conservation Plan is complete, and a comprehensive
    solution for managing the Bay-Delta is in place.
        The smelt population this past summer fell back to a
    historic low set in 2005, and now is well below the high points
    recorded in the late 1970s. Given these findings, I don't know
    how anyone can say the Delta pumping restrictions are
    benefitting the Delta Smelt. Meanwhile, the devastating
    economic impacts are undeniable. As Mr. Costa pointed out, even
    if we have significant rainfall and snow pack in the Sierras,
    because of the interpretation of the biological opinions,
    pumping can't take place. That is, I think, ridiculous.
        Looking beyond the Delta, there are steps Congress should
    take to reduce the regulatory load placed on water districts
    constructing new water supply projects. If water districts are
    going to invest local rate funds to reduce their dependence on
    Federal water projects and other resources, we should not
    artificially inflate the cost of these projects by imposing
    unnecessary requirements. In other words, let us get the
    Federal Government out of the way, and make it easier for
    districts to provide an affordable and reliable water supply in
    California for small businesses.
        Then one last thing, Madam Chairwoman. I would be remiss if
    I failed to express my condolences on the passing of two
    legends in the California water world, former ACWA Executive
    Director Steve Hall, and former Orange County Water District
    Director and MWD Board member Wes Bannister.
        Like many of you here, I had the pleasure of working with
    both Steve and Wes to address major challenges to our local
    area and state, like CALFED and the Quantification Settlement
    Agreement. Steve and Wes were true leaders, consensus builders
    who worked tirelessly to improve our state. To say they will be
    missed is an understatement, not only as leaders but as
    friends. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Calvert, and I now will
    call on Ms. Chu.
        Mr. Costa. Madam Chairwoman. I would just like to join with
    Mr. Calvert.
        Mrs. Napolitano. All of us, I think, would like to join
    with that.
        Mr. Costa. They were both wonderful individuals.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, I knew them both.
        Mr. Costa. Steve's service is going to be on Friday in
    Sacramento.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Chu?

     STATEMENT OF HON. JUDY CHU, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                        THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Chu. Well, thank you, Madam Chair Napolitano and
    Ranking Member McClintock, my colleagues on the Water and Power
    Subcommittee. Thank you for allowing me to participate and
    provide this statement at today's very important hearing on
    California's fragile water supply.
        Two great issues face our state. First, many of our
    districts have been so hard hit by the economy and double digit
    job loss. Second, California faces such a dire water supply
    shortage, we are approaching our third year of an ongoing
    drought, and our economy is made up of many different sectors
    which are impacted either directly or indirectly by the
    availability of water. With the economy and water supply so
    inextricably dependent on each other, it is imperative that we
    start working together with a shared regional strategy to look
    for solutions to help adapt and mitigate our state's water
    supply.
        I am proud to have a number of local and municipal water
    districts in my district of the San Gabriel Valley who have not
    only worked toward innovative water systems for clean-up,
    reuse, recycling and storage, but have also waged a campaign to
    raise awareness and educate businesses and residents about the
    importance of water conservation. As a result, there has been a
    significant reduction of water usage.
        My hope is that we no longer look at our fragile water
    aquasystem and supply as an issue of Southern California versus
    Northern California, but that we come together as one state to
    work together to ensure that we have a quality and dependable
    water supply for our businesses, our farmers, our fisheries,
    and our communities for many generations to come.
        In Southern California alone, we have been able to use
    Title XVI funds to help develop local water supplies and
    augment and replace imported water. Consequently, we have been
    able to reduce our water usage in Southern California by 18
    percent, even in light of an increasing population. Imagine
    what we would be able to do is we could come together and deal
    with this crisis with a statewide approach and, of course,
    include the important piece, which is active and engaged
    participation from our Federal agencies.
        We in Congress must be fully engaged, and with the
    leadership of Chairwoman Napolitano, I look forward to working
    together with my colleagues and our delegation on how Congress
    can continue to stay engaged and bring better resources to deal
    with this ongoing water supply source that our state is facing.
        I thank the witnesses who have traveled from near and far
    to provide their expert testimony, and I look forward to
    hearing your perspectives on the challenges and opportunities
    of California's water supply.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Congresswoman Chu. Thank you
    for being with us and being part of this, because it affects
    everybody in Southern California as well as those in Northern
    California.
        We move on to our witnesses. We have three panels, as
    stated before, and witnesses will be introduced before they
    testify. After we hear from a panel, we will have a question
    and answer period. All your submitted prepared statements will
    be entered into the record, and all witnesses are asked to
    kindly, please, summarize the high points of your testimony,
    because they will be on the record, and limit your remarks to
    five minutes, and the timer before you that will be used to
    enforce the rule.
        It also applies to the question and answer period, a total
    of five minutes for questions, including responses, applies to
    our Members of Congress. If there are any additional questions,
    if time permits, we may have a third round, but don't bank on
    it. We have 13 witnesses.
        The first panel, we have The Honorable Michael Connor,
    Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the
    Interior, from Washington, D.C. The second witness is Honorable
    Anna Caballero, Assembly Member of the California State
    Legislature, representing the 28th Assembly District in
    Sacramento, and the third panelist is The Honorable Lester A.
    Snow--congratulations, sir, on your recent appointment as the
    new Director of the California Department of Water Resources in
    Sacramento.
        We are very thankful that you were able to find the time to
    be with us today. So we will begin with The Honorable Mike
    Connor.

       STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
              RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Connor. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the
    Subcommittee. I am Mike Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of
    Reclamation. I am pleased to summarize my written statement and
    give the Department's perspective on California's water supply.
        Again, I am here with guarded optimism that the recent
    storms, which I do understand have brought some local flooding
    here in Southern California, have at least on the positive side
    brought water supply improvements for reclamations in major
    reservoirs in California, but this recent storm between January
    15th up to January 20th started at Shasta, Folsom and Trinity
    and New Melones Reservoirs improved by about 361,000 acre-feet
    in total.
        More rain followed this past weekend. A week of rain,
    however, does not make up for three years of drought.
    Notwithstanding improvements, the major CVP reservoirs still
    only range from 60 percent to 77 percent of average storage for
    this time of year. Nonetheless, we are hopeful that, as we move
    through the rainy season, the positive trend will continue.
        I should note for the record, though, in response to the
    initial statements, that right now we are pumping from the
    Federal facilities, the Jones Pumping Plant. In total, the
    combined state and Federal pumps are pumping approximately
    6,000 CFS. The Smelt Working Group did meet this morning, and
    there were no recommendations to restrict the pumping at this
    point in time. So that is where we are currently. There is a
    restriction in place as a result of the NOAA Biological Opinion
    that is currently the basis for the 6,000 CFS but, nonetheless,
    there is substantial----
        Mrs. Napolitano. Commissioner, would you restate that? We
    have Mr. Costa who wants to hear you. You are not coming in
    loud enough.
        Mr. Connor. Oh, I am sorry.
        Mrs. Napolitano. The last statement that you just made.
        Mr. Connor. So in response to the comments earlier, with
    respect, I just wanted to provide the Subcommittee a status
    update on where we are with respect to pumping from the
    combined state and Federal water projects. We are presently
    pumping about 6,000 CFS from those facilities. The Smelt
    Working Group did meet this morning to review the conditions.
    There were no recommendations for any restrictions on the
    pumps. Currently, there is a limitation provided by the NOAA
    Biological Opinion that limits the negative flow in the Owens
    and Middle Rivers to -5000 CFS. So currently that is what is
    operationally keeping the pumping at 6000 CFS.
        Mr. Calvert. Madam Chairwoman, just a technical----
        Mrs. Napolitano. Can you wait until the questions later.
        Mr. Calvert. All right.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Please continue.
        Mr. Connor. I should also note that recent rains have
    helped storage in the Lower Basin of the Colorado River
    watershed. Fortunately, Lake Mead has gained a little bit of
    elevation this past week as less water was being used
    downstream as a result of the wet weather. Overall, the current
    trend is one of improvement from the water supply's
    perspective.
        It goes without saying, though, that drought impacts
    California uniquely due to its large population, reliance on
    imported supplies, and the intense competition for the use of
    limited supplies.
        At the end of the last California drought, which lasted
    from 1987 to '92, California's population was just over 31
    million. Today, there are roughly 7 million more Californians,
    all of whom need water, and the agricultural production and
    other economic activities supported by water. In this setting,
    the Subcommittee's focus on water conservation is right on
    point. Other means of enhancing supply are also appropriate to
    consider.
        One of the most successful Federal programs for water
    conservation is the Reclamation's Title XVI program. In
    Southern California this program has enabled reclamation to
    support 26 water recycling or groundwater projects which at
    full build-out will provide over 392,000 acre-feet of water per
    year to communities in Southern California.
        Last year, President Obama signed the American Recovery and
    Investment Act, and this has provided an opportunity to make
    meaningful progress in addressing the backlog of Title XVI
    projects, and it will help reduce dependence on the
    increasingly fragile Bay-Delta in the long term. All told, more
    than 400 million, roughly 40 percent of Reclamation's Recovery
    Act funding, has gone to California projects, significantly
    more than any other reclamation state.
        We are applying this funding to a mix of projects to
    promote not just traditional water supplies but also
    restoration efforts to improve the ecosystem and stabilize
    Reclamation's own ability to delivery water. Still, concerted
    efforts of water conservation cannot erase the fact that
    Southern California depends on imported water for the majority
    of its total annual water supply. Using 2004 as a reference,
    within the Metropolitan Water District Service Area where we
    are today, 1.8 million acre-feet came from the state water
    project from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Another 700,000
    acre-feet came from the Colorado River to the east. The
    remainder of that imported supply, roughly 200,000 acre-feet,
    comes from the Owens Valley.
        As California continues to diversify its water supply and
    promote conservation and efficiency, it is imperative that we
    continue to improve conditions in the Colorado River Basin and
    the Bay-Delta region. Notwithstanding drought, the Colorado
    River apportionment to California this year will be the full
    4.4 million acre-feet. Reclamation in the seven Basin states
    and a number of partners have made great progress in the last
    10 to 15 years in adjusting operational issues in the Colorado
    River Basin and preparing for the day when demand exceeds
    available water. This effort continues to be a work in
    progress----
        Mrs. Napolitano. Please continue. You have a minute left.
        Mr. Connor. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And we look
    forward to continuing our efforts to use water more efficiently
    and to conserve storage, wherever possible.
        With respect to the QSA, that is a matter that is currently
    in litigation, but I will say that the Federal Government
    believes it has valid agreements with the parties to the QSA,
    and we intend to stand by those agreements.
        Parts of the Bay-Delta are less certain at this time. The
    importance of the Bay-Delta to Southern California's water
    supply was starkly evident in 2009.
        To address the issues associated with restricted water
    supply and environmental conditions in the Delta, the
    Department released an Interim Federal Action Plan for the
    California Bay-Delta on December 22, 2009. In this document we
    have detailed plans for a new path forward in the Bay-Delta
    region.
        Specifically, the Federal Government reaffirmed its
    partnership with the State of California and its commitment to
    coordinate a range of important actions with those of the
    state. Most important is our joint work to produce the Bay-
    Delta Conservation Plan. The BDCP is the most significant
    effort underway to address long-term water issues in California
    generally and in the Bay-Delta specifically. The Federal
    Government is fully committed to the BDCP process and is now
    more fully engaged than ever before.
        We will ensure that Federal actions in this area complement
    recently enacted California water legislation, with the
    ultimate goal of being able to deliver water on a reliable
    basis without continued harm to the Bay-Delta ecosystem.
        In the meantime, we will continue to implement actions in
    the near term to shore up water supplies for those water users
    suffering significant shortage. In 2010 we will facilitate
    final permitting construction of the Delta-Mendota and
    California Aqueduct Intertie, which will allow greater
    flexibility in operating the state and Federal pumps and allow
    for recovery of water between the two systems. We expect to
    initiate construction in June of this year and to complete that
    in the fall of 2011.
        Ultimately, the project is anticipated to restore
    approximately 35,000 acre-feet annually of project water to the
    CVP. We will also continue to work closely with the state to
    facilitate voluntary water transfers, building on the 600,000
    acre-feet of transfers that occurred in 2009. Maximum
    operational flexibility will also be pursued in the scheduling
    guidelines and water contracts.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this
    important subject. I will be happy to answer the questions at
    the appropriate time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:]

     Statement of Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
                        U.S. Department of the Interior

        Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Mike
    Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to
    provide the perspectives of the Department of the Interior (Department)
    on the California water supply as we move into what may prove to be a
    fourth year of drought in California. I will also address some of the
    subcommittee's specific interests in water conservation, reuse and
    recycling.
        Last year, the water supply conditions confronting the Bureau of
    Reclamation (Reclamation) and its customers in California, particularly
    south of the Delta, brought about one of the most difficult years in
    our history. This year may prove to be no less severe. Next month,
    Reclamation's Mid-Pacific Region will announce its initial forecast of
    agricultural, municipal and industrial water supplies from the Central
    Valley Project (CVP), which will likely feature very low water
    allocations. The actual numbers are still being determined by our
    Central Valley Operations office using the latest snowpack and
    streamflow data. Here in the Lower Colorado Region, a drought persists
    on the Colorado River, but all states in the Lower Basin will receive
    their full apportionments under the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) for the
    Colorado River which was published by the Department on January 5th.
        While there have been more severe droughts, never before has
    drought fallen upon a state with so large a population, and so many
    competing uses for its water. At the end of the last California
    drought, which lasted from 1987 to 1992, California's population was
    just over 31 million. Today, there are roughly seven million more
    Californians, all of whom need water and the agricultural production
    and other economic activities supported by water.
        Here in southern California, local governments and agencies like
    the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) have
    responded by partnering with state and Federal agencies to achieve
    tremendous reductions in per capita urban water use. For example, the
    City of Long Beach has reduced its per capita water use from 138
    gallons per day in 2000 to 103 gallons per day in September 2009. In
    addition to this tremendous reduction in water use through
    conservation, the City of Long Beach announced in September 2009 that
    water demand was 21 percent below the 10-year average water demand.
    While market forces and the price of water play a role in this dynamic,
    the region's inherently dry hydrology has instilled an acute awareness
    of the value of water and its conservation in an arid region.
        One of the Federal programs for water conservation is the
    Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, Title
    XVI of Public Law 102-575. In southern California, this program has
    enabled Reclamation to help fund the planning or construction of 26
    water recycling or groundwater projects which at full build out will
    provide over 391,650 acre-feet of water per year to communities in the
    greater Southern California coastal areas of Los Angeles, Orange
    County, San Diego and the Inland Empire. This amount of water is enough
    to serve the needs of approximately 391,650 five-person households, or
    approximately 1.96 million people. Before the enactment of the American
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Federal investments in Title XVI
    overall totaled about $389 million through FY 2009 and resulted in an
    estimated 245,000 acre-feet of water made available in 2009.
        The Title XVI program was established by Congress in 1992 to
    provide Federal funding of up to 25% of a project's construction costs,
    with all operations and maintenance funding provided by project
    sponsors. While the program has provided more than $392 million in
    funding for these southern California projects since its inception
    through Fiscal Year 2009, including ARRA, the number of Title XVI
    projects submitted to Reclamation for study and to this subcommittee
    for authorization continues to expand.
        In view of this and the serious water issues facing California, the
    Obama Administration is taking actions that have brought and continue
    to bring substantial Federal investment in California's water
    infrastructure. As referenced above, last year President Obama signed
    the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This law has
    provided an opportunity to fund many of California's water challenges
    and projects, will help maximize the continued and future delivery of
    water, and may reduce some of the demand placed on the Bay-Delta. All
    told, more than $400 million, roughly 40 percent of Reclamation's ARRA
    funding, has gone to California projects, significantly more than any
    other Reclamation state. We are applying this funding to a mix of
    projects to promote not just traditional water supplies, but also
    healthy fisheries and habitat projects to recover, sustain, and protect
    species' ability to reproduce and thrive. We understand our obligation
    to protect aquatic resources in California together with our state and
    Federal partners, and we know that the economic impacts of fishing
    season closures on salmon fishing communities are felt no less severely
    than in other sectors of the economy.
        The Department effectively maximizes the value of its scarce
    resources for Title XVI projects and complementary programs like Water
    Conservation Initiative Challenge Grants. Challenge Grants, like Title
    XVI, leverage non-Federal dollars to effectively and efficiently manage
    water in communities where the need exists. Whereas Title XVI recycles
    and reuses otherwise unusable water supplies, Challenge Grants provide
    incentives for water users to actually use less water than would
    otherwise be the case. The Department's Water Conservation Initiative,
    which incorporates Title XVI and Challenge Grants, was a centerpiece of
    our 2010 budget request, and will be a continuing priority of this
    Administration going forward. In addition, last summer Reclamation
    announced 16 awards totaling $5.6 million as part of the 2009 CALFED
    Water Use Efficiency Grant Program. Even before the drought struck,
    Reclamation had been putting significant effort and resources into
    various initiatives intended to minimize the serious impacts from
    periods of dry hydrology. Since 2004, Reclamation has awarded over $40
    million in cost-shared financial assistance for 67 projects in
    California under the competitive Challenge Grant Program referenced
    above. The improvements resulting from these grants are projected to
    create or conserve 177,000 acre-feet of water annually for agricultural
    and urban uses.
        Still, concerted efforts at water conservation cannot erase the
    fact that southern California depends on imported water for the
    majority of its total annual water supply. 1 The amounts
    vary depending on the water year type. Using 2004 as a reference,
    within the MWD service area where we are today, 1.8 million acre-feet
    came from the State Water Project from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Bay-
    Delta in the north. Another 700,000 acre feet in 2004 came from the
    Colorado River to the east. The remainder of the imported supply,
    roughly 200,000 acre-feet, comes from the Owens Valley. About 1.6
    million acre feet, or 38 percent of MWD's overall supply in 2004, came
    from local supplies, according to MWD's most recent Regional Urban
    Water Management Plan.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ All figures in this paragraph derived from the November 2005
    Regional Urban Water Management Plan of the Metropolitan Water District
    of Southern California, pgs. A2-1, and table A.2-1 http://
    www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/RUWMP/RUWMP--2005.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Notwithstanding drought, the Colorado River apportionment to
    California this year will be the full 4.4 million acre feet, with the
    potential for some surplus under the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) for
    the Colorado River. The Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA),
    executed by the Secretary of the Interior and other parties in October
    2003, was a major milestone on the Colorado River and is important to
    all who rely on the Colorado River. In short, the numerous Federal and
    non-Federal agreements reached in 2003 result in a more efficient
    management of the beneficial use of water in California under the
    Consolidated Decree in Arizona vs. California and other authorities.
    The QSA agreements help to ensure that California's long term use of
    the river is within the State's 4.4 million acre-feet annual
    apportionment under Federal law.
        Validation proceedings relating to certain of the agreements
    reached in 2003 are currently pending in California state court. These
    are contested proceedings to which the United States is not a party.
    The litigation is ongoing in 2010, and the Department does not intend
    to comment on those proceedings. The Department has valid and binding
    agreements with the California agencies that are parties to the 2003
    Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement and we intend to stand by that
    agreement.
        The importance of the Bay-Delta to Southern California's water
    supply was starkly evident in 2009. To address the issues associated
    with restricted water supply and the environmental collapse in the
    Delta, the Department released an Interim Federal Action Plan (Action
    Plan) for the California Bay-Delta on December 22, 2009. In this
    document, this Administration has detailed its plans for a new path
    forward in the Bay-Delta. Specifically, the Federal government
    reaffirmed its partnership with the state of California and its
    commitment to coordinate actions with those of the state. Most
    important is that Federal agencies are working in concert with the
    State of California and local authorities in producing the Bay-Delta
    Conservation Plan (BDCP). The BDCP is the most significant effort
    currently underway to address critical long-term water issues in
    California generally and in the Bay-Delta specifically. Consistent with
    the Action Plan released in December 2009, Federal agencies are
    bolstering their active participation in partnership with the State and
    local authorities in the collaborative, long-term Bay-Delta
    Conservation Plan (BDCP) process.
        Simply put, we are committed to work closely with the state of
    California, our Federal partners, water contractors, and all interested
    parties to encourage the smarter supply and use of Bay-Delta water. In
    2010, we will facilitate final permitting and construction of the
    Delta-Mendota and California Aqueduct Intertie. The Intertie will be a
    pipeline and pump station connection between the Federal Delta-Mendota
    Canal and California Aqueduct. Connecting these two facilities will
    allow greater flexibility in operating pumping systems which each have
    their own export constraints, and allow for recovery of water between
    the state and Federal systems. The Intertie's operations are included
    in the new biological opinions from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    and the National Marine Fisheries Service for the Delta. Intertie
    construction effects on terrestrial species were addressed in a
    project-specific biological assessment in August 2009. We expect to
    initiate construction in June of this year, and complete construction
    in 2011.
        Under the Action Plan released in December 2009, we will continue
    to foster water transfers between willing buyers and willing sellers,
    improve scientific knowledge of turbidity and Delta smelt, and use
    results from a pending National Academy of Science study on how to best
    balance water delivery needs with those of threatened and endangered
    species. The Federal agencies also will work closely with the state in
    developing mid and longer-term infrastructure options that can
    potentially address the chronic conflicts that led the Delta Vision
    report commissioned by Governor Schwarzenegger to conclude that current
    water supply strategies are unsustainable in the face of the Bay-Delta
    ecosystem collapse, climate change impacts and seismic risks.
        Finally, we will work together to continue to deliver drought
    relief funding and ensure integrated flood risk management, including
    the prioritization of projects and activities for flood risk management
    and related levee stabilization projects and navigation. The Action
    Plan features participation from the Department, the Army Corps of
    Engineers, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection
    Agency, the Department of Commerce, and the Council on Environmental
    Quality.
        Of course, groundwater will continue to be an essential water
    supply for many of California's coastal and inland communities. With
    the combined impact of the drought and environmental needs, existing
    groundwater sources are being significantly stressed. Within the
    Department, the U.S. Geological Survey is actively engaged in expanding
    the range of information available to water users and policymakers
    regarding groundwater. The USGS developed the Central Valley Hydrologic
    Model to assess water resources in the Central Valley, which is an
    important tool to evaluate the impacts of drought on groundwater
    conditions. Reclamation has helped fund new USGS work to combine use of
    the Central Valley Hydrologic Model with new data collection to look
    specifically at potential subsidence impacts on water-delivery canals.
    This new hydrologic model can also be used by water managers to address
    water issues related to conjunctive water use, recognizing the
    interdependence of surface water supplies and groundwater.
        According to the USGS, the San Joaquin Valley, which includes the
    San Joaquin and Tulare Basins, has experienced large changes in
    groundwater storage. In the early 1960s, groundwater pumping caused
    water levels to decline to historic lows on the west side of the San
    Joaquin Valley, which resulted in large amounts of surface subsidence.
    In the late 1960s, the surface-water delivery system began to route
    water from the wetter Sacramento Valley and Delta regions to the drier,
    more heavily pumped San Joaquin Valley. The surface-water delivery
    system was fully functional by the early 1970s, resulting in
    groundwater-level recovery in the northern and western parts of the San
    Joaquin Valley. Overall, the Tulare Basin portion of the San Joaquin
    Valley, the hottest and driest part of the Central Valley, is still
    showing declines in groundwater levels and accompanying depletion of
    groundwater storage. This fact will affect the overall water supply
    available to agriculture water users.
        Reclamation remains focused on managing, developing, and protecting
    water and related resources in an environmentally and economically
    sustainable manner in the best interest of the American public. We know
    that an emphasis on water conservation is key to the sustainability of
    the state of California. I am committed to doing all I can to further
    this mission and, to the best extent possible, meeting the needs of our
    customers.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on this important
    topic. I would be happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may
    have.
                                     ______

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Commissioner.
        Now we will hear from Assemblywoman Anna Caballero.

       STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA CABALLERO, ASSEMBLY MEMBER OF THE
     CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE, REPRESENTING THE 28TH ASSEMBLY
                    DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Caballero. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. It
    is quite good to be here today. Thank you for the invitation.
        As you heard, I represent the 28th Assembly District, which
    is primarily an agricultural community representing the Salinas
    Valley, San Benito County, Watsonville and Delroy. It is a
    major area where fruit and vegetables are produced, and I am
    here today because we really have an opportunity to work in
    partnership, and it is going to be absolutely critical.
        I do apologize. I will make my comments very brief. I had
    expected to have 15 minutes to speak. I was prepared to talk
    about the recent legislation that was passed in Sacramento. I
    will refer you to the documents that have been prepared by the
    Water Resources Board to have detailed information, and so I
    won't go into that.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Caballero, would you just mention
    where they are so that the public and Members of Congress would
    know.
        Ms. Caballero. Yes. The documents, Madam? The documents are
    the Safe and Clean Reliable Drinking Water Act of 2010, which
    is the water bond document, and then a Comprehensive Water
    Package, which is four bills that we adopted at the same time.
    You will see the Water Bond on the ballot, or you should, in
    November 2010.
        I wanted to take a minute today to reemphasize the issue of
    the lack of water for the Central Valley, because it also
    impacts the 28th Assembly District, which is San Benito County.
    I apologize for reiterating the facts, but I think they
    absolutely have to be discussed here today, because the fact
    that we are not able to take care of the ecosystem and export
    water at the same time has had a tremendous impact, negative
    impact, on the Central Valley and San Benito County.
        It is carving a huge depletion of groundwater reserves in
    that area, and it is anticipated to create a significant loss
    of land as the property starts to subside and you lose the
    opportunity to store groundwater. But more importantly, 500,000
    acres of farmland has been idled due to the lack of water. Over
    21,000 jobs have been lost at a time when we can least afford
    to lose those jobs, $1 billion in economic loss in the
    agricultural sector.
        Small businesses are at risk, and there are long food
    lines, and you will hear today that many farmers are at risk of
    losing their property. I have recently heard of farmers that
    have been multi-generation farming that have lost their
    property, absolutely unacceptable in one of the richest
    agricultural valleys in the world and in our country.
        You have heard that small communities in the west side of
    the Valley, Mendota and Firebaugh, have faced 40 percent
    unemployment and that people are standing in long food lines.
    These communities can't survive another year with minimal
    allocations, and we have heard this year that the allocation
    will be five percent. While we are hoping that the region range
    will change that. Five percent allocation means that there will
    be no farming.
        It is absolutely imperative that we work together, the
    state government and the Federal Government, to do everything
    we can to work collaboratively, and let me give you an example
    of one of the frustrations. As we were negotiating the package
    of bills, the water bills, in the fall, I had an opportunity to
    travel to Washington, D.C., where we discussed with the
    Administration the opportunity to invest in the Two Gates
    Project, which would provide an opportunity for us to see if we
    could separate the Delta-Smelt from the turbid pumps in the
    Delta.
        We understood that that was a high priority for the
    Administration. We, therefore, put into our package of bills
    $28 million in state funding and moved ahead very quickly on
    that, because we wanted to see that project come to life. We
    understood that the Federal Government had put up $10 million,
    and recently learned last week that that project is off the
    table.
        It is very frustrating to have worked so hard to create an
    opportunity to create a solution and then have it eliminated
    without any discussion about why that happened and what our
    next plan is.
        So to wrap up, it is absolutely imperative that we come up
    with some vigorous discussion about how we can solve this water
    problem, how we can get water immediately to the Central Valley
    at a time when we have such high unemployment here in the state
    to put people back to work, which could make a big difference
    and could show that, in fact, we are working together, the
    state government with the Federal Government, to try to solve a
    problem that has been created.
        So I thank you for the opportunity to be here today and
    look forward to continued discussions, and I want to recognize
    the Chair. She has really been an advocate of a water solution,
    and I appreciate the opportunity to testify.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much for being here and
    for your kind words. It is my understanding that Two Gates is
    not off the table. It is just delayed because of certain
    issues. So we look forward to hearing more on that.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Caballero follows:]

           Statement of The Honorable Anna Caballero, Assemblywoman,
                          California State Legislature

        Madame Chair Napolitano, my name is Anna Caballero and I represent
    the 28th District in the California State Assembly. Thank you for
    convening this hearing here in California on our water supply
    challenges. We appreciate your drawing the attention of the Congress to
    some of the difficulties we have experienced--and continue to
    confront--on ensuring reliable water supplies for our state's
    agricultural, urban and environmental needs.
        While we benefited from a good amount of rain all over California
    last week, our water challenges remain. This year's State Water Project
    initial water delivery allocation was 5% of contract entitlements--the
    lowest in history. Last week's rain and snow helped, but we will need a
    substantial amount more than average to refill our water storage
    reservoirs. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta remains in crisis, for
    both its ecosystem and water exports. The recent drought has led to
    depletion of our groundwater reserves. We have many challenges ahead
    and, hopefully, with the State and the Federal Government working
    together, we will take advantage of the opportunities that arise.
        Last year, the Legislature stepped up to address some of the
    critical water challenges California faces. We took important first
    steps on several issues, but they are only the first. We need all
    agencies, stakeholders and communities to step forward to make some
    difficult decisions in the years ahead. The Legislature has set some
    new directions, a path forward, but we need all critical players to
    move forward on that path.
        The Federal Government is one of the most important players in
    California water. It holds the largest block of water rights in
    California--about 7 million acre-feet. It has broad authority--and
    responsibility--to address water and aquatic ecosystem problems,
    particularly in the Delta. While the Congress has shown a ``consistent
    thread of purposeful and continued deference to state water law,'' the
    Federal Government has a long history of leadership in California water
    issues. We need the Congress and the Obama Administration to step
    forward to contribute to resolving some of our most pressing water
    issues.
        In last year's Delta/Water Legislation, we invited the Federal
    Government to participate and offered contributions to facilitate that
    participation. The best way to start the discussion of how we might
    work together is a summary of the legislative package:
          SB 1 (Simitian)/Delta Legislation: Reforms state
    policies, programs and governance for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    (Delta), and establishes guidelines for developing a new Delta Plan.
    Appropriates $28 million for the federal ``Two Gates'' project in the
    Delta.
          SB 2 (Cogdill)/Water Bond: Authorizes an $11.14 billion
    water infrastructure bond for the November 2010 ballot. Funding
    categories include drought relief, the Delta, water storage, integrated
    regional water management, watershed conservation, groundwater quality,
    and water recycling.
          SB 6 (Steinberg)/Groundwater Monitoring: Creates a
    statewide groundwater elevation monitoring system, relying on local
    agencies in all basins to report the depth to groundwater.
          SB 7 (Steinberg)/Water Conservation: Establishes a
    statewide water conservation program, in a new ``Sustainable Water Use
    and Demand Reduction'' part in the Water Code (Part) and reauthorizes
    the Agricultural Water Management Planning Act. Sets an urban water
    conservation target of 20% reduction in per capita water use by 2020,
    allowing flexibility for local agencies to determine how best to
    accomplish that reduction.
          SB 8 (Steinberg)/Water Reporting & Appropriations:
    Deletes water diversion reporting exemptions for diverters in the
    Delta. Appropriates funding from bonds and a special fund for increased
    State Water Resources Control Board enforcement staff and other Delta/
    water projects.
        As a package, these bills address several of California's water
    challenges, but I wish to draw your attention, in a bit more detail, to
    the Delta bill--Senate Bill 1 by Senator Joe Simitian. The Delta is
    where we need the Congress and the Federal Government to engage the
    most. The operation of the federal Central Valley Project translates
    into several federal agencies taking action in the Delta--the Bureau of
    Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration--and federal courts intervening in those
    activities.
        We structured the Delta bill to invite the Federal Government to
    engage with us in setting a new direction for Delta policy. In enacting
    this legislation, we exercised the State's authority over the control,
    appropriation, use, and distribution of water generally. In structuring
    the development of a new Delta Plan, we required state agencies to take
    actions that would engage the Federal Government, including requiring:
          Delta Stewardship Council to consult with federal
    agencies in developing the Plan.
          Development of the Delta Plan consistent with federal
    laws, including the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act
    and the Reclamation Act of 1902.
          Delta Stewardship Council to submit the Delta Plan to
    federal agencies for approval, if the Delta Plan is adopted pursuant to
    the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
        This last requirement, in particular, invites the Congress to
    engage in thinking about a new federal law to improve federal and state
    agency cooperation in the Delta. Section 85300(d) of the California
    Water Code allows submission of the Delta Plan to any federal official
    assigned responsibility for the Delta pursuant to a new federal
    statute, anticipating that Congress may enact a new law in response to
    the State's new statutory framework for the Delta.
        Let me be clear: We invite you to work with us in the Legislature
    in crafting a new legal relationship between the state and federal
    governments in the Delta. Our legislation sets a new course, but
    requires many decisions in the years ahead. It establishes a framework
    for structuring the federal-state relationship, but only Congress can
    enact laws to require federal agencies to work with us and follow our
    State's leadership. We hope to have the opportunity to work closely
    with you on the challenges we all face in the Delta
        We need to craft an enduring relationship that ensures federal
    engagement regardless of who sits in the White House. For eight long
    years, the Bush Administration ignored its responsibilities in the
    Delta. When Secretary Salazar showed up for a Delta helicopter tour
    last year, we were delighted to welcome him to one of our greatest
    water debates--the first time a Secretary of the Interior had visited
    the Delta since Secretary Bruce Babbitt visited several times in 2000,
    during development of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Bureau of
    Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor also has visited our state on
    several occasions. We need to find a way to institutionalize that level
    of federal engagement in protecting the Delta to achieve the co-equal
    goals of ``providing a more reliable water supply for California and
    protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem.''
        Our two legislative bodies working together to fashion that
    enduring relationship between our governments offers the best
    opportunity for our State of California to overcome the challenges it
    faces in water policy.
                                     ______

        Mrs. Napolitano. The Honorable Lester Snow.

