[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CREATING JOBS BY OVERCOMING MANMADE DROUGHT: TIME FOR CONGRESS TO
LISTEN AND ACT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Monday, April 11, 2011, in Fresno, California
__________
Serial No. 112-23
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-822 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, CA, Ranking Democrat Member
Louie Gohmert, TX Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Jeff Denham, CA Jim Costa, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Paul A. Gosar, AZ John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Monday, April 11, 2011........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 6
Denham, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 7
Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 8
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 3
Nunes, Hon. Devin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 9
Statement of Witnesses:
Beck, Jim, General Manager, Kern County Water Agency,
Bakersfield, California.................................... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Birmingham, Thomas, General Manager, Westlands Water
District, Fresno, California............................... 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Collins, Larry, President, San Francisco Crab Boat Owners
Association, San Francisco, California..................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Connor, Hon. Michael L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C........... 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Larson, Hon. John P. (Phil), Chairman, Fresno County Board of
Supervisors, Kerman, California............................ 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Latin, Dayatra, Director of Programs and Development,
Community Food Bank, Fresno, California.................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Piepho, Hon. Mary Nejedly, Supervisor, Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors, Discovery Bay, California............ 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Upton, Kole, Chairman, Madera-Chowchilla Water and Power
Authority, Madera, California.............................. 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Watte, Hon. Mark, Councilman, City of Tulare, California..... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Additional materials supplied:
Chedester, Steve, Executive Director, San Joaquin River
Exchange Contractors Water Authority, Statement submitted
for the record............................................. 76
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``CREATING JOBS BY OVERCOMING MANMADE DROUGHT:
TIME FOR CONGRESS TO LISTEN AND ACT.''
----------
Monday, April 11, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Natural Resources
Fresno, California
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., at
the Fresno City Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street, Fresno,
California, Hon. Tom McClintock [Chairman of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
Present: Representatives McClintock, Denham, Hastings (ex
officio), Napolitano, Costa, and Garamendi.
Also Present: Representative Nunes.
Mr. McClintock. The House Subcommittee on Water and Power
will now come to order. The Chair notes the presence of a
quorum, which under Committee Rule 3(e) is two Members. The
House Water and Power Subcommittee meets today to hear
testimony on a hearing entitled ``Creating Jobs by Overcoming
Manmade Drought: Time for Congress to Listen and Act.'' To
begin today's hearing, I would like to refer to my
distinguished colleague, Congressman Jeff Denham, for a few
introductions.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are privileged to
have VFW Post 559 to present colors. It is now my honor to
introduce an American hero, Sergeant Ray Ramos. Sergeant Ramos,
would you do us the honor by leading us in the flag.
[Flag salute.]
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McClintock. I'll begin by asking unanimous consent that
the gentleman from California, Mr. Nunes, be allowed to sit
with the Subcommittee and participate in the hearing. Hearing
no objections, so ordered. We'll begin with the five-minute
opening statements beginning with myself and then the Ranking
Member.
I want to thank all of you for coming here today. During
the last session of Congress, Republicans unsuccessfully
attempted for two years to get the Water and Power Subcommittee
to come to Fresno to hear firsthand from the communities that
have endured the devastating financial, social and
environmental damage done by the government's decision to deny
this region well over 200 billion gallons of water in order to
indulge the pet causes of the environmental Left.
A little over a year ago, Republicans held an informal
listening session, at which time we heard riveting testimony of
the human suffering caused by this misguided policy. We heard
stories of food lines in communities that once prided
themselves on supplying American grocery shelves. We heard
about the frustration of seeing the same produce once grown in
the Central Valley of California instead imported from China,
handed out at those Central Valley food lines.
And we saw the anger as the absent Secretary's testimony to
the Natural Resources Committee in 2009 was played back, in
which he admitted that the Obama Administration had the
authority to restore water deliveries, but that it chose not to
do so because that would be, ``like admitting failure.'' Even
now with the snowpack at 165 percent of normal for the season,
the wettest year in the last 16, the San Joaquin Valley has
been guaranteed only 75 percent of its contracted allotments.
In this discussion, the Left has attempted to pit fishermen
against farmers. What they ignore, of course, is the actual
science.
They ignore the findings of the Northwest Fisheries Science
Center that determined the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is the
principal reason for changes in salmon migration, that these
changes are not unique to Delta fisheries, but have been
observed throughout the Pacific Coast, and as conditions
improved, salmon populations are rebounding. They ignore the
California Department of Water Resources analysis of pumping
flows that determined that their influence on salmon and smelt
migration is negligible compared to natural tidal flows. They
ignore the overwhelming impact of natural predation in the
Delta that alone is responsible for some 90 percent of salmon
smolt mortality. They ignore the tremendous contribution of
fish hatcheries to supporting fish population. They ignore--
indeed, they actively oppose--the construction of new
reservoirs and other water projects that could dramatically
increase year-round supplies of fresh cold water throughout the
Delta. They ignore the findings of the Federal District Court
that the U.S. Interior Department's biological opinion on Delta
smelt to be ``arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.'' And
worst of all, they ignore the plight of the tens of thousands
of farm families needlessly thrown into unemployment by these
policies.
For too long our government policies have been misguided by
politically motivated junk science instead of the sober,
dispassionate and accurate application of real science. For too
long our government policies have focused on rationing of
shortages rather than on providing abundance.
Today we will hear testimony about what these policies have
done to harm the economy of the Central Valley and the
cornucopia of fruits, nuts and vegetables it once produced for
the entire world. And we will hear suggestions on the changes
in Federal law that need to be made to restore abundance and
plenty to all of those who rely on the Delta.
I know that people are feeling powerless and disregarded by
Washington, but the fact is that the debates inside the Capitol
are merely a reflection of a much larger debate going on all
across the country.
The public is rapidly engaging, becoming aware of these
past policies and demanding change. As this occurs, I can
assure you public policy will follow.
Chairman Hastings has made it very clear that he wants
priority given to this issue, and from this hearing today, the
House Majority will craft legislation to restore abundance as
the principal objective of Federal water and power policy, and
with it, an era of abundant water, clean and cheap electricity,
new recreational centers, desperately needed flood protection,
burgeoning fisheries, re-invigorated farms, not to mention
lower electricity, water and flood insurance bills for American
families.
It is toward this brighter and more prosperous future that
the Majority seeks to proceed. It is my hope that the testimony
today will assist the House in identifying those changes in law
that are necessary to get there.
And with that I will now recognize the Ranking Member of
the Subcommittee, California Congresswoman Grace Napolitano.
STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be
back to this area. I have been here several times for similar
hearings on subjects very much similar to this.
Last week the American people sent a message that was very
clear, we do not want a shutdown, we want a compromise. The
same message can be said about a water crisis. We do not want
to shut down farms, our cities, our fishing industries or our
businesses. We do not want to shut down our environmental
landscape. Water is a shared resource all of us in California
rely on. Farmers, communities, homeowners, manufacturers and
fishermen all need our water supply to be protected.
And, believe me, from Southern California, I can attest to
that, because we only get about 20 percent of that water.
Instead of promoting interests that pit us against each other,
we should be promoting a balanced approach that helps us all in
California. But to suggest that a solution to our water crisis
is as easy as repeating or amending a law is misleading to
everybody. The real solution is complicated and requires
compromise, communication and a very high level of trust.
Insisting on extreme positions with no intention of compromise
will only lead to more costly litigation and sure uncertainty
benefiting only attorneys.
This year Reclamation will make full allocation deliveries
to over 80 percent of its contractors. It's a very welcome
change to everybody from the last years of drought. And I want
to thank Congressman Costa for his continued effort on this
area, for twisting my arm and talking to me about the area, so
thank you, Jim.
According to the California Department of Food and
Agriculture, California ag experienced a nine percent drop in
the sales value of its product in 2009 at the height of the
drought. The same year 81,500 farms and ranches received $34.8
billion for their output. The output, an all time high of $38.4
billion, was reached in 2008. Despite the water supply
shortages and regulatory restrictions, the State's agricultural
sales in 2009 were the third highest recorded behind only 2008
and 2007. The three highest agricultural sales for the State
coincide with the three consecutive years of drought. The same
success cannot be attributed to commercial and recreational
fishermen during those three years of drought. Commercial and
recreational fisheries were completely closed in 2008, 2009 and
a majority of 2010. This translated into a complete total loss
of revenue and 100 percent loss of jobs. This is not a balanced
approach. We do need to talk about a solution.
Earlier this week I asked our witnesses to come prepared to
ask the following questions regarding the best ideas in
developing new, not faithful water, new water supplies. What is
your recommendation, was my first one, to create new water.
Second, how much will it cost. Third, who will pay for this
water.
And most important, when will the first drop be on line. In
other words, how long will it take to design, build, construct
and then get to day one of operations.
I am a firm believer in all California approach,
conservation, water recycling, education, storage anywhere.
While the drought may be over, now is not the time to stop our
efforts to develop local water supplies through water recycling
and possible salvaging. California prides itself as a state
where the whole is stronger than the sum of its parts. The
whole includes the most effective farmland in the country,
hard-working fisherman, the best cities and industries, the
most beautiful environmental landscapes in California. The
American people have spoken and our constituents have spoken,
no shut down, let's work together to try to come up with a
solution to heal that.
Mr. McClintock. Next, we are very honored to have the
Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Congressman
Doc Hastings of Oregon, who sits on all of the Subcommittees as
an ex officio member.
STATEMENT OF HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am from
Washington. It is a pleasure for me to be here and I hope that
today marks a turning point in reversing the drought to the--
(Inaudible.)
The Court Reporter. I can't hear him.
Mr. Hastings. I am from Central Washington. My district
includes two of the largest Federal irrigation projects in the
nation--the Yakima Project and the Columbia Basin Project. It
derives these benefits because of irrigating water. Without the
irrigation, those two areas would not be as diverse as they
are. But we too are locked up in litigation. Right now the
management plan for the river has been locked up in court for
eight years. Principally, they are driven by exactly the same
issues that are being discussed here today. So I'm particularly
sensitive about this, because if this can happen here, then it
certainly can happen elsewhere throughout the country--
certainly in my district and certainly in other areas in the
West that rely on water.
So the real question, what this hearing is all about today,
is to try to find a solution to this issue. The question is
whether Congress ultimately will let this--(Inaudible) that we
are going through continue on.
Republicans, over the past two years, have tried to resolve
this situation, but unfortunately we were not even able to
bring an issue to essentially this whole debate and vote on the
Floor of the House. When I became Chairman of this Committee
talking to my colleagues and having read what everybody has
read across the country and certainly what you have experienced
here in the central part of California, I felt first--
(Inaudible.)
The Court Reporter. I can't hear anything.
Mr. Hastings.--to have a field hearing here, hear what the
people on the ground felt, how it affected them and work from
there to get solutions. So I believe that this hearing today,
as Chairman McClintock says, is the first step in a process
that can result in legislation, legislation that I will push as
hard as I can to get through the House and get through the
normal process and we can get a long-term predictable
resolution to the problems that you are going through. So I
look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and I look
forward to working with all of my colleagues to try and come up
with legislation that will resolve this issue. I yield back to
the Chairman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources
Thank you for holding today's hearing. Today marks a turning point
in reversing the man-made plight of the San Joaquin Valley.
For those of you who don't know me, I'm Doc Hastings. I'm
privileged to chair the House Natural Resources Committee. My
congressional district contains two of the largest federal irrigation
projects in the nation--the Yakima Project and the Columbia Basin
Project. These projects literally turned the desert into some of the
most productive farmland in the world. The dams that impounded the
water for these projects helped power the Manhattan Project that
enabled our nation to win World War II and the Cold War. To this day,
they continue to generate renewable and emissions-free hydropower for
millions. These multi-purpose projects--like the visionary Central
Valley Project--formed the foundation for the western United States.
Despite their successes, these projects have been under constant
assault from those with extreme political agendas. Litigation and
regulation have hi-jacked these projects to the point where their
purposes have been compromised. The water and power ratepayers in my
region have literally watched as never-ending litigation and a federal
judge determine how a river flows. I understand that it's a very
similar situation here when it comes to putting the needs of a three-
inch fish over the needs of people.
If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere. The San Joaquin
Valley situation of the last two years should be a warning to us all
that we cannot stand by for history to repeat itself. While Mother
Nature has helped temporarily rescue this region with historic
precipitation, a regulatory drought could re-appear all too quickly.
The question is whether this Congress will let that happen.
Republicans tried over the last two years to resolve this situation,
but were not even allowed to debate the merits of proposals aimed at
turning the pumps back on to historic levels. Democrat leaders wouldn't
even hold an official field hearing on this topic.
All of that changes today. Today's hearing is a first step to right
the regulatory wrongs of the past, to end future man-made droughts and
to give farm families and workers long-term economic prosperity and
jobs. The time to act is now. Let's make it happen.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize.
Chairman Hastings is from Washington, not Oregon. Our next
Member is Jim Costa, in whose district I believe we are
currently seated.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And Chairman
Doc Hastings, we thank you and the Ranking Member--and the
other Members for coming and holding this important hearing
here.
The families that you see here at the hearing this morning
really reflect the best of hard-working men and women that have
for generations made this Valley a great place to live in.
Their families, like mine, have been farming for many years, in
my case for three generations. This hearing will continue to
look at the issues of the water prices and the regulatory
framework that many of us believe is flawed. I'd like to point
out that this hearing obviously is paid through taxpayer
dollars demonstrated through regulations that have been put
forth by the biological opinions, have had harmful effects not
only to our farmers and farm community, but have shown really
no improvement to the environment.
My colleagues have already touched on many of these
hardships. Since the drought began in 2007 and throughout my
career, I have been working every day to try to bring more
water to this Valley, both in Sacramento and now in Washington.
My efforts--and Senator Feinstein and Congressman Cardoza and
all the water agencies will testify--have brought real water
and dollars to our Valley, but more needs to be done.
In 2009 we held the first workshop at Fresno State with
fish biologist from western states and Canada to the peer
review. They looked and determined that there was a consensus
the best science was not being used.
The Court and the National Academy of Sciences in the last
year have confirmed it. In addition, we worked in the middle of
the drought and provided 200,000 acre-feet of transferred water
to the westside, people's permanent crops growing in the height
of the drought. But we didn't stop there. The energy and the
Water Appropriations bill that Congressman Cardoza and I worked
on passed legislation that allowed for transfers throughout the
entire Valley. That's been an important stop gap measure. In
addition to that, we provided 32 million dollars in stimulus
funds in the San Joaquin Valley for relief. I spoke with John
Marsal last week. He said that they'll help to provide airtight
connections for the lower Tule.