      STATEMENT OF HONORABLE LESTER A. SNOW, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA
         DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA.

        Mr. Snow. thank you, Madam Chair and members. I appreciate
    the opportunity to talk about California's water issues. I
    submitted a statement, but I will hit a few other points, not
    directly within that statement.
        I first want to indicate that both documents that Assembly
    Member Caballero brought in are available on the Department of
    Water Resources website for anybody who would want to access
    them.
        First, let me put a finer point on what I will call the
    water supply update. As has already been mentioned, in 2009 we
    finished that. That was the third drought year in California.
    Last year, the State Water Project stood at a 40 percent
    allocation. The West Side CVP was at a 10 percent allocation.
    Water Resources started this year with a preliminary allocation
    for our contractors of five percent. That is the lowest in the
    history of the State Water Project.
        Fortunately, the storm track that has already been
    referenced--our snow pack is about 115 percent of normal to
    this date. The reason I stress this date is, if this is the
    snow pack we had at the end of the season, it would only be a
    64 percent of average supply. We will do the snow survey on
    Friday, and new updated appropriations on the 20th of February.
        If the storm track holds, we will do a little bit better,
    but actually, the fact that we are talking about a storm track
    and whether it will bail us out is actually a symptom of the
    problem that we have, and that problem is a water management
    system that is no longer keeping up with our needs. As a result
    of climate change, environmental degradation, and lack of
    sustained investment in the system, our water system can no
    longer meet the needs of the state.
        We need a long-term, comprehensive solution. In order to
    have a sustainable water resource system, our water management
    system must permanently change to a diversified approach. That
    means we have to look at energy, water and environmental
    issues.
        The Governor has consistently promoted the comprehensive
    approach that ranges from conservation, recycling, habitat
    restoration, to new reservoirs and new conveyance facilities in
    the state. We are long past the point that a single project or
    strategy can bail us out. Some might like to say, all we need
    to do is more conservation. Some might like to say, all we need
    to do is build one more reservoir. The fact of the matter is we
    have to implement all of those options. The Governor has
    consistently proposed an infrastructure investment strategy
    that attempts to fund all of those activities, a diversified
    approach.
        Let me hit just a few points along those lines. Our entire
    system is based around development and use of surface water and
    the development of groundwater supplies. It is the stable
    foundation of our water system. If we are conserving water, we
    are conserving surface and groundwater that has been developed.
    Therefore, recycling water, it is dependent on surface and
    water supplies. We must reinvest in our surface and groundwater
    systems in order to make it through this problem and deal with
    the century to come.
        Conservation is a great opportunity. There is much to be
    saved and provided in terms of stability through our
    conservation efforts. In terms of urban areas of California,
    there is approximately 9 million acre-feet that is used in
    urban California. Well over half of that is used outdoors.
    There is great conservation potential to save outdoor water use
    in urban areas, with little, if any, impact to lifestyle in the
    state.
        We estimate that somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million
    acre-feet of additional conservation savings is available in
    urban areas without affecting lifestyle. The Governor has
    pushed and committed to achieving 20 percent reduction in use
    by 2020, and the Legislature passed for the first time ever a
    conservation bill. Implementing that conservation bill not only
    will save water, but will actually reduce CO2 by 1.4
    million metric tons.
        Recycling water use: Today we recycle about 250,000 acre-
    feet. There is a potential for as much as 2 million acre-feet.
    Today we have about 160,000 acre-feet of desalination capacity,
    with another 400,000 on drawing boards.
        Now let me close very quickly with a couple of fundamental
    points. Our future lies in fixing the Delta. That means
    restoring habitat, changing conveyance, and addressing the
    other stresses that are affecting the species beyond the water
    system. It means passing the water bond. The water bond funds
    new storage, conservation, recycling, local conveyance, and
    habitat. We need to reinvest in our water future.
        Finally, let me reiterate the point that the Commissioner
    has already mentioned, the state's commitment to QSA. No matter
    what the Judge has done, whether through appeal or whether
    through a change in the contract, QSA will stay together, and
    we will meet the needs of those agreements. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Director Snow.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Snow follows:]

                    Statement of Lester A. Snow, Director,
                    California Department of Water Resources

    Introduction
        Chairwoman Napolitano, and members of the Subcommittee, I
    appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
    challenges and opportunities facing California's water supply.
        Recognizing the critical importance of a reliable water supply to
    our economy and our environment, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's
    administration has focused unprecedented resources and leadership to
    address the state's water issues. Those efforts culminated this past
    November with the passage of a comprehensive water package and bond
    proposal that will reform, rebuild and restore California's water
    system. At the federal level, focus and support from our California
    Congressional delegation and the Obama Administration has been vitally
    important in dealing not only with our current water crisis but also
    the steps necessary for our long-term water reliability and security.
        There is no single approach to managing California's water
    resources or the entirety of our state's natural resources in the face
    of ecosystem needs, the needs of a struggling economy, and the impacts
    of climate change. However we have the opportunity to implement
    programs and make management decisions based on strong science that
    achieves a new level of sustainable and integrated resource management.
    This may not be easy, but a sustainable resource management approach is
    the only way we can move forward in the 21st century.
        Today I would like to discuss current water conditions and how that
    relates to Southern California's water supply. I would also like to
    provide the Subcommittee with an overview of the comprehensive
    legislative package I just mentioned, and finally discuss the
    importance of a strong federal-state partnership to address the Delta
    and other statewide water issues.
    Water Supply Conditions
        As you know, 2009 was a third straight year of drought in
    California. We saw 500,000 acres of farm land fallowed or pulled out of
    service. There are more than 60 water agencies with mandatory
    conservation requirements. We have seen significant and alarming over
    drafting of groundwater basins. Going into this winter, the carryover
    in the state's major reservoirs was one-third to one-half below normal.
    The latest Fall Midwater Trawl by the California Department of Fish and
    Game, which measures fish populations, has the lowest indices on record
    for delta smelt and longfin smelt. This is further evidence that the
    Delta, through which much of the water supply for Central and Southern
    California is conveyed, is an ecosystem in peril and in desperate need
    of restoration.
        Last month, the Department of Water Resources announced the lowest
    initial allocation on record for the State Water Project--just 5% of
    contractor requested amounts. The initial allocation is a very
    conservative estimate of what we expect to deliver in 2010 as a
    percentage of SWP contractors' initial requests for water deliveries.
    At that time, our Sierra snowpack levels were well below normal. Over
    the past 10 days, we have seen a marked improvement in conditions. But
    even if we end this year with normal levels of snow and runoff, our
    water supply outlook will not improve significantly. Regulatory
    restrictions on Delta exports in the spring and early summer will make
    it difficult to deliver water to Southern California, the Central
    Valley, the Bay Area and coastal cities, even if it is available in our
    reservoirs. Hopefully the current ``El Nino'' track of storms will
    improve our water supply conditions without causing significant flood
    damage.
    Climate Change
        Many factors contribute to our current water crisis. From recent
    regulatory ecosystem protection measures to a multi-year drought,
    combined with an overlay of climate change that is not only affecting
    current conditions but will increasingly impact our water systems.
    Climate change impacts, including less snowpack, higher flood peaks,
    and sea level rise, create new uncertainties. By 2050, scientists
    project a loss of at least 25 percent of the Sierra snowpack with more
    of our precipitation occurring in the form of rain because of warmer
    temperatures, increasing the risk of flooding. More variable weather
    patterns may also result in increased dryness in the southern regions
    of the state.
        Many of the effects that could occur due to climate change can be
    mitigated, in part, with the same water management strategies one would
    employ when dealing with an extended drought.
        DWR's strategy to mitigate the combined effects of climate change
    and a decrease in the snowpack is multi-pronged and diverse. We are
    building a diverse and comprehensive ``portfolio'' of water management
    strategies that are effective in combination with each other, both in
    the short-term and long-term.
        In the short-term, DWR is promoting and financing programs which
    increase public education and awareness about water use and improve and
    increase water conservation and water recycling throughout California.
    We are striving to improve our emergency response to both flood and
    drought conditions. Of particular note, we activated our Drought Water
    Bank program last year, and a Water Transfers Program for this year to
    help alleviate statewide drought conditions. The Drought Water Bank
    serves as the ``broker'' between parties seeking to market or sell some
    or all of their legal water supplies to buyers who have critical water
    needs such as orchard growers. DWR staff responsible for the day-to-day
    operations of the State Water Project work closely with operators of
    the Central Valley Project and staff of the National Weather Service to
    optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of joint water project
    operations in tandem with forecasted weather conditions.
    Regional Planning, Research and Technological Advances
        For the longer-term, DWR continues to be involved in funding
    research and advising on the development and advancement of new
    technologies such as desalination and water recycling, developing
    better climate change modeling capabilities and the administration of
    regional water use efficiency programs such as the Integrated Regional
    Water Management Program.
        DWR utilizes and continues to develop a variety of tools to
    forecast water supply dynamics. One of our significant efforts involves
    collaboration with NASA (National Aeronautical and Space
    Administration) to incorporate satellite imagery data into our
    assessments of snowpack extent and depth using different radar
    technologies. We are also developing detailed models of individual
    watersheds, within the larger Bay-Delta watershed, which can predict
    amounts and timing of snowmelt runoff, as well as runoff temperature.
        In an effort to better balance the needs for protection of
    potentially catastrophic flooding and a dwindling water supply in
    Central Valley reservoirs, new Forecast-Coordinated Operation
    partnerships are being developed among the reservoir operators and
    hydrologic forecasting agencies to improve decision support systems and
    to take advantage of improved meteorological forecasting to better
    optimize real-time reservoir management.
    Colorado River
        Another major source of water supply for Southern California is the
    Colorado River. The Quantification Settlement Agreement--or QSA--is
    particularly important to ensure California preserves stability in its
    Colorado River supplies. The State Superior Court's recent tentative
    ruling invalidating key elements of the QSA agreements threatens
    California's water supply reliability; however, it is important to
    stress that the QSA parties, including the State of California, intend
    to work together to deal with issues raised in the court's ruling and
    jointly, will preserve this important agreement.
    Policy Priorities and Funding
        We have a serious and complex water crisis looming in California,
    but this is also a time of great opportunity. It is a time for
    creativity, a time for new ideas, and most importantly, a time for
    action to ensure that future generations have a clean, reliable water
    supply that we've enjoyed for decades in this state.
        The legislative package that was passed in November with bipartisan
    support, and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, recognizes the
    importance of solving California's complex water problems. It signals a
    commitment to the co-equal goals of water supply reliability and
    ecosystem restoration, a workable Delta governance structure and a
    clear path for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. And it includes, for
    the first time, statewide conservation requirements for urban and
    agricultural water users as well as groundwater monitoring.
        We now have a policy framework for moving forward and a proposed
    $11 billion bond that will be on the November ballot. The bond is
    essential, providing funding for virtually every water management
    project that we can conceive of. This includes funding for water supply
    reliability, drought relief, surface and groundwater storage, Delta
    restoration, water recycling, conservation, watershed restoration, and
    groundwater protection and cleanup. Every region in the state will
    benefit from these funds. A portion of funding is guaranteed to each of
    the hydrologic regions, and all regions are eligible to compete for
    additional funding to help finance water management projects and
    programs with local, regional and statewide benefits.
        The South Coast region, which includes parts of Los Angeles,
    Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura counties would
    receive $856 million for water supply reliability projects and be able
    to tap into a share of $6.3 billion in other regional and statewide
    funding from the bond.
    The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
        The Delta is not just the hub of California's water supply system,
    but a dramatic and critical manifestation of complex resource
    conflicts. It is, in many respects, the canary in the coal mine and the
    mine in this case is, ``How will society deal with complex resource
    conflicts at a statewide and national level?'' How do we find that
    balance between our economy and our environment as we move forward?
        The answer to that question lies to a large degree in a process we
    and numerous other government and non-government entities are currently
    engaged in known as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan or BDCP. BDCP
    represents a completely different approach to dealing with water
    problems. In the past, we would propose a project, and commit to
    mitigation of that project. In the case of BDCP, we've actually
    proposed developing recovery plans, a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
    under federal law and a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP)
    under state law, and we are looking at conveyance as a component of
    that strategy. It is a different approach but it is essential to moving
    forward and dealing effectively with California's future water needs.
    It is imperative that we continue on that path and it is imperative
    that we meet critical deadlines before the end of this year.
        That leads to the importance of the state-federal partnership.
    Active and committed federal involvement to solving California's water
    issues is essential. Having the high-level commitment from Secretary of
    the Interior Salazar and Secretary of Commerce Locke is essential to us
    carving out this new frontier on how we are going to resolve problems.
    Everything that we are trying to do and every approach that we are
    trying to make in terms of achieving co-equal goals and a balance in
    the Delta is dependent on federal decisions and the federal agencies
    being part of the solution. We cannot do it on our own.
        Fixing the Delta means real-time commitment and real-time decision
    making over the next 11 months. We have to make major accomplishments
    on flows, on conveyance, on extent of habitat, and a failure of us to
    make progress in 2010 prior to a transition to a new Governor taking
    office means, in the best case, delays. In the worst case, it means
    starting over. We cannot afford that either--for the economy or the
    environment.
        In December, the federal agencies issued an Interim Federal Action
    Plan for the Delta. In that document, federal officials strongly commit
    to work with California on a coordinated plan by February. That plan
    will identify our most important initiatives and near term action items
    deserving progress during 2010. Many forces--including old challenges
    and new leadership--converged to make this new state-federal
    partnership both necessary and possible. It represents a new era of
    unprecedented, close collaboration--a federal-state partnership that is
    absolutely essential to fixing the Delta and will represent a new
    frontier of problem-solving complex resource conflicts.
        The work plan provides an overview of key activities needed to make
    progress in the Delta and on wider water challenges in California.
    Among the major issues are development of a public draft of the Bay
    Delta Conservation Plan, action on water transfers for drought
    response, and coordination of state and federal Delta monitoring and
    research facilities. On water project operations, the plan calls for
    providing scientific information and working with the National Academy
    of Sciences on its current review of smelt and salmon biological
    opinions. Expedited action is contemplated on infrastructure projects
    including an Intertie linking the Delta-Mendota Canal and the
    California Aqueduct, providing more flexibility for state and federal
    water system operations and deliveries. Habitat restoration is also a
    major priority including a project to achieve flood control and
    ecosystem restoration benefits in the North Delta.
        Making it work probably means pushing harder than we have in the
    past, including tough calls and going outside our comfort zone. But
    there is no doubt that we need a collaborative approach to take
    advantage of the window of opportunity we have to change the way that
    we manage natural resources in California.
    Conclusion
        We stand at a critical juncture in dealing with California's water
    issues. Our new reality is that we must manage a resource that is
    characterized by uncertainty and vulnerability due to climate change
    and changing ecosystem needs. The past is no longer an accurate
    indicator of the future.
        What we need is a roadmap of strategies for sustainable water use
    in California. We hope that the Congress and the federal government
    will continue to recognize the severity of this issue to our state and
    our nation, and work with us to make the changes and investments
    necessary to improve our water future.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee.
    I would be happy to answer any questions.
                                     ______

        Mrs. Napolitano. I will now start with the questions and
    answers. I have many questions, and it would take the whole day
    for me to pose them, because there are so many issues, as we
    all know.
        Part of it is, Director Snow, have you thought of using the
    California Channel to educate the public on conservation, on
    the issue on--all those--the California Channel could be a
    perfect vehicle, if it is used. Then you have all the cities
    that have public access and government access channels that are
    free channels.
        Mr. Snow. Yes. You are talking about the public education.
    there have been different efforts to try to get that message
    out, both in the schools as well as advertising campaigns.
    Metropolitan Water District has been a leader here in Southern
    California, trying to get that message out.
        Mrs. Napolitano. No, I am talking about utilization of
    California Television Channel out of Sacramento that usually
    tapes--or actually runs the hearings in Sacramento, and it
    gives that information and all of that, but it is a perfect
    channel. It goes to many TV viewers. You need to think out of
    the box here, and that is what I am alluding to, is that have
    we done everything we possibly can to educate our general
    public. I am afraid the answer for me is no.
        Also, you mentioned the drought water bank in your
    testimony is a potential short term goal. What challenges did
    you face in facilitating the water transfers, and are east to
    west transfers possible under the current statute?
        Mr. Snow. Two parts to that. One, probably the single
    biggest issue we had with the drought water bank last year was
    the ability to move water across the Delta. Traditionally, in
    California the greatest source of water to move in drought
    situations is in the Sacramento Valley, typically with some of
    the rice growers up there. That means the water has to move
    across the Delta, meaning you have to have pumping capacity.
        So at different periods of time, we did not have the
    capacity because of restrictions, regulatory restrictions, to
    move the water across the Delta during certain periods of time,
    which increased the cost of water. There is the opportunity to
    move water from the east side of the valley, the San Joaquin
    Valley, to the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. Some of
    that actually has to flow through the pumping plant, because
    there is limited conveyance capacity across the Valley.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, there are many other areas that I
    would like to question, but I want to give my colleagues a
    chance. But, Commissioner Connor, thank you for being with us
    today. I told you, you would be on the hot seat today.
        There's a lot of questions that cross our mind, and I want
    to convey the thanks to Secretary Salazar, because you have
    been able to put--what?--seven agencies to work on the issue on
    Northern California. He visited it, the first time that the
    Secretary of the Interior has visited Northern California and
    talked, listened, maybe not acted to the extent that people
    want him to immediately, but you have only been here how many
    months?
        Mr. Connor. Personally, I have been on--it seems longer
    than it actually has, but I think it is about seven months.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Seven months, and we are trying to write
    eight years of policy that has been ignored in Washington. So I
    am sorry, but I am very, very concerned about the direction.
    Some people want to point fingers, and that just really irks
    me, because I know that you have been trying. I know we have
    dialogued with you. I know you have been responsive to a lot of
    Members, and we hope to continue to move on that.
        In August we provided Secretary Salazar suggestions on how
    to create 1 million acre-feet of water through water reuse,
    reclamation, conservation. Not only has the prior
    administration not wanted to consider Title XVI, which it only
    wanted in the toolbox to addressing water shortages in Southern
    California and, hopefully, in Northern California, also, but
    what has the Department done to address this, and will the
    Department address supporting our request for 200 million to
    address the 600 million backlog that the Bureau has on Title
    XVI?
        Mr. Connor. Well, thank you for your comments, Madam
    Chairwoman. First of all, I would be the first to acknowledge
    that, although I think we have done a lot--I have personally
    been out to the Valley and met the farmers on three occasions;
    twice, I have been out there with the Secretary of the
    Interior, Secretary Salazar--I think we would be the first to
    acknowledge that we need to do more, absolutely.
        The situation calls for action at the highest levels. We
    have tried to coordinate the Federal Government's activities
    through the Interim Federal Plan, and implementation of that
    plan and building on that plan are the highest priorities for
    this Administration.
        With respect to the notion of creating the 1 million acre-
    feet of additional supply through Title XVI and other
    conservation efforts, I think we have also done a lot in that
    area. I think we have made effective use of the Recovery Act
    funds that the Bureau of Reclamation received.
        Approximately $950 million was provided Bureau of
    Reclamation, of which we have allocated approximately $405
    million of that funding to California. Of that, $134 million
    has gone to Title XVI recycling projects in California, and
    that is a good start in addressing the backlog, but even after
    that $134 million investment, we still have a $646 million
    backlog.
        Mrs. Napolitano. But you have reduced my budget.
        Mr. Connor. Yes. Well, I think on the positive----
        Mrs. Napolitano. And I didn't take kindly to that.
        Mr. Connor. Well, we will be--I think you can expect that
    there will be more support for Title XVI from this
    Administration, in addition to moving forward, getting those
    funds out of the gate and getting those projects--that money
    onto the economy to do its intended effect of providing jobs,
    as well as providing water. I think you will see a follow-up
    support for the Title XVI program.
        We are also looking at other aspects of the water
    conservation initiative, those being the challenge grant
    funding that we have. We allocated $40 million of Recovery Act
    money for water conservation efficiency activities, and $24
    million of that funding went to the State of California to
    facilitate conservation projects, some of that--I think, a
    majority of that in the San Joaquin Valley. That was on top of
    another $6 million in CALFED water efficiency grants.
        So we are building up to the level that you suggested in
    your letter last fall. We are not quite there, but we will
    continue to follow up those efforts with the resources we have
    this year, in 2010, as well as 2011 and beyond.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, thank you, and I hope that you can
    help us convince the Administration that this current thrust
    into jobs, of development, recycled water and some of the other
    water projects can be exceedingly beneficial in providing those
    job development and putting people back to work.
        Mr. Connor. Absolutely.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. McClintock.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
        First, Mr. Connor, in your testimony you point out that at
    the end of the last California drought, which lasted for five
    years, California's population was just over 31 million. Today
    there are roughly 7 million more Californians, all of whom need
    water in the agricultural production and other economic
    activities supported by water.
        My question is: With that increase in need, why in the
    world are we still dumping 200 billion gallons of fresh water
    into the Pacific Ocean for the enjoyment and amusement of the
    Delta Smelt, a population which, as Mr. Calvert pointed out,
    continues to decline even with these massive water diversions?
        Mr. Connor. Well, we have limitations based on two
    biological opinions, one involving the Delta Smelt and one
    involving a number of salmon species, and there have been
    restrictions in place at some level for sometime. Those
    restrictions were enhanced this last year with the new
    Biological----
        Mr. McClintock.----Restrictions, which the Secretary of the
    Interior himself admitted to this Committee last year that they
    could suspend because of the severe economic damage being done
    to the Central Valley. However, they chose not to do so because
    that would be like admitting failure. But I put to you the
    question again. Given the dire need of this state for
    additional water, why in the world are we continuing the
    diversion of that enormous volume of water into the Pacific
    Ocean?
        Mr. Connor. I am not aware that that statement was made,
    and I don't understand, given the obligation to follow the
    Endangered Species Act----
        Mr. McClintock. The statement was made. In fact, I played a
    video tape of it this morning in Fresno. It did not go over
    well.
        Let me continue. You also say, notwithstanding drought, the
    Colorado River apportionment to California this year will be
    the full 4.4 million acre-feet, and there is a chance for some
    surplus under the annual operating plan for the Colorado River.
    It seems to me, if this is the third year of the severe drought
    and they are still able to deliver the full 4.4 million acre-
    feet on the Colorado, not that much of a drought.
        Mr. Connor. The Colorado River has had the benefit of 15
    years of cooperation and negotiation amongst the seven Basin
    states the Federal Government and a number of water management
    agencies that have restructured the management of that system,
    that have led to a lot of cooperation in dealing with the
    Endangered Species Act issues that exist in the Upper Basin as
    well as the Lower Basin, and upon those cooperative efforts and
    the agreement to coordinate management operation of the
    reservoirs in that system, we have been able to maintain
    deliveries consistent with the Colorado River Compact.
        Mr. McClintock. Because we are not dumping 200 billion
    gallons of water from the Colorado River into the Pacific
    Ocean. We are only doing that on the Sacramento, which directly
    impacts the Central Valley and the agricultural heart of this
    state.
        Mr. Connor. We are not releasing water at that level, but
    there is certainly water being provided in the Upper Basin and
    the Lower Basin for environmental purposes to help mitigate the
    impacts of the Endangered Species.
        Mr. McClintock. Oh, so the difference between the drought,
    which on the Colorado River allows full delivery of the water
    plus maybe some surplus on top of that, and the Sacramento is
    the water diversions of the Sacramento.
        Let me go to Mr. Snow. What is the percentage of annual
    precipitation that we have seen in the past year compared to a
    normal year on the Sierra?
        Mr. Snow. Well, from memory I believe last year we ended up
    with about 67-68 percent of normal.
        Mr. McClintock. Of normal precipitation?
        Mr. Snow. For normal runoff.
        Mr. McClintock. Normal runoff?
        Mr. Snow. Right.
        Mr. McClintock. What about precipitation, because the
    figures I saw were 90 to 96 percent of normal, and you have
    just testified that we've got 115 percent of normal for this
    point in the season.
        Mr. Snow. Normal precipitation to this point: Precipitation
    and runoff. When you have drought, you have a drier watershed,
    your precipitation percentage does not result in the same level
    of runoff because of a dry watershed.
        So for the last three years we have had a slightly higher
    precipitation from a percentage of normal than runoff, because
    the watershed takes up so much of the water. So in a year like
    this, if we ended up with normal precipitation, it would be
    slightly below normal runoff.
        Mr. McClintock. My point is in far more severe droughts
    than the one that we have experienced over these past three
    years, we have made far greater water deliveries to the San
    Joaquin Valley, the difference being we weren't dumping all of
    that water into the Pacific Ocean, the way we are today.
        Mr. Snow. There's two things that are responsible for where
    we are right now. One, there is a fundamental shift in the
    weather patterns, and so we have drought that is providing
    water in a different pattern, but we have--and I think this is,
    obviously, your point--much more strict regulatory standards
    that we have to meet in terms of when we can pump water.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Costa.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. On that
    point, on the restrictions, Mr. Snow, give me your take on it
    as the person who ran the state water project. Last year, it
    was my understanding, even with the constraints of the
    Biological Opinion, and it gets into a complicated mathematical
    formula, that the 10 percent allocation that was left available
    while other regions for 100 percent, could have been as much as
    30 percent allocation and still been with the Biological
    framework. Is that your view?
        Mr. Snow. I am not sure I followed that.
        Mr. Costa. The allocation to the San Luis Unit, by the x2
    factor in terms of how much water could be made available and
    still be within the framework of the Biological Opinion on
    smelt, that additional water could have been made available
    last year. Do you support that view?
        Mr. Snow. Not within the restrictions, no.
        Mr. Costa. You don't? Because some estimates are as much as
    if they had been using the criteria, that additional water
    could have been provided. Let us move on then.
        As it relates to the issue of the other stress factors
    involving the Delta, 120,000 gallons of ammonia by tertiary
    treatments in Sacramento and Stockton, 2000 pumps that have
    riparian lights to water that are unscreened and sometimes pump
    as much water as is exported, the quadrupling of the population
    at Pittsburgh, the Antioch, Lodi, all those areas that have
    runoff of the streets and fertilize their lawn and garden, all
    of those impacts, including predatory species that are non-
    native, why are they not taken into account in terms of how we
    manage the two water projects?
        Mr. Snow. Well, one of the--I would call it--limitations of
    the Endangered Species Act is that it has to focus on the
    permit that is in front of them, and so one of the problems
    that we have is, despite the fact we might say that our
    diversions are not as significant--are not the sole cause of
    the problem, it doesn't help that we point out that it may be
    the discharges that is a bigger problem than the pumps. We are
    still regulated on that.
        Mr. Costa. So you are saying that the other factors cause
    stress?
        Mr. Snow. Absolutely, and that is----
        Mr. Costa. The refineries, the discharges?
        Mr. Snow. That is the reason we have attempted to move from
    a fairly narrow Section 7 type of permit to a habitat
    conservation plan that allows you to look at those other
    stresses.
        Mr. Costa. Well, sooner rather than later, Mr. Snow. It is
    unfair that we put the entire burden of the fishery and the
    water quality on certain regions of California, when we don't
    impact the water supply, for example, in the City and County of
    San Francisco that normally would provide water that would go
    through the Delta.
        Mr. Connor, are you familiar with ``Listen to the River?''
        Mr. Connor. Of the CVPIA?
        Mr. Costa. Yes, the report that was done in 2008 by the
    Department of the Interior.
        Mr. Connor. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Costa. And to your knowledge, has the Department and
    the Bureau implemented any of these recommendations?
        Mr. Connor. Well, we are certainly looking at a number of
    the recommendations right now, particularly the notion that we
    have to have a more integrated approach to managing some of the
    environmental issues, the fisheries issues, etcetera.
        Mr. Costa. Well, it is unfortunate that we have to have the
    second round with the National Academy of Science, because they
    clearly indicated here the problems that exist within the
    efforts to implement CVPIA 16 years after it was implemented.
    This is 2008. It said problems of determining how salmon and
    steelhead may benefit from the management actions and search
    for solutions aren't peculiar to the Central Valley. The
    Pacific Northwest and elsewhere have also learned that the
    complex life cycle of these fish and of the range are poorly
    understood. The potential environmental concern includes that
    these fish make it almost nearly impossible to assign the
    casualty to specified protection or mitigation action.
        Then it goes on to talk about the other information, the
    lack of trustworthy population estimates. It goes on to the
    inability to separate the effects of both natural and
    anthropodic confounding influences. It talks about the minimum
    CVPIA monitoring and evaluation, precisely the questions that
    you are trying to derive. It talks about few qualitatively
    rigorous evaluations in your program. It talks about a more
    formal assessment hypothesis is required.
        It goes on and talks about the problems with monitoring and
    evaluation. To our knowledge, no integrated database or
    management system exists to how to manage environment in
    biological and monitoring opinions.
        Mr. Connor. I agree with you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I would like to point out, that was under
    the prior administration.
        Mr. Costa. Oh, no, no, no. They have had a chance. There is
    no response to this.
        Mr. Connor. The response is that we have----
        Mrs. Napolitano. Can we please move on? I would like to
    move on. Your time is up.
        Voice. We need to have it.
        Mrs. Napolitano. You can have a copy of it from them. OK?
    Please, we need to move on. I think all of us need to be able
    to be part of the solution, not the problem. One of the things
    that the state assemblywoman--we didn't ask any questions of
    you, and I don't want you to go away feeling neglected. Does
    the state have a Plan B, if the water bond does not pass?
        Ms. Caballero. Well, with all due respect, Madam Chair, I
    think part of the challenge is that that water bond discussion
    was really a negotiation that took a great amount of time. If
    you are asking me, if it doesn't pass, will we be back at it,
    looking at another alternative, absolutely. There is no
    question, we need to invest in our infrastructure, and we will
    do whatever we need to do.
        The real key about that bond is that it provides the
    opportunity to do the conservation we have been talking about,
    to do the reclamation projects that we have been talking about,
    to recycle water, to be able to really build the infrastructure
    to be able to take water from one side of the Valley to the
    other side of the Valley, to do the inter-connectivity.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I understand.
        Ms. Caballero. Without that, we are going to be stuck with
    a system that continues to service----
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. I just wanted to introduce
    that. I need to let Mr. Calvert have his comments, but I want
    to be sure that I thank the state for finally getting involved,
    because I have heard from a lot of my water agencies that they
    are totally dependent on other solutions instead of form the
    state, and I think the state finally stepped up to the plate.
    Mr. Calvert?
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. by the
    way, we can't blame the last three years of drought on the last
    eight years' problems, in spite of the politics here.
        Voice. That is right.
        Mrs. Napolitano. One more outbreak, and you are out.
        Mr. Calvert. And the purpose of the political comment--you
    owe one minute to Mr. Costa to get an answer to his question.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, my colleague. Mr. Connor,
    could you respond, because this is very troubling in terms of
    what has or has not happened as a result of this.
        Mr. Connor. I agree, it is troubling. I think there is a
    lot of work in implementing the provisions of the CVPIA as they
    were originally intended, and had they been implemented in that
    way with coordinated monitoring, understanding the fisheries'
    needs better, diversifying refuge supplies, that may, in fact,
    have alleviated some of the situation that exists today.
        So a lot of the things that you have mentioned are part of
    the interim Federal work plan, and we understand that we need
    more aggressive implementation actions.
        Mr. Costa. Well, let me just make one final comment here,
    because it is critical to this whole report. It says, to
    increase the probability of success, the agencies need to
    redesign and implement an integrated program to improve the
    status of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and I
    don't know that you are doing that.
        Mr. Connor. I think that is the whole point of the Federal
    work plan, the coordination that we are doing amongst several
    agencies and the aggressive science action that we have and the
    resources we are trying to apply.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Does that include the state participation?
    I will give you extra time. Does that include state
    participation, Ms. Caballero? Mr. Snow?
        Mr. Snow. Of course. We have been working very closely on
    this, and expect to have a joint Federal Work Program, but
    fixing the Delta cannot be done, either by the Feds or the
    state alone. We both have to be working on it, and the same
    with building storage.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Would you be kind enough to allow the
    general public to understand what programs you are working on
    to help them, because apparently, a lot of people don't know
    that you are working to be able to find the solutions, and they
    are getting very upset. They feel the Federal Government nor
    the state is acting toward helping them out during this crisis,
    and I don't know what all you are going to do. But you need to
    tell them. All these agencies that are working to be able to
    reach consensus to move ahead, and not just talk about it, but
    formulate that action, and then put it into play. I am sorry.
    Mr. Calvert.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Snow,
    obviously, you are very familiar with what is going on in the
    Central Valley and the impact that it has with the farming
    community. If this goes on another year because of the stress
    on the permanent crops in that area, will a significant amount
    of that production go out permanently?
        Mr. Snow. Well, I think, in talking with a lot of the
    members of the agricultural community, that is exactly what is
    happening.
        Mr. Calvert. So saying that, I met with Mr. Hayes, I think,
    a year ago, and we were talking about the Two Gates and the
    necessity of immediately putting the permitting on Two Gates
    where we could build it and, hopefully, had it built by now;
    because, as I understand it, Dennis Majors was ready to build
    that project on site and rapidly get it going. But as I
    understand it, the Administration has indefinitely delayed the
    Two Gates project. As I understand it, there is a letter from
    the San Luis Delta-Mendota Water Authority that accuses the
    Administration, and Mr. Connor maybe can answer this, of a
    scientific double standard, and apparently indefinitely
    delaying this project, which was some way to help mitigate this
    smelt issue and to get some additional pumping going on.
        Are you aware of this letter? Are you aware of that issue,
    and why the Two Gates Project is not being able to be
    permitted?
        Mr. Connor. Yes, sir, I am well aware of that letter and
    well aware of all the actions that have been taken with respect
    to Two Gates. Two Gates has been a priority from a permitting
    standard, absolutely. We have spent hours and hours trying to
    move forward----
        Mr. Calvert. Well, reclaiming my time from the gentleman,
    if it is a priority, why hasn't it been done? Right now, we are
    running out of time. We are talking about this water bond. Even
    if it does pass, and there is a question whether it will pass,
    quite frankly, because of the cost and the political climate
    that we are in, none of these projects will be built for years.
    So we need to move on with some interim projects today in order
    to save the Central Valley.
        We just heard testimony from Mr. Snow saying that in
    another year, much of the production in the Central Valley will
    be permanently out. They are not going to replant those trees.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Would the gentleman yield for a moment?
        Mr. Calvert. Happy to.
        Mrs. Napolitano. There will be additional time. The
    question then leads to: We know that there are farmers losing
    their land, their crops, going bankrupt, fallowing the
    farmland. Mr. Connor, have we worked with USDA, with Commerce,
    with all the agencies, SBA, to be able to help these
    individuals stay in the industry until the times get better,
    until--as he is pointing out--those projects come on line to be
    able to do the water delivery. Are we doing that? Thanks.
        Mr. Calvert. Well, the problem there, Madam Chairwoman, is
    that the trees will be dead.
        Mr. Connor. Yes. The answer to your question, the Federal
    Work Plan identifies a range of actions, and I realize it is
    not popular to talk about the relief that we can provide
    financially, given the lack of water, but we do think it is
    appropriate, and we have worked closely with the Department of
    Agriculture who declared 57 or 58 counties a disaster last
    year. That made emergency loans available. That made other
    types of assistance available.
        I know that is not a substitute for water. I know people
    want water, and they want to produce products, but that is one
    interim step, as well as figuring out the right projects that
    we can do in the short term that will help yield the water.
        The fundamental problem with Two Gates, and I will be
    succinct, is not the bill reclamation, not the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, but the CALFED independent Science Panel
    found fundamental scientific flaws with the basis for the Two
    Gates Project which needed further investigation. That was one
    issue.
        The second issue, costs escalated from somewhere in the $20
    million range to $80 million, when all was said and done. That
    included some O&M costs. So the resources weren't immediately
    available for the project.
        Third, there were over 1400 comments in the environmental
    assessment projects expressing strong concerns about the Two
    Gates Project from the citizens of California, not from the
    Federal agencies, that need to be evaluated and looked at as
    part of our environmental complaint activity.
        Fourth, we did a design and did a construction view of Two
    Gates, and it raised nine significant issues about the
    technical foundation for the project. We have not shelved Two
    Gates. We are actively working on Two Gates, but those
    questions need to be answered to figure out if it is worth the
    investment of that kind of money and whether it really yields
    additional water.
        In the interim, we are going to do projects like the
    Intertie, which we know is a good project, which we know has
    the capacity to generate additional water. We are going to move
    forward with conservation projects. We are going to diversify
    water supplies to refugees. Those, we know, will have some
    added benefit for the water supply for the Central Valley
    Project.
        Mr. Calvert. Madam Chairwoman, I have one question.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Last question.
        Mr. Calvert. During your opening testimony, you mentioned
    you are delivering 6,000 CFS a day into the Central Valley. If
    it wasn't for the biological opinion, the existing biological
    opinions, I should state, on the smelt and the salmon, what
    would be the delivery per day?
        Mr. Connor. That is an excellent question, and I don't have
    the exact answer.
        Mr. Calvert. Could you supply that answer for the Committee
    at some point?
        Mr. Connor. Yes. I will be candid. It is about 6,000 CFS,
    but I don't know the exact number, and we will provide that
    information as soon as possible.
        Mr. Calvert. Excuse me. Mr. Snow, do you know the answer to
    that question?
        Mr. Snow. I probably should say no instead of guessing. So
    we will follow up, but it is probably on the order of 10,000
    CFS, given the storms that we have had.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. I would like to reiterate to
    Commissioner Connor that this Committee sent a letter to you in
    regard to the question that Congressman Costa sent, and we
    still don't have an answer. I would really appreciate an answer
    to all this Committee. Thanks.
        Mr. Calvert. Madam Chair, may I follow up?
        Mrs. Napolitano. We are moving on. We have already spent
    over an hour and 20 minutes.
        Mr. Calvert. Well, you took quite a bit of liberties here.
    I would like----
        Mrs. Napolitano. I am the Chair.
        Mr. Calvert. I would like to extend----
        Mrs. Napolitano. We are moving on to the next panel. We
    will continue to work on the different issues together and look
    forward to a lot more cooperation.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I would like to bring Mr. Jeffrey
    Kightlinger, General Manager of Metropolitan Water District of
    Southern California, Los Angeles. Again, thank you, Met, for
    hosting us in this fine facility; Mr. Brian Brady, General
    Manager, Imperial Irrigation District, Imperial California; Ms.
    Maureen Stapleton, General Manager, San Diego County Water
    Authority in San Diego; and Mr. Dan Parks, Assistant General
    Manager of the Coachella Valley Water District in Coachella.
        Mr. Kightlinger, if you would be so kind, you have five
    minutes. Thank you, sir.