We pushed security and more flexibility on allied-operated
projects which resulted in higher allocation from the first
allocation of zero, then to 10 percent to in 2010 45 percent by
exercising greater flexibility. That also reduced the impact on
the overdraft of the groundwater. In 2010 we developed a list
of projects for the Department of the Interior, this is that
list, working together with, again, Congressman Cardoza and
Senator Feinstein to boost west side water supply south of the
Delta. As a result of our efforts, the Department of the
Interior, Department of Water Resources continues to put on a
list of interim projects that are stop gap measures to try to
deal with the current status quo. Many of these tools are still
in place irrespective of the hydrology given this year's
current wet year. They are included, but not limited to, money
from the airtight project, which we broke ground last year in
Reno, an additional 35,000 acre-feet of water to San Luis water
usage. In addition to that, This year I introduced legislation
to bring more water to our Valley, The Water Act of 2011 will
help restore the balance of our water supply situation. Taking
into account the serious questions raised by Judge Wanger and
by the National Academy of Sciences on the biological opinions
that are now in place, if this becomes law, it would provide,
depending on hydrology, 200,000 to 500,000 acre-feet of
additional water.
In closing, for decades the policies of water politics have
played out between fish and farmers and between different
regions of California. That fight is well known. I think they
are false choices. As the Chairman and the Ranking Member have
said, the truth is we have a broken water system designed for
20 million people in California. We now have 38 million people.
By the year 2030, we are going to have 50 million people.
The last 20 years have proven that the regulatory framework is
not helping produce more food that we need in our nation and
throughout the world, nor is it saving fish. The Court has
stated and the National Academy of Sciences has written that
the best science is not being used during this regulatory
drought and our witnesses will confirm that.
We have two choices, in closing, we can discuss with our
witnesses today. We can continue to play the politics, the
blame game, we know it well, blaming how Democrats or
Republicans are responsible for the water shortfalls. That may
make some feel better or score political points, but that
strategy, in my view, will not get a bill out of the Senate nor
signed by the President nor will it bring any more water to our
Valley that we desperately need or to California, which we
should be doing. The second choice is we can use this hearing
to work together to find bipartisan solutions. That is what
former Republican State Senator Ken Maddy and I used to do all
the time, for years always trying to find the art of possible.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the Ranking Member
and Members of this Committee for holding, once again, a
hearing here in the heart of the richest agricultural region in
the entire country so that we can try to find solutions to
these problems.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. I am now pleased to introduce
another--both a Member of Congress and also a Member of the
Subcommittee, Congressman Jeff Denham.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF DENHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Chairman McClintock. Chairman
Hastings, thank you for holding the first field hearing right
here in our area. And that's critical. It is a critical issue
to hear from local friends, farmers, those that are affected
here most, those that are out of work due to this current water
crisis. Sure, absolutely, we need to focus on a long-term
adjustment. We need to focus on long-term water storage. But
make no mistake, this crisis has been created by current
regulation and can be fixed by Congress and the President
today. The fact that we got such a huge amount of precipitation
and snowfall this year and still only have a percentage of the
current contracted water allotment is a travesty to the entire
process. We are here today to give local input, to give local
understanding of how we can change the laws to make the Central
Valley whole again. The bread basket of the world right here
locally needs to have the local job, the local resource, the
local water to be able to stay in business.
As the President continues to talk about the unemployment
levels reducing across the nation, the economic development
across the nation, he is yet to visit or see the devastation
here locally being caused by regulation. We want to hear from
you today on how we can fix this, but don't let anybody make an
excuse about past, current or political promises that could
have been made before or not. We have an obligation to fix this
on a bipartisan level, working together to come up with a
solution that will fix our current situation immediately. Now,
I have worked with my colleagues on solutions, including NEPA,
on San Joaquin River restoration and Delta power flood control
impacts here locally, but ultimately you need a Valley
delegation and a California delegation to come together to
solve our current water crisis needs. I yield with that.
Mr. McClintock. I'm next pleased to introduce Congressman
John Garamendi.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For all of you that
are here, this is certainly not a new issue to all of us. We
are going to have to find a middle ground here. There clearly
is an issue in the Delta. There clearly is an issue for the
fish, the salmon, an ecological issue, and there's also an
issue to the south. We have been fighting for a long, long time
about these issues and we still have to search for a solution.
Here in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley, it's easy
enough to say just send more water. If this hearing were to be
in Stockton, it would probably be just the opposite, don't send
water, it's needed there. The reality is, as Jim Costa said, we
are going to have to find a compromise. The Ranking Member,
Grace Napolitano, said it also, no one is going to get
everything they want as the pressures from the population and
the demands grow.
No one is going to get everything that they could want. And
that's both the fish, salmon, other species north of the Delta
as well as south of the Delta.
There are solutions that are available. And for many of you
in this room that I have had the opportunity to work with over
the last 30--almost four decades now, we know, we know the
game. We also know the politics of this. And it's always good
to ring the political bell. The reality is that's not where the
compromise will be found. I think those of you that are in the
water business know and understand that. There are solutions.
Those who want to change the ESA and say it doesn't work, well,
in fact it can work.
Section 10 of the ESA can work. It's an adaptive management
program. And I see in this audience about a half dozen of you
that have worked with me and others to figure out how to make
an adaptive management program work in areas other than the
Delta. And there's no reason it cannot work in the Delta. We
don't need to destroy. What we really need to do is to find the
answers, use the very best science possible.
And from time to time we'll find a science that's objected
to by one group or another, but forge ahead. Don't throw the
science out, just keep working to improve upon it. And in doing
so, we may find some solutions.
And I know there's been enormous efforts made here in this
Valley for water conservation. Some of the environmental
forensics say it doesn't happen. Well, it does happen. In fact,
extraordinary steps have been taken on conservation here in
this area. But the rest of the State's also going to have to
conserve and that's the folks north of Sacramento. That's
probably a bull's-eye for most of you here in this area. They
too will have to do their share. So it's the winner take all
mentality that will destroy this and it will simply set it
back. I know that some of you remember 1998 when we came very
close to an agreement. It didn't quite happen. But if everyone
works together, there are solutions that are available and
perhaps this hearing will lay some of them out. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Finally, I'd like to introduce,
to make an opening statement, someone who needs no
introduction, Congressman Devin Nunes.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEVIN NUNES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
Chairman McClintock and Chairman Hastings for holding this
hearing today.
As many of you may remember, we tried to hold hearings here
for the past four years and we were unable to because of the
neglect that we face on behalf of the Democrats in this state,
in this country.
When you hear the words middle ground, dialogue,
compromise, studies, what that means is sell your farms,
because the water is not coming back, OK. So for 25 years this
has been going on. When the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act was passed in 1992, the leaders that were in the Valley at
that time had assurances from Senators and Congressmen and the
Congress that that was going to be the last time that they came
after our water and what did they continue to do? They continue
to come after our water and they don't stop. And they use words
like dialogue, compromise and studies. Why? Because then it
makes you think that everything will be OK.
The fact is it's not going to be OK unless, as Congressman
Denham said, unless this Congress acts.
And this whole business of Senator Feinstein thinking that
she's going to bring water to this area, let me tell you folks,
she has lied to me twice, in private has given promises to me
twice about water coming back to this region. And don't be
silly here, don't be fooled, there is nothing that Senator
Feinstein or Senator Boxer or President Obama are going to do
for this area. Why? Because they are beholden to the radical
environmental element that exists in this country that is
essentially headquartered out of the Bay Area. And you can say
that's partisan rhetoric, but you know what, the track record
is pretty clear. There's no water.
And the water is not coming back anytime soon, because of
the failure and the inaction and the greed by the Democrats in
this state and this country. And you are going to hear a lot of
phony nonsense that's going to come from this fisherman
argument. And I have a video that I'd like to play for you guys
right now if we can start the video, please.
[Video played.]
Mr. Nunes. With that, Mr. Chairman, I pass.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. That concludes the opening
statements by Members. We'll now hear from the witnesses that
have been invited to testify before the Committee. Each witness
has written testimony we'll hear in full on the record here and
so I ask the witnesses to keep their oral statements to five
minutes each as outlined in our invitation letter and also
under Committee Board A. I also want to put it on a time system
here. When you begin to speak, our clerk will start a timer.
After four minutes a bell will signal that indicates one minute
is left. At the conclusion of five minutes, the second bell
will sound. That's your signal to wrap up. So with that I want
to thank you, all of our witnesses, for coming today. And I'll
begin with first Ms. Dayatra Latin, Director of Programs and
Development, Community Food Bank in Fresno, California.
STATEMENT OF DAYATRA LATIN, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS AND
DEVELOPMENT, COMMUNITY FOOD BANK, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Latin. Thank you. Once again, thank everyone for a
chance to invite the community to hear this story from the
front lines of the Community Food Bank. You do have a written
statement that is there and you can see the people that are
here and many of whom we served over the last couple of years
because of the drought, who showed up at drought distributions.
But July of 2009 is forever etched in my memory, only
because prior to that the Food Bank was distributing about
300,000 to 500,000 pounds of food.
We started our first drought distribution at the end of
July of 2009. I'll never forget. We sent out three trucks. And
to the more than 680 people that stood in line, that was three
trucks of hope. And so we handed out and distributed so much
food that day, but it's the stories that stick with me that I
hope to be able to leave with you. We started our first drought
distribution in Mendota and that was a powerful day to be able
to do that. And we had volunteers take time to put together
bags of food and people just showed up and the lines were
endless.
That same summer we went to Huron. The drive out to Huron
was different, because fields were kind of bare for me and that
was unusual for me to see. In line that day I met a young lady
named Maria. And I wish I could bring the smell of her with me,
because she held a little baby in her hands. And in her arms
she had her son and he was about three months old, but she was
full of vomit and she was full of diarrhea, because her baby
was severely sick. And he had this heart-wrenching cry that as
a mom, I kind of stood there and wept with her. And I didn't
know what to do. And I found somebody to translate for me to
ask her to please go home, because with the amount of people
who were in line, it was a hot day, it was going to be four
hours before she ever got to the front of the line.
And eventually she told me she couldn't leave. Her husband
had lost his job. He was the sole provider. They had kids at
home and the only way they were going to eat is if she stayed
in that line. And I'm a mom of three amazing kids and I would
never, ever have to think about having to stand in line with a
baby sick and crying because she didn't know where her dinner
was coming from that night. And she knew it would be two weeks
later before the Food Bank would come back out for another
distribution. That shouldn't happen. It was sad, it was
horrible, and Maria stays with me.
Months later--because we still continue to bring out
massive amounts of foods to folks. Like I say, we wound up
serving 500,000 pounds of food to nearly 3 million pounds of
food at the start of the drought.
But I met a man named Richard who stood in line. He had
lost his job six months earlier and was happy that Community
Food Bank was there. But the thing that was missing for him was
he was so proud when he had a job, because with that job he was
able to come home and put food on the table. And what he said
to me is now I stand in line to be able to put food on the
table for my family, because I have no work. So I can tell you
all about the amount of pounds that Community Food Bank
distributed to them and that there are 285,000 people that need
our services, but I hope that the picture that you see of Maria
and Richard and all those who stand in this room who have used
Community Food Bank services--there is a reason why we are
there. And I hope that this testimony has meant something and
has made a difference. And so I thank you on behalf of
Community Food Bank for allowing us to paint a picture. Thank
you.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you so much for coming today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Latin follows:]
Statement of Dayatra A. Latin, Director of Programs
and Development, Community Food Bank
The end of July 2009 is forever etched into my memory. After a
couple of weeks of planning, Community Food Bank held the first
Disaster Drought Distribution, during the last week of that month. We
were in the City of Mendota, it was above 100 degrees Fahrenheit and
the line of people seeking food assistance seemed endless. We had three
truckloads deliver food that day, but it was three truckloads of hope
for more than 680 families. With every food box assembled by caring
volunteers and hard-working staff, we offered a little bit of peace so
that the worried mom and the out-of-work dad did not have to think
about where the next meal would come from.
That same summer we held another Drought Distribution in Huron. In
line that day was a young mother named Maria, whose husband (and sole
provider) had been laid off in May 2009 from his job working in the
fields in the area and he was struggling to find work in order to pay
bills and feed their three young children. Maria was holding her 3-
month-old child who was severely sick. Her clothes were soaked with
vomit and diarrhea, the baby was crying that heart-breaking cry that is
familiar to every mother. Through a co-worker, who was able to
translate for me, Maria explained that her son had been sick for days,
not eating, constantly crying, and late that night he began vomiting
and having severe diarrhea. Judging by the amount of people in line it
would be at least four hours before we could serve her, I asked her to
go home and we would serve her later. Maria looked at me with tears in
her eyes and said ``No! If I go home we will not eat tonight and you
won't be back for two weeks!'' Her fear of not knowing where dinner was
coming from kept her in line that day despite the condition of her
child. Her story is forever with me.
On a cold day in Firebaugh, I met a man named Richard who had been
out of work for nearly six months. He showed up at Disaster Drought
Distributions every two weeks for three months because this was the
sole source of food for his wife and four children ages two through
nine. He told me how thankful he was for Community Food Bank doing
this, ``but I only want to work, I was proud to work and feed my family
and now I stand in line to do it.''
There are countless untold stories of lives that were touched by
the lack of water in the Central Valley. They are people who want to
work in order to provide the most basic human necessity of food.
______
Mr. McClintock. I'd next like to introduce The Honorable
Phil Larson, Chairman of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors
of Kerman, California.
STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL LARSON, CHAIRMAN,
FRESNO COUNTY BOARD, KERMAN, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Phil Larson and I am the elected
representative of District One and the Chairman of the Fresno
County Board of Supervisors. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today regarding the economic impacts on the
agricultural industry and families in the Central Valley as the
result of multiple years of Federal water allocations.
My district includes the western portion of the City of
Fresno and the westside agricultural region of our county all
the way to the San Benito County line.
As a farmer and businessman, I study water issues because
they are vital to my economic survival. As a past farm bureau
president, I advocated for additional water storage for our
region, because our organization saw the need to establish
safe, clean and reliable water supplies for our industry and
community in the future.
As a Fresno County Supervisor, I continue to fight for safe
and secure water supplies in our region, because I know without
additional water supplies the social, cultural and economic
impacts to our region could be devastating.
Over the past eight years, Fresno County's west side
agriculture has been paralyzed because of water shortages due
to environmental regulations. The economic reality was never
more real than in 2008, when the Fresno County Board of
Supervisors were forced to declare a local emergency, request a
Presidential Declaration and request for state and Federal
assistance to deal with statewide drought and water
restrictions.
In 2009, the reduction of water supply deliveries continued
the severity of the economic hardship. Fallowed farmland caused
severe unemployment. Those restrictions caused the idling of
thousands of acres of cropland and resulted in substantial
economic impact to agricultural crops, the industries that
support agriculture and the people who work within the
agricultural industry. An estimate 24 percent of the entire
farmland in Fresno County was fallowed or farmed in low
productive crops. Our estimated loss was over 74 million
resulted in job losses and significant loss of direct and
indirect revenues. The impacts of those devastating losses have
created deep issues with our economic recovery.
We are indeed an area of excessive government regulation
that has been underserved because of government inaction in
recognizing the economic issues created by Federal water
decisions.
There is an irony that one of the world's most productive
farm areas and the leading agricultural county in the State of
California has as many as 51 percent of its population in need
of food assistance.
In 2009, our Community Food Bank needed 3.3 million per
month for local food assistance to purchase, store and
distribute food to those in need.
It is unfair that citizens of smaller communities and
lesser populated areas are discriminated against by not
receiving the same attention and support received by larger
population centers like the Bay Area and Southern California.
It is intolerable that governmental decisions have created over
40 percent unemployment in western Fresno County. The
communities of Firebaugh, Mendota, Tranquility, San Joaquin and
Huron continue to be impacted by onerous government regulations
and have placed critters above human needs. The result is that
once vital communities are simply trying to survive.
Where is the parity when a wildlife area in western Fresno
County over the last eight years has been given 100 percent
water allocation when the adjacent bureau contract will receive
only 75 percent, which was just raised this last week--I wonder
if that can be political--in one of the wettest years in
history?
This is even more questionable when you ask how many people
the wildlife area will put to work. Contrast this to the
agricultural operation as a bureau contractor who with 100
percent allocation would put hundreds of people to work. Add to
this the multiplier impact of the idle land that could have
produced a crop that would have supplied food and economic
stimulus to our valley, the state and the country. That cost
becomes significant. Often overlooked is the collateral impact
on jobs in the area created by small businesses like the
hardware store, grocery stores, mini marts, the fuel suppliers,
parts stores and the list goes on.
Another water issue not usually considered is the loss of
ADA, average daily attendance, funding in our local schools.
The region school districts whose funding has been most
significantly impacted are Golden Plains Unified, Mendota
Unified, Firebaugh-Los Deltas Unified, Riverdale Unified, and
the north portion of West Hills College. As jobs leave the
area, so do families and the students that once populated
schools. This translates to multiple job losses, including
teachers, support staff, and maintenance workers. In 2005, the
biggest concern for those school districts was where they would
be housing the growing student populations. By 2008 with water
supplies being impacted, instead of planning for growth, they
were preparing for layoffs and reductions in curriculum.
Those job losses then were passed on to retail businesses
and down the food chain to the Federal taxes.
I believe it's time for the Federal Government to return to
the table and give full consideration to the economic impacts
past governmental decisions and practices have created in our
large geographical area. Our residents deserve the same
considerations and assistance received by those in more
populated areas.
The solution is simple. The Federal Government needs to
honor what was agreed on back in the 1960s when the water
agreements first began. Allow our farmers to do what they do
best, create jobs, economic growth, and produce food and fiber
to feed and clothe the world. It is time to reconsider past
decisions and take corrective action to match the reality of
today.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be
honored to accept questions from you at this time.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Again, I would like to remind
folks that you are guests at the House of Representatives
today, that the demonstrations are not permitted in the
hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John P. (Phil) Larson,
Fresno County Board of Supervisors
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Phil
Larson, and I am the elected representative of District One and the
Chairman of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today regarding the economic impacts on the
agricultural industry and families in the Central Valley as the result
of multiple years of federal water allocations.
My district includes the western portion of the City of Fresno and
the westside agricultural region of our county all the way to the San
Benito County line. As a farmer and businessman, I study water issues
because they are vital to my economic survival. As a past farm bureau
president, I advocated for additional water storage for our region
because our organization saw the need to establish safe, clean and
reliable water supplies for our industry and community in the future.
As a Fresno County Supervisor, I continue to fight for safe and
secure water supplies in our region because I know without additional
water supplies the social, cultural and economic impacts to our region
could be devastating.
Over the past eight years, Fresno County's westside agriculture has
been paralyzed because of water shortages due to environmental
regulations. The economic reality was never more real than in 2008,
when the Fresno County Board of Supervisors were forced to declare a
local emergency, request a Presidential Declaration and request for
State and Federal Assistance to deal with statewide drought and water
restrictions.
In 2009, the reduction of water supply deliveries continued the
severity of the economic hardship. Fallowed farmland caused severe
unemployment. Those restrictions caused the idling of thousands of
acres of crop land and resulted in substantial economic impact to
agricultural crops, the industries that support agriculture and the
people who work within the agricultural industry. An estimate 24% of
the entire farmland in Fresno County was fallowed or farmed in low
productive dry crops. Our estimated loss of $74 million resulted in
loss of jobs and significant loss of direct and indirect crop revenues.
The impacts of those devastating losses have created deep issues with
our economic recovery.
We are indeed an area of excessive governmental regulation that has
been underserved because of government inaction in recognizing the
economic issues created by federal water decisions. There is an irony
that one of the World's most productive farm areas and the leading
agricultural County in the State of California has as many as 51% of
its population in need of food assistance. In 2009, our Community Food
Bank needed $3.352 million per month for local food assistance to
purchase, store and distribute food to those in need.
It is unfair that citizens of smaller communities and lesser
populated areas are discriminated against by not receiving the same
attention or support received by larger population centers like the Bay
Area or Southern California. It is intolerable that governmental
decisions have created over 40% unemployed in western Fresno County.
The communities of Firebaugh, Mendota, Tranquillity, San Joaquin, and
Huron continue to be impacted by onerous governmental regulations that
have place ``critters'' above human needs. The result is that once
vital communities are simply trying to survive.
Where is the parity when a wildlife area in western Fresno County
is given 100% water allocation when the adjacent bureau contractor will
only receive 65% in one of the wettest years in history? This is even
more questionable when you ask how many people the wildlife area will
put to work. Contrast this to the agricultural operation as a bureau
contractor who with a 100% allocation would put hundreds of people to
work. Add to this the multiplier impact of the idle land that could
have produced a crop that would have supplied food and economic
stimulus to our valley, the state and the country. The cost becomes
significant. Often overlooked is the collateral impact on jobs in the
area created by small businesses like the hardware store, grocery
stores, mini marts, fuel suppliers, parts stores and the list goes on.
Another water issue not usually considered is the loss of public
ADA (Average Daily Attendance) funding in our local schools. The region
school districts whose funding is most significantly impacted are
Golden Plains Unified, Mendota Unified, Firebaugh-Los Deltas Unified,
Riverdale Unified, and the north portion of West Hills College. As jobs
leave the area, so do families and the students that once populated the
schools. This translates to multiple job losses including teachers,
support staff, and maintenance workers. In 2005, the biggest concern
for those school districts was where they would be housing the growing
student populations. By 2008 with water supplies being impacted,
instead of planning for growth they were preparing for layoffs and
reductions in curriculum. Those job losses then are passed on to retail
businesses and down the food chain to local, state and federal taxes.
I believe its time for the Federal Government to return to the
table and give full consideration to the economic impacts past
governmental decisions and practices have created in our large
geographical area. Our residents deserve the same considerations and
assistance received by those in more populated areas.
The solution is simple; the Federal Government needs to honor what
was agreed on back in the 1960's when the water agreements first began.
Allow our farmers to do what they do best--create jobs, economic
growth, and produce food and fiber to feed and clothes the World. It is
time to reconsider past decisions and take corrective action to match
the reality of today.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be honored to
accept questions from you at this time.
______
Mr. McClintock. The next witness is The Honorable Mark
Watte here as a farmer in Tulare County, California.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK WATTE, COUNCILMAN,
CITY OF TULARE, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Watte. Good morning. Thank you Chairman McClintock,
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Napolitano and other Members
of the Committee for the opportunity to testify today.
I appreciate your interest in solving the California water
crisis. I hope this hearing will result in some action rather
than just an exercise in listening.
Let me take a moment to introduce myself. I am Mark Watte,
a third generation farmer, with a fourth generation learning
the ropes. We have 4,000 acres in production that include a
mixture of permanent and row crops. We also operate two dairies
and two calf-raising facilities. I also sit on four different
water boards, including the Friant Board of Directors, two
cotton boards, and I am an elected member of the Tulare City
Council.
The San Joaquin Valley has been blessed with good soil, a
long growing season, and in the past an abundance of water.
Together they created the most dynamic ag economy in the world.
San Joaquin Valley is the first in the world in dairy,
pistachios, almonds, processing tomatoes, asparagus, navel
oranges, lettuce, garlic, and many more specialty crops. The
products of the valley are truly American-made--the cheapest,
safest, and most reliable food in the world. However, if
Congress does not change the direction of water policy in
California, we will have cantaloupes grown in Mexicali rather
than in Mendota.
Our farm is located near Tulare, in the central portion of
the San Joaquin Valley, where we have historically sourced 50
percent of our water from surface supplies through Friant and
the Kaweah River and 50 percent from a significantly over-
drafted aquifer. As the years pass, the reliability of our
water supply dwindles. Other than an over-prescribed
groundwater source, our major challenge to our water future is
the surface water reductions associated with the San Joaquin
River Settlement.
After fighting for nearly two decades and saddled with
millions of dollars in legal fees, the farmers were left with
no other option but to settle. During this legal struggle,
Congress stood by and refused to take legislative action to
resolve the legal dispute. This unwillingness to get involved
resulted in a flawed solution, a solution that will not bring
back a long-dead salmon fishery, nor will it bring back all of
our lost water.
Promises were made during the negotiations that are not
being fulfilled. For example, there continues to be a lack of
substantive action on the water management goals. The farmers
were promised that restoration and water management would be
co-equal goals. While restoration moves full steam ahead, with
significant water releases down the river, the water management
goals are stuck in neutral. Another example is that third
parties were promised they will not be impacted. Yet, the
interim flows are damaging farmland of third parties and no
action is being taken to provide relief. The future of the
settlement is at risk if all parties do not hold up to their
part of the deal, including the Federal Government.
A more commonsense solution would be to extend the existing
San Joaquin River warm water fishery and connect it at Sack
Dam. This will restore the river in a more fiscally responsible
and environmentally sustainable way. It also provides Friant
the ability to recover its water and use it twice--once for the
environmental purposes, once for raising food and fiber for our
fellow citizens.
For years, our livelihood in the San Joaquin Valley has
been under threat by drive-by tourists from the Bay Area who
don't understand or care about our way of life. They have filed
lawsuit after lawsuit to ensure that the government enacts
water policy largely based on junk science. This has resulted
in a 65 percent water allocation in a year of record rainfall
and snowpack. While this is much better than the past two
years, it remains disturbing in a year in which we will most
likely see flood damage. We have done better in the past.
There are two ways to solve most of the economic problems
in the San Joaquin Valley. First, Congress must take action on
the water issue. For the past four years we heard a lot of talk
about the problem while Congress did absolutely nothing. Quite
honestly, we are tired of talk. We want action. Congress needs
to fix the situation in the Delta, revisit CVPIA and streamline
a number of troublesome provisions, and we need to make sure
that restoration of the San Joaquin River can actually be
accomplished in a sustainable way with the least amount of
impact.
Second, we need the government to get out of the way. The
regulatory process of trying to get a water project approved in
the Valley is a nightmare. The problem is we have a bureaucracy
that is imbedded with activists who have their own agenda. We
no longer see the Bureau of Reclamation as a partner in solving
our water problems. They have taken on the role of
obstructionist. We are willing to follow the rules and pay our
own way, but we need a good faith partner in the process. This
is certainly not what we have today.
Thank you for your time and effort in addressing our
California water issues. You have heard and will hear from many
experts that know more specifics about the ills and cures of
our issues than I do. But make no mistake, I am the face of an
average person who uses the wonderful resources that God has
given us here in California. Through hard work and risk taking,
California farms have created a bounty that benefits a nation.
We understand and respect the risk-reward associated with
Mother Nature. I would hope that you assist us with lessening
our risk burden with regard to our water supply.
What we need is inspired leadership from Congress to
provide a balance to the unrealistic demands of environmental
zealots who have no sympathy or compassion for the economic
devastation that resulted from the starving valley of water.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Watte follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Mark Watte, Councilman,
City of Tulare, California
Thank you Chairman McClintock, Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member
Napolitano and other members of the committee for the opportunity to
testify today. I appreciate your interest in solving the California
water crisis. I hope this hearing will result in action rather than
just an exercise in listening.
Let me take a moment to introduce myself. I am Mark Watte, a third
generation farmer (with a fourth generation learning the ropes). We
have 4,000 acres in production that include a mixture of permanent and
row crops. We also operate two dairies and two calf-raising facilities.
I also sit on four different water boards, including the Friant Board
of Directors, two cotton boards, and I am an elected member of the
Tulare City Council.
The San Joaquin Valley has been blessed with good soil, a long
growing season, and (in the past) an abundance of water. Together they
created the most dynamic agriculture economy in the world. The San
Joaquin Valley is the first in the world in dairy, pistachios, almonds,
processing tomatoes, asparagus, navel oranges, lettuce, garlic, and
many more specialty crops. The products of the valley are truly
American-made--the cheapest, safest, and most reliable food in the
world. However, if Congress does not change the direction of water
policy in California, we will soon have cantaloupes grown in Mexicali
rather than in Mendota.
Our farm is located near Tulare, in the central portion of the San
Joaquin Valley, where we have historically sourced 50% of our water
from surface supplies through Friant and the Kaweah River and 50%
pumped from a significantly over-drafted aquifer. As the years pass,
the reliability of our water supply dwindles. Other than an over-
prescribed groundwater source, our major challenge to our water future
is the surface water reductions associated with the San Joaquin River
Settlement.
After fighting for nearly two decades and saddled with millions of
dollars in legal fees, the farmers were left with no other option but
to settle. During this legal struggle, Congress stood by and refused to
take legislative action to resolve the legal dispute. This
unwillingness to get involved resulted in a flawed solution--a solution
that will not bring back a long-dead salmon fishery, nor will it bring
back all of our lost water.