    STATEMENT OF JEFFREY KIGHTLINGER, GENERAL MANAGER, METROPOLITAN
                 WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Kightlinger. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Members
    of Congress. I really want to thank you for coming to Southern
    California and getting an urban Southern California perspective
    on the issues and the drought we are facing and, certainly,
    welcome you to Metropolitan and appreciate your use of our
    facilities here, and glad we could play host.
        I particularly want to thank the Chairwoman for all the
    tremendous work she has done and the support she has given for
    urban water over the years, and we appreciate this opportunity
    to speak here.
        This has been a very challenging time. Metropolitan does
    straddle the area of California in the sense that we get our
    water supply--our imported water supply for Southern California
    comes from both the Colorado River, as my friends here and our
    partners, as well as the State Water Project in Northern
    California. This has been a very challenging time in that we
    have been hit on both supplies.
        From 2000 to 2008, the Colorado River has gone through an
    unprecedented drought, and in 2003 when Secretary Gail Norton,
    Interior Secretary Gail Norton, cut back California from 5
    million acre-feet of deliveries to 4.4, that hit fell on
    Metropolitan. Our Colorado River aqueduct which holds 1.2
    million acre-feet and had been full for several decades was
    immediately cut in half to 600,000 acre-feet, and we had to
    make up those supplies elsewhere.
        Then, certainly, as you are well aware, in much of the
    testimony in the last committee and the last panel, our State
    Water Project supplies have been severely impacted. So we have
    been dealing with loss of supply both on the Colorado River
    side and the State Water Project side.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Excuse me just a second. Commissioner
    Connor, I would like for you to hear the testimony, please.
    Thank you. I am sorry. Go ahead.
        Mr. Kightlinger. Thank you, Madam Chair. In addition to the
    drought in California for the last three years and the drought
    on the Colorado River, we have had to deal with the legal
    rulings on the QSA as well as the restrictions, the fishery
    restrictions that Commissioner Connor talked about. These are
    the most restrictive fishery restrictions ever seen in the
    Endangered Species Act that have cost Metropolitan over half a
    million acre-feet of supplies that we would have received over
    the last two years. That is the equivalent to the hole that we
    currently have in our Diamond Valley Lake reservoir that we
    would have filled if we had been able to access our State Water
    Project supplies.
        So how have we survived these last couple of years here in
    Southern California? Two main areas: One is the Colorado River.
    Through good work and cooperation, after the passage of the
    QSA, after the enactment of that, as well as the Federal
    guidelines in 2007, we have managed to rebuild our Colorado
    River supply from 600,000 acre-feet in 2002 to over a million
    acre-feet last year, the first time we have passed the million
    acre-foot mark since 2002. So 2009 we delivered 1.1 million
    acre-feet of Colorado River water through cooperation with
    Nevada and Arizona as well as Imperial Irrigation District,
    Palo Verde Irrigation District and Coachella Valley Water
    District.
        That has been a tremendous success, and it really is a sign
    of cooperation among the Basin states and the partners on the
    river.
        The second main area we had to work on last year was
    conservation. Metropolitan, very reluctantly but had to do so--
    we put out mandatory conservation for 19 million people in
    Southern California, and we implemented 10 percent mandatory
    cutback across the board, and the region responded with over 15
    percent as a region. So it was a real success. But where do we
    go from here? How do we solve these issues going forward?
        There are three main areas that we would like to focus on,
    working with our delegation, working with Congress, and working
    with this Administration. First is continued cooperation on the
    Colorado River. We continue to need that support of the three
    Basin states, the Lower Basin states, Arizona, Nevada,
    California, working together to ensure continued supplies
    throughout the Colorado River Basin, and we certainly
    appreciate your support of the Hoover Power bill, and we are
    going to need more legislation and more help on the river to
    continue the progress we have made.
        Second, on the State Water Project, it is absolutely
    essential we have a Delta fix implemented as expeditiously as
    possible to get ecosystem restoration and new conveyance across
    the Delta. These are absolutely critical, and we need to move
    this as quickly as we possibly can.
        Third and finally, we always appreciate the support for our
    recycling and our reclamation, our conservation programs. These
    are going to be absolutely critical as we diversify our water
    supply for Southern California, and enable California to
    continue to grow and prosper.
        With that, I will take any questions when the time is
    appropriate. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kightlinger follows:]

              Statement of Jeffrey Kightlinger, General Manager,
               Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

        Chairwoman Napolitano:
        On behalf of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
    California, thank you for convening this hearing to explore and address
    the water supply challenges facing this region and to share
    Metropolitan's action plan for addressing a worsening problem that
    threatens communities, businesses and farms throughout this state.
        Southern California has experienced its first year of region-wide
    mandatory conservation since 1991 because of Metropolitan's decision
    last year to reduce deliveries to its 26 member agencies in six
    counties.
        Metropolitan imports supplies from the Colorado River and from
    Northern California via the State Water Project. Three years of below-
    average rainfall throughout the state, combined with new restrictions
    on State Water Project supplies because of the deterioration and
    collapse of the ecosystem in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, has
    resulted in the need to reduce supplies for 19 million Southern
    Californians and for residents throughout the state.
        Because of aggressive efforts and outreach by Metropolitan and our
    member public agencies there is widespread awareness about California's
    water problems and our residents and businesses have risen to the
    challenge and significantly reduced their water use. For example, water
    use has been reduced in Southern California by over 15% throughout the
    region; some areas are even quite higher. But despite the welcome
    recent rains and the good effort on local conservation, the underlying
    crisis remains and will be readily apparent in the months and years
    ahead.
        Southern California like much of the state faces ongoing shortage
    or near-shortage conditions because of the problems in the Delta.
    Metropolitan's initial allocation of supplies from the State Water
    Project for the coming year is 5 percent of a full delivery. That is
    the lowest initial allocation in the history of the Project. We hope
    and anticipate this allocation to increase in the weeks ahead, but the
    question is: by how much? Metropolitan's board of directors is
    scheduled to discuss and make a decision at its meeting in April to
    determine the amount of water it can deliver to its member agencies
    this year. The recent rains did not wash away our water problems--or,
    the state's problems, and the possibility of continued shortage
    conditions is quite real.
        Many of us who have been following water issues for decades have
    been accustomed to a quick bounce-back in deliveries from the State
    Water Project when the drought cycle ends and the rains return. But
    this pattern will no longer hold true. New water supply restrictions
    because of deteriorating environmental conditions in the Delta will
    have their greatest impact in wet and average years. Metropolitan will
    lose the ability to capture as much as 600,000 acre-feet of water in
    above-average and wet years because of these restrictions. This is
    water that normally would replenish the groundwater basins in Los
    Angeles, the San Gabriel Valley and Orange County that desperately need
    replenishment. Some of these aquifers are at or near their lowest
    groundwater elevations in recorded history. That is unacceptable. As a
    region and a state, we must find a way to capture adequate supplies in
    wet years in order to withstand the inevitable dry cycles. The key to
    this solution lies in addressing the crisis in the Delta.
        In the short term, all water supply restrictions must be based on
    sound science, while every effort is made to find the means to ease
    these environmental restrictions without harming fish populations.
    Three years of reduced water deliveries from the State Water Project
    have not reversed the collapse of the ecosystem, a compelling sign that
    ecosystem restoration and a strategy to address other stressors is
    essential.
        For the longer term, the key to the Delta challenge relies in
    combining ecosystem improvements with water conveyance improvements.
    This strategy is now emerging through the state-federal effort known as
    the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. It is absolutely essential that the
    Interior Department stay on track and produce a draft environmental
    impact statement for the BDCP this year.
        For Metropolitan, it will be vital to maintain our ongoing efforts
    to maximize the available supplies from the Colorado River, which faces
    its own challenges as it recovers from record drought. The conservation
    ethic of our residents will have to continue now and into the future
    and we will have to look for new and innovative ways to treat, manage
    and increase the use of recycled water to ensure the most efficient use
    of our limited supplies. Title XVI projects will be pivotal in bridging
    the gap between the problems we have today and the implementation of a
    long-term Delta solution. Equally important is the acceptance that
    improving the quality and reliability of our water, from improving
    treatment to addressing the crisis in the Delta, comes at a cost that
    will result in higher rates. Even so, our supplies remain well under a
    penny a gallon for some of the highest quality water for any major
    metropolitan region on earth. We have major challenges ahead of us. But
    we do have ways to solve them. Thank you Chairwoman Napolitano for your
    continued leadership on water issues on behalf of this region.
                                     ______

        Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Brian Brady, General Manager, Imperial
    Irrigation District.

        STATEMENT OF BRIAN J. BRADY, GENERAL MANAGER, IMPERIAL
               IRRIGATION DISTRICT, IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Brady. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. There is a
    common misconception in the Imperial Valley that the Imperial
    Irrigation District is transferring conserved water to urban
    Southern California, because it isn't needed in the Valley and
    there is money to be made. In fact, IID is a party to the QSA,
    and water transfer is authorized for precisely the opposite
    reason, to protect the Imperial Valley's water rights that
    would otherwise be subject to legal challenge under the
    reasonable and beneficial consumptive use standard that applies
    to all Colorado River contractors.
        In other words, IID is voluntarily transferring conserved
    water as a means of preserving its historical rights and
    eliminating the threat of a forced taking of water from the
    Imperial Valley. Now without going into all the history,
    throughout the last six years IID's position has been the same.
    Water transfer agreements authorized by the QSA are far from
    perfect. I think we would all agree with that, but they are
    needed to afford the District and its water users both a
    revenue stream to pay for conservation and sufficient time to
    stave off any future legal challenge.
        I think, as we all know, the QSA is a product of decades of
    conflict resolution, compromise, consensus, and if we were
    allowed to unravel it, the result would be chaos. Some would
    say, why don't we start all over again. Our answer to that is
    that it is what would be walking away from as IID.
        Number one would be an annual cap of 3.1 million acre feed
    from the Colorado River and certain procedures where we can go
    over that cap for particular reasons; a revenue stream to fund
    needed system and on-farm water conservation improvements vital
    to protecting the Valley's water rights and forestalling future
    challenges on beneficial use; a nearly finalized habitat
    conservation and natural community conservation plan to
    mitigate not only the transfer's impact on the Salton Sea but
    also to the District's strain on agricultural field habitats,
    and also early start habit and air impacts, mitigation efforts
    that are already underway in the Salton Sea.
        It is this last point having to do with the Salton Sea that
    warrants careful consideration in the Valley. That is because
    the basis of Judge Candee's decision to invalidate the QSA, the
    joint powers authority with the science financial
    responsibility for the transfer's impact among participating
    water agencies in the State of California could stand as an
    impediment to any water sharing agreement going forward now or
    in the future.
        The existing agreement again, even though it has been ruled
    invalid, offers the most viable framework and the least risk to
    the district in reaching accord on the Salton Sea mitigation
    question. That doesn't mean we will necessarily succeed. It is
    only that we have the greatest chance of success with that.
        The promise for a better deal, as some would call for, must
    be measured against the prospect of no deal, and for this
    reason, above all others, abandoning the QSA and starting all
    over again just would be bad public policy, and more
    importantly to us, in a very parochial manner, bad for the
    Valley. Thank you very much.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Brady follows:]

                 Statement of Brian J. Brady, General Manager,
                          Imperial Irrigation District

        There is a common misperception in the Imperial Valley that the
    Imperial Irrigation District is transferring conserved water to urban
    Southern California because it isn't needed here and there is money to
    be made in sending it elsewhere.
        In fact, IID is a signatory to the Quantification Settlement
    Agreement and the water transfers it authorized for precisely the
    opposite reason: to protect the Imperial Valley's water rights that
    would otherwise be subject to legal challenge under the reasonable and
    beneficial consumptive use standard that applies to all Colorado River
    contractors. In other words, IID is voluntarily transferring conserved
    water as a means of preserving its historical rights and eliminating
    the threat of a forced taking of water from the Imperial Valley.
        The reason this myth of ``selling water'' has taken hold locally, I
    believe, is because the internal debate over the valley's water rights
    has been raging for so long that fatigue has set in and only a few
    people are still around who can recall the chain of events leading up
    to the 2003 signing of the agreement, which, in turn, set into motion
    the nation's largest agricultural-to-urban water transfer.
        The makeup of the IID Board of Directors, and of the Imperial
    Valley, has changed in the last six years, but the drought conditions
    that culminated in the decision to transfer up to 300,000 acre-feet of
    the area's water per year to the district's urban partners have, if
    anything, become more intractable since the QSA went into effect.
        IID is transferring water to the San Diego County Water Authority
    and the Coachella Valley Water District because of a ruling in 1982 by
    the State Water Resources Control Board that the district was failing
    to put its water to reasonable and beneficial use. IID has always
    maintained that its water use is as efficient as any district's in the
    West, but a determination was made that the costs of future legal
    fights were outweighed by the safety and certainty of a water transfer
    agreement that would pay for greater efficiency and shore up the
    district's exposure to reasonable and beneficial use challenges.
        In 1989, IID entered in to a water transfer agreement with the
    Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to perform system
    improvements that would conserve 105,000 acre-feet annually, a water-
    sharing pact that remains in place today. Then, in 1995, the district
    began negotiations with the San Diego County Water Authority to
    conserve and transfer up to 200,000 acre-feet a year through a
    combination of system and on-farm water conservation measures that
    would create an economic stimulus in the Imperial Valley.
        Those talks produced a signed agreement in 1998, but its
    implementation was put on hold by a larger effort on the part of the
    federal government to quantify water use in the lower basin of the
    Colorado River and to bring California into conformity with its annual
    entitlement of 4.4 million acre-feet from the river. The purpose of
    this overarching Quantification Settlement Agreement was to resolve
    longstanding disputes between water agencies and arrive at a compromise
    among California, Arizona and Nevada that would, according to then-
    Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, ``usher in an era of limits'' on
    the Colorado River.
        But achieving ``peace on the river'' was easier to do in a
    proclamation than it turned out to be in practice. The next four years
    would be taken up with crafting agreements that would not only pass
    muster with the seven Western states that rely on the Colorado River
    but would also find support on the IID board. The linchpin of this
    agreement was always the water transfer between IID and San Diego, but
    the priority system among Colorado River contractors as well as the
    state's interest in addressing impacts caused by the transfer on the
    Salton Sea introduced two new aspects to the discussion.
        One was that the Coachella Valley Water District, which had
    subordinated its water right to that of the district's in 1934,
    threatened to block the transfer of water from going forward unless it
    could obtain additional water as part of any final agreement. The other
    was the Salton Sea, a troubled body of water that would be adversely
    impacted from any reduction in inflows caused by the water transfer. In
    both instances, an accommodation was made. The first was to allow CVWD
    into the transfer agreement for an additional 100,000 acre-feet a year;
    the second was to adopt fallowing as the sole means of generating water
    for the transfer during the first 15 years of the deal to mitigate its
    effects on the Salton Sea.
        Neither of these changes was well-received by IID or, for that
    matter, within the Imperial Valley, but it remained constructively
    engaged in the process because the alternative, the summary taking of a
    quantity of its water by the federal government for no compensation,
    was considered too great a risk for the district and its water users.
        And that is exactly what happened in January 2003, following a New
    Year's Eve vote to approve the QSA by the IID board that failed 3-2.
    Within a matter of days, the district saw its annual water order cut by
    327,000 acre-feet and only got it back by winning an injunction in U.S.
    District Court. But this victory was only temporary, as the Bureau of
    Reclamation was allowed to prepare its case for a part 417
    investigation into the reasonable and beneficial use of water in the
    Imperial Valley and there was no doubt that if IID did not find a way
    to re-engage in the QSA process it would be back in court, with no
    guarantee of a favorable outcome and an unspecified quantity of water
    hanging in the balance.
        This proved to be sufficient motivation for the board to try again,
    which it did on October 3, 2003, passing the landmark agreement by a 3-
    2 vote that was as controversial then as it is today. IID went to court
    to validate the agreement, a legal process that would join all of the
    litigation that was bound to ensue, and the QSA coordinated cases were
    taken up before Judge Roland Candee in Sacramento Superior Court. In
    the meantime, water to meet the district's obligations to the urban
    water agencies and to mitigate the transfer's impacts on the Salton Sea
    would be produced primarily through fallowing.
        Throughout this six-year period, IID's position has been the same:
    the water transfer agreements authorized by the QSA are far from
    perfect but they are needed to afford the district and its water users
    both a revenue stream to pay for conservation and sufficient time to
    stave off any future legal challenge to its reasonable and beneficial
    consumptive use. The QSA is the product of decades of conflict
    resolution, compromise and consensus and if it is allowed to unravel,
    the result will be chaos. This isn't a scare tactic but a stark fact:
    remove the basic protections provided to IID under the QSA from hostile
    legal action by either the state or the federal government, and the
    vacuum created in its wake will become a vortex of legal uncertainty
    and political vulnerability.
        The public has a right to know--and to comprehend--why the IID, in
    light of Judge Candee's recent decision to invalidate the QSA over its
    perceived deficiency in parceling out responsibility for the mitigation
    of the transfer's effects on the Salton Sea, would seek a stay of this
    ruling and to appeal it so that the transfer of water can continue
    indefinitely. Why, our critics ask, hasn't the district just walked
    away from the QSA and announced to the world that it now wants a better
    and more lucrative water transfer agreement than the one found to be
    invalid by a state court?
        Perhaps the best way to understand it is to consider what IID would
    be walking away from:
          An annual cap of 3.1 million acre-feet from the Colorado
    River and an inadvertent overrun and payback policy that allows the
    district, under certain circumstances, to exceed that cap.
          A revenue stream to fund needed system and on-farm water
    conservation improvements vital to protecting the Imperial Valley's
    water rights and forestalling the possibility of future reasonable and
    beneficial consumptive use challenges.
          Nearly finalized habitat conservation and natural
    community conservation plans to mitigate not only the transfer's
    impacts on the Salton Sea but also to the district's drain and
    agricultural field forage habitats.
          Early-start habitat and air impacts mitigation efforts
    that are already under way at the Salton Sea and would cease to exist
    without the QSA in place.
        It is this last point having to do with the Salton Sea that
    warrants careful consideration in the Imperial Valley. That's because
    the basis of Judge Candee's decision to invalidate the QSA, the joint
    powers authority that assigns financial responsibility for the
    transfer's impacts among the participating water agencies and the state
    of California, could stand as an impediment to any water-sharing
    agreement going forward, now or in the future.
        The existing agreement, even though it has been ruled invalid,
    offers the most viable framework and least risk to the district in
    reaching accord on the Salton Sea mitigation question. That doesn't
    mean we will necessarily succeed, only that we have the greatest chance
    of success in pursuing, and attempting to fix, the plan that is already
    on the table.
        The promise of a better deal must be measured against the prospect
    of no deal. For this reason, above all others, abandoning the QSA and
    starting over again wouldn't just be bad public policy.
        It would be bad for the Imperial Valley.
                                     ______

        Mrs. Napolitano. We will move on to Ms. Maureen Stapleton,
    General Manager, San Diego County Water Authority in San Diego.

     STATEMENT OF MAUREEN A. STAPLETON, GENERAL MANAGER, SAN DIEGO
                         COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY

        Ms. Stapleton. Good afternoon, Chairwoman and Members of
    Congress. The Water Authority provides imported water to San
    Diego County and our $170 billion economy and 3.1 million
    people. The Water Authority, like Metropolitan Water District,
    gets our water from both the Bay-Delta and the Colorado River.
        The Colorado River water is purchased both via Metropolitan
    Water District and through our water transfers with Imperial
    Irrigation District and Coachella through the canal linings. On
    the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta, we purchase our supplies
    through Metropolitan Water District as well as some additional
    dry year supplies that we have gotten during this drought
    period.
        We feel like we have hit the perfect storm in many regards.
    You heard today about the drought, both on the Bay-Delta and on
    the Colorado River. If that was the only challenge we had to
    deal with, we would be able to handle it. Water districts plan
    for multi-year droughts. We have invested billions of dollars
    improving our water supply reliability and additional billions
    of dollars in water infrastructure improvements to address
    droughts on the river and in the Bay-Delta, but our drought
    challenges are really compounded by court decisions and
    regulatory actions.
        So that is why we talk about the perfect storm. It isn't
    just one issue that we are struggling with. It is multiple
    issues. On the Colorado River front, the recent decision by the
    Sacramento Superior Court Judge that invalidated dozens of
    agreements that comprised the Quantification Settlement
    Agreement has really added to the challenges for the Water
    Authority, for Imperial, Coachella and Metropolitan Water
    District.
        Our agencies are working cooperatively together with the
    State of California and the Federal Government to resolve this
    latest challenge, and we expect that we will do so. We need the
    Federal Government to assist and support in these efforts to
    ensure the continuity of the QSA.
        Adding to the perfect storm also is the climate change
    issue and the long-term impacts on precipitation and snow packs
    for our water agencies, and ultimately water reliability. It is
    clear that water planning in the 21st Century will look much
    different than water planning that we have historically done in
    previous decades.
        For the San Diego County Water Authority, really, what is
    important to us is implementing our region's fully diversified
    portfolio. Over the course of two decades, we have invested
    billions of dollars in highly reliable and long-term water
    supplies and billions of dollars in our water infrastructure
    improvements, including reservoirs and dams, pipelines, water
    treatment plants.
        I brought a slide today, and I don't know if it can go up.
    Nothing tells San Diego's story better than the graphic up on
    the screen. In the upper lefthand corner is a pie chart
    depicting the water supply portfolio in '91 where we were 95
    percent dependent on a single supplier, and only five percent
    of our supplies were local yield.
        You can see, by 2010 we have begun that diversification
    program through the QSA, through improved improvements in
    conservation, recycling, brackish groundwater recovery, and by
    2020 we will be adding ocean desalination. You can see that
    it's really an investment in our water supply and in our
    infrastructure that will ultimately bring water reliability to
    our region.
        I think Lester Snow said earlier, there is no silver bullet
    that will solve water supply reliability for California. It is
    going to be--someone said to me once it was really the silver
    buckshot. You need it all. You need all of the components to
    really make this happen.
        I would like to, in a final minute, really talk about the
    Federal Government and a critical partner that we need out of
    you in improving California's water supply reliability.
    Specifically, on the Bay-Delta, you need to support the
    completion of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan and consider
    actions to help us implement that plan. In addition, you need
    to make sure that the co-equal goals of environment and water
    supply reliability are there and that one does not overshadow
    the other.
        Congress has also played an important role of improving our
    self-reliance through Title XVI, water recycling projects or
    groundwater recovery. That self-sufficiency is truly important.
    Then on climate change, we believe Congress should focus its
    Federal efforts on improving climate modeling, including
    regional downsizing, and we seek your assistance and your
    funding in achieving that as well. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Stapleton.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Stapleton follows:]

              Statement of Maureen A. Stapleton, General Manager,
                        San Diego County Water Authority

    About the San Diego County Water Authority
        The San Diego County Water Authority is a public agency (special
    act district) that provides imported water supplies that amount to
    approximately 80% of all water used in San Diego County to support the
    region's $170 billion economy and 3.1 million people. The Water
    Authority is comprised of 24 member retail water providers--water
    districts and cities--and is governed by a 36-member board of
    directors.
        The Water Authority owns, operates and maintains one of
    California's largest regional water distribution systems, with more
    than 300 miles of large-diameter pipelines, pump stations, reservoirs,
    and water treatment facilities.
        The Water Authority imports water from two principal sources: 1)
    the Colorado River, via supplies purchased from the Metropolitan Water
    District of Southern California (MWD) and through long-term water
    conservation and transfer agreements with the Imperial Irrigation
    District; and 2) the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta, through supplies
    purchased from MWD and additional short-term, dry-year water transfers
    from sellers located upstream of the Bay-Delta.