Promises were made during the negotiations that are not being
fulfilled. For example, there continues to be a lack of substantive
action on the water management goals. The farmers were promised that
restoration and water management would be ``co-equal goals''. While
restoration moves full steam ahead, with significant water releases
down the river yet the water management goals are stuck in neutral.
Another example is that third parties were promised they will not be
impacted. Yet, the interim flows are damaging farmland of third parties
and no action is being taken to provide relief. The future of the
settlement is at risk if all parties do not hold up to their part of
the deal, including the federal government.
A more commonsense solution would be to extend the existing San
Joaquin River warm water fishery and connect it at Sack Dam. This will
restore the river in a more fiscally responsible and environmentally
sustainable way. It also provides Friant the ability to recover its
water and use it twice--once for the environmental purposes, and once
for raising food and fiber for our fellow citizens.
For years, our livelihood in the San Joaquin Valley has been under
threat by drive-by tourists from the Bay Area, who don't understand or
care about our way of life. They have filed lawsuit after lawsuit to
ensure the government enacts water policy based on junk science. This
has resulted in a 65% water allocation in a year of record rainfall and
snow pack. While this is much better than the past two years, it
remains disturbing in a year in which we will most likely see flood
damage. We have done better in the past. The proof is in the numbers.
I call your attention to this chart which shows CVP storage versus
Ag Service Allocation since 1952. Initial allocations are signified
with a red square and final allocations with a green triangle. You can
clearly see that chaos ensued after the enactment of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act in 1992; and only became worse. Even with the
strangling impacts of CVPIA, the Westside still received 90% of their
allocation in 1997--a water year that could easily mirror this one.
There are two ways to solve most of the economic problems in the
San Joaquin Valley. First, Congress must take action on the water
issue. For the past four years, we heard a lot of talk about the
problem while Congress did absolutely nothing. Quite honestly, we are
tired of talk. We want action. Congress needs to fix the situation in
the delta, it needs to revisit CVPIA and streamline a number of
troublesome provisions, and we need to make sure that restoration of
the San Joaquin River can actually be accomplished in a sustainable way
with the least amount of impact.
Second, we need the government to get out of the way. The
regulatory process of trying to get a water project approved in the
valley is a nightmare. A good example was the raising of Terminus Dam.
It took 25 years and $50 million--$20 million going to environmental
mitigation--to get the permits to raise the dam 21 feet. The problem we
have is a bureaucracy that is imbedded with activists who have their
own agenda. We no longer see the Bureau of Reclamation as a partner in
solving our water problems. They have taken on the roll of
obstructionist. We are willing to follow the rules and even pay our own
way; but we need a good faith partner in the process. That is certainly
not what we have today.
Thank you for your time and effort in addressing our California
water issues. You have heard, and will hear from, many ``experts'' that
know more specifics about the ills and cures for our issues than I do.
But make no mistake: I am the face of an average person, who uses the
wonderful resources that God has given us here in California. Through
hard work and risk taking Californian's created a bounty that benefits
a nation. We understand and respect the risk-reward associated with
Mother Nature. I would hope that you will assist us with lessening our
risk burden with regards to our water supply.
What we need is inspired leadership from Congress to provide a
balance to the unrealistic demands of environmental zealots who have no
sympathy or compassion for the economic devastation that resulted from
the starving the valley of water.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward
to answering any questions you may have.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5822.001
Mr. McClintock. Our next witness is Mr. Kole Upton.
He's the Chairman of the Madera-Chowchilla Water and Power
Authority, Madera, California.
STATEMENT OF KOLE UPTON, CHAIRMAN, MADERA-CHOWCHILLA WATER AND
POWER AUTHORITY, MADERA, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. Yes, I'm a farmer. I'm also here as the Chairman of
the Madera-Chowchilla Water and Power Authority. We supply
water and power for about 200,000 acres in Merced and Madera
Counties. I'd first like to start by giving a couple of
attaboys--one to Congressman Denham, who has assembled a great
staff, Jason Larrabee and Mr. Rucker and Mr. Kirk here locally,
also to the Committee as a whole and Congress as a whole that
came together on a program in Merced to increase the spillway
and give us 70,000 more acre-feet, Democrats and Republicans,
and that's the kind of cooperation that we need and I commend
you for that.
The hearing today is what I want to focus on. It's about
jobs. It's not about just creating jobs, it's about protecting
the jobs that we have now. And there are five areas that I
recommend be addressed. Number one is environmental water
releases. When I use water or another person uses water, we are
held to a standard of reasonable and beneficial use, and that's
good, and we ought to have the same standard for environmental
uses. And there is no better example then the Delta. Since 1991
there have been millions of acre-feet taken from folks that
were using it to help the Delta. What do we have today? We have
fishermen out of business.
We have farmers out of business. We have the species still
near extinction. We have the estuary still in bad shape. What
have we done? We haven't accomplished anything. So we need to
have a standard. And what I recommend that before judges or
agencies have water taken from somebody for an environmental
reason, there has to be a standard there that it's actually
going to work, it's going to do something, and it should be
reviewed occasionally for accuracy to make sure it's actually
doing what it's supposed to do.
The second area I would say is authorize and fund
Temperance Flat. We need to keep--quit diddling around about
this. The flood control benefits alone would pay for it. But,
in addition, you would increase the amount of surface storage
so that the Bureau could actually fulfill the contracts that
Friant has now. They are unable to do that, because Friant
Dam's too small.
The third thing is to adopt the water banking program.
Water banking is a good thing, but it needs the component of
storage. Why? Because you cannot put 80,000 cfs into a water
bank during a flood. It goes too fast. So you need to store it
so you can percolate it into the ground. This would help our
overdraft here in the San Joaquin Valley. There's something
simple, I would think, about society investing in its own
infrastructure. It's for the future.
The third area I would say is we need to amend or replace
the San Joaquin River Settlement Act. When they went into this,
and I was one of the negotiators, everybody went into it with
good faith, we are going to restore the salmon on the main stem
of the river and the farmers were going to get their water
back, hallelujah, OK. But what has happened since that time is
that we have environmental studies and we have government
studies and if you believe global warming, then since the San
Joaquin River is a wide flat river it's going to be a very big
challenge to get a significant number of fish back into that
river. And the water management goal, we know we can't get that
now and one of the reasons is because of lawsuits filed by the
environmentalists, the very same ones that promised to help us
get our water back, over Delta issues. So let's cut to the
chase here. What we need, just like Mr. Watte just said, extend
the current fishery to the Sack Dam and get our water back.
You'll have a robust fishery 24/7, 365 days a year. What you
won't get is salmon. Then you have to take the money you were
going to invest in that, invest it in one of these northern
rivers that already has salmon so you have exponentially more
salmon for the fishermen to fish.
The fourth item is the Corps of Engineers. They have come
up with some new ideas to bring conveyances, canals, to the
standards of the New Orleans levees and they also are extending
their jurisdiction for the Clean Water Act. They need to be
reined in, OK. For the safety, that's fine. They do not need to
overextend their authority here and cost us a lot of money.
The last point I want to make is that I commend you here
for coming to create jobs, to protect jobs, but it seems a
little bit counterproductive to have another agency in the
Federal Government that is going to destroy the same jobs. Now,
I'm talking about high speed rail. Farmers from Merced to
Bakersfield, there are hundreds of them that I have talked to
and worked with, and this authority has not listened to the
farmers. They are supposed to minimize the impact of farmland,
use existing corridors, and I can tell you that it's not
happening. I commend them for hiring a handicap, because they
almost seem hard of hearing, but the fact is that they are
going to destroy the infrastructure that we have in this valley
that's taken decades to develop. In my water district alone,
they have taken out an entire canal, scaling systems, canal
pumps. On the farmers' land they are taking out deep wells
which take them a year and a half to replace. We need some help
on this. There's some Congressmen here that are espousing high
speed rail. You need to talk to those folks and say get with
the program and do what you promised in the bond and in the
law.
Thank you for allowing me to participate in this hearing.
I'll be glad to answer questions at will.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Statement of Kole Upton, Chairman,
Madera-Chowchilla Water and Power Authority
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee
It is an honor and privilege to appear before the Water and Power
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to recommend actions
concerning the subject of the Hearing, ``Creating Jobs by Overcoming
Man-Made Drought: Time for Congress to Listen and act.''
I, Kole Upton, am a farmer in Merced and Madera Counties living on
the same farm started by my father after he returned for World War II.
With my brother and sons, I grow wheat, corn, oats, cotton, almonds,
and pistachios. The water essential to growing these crops comes from
four sources: Friant Dam, Buchanan Dam, Merced Irrigation District, and
groundwater. None of these sources by itself can provide enough water
to sustain our area for the long term.
I am appearing as the Chairman of the Madera-Chowchilla Water and
Power Authority (MCPWA). This organization is a joint powers authority
made up of the Madera Irrigation District (MID) and the Chowchilla
Water District (CWD). It is responsible for the operation of the Madera
Canal (which transports water from Friant Dam to MID and CWD) and
MCPWA's four power plants.
The subject of this Hearing is jobs. It is important not only that
we create jobs but that we protect the ones we have. It is
counterproductive for one part of the government to act to create jobs
in the San Joaquin Valley while another part advocates programs,
projects, and policies that threaten existing jobs. Thus, I want to
focus on several areas in which Congress can ``Listen and Act'' to
create jobs but also ``Listen and Act'' to amend or eliminate
government actions that threaten existing jobs.
The subject topic areas are listed first, and then followed by a
more detailed explanation of each one.
1. Congressional action to require judges and government
agencies to hold environmental water releases to the same
standards as required of the urban and agricultural users.
2. Authorize and fund the building of Temperance Flat Dam.
3. Amend the San Joaquin River Settlement Act to restore the
River while ensuring job protection and creation.
4. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Issues
5. High Speed Rail's Adverse Impact to Farmers, Water
Facilities, and Jobs.
Environmental Water Releases
No one disputes the need for all living species to have water. Nor,
is there much dispute about the fact that decades ago water diversions
did not adequately address the environmental needs of society. But, the
pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Now, there are many
examples of environmental diversions that have not resulted in any
improvement to the situation for which the water was taken from other
users that were beneficially using the water.
There is no better example that the Delta. Millions of acre-feet
have been diverted from their historical beneficial use to ostensibly
save the Delta and several endangered and/or threatened species. Yet,
the Delta is in worse shape than ever.
It is time that water used for environmental purposes be held to
the same standard required of other users. If environmental water that
is diverted is not accomplishing the task for which it was taken, it
should be declared a ``waste and unreasonable use'' of water. That
water could then be returned to other water users who could use the
water in a manner to benefit society. This equates directly to job
restoration and creation! How many thousands of jobs have been lost in
the Valley due to environmental diversions that have accomplished
nothing?
The California Constitution and commons sense forbid the wasteful
uses of water. Congress should require current environmental releases
to be regularly reviewed for efficacy. Congress should also set forth
requirements that prohibit actions by agencies or judges from ordering
environmental water releases until such actions are deemed to be
prudent, feasible, scientifically justified, and have a reasonable
chance for success.
Authorize and Fund Temperance Flat Dam
There is nothing immoral or unethical about a society investing in
its own future. A dam at Temperance Flat would be such an investment,
one which would have filled with up to 750,000 acre-feet of water four
times in the last seven years. That is more than enough water to supply
the entire one million plus acres in the Friant service for one year.
That would have been an immense benefit to the overdrafted underground
aquifers in the San Joaquin Valley.
In the past, such leaders as President Kennedy and Governor Pat
Brown led the way with dams and other water infrastructure projects
that turned this area from a desert to a garden. For decades now,
however, society and its leaders have abandoned major improvements to
our water infrastructure. Much of this attitude comes from the desire
by society to be environmentally sensitive and ensure the survival of
as many species as possible. Although some espousing this continued
course of action are well intentioned, it is time for elected officials
to bring some balance back to the situation. Our future depends on it.
The economy in the San Jaoquin Valley is agriculturally based
because we are blessed with some of the most fertile soil in the world.
The one essential requirement for production and the associated JOBS is
water. Without water, this land becomes a paradise for tumbleweed and
jack rabbits.
It is obvious to anyone living in the San Joaquin Valley that a dam
at Temperance Flat would provide multiple benefits to society. Flood
control, surface storage, and construction jobs are just a few of the
obvious benefits. The flood control and increased surface storage
components would dovetail perfectly with the increased need to utilize
groundwater banking to mitigate the overdraft of the underground
aquifers. Groundwater banking by itself is limited because it cannot
absorb the current high flood flows that must be released due to the
small capacity of Friant Dam. Temperance Flat Dam would solve that
problem.
Unfortunately, the existing regulatory environment at both the
state and federal levels makes development of even simple water banking
projects unnecessarily time consuming and expensive. For instance, it
has taken seven years and millions of dollars to get the permits for
Madera Irrigation District's water banking project.
Congress needs to act and authorize and fund Temperance Flat Dam.
Amend the San Joaquin River Settlement Act
The San Joaquin River Settlement was made in faith by the farmers
in the Friant service area. There were two co-equals goals: 1.An
attempt to revive the 60 year old dead salmon fishery on the main stem
of the River, and 2. The Water Management Goal, to mitigate the water
losses to the Friant service area. The Bureau of Reclamation is
responsible for the implementation of both goals.
The Bureau's task to mitigate our water losses has been made much
more difficult by the increasing number of lawsuits involving the
Delta. Ironically, some of these lawsuits have been initiated by some
of the same environmental groups who pledged to help mitigate the farm
water losses as part of the Settlement.
Regarding the return of salmon, if global warming is as claimed by
some environmental groups, then the return of a cold species like
salmon to the San Joaquin River which is already on the periphery of
salmon viability is highly problematic. Indeed, even studies by the
federal government suggest that is a futile exercise.
No one argues with the concept of a restored River, but at what
cost? Without the mitigation of farm water losses, many jobs will be
lost and the overdraft of the underground aquifers will increase. We
will find ourselves in the same predicament as the West Side with only
the idling of hundreds of thousands of acres as the means to balance
our needs with the water available.
We need Congress to declare that the extension of the current
fishery below Friant Dam to Sack Dam fulfills society's obligation to
restore the River. Such an action would allow all the farm water losses
to be mitigated, restore the River, and protect and create JOBS.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Issues
Throughout the West and especially in California, there are
thousands of miles of earthen canals, mostly unlined, that have safely
and efficiently delivering water to farms for over a century with few
major problems. These facilities were built to convey irrigation water,
not to be flood control levees or provide any other flood control
function other than to occasionally distribute requested flood waters.
Recently, USACE has initiated an effort to create regulations that such
canals be built or rebuilt to flood control levee standards.
In addition, the USACE is trying to assert Clean Water Act (CWA)
jurisdictional controls over constructed conveyances such as canals.
This will impede operations, and drive up the costs of maintenance and
repairs without any demonstrable public benefit. This USACE effort is
far outside the scope of CWA, lacks legal foundation, and needs to be
brought to a halt.
Although it may be well intentioned, the last thing we need is
another government agency (e.g., EPA) expanding its power and
jurisdiction over our water operations without any benefit to society.
High Speed Rail and its Adverse Impact to Jobs
Although the concept of High Speed Rail (HSR) may be admirable, the
current HSR project through the San Joaquin Valley as planned will be
devastating to agriculture. Despite the intent of the language in the
law and the bond authorizing HSR in California to use existing
transportation corridors and minimize impacts to farmland, the current
route options through the Valley do the opposite.
In my area alone, the HSR routes adversely impacts thousands of
acres of farm land. For individual farmers, it takes out deep wells,
canal pumps, pipelines, the other water infrastructure facilities of
individual farmers. For public agencies such as water districts, it
takes out entire canals, water facilities for inter-district transfers,
and sophisticated and expensive monitoring systems installed for the
purpose of ensuring that the water is used efficiently.
The agriculture industry in the Valley has a multiplier effect
providing jobs all the way up the food chain from farm to market. It
has taken decades to develop the economic infrastructure that supports
the agriculture industry. High Speed Rail should integrate its
infrastructure with the Valley's existing situation, and drop the
approach that HSR is so important that it must supersede all other
activities in the Valley.
Congress should aggressively review the HSR project in California.
A poorly planned and over budget project that adversely affects our #1
industry will cost the Valley jobs. High Speed Rail should be done
right or not at all.
For inclusion with my testimony, I am offering a study just
released titled, ``Will the High-Speed Train Benefit California's
Middle Class?''
Thank you for the opportunity to offer oral and written testimony.
______
Mr. McClintock. Again, I want to request to keep
demonstrations to a minimum. Our next witness is The Honorable
Mary Piepho, Supervisor for Contra Costa County, Discovery Bay,
California.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY PIEPHO, SUPERVISOR,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DISCOVERY BAY, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Piepho. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee and attending guests. My name is Mary Nejedly
Piepho and I'm a member of the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today and share some important views from another
part of the state, the five counties that the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta runs through. I'm here on behalf of the Delta
County Board of Supervisors that encompass the Delta:
Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, San Joaquin and Contra Costa
counties. Together we represent more than four million
Californians that live and work in the Delta region. We are
fully aware that two-thirds of our state relies on water that
flows through the Delta and that it is an ecosystem of national
significance and the center of our state's economy.
The Delta supports an economy of state and national
significance and the Delta supports not only our state and
nation food supply, but that of the world. Like you, we feel
strongly that we should have an integral role in addressing the
multitude of complex Delta issues that directly affect us in
every way. I'm here today to encourage you to work together
with us in solving the very serious water challenges facing our
regions and the state and support our economy rather than
solutions that might benefit one region of California at the
expense of others, our economy at the expense of others. To be
clear, we are very concerned about certain provisions included
in HR-1. The Delta County Coalition is opposed to any such
efforts that would arbitrarily block legal protections for the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its fisheries. Such an effort,
if enacted into law, would, in our view, undermine the fragile
collaborative approaches that are just beginning to work to
solve California's immense and historical water problems.
In California, as you are aware, we have a new Governor, a
new administration and a new approach to our state water
complex challenges, an approach that we believe needs to be
given a chance to succeed. And the Delta County Coalition has
been constructively engaged in these efforts. We are most
concerned by the HR-1 provisions that would threaten Delta
communities that rely on a healthy Delta environment and clean
water to support a regional economy dependent on farming,
fishing and recreation. Rather than building trust among state
holders, collaboration among state and Federal agencies and
balance science-based solutions that benefit all Californians,
this proposal would lead water policy discussions back to
gridlock and litigation. Long lasting solutions to Delta issues
calls for us not to move backward, but to move forward. And the
best way forward, in our opinions, is to continue to support
efforts that work through existing laws and to work together.
An example of such an effort currently underway is the
second phase of the National Academy of Sciences' study on
Sustainable Water and Environmental Management in the Delta.
Due in approximately November of this year, this report will
discuss how to most effectively incorporate science and
adaptive management concepts into holistic programs for
management and restoration of the Bay-Delta in a way that
should best inform the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan Development
process. At a time when the NAS is completing its important
work, Congress should not undercut these efforts by eliminating
important legal protections for the Delta today. The Delta
County Coalition strongly supports the scientifically based
approach to solving water issues for the state and restoring
the Delta ecosystem and that we would all benefit from it.
We encourage Congress to support the recent state and
legislative actions contained in the Delta reformat in the
existing body of state law. Additionally, we hope that Congress
will fund as a priority scientific expertise and help us to
address these problems. The Delta, at 1300 square miles, is the
largest estuary and wetland ecosystem on the west coasts of
both North and South America. It includes over 500,000 acres of
agricultural land and 200,000 jobs. The five-county Delta
region has consistently contributed more than 2 billion dollars
annually in agricultural gross value. California has a very
diverse economy, up and down the state, with no single sector
dominating our total state economy. Our state's economic health
depends on a healthy Bay-Delta system and a comprehensive water
program. We would encourage you to look for solutions that
include practical solutions, short and long term.
First among these is additional storage south of the Delta.
Until the critical issue of south Delta storage is addressed
and implemented, there is little or no benefit for removing
pump restrictions. There simply is no place to store any
additionally gained water. Since December of last year there
have been several extended periods when the export pumps were
not constrained by the biological opinions, but rather by their
own inability to pump water or deliver it. Most recently, the
pumps shut down completely and they are still not delivering as
much water as they could, because there's no place to store the
water. Second is the adoption of a solutions-oriented approach,
beginning with immediate actions we know will be required now
and in the long-term that will put people to work today. These
include emergency planning, protection of key infrastructure
and levee improvements. An additional and absolutely critical
investment we need in order to ensure reliable, high-quality
water supply for all users everywhere in the State, is in the
improvement of the Delta levee system. The Delta Vision
project, completed by the State of California, arrived at the
same conclusion.
In closing, let me reference the Principles of Agreement,
adopted by the Delta Counties Coalition, which describe our
joint interest on the Bay-Delta Estuary and are attached to our
written testimony. I won't address them, but we believe the
Bay-Delta must be protected and restored or it will not be
available as a resource that is reliably available to help meet
the various and legitimate needs of all of those around the
state, 23 million Californians. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Piepho follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Mary Nejedly Piepho, Supervisor, Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors, Representing the CA Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta Counties Coalition (DCC)
Good morning
My name is Mary Nejedly Piepho and I am a member of the Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today. I am here on behalf of the Delta County Boards
of Supervisors that represent the five counties encompassing the Delta:
Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, San Joaquin and Contra Costa. Together, we
represent more than four million Californians that live and work in the
Delta. I am here today to encourage you to work together with us in
solving the very serious water challenges facing our regions and the
state, rather than solutions that might benefit one region at the
expense of others.
The five Delta Counties joined together to articulate a common
vision and voice for the Delta, advocating on behalf of local
government and the 4 million people in the Delta. We are fully aware
that two-thirds of our state relies on water that flows through the
Delta and that it is an ecosystem of national significance. We feel
strongly that we should have an integral role in addressing the
multitude of complex Delta issues that directly affect us in every way.
``Nothing about us without us''.
The DCC strongly supports a scientifically-based approach to
solving water issues for the state, and restoring the Delta ecosystem.
We encourage Congress to support the recent state legislative actions
contained in the Delta Reform Act and the existing body of state law.
Additionally, we hope that Congress will fund as a priority scientific
expertise in helping to address these problems. In particular, Congress
should rely on the considerable expertise of the federal and state
biologists who have studied the Delta and its fish populations to
determine actions to protect and restore the Delta ecosystem, rather
than imposing conditions through legislation that would further
contribute to the decline of the Delta smelt and other at-risk species.
The Delta is a unique and critically important natural resource to
the state and the nation, above and beyond its clear value to the
residents, families, farms and those that depend upon its fishery. The
Delta as a place supports 4 million people and I am one of them. The
Delta, at 1,300 square miles, is the largest estuary and wetland
ecosystem on the west coasts of both North and South America, and
includes over 500,000 acres of agricultural land and 200,000 jobs. The
five-county Delta region has consistently contributed more than $2
billion annually in agricultural gross value.
California has a very diverse economy, up and down the state, with
no single sector dominating our total state economy. Our state's
economic health depends on a healthy Bay-Delta and comprehensive water
program that balances the needs of all sectors and all users--
agricultural, recreational and tourism, commercial, industrial and
residential water provision alike. Each is vital.
We recognize the serious economic problems facing the Central
Valley and the importance of Central Valley agriculture to the state
and nation. We have similar economic impacts and values in our area as
well. Surely, there must be a close examination of the diverse factors
which contribute to these problems, and solutions to these contributing
factors must be jointly crafted. All who care about the Valley and
California water issues should acknowledge that there is a body of data
prepared by respected individuals and institutions suggesting that some
problems in the Central Valley have relatively little to do with
reductions at the south delta export pumps.
There have been a number of official letters and reports during and
since 2009 that confirm that most of the recent reductions in water
supplies were due to drought conditions and not simply Endangered
Species Act restrictions.\1\ . It is crucial that the examination of
the complex and at times interrelated problem areas is comprehensive so
that real and sustainable solutions to these problems can be achieved.
For both short and long-term benefits to the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (Lester Snow letter to Sen. Feinstein 5/09, Congressional
Research Service Report on CA Drought 12/09, and University of the
Pacific--Eberhardt School of Business, Unemployment in the San Joaquin
Valley in 2009: Fish or Foreclosure, 8/09)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also important to note that additional impacts to the Delta
fishery will continue to create economic hardship in other areas of the
state, for example, to the salmon and recreational fishing industries.
We must be very careful in implementing supposed `solutions' that
benefit one area of the state while adversely affecting another.
There are several items that the Subcommittee should consider as
priorities for resolution, which we think will help move the state
toward real and comprehensive solutions
First among these is additional storage south of the Delta. Until
the critical issue of south Delta storage is addressed and implemented,
there is little or no benefit to removing pump restrictions; there is
simply no place to store any additionally gained water. Since December,
there have been several extended periods when the export pumps were not
constrained by the biological opinions, but rather by their own ability
to pump water or deliver it. Most recently, the pumps shut down
completely and they are still not delivering as much as they could
because there is no place to store the water. If agencies are not
getting their full amounts this year, it is because investments have
not been made for storage to enable more water to be pumped in wet
years (which would also help in dry years).
Second is the adoption of a solutions-oriented approach, beginning
with immediate actions we know will be required now and in the long
term. These include emergency planning, protection of key
infrastructure with levee improvements, fish screening and actions to
promote a healthy ecosystem that will enhance water supplies and
improvement of water quality for all.
An additional and absolutely critical investment we need to make in
order to ensure reliable, high-quality water supply for all users
everywhere, is in the improvement of the Delta levee system. The Delta
Vision project, completed by the State of California, arrived at the
same conclusion. Levees are a critical part of water supply and
quality. They are not ``only'' for flood control or for the protection
of local privately owned lands. Levees protect water quality and
important infrastructure that keeps California running and will for the
foreseeable future. We must protect levees today in order to protect
existing water supplies and maintain operational flexibility even with
any proposed isolated conveyance facility.
In your deliberations we hope that you will consider these and
other solutions that benefit the Central Valley with consideration of
the state as a whole. We believe that ensuring the continued health and
reliability of the Delta is key to the health of the other regions that
depend upon it. We look forward to working with you on comprehensive
solutions that benefit us all rather than pitting us one against
another.
In closing, let me reference the Principles of Agreement adopted by
the Delta Counties Coalition, which describe our joint interests on the
Bay Delta Estuary and are attached to our written testimony. I will not
address these Principles in detail, but hope you can find time to
review them. The Delta Counties Coalition believes the Bay-Delta must
be protected and restored or it will not be available as a resource
that is reliably available to help meet the various and legitimate
needs of those around the state who must surely share our interest in
protecting this precious and valuable resource.
Thank you for considering our testimony today.
______
Delta Counties Coalition Principles of Agreement
The Coalition adopted a set of founding principles of agreement by
resolution for the purpose of articulating mutual interests on Delta
issues and formulating the foundation for a strategic program of action
to further the directives of the Coalition. Furthermore, the Coalition
has resolved to work together and with other agencies to better
understand Delta-related issues from a regional perspective and to use
their unified voice to advocate on behalf of local government in
available forums at the federal and state levels. The following
includes those principles regarding the management of the Sacramento-
San Joaquin River Delta and greater Bay/Delta Estuary:
1. Protect and improve water quality and water quantity in
the Delta region and maintain appropriate Delta outflow for a
healthy estuary;
2. Protect the existing water right priority system and
legislative protections established for the Delta;
3. Respect and safeguard Delta Counties' responsibilities
related to land use, water resources, flood management, tax
revenues, public health and safety, economic development,
agricultural stability, recreation, and environmental
protection in any new Delta governance structures;
4. Represent and include local government in any new
governance structures for the Delta;
5. Protect the economic viability of agriculture and the
ongoing vitality of communities in the Delta;
6. Support rehabilitation, improvement and maintenance of
levees throughout the Delta;
7. Support the Delta pool concept; in which the common
resource provides quality freshwater supply to all Delta users,
requiring mutual responsibility to maintain, restore and
protect the common resource;
8. Support immediate improvements to through-Delta
conveyance;
9. Require that any water conveyance plan for the Delta be
aligned with the principles established by this resolution and
supported by clearly demonstrated improvement the entire
state's water management;
10. Protect and restore the Delta ecosystem including adequate
water supply and quality to support it in perpetuity;
11. Include the study of storage options and implementation of
conservation, recycling, reuse, regional self-sufficiency as
part of a statewide improved flood management and water supply
system; and
12. Support those conservation actions that are aligned with
the principles established by this resolution and that are in
accordance with habitat plans and programs of the Delta
Counties.