    Colorado River Supply
     What is the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and how does its
            implementation affect California's overall water supply?
        The Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement, signed in
    2003, along with 34 related agreements (collectively referred to as the
    QSA), settled more than seven decades of disputes over the use of
    Colorado River water within California. The QSA parties include the
    Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water District,
    Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San Diego County
    Water Authority, the State of California, the Federal Government, five
    Bands of Mission Indians, and other parties. The QSA quantifies
    California's entitlement to Colorado River water, provides mechanisms
    for transfer of conserved water, establishes obligations for funding
    and implementation of environmental mitigation and restoration
    programs, implements federal law providing for the lining of the All
    American and Coachella Canals, and settles various lawsuits and legal
    proceedings. The QSA permitted the implementation of the California 4.4
    Plan, in compliance with United States Supreme Court order, as well as
    an array of water conservation and transfer agreements that provide
    significant water supply certainty and reliability throughout Southern
    California. The QSA is critical to the State's water supply reliability
    and helps reduce pressures on the ecologically sensitive Sacramento-San
    Joaquin Bay-Delta. A reliable water supply from the Colorado River is
    vitally important for Southern California water agencies as they manage
    water supply shortages from drought and regulatory restrictions on
    pumping of water from the Bay-Delta.
        In 2010, the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and its
    water transfers and other programs are entering their seventh year of
    implementation. When the QSA is fully implemented, it will facilitate
    more than 765,000 acre-feet of transfer water annually to millions of
    Californians. Nearly half of all Californians receive at least a
    portion of their water supply from water transfers and other supply
    programs made possible by the QSA.
        Before the QSA was signed in 2003, disputes among the ``Seven
    States'' 1 over use of the Colorado River were commonplace.
    Because of its large share of Colorado River supplies, California was
    at the center of most of those disputes. By quantifying the entitlement
    of the Imperial Irrigation District (the largest user of Colorado River
    water), and the Coachella Valley Water District, and settling disputes
    among competing California users, the State of California and the
    United States, the QSA provided the basis for conserved water transfer
    program and provided all Colorado River users with greater certainty
    over their rights to, and reliability of Colorado River water.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ In the U.S., seven western states--Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New
    Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and California--share water supplies from the
    Colorado River. Under a U.S.-Mexico treaty, the Republic of Mexico also
    receives supply from the Colorado River.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The QSA implements the Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines
    approved in January 2001, and includes the Colorado River Water
    Delivery Agreement: Federal Quantification Settlement Agreement,
    providing a clear framework for management of California's deliveries
    of Colorado River water. It also paved the way for more recent and
    equally historic multi-state accords involving the Colorado River,
    including the agreements implementing the Record of Decision for the
    Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the
    Coordinated Operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, adopted in December
    2007. The 2007 Interim Guidelines, amended and extended the 2001
    Interim Surplus Guidelines, and provides a framework for additional
    conservation, storage, and delivery of Colorado River water. The
    agreements adopted pursuant to the 2007 Interim Guidelines provide
    additional water for Nevada, Arizona, and California. Under these
    agreements, California agencies are entitled to store conserved water
    year in Lake Mead under the agreement's Intentionally Created Surplus
    provisions.

     What happens (i.e., what would be the water supply) if the QSA is not
            implemented as negotiated?
        The certainty in water supply reliability that the QSA provides has
    been called into question by a recent ruling by the Sacramento Superior
    Court. Soon after the QSA was finalized in 2003, the Imperial
    Irrigation District filed a validation action 2 to obtain a
    judicial determination of the validity of its actions regarding 13 of
    the QSA agreements. The Coachella Valley Water District, Metropolitan
    Water District, San Diego County Water Authority, State of California,
    Vista Irrigation District, and City of Escondido joined the lawsuit in
    support of IID's validation effort. Individual land owners, the County
    of Imperial, and the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District
    opposed validation of the agreements. In addition, several parties
    filed separate lawsuits challenging various aspects of the QSA. The
    lawsuits, several of which have been dismissed by the court, were
    coordinated in a single proceeding in the Sacramento Superior Court.
    Superior Court Judge Roland Candee was assigned the case as the trial
    judge.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ A validation action is a special kind of lawsuit under which a
    government agency can proactively seek a court's determination--or
    validation--that its actions or contracts are consistent with
    California law.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On December 10, 2009, Judge Candee issued a tentative ruling that
    found that the agreement creating the Quantification Settlement
    Agreement Joint Powers Authority (QSA JPA Agreement) violated a
    provision of the California Constitution governing financial
    obligations and appropriation of money by the State. On Jan. 14, 2010,
    Judge Candee issued a Statement of Decision affirming his tentative
    ruling and granting an initial 30-day stay from the date of the final
    ruling while the parties contemplate an appeal. Once Judge Candee
    issues a final judgment in the case, an appeal will be filed. Because
    Judge Candee found that 12 of the agreements were interdependent, he
    invalidated 11 other QSA agreements affecting long-term QSA transfers.
    As to the balance of the QSA agreements not before Judge Candee and
    already validated as a matter of law, Judge Candee ruled that they
    remained valid. In all, agreements that govern the conservation and
    transfer of more than 765,000 acre-feet annually may be affected by the
    ruling.

     The Colorado River Basin is also experiencing drought conditions. What
            effects will continued drought conditions in the Colorado Basin
            have on overall California water supplies?
        California's share of the Colorado River under shortage conditions
    is governed by the shortage guidelines that the Bureau of Reclamation
    implemented in December 2007 (Colorado River Interim Guidelines for
    Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell
    and Lake Mead). These guidelines detail the conditions under which
    water shortages are declared on the river, and the agencies that are
    responsible for absorbing the shortages. A shortage condition exists
    when the Secretary of Interior determines that insufficient water is
    available to satisfy the normal 7.5 million acre-feet (maf) of demand
    for the Lower Basin states (Arizona, California, and Nevada)
    3 in a given calendar year. During a normal year, the Lower
    Basin states receive this water in the following proportion:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ The Upper Basin states are comprised of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah
    and New Mexico.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Arizona: 2.8 maf
          California: 4.4 maf
          Nevada: 0.30 maf
        Under provisions of the shortage guidelines, Reclamation would
    declare varying levels of shortage that depend upon projected
    elevations of water in Lake Mead. The supplies to Arizona and Nevada
    would be progressively reduced under an increasingly severe shortage,
    but California would retain its 4.4 maf normal year apportionment. The
    following table shows how shortages would be implemented depending upon
    projected Lake Mead elevations. As of Jan. 11, 2010, the Lake Mead's
    elevation was 1,097 feet.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4619.001

    Groundwater Supply
        What role does groundwater play in overall water supply management
    and allocation? What is the status of groundwater supplies in Southern
    California? How can groundwater basins be recharged efficiently to
    maintain levels and minimize the impact of saltwater intrusion?
        San Diego County has very limited groundwater resources, but we are
    working to make the most of what we do have. While San Diego County
    does not have the large basins that exist in parts of Orange, Los
    Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, it does have
    groundwater capabilities in the sandy alluvial basins along some of the
    local rivers and streams.
        Most of the groundwater in the Water Authority's service area is
    brackish and many of the plans to use that water involve removing the
    salt through the use of desalination technology. Because of the
    advances in reverse osmosis membrane treatment and energy recovery
    technology, brackish groundwater recovery has become cost effective.
    Brackish groundwater and pumped groundwater currently meet 3% of our
    region's need for water. The Water Authority's member retail water
    agencies have plans to double that number to 6% by 2020 through
    brackish groundwater recovery and conjunctive use projects that would
    recharge a basin with local or imported water. Two of our member
    agencies--the Fallbrook Public Utilities District and Marine Corps Base
    Camp Pendleton--are working together on a conjunctive use project that
    will recharge a basin using local surface water runoff that will serve
    both Fallbrook and Camp Pendleton.
        Other local agencies are exploring the idea of recharging a
    groundwater basin with highly treated recycled water using the same
    technology used to desalt brackish groundwater and ocean water.
        While groundwater does not provide a very significant amount of
    supply to the region overall, for some retail water agencies it can be
    substantial and a key element of their overall water supply
    reliability. Two of our local retail agencies--the City of Oceanside
    and the Sweetwater Authority--operate brackish groundwater desalters
    that when fully expanded will make up 18% and 27% of their water supply
    by 2020.
        Other agencies are exploring brackish groundwater recovery, but one
    of the limitations on the size of these projects is balancing the
    extraction of water from the basin with impacts to vegetation and
    habitat that rely on the groundwater. Cost effective recharge
    opportunities to maintain water groundwater level are limited because
    of our geology and most of these projects operate on a safe yield
    basis.
        Although we don't have the local geology to develop large scale
    recharge projects in San Diego County, we still believe that
    groundwater is an important part of the region's water supply
    portfolio.
        As an alternative to local groundwater storage, having water in
    storage south of the Delta is a key strategy to lessen the impacts of
    reduced Delta exports and a strategy that the Water Authority has
    embraced. Our agency has entered into two 35-year agreements for
    groundwater banking south of the Delta in Kern and San Bernardino
    Counties. Those agreements will provide our region with 70,000 AF of
    storage capacity with guaranteed annual put and take capacity. This
    provides San Diego County with additional drought protection in times
    like these, as well as allowing us to have a place to store water in
    wetter years when imported supplies may be available.

    Water Supply Forecasting
     What do you see a the cumulative effect of the decrease in snowpack in
            the Sierra Nevada and the Rocky Mountains and what can be done
            in the short term and long term to mediate the effects? What
            tools are you using to forecast water supply demands?
        Scientists have established that the early signs of climate change
    are already being felt in California. We have seen increased average
    temperatures, changes in temperature extremes, reduction in snowpack in
    the Sierras and snowmelt occurring earlier.

    Sierra Nevada
        The California Climate Adaptation Strategy issued in late 2009
    includes projections for 2050 of: a 2--5 degree F rise in temperature,
    a 12--35% reduction in precipitation, and a 12-18 inch sea level rise.
    This strategy further concludes that more precipitation will fall as
    rain. With increased rainfall and earlier runoff from snowmelt, the
    state will face increasing challenges of water storage for the dry
    season and protection from floodwaters during the wet season. Sea level
    rise may increase salt water intrusion into the Delta.

    Colorado River
        IPCC Working Group II concludes that there will be a 10%-30% runoff
    reduction over some dry regions at mid-latitudes during the next 50
    years. Studies of the impacts of climate change on Colorado River
    streamflows have been going on for several decades, including
    statistical studies by U.S. Scientists from the 1980s and early 1990s,
    plus climate model studies from the last few years. These studies
    reflect a range of projections from a 5% reduction to a 45% reduction.
    Studies are currently under way to narrow the range of uncertainty of
    the reduction in flow on the Colorado River resulting from climate
    change.
        Water supply planning is facing new uncertainties that challenge
    the use of conventional planning methods. Supply planning has
    traditionally used historical data based on a set of predictable
    patterns, such as recorded weather and hydrologic time series, to
    determine and shape future projections. This has served water utilities
    well in the past; however planning methods will need to change with the
    introduction of new uncertainties such as climate change and the
    greater weather variability that comes with it. To better guide the
    incorporation of uncertainty information into its water supply
    planning, the Water Authority will utilize a decision assessment
    framework as part of its 2010 Urban Water Management Plan update.
        As a start to this process, the Water Authority is currently
    performing a water demand and supply mix vulnerability assessment. Once
    the vulnerabilities have been identified, the Water Authority will
    utilize a decision support planning method--``scenario planning''--
    which develops a small but wide-ranging set of future scenarios to test
    and make planning decisions more robust. Common strategies, or ``No &
    Low Regrets'' strategies, will be identified that can address a wide
    range of uncertainties. These No & Low Regrets solutions are adaptive
    and flexible, and can ramp up or ramp down, depending on how the future
    scenarios progress.
        The Water Authority plans to revisit the scenario planning process
    every five years, as required under California law, to update its Urban
    Water Management Plan. The UWMP update will be the long-range planning
    assessment of the water supply mix reliability. As part of the shorter-
    term planning process, the Water Authority will evaluate the water
    supply mix reliability on an annual basis in its Annual Water Supply
    Report. Through this annual assessment process, the No & Low Regrets
    strategies can be revisited and their implementation adjusted, if
    needed, should changes to the scenario outcomes occur.
        The end result is a more robust water supply mix with the highest
    level of reliability to respond to future uncertainties.

    Near-Term and Long-Term Planning
        The San Diego County Water Authority and nine other large urban
    water agencies formed the Water Utility Climate Alliance (WUCA)
    dedicated to providing leadership and collaboration on climate change
    issues affecting drinking water utilities by improving research,
    developing adaptation strategies and creating mitigation approaches to
    reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A key priority of WUCA has been
    federally-supported climate research, this stems from our need to
    better understand the potential impacts of climate change on the water
    systems we manage. Recently WUCA released a white paper on the state of
    the science on climate modeling and downscaling and how these tools can
    be improved to meet our needs. We hope that this white paper will be a
    catalyst for a continued dialogue between water utilities, the climate
    modelers, the research community and federal agencies.
        A key finding of the paper is that for the next few years,
    significant uncertainties will remain at the scale and in the timeframe
    that utilities make decisions. In the meantime, water utilities will
    have substantial decisions to make with the potential for significant
    impacts. Although water utility planning is usually based on static
    climate projections and historical data, new approaches are needed to
    incorporate the wide range of climate projections into water utility
    planning.
        As a result of this need WUCA will release a second white paper at
    the end of the month to provide guidance to water utilities, which may
    be conducting vulnerability assessments and want to move forward with
    adaptation strategies. The report documents five decision support
    planning methods that utilities can use to assist in characterizing and
    comprehending multiple uncertainties while minimizing the risks
    associated with these decisions.
        Although the Water Authority and the members of the Water Utility
    Climate Alliance have made significant efforts to comprehend the
    impacts of climate change on water utilities, we encourage the federal
    government to:
          Focus on improving climate modeling, including regional
    downscaling, to better meet the needs of water utility managers
          Provide support for climate adaptation projects,
    including infrastructure enhancements for large urban water utilities,
    that may be needed to reduce the regional impacts of climate change.

    Conservation, Water Reuse, and Water Reclamation
     What is the role of conservation, water recycling, and water
            efficiency in meeting future demands? What lessons can we learn
            from the city of Los Angeles cutting their water use by 17% in
            five months?
        After the drought of the late 1980s and early 1990s, San Diego
    County learned the vitally important lesson of the consequences of
    overreliance on a single source of imported water. We emerged from that
    experience with a strategy to achieve greater reliability through
    development of a diversified water supply portfolio. Since 1991, the
    Water Authority and its 24 member agencies have been singularly focused
    on achieving diversification of both our imported and local water
    supplies. The following pie charts compare San Diego County's water
    supply portfolio in 1991, Fiscal Year 2010 and the projected supply mix
    in 2020.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4619.002

        Conservation, water recycling and reuse and the development of
    ocean water desalination are critical elements to our diversification
    strategy and successfully achieving supply reliability.
        We have dedicated significant funds in the last 18 years to
    implement conservation and are an original signatory to the Memorandum
    of Understanding for Urban Water Conservation. Conservation programs
    and water efficiencies implemented since 1991 have reduced our service
    area's demand for water by 8% ``enough water to meet the total annual
    water needs of 100,000 households of four. When coupled with the water
    use restrictions and aggressive outreach put in place to address the
    current supply situation, San Diego County used the same amount of
    water in 2009 that we last used in 1996 although we have added 400,000
    people to our region.
        Our goals for conservation in the future remain ambitious and we
    believe we are well on our way to accomplishing the states goal of a
    20% reduction by 2020. We have had extensive dialogue with stakeholders
    through three regional Conservation Summits and the public and business
    community involvement that resulted. We are pioneering the use of water
    budgets to manage water use in the landscape and in creating a supply
    chain of water efficient landscape and a trained profession that
    knowledgeable in low water use plants and irrigation practices. San
    Diego County is home to a unique Water Conservation garden that
    provides the public an opportunity to see real world low water use
    landscape and how to do it. Managing demand through water use
    efficiency is an important part of our diversified portfolio, but we
    believe that supply reliability cannot be achieved by conservation
    alone. We cannot conserve water we don't have.
        Water Recycling and Seawater Desalination are key elements in our
    diversified supply portfolio. Recycled water is expected to meet at
    least 6% of San Diego County's need for water by 2020. There are 17
    active water recycling projects in the county for a variety of
    landscaping and industrial purposes. The Water Authority along with the
    Metropolitan Water District has provided financial incentives to almost
    all these recycling projects in order to make the projects more cost
    effective and price competitive with buying imported water. Because San
    Diego County does not have large industrial users of water or large
    groundwater basins to recharge reuse of recycled water is primarily
    limited to seasonal irrigation. This idles recycling plants during the
    wetter winter months. To better utilize these resources local agencies
    are exploring indirect potable reuse of highly treated recycled water
    through blending with surface water in reservoirs. If successful,
    reservoir augmentation could significantly increase the amount of
    recycling in San Diego County.
        Seawater desalination is considered by our Board to have one of the
    greatest potentials as a new supply for San Diego County. Because of
    our proximity to the ocean, the geological limitations I have discussed
    in my earlier testimony today, the Pacific Ocean represents a
    significant drought proof resource for our region that uses proven
    technology and can be developed cost effectively and in an
    environmentally responsible manner. Current plans to construct a 50
    million gallon per day seawater desalination plant in Carlsbad through
    a public-private partnership involving 9 of our local retail agencies
    will supply enough water to serve over 100,000 households in San Diego
    County. The Water Authority itself is engaged in studies to develop
    additional seawater desalination projects and is planning for that
    resource to make up 10% of our supply portfolio by 2030. We are working
    with Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton on the siting of a plant on the
    Base that would provide the opportunity for future expansion up to 150
    million gallons per day and provide water to businesses and residents
    throughout the County. We are also exploring opportunities for
    desalination with Mexico as part of the effort to augment Colorado
    River supplies.
        As with any of the supplies in our diversified portfolio we do not
    believe there is a single solution and it is no different with seawater
    desalination. It is an important part of our future supply but it is by
    no means the only part or the most important part but it is a supply we
    believe should be developed and we are pursuing it along with
    conservation and water recycling.

    Northern California Water Supply
     How are the water agencies in Southern California handling the reduced
            water imports from Northern California? What actions are they
            taking to make up for the reduced supply to meet their user
            demands? What management actions are being taken to maintain
            service to citizens?
        As a result of continuing dry conditions and regulatory
    restrictions that are limiting pumping to southern California, water
    agencies across the region have responded by implementing drought
    management actions that range from drawing on dry-year storage reserves
    to supplementing reduced supplies with water transfers from willing
    sellers in northern California to implementing voluntary and mandatory
    allocation and water use restrictions to reduce municipal and
    agricultural water demand.
        As an example of this response, the San Diego County Water
    Authority activated its Drought Management Plan in 2007 when the
    current dry conditions and pumping restrictions began to threaten water
    supplies. The Water Authority's Drought Management Plan, or DMP,
    includes a series of progressive measures to manage through shortage
    conditions, depending on severity. As conditions worsened in 2008 and
    2009, the Water Authority moved from a call for voluntary reductions in
    water use to our current allocation of water supplies, coupled with
    mandatory water use restrictions at the consumer level, now in place
    across most of our service area. The Water Authority also moved to
    supplement our supply with the purchase of dry-year transfer water from
    willing sellers in northern California. These supply and demand
    management actions sparked a tremendous consumer response to the
    region's water supply shortage. Since July, consumer demand is well
    below allocation targets and as much as 13 percent below 2008 levels
    and 17 percent below 2007 levels.

    Role of Congress
     How can Congress assist in addressing demands for increased water
            supplies that may help some users balance the needs of the at
            risk species, the economy, and ecosystems in general?
        The federal government is a critical partner in improving
    California's water supply reliability and can play vital roles in a
    number of water supply issues, including resolving problems plaguing
    the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta, in its role as water master on
    the Colorado River, and through support of local water supply
    development, including promising new technologies.

    Bay-Delta
          Support the completion of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
    and consider actions that help implement the plan.
          Ensure that federal regulatory actions and congressional
    oversight recognizes the truly co-equal goals of the environment and
    the economy.

    Regional Self-Sufficiency
          Reduce dependency upon imported water supplies and
    improved regional self-sufficiency through development of new local
    water supplies, including reclamation, seawater and groundwater
    desalination, conservation and local storage.
          Increase funding for Title XVI Water Reclamation Programs
    and Conservation Programs.

    Climate Change
          Focus federal efforts on improving climate modeling,
    including regional downscaling, to better meet the needs of water
    utility managers.
          Provide financial support for climate adaptation
    projects, including infrastructure enhancements for large urban water
    utilities, which may be needed to reduce the regional impacts of
    climate change.
                                     ______

        Mrs. Napolitano. We will move on to Mr. Dan Parks,
    Assistant General Manager, Coachella Valley Water District in
    Coachella.

     STATEMENT OF DAN PARKS, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, COACHELLA
              VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Parks. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. First, I want to
    thank the Committee for their interest in California's supply
    challenges and opportunities.
        Coachella County Water District is located in the desert
    between Palm Springs and the Salton Sea. We serve roughly a
    1,000 square mile territory. In the desert, let us not overlook
    the obvious. Every day is a drought. Thus, we rely on importing
    water from our supplies from the Colorado River and the State
    Water Project. We use those sources to recharge our groundwater
    basin and irrigate crops. All of our domestic water is pumped
    from our groundwater basin.
        Our economy consists of agriculture, the resort golf
    industry, and residential homebuilding. They all require a
    dependable supply of water. We have been successful with our
    history of managing water supplies. We manage that through
    conservation measures, core substitution projects such as using
    recycled water, and other nonpotable water supplies instead of
    pumping groundwater, and through our programs of recharging our
    groundwater basin.
        This last year, due to the drought and due to the failure
    of the Delta ecosystem, we only received 40 percent of our
    nearly 200,000 acre-feet of State Project entitlement. The
    estimate for this year, as you have heard earlier, is five
    percent. Without these supplies, we will overdraft our
    groundwater basin and run the long-term risks of impaired water
    quality, permanent loss of storage, and ground subsidence.
    Also, our local economy is at risk.
        Now, California's Legislature has passed a good foundation
    to restore the Delta and improve water supplies. However, to
    solve California's water crisis we must have improved
    conveyance across the Delta and water storage projects. These
    will be both extremely costly and take a decade or more to
    build. Unless California's water crisis is solved, California's
    economy will continue to suffer as, hopefully, the rest of this
    nation's economy improves. Of course, the economy is not
    hampered by water problems today, but they will be a limitation
    for California's future.
        I ask your support, as the others on the panel today have,
    to support our state and Federal water contractors as we move
    ahead with a Delta fix, and of course, we always look forward
    to opportunities where the Federal Government can participate
    as a partner. I thank you, and be glad to answer questions at
    the appropriate time.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Parks.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Parks follows:]

              Statement of Dan Parks, Assistant General Manager,
                        Coachella Valley Water District

        My name is Dan Parks. I am assistant general manager of the
    Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coachella, California. I am a
    registered civil engineer in the state of California and have an
    engineering degree from California State Polytechnic Institute in
    Pomona, California.
        The CVWD is a public agency serving 1,000 square miles in
    Riverside, Imperial and San Diego counties.
        CVWD's service area is somewhat unique. It lies within Southern
    California's desert with an average rainfall of a little over 3 inches.
    Many years have no measurable rain, yet in other years more than the
    annual average falls in one storm. Locally, every day is a drought in
    the desert.
        The State of California is experiencing a two-pronged drought. In
    regard to climate, we are feeling the effects of what many are
    predicting will be the most severe drought in recorded history. On the
    other hand, we are also affected by a regulatory drought that is
    severely limiting the amount of water available from the State Water
    Project.
        The Coachella Valley relies on imported water supplies from the
    Colorado River and State Water Project to recharge its groundwater
    basin. When water is available, it is stored in the ground water basin.
    When supplies are short, water is pumped from the groundwater basin to
    meet the needs of the area. Thus, the groundwater basin acts as a large
    storage reservoir. Groundwater in the Coachella Valley is cooperatively
    managed by the two agencies with State Water contracts, Desert Water
    Agency (DWA) and CVWD.
        Since the 1980's, CVWD, DWA and The Metropolitan Water District of
    Southern California (MWD) have participated in a conjunctive use
    program. In wet years, MWD stores its surplus water in Coachella
    Valley's groundwater basin. In dry years, MWD takes delivery of CVWD's
    and DWA's State Water supplies, and in exchange, CVWD and DWA pump MWD
    water stored in the groundwater basin. This program benefits all
    agencies by utilizing wet year supplies to meet dry year water demands.
        Over the years, we've increased our entitlement of imported water
    with the goal of recharging the same amount or more water than what is
    taken out of the aquifer each year. Legal entanglements surrounding the
    Sacramento Bay Delta have resulted in contractors only receiving 40
    percent of their allocation last year. Without sufficient groundwater
    replenishment, the Coachella Valley faces potential negative effects of
    overdraft, including subsidence, diminished water quality and
    permanently reduced storage space.
        We are fortunate to have multiple sources of water, including
    Colorado River. But the Colorado River Basin is also suffering from
    several years of drought. So far, we have been able to receive what
    water we need from that source, but Lake Powell, Lake Mead and other
    reservoirs on the river are very low.
        Last year, two significant water management projects were
    completed, a facility to recharge 40,000 acre-feet of groundwater per
    year and the other to supply 50,000 acre-feet of non-potable water to
    golf courses in-lieu of pumping groundwater. The combined cost of these
    projects is $115,000,000.
        In some areas of the state, various forms of rationing or use
    restrictions are in place. Groundwater storage has allowed CVWD to
    implement a softer program of conservation measures than other areas.
    Because the average Coachella Valley home uses 80 percent of its water
    outside, CVWD's conservation and outreach programs are targeted toward
    reducing outdoor water use. Our success is attributed to a combination
    of imposing a water-budget based rate structure, desert appropriate
    landscape regulations, and incentive programs to increase irrigation
    efficiency and eliminate water waste. The programs have resulted in
    reducing water use by more than 10 percent on a permanent basis. Long-
    term reductions are expected to exceed 20 percent as customers make
    further changes in their landscape and irrigation systems.
        The ability to capture, transport and store water is of key
    importance to managing California's water supply. In the short run, a
    solution is needed to reduce the pumping restrictions in California's
    Sacramento--San Joaquin Delta. In the long run, additional water
    storage is needed. If climate change results in less snowpack as some
    predict, additional transport capacity and storage will be needed to
    capture rain fall rather than let it run to the ocean.
        In regard to Colorado River supplies, CVWD is a party to the
    Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA). Signed in 2003, the QSA is a
    series of agreements between federal, state and local agencies which
    resolves disputes between California agencies created by the priority
    system of allocating water and resolves concerns of other western
    states and the United States Bureau of Reclamation over California
    using more than its amount of Colorado River water. A recent California
    court determined one sentence in one agreement violated a California
    Constitution provision and invalidated the QSA.
        Since 2003 much work has been done among western states to address
    managing the Colorado River during both surplus years and drought
    years. I believe we are in better position to minimize reductions in
    the Colorado River supply through those management programs. Relations
    between California agencies and the other western states are not the
    same as they were in 2003. I believe it is more likely that the parties
    to the QSA will rise to the challenge created by the courts decision
    and find a solution whereby the QSA is implemented as negotiated.
        One dilemma we face in addressing demands for increased water
    supplies is the inherent conflict between endangered species and the
    use of water to supply the public and its economy. It would be helpful
    if environmental laws balanced human needs with those of at risk
    species and the ecosystem.
        Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these matters.
                                     ______