______
Mr. McClintock. Our next witness is Mr. Larry Collins. He's
the President of the San Francisco Crab Boat Owners
Association, San Francisco, California.
STATEMENT OF LARRY COLLINS, PRESIDENT, SAN FRANCISCO CRAB BOAT
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Collins. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Council. I have the fun job of being the salmon fisherman
representative here today. You are all pretty cavalier about
telling me that my job is over and there's no more work for me.
We depend on salmon for 70 percent of our income. My wife and I
have been fishing salmon out of San Francisco for the last 27--
25-27 years. I represent thousands of fishing families up and
down the coast of Oregon and California. I'm an angry man. We
have been fishing salmon for 25 years. We bought a house and
raised two kids. We are currently paying off our third and
final boat. Unfortunately for us and the thousands of families
like ours, which are all small business owners, the backbone of
this country, we haven't been able to fish for the last three
years. And it's been pretty tough for coastal towns from Santa
Barbara all the way to Astoria.
The problem started about ten years ago when the pumping
levels out of the Delta jumped from 4.5 million acre-feet to
almost 7 million acre-feet. You can see the corresponding
downward spiral of the salmon fishermen who are losing their
houses, their boats and their hope for the future and the
remaining belief in their government. And still people are
crying down here for more water. The rhetoric coming out of the
westside of this valley is almost as toxic as the agricultural
wastewater polluting our Delta and Bay.
It isn't much fun being downstream of the corporate
millionaire agribusinesses. There is no more water. Every drop
is spoken for. You can't keep planting permanent crops. You
have gotten way more than your share of the water and you have
to give some back. I know that these are hard realities, but
any politician or lobbyist that tells you any different isn't
telling you the truth, because they are trying to keep their
job.
Farmers and fishermen are a lot alike. We are both food
providers. The weather can make us or break us. Mother Nature
can be a cruel business partner. But the more water you take
out of the system to smooth out your ups and downs, the more
you guaranty the death spiral of my industry. It is an unfair
distribution of public trust resource.
You know, I go into the schools and I do a Fisherman in the
Classroom program and I tell the kids public trust resources,
that's the water, that's the fish in the ocean, they are owned
by all of us and you should care about them, because there's
always people trying to take them from you because they are
valuable.
In the fishing industry we have textures right now where
people are killing the fish in the ocean before they go catch
them, which I'm very against it and doing everything I can to
stop. But these public trust resources, we need to have them
equitably distributed and we have to keep the salmon in the
river, you know. And on bad years when there's not much water,
it's tough down here in the Valley, it's tough on the coast.
There's more fish now. We are finally going to get a salmon
season, I think. Not a full season, but some salmon season this
year. We got eight days in front of my house last year. The
first four days it blew 35 knots, so we couldn't go out. The
next four days I caught one and I lost one. So I had one
salmon, which most of it's still in my freezer, because my wife
won't let me eat it. It's been tough for the industry and I
know you guys have tough times here too. We need to work
together. We need to get that balance back that we used to
have. We used to have a balance where we were able to go
fishing, you guys were able to go farming, you know. You have
to remember, salmon is--that's the main course and the veggies,
they are the side dishes. Thank you. Any questions, I'll be
glad to answer them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Collins follows:]
Statement of Larry Collins, President,
San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association
Members of the Subcommittee, I am Larry Collins. I am president of
the San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association. I am appearing on
behalf of our Association today.
Our Association is a member of the Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations, the largest organization of working fishermen
and women on the West coast. I serve, as well, as vice-president of
PCFFA's board of directors. PCFFA member associations are found from
San Diego to Alaska.
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
Central Valley Project Improvement Act 20 years ago and I 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 have a duty 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 were forced out of work altogether--no salmon fishing--beginning
in 2008.
Barbara and I were successful fishermen for 25 years. During those
years we bought our home, raised our two kids, and paid our bills--all
from the income earned from our fishing.
California's salmon fisheries were shut down altogether, under the
regulations of the Federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, in 2008 and 2009. There was a meager ocean salmon
fishery allowed last year--fewer than 20 percent of our fleet
participated in it. It looks as though we might be able to get back to
work, to catch up a bit on the bills, this year.
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] T5822.002
We are not talking about just any 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 Federal agencies,
as well.
To say that the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary is a national
treasure doesn't really do it justice. 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
and federal governments.
So how has the safekeeping of the Estuary and the river habitats by
their 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. When the
Governor declared a drought emergency three years ago, many of those
Delta protections--including those necessary to address the degradation
pointed out by Dr Lindley--were 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 was that last drought?
It would have been hard to tell from the news the past three years
how bad--or not--the `drought crisis' was. What is clear is the subject
supported a two-year media circus in the Fresno area.
Precipitation in the San Joaquin Valley was 80 to 90 percent normal
for most stations in 2009.
Last year precipitation was 100 percent or better for most San
Joaquin Valley locations.
The Central Valley Project's Friant and Eastside division customers
received 100 percent of their contract allocations in 2010.
It was the San Joaquin Valley's west-side irrigators that were
doing all the hollering. It was they who were claiming to be in such a
world of hurt. It was they who staged the media circus with clowns like
Sean Hannity and posed 60 Minutes' Diane Sawyers in front of uprooted
almond trees without bothering to tell her that they tear those trees
out every 20- to 25 years anyway.
It's the San Joaquin Valley's west-side growers, those with the
poisoned soil, that did all the yowling during those two dry years. And
you know what? At the same time that our guys were put totally out of
work the San Joaquin Valley's west-side irrigators did better than
ever.
What about unemployment in the San Joaquin Valley?
The suffering of the farm community of Mendota, California played
on the pages of every major newspaper in the country, on Fox `News'
repeatedly, and in a 60 Minutes broadcast.
How bad was unemployment in Mendota? Really bad--not only in 2008
and 2009, but in virtually every year for which there are records.
Unemployment peaked in Mendota in 2009 at 42 percent. It hit 38
percent eight 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 in 2009:
``...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 was 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, was 100 percent--total--in 2008 and 2009, by order of
the U.S Secretary of Commerce.
A study conducted by our industry two years ago, using 2006
National Marine Fisheries Service survey data, indicates that the shut-
down of salmon fishing in California--both commercial and sports
fishing--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.
Two quite-different San Joaquin Valleys
Because some of you may be new to the San Joaquin Valley I would
like to point out that there are great differences between irrigation
on the east side of the Valley, where you are sitting today, and
irrigation on the west side of the Valley.
Irrigated agriculture on the east side of the Valley began in
earnest in the 1870s.
It draws on the streams that flow off the Sierra Nevada and the
groundwater basins that those streams recharge.
As you drive down the east side of the San Joaquin Valley you'll
see a landscape filled with orchards and vineyards and farmhouses every
quarter of a mile and small towns every few miles.
Friant Dam was built on the San Joaquin River during the Great
Depression as an economic recovery project.
That was its political reason-for-being. Its principal technical
reason was to help recharge the groundwater basins that had been over-
drawn in 60 years of east-side agricultural pumping.
Irrigators in the Bureau of Reclamation's Friant Division receive
100 percent of their Central Valley Project water allocation, as do the
Bureau's `Eastside water contractors'--the Central San Joaquin Water
Conservancy District and Stockton East Water District.
Irrigating the `Badlands' of the Valley's west-side--a government step
too far
Unlike the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, with its Sierra
Nevada run-off water supply, the west side of the Valley is desert-
like. Small creeks flow there, but only seasonally.
The first deep wells were sunk on the west side by large landowners
during World War I to grow cotton, a salt-tolerant crop in demand by
the military.
By 1942 the west-side irrigators were running out of groundwater.
They formed the Westside Landowers Association to lobby the federal
government for Northern California water for their side of the Valley.
In 1952 they formed the Westlands Water District.
One of Westlands' strongest allies was Congressman Bernice--
`Bernie'--Sisk of Fresno who pushed for congressional authorization of
the CVP's San Luis Unit.
Here's what Mr Sisk had to say about the proposal when it was up
for House action in 1960:
``If San Luis is built, according to careful studies, the
present population of the area will almost quadruple. There
will be 27,000 farm residents, 30,700 rural nonfarm residents,
and 29,800 city dwellers; in all, 87,500 people sharing the
productivity and the bounty of fertile lands blossoming with an
ample supply of San Luis water.''
``Recent surveys show that the land proposed to be irrigated
is now in 1,050 ownerships. These studies show that with San
Luis built, there will be 6,100 farms, nearly a sixfold
increase. And in the breaking up of farms to family-size units,
anti-speculation and other provisions of the reclamation laws
will assure fair prices.''
It's hard to say how many ownerships there are in Westlands. That's
information the Bureau of Reclamation is supposed to have in hand ever
since Congress `reformed' Westlands in 1982--but Westlands is, after
all, a Reclamation constituent.
There are probably about a thousand ownerships in the Westlands
Water District- about the same number as there were 50 years ago. And
those thousand may be held by as few as 200 families and corporations
according to a University of California assessment.
What we do know is that roughly about the time Congress `reformed'
the Westlands Water District, more than a dozen years after they began
spreading Trinity River water onto Westlands' soils, district
landowners included the Standard Oil Company--a principal organizer of
the 1940s lobbying effort--at 10,474 acres; the Southern Pacific
Railroad at 106,000 acres; the Boston Ranch (owned then by cotton
billionaire J.G. Boswell) at 26,485 acres; and the Harris Ranch,
operator of the world's largest cattle feedlot, at 18,393 acres
Not exactly the kind of `family farmers' that Congress had in mind
when it passed the Reclamation Act of 1902--nor which Bernie Sisk
promised the nation in his 1960 San Luis Unit authorization floor
speech.
Westland's biggest town is Huron, population 6,000, 98 percent
Hispanic.
There is no high school within the boundaries of the 1,000 square-
mile Westlands Water District.
What does irrigating the west side of the San Joaquin Valley have to do
with salmon fishing?
What does irrigating the west side of the San Joaquin Valley have
to do with salmon? A lot--a tremendous amount. And the situation
appears to be getting more dire every year.
Even as Westlands was lobbying Congress for the San Luis Unit, more
than 50 years ago, to bring Trinity River water down to the west side
(water, incidentally, intended for years for the CVP's `Sacramento
Canals Unit', in what is now Congressman Herger's district) it was well
understood by all there would have to an accompanying drainage system.
The soils on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley are high in
toxics, like selenium, boron and arsenic, that would gradually destroy
irrigated agriculture unless it was drained away to the rivers, the
Bay-Delta estuary and the coastal ocean.
And, of course, there hasn't been any such comprehensive drainage
system created for Westlands and their `badlands' water district
neighbors.
The Bay area community successfully fended off the so-called `San
Luis Drain' from reaching to the San Francisco Bay estuary. There was a
lame attempt to promote draining this stuff into Monterey Bay 20 years
ago--but that was another non-starter.
Reclamation tried to puddle the San Luis Unit drainage up at
Kesterson Reservoir--and call it a national wildlife refuge. Birds
began to die there in large numbers about 30 years ago, about the same
time that a neighbor, Jim Claus' cows began to die.
This toxic pathway--from old sea-floor sediments, to irrigation
drainage, to disastrous release into the aquatic environment--has been
widely reported in the scientific literature as the `Kesterson effect'.
Selenium levels in the San Joaquin River are unfit for salmon
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5822.003
The toxic irrigation drainage from the west-side finds its way
to the San Joaquin River, the San Francisco Bay estuary and
California's coastal ocean--at concentrations lethal to juvenile
chinook salmon.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5822.004
Westlands' free ride
As I mentioned above, the CVP's San Luis Unit was supposed to
operate off water from the Trinity River--the `Trinity Diversion
Project'--water that was always intended for the Sacramento Valley
until Westlands muscled itself to the front of the line in the 1950s.
The Bureau of Reclamation contracted to deliver up to 90 percent of
the natural flow of the Trinity River water to the west-side irrigators
on the same basis as they did the rest of their customers--`when and as
available'.
The 1970s diversions from the Trinity proved disastrous for Trinity
River salmon and the Native Americans who had depended on them for
thousands of years for food.
In the 1980s the Department of the Interior began a re-evaluation
of the salmon flow needs of the Trinity River.
The findings of the re-evaluation were that much of the water
Reclamation had been delivering to Westlands had to be left in the
Trinity. It wasn't just about salmon. It was about American law dating
back to the very early 1800s--the United States' trust responsibilities
to the Tribes.
So Reclamation is delivering to Westlands as much water as it can--
that which is available. And if that represents `only' 65 percent of
Westlands' contract maximum is that a raw deal?
If Congress thinks that's a raw deal, then who does it want to
deliver the raw deal to? The Tribes?
What's the answer?
The federal government has been delivering water that it should not
have--at least from a salmon and Tribal perspective--to Westlands.
Westlands has been running toxic drainage from its irrigated `badlands'
into the river, Bay and coastal ocean, poisoning the salmon our members
depend on for a living, in violation of law.
In the process Westlands has run up a $500 million federal
government tab at U.S taxpayers' expense. And they have received
hundreds of millions of dollars in agricultural price supports--
subsidies.
They have retired 100,000 acres of toxic lands--lands that salted
up from irrigation just like everyone knew they would before they ever
began. And that land retirement was done at public expense.
There are another 300, 000 acres of toxic badlands on the west-side
in need of retirement--before the last Central Valley salmon tank--and
the U.S taxpayers with them.
Retirement of that 300,000 acres of west-side badlands would free
up enough water to take care of dry spells like the last one in
California for another 20 to 25 years.
For the sake of the salmon--and for the sake of the U.S taxpayers--
we urge the Subcommittee to get behind west-side San Joaquin Valley
badlands retirement.
We urge you to listen to the facts. We have all had enough of the
media circus.
PCFFA's executive director, Zeke Grader, is with me here to today
to help me answer questions, if you have any.
Thank you.
______
Mr. McClintock. Our next witness is Mr. Tom Birmingham,
General Manager of the Westlands Water District, Fresno,
California.
STATEMENT OF TOM BIRMINGHAM, GENERAL MANAGER, WESTLANDS WATER
DISTRICT, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Birmingham. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, you
have my written testimony and I will try to summarize it as
briefly as I can. It is, indeed, ironic and I don't think the
irony has been missed on any of you. We are here to talk about
the impact of drought on jobs at a time when California's
reservoirs are full, our streams are running bank to bank, our
flood control bypasses are running bank to bank. The wet
hydrologic conditions that exist today could make it beyond
reasonable doubt that the water supply for farmers from Tracy
to Kettleman City, indeed from Tracy to Kern County, is not a
product of hydrology, whether it's wet or dry, it's a product
of how much water we can move through the Delta to supply those
farmers.
Unfortunately, for the last 20 years--Mr. Garamendi is well
aware of this--for the last 20 years we have been dealing with
Federal regulations that have restricted our ability to move
that water. A lot of attention has been paid to the two most
recent biological opinions with good cause. As an example, last
year those two biological opinions cost our two water projects
by themselves in excess of a million acre-feet of water. But
those impacts are in addition to the impacts that extend back
to 1992 when the Federal Government began implementing the
Endangered Species Act and began implementing the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act. Together those regulations have
reduced our reliability from a point of 92 percent in the early
1990s to a point today where in an average water year we can
expect to receive between 35 and 40 percent of our contract
supplies.
Now, the most devastating year resulting from these
regulations was 2009. And I have heard comments that, well, in
2009 the farm economy of the State of California was doing very
well and in 2009 most of the farmers south of the Delta got 100
percent, exchange contractors, most farmers that operate under
managed levels. Well, Mr. Larson had suggested that in a year
like this when water service contractors are getting 75 percent
and the refuge is getting 100 percent, that suggests some
imbalance. It was worse than that. In 2009 refuges got 100
percent of their contract supply and we got 10 percent. Let me
say that again. The refuges got 100 percent of their contract
supply under Central Valley Project Improvement Act and we got
10 percent. When I hear the comments about the agricultural
economy in 2009 and the fact that most of the farmers got their
water, it reminds me of a joke that a recession is when your
neighbor is unemployed, a depression is when you are
unemployed. Well, this is not a joke and it is not a game. The
comments that dismiss the impasse associated with the
regulations or resulting from the regulations that we have
experienced for the last 20 years are offensive. They are
offensive. And the worst part is that these regulations have
done absolutely no good for the fish.
And Mr. Garamendi says that we shouldn't abandon science
and he's absolutely right, we should not abandon science. And
that's precisely why the California Department of Water
Resources and the water agencies that you see represented here
are in court fighting the biological opinions, because they are
not based on science. The Court has found that. The National
Academy of Sciences has found that. The panel that Mr. Costa
convened has found that if we are going to pursue the long-term
solutions that are necessary to sustain the economy in the
State of California, we have to figure out a way for the
farmers and for the fishermen to survive.
Judge Wanger, when he found that the biological opinions
were invalid, related the sloppy science on which they were
based. And he made a point which is absolutely correct, that
everyone who's interested in the subject, whether it's the
water agencies, the farmers, the communities on the westside of
the San Joaquin Valley, the fishermen, the Native Americans,
the environmental groups, they all deserve better. And if you
are going to do anything, Mr. Chairman, I would request that
you conduct oversight and then look at ways not to amend the
Endangered Species Act, but to provide direction on how that
act is going to be implemented so that we can survive over the
course of the next five to ten years while we are pursuing
long-term solutions.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Birmingham follows:]
Statement of Thomas Birmingham, General Manager,
Westlands Water District
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Thomas W.
Birmingham, and I am the General Manager of Westlands Water District
(``Westlands'' or ``District''). Thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to testify today on the opportunity to create
jobs by overcoming man-made drought.
Westlands is a California water district that serves irrigation
water to an area of approximately 600,000 acres on the west side of the
San Joaquin Valley in Fresno and Kings counties. The District averages
15 miles in width and is 70 miles long. Historically, the demand for
irrigation water in Westlands was 1.4 million acre-feet per year, and
that demand has been satisfied through the use of groundwater, water
made available to the District from the Central Valley Project under
contracts with the United States for the delivery of 1.19 million acre-
feet, and annual transfers of water from other water agencies.
Westlands is one of the most fertile, productive and diversified
farming regions in the nation. Rich soil, a good climate, and
innovative farm management have helped make the area served by
Westlands one of the most productive farming areas in the San Joaquin
Valley and the nation. Westlands farmers produce over 50 commercial
fiber and food crops sold for the fresh, dry, and canned or frozen food
markets; domestic and export. These crops have a value in excess of $1
billion.
It is ironic that you are here to hear about drought and the impact
of drought on jobs at a time when California's reservoirs are full and
rivers, streams, and flood control by-passes are running high. However,
the current hydrologic conditions are not an anomaly. Floods and
drought, the continual alteration between these two extremes is part of
the natural cycle of life in California. In terms of water supply for
the people who live and work on the westside of the San Joaquin Valley,
it used to be you could tell the difference between the two quite
easily. Today that is not the case.
If any proposition should be made inarguable by the current
situation, it would be that the water supply for the numerous south-of-
Delta Central Valley Project (``CVP'') agricultural water service
contractors is not dependent on hydrology. Exhibit 1 to my testimony, a
graph of the current California Northern Sierra Precipitation, 8-
Station Index, dated April 8, 2011, illustrates that the precipitation,
the snowpack, and the run-off in the current, 2010-11 water year will
be exceptionable; however, the allocation for south-of-Delta Central
Valley Project agricultural water service contractors is 75%. This
anomaly is a product of the fact that today we are living under a
federal regulatory regime that has made droughts more frequent and
their impacts more severe. And those same regulations are reducing many
of the natural benefits we used to derive from periods of high
precipitation.
This is not a recent problem. Limitations on CVP operations that
created this circumstance date back to 1992, when restrictions began to
be imposed on operations of the W.C. ``Bill'' Jones Pumping Plant under
the Endangered Species Act to protect listed species and to implement
the fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration measures of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act, (Pub. Law 102-575). In fact, the CVPIA
has been implemented by the Department of the Interior in a manner that
has reallocated more than 1,000,000 acre-feet of CVP water away from
farms, ranches and business that relied upon this water for decades to
the environment--for the restoration and enhancement of fish and
wildlife. Virtually all of the water supply reductions that have
resulted from implementation of the CVPIA have been imposed on south-
of-Delta Central Valley Project agricultural water service
contractors.\1\ As depicted in the graph attached to my testimony as
Exhibit 2, these restrictions have resulted in reduced contract
allocations to south-of-Delta irrigation contractors in many years when
Reclamation spilled water from Project storage to meet flood criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The disproportionate impacts of these regulatory requirements
on the water supplies of west side farmers were recognized by former
Governor Gray Davis and former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt
as early as June 2000, when they signed the CALFED document entitled
``California's Water Future, A Framework for Action.'' In that document
then Governor Davis and then Secretary Babbitt correctly noted that
Westlands and other San Joaquin Valley agricultural water contractors
had been ``disproportionately affected by recent regulatory actions,''
and they described a number of actions that would restore, over the
short-term and the long-term, these contractors' water supplies.
Unfortunately, those actions have not been successful in restoring our
water supplies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most severe impact of the restrictions imposed under the CVPIA
and the ESA occurred in 2009, the first year in which the CVP was
operated under the Delta smelt biological opinion for the operations of
the Central Valley Project and State Water Project issued by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service and dated December 15, 2008. As a
result of the combined effects of dry hydrologic conditions and
regulatory restrictions, the final allocation for south-of-Delta
agricultural water service contractors was 10%. Hundreds of thousands
of acres of productive farmlands had to be fallowed and millions of
dollars worth of permanent crops were destroyed, simply because there
was not sufficient water to sustain them. The most tragic consequence
of the 2009 crisis was that thousands of people who live and work on
the westside of the Valley lost their jobs; unemployment rates in the
City of Mendota and the City of San Joaquin soared to more than 40%.
Small, local businesses were plunged into an economic crisis. And
tragically, many people went hungry.
At the time, there was much debate about whether the human disaster
experienced in 2009 was the result of natural drought, rather than
regulatory restrictions on operations of the CVP. (In fact, that debate
continues today.) It was also observed that the communities on the
westside of the San Joaquin Valley that were experiencing unprecedented
levels of unemployment historically had high levels of unemployment,
and it was asserted that the 2009 levels were a consequence of the
nation-wide economic recession. The reality is that there was some
truth on both sides of these debates.
In 2009, dry conditions did contribute to reduced water supplies;
however, restrictions imposed on CVP operations under the 2008, Delta
smelt biological opinion exacerbated the impact of those dry
conditions. The 2008 Delta smelt biological opinion reduced south-of-
Delta CVP water supplies by nearly 250,000 acre-feet. (The impact of
this biological opinion on the combined water supplies of the CVP and
the California State Water Project was 620,000 acre-feet.) Moreover,
the restrictions on CVP operations imposed under the 2008 Delta smelt
biological opinion were in addition to other restrictions imposed by
earlier biological opinions and the CVPIA. There cannot any doubt that
had none of these regulatory restrictions been in place, the allocation
for south-of-Delta CVP contractors would have been significantly higher
than 10%. Indeed, when compared to allocations in similar water years
that occurred prior to 1992, the 2009 allocation for south-of-Delta CVP
contractors could have been as high as 90%. This is made evident by
Exhibit 3 to my testimony, a chart depicting allocations for south-of-
Delta agricultural water service contractors since 1952.
In addition, the communities on the westside of the San Joaquin
Valley that had unemployment rates in excess of 40% in 2009 have
historically had high unemployment rates, and the nation-wide economic
malaise that occurred in 2009 undoubtedly contributed to unemployment
on the westside of the San Joaquin Valley. But equally true is that
hundreds-of-thousands of fallowed acres and the destruction of
permanent crops contributed to higher than average unemployment. The
graph attached to my testimony as Exhibit 4 helps to illustrate each of
these points.
Admittedly, Exhibit 4 is not based on a robust economic analysis.
However, in 2009, more than 200,000 acres in Westlands that otherwise
would have been cultivated were fallowed. No one can dispute that had
these lands been irrigated, some farm workers in the immediately
adjacent communities who were without work would have been employed. A
very conservative assumption is that every 800 acres under irrigated
cultivation will produce three farm worker jobs. This means that had
these 200,000 fallowed acres in Westlands been irrigated, an additional
750 farm workers would have been employed.
In 2011, the harm that these restrictions are doing to the human
environment is not as dramatic as the crisis in 2009. However, in 2011
these same regulations reduced the initial allocation for south-of-
Delta CVP agricultural water service contractors to 50%. And although
that allocation has incrementally increased, so that today our farmers
can expect to receive 75% of the water we have contracted for, so long
as farmers cannot predicatively rely on receiving an adequate supply of
water, they are unable efficiently plan their annual operations and are
unable to secure crop loans until very late in the growing season.
The harm these regulations have done to our communities, our
economy, and the environment would be bad enough, but what is worse,
they have produced no demonstrable benefits for at risk species. And as
the United States District Court has consistently found, many of these
regulation lack any basis in science.
Over the last three years, Westlands has joined with the California
Department of Water Resources and other public water agencies that
serve more than two-thirds of California's people in litigation that
challenges the most recent biological opinions for operations of the
CVP and California State Water Project. We have been trying to ensure
that the biological opinions meet the standards for scientific
integrity that the Endangered Species Act requires. And time after
time, the District Court has found that the federal fish agencies used
what the court called ``sloppy science'' or, in many instances, no
science at all in preparing these biologic opinions.
They failed to prepare even the most basic quantitative analysis to
support their regulations. They ignored scientific reports that did not
fit their preconceived notions and cherry-picked from others only the
findings that they agreed with. In addition to failing the Endangered
Species Act's standard of ``best available science,'' the court found
Reclamation violated the National Environmental Policy Act as well.
California's water system was designed to enable us to live within
the extremes of flood and drought. In the past it gave us the
flexibility to adjust to these changing conditions and move our water
supplies around to the places where and when they are needed most. That
flexibility is what the current federal regulatory regime has taken
away. To restore it, we need to begin now building the new facilities
that are needed for the twenty first century.
According to Merriam-Webster, the word ``drought'' has two
principal meanings: (1) a period of dryness, especially when prolonged,
that causes extensive damage to crops or prevents their successful
growth; and (2) a prolonged or chronic shortage or lack of something
expected or desired. We certainly are not in a period of dryness this
year, but people who live and work on the westside continue to suffer
from a prolonged and chronic shortage of the water they expected under
their contracts with the United States.
I hope my testimony has made it clear that this prolonged and
chronic shortage is the result of policy choices made by the federal
government, not by dry hydrologic conditions. Plain and simple, this is
a man-made drought. It is Westlands' view that these policy choices
must be changed to better reflect the natural system, human needs and
good science. I hope your Subcommittee will help to make that happen. I
would welcome any questions from members of the Subcommittee.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5822.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5822.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5822.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5822.008
Mr. McClintock. Our next witness is Mr. Jim Beck, who
is the General Manager of the Kern County Water District from
Bakersfield, California.
STATEMENT OF JIM BECK, GENERAL MANAGER, KERN COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Beck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a privilege to be
here today. I represent Kern County Water Agency. I had to get
a special visa to come to Fresno today. It expires at noon, so
I'll be hurrying out of the building.
What ESA has done to us I think is indicative of what's
going on in the State. In 1961 our growers signed a contract
with the State of California to receive one million acre-feet
of water from the state water project. As a result of a number
of decisions that included the implementation of Federal and
state environmental regulations, by 2005 growers in our area
could depend on the State Water Project to deliver about 68
percent of what they had signed up for. So they lost 32 percent
of their water supply. Now, it wasn't all endangered species
regulations, but a large portion of that in fact was directly
related to that.
So, in the last five years, we have seen a more dramatic
drop of that reliability. As a result of the biological
opinions, we lost another 8 percent. So right now our growers
are sitting on a 60 percent reliability on a contract that they
executed in 1961 for five million acre-feet--or one million
acre-feet of water. Also, the ESA has cost the state water
project 1.5 million acre-feet of water lost in the last three
years. During those three years our growers had to continue to
pay for water that they did not receive. That's the nature of
the state water contract and that meant that we paid for over
120 million dollars for that water, to get the privilege of
seeing it go out to the ocean.
So to combat this, we have one of the world's greatest
groundwater banking programs, if you have water, we can store
it. We have done that. We have invested half a billion dollars
in infrastructure and water supplies that have allowed us to
combat the drought that we saw over the last three years. Even
with those tremendous assets, we did see a decline in farm and
ag values. In 2008 they were at 880,000 acres of production,
land production. We saw 40,000 acres go out of production in
one year and we also saw the value of our agriculture and
economy drop by 400 million dollars in one year. That's an 11
percent drop in one year. Most of the westside of our portion
of the San Joaquin Valley is suffering the same consequences
that the rest of the Valley is. There's high unemployment rate.