        Mrs. Napolitano. We will begin the question and answer
    period.
        Mr. Kightlinger, can you tell me what the current average
    cost of a delivered acre-foot of water currently is?
        Mr. Kightlinger. On our power side, our average cost of
    delivery is basically driven by our power, and on the Colorado
    River it is in the $50 to $60, $70 an acre-foot.
        Mrs. Napolitano. How much?
        Mr. Kightlinger. It is between $50 and about $60 an acre-
    foot on the Colorado River side, and higher on the State Water
    Project, $70 to $90 an acre-foot for power on the State Water
    Project.
        Mrs. Napolitano. And that is what you charge your
    customers?
        Mr. Kightlinger. No, that is just the cost of moving it.
    Our typical cost of an acre-foot of water right now, treated,
    is about $750 an acre-foot.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. How do you plan to implement
    the reductions of the water supply from both the Colorado and
    the Northern California to your 26-member water agencies?
        Mr. Kightlinger. We worked with our member agencies and put
    together a supply allocation plan where we looked at
    everybody's base use and tried to reduce that by 10 percent and
    accommodate certain areas that had losses of local supply due
    to impacted groundwater wells or pollution, and so we put
    together this plan, and we implemented it, and we are very
    pleased, as I noted earlier, that we called for a 10 percent
    reduction in use in calendar year 2009, and we have achieved
    over 15 percent to date.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Ms. Stapleton, congratulations
    on your advances in all your reductions. It is very impressive.
    How do you plan to implement the reductions in the water supply
    from MWD and potentially the Colorado River on your customers?
        Ms. Stapleton. One of the things is communication with our
    region, not only through our retail water agencies but with the
    population at large. We have worked very closely with our
    businesses as well as our agricultural communities to do a
    couple of things. Number one is to keep them informed right up
    front of what is happening and what the potential implications
    can be.
        Number two is that we notified them of the allocation
    shortage and also opportunities in where they can receive
    financial assistance for conservation programs or installation
    of conservation measures, as well as what we have been able to
    achieve is focusing on outdoor landscaping has been extremely
    helpful. So we have actually obtained a higher than needed
    conservation over this last six months or so. We have been very
    pleased with our community response. They have really stepped
    up to the plate when we asked them.
        Mrs. Napolitano. But you have been engaged in many efforts?
        Ms. Stapleton. Yes.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Parks, how do you plan to implement
    the reductions in the water supplies from the Colorado and the
    Northern California for your farmers, and if you have any
    assistance programs to them?
        Mr. Parks. Our ag. supplies--we have been very fortunate to
    participate in the Bureau of Reclamation's 2020 program and
    have put out some demonstration incentive projects whereby our
    agricultural growers could use such technologies as high tech
    irrigation scheduling, moisture management, and soil management
    procedures to be much more efficient in their application of
    water. It has been a tremendous success, and we have shown
    proven savings with that.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Brady, how would you
    implement the water delivery restrictions if the restrictions
    occur on the Colorado River, and what process would you do so
    to implement that?
        Mr. Brady. Well, Madam Chair, the essence of the QSA is
    that we transfer eventually up to 300,000 acre-feet to the
    urban areas by implementing on-farm and system conservation
    measures. The system measures are going to cost somewhere
    around $300 million. The on-farm, we will be paying farmers to
    implement drip and sprinkler systems and the like. Beyond that,
    if there are restrictions on the Colorado that take us below
    our allocation, we will most likely go to allocation per acre
    on farmed land, and the farmers--we intend to work with the
    farmers so that we can maintain, if possible, the same yields
    with, of course, less water.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I would suggest to all of you, stay for
    the scientific panel who is coming on afterwards, to listen to
    some of what they are saying about how we can help each other.
        What is your plan if the QSA decision does not change, any
    of you?
        Mr. Brady. Well, I would just say that we are not planning
    for the QSA, but we will continue to transfer water until we
    are told that it is illegal to do so.
        Ms. Stapleton. Madam Chair, I think from our standpoint, we
    believe, and it is where we are focusing our effort, is to
    actually address the provision which the Judge found to be
    unconstitutional, to go into that, look at it, specifically
    understand fully what the Judge's concerns were, work with the
    state and the Federal Government in identifying that, and
    correcting that problem. That is what we are working on, and we
    look forward to the Federal Government being a partner to
    ensure the continuity of the QSA.
        Mr. Parks. If I might add to that, how appropriate the
    title of today's hearing, challenges and opportunities. I
    believe this creates a challenge to which the parties to the
    QSA will rise to the opportunity to find a solution. It is very
    good and refreshing to hear both the Bureau and the state's
    comments today, that they, too, support the QSA as negotiated.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Let us just look for the action behind it.
    Mr. McClintock.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr.
    Kightlinger, you indicated that wet or average water years will
    bring even more water supply restrictions to the Delta. At our
    mock hearing this morning in Fresno, we were told that up to
    10,000 acre-feet of additional water is now being diverted to
    the ocean per day as a result of the recent rainfall. What
    impact is this going to have on your water supply and
    groundwater replenishment?
        Mr. Kightlinger. It is a very significant impact.
    Metropolitan gets 50 percent of the State Water Project as our
    entitlement. For the last three years, we have not been able to
    deliver any water to our groundwater basins for replenishment,
    and those basins are at record low levels in the San Gabriel
    and the San Fernando Valley and Orange County. So they are
    hurting for replenishment water, and we have not been able to
    receive any replenishment water since those fishery
    restrictions have gone into play.
        Mr. McClintock. I want to focus on a bit of your testimony
    here where you said, ``Many of us who have been following water
    issues for decades have been accustomed to quick bounce-back in
    deliveries from the State Water Project when the drought cycle
    ends and the rains return. This pattern will no longer hold
    true. New water supply restrictions--new water supply
    restrictions because of deteriorating environmental conditions
    in the Delta will have their greatest impact in wet and average
    years. Metropolitan will lose the ability to capture as much as
    600,000 acre-feet of water in above-average and wet years
    because of these restrictions.''
        Now we just heard a great deal of fanfare over Title XVI
    projects. I believe that they were producing roughly 350,000
    acre-feet. These restrictions alone are going to cost
    Metropolitan alone 600,000 acre-feet. How do you square those
    two? On the one hand, we are spending phenomenal amounts of
    money, again up to $18,000 per acre-foot in capital costs on
    these Title XVI projects to produce roughly 350,000 acre-feet
    of water, while near-bureaucratic restrictions are costing you,
    just at Metropolitan alone, 600,000 acre-feet.
        Mr. Kightlinger. Yes. We believe we need a very diverse
    portfolio of water supply.
        Mr. McClintock. Do you think that is a sustainable policy,
    restrictions that are costing you 600,000 acre-feet of water?
        Mr. Kightlinger. Absolutely not. It is not sustainable. So
    that is why we must find a way to repair that Delta ecosystem
    and to build some new conveyances so that we can get back to
    more reliable State Water Project levels.
        Mr. McClintock. Well, we have been diverting these massive
    amounts of water, and the population of the Delta smelt
    continues to decline. Maybe that is just nature's way of
    telling us that is not the problem. You argue for a new
    conveyance across the Delta. I assume that is as peripheral
    canal to more efficiently move water from the north to the
    south but, at the same time, the administration in Sacramento,
    the State Water Resources Control Board appointed by the
    Governor, voted to take away the Federal development rights for
    the Auburn Dam.
        If we are not going to produce additional water in the
    northern region, what good is it going to do to improve our
    conveyance facilities? We have to have water to convey, and we
    have an Administration that is actually blocking the
    development of these projects; and by the way, the AB-32
    restrictions have a huge impact on future cement productions.
    You know, every ton of cement requires the production of a ton
    of carbon dioxide, and in case the rocket scientists in
    Sacramento haven't noticed, cement is a rather handy thing to
    have around if you are going to build a conveyance facility or
    a dam. Your comments?
        Mr. Kightlinger. Oh, our comment is just that we believe we
    have to do both. We are going to eventually need more storage
    in the state. We have been roughly a storage poor state, and
    that includes both groundwater and surface storage, and we have
    to have more conveyance, because right now we can't even move
    the water we have in storage.
        Mr. McClintock. Well, don't you think we ought to have more
    storage to go along with that more conveyance?
        Mr. Kightlinger. Absolutely.
        Mr. McClintock. Though you would disagree that the policies
    out of Sacramento that are impeding construction of the Auburn
    Dam and impeding our ability to produce cement economically are
    going to have a serious additional impact on our water needs?
        Mr. Kightlinger. I don't know about the Auburn Dam
    specifically, but I do know they have five specific new storage
    sites they are analyzing, and that is the process that we have
    to go through and, hopefully, choose one or two of those sites.
        Mr. McClintock. One final question. You mentioned the--and
    in fact, several witnesses have mentioned the effectiveness of
    water conservation in San Diego County. Ms. Stapleton said that
    San Diego County used the same amount of water in 2009 that was
    used in 1996, although they have added 200,000 people to the
    region.
        Well, the thing that jumps off the page at me in other
    claims like this is that in 2009 we were in a severe recession.
    In 1996 we had a booming economy. I wonder how much of the
    water conservation success is actual success and how much of it
    is directly related to the recession.
        Ms. Stapleton. I think there is a portion of it that is
    related to the recession, but we track gallons per capita per
    day very closely, and we have been able to make real progress
    in less water usage on a per capita basis. That is through the
    installation of a number of indoor fixtures, whether it be
    washing machines, dishwashers, shower heads and so forth, and
    then turf irrigation and the outdoor landscaping area.
        As I said, we see conservation as a piece of the solution,
    but certainly not the only solution. You cannot get enough
    water by just conserving. If you don't have the water
    initially, you can't conserve it. It doesn't make sense. It is
    a piece of the pie. It is not the entire solution.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Calvert.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Kightlinger,
    even if the water bond issue passes in this next election, how
    long will it take to build those improvements?
        Mr. Kightlinger. We are looking at probably 2018 at the
    earliest, maybe 2020.
        Mr. Calvert. Saying that if those improvements, based upon
    your testimony, 2018, we must have an interim solution on the
    Bay-Delta. Is that correct?
        Mr. Kightlinger. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Calvert. Now you have been involved in coming up with
    ideas, along with people in the Central Valley, on how we can
    come up with an interim solution to allow us to mitigate for
    the Biological Opinion, and at the same time pump water, and
    part of that was the Two Gates project that was mentioned in
    earlier testimony. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Kightlinger. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Calvert. What is your opinion why that temporary
    solution is unable to get the necessary permits to build in an
    immediate way?
        Mr. Kightlinger. Well, we see the Administration is very
    concerned with implementing it until they are convinced about
    the science behind it and the theory that the smelt will track
    with the turbidity, and the gates would help cut off the smelt
    and be able----
        Mr. Calvert. What is your opinion about that? People have
    been looking at this for some time. Experts that have a
    contrary point of view of the administration believe that this,
    at the same time, would resolve the issue of the smelt and, at
    the same time, allow for additional water flow. Do you share
    that belief?
        Mr. Kightlinger. No. We were one of the authors. We were
    one of the chief proponents of the Two Gate proposal. We have
    faith in the science.
        Mr. Calvert. So if this agreement is going to continue to
    be put off, and the Biological Opinion is going to continue to
    be followed, even if we end up with 120 percent snow melt at
    the end of the season and you are unable to pump water, and
    this goes on from year to year, what is going to happen in one
    or two years from now?
        Mr. Kightlinger. We are going to be in a world of hurt,
    and----
        Mr. Calvert. Applying that to the Quantification
    Settlement, we had a recent judicial opinion that we are aware
    of, what happens, God forbid, if the QSA comes unwound, along
    with the restrictions you have in the Bay-Delta? What happens?
    I guess that is the question that all of you could answer.
        Mr. Kightlinger. We will have a significant problem here at
    Metropolitan, if we are cut back on both our Colorado River
    supplies and the State Water Project supplies simultaneously.
        Mr. Calvert. And by the way, I was involved in negotiation
    of the Quantification Settlement Agreement. I know, and work
    with many of you on that. It wasn't an easy agreement to come
    by, and still somewhat controversial, I understand, in the
    Imperial Irrigation District and other areas, but I will ask
    the gentleman who is the General Manager: Has production in the
    Imperial Irrigation area, agricultural production, been
    affected by the Quantification Agreement?
        Mr. Brady. I would say--and given that I have only been
    there 20 months, my institutional history is not that long, but
    I would say that it has not. Right now we are in an interim
    fallowing program, and we have worked within the constraints of
    the QSA.
        Mr. Calvert. So the conservation improvements that were
    designed to improve water conservation in the Imperial
    Irrigation District are working?
        Mr. Brady. Well, they are working. There are several parts
    to it. The initial ones are. We are planning for additional
    ones, yes.
        Mr. Calvert. If the Quantification Agreement came undone,
    would anybody there think that we could ever put this agreement
    back together again with dynamics for the Upper Basin states
    and the Lower Basin states, and what is going on locally in
    politics? Yes?
        Ms. Stapleton. I think the real issue is it is like pulling
    a thread on a sweater. There are so many components, not only
    in the Quantification Settlement Agreement but in the
    agreements with the other six Basin states that, in fact, it
    took over eight years to negotiate the QSA, and subsequent
    years to come up with the criteria on the Colorado River with
    the other Basin states, and so forth. To have that all swept
    away--I don't think you are talking about being able to achieve
    it again, certainly in the next decade.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I am going to be leaving shortly,
    but I just wanted to make this point. If we don't resolve an
    interim solution soon in the Bay-Delta and sweep away this
    immediate threat on the QSA, we have no certainty on water
    supply in California, no certainty at all. As you know, under
    state law that can have a horrendous effect on issuance of both
    commercial and residential building permits if ever this
    economy ever turns around. So I just wanted to make that point,
    and I thank the Chairwoman, and I apologize. I have to head
    back out.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your attendance. You have
    made some very good points. May I add that he was the Chairman
    when I was Ranking Member for a while. So he has a great deal
    of background, and was my mentor at one time. Thank you.
        Just to Mr. Kightlinger, are you in agreement with Title
    XVI programs and to your overall Metropolitan water portfolio,
    and while you are at it, I would like to know if there are any
    improvements that could be made in the infrastructure to yield
    more water, understanding that we are not--many water agencies
    I have talked to are not collecting enough money to be able to
    set aside for infrastructure repairs. The aging system in
    Southern California is horrendous, as in many other parts of
    the state.
        You see, the water mains now are bursting almost on a daily
    basis, which was not an occurrence that we faced years ago. All
    of that, how is that going to affect us being able to ensure
    the water quality, water delivery for our customers?
        Then to Ms. Stapleton, what is the current use of the
    gallons per day from your folks? I will wrap it all into one,
    because that is so important, the answers, for us.
        Mr. Kightlinger. I will start, Madam Chair, and thank you
    for your question. We have to continue to invest in our
    infrastructure in Southern California and continue to invest
    and reinvest. The Title XVI boost that Commissioner Connor
    spoke to was very helpful, that $160 million. They helped many
    of the recycling and reclamation projects in Southern
    California.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, that came from the leadership on our
    side. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Kightlinger. We understand. Thank you, and we
    appreciate the support. Metropolitan has invested to match that
    and go beyond, another $370 million into recycling and
    reclamation projects. The message we have delivered is the cost
    of water has to go up as the area continues to grow, as we have
    to find more and more water supply, we are raising rates, and
    we have to do that to continue to invest and not have our water
    supply crumble and break around us.
        Ms. Stapleton. Regarding the usage of water by our
    residents, we started out in those same years that I referred
    to probably nearly 200 gallons per person per day. We have
    dropped it now into the 160s, and it is continuing to drop. We
    really look at it carefully, and it is working in cooperation
    with our businesses and our residents. We believe that we are
    well on our way to achieving that 20 percent conservation by
    2020.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much. I will go into one
    more question.
        Mr. McClintock. Has anyone done a cost/benefit analysis on
    these various forms of water delivery? Mr. Kightlinger, you
    pointed out that residential rates, in particular, or water
    rates in general are going up dramatically as we look for more
    and more exotic ways of producing water, and yet we ignore
    surface water storage as the obvious unfulfilled promise of
    California's resources. So the question I have is: Have you
    looked at the costs and benefits of these various types of
    water production, from desalinization, to recycling, to local
    surface water, to increasing storage on the Sacramento?
        Everybody thinks that the Colorado is the mother of all
    water in the western United States. As you know, the Colorado
    River is a junior sister to the Sacramento. The difference is
    that we store 70 million acre-feet on the Colorado, and yet we
    store only 10 million acre-feet on the Sacramento. Your
    thoughts?
        Mr. Kightlinger. Those are all very good points. We do do
    cost effective analyses of all projects, and we look at that.
    We also have to look at which are the most reliable, and which
    supply water year in and year out, and how we can mix and match
    the best supplies. Certainly, we are storage-short in the State
    of California compared to the Colorado River.
        Mr. McClintock. Well, what is cheaper, surface water
    storage or recycling?
        Mr. Kightlinger. Surface water storage is very expensive.
    It is on a comparable basis with recycled water, but it also is
    very valuable. When you need it, it is always there for you and
    in large amounts.
        Mr. McClintock. Have you guys done a study on that? I would
    like to see some reliable figures where we can get a cost/
    benefit analysis of each of the forms of water development.
        Mr. Kightlinger. We have done that, and we will provide
    your staff with that. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, panel, and I invite you to stay
    with us for the next panel, and appreciate your travel and your
    time and your effort.
        I would like to call up Dr. Peter H. Gleick, President,
    Pacific Institute in Oakland; Professor Jay Famiglietti, Ph.D.,
    with the Department of Earth System Science, University of
    California at Irvine; Mr. Miguel Luna, Executive Director of
    the Urban Semillas, ``seeds'' to those of you that don't
    understand Spanish, Los Angeles; Ms. Lucy Dunn, President and
    Chief Executive Officer of the Orange County Business Council
    in Irvine; Mr. Joe L. Del Bosque, Owner of Empresas Del Bosque
    Inc. in Los Banos; Mr. Larry Collins, Vice President, Pacific
    Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association in San Francisco.
        Audience, if you could take your conversations outside,
    thank you very much. We want to continue and be out of here on
    a timely basis. Dr. Gleick, I would like to start off with you.

             STATEMENT OF DR. PETER H. GLEICK, PRESIDENT,
                 PACIFIC INSTITUTE, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

        Dr. Gleick. Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, members
    of the Subcommittee. Thank you very much for having me here
    today. This has been quite an interesting hearing.
        I have submitted my written testimony. I am just going to
    summarize a few key points. Let me reiterate something that has
    already been said. I agree there is no silver bullet to
    California's water problems. We have many problems. There are
    many solutions. I think everyone involved in the state's water
    debates would acknowledge the need for diverse answers or a
    portfolio, as we sometimes say, of solutions, but the need to
    do many things does not mean we need to do everything or we can
    afford to do everything. We have to do the most effective
    things first, the most cost effective things first. This has
    already been mentioned.
        What I would like to do a little bit today is focus on
    opportunities, the good news, if you will. In particular, I am
    going to talk about two things very briefly. One is the
    potential for additional conservation and efficiency
    improvements statewide. The other is opportunities to rethink
    water supply statewide.
        In particular, there is vast untapped potential for
    reducing our demand for water without affecting the benefits
    that that water provides. Improving the efficiency of use of
    water is the fastest, the cheapest, the most environmentally
    sound option for meeting California's current and future needs.
        We have to change the way we think about supply. There are
    enormous opportunities for new supply in California, but I
    would argue that we ought to not be thinking about expensive,
    inefficient surface storage. As much as we ought to be thinking
    about smart surface storage and groundwater, we ought to be
    thinking about recycled and reclaimed water. We ought to be
    thinking about, where appropriate, desalination.
        It is important to realize that we don't want water. We
    want the services and the benefits that water provides. We want
    a healthy agricultural economy. We want clean clothes, and we
    want to be able to clean our dishes. We want to make semi-
    conductors and the other things that are industrial processes
    produce, all of which require water, but all of which require
    less water than we are spending to do those things today. That
    is the definition of improving efficiency. We can do the things
    that we want with less water than we are spending to do them
    today.
        Californians have made enormous progress in this in the
    last 25 years. Our water use is relatively flat. Our population
    has grown. Our economy has grown. Our per capital water use has
    gone down. We have been able to meet a lot of our demands, in
    part by improving efficiency, and yet our current use of water
    is still wasteful. There is still enormous potential to improve
    efficiency.
        In a few weeks the Pacific Institute--it is my institute in
    Oakland; it is a nonprofit research institute--is going to
    release a new assessment, in part stimulated by a letter that
    the Chairwoman sent to the Department of the Interior last
    August requesting that we rethink a million acre-feet quickly.
    Where can we find a million acre-feet in the State of
    California relatively quickly?
        Our new assessment is going to look at the potential for
    conservation and efficiency to produce a million acre-feet
    quickly. We decided we would look at 60 percent agriculture, 40
    percent urban. We would look at only things that were cost
    effective, only things that used existing technology.
        The savings in the urban sector, 400,000 acre-feet, we
    estimate, would cost about $2 billion and produce about 400,000
    acre-feet of water, would save a lot of energy in the meantime.
        I would note Temperance Flat, the current dam that has been
    proposed on the San Joaquin, is estimated to cost well over
    $3.3 billion, would probably produce far under 200,000 acre-
    feet of water, an example of the potential for conservation and
    efficiency to meet some of our demands.
        We find there are 600,000 acre-feet that could be saved
    pretty quickly in agriculture by applying additional smart
    irrigation technology, the things that farmers are already
    doing; regulated deficit irrigation on certain kind of acreage;
    and converting part of the Central Valley acreage that is not
    on drip and sprinklers to drip and sprinklers.
        Let me conclude. There are new ways of thinking about
    supply. We should be doing more reclaimed water and reuse of
    water. We should be doing smart desalination. We should be
    doing much more conjunctive use, much more storage of
    groundwater, the best place to store water in California. All
    of these things are part of what we need to do to meet
    California's growing demands, and perhaps provide some of this
    interim solution that we so desperately need, because of the
    long time frame required for some of the other things that we
    have already addressed today.
        I am going to stop there. I would be happy to answer any
    questions during the question and answer period. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Gleick follows:]

                Statement of Dr. Peter H. Gleick 1,
                       President of the Pacific Institute
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \1\ President, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California. Member, U.S.
    National Academy of Sciences. www.pacinst.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             The Critical Role of Water Efficiency and Conservation
                     in Solving California's Water Problems

        Honorable Representatives, distinguished guests: Thank you for
    inviting me to discuss the key role that water efficiency and
    conservation has and will play in solving California's water problems.
    Notwithstanding the recent winter rains the state has received,
    California continues to face serious unresolved water challenges.
    Current proposals for meeting those challenges are inadequate and
    largely misdirected. But effective solutions are available.

    Summary
        Water is vital to the health of our economy and natural ecosystems.
    California's cities and agricultural communities rely on reliable
    supplies of clean and adequate fresh water. As California's population
    and economy grow, there is mounting concern about our ability to meet
    future water demand amidst pressure on our complex water systems. In
    the 20th century, our approach to meeting this demand has been to
    develop new supply. While this approach has brought tremendous benefits
    to this state, we have reached the limits of traditional supply options
    and continuing to rely on building new infrastructure will fail to
    solve our crisis. A broader and more integrated approach is needed.
        There is no ``silver bullet'' solution to California's water
    problems, and everyone involved in state water debates will acknowledge
    the need for diverse answers or a ``portfolio'' of solutions. But the
    need to do many things does not mean we must do, or can afford to do,
    everything. We must do the most effective things first.
        In particular, there is vast untapped potential for reducing our
    demand for water without affecting the benefits that water provides.
    Improving the efficiency of our water use is the cheapest, easiest,
    fastest, and least destructive way to meet California's current and
    future water supply needs. Indeed, without past efforts to improve
    water-use efficiency, our current crisis would be much worse. And we
    must expand our thinking about supply, away from costly and ineffective
    new dams and toward the other excellent options for expanding supply.
    My testimony today will address three issues:
        1.  The flaws of our traditional methods of water planning;
        2.  The massive untapped potential for improving water-use
    efficiency. Specifically, I will address the potential to quickly
    reduce demands in California by one million acre-feet at a cost far
    below that of any new supply option that has been proposed.
        3.  The potential for expanding water supplies through non-
    traditional approaches of water recycling and reuse, smart
    desalination, rainwater harvesting, and better conjunctive use of
    California's surface and groundwater.
    1. Traditional Water Planning Assumptions are Incorrect
        Traditional water planning is based on two premises. First, it
    assumes that as populations and the economy grow, water use must also
    grow. Second, it assumes that in order to meet growing demand, new dams
    must be built, new groundwater aquifers tapped, and new supplies
    brought from farther and farther away. This is what most of you
    believe; it is what most of the public believes; it is what most water
    managers believe.
    Both of these assumptions are false.
        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.
        The same trend is true for the United States as a whole. The latest
    information from the U.S. Geological Survey shows that total water use
    in 2005 for the United States is now lower than it was in 1975. Figure
    2 shows total U.S. water withdrawals from 1900 to 2005 along with Gross
    National Product. Per-capita water use has dropped even more
    dramatically over the past three decades. This suggests that we can and
    in fact we have broken the link between water use, population, and
    economic growth. This has been achieved in large part by improvements
    in conservation and efficiency. Figure 3 shows the ``economic
    productivity'' of water use in the United States over the past century.
    Improvements in efficiency of water use now permit us to produce nearly
    three times as many dollars of goods and services per gallon of water
    as just a few decades ago.
        Absent a discussion about population policy, our goal in California
    must be to continue these trends toward higher economic productivity of
    water and decreasing per-capita water use.
    2. Conservation and Efficiency Are the Most Important Options
        It is important to realize that we do not want water; we want water
    services. We want to grow food and fiber, clean our clothes and dishes,
    get rid of our wastes, produce semiconductors and other goods and
    services. This realization lies at the heart of conservation and
    efficiency. If we can continue to provide these goods and services with
    less water, we have increased the efficiency of our water use.
        Californians have improved efficiency of our water use over the
    past 25 years as shown in Figure 1. But our current water use is still
    wasteful. The Pacific Institute has completed a series of independent
    reports on urban and agricultural water efficiency that provide a
    comprehensive statewide analysis. 2 Our findings have been
    adopted by the California Department of Water Resources in the
    California Water Plan. These studies finds that existing, cost-
    effective technologies and policies can readily reduce current state
    demand for water by six to eight million acre-feet, or around 20
    percent. The Governor's recent call for a 20 percent reduction in water
    use by 2020 is thus based on sound science and economics, even if the
    policies to achieve such savings are not yet in place.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See: Gleick et al. 2003, ``Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential
    for Urban Water Conservation in California'' and Cooley et al.
    ``Sustaining California Agriculture in an Uncertain Future.'' Pacific
    Institute, Oakland, California.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Widespread conservation and efficiency improvements are possible in
    every sector and these 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. Even today, after California's conservation efforts, over
    60% of all toilet flushes are well above national standards, suggesting
    that many old inefficient fixtures remain. 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.
        In a few weeks, the Pacific Institute will release a new assessment
    of how to save one million acre-feet of water, split 60/40 among
    agricultural and urban users, quickly and cost effectively. Let me
    offer an advanced look at some of our findings:
          400,000 acre-feet of water can be quickly conserved by
    urban users by replacing only some of the many remaining inefficient
    toilets, showerheads, restaurant spray-rinse nozzles, washing machines.
    These savings would require an investment of under $2 billion and over
    the life of these fixtures, the energy, water, and wastewater savings
    will far exceed the initial investment.
          Another 600,000 acre-feet of water can be saved by
    applying smart irrigation scheduling to 20% of the state's vegetable
    and orchard acreage, practicing regulated deficit irrigation on 20% of
    current almonds and pistachios acreage in the Sacramento Valley, and
    converting 20% of Central Valley vegetables, and 10% of orchards and
    vineyards, to drip and sprinklers. These changes would save water at a
    cost of around $100 per acre-foot.
        These savings are just the tip of the iceberg: far more water could
    be saved at far less cost than any proposed new supply option. For
    example, the proposed Temperance Flat dam is grossly uneconomic and
    would, at a cost far exceeding $3 billion (or over $900 per acre-foot),
    only provide between 100,000 and 200,000 acre-feet of water, and even
    these figures are disputed.
        Our research has shown 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.
        I note that 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 Southern 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 non-powerplant natural gas
    use, and 88 million gallons of diesel fuel. Thus improving statewide
    water conservation and efficiency can achieve substantial energy
    savings.
    3. Additional Water Supply Options Are Available
        Current proposals to expand water supply in California by building
    a few new dams are seriously flawed. As mentioned above, the best ideas
    for new dams in California are grossly uneconomic and do nothing to
    solve the state's water problems. But there are other good water-supply
    options we must pursue. These options include:
          Water recycling and reuse: Water reclamation and reuse
    can augment water supplies, as well as provide a means to treat
    wastewater and reduce environmental discharges. 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 is
    using 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.
    Significant other 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 in drought periods. 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. But it requires fundamental changes in the way we monitor
    and manage groundwater. It is time for the state of California to enter
    the 21st century and require comprehensive groundwater management.
          Desalination: Appropriately designed and sustainably
    managed desalination (both seawater and groundwater) can provide a
    costly but reliable, high-quality water supply. But desalination must
    be done in an environmentally sound manner, and without inappropriate
    public subsidies. Current plans for desalination in southern California
    do not yet meet these conditions.

    Summary and Recommendations
        Better water conservation and efficiency can meet California's
    water needs for decades to come. Total state demands for water can drop
    by as much as 20 percent while still satisfying a growing population,
    maintaining a healthy agricultural sector, restoring the health of the
    Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and other threatened ecosystems, and
    supporting a vibrant economy.
        Can such an efficient water future be achieved? Yes, given
    appropriate attention and effort, California's water-use practices can
    be substantially modified over the next quarter century, just as they
    have over the past 25 years. Implementing these efficiency measures
    requires action on the part of legislators, water managers, water
    districts and agencies, farmers, corporations, and all individuals.
        Finally, a quick comment on the recent political attempts to
    overturn or eliminate the requirement that the Federal government
    protect endangered and threatened species. Species extinction is not a
    sustainable water policy. And the collapsing ecosystem is not the cause
    of our water problems, it is a symptom. If the problem is falsely and
    ideologically defined as ``people versus fish,'' our water policy will
    have failed. We must ensure that both people and fish can thrive with
    the water we have.Gleick 3 charts go at end insert 3-5

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4619.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4619.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4619.005

                                     __

        Mrs. Napolitano. I would like to now call upon Professor
    Jay Famiglietti, Department of Earth Science.

     STATEMENT OF JAMES S. FAMIGLIETTI, DEPARTMENT OF EARTH SYSTEM
    SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT IRVINE, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA

        Dr. Famiglietti. The Central Valley offers a compelling
    example of the importance of groundwater to the water supply
    and of the need to manage its use for sustained availability
    and productivity. As one of the most productive agricultural
    regions in the world, the Central Valley relies heavily on
    groundwater to meet its irrigation water demands.
        The extended western U.S. drought and resulting changes in
    surface water allocations are now triggering an increased
    reliance on groundwater to meet those demands. Meanwhile, our
    warming climate is resulting in a decreasing snowpack in the
    Sierras and the Rockies, which will slow future rates of
    groundwater recharge and limit the aquifer's ability to
    replenish these additional water withdrawals.
        Monitoring groundwater availability in the Central Valley
    is, therefore, critical to help manage California's water
    crisis and its impact on the state's economy and the nation's
    food production. It is exceedingly difficult to observe the ups
    and downs of groundwater storage for a large system like the
    Central Valley aquifer using traditional ground based
    observations from wells. Fortunately, a new satellite mission,
    the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE, now
    enables routine groundwater monitoring from space. GRACE
    measures minute changes in earth's gravity field.
        Notice its time variable component. Because these changes
    are largely driven by changes in the distribution of liquid and
    solid water on our planet, we can use the gravity measurements
    to estimate the corresponding changes in water stored on land.
        GRACE has already been successfully applied to track
    monthly groundwater changes in several large aquifer systems
    around the world, providing a holistic picture of aquifer
    behavior that would not otherwise be possible. For example,
    last summer we published a study of rapid rates of groundwater
    depletion in northwestern India, an agricultural region like
    the Central Valley that is heavily dependent on groundwater for
    its irrigation demands. Could I have my slides, please?
        The next two slides summarize our recent work on the
    combined Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, including the
    snowpack in the western Sierras and the groundwater in the
    Central Valley. The upper left panel shows the GRACE estimate
    of the change in total water storage for the region; that is,
    all of the snow, surface water, soil moisture, and groundwater
    for the October 2003 through March 2009 time period.
        The drought conditions since 2005 are evident in the
    figure. During the entire study period, water storage in the
    Basins decreased by 31.3 cubic kilometers or roughly the volume
    of Lake Mead. Since GRACE measured the change in all the snow,
    surface water, soil moisture and groundwater together, we need
    to estimate and remove these first three in order to isolate
    what is happening with just the groundwater. These are shown on
    the other panels of the slide.
        Soil moisture, in the upper right, totaled 1.7 cubic
    kilometers. Reservoir storage at the lower left declined by 7.6
    cubic kilometers, while the snowpack losses at the lower right
    totaled another 1.7 cubic kilometers. Removing these from the
    total water storage change that we get from GRACE, the
    groundwater storage changes from the Central Valley, as shown
    in this slide. The table shows that during the study period
    groundwater storage decreased by over 20 cubic kilometers, or
    nearly two/thirds the volume of Lake Mead.
        As you know, California's water future is highly uncertain.
    Climate change may drive the Sierra snowpack close to zero by
    the end of the century, while our population will continue to
    grow. Unfortunately, the Colorado River Basin faces a similar
    plight, as shown in this last slide.
        I hope that my testimony convinces you that advanced
    technologies such as the GRACE mission can make an important
    contribution to the future of water management. If I have, then
    unfortunately, I have some bad news for you. GRACE will perform
    reliably for only another three to five years. Its follow-on,
    known as GRACE II, is not slated for launch until 2020.
        Assuming the usual delays, we can probably expect a gap of
    at least a decade in GRACE water storage data. If your
    Committee believes, as I do, that GRACE is invaluable in order
    to adapt water management to changing climate and human
    activities, then please do what you can in Congress to help
    increase the priority of the GRACE II mission. Thanks once
    again for the opportunity to testify.
        [The prepared statement of James Famiglietti follows:]

        Statement of Dr. James S. Famiglietti, Director, UC Center for
     Hydrologic Modeling, Professor of Earth System Science, Professor of
     Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Irvine

        Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member McClintock, and other members
    of the subcommittee: thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony
    on the state of our water supply and water supply monitoring in
    California, including groundwater resources.
        My name is James Famiglietti. I am a hydrologist and Professor on
    the faculty at the University of California, Irvine, with appointments
    in the Department of Earth System Science and the Department of Civil
    and Environmental Engineering. I am the Founding Director of the new UC
    Center for Hydrologic Modeling. My research group uses satellite remote
    sensing to track water availability on land, and has been working for
    many years towards improving hydrological prediction in regional and
    global weather and climate models. I am also the former Director of the
    UCI Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics and the past Chief
    Editor of the interdisciplinary Earth science journal Geophysical
    Research Letters. I am currently in the last year of a three-year term
    as Chair of the Board of Directors of CUAHSI, the Consortium of
    Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Sciences, Inc. It is on
    the strength of nearly 25 years of research, teaching and service to
    the water science and engineering community that I offer the following
    testimony.

    INTRODUCTION
        Groundwater--the water stored beneath the land surface in
    aquifers--accounts for nearly 30 percent of global freshwater
    resources. Today, some 2 billion people rely on groundwater as a
    primary source of drinking water and for irrigated agriculture.
    However, in many regions of the world, groundwater resources are under
    stress due to a number of factors, including groundwater depletion
    (when withdrawal rates exceed recharge rates), salinization and
    contamination. When coupled with the pressures of changing climate and
    population growth, the stresses on groundwater supplies will only
    increase in the decades to come.
        In many regions in the United States, including the Ogallala
    Aquifer of the High Plains, the Colorado River Basin, California, and
    its Central Valley, groundwater plays an essential role in supporting
    agricultural activity, as well as in domestic and industrial use. In
    some regions in the U.S., groundwater provides the sole freshwater
    source, while in others, it is used to supplement surface water
    supplies, which can vary with swings in weather and climate. For
    example, until recently, the cities of Fresno and Visalia depended
    entirely upon groundwater for their domestic supply; and in my own
    hometown of Irvine, roughly 50 percent of the water supply is drawn
    from local aquifers beneath Orange County.
        Nearly 80 percent of the fresh water used in the United States is
    for agriculture (though more recent statistics on water use for power
    generation underscore the importance of that sector). In regions such
    as the Central Valley and the Ogallala, groundwater provides the
    majority of the irrigation water requirements. The Central Valley
    offers a compelling example of the importance of groundwater, as well
    as the need to manage its use for sustained availability and
    productivity. The Central Valley is one of the most productive
    agricultural regions in the world, producing more than 250 different
    crops worth $17 billion per year (2002 dollars), or 8 percent of the
    food produced in the U.S. by value; it accounts for 1/6 of irrigated
    land in the U.S.; and it supplies 1/5 of the demand for groundwater in
    the U.S. In short, it the second most pumped aquifer in the United
    States.
        The current water crisis in California places additional stress on
    Central Valley groundwater resources. Continued drought has resulted in
    decreasing surface water allocations to the southern valley, triggering
    an increased reliance on groundwater, in a region where groundwater
    dependence is already high. The crisis is being exacerbated by the
    ongoing drought, since less rainfall results in less groundwater
    recharge. Under these conditions, groundwater use rates exceed
    replenishment rates, and the groundwater supply and the water table
    drop. Likewise, climate change and its impact on the decreasing
    snowpack in the Sierras and the Rockies poses its own set of challenges
    to reliable water supply in California. Decreasing snow in the Sierras
    may well lead to additional reductions in Central Valley groundwater
    recharge, while the diminishing snowpack in the Colorado River basin
    may well result in decreasing surface and groundwater availability
    there. Hence monitoring groundwater availability in the Central Valley
    is critical to help manage California's water crisis, its impact on the
    state's economy and the Nation's food production
        Surprisingly, in spite of its importance to freshwater supply,
    groundwater resources are often poorly monitored, so that a consistent
    picture of its availability is difficult and sometimes impossible to
    construct. Typical groundwater monitoring relies on tracking water
    levels in a network of wells. However, existing monitoring wells are
    often sparse, measurement records are frequently discontinuous (Figure
    1), and wells are often monitored by different agencies, at different
    time intervals, and record lengths often vary. Well measurements from
    different local, state and federal agencies are often archived at
    different locations, stored in different formats, and may not be easily
    or freely accessible. The recent U.S. Geological Survey report on
    ``Groundwater Availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California,''
    which was several years in the making, underscores the major effort
    required to assemble a comprehensive picture of changing groundwater
    availability. It is not clear that such an effort can be sustained as
    part a routine monitoring program.
        The main goal of this testimony is to share with committee members
    recent advances in satellite technology that now enable routine
    groundwater monitoring from space, including in the Central Valley. The
    satellite mission of interest today, the Gravity Recovery and Climate
    Experiment, or GRACE, has already been successfully applied to track
    monthly groundwater storage changes in several large aquifer systems
    around the world. It is our hope that the information that advanced
    technologies such as GRACE can provide will ultimately be incorporated
    into the information stream that supports environmental decision
    making. I will also appeal to you for your help. Unfortunately,
    hydrological model development and water observing networks have lagged
    far behind the increasingly urgent need to address pressing issues of
    national significance. We cannot make the necessary progress in areas
    such as water, energy and food security without your leadership and
    support.

    BACKGROUND
        The GRACE mission was launched in March 2002. It consists of two
    satellites that orbit around Earth each month. The primary measurement
    is not of Earth's surface, but rather, of the distance between the two
    satellites, which is perturbed by changes in gravity from place to
    place as the pair orbit around the globe. The mission collects millions
    of these inter-satellite distance measurements, which are exceptionally
    accurate (to the sub-micron level), and uses them to produce a map of
    our planet's gravitational field. Taking the difference between these
    maps yields the time-variable component of the gravity field. The major
    topographic and geologic features of Earth do not change on a monthly
    basis: their contribution to Earth's gravity field is static.
    Consequently, owing to the fact that water is one of the heaviest
    materials on Earth, the time-variable component of the gravity field is
    largely a reflection of changes in water storage each month. Hence the
    measurements of this time-variable component of the gravity field are
    used to estimate the corresponding changes in water mass stored on land
    and in the oceans. GRACE cannot measure the total (absolute) amount of
    water stored in a river basin, an aquifer or any other region of
    interest. It can only tell us the change between successive
    measurements of the gravity field.
        GRACE data have been successfully used to measure changes in the
    Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the Alaskan glaciers, and the
    Patagonian glaciers in Chile. Our research group at UC Irvine has
    focused on hydrologic applications of GRACE. We have demonstrated how
    GRACE data can be used to track water storage changes (Figure 2), to
    estimate evapotranspiration and to estimate streamflow from the world's
    major river basins. We also incorporate GRACE data in computer models
    of hydrology to improve prediction of surface and groundwater storage
    changes. GRACE data are now an input data stream into the operational
    U.S. Drought Monitor (Figure 3). After nearly 8 years of GRACE data, we
    are now able to identify trends in water storage that result from both
    natural and anthropogenic forces (Figure 4).
        One of the key hydrologic contributions of GRACE is that it has
    enabled satellite observation of groundwater storage changes. Our group
    has pioneered these techniques, beginning over a decade ago with our
    pre-launch feasibility study of the potential of GRACE to monitor
    groundwater storage changes in the Ogallala Aquifer. Since then we have
    used GRACE data to explore groundwater storage changes in the
    Mississippi River basin, and in aquifers in Illinois, Oklahoma and
    Australia. Figure 5 shows a figure from our recent study of rapid rates
    of groundwater depletion in northwestern India, an agricultural region
    like the Central Valley that is heavily dependent on groundwater for
    its irrigation demands.
        It is critical to recognize the contribution of the GRACE mission
    to observing the changing hydrology of the continents. Figures 2, 4 and
    5 display information on the behavior of water storage on land that is
    essentially brand-new: before the GRACE mission, this information was
    simply not available. For example, the ups and downs of river basin
    water storage shown in Figure 2 were simply not known: likewise the
    pattern of water storage trends in Figure 4. In particular, remote
    sensing of groundwater was regarded as a ``Holy Grail'' in the
    hydrologic community. In addition to the several reasons described in
    my introductory testimony, since groundwater is located below the
    Earth's surface, it is not ``visible'' by traditional, optical
    satellite missions. GRACE has effectively allowed us to ``see'' beneath
    the surface, by ``weighing'' groundwater storage changes from space.
        There are several caveats that must be understood before we discuss
    the Central Valley example. First, GRACE operates at relatively low
    resolution in space and time. It can measure monthly changes in water
    storage, for regions with a minimum area 150,000 km2, with an accuracy
    of 1.5 cm of equivalent water height. Its performance improves with
    increasing area and time period. Second, GRACE measures changes in all
    of the water stored in a region--that is, it is unable to differentiate
    among snow, ice, surface water, soil moisture and groundwater. In order
    to isolate changes in one of these individual storage reservoirs, for
    example, groundwater, mass changes in the other above-mentioned
    storages must be estimated and removed. Typically these data come from
    ground-based observations, advanced hydrological models, or from other
    satellites.
        Third, the GRACE mission has a limited lifespan. Barring any
    unforeseen battery or electronics failures, mission scientists at
    NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory estimate that GRACE will perform
    reliably for only another 3-5 years.
        Finally, it is important to note that our goal is not to expose
    water ``overuse.'' In fact, Figure 4 shows that in many land regions,
    for example, in high-latitude Eurasia, water storage is increasing.
    Moreover, unpublished research from our group suggests that the
    continents as a whole show zero storage change, or even a small
    increase in water storage, during the life of the GRACE mission.
    Rather, we are committed to developing advanced methodologies to help
    monitor water storage changes, characterize water availability, and to
    predict and understand the forces that contribute to regional water
    stress. As mentioned earlier, it is our hope to share this information
    with regional water managers, and with state and federal policy and
    decision makers.

     WATER STORAGE CHANGES IN THE SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASINS:
            GROUNDWATER DEPLETION IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY
        Our most recent regional study is of the combined Sacramento and
    San Joaquin River basins in California. This 154,000 km2 region
    includes California's major mountain water source, the snowpack in the
    Sierra Nevada mountain range, as well is its primary agricultural
    region, the Central Valley (52,000 km2). We selected this region for
    study due to its socioeconomic importance for California and for the
    Nation. This research shown here was presented in December 2009 at the
    Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference held in
    San Francisco. It is currently in preparation for submission to a peer-
    reviewed journal.
        Figure 6 (upper left) shows the change in total water storage (all
    of the snow, surface water, soil moisture and groundwater) for the
    combined Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage area. The drought conditions
    since 2005 are evident in the figure. During the 66-month time period
    studied (October 2003-March 2009), water storage in the basins
    decreased by 31.3 km3, or roughly the volume of Lake Mead.
        As I mentioned earlier, in order to estimate only the groundwater
    storage changes in the region, mass changes in the other major water
    stores (snow, surface water, soil moisture) must be estimated and
    removed. Soil moisture is largely unmeasured in the United States.
    Consequently, we estimated and removed the soil moisture signal using
    the average of three different soil moisture simulations for the
    corresponding time period, taken from advanced hydrological models, and
    run at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (upper right). The loss of
    soil moisture during the study period accounted for 1.7 km3 of the 31.3
    km3 total. Reservoir storage data (lower left) were compiled from the
    state CDEC website, and accounted for 7.6 km3 of water loss. The
    snowpack estimates, or its snow water equivalent (lower right), were
    obtained from the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center
    (NOHRSC), and are a combination of both observations and advanced
    simulation models. The NOHRSC data represent the best estimate of the
    Sierra snowpack currently available. These data show a decrease of 1.7
    km3 during the study period. The results the total water storage, snow,
    surface water, soil moisture, and groundwater (discussed next) are
    summarized in Table 1. Note that the trends reported are for the
    specified time period, which was selected to maximize the overlap among
    the various datasets used in the study.
        Since the total water storage change in the Sacramento and San
    Joaquin basins is the sum of the snow, surface water, soil moisture and
    groundwater changes, subtracting the first three of these components
    from the total (observed by GRACE) yields the groundwater storage
    change (Figure 7). Table 1 shows that during the study period,
    groundwater storage changes accounted for 20.3 km3 of the total water
    loss. We assume in this work that nearly all of the groundwater loss
    occurs in the Central Valley, since the other major geological features
    in the combined basins, that is, the mountain ranges surrounding the
    Valley, have limited capacity to store groundwater.
        The picture that emerges from this analysis is consistent with the
    U.S.G.S. study, and extends that study from its end date in 2003 to the
    present. Our estimated loss trends are similar to those of the
    U.S.G.S., and the steep decline estimated in our study is similar to
    the those estimated by the U.S.G.S. in previous drought periods.
    Furthermore, the results are consistent with our understanding of
    Central Valley farmers' behavior. Facing significant cuts in surface
    water allocations, farmers are forced to tap heavily into groundwater
    reserves to attempt to meet their irrigation water demands. Our
    research also indicates (not shown here) that nearly 75 percent of the
    20.3 km3 of groundwater loss is occurring in the San Joaquin River
    basin, including the Tulare Lake basin, which is also consistent with
    ground-based observations (Figure 8) and other studies.

    WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
        As you know, California's water future is highly uncertain. Climate
    change may drive the Sierra snowpack close to zero by the end of the
    century, while our population will continue to grow. Unfortunately, the
    Colorado River basin faces a similar plight (Figure 9). It is not hard
    to imagine that water may emerge as one of the key political issues in
    the decades to come. Perhaps that time is now. Will water be the ``oil
    of the future?'' Maybe.
        Given the importance of water, both now and in the future, the U.S.
    must significantly accelerate its predictive capabilities in order to
    address the pressing issues we will soon face. Will we have enough
    water to supply our growing population? Will there be enough water to
    sustain agricultural activity? Is there enough water and land to
    support biofuel production? How will declining snowpack affect
    hydropower in the American West? How will changes in extreme events
    such as flooding and drought affect California? How can water
    management best adapt to these changes in climate, snowpack, population
    and hydrologic extremes? Agencies like NOAA, the National Weather
    Service, and NASA, are responding, but slowly given current economic
    constraints. I contend that a significant investment in hydrologic
    prediction, observation and research must be made, now, in order to
    build the intellectual infrastructure to ensure the security of our
    nation in the decades to come.
        My own contribution to this effort is through leadership at the
    state and national levels. I am the founding director of a new modeling
    center at UC Irvine called the UC Center for Hydrologic Modeling. Our
    goal is to develop a very high-resolution hydrological model for the
    state that includes all major components of the natural (snow, ice,
    surface waters, soil water, groundwater) and managed (reservoirs,
    aqueducts, groundwater withdrawals) water cycle that can be used to
    test solutions and provide answers to the questions above. Another goal
    is to provide a forum for water managers, practitioners, environmental
    decision makers, and center researchers, to transfer knowledge, provide
    training, and develop meaningful collaborations that can advance water
    management in our state.
        I am leading a similar effort at the national level. This activity,
    called the Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform (CHyMP), is unfunded,
    but is highly regarded by the National Science Foundation and other
    agencies such as NASA and NOAA. Both the UC Center and the CHyMP effort
    will require sustained funding at the state and national levels. Again,
    I am already devoted to the cause, but I need your help to identify the
    resources to ramp up and sustain these critical activities. Students
    must be trained at all degree levels. New modeling paradigms must be
    developed that can easily accommodate ground-based observations,
    emerging sensor technologies, and satellite observations like those
    from GRACE. There is much work to be done.
        I hope that I have convinced you that advanced technologies such as
    the GRACE mission can make an important contribution to the future of
    water management. I will be happy to work with your staff to spread the
    word about the potential of GRACE so that it can be fully utilized in
    water prediction and management. However, recall that GRACE will last,
    at best, another 3-5 years. The follow-on mission, known as GRACE 2, is
    not slated for launch until 2020. Assuming the usual delays, we can
    expect a gap of at least a decade in GRACE water storage data. If your
    committee believes, as I do, that GRACE is invaluable in order to adapt
    water management to changing climate, then please do what you can in
    Congress to help increase the priority of the GRACE 2 mission.
        I thank you once again for the opportunity to testify.
        [NOTE: Figures have been retained in the Committee's official
    files.]
                                     ______

        Mrs. Napolitano. Is the Commissioner still here? I don't
    know what to say, other than there are things we need to maybe
    explore with NASA, with NAS, with all those agencies, to see
    how we can begin to look at some of what they are findings can
    impact and assist our agencies. Thank you.
        I would like to move on to Mr. Miguel Luna, Executive
    Director of Urban Semillas. Welcome.

        STATEMENT OF MIGUEL A. LUNA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, URBAN
                   SEMILLAS, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Luna. As a community organizer, my perspective will be
    one that comes from community at the grassroots level. I wanted
    to start my testimony with this quote. ``Solutions have been a
    permanent dialogue between human beings and water.'' I feel
    part of the problem of the state of today's water stems in part
    from a historical lack of dialogue with this resource. Our
    interaction with this vital resource has been one-way, us
    demanding from it, without hearing the warnings, the warnings
    when we pollute it, when we overdraft it, when we waste it.
        Of course, I am aware that our water situation requires
    solutions that are engineered and that also utilize nature's
    services, but if we move forward without a true appreciation of
    water and the role it plays in nature, our rivers, our food,
    our energy, our communities, then we will continue to run into
    the same problems we face today, just at a later time and most
    likely with a greater magnitude of negative impact and at a
    greater cost, both economically and ecologically.
        I wouldn't be doing my job of building capacity within the
    communities I work with if I didn't partner with other
    organizations to identify support and implement sustainable
    local solutions which many of us feel are the most cost
    effective, least environmentally destructive and, why not, even
    provide community benefits that boost local economies through
    the creation of jobs and the retraining of workers to fit new
    emerging technologies and eco-friendly best practices.
        They are all outlined in my testimony that was crafted by
    the Water Coalition I belong to with other several colleagues.
    I wanted to highlight some of them. One is sustainable growth
    in areas that can sustain it, requiring the inclusion of the
    most water efficient design, fixtures and landscaping to draw
    down new water demand.
        Retrofitting aging infrastructure to minimize systemwide
    inefficiencies in leaking infrastructure; taking a proactive
    role in repairing and replacing old infrastructure before large
    breaks occur; expanding the purple pipe system that delivers
    recycled water so we can offset potable water demand; support
    the collaboration between the Department of Water and Power and
    Bureau of Sanitation; and the development of a recycled water
    master plan that outlines strategies to increase the city's
    recycled water use to 50,000 acre-feet by the year 2019;
    promoting water culture through conscientious water management
    and conservation.
        The Pacific Institutes estimates about one-third of current
    urban usage, more than 2.3 million acre-feet of water, could be
    saved statewide through better implementation of existing
    technology for homes and businesses, and more aggressive
    education at all levels with matching expansion of water
    conservation programs for customers.
        Revitalization and restoration of our streams, creeks and
    rivers, which are deeply connected to water supply: When we
    restore creeks and rivers, they can serve as a viable natural
    way for our aquifers to be replenished to serve as key water
    sources. They also revitalize communities and, in the process,
    can provide for short and long-term jobs, maybe even for a
    better sustainable future for our children.
        One example of this is a local project, the Elm Avenue
    Retrofit Demonstration Project in Sun Valley. This project
    models a sustainable future for neighborhoods throughout Los
    Angeles, but also the ideal collaboration between agencies and
    groups at all levels. This is a project where the Bureau of
    Reclamation, the City of Los Angeles, and two local LA groups.
        Bailey-San Gabriel River Watershed Council and Tree People
    are working together to make it happen. A whole block in an
    area where there are no storm drains flooded all the time, now
    will capture rainwater on site and infiltrate it. Not only
    that, but most of the homeowners are already replacing their
    lawns with native landscaping and re-articulating their private
    yards to include biological swales as well as adding rain
    barrels to their properties. While still not completed, it is
    already providing for a better quality of life and serving as a
    great education and community engagement tool.
        I wanted to close with safe water for all. While we are
    very fortunate this year in the City of LA to be able to open
    our tap and have access to safe drinking water, it is not the
    case for other places in the state. One example is our
    neighboring City of Maywood where a population of 50,000, 98
    percent Latino, is served by three water mutual companies, and
    still customers open their taps of water containing manganese,
    lead, PCs and other contaminants.
        We must have policy in the state that ensures that every
    human has a right to clean, affordable and accessible water.
    Thank you so much.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Luna.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Luna follows:]

               Statement of Miguel A. Luna, Executive Director,
                    Urban Semillas, Los Angeles, California

                 We Have Enough Water, but Not Enough to Waste:

                    Solutions to Securing LA's Water Future

    Introduction
        There has been much discussion recently of Los Angeles being in the
    midst of a drought. Although this type of dramatic language is good for
    capturing the attention of the public, it is ultimately misleading.
    Depicting the current water situation as a drought implies that Los
    Angeles is facing a temporary water shortage, an abnormal situation
    that will pass in time. This is not the case. Years of low rainfall
    tend to sound alarm bells amongst the public, but for Southern
    California, dry years are actually more common then wet ones. Most of
    the city is in a semi-arid Mediterranean climate with generally low
    annual rainfall that can fluctuate from year to year. Moreover, the
    effects of climate change have caused the fluctuation in annual
    rainfall to increase: both the wettest and driest years of record for
    the Los Angeles region have occurred in just the past eight years.
        Los Angeles draws its water supply from a variety of sources.
    However, many of these are now oversubscribed, and several face serious
    water quality problems. LA's sources of imported water can no longer
    supply the city at the level they once did, due to legally mandated
    environmental mitigation programs and increased demand from other
    communities that share these resources. LA's local water sources also
    face problems such as pollution, overuse, and the danger of seawater
    infiltration into underground freshwater basins.
        In spite of all this, there is still hope for LA's water future,
    but city officials and residents must look for sustainable solutions,
    rather than crisis-driven band-aid fixes that will only exacerbate the
    problems in the long term. Central to such a sustainable approach is
    first acknowledging that for LA to continue to thrive, it will need to
    reduce its dependence on imported water.
        Necessary strategies to increase LA's local water supplies include:
          Manage the entire greater Los Angeles watershed using a
    holistic regional approach.
          Aggressively pursue all water conservation, efficiency,
    and recycling options on individual, business, and industrial levels by
    pursuing water education, water efficiency solutions, greywater and
    rainwater capture systems, drought resistant landscaping, incentives
    for conservation, and low impact development.
          Require that all new development be water neutral by
    requiring the use of the best conservation, efficiency, and recycling
    practices.
          Repair aging water infrastructure, require water system
    audits, and expand water-recycling infrastructure.
          Mandate groundwater clean-up efforts and tighter
    pollution controls to deter further degradation.
        By taking these actions to preserve and protect LA's local water
    supplies, the city can also fight environmentally unsound and expensive
    water distribution trends such as water privatization and the over
    reliance on bottled and vended water.
        These changes will also create new employment and development
    opportunities for local communities. The implementation of water-saving
    technologies, retrofitted infrastructure, and new LID development
    practices is a chance to create new jobs in this time of economic
    crisis. It's also an important opportunity to redevelop low-income
    communities in a responsible way, making sure they aren't left behind
    in these efforts and providing them with better infrastructure and
    public space.
        Implementing these solutions is a priority that can't wait. If both
    the city government and residents act now, Los Angeles has an
    opportunity to maximize its local water resources to secure a safe
    water supply for a sustainable future.

    Water Supply
        The water supply for the Los Angeles region comes from a variety of
    local and imported sources, and as the population has grown over time,
    LA's reliance on imported water has increased. The city currently
    imports about 65 percent of its water. State and federal courts have
    reduced LA's allocations from these non-local sources in recent years.
    Exploring and investing in ways to maximize local resources will be the
    best way to offset these supply reductions.

    Imported Water Sources
        The Los Angeles Aqueduct carries water from the Owens Valley and
    Mono Lake. It is controlled by the LA Department of Water and Power
    (LADWP) and provides water solely to the City of Los Angeles.
    Currently, the aqueduct supplies the city with 11 to 32 percent of its
    annual water supply.
        The Colorado River Aqueduct carries water from the Colorado River
    to many different parts of Southern California and supplies 37 to 46
    percent of the water used in this region. It is controlled by the
    Metropolitan Water District (MWD), a public water wholesaler made up of
    26 member agencies that together provide drinking water to some 19
    million people in parts of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
    Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties, a combined area of over
    5,000 square miles.
        Los Angeles shares the Colorado River with six other states
    upstream (Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada) and
    with Mexico downstream. California has been allocated 4.4 million acre-
    feet per year from this aqueduct, but due to surpluses in years past,
    MWD had been using more than its allocation by about 800,000 acre-feet.
    Because of increased demand from other states upstream, the Secretary
    of the Interior is forcing California to reduce its take of Colorado
    River water back to its 4.4 million acre-feet allocation.
        The third source of imported water for Southern California is the
    California State Water Project. The California Aqueduct, at 444 miles
    long, is the largest aqueduct in the world. All the pumping of water
    out of the Delta and over the Tehachapi mountains makes the State Water
    Project the largest single consumer of energy in California. The State
    Department of Water Resources administers the project and through it
    supplies water from the Feather River and the Sacramento and San
    Joaquin River Delta in Northern California to the Bay Area, the Central
    Valley, and much of Southern California. In spite of its scale and
    energy consumption, the State Water Project has never provided as much
    water as it was supposed to. The state is contracted to deliver 4.2
    million acre-feet per year but only delivers an average of 1.86 million
    acre-feet a year, less than half. The State Water Project could see its
    ability to deliver water further hindered by such impacts of climate
    change as the greater frequency of dry years, a sea level rise
    requiring additional fresh water releases from reservoirs into the
    Delta to maintain water quality, and a corresponding curtailing of
    pumping water south of the Delta.
        Already the diversion of so much water from the Sacramento and San
    Joaquin River Delta has caused an environmental disaster in the region.
    Due to overdrawing water for agricultural and urban uses, increased
    water salinity, and pollution, the balance of a vital ecosystem is
    being seriously damaged. The most obvious and inexpensive solution to
    stop the degradation and begin to restore the Delta is to decrease the
    Central Valley and Southern California's reliance on the Delta as a
    water source by maximizing reliance on local water sources.

    Local Water Sources
        The Los Angeles region currently gets about 35 percent of its water
    supply from local water sources. However, many of these sources are
    under-utilized for various reasons.

    Surface Water
        About 20 percent of LA's water supply comes from local surface
    water: near-by rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs. The water for
    all of these sources originates from rainwater and snowmelt from
    surrounding mountains. Almost all rainwater is diverted to storm drains
    that send the water out to sea. Most rivers and streams in the LA area
    have been engineered to flush out water to the ocean, since these have
    been channeled and paved to prevent flooding. However, some rainwater
    is stored in man-made lakes (or reservoirs) to later be diverted to
    spreading basins. These are ponds where rainwater is allowed to spread
    and slowly percolate back into the groundwater table, increasing the
    city's groundwater supply. There are also some parts of the Los Angeles
    River and other streams that have not been paved, where water can seep
    back into the ground.

    Ground Water Basins
        The Los Angeles region receives about 15 percent of its water from
    groundwater basins. There are six major groundwater basins in the LA
    area, of which the San Fernando Basin is the largest, alone providing
    about 80 percent of the local groundwater supplies. These basins are
    replenished through spreading, the percolation of surface water back
    into the ground, and also through injection. Injection, where wells
    pump water down into the aquifer, is normally used in places where the
    basins have been oversubscribed or there is a danger of salt-water
    intrusion or sinkage. These groundwater basins hold large quantities of
    water and could be a much bigger water source for the LA area. However,
    not all of the groundwater in the basins can be used. Numerous basins
    have been contaminated with industrial waste from World War II era
    rocket fuel, such as chromium 6 and perchlorate, which has taken them
    out of use for drinking water. Additionally, many of the basins are
    polluted by agricultural run-off and leaking septic systems, which
    result in water quality issues.

    Water Recycling
        Water recycling, the process through which wastewater undergoes
    multiple levels of treatment so that it can be safely reused, is
    another important opportunity for increasing local water supplies.
    Currently, treated wastewater is used in Los Angeles for a variety of
    purposes, such as landscaping, industrial use, artificial bodies of
    water, and injection into underground water basins to prevent salt
    water infiltration. Recycled water is carried by its own separate
    plumbing infrastructure, purple pipes, and is not used for drinking
    purposes in LA County. Recycled water may be used on individual,
    institutional, and industrial scales.
        There are three main levels of treatment for municipal wastewater.
    Primary treatment involves the removal of sewage solids through
    sedimentation. Secondary treatment uses biological processes to further
    remove organic compounds, with microorganisms using the oxygen in
    aeration tanks to consume the compounds as their food. Tertiary
    treatment combines chemical disinfection using chlorine, sedimentation,
    and filtration. Recycled water that has gone through all three stages
    of treatment may be used in for irrigating golf courses and parks. The
    California Department of Health Services closely monitors and enforces
    health requirements for the use of recycled wastewater.
        Los Angeles began water recycling in 1979 for irrigation and
    industrial uses. While LA currently uses about 4,600 acre-feet of
    recycled water--saving enough potable water for about 9,200 homes--this
    only represents around 3 percent of LA's total water use. Recently golf
    courses like Woodley Golf Course and schools like Loyola Marymount
    University have begun using recycled water for their irrigation.

    Conservation
        A most promising source of local water is the water that Los
    Angeles saves through local conservation measures, both through
    individual residential and business efforts with government incentives.
    Although the LA region has managed to reduce its water consumption a
    great deal, there are still untapped opportunities to conserve a lot
    more. Using local water resources more efficiently is the best and
    least expensive way for Los Angeles to increase its water supply and
    achieve regional water independence. The city has already made great
    strides in conserving water. Despite population growth of 35 percent
    since 1970, Los Angeles has experienced a mere 7 percent jump in water
    consumption. During that same period individual per capita water usage
    dropped by 15 percent. More recently, after 5 months of mandatory water
    rationing, the LADWP announced in December 2009 that they had reduced
    water consumption by 18.4 percent.

    Watershed Management
        Watershed management may also help safeguard clean water supplies
    and identify recycling and conservation opportunities. A watershed is
    the area of land where all the water in it or on top of it, from
    rainfall, snowmelt, and melting ice, drains downhill into a single
    destination such as a lake or ocean. Water does not stay still. It
    flows both above and below ground, and even when held in lakes and
    seas, it evaporates into the atmosphere and falls again as rain.
    Thinking in terms of watersheds enables one to understand how seemingly
    distinct water sources such as individual rivers, lakes, and aquifers
    are in fact linked together by virtue of flowing toward the same
    destination. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    there are 2,110 watersheds in the continental United States--2,267
    including Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico.
        Watershed management approaches thus seek to view both land and
    water resources as they are connected to one another in the watershed
    and to manage them accordingly. Such a management approach is essential
    to both identifying sources of existing groundwater pollution and
    preventing further pollution. It is also necessary to navigate the
    intricacies of conflicting water supply and water rights demands.
    Watershed management requires the collaboration of anyone taking water
    from or putting water back into the watershed, thus looking at the
    overall water quality and quantity implications throughout a watershed
    of land use, development, industry, agriculture, and other activities.
        The main watersheds in the Los Angeles area are the Los Angeles
    River Watershed, covering an area of over 834 square miles, the San
    Gabriel River Watershed, covering about 640 square miles, and the Santa
    Clara River Watershed, covering an area of 1,600 square miles.

    Facing Los Angeles' Water Supply Problems
    Problem: Groundwater Pollution
        In Los Angeles there are numerous ground wells, however, we can
    only one fourth of the existing wells. Drawing uncontaminated water
    from polluted basins increases the risk of the polluted plumes
    migrating to other basins and thereby spreading the contamination. Such
    is the case with the Main San Gabriel Valley Basin, which is
    contaminated with chromium 6 and perchlorate. The Department of Defense
    has fought for years to avoid funding significant clean up by stating
    that they would not act until the EPA set national standards for
    permissible levels of perchlorate contamination in drinking water,
    while simultaneously fighting for broad exemptions from federal
    environmental laws. The California State Legislature created the San
    Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, but its efforts have been
    hamstrung by lack of federal funding.

    Solution: Groundwater Clean Up
        Polluted groundwater in the Los Angeles region represents a huge
    source of water that cannot be fully utilized. LADWP's attempts to
    further groundwater clean up by filtering recycled water into polluted
    basins should be studied and pursued rather than taken off the table.
    Pressure must be put on the responsible parties, including the
    Department of Defense, to fulfill their legal duty to clean up
    superfund sites in our groundwater basins. Previous legislative efforts
    by California federal representatives such as then Rep. Hilda Solis
    stalled in Washington during the Bush Administration. A broad coalition
    of local, state, and federal officials should aggressively pursue clean
    up funds through Congress and the Obama Administration. The EPA should
    prioritize making its final regulatory determination for perchlorate
    and ensure that public safety is the paramount criterion in the
    determination. To prevent future groundwater contamination, stricter
    legislative standards must be devised and enforced for capturing
    polluted runoff and preventing dangerous chemicals from entering the
    watershed.

    Problem: Unsustainable Development
        Population increases will place additional strains on Los Angeles'
    water supply. However, it is necessary to first distinguish between
    development built to meet the demands of a growing population and
    development meant to create demands where they do not exist. Several
    mass development projects such as Tejon Ranch depend entirely on
    imported water supplies that critics claim can be found only on paper.

    Solution: Water Neutral Development
        While development may be inevitable, it is urgent that it be done
    responsibly and in areas that can sustain the growth. In Water Neutral
    Development the local water supplier would require new developments to
    include the most water efficient design, fixtures, and landscaping to
    draw down new water demand. Any new demand brought online by the
    project would be mitigated in the adjacent residential areas. For
    example, the developer could pay into a water conservation or
    mitigation fund as a means to offset new demand. The fund would provide
    a new revenue stream for conservation programs that are regionally
    based and not contingent on bond funds or the state budget. Not only
    does this form of development help an area grow and be sustainable, it
    also provides a new funding stream for conservation programs such as
    MWD's Water$mart program that is pending cancellation.
          Require new residential and commercial developments that
    are subject to CEQA to incorporate cost-effective water efficiency
    measures.
          Require that any water use in the new development be
    fully mitigated through water efficiency measures in existing
    communities or by developing local water supplies.
          Require that 40% of the benefits from mitigation projects
    be directed to disadvantaged communities that otherwise would not be
    able to afford efficiency and adaptation measures.
          Require that a portion of the work is done with community
    based organizations who have gone out of business during the drought!
          Begin the manufacturing of water saving equipment in Los
    Angles to provide jobs and economic development

    Problem: Aging Infrastructure
        Aging water mains waste tremendous amounts of water through leaks
    and spills, but can also cause great damage when they break.
    Solution 1: Repairing and Replacing Old Infrastructure
        System-wide inefficiencies such as leaky infrastructure are an
    easily preventable source of waste in the Los Angeles region. By
    retrofitting old plumbing systems in homes and businesses LA can
    achieve substantial water savings. Local water agencies should take a
    proactive role in repairing and replacing the city's old infrastructure
    rather than waiting for large breaks to occur. The city must increase
    the rate of replacement of infrastructure repair and rehabilitation.
    Solution 2: System Audits
        System audits should apply to residential and commercial users.
    Similar to the energy assessment that DWP provides to its customers,
    water audits should also be provided. For example, in Australia the
    water company can monitor the water use of any single customer, or
    across a particular area. They installed special meters that are
    connected remotely to a computer system. This allows monitoring of
    specific locations or areas and makes it easier to target outreach
    where it is most needed. This should be done at no charge to LADWP
    lifeline rate customers.
    Solution 3: Expand Recycled Water Infrastructure
        Existing infrastructure should be expanded so that the use of
    recycled water can become more widely utilized. Its use in new
    developments for purposes like landscaping or toilets should also be
    mandated.

    Problem: Wasting Good Water
        In spite of the progress that has been made, there are still many
    unexplored opportunities for water conservation in Los Angeles. The
    Pacific Institute estimates that more than 2.3 million acre-feet of
    water (or one third of current urban usage) could be saved statewide
    through better implementation of existing conservation technologies for
    homes and businesses that range from more efficient toilets, showers,
    washing machines, and dishwashers, to fixing leaks and changing
    impermeable turfs to native landscaping. Eighty-five percent of those
    savings could be achieved at costs lower than those required to tap new
    water sources. Excessive levels of personal water use, for domestic and
    landscaping purposes, also represent a large source of unnecessary
    consumption. An aging water infrastructure exacerbates the problem,
    while an unwillingness to fully exploit resources like rainwater and
    greywater further frustrates conservation efforts.
    Solution 1: Education
          Prioritize educational outreach. LADWP should partner
    with the Los Angeles Unified School District to educate students about
    conservation and engage them in water audits through existing programs
    such as the Infrastructure Academy to improve water conservation in
    schools.
          Provide workshops and assistance for customers to use
    existing dual meter programs for landscape watering and provide rebates
    to make it more affordable.
          Increase outreach for purchasers for recycled water.
          Increase and advertise California Friendly Landscape
    workshop for LADWP customers in multiple languages.
          Distribute conservation program materials in high traffic
    areas like markets and malls to ensure renters get the information.
          City officials should model behavior by stringently
    following the city's water conservation ordinance
    Solution 2: Water Efficiency Solutions
        New technologies represent a huge source of potential water
    savings. Many of the technologies aimed at individual consumers are
    readily available and easy to install. Low flow high efficiency toilets
    and showerheads address some of the larger sources of domestic water
    use. Water-efficient washing machines and dishwashers tackle another
    area of significant water consumption. Point of use water heaters
    without tanks save on water consumption and energy usage by reducing
    wait times for hot water. Consumers can also cut back on the biggest
    source of domestic water consumption--outdoor usage--through the
    installation of smart irrigation technology. Smart irrigation systems
    eliminate over watering by automatically adjusting the timing and
    volume of water use to reflect actual needs. Conservation technologies
    aimed at the business and public sectors can also yield impressive
    results. In addition to the opportunities described above, water can
    also be conserved with waterless urinals and the retrofitting of car
    washes.
          Meter apartment complexes and use dual plumbing in
    retrofits and new buildings for the use greywater for toilets and other
    non-potable uses.
          Retrofit existing public buildings for water efficiency
    and implement low impact development strategies in new and redeveloped
    buildings.
          Include water efficiency standards in building
    ordinances.
          Continue to explore ways to maximize water recycling.
          Dual landscape meters
          ET irrigations controllers--implement the existing Prop.
    84 grant with CBO's
    Solution 3: Greywater and Rainwater capture systems
        Greywater and rainwater capture systems are two ways to make use of
    water resources that would otherwise go to waste. With greywater
    systems, wastewater from sources like washing machines, hand sinks, and
    showers is captured on site and reused in toilets and landscape
    irrigation systems. Greywater is defined as wastewater that, although
    not potable, does not contain sewage, significant food residue, or
    dangerous concentrations of chemicals. As 50 to 80 percent of
    residential wastewater is greywater, these systems represent huge
    potential water savings. Rainwater capture systems do exactly what
    their name suggests, capture and store rainwater for use in irrigation.
    These systems cut down on water consumption but also provide an
    additional ancillary benefit: by using captured rainwater for
    landscaping purposes, the rainwater then filters through the ground and
    helps replenish local groundwater basins.
          The city should expand its current rainwater barrel pilot
    program and provide education and incentives for greater implementation
    of rainwater capture systems citywide, particularly in environmental
    justice communities and provide information about the program in
    multiple languages.
          The city should provide greywater guidelines and
    workshops in multiple languages making use of new state guidelines.
    Solution 4: Drought Resistant Landscaping
        Outdoor water usage represents the greatest amount of residential
    urban water consumption, as much as 60 percent of urban water
    consumption in LA goes to landscaping and other outdoor use. Although
    Southern California is a semi-arid climate, many home and business
    owners choose to landscape their properties with traditional lawns or
    imported tropical plants, evidencing deeply set cultural preferences.
    Both of these landscaping choices require more water to survive than
    the Los Angeles area can naturally provide. One square foot of turf
    uses approximately 50 gallons of water per year. Moreover roughly 50
    percent of water used for irrigating lawns and gardens is wasted due to
    over watering and evaporation. Over watering also washes significant
    amounts of pesticides and fertilizers into storm drains, tributaries,
    creeks, groundwater supplies, and ultimately into the ocean.
        By contrast, many California native plants (or plants from other
    Mediterranean regions) are well adapted to the dry Southern California
    climate and are able to thrive on comparatively little or no water.
    According to the results of a study by the City of Santa Monica's
    Office of Sustainability and the Environment, maintaining a traditional
    lawn requires almost ten times the amount of water needed to support a
    sustainable landscaped lawn (57,000 gallons of water per year for a
    typical single family home versus 6,000 gallons per year).
        Sustainable landscaping, which uses native grasses, shrubs,
    flowers, cacti, and other plants instead of typical lawn grasses like
    St. Augustine Grass or Buffalo Grass, also creates a wealth of other
    environmental benefits. According to the same Santa Monica study, yard
    waste is significantly reduced with sustainable landscaping (250 pounds
    per year versus 670 pounds), as are maintenance hours (15 hours per
    year versus 80 per year). Planting California native plants also
    creates habitat for native fauna like birds and butterflies whose
    numbers are rapidly dwindling due to habitat destruction. State law
    requires that all cities and counties adopt by January 1, 2010 the
    Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape
    Ordinance. The ordinance does not apply to new or rehabilitated
    landscape projects that cover an area less than 1000 square feet or
    that exceed 1000 square feet but do not require a building permit.
          Switch to sustainable, native landscaping.
          Install remote meters for easy monitoring of water
    consumption. Make use of existing landscape or outdoor meter program by
    providing incentives and notifying customers.
          Although MWD has a California friendly landscape and
    gardening classes program through the Be Water Wise conservation
    campaign, MWD, LADWP, and other water agencies need to be more
    aggressive in providing individuals and businesses with education and
    incentives to replace their lawns.
          Sustainable landscaping should be compulsory for all city
    properties and the city should consider mandating native landscaping
    for all new developments.
          The city should be the leader in native landscaping in
    their parks and public spaces.
    Solution 5: Incentives for Conservation
          Provide more incentives to LADWP customers to conserve by
    extending and increasing the rebates for efficient washers, smart
    controllers, rotating nozzles, low-flow toilets, and turf removal not
    less than 250 square feet. Make it easier for DWP customers to access
    rebates.
          Improve enforcement of water use restrictions.
          Tiered pricing should be increased without impacting the
    lifeline rate to four or five tier pricing levels to provide incentive
    for customers to use less water, especially by reducing lawn
    maintenance: the more water used the more it costs.
          Ensure that MWD expands the water conservation credit
    program.
    Solution 6: Low Impact Development (LID)
        Low Impact Development is a term used to refer to development
    practices that seek to capture a larger percentage of rainwater runoff.
    By capturing the water onsite it can be released back into the
    groundwater table where it replenishes underground basins. This process
    allows air pollution and other particulate matter to be filtered out of
    the water as it percolates down through the soil.
        In LID practices, rainwater is diverted from roofs and paved areas
    to landscaping, planter boxes, and bio-retention areas, instead of
    storm drains and rainwater capture systems like underground cisterns
    where soils do not allow permeability. Cement and asphalt surfaces are
    replaced with porous pavement that allows water to filter through to
    the ground. Bio-retention areas, zones that retain rainwater, and run
    off allow soil and plant-based filtration to clean water before it
    percolates into ground water. These bio-retention areas can also double
    as public green space, as is the case with Pan Pacific Park and Park La
    Brea which serve as retention areas, during times of heavy rain.
        In addition to yielding environmental benefits, LID practices are
    actually more cost effective over time. Because LID is more sustainable
    and makes use of better materials, fewer repairs are required.
    Widespread implementation of LID practices will also reduce the need to
    replace storm water drainage infrastructure.
        Related to LID is the City of Los Angeles' Green Streets
    Initiative. The Green Streets design strategies, which have already
    been implemented in a number of test projects, call for:
          Increased use of permeable surfaces on sidewalks and
    streets, allowing for a higher degree of water infiltration and
          Landscape systems such as vegetated swales, flow-through
    planters, and storm water curb extensions that capture and filter storm
    water.
        Green Street developments also serve the additional function of
    beautifying neighborhoods with new landscaping. This can be of
    particular value in creating new green space for LA's many park-poor
    communities.
        On January 15, the Los Angeles Board of Public Works unanimously
    approved the draft LID ordinance requiring that 100 percent of the
    rainfall from a three-quarter inch storm at newly built houses,
    developments, and certain redevelopments either be captured and reused
    or infiltrated on site, or that developers pay a stormwater mitigation
    fee to help fund offsite LID projects like Green Streets.
          Push for an expansion of the city's current Green Streets
    pilot programs that have already proven effective. Particular effort
    should be made to provide funding and incentives for this type of
    redevelopment in low income areas, so that they are not left behind.
          Install mini-water treatment plants and onsite water
    treatment plants
    Solution 7: Other Watershed Solutions
        Other efforts can help to improve the quality and availability of
    drinking water within our local watershed. Restoring natural bottoms to
    some parts of Los Angeles' many channeled waterways will help a greater
    degree of storm-water runoff to filter down into groundwater basins
    rather than emptying into the ocean. Increased conjunctive use of
    surface water to store winter and spring surpluses will also increase
    local water supplies for future use. To bolster this effort greater
    emphasis should be put on exploring new potential sites for spreading
    basins.

    Problem: Over consumption of Bottled and Vended Water
        Encouraging people to use tap water, rather than bottled water,
    will also help the water situation in our region. It is a commonly held
    misconception that the tap water in Los Angeles is not fit for
    drinking. In fact, LA's water not only meets or exceeds all federal and
    state safety standards, but in 2008 MWD also tied for the gold medal in
    the Berkeley Springs International Water Tasting Award for best testing
    municipal water. Despite these facts many Los Angeles residents still
    choose to rely on bottled or vended water for their drinking water
    needs.
        Bottled and vended water are a waste of both money and resources.
    In California, the price of bottled water represents a 10,000 percent
    markup from the cost of tap water. Bottled and vended water is also
    environmentally damaging, not only because of the amount of trash
    generated, but also because of the resources required to transport this
    water over long distances. Purchasing bottled water also helps to
    accelerate the process of water privatization that is occurring in many
    parts of the world. As industry takes control of more fresh water
    sources communities that once relied on these resources are finding
    their access curtailed.
        Finally, there are also safety concerns with vended water. In 2000,
    the Los Angeles County Environmental Toxicology Bureau found that 33
    percent of the 279 water vending machines they tested failed to meet
    the EPA standard for trihalomethanes, a by-product of water
    chlorination. Vended water machines throughout the city are largely
    unregulated. Water machine operators are only required to test machines
    for trihalomethanes once a week and fecal coliform bacteria once every
    6 months. However, many operators fail to comply with even those meager
    regulations. This is a real problem for Los Angeles residents,
    especially in low income communities, where they pay a disproportionate
    amount of their income for water they think will be superior to tap
    water, when often it is of far inferior quality.
    Solutions:
        To remedy our city's reliance on bottled and vended water it is
    first necessary to change public perceptions regarding the safety of
    tap water. In 1999, MWD embarked on a public campaign to inform Latinos
    that MWD's water is clean and safe for drinking. The DWP can learn from
    MWD's experience to expand its own outreach efforts in this area. The
    mayor has already issued a memo to LA city departments regarding their
    wasteful expenditures for bottled water. It is important that he now
    hold them accountable for their continued bottled water use by banning
    bottled water in all city departments. The City of San Francisco banned
    bottled water within all branches of city government, successfully
    reducing city bottled water purchases from about $500,000 a year to
    zero. Lastly the city and county public health departments should
    collaborate with the state Department of Health Services to inspect
    vending water machines and stores.

    Conclusion
        There are many factors that play into the current state of the
    water in the Los Angeles region, but it is clear now that this is a
    permanent problem that city government and residents will have to face
    now and into the future. The solutions proposed here are low hanging
    fruit that both officials and residents can use to maximize local water
    resources with the lowest monetary and environmental costs.
    Conservation, better watershed management, recycled water, and avoiding
    vended water and water privatization are all easy solutions that can
    have big effects. These solutions will both provide enough water for
    the Los Angeles region and provide economic benefits such as green jobs
    and community redevelopment. Availability of clean drinking water and
    water for nature is a growing problem and if the city does not
    implement these measures now, it will become harder and harder to reach
    the population's water needs and achieve the regional water
    independence necessary for the city's future.
                                     ______

        Mrs. Napolitano. We move on to Ms. Lucy Dunn, President and
    Chief Executive Officer of Orange County Business Council,
    Irvine.

    STATEMENT OF LUCY DUNN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
           ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS COUNCIL, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Dunn. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate the
    opportunity of representing the business community today.
        Southern California is the economic engine of the State of
    California, and California itself is the economic engine of the
    nation. In addition to agriculture, this state's innovations in
    biotech, medical device, green technology--you name it--are all
    dependent on a clean, reliable source of water.
        Southern California uses every tool in the toolbox right
    now. You have heard that over and over today. We are leaders in
    conservation, groundwater replenishment, desalting offshore,
    recycling, but we see the crisis is real and will not be
    resolved in any single strategy or an end to the current
    drought. Droughts in California are a fact of life here. They
    will return and, as we have not made major new investments in
    water infrastructure commensurate with the environmental,
    population, climate and infrastructure aging realities we have
    to deal with, we will face incalculable long-term impacts on
    California's economic competitiveness and quality of life.
        We simply cannot exist without a secure water supply system
    with sufficient clean water for all in California, and it does
    affect the nation. Given the threats to the State Water Project
    and the Central Valley Project in the Delta, there is no excuse
    for not making it the highest priority of the state and the
    Federal Government to agree on a feasible remediation plan and
    to implement it as soon as humanly possible. The state's
    economy and a major part of the country's economy is hanging in
    the balance. Do not repeat the mistakes of Katrina and New
    Orleans.
        The business community understands it costs money to build
    and maintain a reliable and environmentally friendly water
    system. Investments of billions of dollars will be required. We
    are more than willing to pay our fair share as residents and as
    water users. There are also many opportunities to attract
    private capital, as we are doing in the transportation sector
    in California and, frankly, in public/private partnerships
    throughout the nation. These are well documented models of
    cooperation and success.
        We urge you in government to consider and authorize as
    necessary private investment participation in water
    infrastructure to augment and work side by side with public
    investment. Do not let the lack of public investment capital be
    the cause of failure to modernize this state's water system.
        You have many coalitions of support among business groups
    and water agencies in the state, in particular, the formation
    of a joint partnership between the Silicon Valley Leadership
    Group and the Orange County Business Council called The Real
    Coalition. The largest economic associations in the state, over
    18 of us business groups, have formed together with water as
    one of our top priorities.
        You also see that here locally in Southern California with
    the Southern California Water Coalition, strong supporters of
    clean, safe water, helping each other understand the issues and
    get out the word to the public.
        You know, it is the first time in human history that I can
    recall where a government has turned off water for its people.
    If in Los Angeles we can get through a regulatory process that
    allows an environmental streamlining for a football stadium
    here in Los Angeles, we should be able to do the same thing for
    38 million people in the State of California and get this
    project in the ground. I love football. I love water. Let's
    just get it done. It is enough talk, enough studies. We have
    studied this to death. It is time now for strong action on the
    ground for a very cranky public out there. Thank you. Thank you
    for the opportunity.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Dunn follows:]

                  Statement of Lucy Dunn, President and CEO,
                         Orange County Business Council

        California, home to one in eight Americans, accounts for around 12
    percent of the nation's gross domestic product and has the economic
    horsepower of the world's eighth-largest economy.
        When the state stumbles, its sheer size 38 million people creates
    fallout for businesses from coast to coast, which means California's
    economic malaise could make it harder for the entire nation's economy
    to recover.
        The single biggest threat facing businesses in California, outside
    of the existing economic crisis, is the lack of a reliable water
    supply.
        For Orange County specifically, this reality is sobering because
    water resources managed by state and regional agencies account for 50
    percent of our overall yearly water supply countywide. Just like
    America's relationship with foreign oil, we are dependent on others for
    a large portion of this most basic element of life--water.
        Water is a critical element in every industry and particularly for
    bio-tech, manufacturing, agriculture, homebuilding and new green-tech.
        Any and all signals that suggest we are emerging from this economic
    downturn could be dashed if we do not have a sufficient water supply.
    Why would a Wisconsin Senator care about California's water?
        California has been the leader in U.S. agricultural production for
    over 60 years. Eight of the nation's top 10 producing counties are in
    the state. California grows more than half of the country's fruits,
    nuts and vegetables. It is the country's number one agricultural
    exporter.
        California is the leading dairy state and also America's top wine
    producer, making 90% of all U.S. wine, and is the fourth leading wine
    producer in the world.
        California's food production and processing industry is critical to
    both California and the United States' overall economy. Food production
    companies face unprecedented global competition and must remain cost
    competitive to stay in business.
        Natural and regulatory drought conditions are resulting in zero
    water supplies in many Central Valley areas and similar situations have
    begun to emerge elsewhere in California, including many of the state's
    major urban areas.
        Travel to California's bread basket and you'll see miles of fallow
    fields and stumped orchards and cross through small towns facing
    enormous hardship with unemployment as high as 40%. Water means food,
    jobs and a future.

    California's innovation
        California is a world technological and economic leader. It has
    been the birthplace of many products and social trends that have
    changed the world. From Levi Strauss jeans in the 1850's to the birth
    of the modern computer, some of the world's most significant
    technological innovations, and social trends had a start here. The
    popsicle, the zamboni, the polygraph test, the modern theme park,
    windsurfing and even golf carts were invented here in California.
        California continues to lead innovations in water technology.
          Seawater Desalination plants
          Ground water replenish systems
          Establishment of rebate and grant programs to incentivise
    efficient usage

    Endangered Species Act
    Environmental reform should value our people more than a fish.
        Not even Mother Nature can match the impact the Endangered Species
    Act has had on California's water supply.
        Enforcement, or threat of enforcement, of both the federal and
    state Endangered Species Acts have become the foremost controlling
    factors in the development of California's water resources. Compliance
    with ESA creates significant impacts on water supplies throughout the
    state.
        Regulatory actions to protect species have reduced water deliveries
    from the state's two largest water systems in recent years to more than
    25 million people in the San Francisco bay Area, Central and Southern
    California.
        There is no question that protection of the largest estuary on the
    West Coast is critical. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is in an
    ecological crisis, but so are California's farmers and residents. There
    must be a way to balance economic and environmental viability.
        The current status seems to put a small fish about the needs of
    humans. This policy also creates new environmental problems. By forcing
    agricultural production to fallow, risk shortages of our food supply
    here at home and force greater production of greenhouse gases as once
    local food production must be shipped in from foreign locations. We all
    believe in conservation of the species, but shouldn't people come
    first?

    R.E.A.L. Coalition points
        The water supply system that supports most of California's
    residents, businesses and underpins its ecological health is facing
    unprecedented challenges. Coordinated near-and long-term actions to
    address constraints and conflicts are needed if we are to realize the
    co-equal values of adequate water supply for California, and ecosystem
    health and revitalization. Given the breadth and statewide impact of
    the crisis, the interest of the business community is coincident with
    that of the general public.

    About OCBC
        The Orange County Business Council is the leading voice of business
    in Orange County, California. OCBC represents and promotes the business
    community, working with government and academia, to enhance Orange
    County's economic development and prosperity in order to preserve a
    high quality of life. OCBC serves member and investor businesses with
    nearly 250,000 employees and 2,500,000 worldwide. In providing a
    proactive forum for business and supporting organizations, OCBC helps
    assure the financial growth of America's fifth largest county. For more
    information, visit www.ocbc.org.
                                     ______

        Mrs. Napolitano. We go on to Mr. Larry Collins--Audience,
    please refrain from interrupting. I won't ask again. You are
    taking the time of these people to testify. Mr. Larry Collins,
    Vice President of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
    Associations in San Francisco. Welcome, sir.

       STATEMENT OF LARRY COLLINS, VICE PRESIDENT, PACIFIC COAST
        FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS, SAN FRANCISCO,
                               CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Collins. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, Mr.
    McClintock. My name is Larry Collins. I am a commercial salmon
    fisherman. I am Vice President of the Pacific Coast Federation
    of Fishermen's Associations, which is the largest organization
    of working fishing men and women on the West Coast, with
    associations mostly in California but also in Oregon and
    Washington. I am also President of the Crab Boat Owners
    Association out of San Francisco, and we have been fishing wild
    California King Salmon for well over 100 years.
        I think that Ground Zero for us is on the coast, not in the
    valley. Every working waterfront from Santa Barbara to the
    Washington border has been out of work for the last two years,
    because we have had a ``no salmon'' season. I have been fishing
    with my wife for 25 years, chasing these fish, these beautiful
    fish, up and down. It seemed like we always were able to have a
    balance between water for the cities, water for the farmers,
    and enough water for the fish to get up or the baby fish to get
    out through the gate.
        There are a couple of things that people say that really
    bother a commercial salmon fisherman, that water through the
    gate is wasted, that hydroelectricity power--they call it
    cheap--and when they talk about cheap water. It all depends on
    where you are sitting. San Francisco Bay-Delta--it is our
    Everglades. It is like Chesapeake Bay. It is where the crabs
    grow up, where the herring fishery that is stopped this year
    for the first time in history, where the salmon go through. It
    is critical to the commercial fisherman on the coast, up and
    down the coast.
        You know, you were talking before about training people
    about water. I do the Fishermen in the Classroom Project with
    the Gulf of Farallones Marine Sanctuary. I go into the
    classrooms, and I talk to the kids about how these are public
    trust resources. Every fish, every crab out in the ocean--they
    own them. They are always impressed by that fact. I tell them
    that the water that is in the rivers is a public trust
    resource, too, and I tell them that these are very valuable
    resources.
        So every now and then, if things get out of balance because
    people try and take more than they ought to, and that is what
    we need a government for--to keep things in balance. I am not
    against farmers growing things down in the Valley, but, in my
    mind, the main course is salmon. We need to fix this
    environment so the salmon can get up, and the baby salmon can
    get out.
        You know, I have been interested in water issues since the
    passage of the CVPIA, which is 18 years ago, and I thought, oh,
    boy, fish doubling. We are going to put this water down the
    river so the fish can get up. It was supposed to be 600,000
    feet from the state and 600,000 feet from the Fed. We are going
    to get doubled up here, and we were going to all be healthy,
    and everything was going to be beautiful.
        Eighteen years later, it hasn't happened. None of that
    water has flowed through the gate, and that, to me, is not
    wasted water. That estuary needs that mixture of salt and fresh
    water to be healthy. A healthy estuary is every bit as
    productive as anywhere in the Valley. We have a community that
    travels up and down the coast chasing these fish, and that
    community is as important as any town in the Valley.
        We would like to thank Congress for seeing our need a
    couple of years ago and getting us some disaster relief money,
    or I wouldn't be here today, and none of the fleet would still
    be here. Salmon is 70 percent of my income. So it has been a
    pretty tough hit, and we may not get a salmon season again this
    year. So we may have to come and ask Congress for help again.
        We can fix this thing, but we got to get the balance right.
    We got to value the salmon as much as we value the farms and
    the urban areas. We have to share that water. We got to make it
    right. Thanks.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Collins follows:]

    Statement of Larry Collins, Vice President, Pacific Coast Federation of
              Fishermen's Associations, San Francisco, California

        Good afternoon. I am Larry Collins, vice president of the Pacific
    Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, largest organization of
    working fishermen and women on the West coast with member associations
    mostly in California but also in Oregon and Washington.
        My wife Barbara and I fish for salmon and crab out of San Francisco
    on our vessel, the ``Autumn Gale''.
        I first got involved with water issues around the time of the CVPIA
    passage and have been involved ever since. Salmon fishing was 70
    percent of my income so, clearly, if the resource wasn't healthy I
    didn't work.
        We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to provide
    the fisherman's perspective on California's water resources, the ways
    in which these resources are being managed and abused, and the
    assistance which Congress might provide to assure a more equitable and
    sustainable distribution of the state's water resources among food
    producers--both fishermen and irrigators--and the state's urban
    communities.
    We are out of work, now, as salmon fishermen.
        Barbara and I have been successful fishermen for 25 years. During
    these years we bought our home in San Francisco, raised our two kids,
    and paid our bills--all from the income earned from of our fishing.
        California's salmon fisheries have been shut down, by order of the
    U.S. Secretary of Commerce, under the regulations of the Federal
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, since 2007.
        That is, we've been out of work, now, for two years by direct
    Federal mandate. Prospects for fishing for Central Valley chinook
    (``king'') salmon--the mainstay of our fishery--are dim for 2010.
        Following the closure of our fishery in 2008 the National Marine
    Fisheries Service--the Service's scientists headquartered at their
    Santa Cruz, California laboratory--prepared an assessment of the
    reasons for the poor condition of Central Valley salmon stocks. The
    lead investigator of that NMFS panel, Dr. Steven Lindley told the press
    ``Poor ocean conditions triggered the collapse. But what primed it is
    the degradation of the estuary and river habitats and the heavy
    reliance on hatcheries over the years 1 (Hatcheries are
    created, of course, to mitigate for salmon habitat lost to water
    developments.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Dr Lindley's statement may be found at http://
    articles.sfgate.com/2009-03-19/bay-area/17215271--1--chinook-salmon-
    pacific-fishery-management-council-national-marine-fisheries-service;
    his report ``What caused the Sacramento River fall Chinook stock
    collapse'' at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/media/SalmonDeclineReport.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This chart documents the dramatic decline of the Central Valley
    Chinook salmon.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4619.006

    We're not talking about just another estuary here.
        We are talking about the San Francisco Bay Estuary, the most
    important estuary on the Pacific Coast of North or South America
        The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary ecosystem has been declared,
    time and again, by the California Legislature--most recently in its
    November, 2009 ``historic Bay-Delta water deal'' legislation--to be a
    resource area of both state and national significance, held in trust
    for the public by the State government.
        Given the nexus among State and Federal water quality,
    environmental policy and endangered species acts, we assume that such
    public trust responsibility extends to Congress and the Federal
    government, as well.
        To say that the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary is a national
    treasure does not adequately define its importance. It is a planetary
    treasure and its health or sickness has grave consequences for all of
    us. The responsibility for its safekeeping lies primarily in the hands
    of State government.
        So how has the safekeeping of the Estuary by its State and Federal
    stewards been going lately?
        There's been a lot of hand-ringing, of course, because there are
    supposedly high protection standards in place for the Estuary, but
    since the Governor declared a drought emergency two years ago many of
    those Delta protections--including those necessary to address the
    degradation pointed out by Dr Lindley--have been suspended.
        And, of course, there have been those controversial Federal court
    decisions, back and forth, about how much water can be taken from the
    Delta before harm is done to its public trust resources.
    How bad has the drought been?
        It would be hard to tell from the media the past year or so just
    how bad--or not--the ``drought crisis'' has been. What is clear is the
    subject supported a year-long media circus.
        According to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation precipitation in
    Northern California--where three-quarters of the state's water comes
    from--was 94 percent of average in 2009.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4619.007

    And how about unemployment?
        The suffering of the farm community of Mendota, California has
    played on the pages of every major newspaper in the country, on Fox
    ``News'' repeatedly, and most recently in a 60 Minutes broadcast.
        How bad is unemployment in Mendota? Really bad--not only in 2008
    and 2009, but in practically every year for which there are records.
        Unemployment peaked in Mendota last year at 42 percent. It hit 38
    percent seven years ago and got below 20 percent, thanks to the
    construction boom, for the first time in 2005-2007.
        The Berkeley-based Pacific Institute noted last year:
            ``...the drought has had very little overall impact on
            agricultural employment, compared to the much larger impacts of
            the recession. In fact, in the last three years, while State
            Water Project allocations have decreased statewide,
            California's agricultural job sector has grown. Further,
            according to Professor Jeffrey Michael, director of the
            Business Forecasting Center at the University of the Pacific in
            Stockton, rising unemployment in the Central Valley is largely
            the result of the bad economy, not a lack of water.''
            2
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See Professor Michael's report at http://forecast.pacific.edu/
    articles/PacificBFC--Fish%20or%20Foreclosure.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    How bad is unemployment in California's salmon fisheries?
        Unemployment in the California salmon fisheries, the result, in
    major part, as Dr Lindley said, of the degradation of the Estuary and
    river habitats, is 100 percent--by order of the U.S. Secretary of
    Commerce.
        A study conducted by our industry last summer, using 2006 National
    Marine Fisheries Service survey data, indicates that the shut-down of
    salmon fishing in California--both commercial and sports fishing--has
    delivered a $1.4 billion annual loss, and the loss of 23,000 jobs to
    our state. The study found that the recovery of California's salmon
    fisheries to their good, pre-drought condition would provide California
    a $5.6 billion annual economic gain and the creation of 94,000 new
    jobs.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4619.008

    In contempt of Congress--the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's
            administration of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act's
            Anadromous Fish Restoration Program
        Development of the Federal Central Valley Project began in the
    1930s, driven at the time by the need to lift the state out of the
    Great Depression. There were, of course, no water quality or fishery
    protection laws at the time.
        As development of the CVP progressed over the years, its impact on
    water quality and fishery resources became increasingly hard to ignore.
    The complete drying up of the San Joaquin River for 75 miles below the
    CVP's Friant Dam and the loss of 300,000 chinook salmon there was the
    most visible of the CVP's aquatic insults. But there were many other,
    less obvious impacts, including the over-diversion of water from the
    Trinity River and the steady decline of Chinook salmon in the
    Sacramento River.
        In the early 1990s the stars aligned to make some significant
    changes to the CVP's Depression-era congressional authorization:
        1.  Key House and Senate committees were in the hands of Members
    informed and deeply concerned with Central Valley, Trinity River and
    Bay-Delta Estuary conditions, Representative George Miller and Senator
    Bill Bradley.
        2.  The 1983 National Audubon Society v. Los Angeles court decision
    ordering the restoration of Mono Lake's public trust resources had
    California's southland communities scrambling for replacement water
    supplies, and
        3.  A real drought which persisted for six years from 1986 until
    1993 had driven a wedge between urban and agricultural water users, who
    were traditionally aligned in their quest for more and more water from
    Northern California, over what struck many city-dwellers, rightly or
    wrongly, as agriculture's water greed and misuse
        The Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992--the CVPIA,
    signed into law by George Herbert Walker Bush--came from that
    convergence of politics and drought.
        The CVPIA dedicated water to the restoration of the Trinity River.
    Earlier allocations for Trinity River salmon flows, made in the 1950s
    and '60s, had been manipulated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, with
    considerable help from Trinity diversion-interested Members of
    Congress, to levels inadequate to maintain the river's salmon
    resources.
        The CVPIA dedicated 800,000 acre-feet of CVP ``yield'' 3
    with which the Secretary of the Interior was to address explicit
    environmental improvement actions in the Bay-Delta Estuary and its
    watershed--not the Secretary's on-going Clean Water and Endangered
    Species acts responsibilities, mind you, but specific fish and wildlife
    restoration actions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ i.e., of the CVP's 13,000,000 acre-foot reservoir capacity and
    7,000,000 acre-feet of annual ``safe'', or reliable yield
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The CVPIA responded, in effect, to the California Water Resources
    Control Board, which had determined through two years of intense
    inquiry into the flow needs of Bay-Delta Estuary resources, from 1986
    through 1988, that 1.6 million acre-feet of additional water through
    the Delta was needed to maintain Central Valley salmon and other public
    trust resources in good condition.
        The CVPIA specifically embraced the policy enacted in 1988 by the
    California Legislature to double Central Valley salmon over the
    depressed numbers that they reached in the 1960s and 1970s
    4--and put up the Federal government's ``fair share'' of the
    1.6 million acre-feet of water needed--the CVPIA's 800,000 acre-feet
    for assuring Central Valley salmon ``safe passage'' through the Delta
    to the Bay and ocean beyond.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See CA Fish & Game Code Section 6900, the ``Salmon, Steelhead
    Trout, and Anadromous Fisheries Program Act''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In a U.S. Office of Management and Budget-prescribed evaluation of
    the CVPIA's Anadromous Fish Restoration Program--that salmon-doubling
    effort mandated by Congress--an independent science review panel found
    in 2008 that the Bureau of Reclamation has ``gamed'' the CVPIA salmon
    water ever since the program began--that not one drop of the 800,000
    acre-feet of CVP water allocated by Congress to the rebuilding of
    Central Valley salmon has ever made it though the Delta to San
    Francisco Bay. 5
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ See http://www.cvpiaindependentreview.com/
    FisheriesReport12_12_08.pdf, the bottom of page 41 and the top of page
    42 of the report, where the reviewers say they are ``flabbergasted'' to
    learn that Reclamation has gamed the water in direct contradiction of
    its Congressional mandate
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The OMB independent science review finding that Reclamation is in
    contempt of Congress deserves some sort of reaction, some response from
    Congress. We know of none to date.
    CVP water trading threatens implementation of Delta flow criteria
        Which brings us down to a couple of closely related California
    water supply challenges that deserve the attention of your Committee:
        1.  The California Legislature's mandate two months ago to the
    State Water Resources Control Board to determine the ``flow criteria''
    necessary to protect the public trust resources of the San Francisco
    Bay-Delta Estuary.
        2.  Efforts underway to gut the environmental safeguards that
    Congress placed in the CVPIA, which, unless stopped, will confound
    horribly the State's efforts to implement those flow criteria when they
    are determined this summer.
        H.R. 3750, which resides in your Committee, would increase sales of
    CVP water from traditional Project users to non-Project users by, among
    other things, stripping away the environmental safeguards placed by
    Congress in the CVPIA.
        Let me explain.
        Prior to the CVPIA, the use of CVP water was strictly confined to
    the CVP's designated ``place of use'', within the boundaries of the
    CVP's water district customers.
        California's southland communities were scrambling in 1992, as we
    mentioned, for water to replace what they would lose to the National
    Audubon's 1983 Mono Lake State Supreme Court decision.
        Congress said, OK, we'll allow the sale of some CVP water to non-
    CVP water users, but we're talking about only water that has been used
    on-farm at the time the CVPIA was enacted. That way, Congress was
    heading off the sale of the water that it had reserved for Trinity
    River restoration and Central Valley salmon doubling.
        H.R. 3750 strips away the CVPIA's environmental restraints
    6--the saving clauses for the Trinity River restoration and
    salmon doubling--and plunges the CVP headlong into California's growing
    ``arbitrage'' water market--that handful of political insiders waxing
    fat by buying heavily-subsidized public project water and ``flipping''
    it, at greatly increased prices 7 to non-CVP buyers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ subparagraphs (A) and (I) of section 3405(a)(1) of the
    Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992--the
    CVPIA--Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4709
        \7\ See ``Harvest of Cash; Kern County Agency Buys Public Water
    Low, Sells High http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_10152127 and
    ``Massive Farm Owned by L.A. Man Uses Water Bank Conceived for State
    Needs'' http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/19/local/me-kern19
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To the extent that H.R. 3750 waives away the protections for the
    water that Congress intended be used for doubling Central Valley salmon
    stocks, it severely threatens the implementation of the State Water
    Resources Control Board Delta ``flow criteria'', they which the
    Legislature's 2009 ``historic Delta water deal'' intends be applied to
    the protection of the Bay-Delta Estuary's public trust resources,
    including Central Valley salmon.
        Once sold, particularly into urban markets, this heavily-subsidized
    public project water is very, very hard to retrieve.
        We recommend, with all our might, that your Committee take a long,
    hard look at the environmental chaos that would result should you
    release H.R. 3750. We recommend you hold it in your Committee.
        To be clear, we are not against legislation to help farmers. What
    we are opposed to is legislation like H.R. 3750 which threatens to move
    publicly-subsidized CVP water from the farms into the hands of water
    traders.
        I'll be glad to answer such questions that I can. PCFFA's executive
    director, Zeke Grader, is also here today and will gladly answer any
    questions that you may wish to put to him.
        Let me quickly add my thanks to the Members of Congress for their
    help in keeping our fleet alive these last two years. When we could not
    go fishing you provided us badly needed disaster relief. We don't know
    yet if there will be a season this year but if there isn't, we will
    need your help again.
        Thank you for this opportunity to address your Committee.
                                     ______

        Mrs. Napolitano. Now for Mr. Joe Del Bosque, owner of
    Empresas Del Bosque, Inc., in Los Banos. Welcome.

                STATEMENT OF JOE L. DEL BOSQUE, OWNER,
            EMPRESAS DEL BOSQUE INC., LOS BANOS, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Del Bosque. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am glad to
    be here to hear the points of view on the water. It is very
    good to hear that, and you have won one forum.
        My name is Joe Del Bosque. I grew up on a farm in the San
    Joaquin Valley, became a farmer in 1985, and my wife and I grow
    cantaloupes, organic cantaloupes, asparagus, almonds, and
    cherries. At peak season my farm employs over 300 people
    growing, picking, and packing fresh fruits, nuts, and
    vegetables for the country. My farm would be considered average
    an average size and representative of the very diverse San
    Joaquin Valley.
        The farm lies in the CVP, Central Valley Project. So we are
    at Ground Zero in this drought. We have been operating with
    chronic water shortages since 1992 when, as Mr. Collins
    mentioned, the CVPIA was passed, but since 1992 until 2008 our
    average water allocation was 60 percent, and the worst that we
    had was 25 percent. We have learned a lot during that time,
    learned a lot how to become efficient. We have learned a lot
    about how to find sources of water, transfer water. We learned
    how to be as efficient as possible growing our crops, but
    nothing could prepare us for what we got in 2009, a 10 percent
    allocation. It has been devastating to our part of the world.
        As I said, our farm as tried to become as efficient as
    possible. All of my crops are under drip irrigation. In fact, I
    have more drip irrigation than I have crops, because we don't
    have enough water to go around. So I had to lay 850 acres
    fallow on my farm last year. I still have to pay rent, mortgage
    payments, tax assessments on that land. So it has been a very
    tough economic hit for us.
        The worst part of this situation is what it has done to our
    communities and our farm workers. Our farm workers are a very
    important part of our farm, and they are the most vulnerable
    segment of our communities out there. We have heard all sorts
    of statistics on unemployment of farm workers out there, and
    disputes about whether it is 35 or 40 percent or not.
        The fact of it is that I know that we did not hire a lot of
    people back this year. I know that a lot of the people that we
    did hire were underemployed. You don't see that in the
    statistics. These people during peak season typically work six
    and seven days a week very happily, and most of the time in the
    summertime they were only working five days a week. For farm
    workers, that is very devastating. It is not like you or I.
    They don't have additional sources of income. They rely on us,
    and so that is why I am here, for them.
        Many of them were seen at food distribution lines in
    Mendota, Firebaugh, San Joaquin, Huron, receiving food that
    oftentimes came from China. That was very demoralizing to see
    that. Several times I volunteered to distribute food, and I
    found the wives of my workers in line. These are people who
    would rather be working.
        Handouts are appreciated, but they don't pay for rent. They
    don't pay for their children's clothing. These people need to
    get back to work, and we need them. Our fruits and vegetables
    need these people. They are just as important to us as our land
    and our water. It is a three-legged stool. We need all three.
        The economic impacts of my farm--I am not even going to
    talk about that. It is not as important as what it has done to
    our people. So where are we now? You know, we have seen these
    storms that have come and dumped tons of rain and snow in the
    mountains. As was stated earlier, there is about 100,000 acre-
    feet of water flowing to the ocean right now. Our pumps are
    running at 60 percent speed. The amount that we are losing
    there could supply my farm's annual--the whole farm's annual
    irrigation needs for two years.
        I am not saying that water is lost, and we don't want all
    the water. We know that the fish need water, but our area is
    suffering, and that is why we have come here to speak up. The
    ironic thing is that now there is an issue coming up called
    turbidity, and as the storms swell the rivers even further and
    there is more water in them, we are going to get less, because
    apparently, if the smelt don't see the pumps, we have to turn
    the pumps off.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. Could you wrap it up?
        Mr. Del Bosque. Yes, I will. Thank you. I would like to say
    that our Federal Government has not been of help to us. We feel
    in the Central Valley that we have been neglected, that they
    have been giving us promises since last summer. We have seen
    very little, if anything, from them, and so, Madam Chairwoman,
    we would like to appeal to you, and anyone else who will
    listen, that we need to get something done. We need to get some
    sense into this. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Del Bosque follows:]

        Statement of Joe L. Del Bosque, Owner, Empresas Del Bosque Inc,
                             Los Banos, California

    Introduction
        My name is Joe Del Bosque. I grew up on a farm, the son of farm
    workers on the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley. Thanks to this great
    country, I went to college, and was able to become a farmer in 1985.
    Some of the land that I now own, I worked as a boy picking melons. I
    now grow cantaloupes, organic cantaloupes, asparagus, almonds, and
    cherries on about 2300 acres. At peak season, my farm employs over 300
    people growing, picking, and packing nuts, fruits, and vegetables,
    feeding people across America. My wife, Maria Gloria, who was also a
    farmworker, helps me manage the operation. My farm would be considered
    average in size and representative of the very diverse Westside.

    Our water supply
        Our farm lies in several water districts, but all are federal
    districts that receive water through the CVP. Our water comes from the
    Delta, pumped into canals that provide water for farms and cities.
    About 25 million people receive some of their water through this
    system, including San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego.
        We have been farming with chronic water shortages since 1992 when
    the CVPIA took effect. Before 2009, in our worst years we received a
    25% water supply. The recent biological opinions for smelt and salmon
    have cut our water supply deeper than solely hydrologic conditions.
    That is the reason that we only received 10% in 2009.
        For over fourteen years we have been adopting high tech irrigation
    systems to become more efficient and conserve water. This has required
    large investments and learning new methods. Last year, 170 acres of
    land with high tech drip irrigation systems laid idle because there
    wasn't enough water. At some point, we can no longer conserve our way
    out.

    Impacts to my farm
        Since 2007, the amount of crops that my farm produces has been
    reduce by almost half. I no longer grow tomatoes or wheat. My bread-
    and-butter crop, cantaloupes has been reduced by 55%. Asparagus acreage
    has been cut in half. Last year I terminated leases on 300 acres of
    land, and another 850 acres were left idle. I still had to pay rent or
    mortgage payments, taxes, and assessments on this land. We have had to
    find other sources of water to make up the shortfall for the survival
    of our trees, always at expensive rates. Since 2007 my water cost has
    tripled causing me to exhaust cash reserves.
        Right now is the time of the year when my banker is reviewing our
    loan requests. I will have to provide him with sources and quantities
    of water for our farm. All I have to show him now is what I have left
    over from last year, which is very little. We typically start planting
    in March. The Bureau of Reclamation didn't allocate water to us last
    year until May 7. This makes ag bankers very nervous.

    Impacts to the community
        Some of the most vulnerable people in our farming communities, our
    farm workers, have been hit hard by this drought. With less produce to
    grow and harvest, many workers were not rehired. Those that had jobs
    were often underemployed. During the summer harvest season when people
    normally work six or seven days a week, most employees worked only
    five. This is a terrible impact on our worker's and their families.
    Some of our workers bought homes for the first time in late 2008, only
    to struggle to make payments in 2009. In our local towns of Mendota and
    Firebaugh the unemployment rates skyrocketed to 35% and 40%. Hundreds
    of people who should have been growing and picking our food were
    gathered in food distribution lines. Several times that I volunteered
    to distribute food, I found the wives of our employees waiting in line.
    These are people who would rather be working. Handouts are appreciated,
    but they do not pay rent or children's clothing. God only knows how
    they are surviving the winter. I'm sure many have gone back to their
    home countries. Madam Chairwoman, we need these people. They are just
    as important to our farms as our land and water.

    Other economic impacts
        The impacts of starving our farms is far-reaching. Just from the
    reduction of our cantaloupe acreage is a significant economic loss to
    our economy. That reduction, 595 acres, would have generated over $4
    million to our economy, $1.1 million of that in wages, and several
    hundred thousand dollars in taxes. Every farm dollar would have been
    multiplied by four or five in our distribution and retail sectors. The
    crop produced would have fed over 2 million people their annual
    consumption of the fresh fruit. All this for about 900 acre feet. About
    the same amount that waters about 600 lawns per year.

    What do we face for 2009?
        The biological opinions for smelt and salmon have restricted
    pumping from the delta since November 1, and consequently choking our
    water supply. Even during storm events such as this week when rivers
    have tripled in size, the pumps are restricted, and water flows to the
    ocean. This week we have lost about 10,000 acre-feet per day. That is
    enough water to irrigate my entire farm for two years. As rivers reach
    flood stage, we expect pumping to be restricted even further due to
    turbidity standards. Apparently when the smelt can't see the pumps,
    these must be shut down.
        Our government has not helped us. Most of the aid that Washington
    sent to California for drought relief went to environmental projects
    such as fish screens, and didn't produce any water at all. Some went to
    fund groundwater wells which will exacerbate the depletion of our
    aquifers. The two-gates project has been all but scuttled by the
    Interior Department. Secretary Salazar came to my farm in October, gave
    us little hope, and he has made it real. Madam Chairwoman, who else can
    we turn to?
        Among farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, there is a very real
    urgency. We are watching as our future spills out the Golden Gate
    Bridge to the Pacific every day. We cannot sustain another 2009. We
    have already seen farmers pull our their almond orchards in the San
    Joaquin Valley, and avocado growers decimate their trees in San Diego
    County. All the water that has been deprived us, causing economic and
    social devastation, has not improved the populations of smelt or
    salmon. We have come to the point where our leaders must make some
    sense of this and prevent further disaster to our farms and people. It
    was done in New Mexico with the silvery minnow; it can be done here.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to you and the
    committee.
                                     ______

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much for your testimony.
        We are running a little behind. I want to be sure that we
    are out of here shortly. Since there are only two of us left,
    it may be making a little leisure. But I will start off with
    Ms. Dunn.
        This is more of a comment than a question, but is the
    business community ready to put in financial, moral and other
    support to solve the water problems, because normally the
    polluters, the PRPs, potential responsible parties, walk away
    and leave the taxpayer to pay for the pollution in many of the
    areas. That, to me, is a great concern.
        So while some of the businesses may say that they are
    wanting all these benefits, there is also a cost to that, and I
    want to be sure that we do not ignore that. So that is just as
    a comment. But thank you very much for your testimony.
        Ms. Dunn. Ma'am, if I may, I want to share with you that I
    couldn't agree, and I think the businesses, certainly in my
    organization and up and down the state, would concur that a
    clean, reliable water supply, together with a clean
    environment, is very important to business as well. They could
    not do business without it. So that will happen.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Well, we may call on you for
    maybe identifying some of those parties to help out.
        Ms. Dunn. Absolutely.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Dr. Gleick, have you calculated the cost
    comparisons of the various types of water development projects
    such as surface, recycle, and groundwater storage?
        Dr. Gleick. We have done some of that. The water agencies
    have done some of that. The state and the Federal Government
    has done some of that. There are many different options out
    there. It depends on what you want to build where.
        We believe that the conservation and efficiency options
    that I described very briefly and that are described more in
    the report we are doing are the cheapest. They pay back the
    fastest. They save water. They save energy. They let water----
        Mrs. Napolitano. Such as?
        Dr. Gleick. Well, for example, one of our suggestions is
    replacing 2 million very inefficient toilets in the state. New
    York City replaced 1.3 million toilets in three years in a city
    of 8 million. We have a population of 35 or 36 or 37 million.
    That would save an enormous amount of water.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I might want to interject, but recently in
    a briefing that I had with many water agencies, they said they
    have tapped out. I don't believe it. I think you are right.
        Dr. Gleick. Surface storage is an option. There are
    discussions of a number of dams that have been proposed. They
    seem to be very expensive, even the best estimates of what it
    would cost to build a surface storage dam, and I can't remember
    a surface storage dam that we actually built for what the
    initial estimates were anyway, but we have lost a lot of
    groundwater, as we have heard.
        It is much cheaper to store water underground. We ought to
    figure out a way to capture a lot of this runoff, store it in
    underground reservoirs, underground aquifers. Now that is
    conjunctive use. It is much cheaper. Desalination is very
    expensive, but we might choose to build it for its reliability.
    It is very reliable. We might consider building desalination in
    Southern California, if we agree to take less water from the
    Delta. That is an option that hasn't been discussed.
        There are lots of answers here to your question, depending
    on what you want to build where.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, thank you very much for your very
    insightful testimony and to your answers, because I think you
    have a lot of good, solid information for a lot of the water
    agencies that we can benefit from.
        Where do you think the best application of funds can be
    made right away to get the biggest benefit in addressing our
    supply issue?
        Dr. Gleick. I think, in part, it is a question for many
    farmers, for example, of coming up with upfront money for them.
    Those farms that have not moved to drip, that have not moved to
    precision sprinklers, that aren't able to measure their soil
    moisture and irrigate when the crops really need it rather than
    just when it is delivered by irrigation districts, or
    irrigation districts who don't have the money to rebuild their
    delivery systems so they can deliver water more accurately,
    that is an upfront cost.
        Some of those savings pay back over a long period of time,
    but there isn't money for upfront expenditures. The Equip
    program under the farm bill provided some of that money, but
    that money ran out really quickly. That is one example of a
    good source of--a potentially very fruitful source of money. I
    have other examples I would be happy to share with you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. All right. We would like for you to submit
    it to the record, Dr. Famiglietti, can GRACE be used to
    identify how much water is actually in the Central Valley
    aquifer or, as far as that is concerned, in that Basin, and try
    to figure out if there are any other aquifers that had been
    unidentified that may have been spotted or you know there has
    been some kind of activity that leads you to believe that they
    may be usable for storage of rainwater capture, recycled water,
    etcetera?
        Dr. Famiglietti. GRACE cannot tell us the absolute amount
    of how much water is there. It can tell us the changes from
    month to month, but as we spoke earlier, I do think that there
    is the potential to identify new sources, and I gave an example
    before of how we see some signals of water storage variation in
    places where we might not expect it; for example, in the Sahara
    Desert.
        So we can look there and see that there is a fair amount of
    water stored in the Nubian aquifer. So I think that we can be
    using it to do a little prospecting, if you will.
        Mrs. Napolitano. So what would it take for us to request
    that you begin that prospecting on behalf of California?
        Dr. Famiglietti. Oh, not too much, but as I mentioned in my
    testimony, I think the biggest thing is that the data will be
    disappearing soon. So I think the biggest contribution that you
    can make----
        Mrs. Napolitano. Again, Commissioner Connor, help.
        Dr. Famiglietti. And I can get you the names of the
    appropriate NASA officials to speak with about how to increase
    that priority.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Very quickly, Mr. Luna, what is your
    number one challenge to achieve water sustainability in the Los
    Angeles area, and what options exist to achieve that?
        Mr. Luna. I am big believer in education. So I think we
    need to do more of that. When I say more, I praise the existing
    information that has been out there, but we need to educate,
    and we need to educate our youth, prepare them for how we are
    leaving the status of this planet for them, and by preparing
    them I mean appropriate tools, education-wise, culturally. They
    need to appreciate it. So I think that is the biggest challenge
    for the immigrant communities. It is not that we don't get it.
    It is that we disconnect, and we come here, and we suddenly
    forget that water gets flushed away, and that tap, that water,
    is connected to other places.
        So I think it is that connection and that water culture
    that we need to build, is what I see as most challenging, but
    also provides the best opportunity, because it doesn't cost
    that much.
        Mrs. Napolitano. And also in different languages. Mr.
    McClintock.
        Mr. McClintock. I was just pondering the question of
    financial commitment that the Chairwoman raised with Ms. Dunn,
    and it seemed to me a good opportunity to take a trip down
    memory lane back to 1960 when California voters approved the
    Burns-Porter Act. The Burns-Porter Act authorized the
    construction of the State Water Project, including the great
    California Aqueduct and the series of northern dams. It
    included Oroville that I mentioned earlier.
        That bond measure was $1.75 billion in 1960. You do the
    inflation adjustment. It is about $12.5 billion in today's
    money. So about $12.5 billion to produce the State Water
    Project, essentially everything that we are dealing with today
    that we depend upon for our water supply from Northern
    California.
        Now in the last dozen years, California voters have already
    approved six bond measures totaling $17 billion, all of which
    promise to increase our water supplies. So the question I would
    ask Ms. Dunn is where is our generation's state water project?
    Do you think the money that has already been committed has been
    very well spent?
        Ms. Dunn. None of these bonds, sir, were perfect, and many
    of the bonds, my personal review, contained a lot of benefit
    for the environment and not a lot of water in them, but the
    reality is the nature of the bond processes--I know I do not
    have to instruct you, sir--is such that they are a result of
    many compromises. So even this bond package that is coming to
    the ballot now is not perfect, but it does provide for a
    delicate balance among both the environment and the economic
    benefits that we need.
        Yes, that is correct. The funds that we have received under
    previous bonds probably didn't produce the infrastructure, all
    the infrastructure, that we needed, but there were benefits in
    them that helped.
        Mr. McClintock. Speaking of the bond process, up until the
    last generation, we first decided what project we were going to
    build, what dam we were going to build, what canal we were
    going to build. We went out and got bids on that, and once we
    knew and had agreed to exactly what we were going to build and
    how much it was going to cost, only then did we go to voters
    with a bond.
        When we went to the voters with a bond, it was a self-
    liquidating general obligation bond. In other words, it was not
    redeemed by general taxpayers. It was redeemed by the users of
    the water and power from that dam in proportion to their use.
    That has been completely turned upside down. The most recent
    bond, and for that matter, the six that preceded it, don't
    authorize specific projects. They establish grab-bags of money.
        Why are we surprised then when that money is frittered away
    on small projects that don't add up, don't begin to add up to
    the magnitude of the Burns-Porter Act projects that had
    produced the state water system.
        Ms. Dunn. If there is a question in there, the answer is I
    agree with you.
        Mr. McClintock. Good answer. Mr. Collins, to what extent
    does a renewed commitment to fish hatcheries roll into this
    whole equation? I was very impressed by the enormous commitment
    that the State of Alaska has made to salmon hatcheries off of
    their coast. What role do fish hatcheries play in the salmon
    population?
        Mr. Collins. Hatcheries are absolutely necessary. We
    wouldn't have any salmon left. You know, they were a mitigation
    for when the dams went up. There were huge runs of salmon that
    were naturally occurring that became extinct when, for
    instance, the Friant Dam went up. We would be out of business
    without the hatcheries, and we need to fund then fully and make
    sure they keep working, and I think, expand them. If we expand
    them, it will help everybody.
        Mr. McClintock. I was very impressed by the--I forget the
    exact figures--the astonishing number of salmon produced by the
    hatcheries in Alaska.
        Mr. Collins. Five billion.
        Mr. McClintock. Should we be making the same commitment in
    California?
        Mr. Collins. We can't. We don't have the rivers and the
    area that they need for that kind of production. I think it is
    5 billion fish they have up there. We could definitely double
    the number of hatchery production in this state, and it would
    be a good thing.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Would the gentleman yield for a second?
        Mr. McClintock. Sure.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I was asking the staff. In other briefings
    that I have been at, and hearings, I hear that some of the
    folks don't like the hatcheries, because it dilutes the fish,
    the species.
        Mr. Collins. We have had hatcheries on Central Valley runs.
    The Mad River hatchery started in the 1880s. Most of the
    Central Valley fish are more homogenized than the individual
    runs like the clam, if they are further up, because it is such
    a long history. When it was started, they didn't know what we
    know now about genetic policy. They are way, way better at it
    now than they used to be.
        They are very strong, these fish. I mean, they go out the
    gate. If they can get through the Delta to get out, they are
    this big, and three years later they are 35 pound fish. So they
    are very excellent fish.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Right. But I guess maybe what I am getting
    is that we need to be sure we have hatcheries, and that is
    alluding to his point, is that somewhere along the line we need
    to support it, but ensure that they are run well.
        Mr. Collins. Yes, and we need the wild fish. We need the
    wild fish to be able to get up the river, too, and that is why
    we need the water there.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Ms. Dunn, what is your number
    one challenge to achieving the water sustainability in Orange
    County, and what options exist to achieve it?
        Ms. Dunn. I think the number one issue for Orange County is
    continuing to educate the public on the issues of water and how
    important it is to understand--it is interesting for me
    personally to see how often folks don't even realize that so
    much of our water in Southern California comes from the Delta,
    how important it is to us. So education is important.
        Mrs. Napolitano. So you would say that we have not done a
    good job?
        Ms. Dunn. I would say collectively, all of us, not just,
    obviously, Congress.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
        Ms. Dunn. But in addition, making sure that our elected
    officials, our local elected officials, understand that they
    set examples for conservation, for recycling, for understanding
    water. I think that is an important component.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Del Bosque, what can
    be done to achieve water sustainability for your farm and your
    local cooperatives?
        Mr. Del Bosque. In my local area, we have gone to high tech
    irrigation systems. We are using all kinds of atmospheric
    instruments and monitors. You know, when you are down to 10
    percent, there is not much more you can do. You know, we are
    doing it.
        This old irrigator told me one time, he says, we are
    working the water so hard, it is getting callouses, and that is
    a fact. Our water that we put on our crops is literally put on
    by eyedroppers. We have no runoff. We have no excess water.
    There is nothing to recycle or reuse. it is all there, just in
    the crop. So for us the only answer is to find some sort of
    reliability in the water that we get.
        I believe it is going to take some sort of storage, whether
    it is surface storage or below ground storage. We are just
    starved for water. There is no other way for us than to try to
    increase our supply some way and to be a little more reliable.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Recycle water for nonedible crops?
        Mr. Del Bosque. For what?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Usage of more recycled water?
        Mr. Del Bosque. We have no water to recycle.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, no. We have a lot of rainfall, and
    you are able to capture it, if you could find a place to store
    it. Some areas use rubber dams to be able to capture runoff and
    be able to have it trickle into the aquifers. There has got to
    be ways of being able to continually look for solutions.
        Mr. Del Bosque. Yes. I agree. We do need to, and nobody has
    a greater sense of urgency about that than we farmers in the
    San Joaquin Valley.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, thank you to all of you. I would
    state that we should have the media lined up here, being
    participants and being able to get the general public
    interested in the water solutions. Maybe it is because there
    has been so much rain, they think the drought is over.
        I would hope that somehow we are able to educate, as you
    will: Yes, have a drink; turn the water on everywhere. The fact
    is the constant message from most of the panelists has been
    education. It is an important project. It is an important
    topic. It is an important issue for all of us.
        Please count on us in being able to do what we can. The
    problem is, as everybody knows, if you are going to try to buy
    air time, it is expensive. So we need to find ways of being
    able to get the message out, whether it is to the water end
    users in their bill, to getting the state to cooperate, getting
    the media to understand the severity of the issue, and being
    able to say, hey, we are going to have more unemployment and
    some of you may be out of work. Maybe that will get to them. I
    don't know, but somehow we need to work together, continue
    working on that.
        Thank you very much to all the panelists for your time, for
    your ability to travel and be with us. This concludes the
    Subcommittee's oversight hearing on ``Perspectives on
    California Water Supply: Challenges and Opportunities.''
        I thank the Members that came, my staff. Thank you,
    Metropolitan. Thank you. I do want to close and honor Steve
    Hall, a former member of the ACWA, and Wes Bannister from MWD,
    and Tom Grant, Executive Director of the Environmental Defense
    Fund.
        Thank you to all witnesses for appearing. Your testimonies
    and expertise have indeed been very enlightening and helpful.
    Under Committee Rule 4(h), additional material for the record
    should be submitted within the next 10 business days from
    today. The cooperation of all of the witnesses in replying to
    any questions submitted to you in writing would be most greatly
    appreciated.
        With that, this hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]