We are talking 35 to 40 percent unemployment in towns like Lost
Hills, Delano and Shafter. So it's really a difficult time for
much of our agricultural community. Their way of life is really
at stake in ground zero of this crisis and our success and
failure means whether they continue to exist in any form that
they are today.
So what do we do? First of all, we need to update the ESA.
Tom Birmingham, myself and many state and Federal regulators
are involved in a plan called BDCP. This is an effort to permit
an isolated facility as well as deal with the overall ecosystem
collapse in the Delta. That program is moving along. On my good
days I'm very optimistic. On my bad days it's a tough, tough
battle. It's our best and only hope and we have to stay focused
on that. One of the hindrances in that effort is part of the
regulatory process of the ESA. There's people in the room who
are better equipped to explain this to you, but I'll give you a
30-second update. Section 10 of the ESA requires that non-
Federal agencies are allowed to work ecosystems on a global
basis. That's a smart way to do it. I'm a scientist. I get it.
You look at everything that's going in the ecosystem to figure
out what's best for it. Unfortunately, Federal participants in
the process, like the Bureau of Reclamation, fall under Section
7. They have to do a species-by-species review of what goes on.
It doesn't make sense. Sometimes that's in conflict with
Section 10 and it's really hampering the process. We recommend
that you look at modifying the Bureau of Reclamation's
particular requirement for the Section 7 consultation.
Next, we'd like you to make sure, like the other cries
we've heard, we need to have better science. It's a crime that
we had to throw a fit and sue to get people to understand that
dumping 15 tons of ammonia into the Sacramento River on a daily
basis might have an effect on the ecosystem. That gives you an
example of the type of paradigm we have been in where logical
science that doesn't match with the existing paradigm is
rejected and you have to fight and battle, you have to plant a
porthole making sure legitimate science gets into the equation.
There are a lot of other examples of that in my testimony.
I want to thank you for this effort and I really appreciate
the opportunity to speak to you today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beck follows:]
Statement of Jim Beck, General Manager,
Kern County Water Agency, Bakersfield, California
Good afternoon, Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, and
Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Jim Beck. I am the General
Manager of the Kern County Water Agency.
Introduction
The Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) is located in Bakersfield,
California and serves the urban and agricultural areas in the
surrounding region. KCWA's mission is: ``To ensure that adequate,
reliable and affordable water supplies are available for beneficial use
by the people and economy of Kern County.''
KCWA participates in a wide range of water management activities
including protecting water quality, providing domestic, municipal and
industrial water supplies, and constructing and managing groundwater
banking facilities. KCWA is the second largest participant in the State
Water Project (SWP), a water storage and delivery system of reservoirs,
aqueducts, power plants, and pumping plants.
KCWA holds a contract for one million acre-feet (af) of SWP water
and is delivered to 14 public water agencies that serve domestic and
irrigation supplies to the farms, families and businesses in Kern
County.
Since 1987, KCWA and the local water districts it serves have been
faced with extreme variations in water supply from its local and SWP
sources due to drought, but also in major part due to regulations
imposed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These reductions in
deliveries have resulted in significant reductions in agricultural
production, and significant adverse impacts on Kern County's economy.
In 1961, when KCWA contracted with the State of California for
water from the SWP, we expected that KCWA would receive nearly 100
percent of the water contracted for each and every year (about one
million af). However, between 1960 and 2005 that expectation had to
change because the SWP was not completed, additional criteria were
imposed on SWP operations, and because of federally imposed
restrictions to protect Chinook salmon and Delta smelt. By 2005, we
were forced to expect only 68 percent of our total contract amount, or
about 680 thousand af on average. After new biological opinions were
issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) (collectively, the Services) in 2008, the SWP
delivery capability dropped to 60 percent, or about 600 thousand af on
average.
While federal officials have pointed to a hydrologic drought as the
major impact to water supplies over the past three years, the federal
endangered species act has accounted for over 1.5 million af of water
loss to the SWP since the beginning of 2008. Because the SWP was not
able to deliver as much water to Kern County, farmers in Kern County
paid more than $120 million for water that was not delivered. In
addition to that amount, farmers had to pump additional groundwater and
acquire very expensive surface water from other sources to make up for
the losses.
Under these conditions, making the best possible use of our
existing surface and groundwater supplies has become our most important
objective. But if we are to do that effectively, the State and federal
governments must do a better job of balancing ecosystem and water
supply needs in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta).
Balancing the Delta
The Delta is a valuable ecosystem and the hub of California's water
supply. It must serve both purposes equally. In the recent past, State
and federal agencies have proposed and implemented measures in the
Delta based on the presumption that ecosystem needs are paramount and
water supply needs are incidental. To effectively manage the Delta to
meet the co-equal goals of ecosystem protection and enhancement and
water supply reliability, federal agencies that exercise regulatory
authority in the Delta must: (1) adapt the regulatory regime to new
realities; (2) significantly improve the quality of scientific
information that is used by federal agencies in making regulatory
decisions in the Delta; and (3) improve coordination among federal
agencies and high-level federal government leadership.
In addition, Congress should amend the ESA to streamline federal
involvement in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and to help
achieve the co-equal goals of ecosystem protection and enhancement and
water supply reliability consistent with State law.
Adapt the Regulatory Scheme to New Realities
The ESA was passed by Congress almost 38 years ago. It was designed
to protect both species and the ecosystems upon which they depend, but
generally the ESA reflects a species-by-species and project-by-project
approach to protecting species and ecosystems. In 1982, Congress
amended the ESA to encourage non-federal parties to undertake
conservation planning. Coupled with regulatory changes adopted in the
1990s, the 1982 amendments facilitated multi-species, regional
conservation planning. In contrast, the basic structure of Section 7 of
the Act which governs federal agency actions has remained largely
unchanged over the last four decades.
The 1982 amendments to Section 10 of the ESA led to the development
of landscape-level conservation plans in many parts of California and
on the lower Colorado River. In lieu of conservation planning, the
federal government and State of California opted to pursue ecosystem
and water supply management in the Delta through the development of
CALFED. But the CALFED experiment came up short as the number of listed
species in the Delta continued to grow, their status worsened, and the
State and federal wildlife agencies imposed species-specific measures
intended to halt the declines of the growing number of listed species.
It is now clear that conservation planning shows promise as an
established regulatory tool to realize the goal of long-term water
supply reliability coupled with protection of multiple aquatic and
terrestrial species and the ecosystems upon which those species depend.
The BDCP is an effort to marshal conservation planning to realize
these co-equal goals. The BDCP is intended to fulfill the conservation
planning requirements established in the 1982 amendments to the ESA and
the natural communities conservation planning requirements set forth in
the State of California's Natural Communities Conservation Planning
Act. Those two regimes allow regulatory agencies to take a more
comprehensive approach to addressing the needs of the Delta's native,
at-risk species.
Unfortunately, the Services have approached the BDCP process as if
it were a consultation on operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP)
and SWP under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA rather than a conservation
plan under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. As a result, the Services'
work on the BDCP lacks the kind of regulatory flexibility necessary to
really look comprehensively at the full suite of activities in the
Delta that affect listed species and their respective habitats. While
controlling the operations of the CVP and the SWP remain a central
focal point of the Services, other components of the BDCP designed to
address activities that likely influence the survival and potential
recovery of listed species are given less attention.
Emerging scientific information regarding the Delta and its native
species illustrates the need for a comprehensive approach that focuses
on, among other things, habitat restoration and projects to address
other stressors on the listed species in a manner that is equal to the
Services' focus on CVP and SWP operations. But, unfortunately, the
species-by-species, project-by-project focus of Section 7 of the ESA is
in conflict with the regional conservation planning approach reflected
in Section 10 and with the co-equal goals of water supply and ecosystem
restoration established by the State of California for the Delta. For
this reason, as I previously mentioned, Congress should amend the ESA
to facilitate development and implementation of the BDCP.
Specific Suggestions to Improve ESA Regulations in the Delta
A recent idea that we would like to explore with the subcommittee
staff following this hearing is the possibility of allowing the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to receive Section 10 coverage under the
ESA. Currently, all federal agencies are prohibited from seeking
coverage under Section 10 of the ESA, which is broader than the take
coverage available under Section 7. In the Delta this circumstance
creates the problem of State and local agencies receiving Section 10
coverage, but USBR only being able to receive Section 7 coverage. It is
likely that this does not present a problem in most areas of the
nation.
But in the Delta, where the confluence of stressors that affect the
species are complex and highly interrelated, the species-by-species,
project-by-project approach of Section 7 is inadequate. In developing
the BDCP, the Services are forced to analyze the proposed actions based
on Section 7's jeopardy standard. They don't have the flexibility to
look more broadly at the suite of conservation measures being taken to
restore habitat or address the long list of other stressors, and
instead are required to look at the specific action being taken, in
this case the operations of a new conveyance facility. As a result,
they must impose limits on CVP and SWP water supplies as their main
approach to Delta environmental protection.
However, if the Services were able to issue permits to USBR under
Section 10, they could look more broadly at the entire suite of actions
being taken to protect the Delta ecosystem and include all of those
actions in their analysis. The Services could be less restrictive in
how they regulate water supply because they could rely on the boarder
suite of environmental actions being implemented to support a finding
that the project as a whole provides benefits to the Delta ecosystem.
This more comprehensive approach releases the Services from the
narrowly focused Section 7 approach and increases the suite of
conservation measures the Services can consider in making their
determinations about the net benefit of the BDCP to the Delta
ecosystem.
Under the current ESA regulations, economic impacts also receive
short shrift. The long term goals of water supply protection and
endangered species protection can best be served by modifications to
Section 10 of the ESA that ensure adequate consideration of the
economic impacts of plans developed under that section. The goal should
be to foster economically efficient multi-species plans that provide
adequate protection to the ecosystem, but also provide protection of
water supplies to avoid the economic disruptions that have occurred in
recent years. We believe that flexibility to achieve these goals
currently exists, but amendment of the statute to require such
consideration would stabilize the regulatory environment and avoid
undue protracted litigation in defense of such plans.
In the immediate future, however, the coordinated operations of the
State and federal projects must rely on Section 7 take authorizations
(under biological opinions) to avoid the take prohibitions of Section 9
of the act. A reasonable biological opinion was overturned by
litigation in the mid-2000s and now water users have overturned an
adverse biological opinion that is under reconsultation. Targeted
statutory guidance for reasonable and prudent alternatives that protect
water supplies and our economy would help to stabilize the current
situation and reduce litigation while long term solutions are
developed. Due to the significant effect on interstate commerce and the
economy of the nation, those reasonable and prudent alternatives
allowing take of species should govern the operations of both the CVP
and the SWP without additional regulation by the State of California.
Significantly Improve Delta Science
Science in the Delta has grown myopic. For decades, State and
federal agencies, as well as scientists that obtain funding from those
agencies through CALFED and the Interagency Ecological Program, have
focused an inordinate amount of time and attention on CVP and SWP
pumping operations in the south Delta. The CVP and SWP collect reams of
data regarding water quality, fish entrainment, tides and water flows,
and fish salvage and release every day at their facilities. It is not
surprising that, in studying the Delta and its declining fish
populations, agency personnel and scientists assumed that CVP and SWP
pumping operations pose a threat to listed fish, even though empirical
research is contrary to this assumption.
The focus on collecting data regarding impacts of the CVP and SWP
contributed to a paucity of data on other factors that could affect the
survival and potential recovery of the listed species. Factors like
toxics, food web deficiencies, predation, in-Delta diversions, habitat
loss due to continuing development, ocean conditions, ocean harvest,
and invasive species received relatively little attention compared to
operations of the CVP and SWP pumps. Recent work in a number of these
areas has shown surprising results; but the results are surprising only
because agency personnel and scientists didn't spend the time and
effort necessary to understand these factors years ago. New studies
undertaken or supported by the water agencies, show that food web
deficiencies and predation may be two of the most significant factors
among several factors in the decline of some Delta species.
For example, Dr. Patricia Glibert of the University of Maryland
focused on the changing forms and ratios of nitrogen and phosphorous
caused by increasing concentrations of ammonia from wastewater
treatment plants that discharge their effluent to the Delta. In one
published study, she noted that the changes in these constituents are
related to the changes in species composition and abundance from the
smallest organisms all the way up the food web. Dr. Glibert theorizes
that much of the Delta's ecologic struggle may be traceable to changes
to the food web caused by nutrient discharges from wastewater treatment
plants.
Predation by non-native species in the Delta is also a new focus of
study that is showing significant promise. Sport fishing trade journals
often remark about the ``heavy losses'' of out-migrating juvenile
salmon to predation by the non-native striped bass. A March 2009 story
in Western Outdoors described predation by the invasive striped bass
this way:
``The peak of the baby salmon's downstream journey corresponds
with the spring spawning run of striped bass. Somewhere along
the line, the two migrations crash headlong into one
another.''. . .. ``It's a one-sided blood bath, and when the
spray and foam settles, stripers emerge fat and happy while
Chinook suffer heavy losses.''
While the effects of predation are well known by sport fishermen,
it has been of little interest in the Delta scientific community until
very recently. A 2010, Sacramento Bee article notes that a supervising
biologist for the California Department of Fish and Game worries
because in his words ``Last night a chill ran down my spine imagining
that Delta smelt go extinct--while we have done nothing proactive to
address predation by striped bass.'' The same state biologist also
stated that: ``I'm again thinking we should propose revising the
striped bass policy to consider them a `weed' like pigs or a similar
pest.'' Slowly this lack of scientific attention to ``common sense''
factors like predation that affect the Delta's endangered fish species
is changing, but it needs to change faster.
The most recent volley of litigation in the Delta is a ruling by
Judge Wagner finding that significant aspects of the current delta
smelt biological opinion for the CVP and SWP were arbitrary and
capricious. In making his findings Judge Wagner didn't lightly skip
over the inappropriate application of scientific information about the
delta smelt, and the effect of continued operations of the CVP and SWP
on the species. In his conclusion of the case Judge Wanger notes that
``. . .the public cannot afford sloppy science and uni-directional
prescriptions that ignore California's water needs.'' The Judge is
correct; balancing the Delta's water supply purpose with its
environmental value will require a sea change among agency personnel
and scientists.
Actively Engage the Federal Administration
The primary federal agencies with regulatory authority over various
components of the Delta ecosystem are the Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Federal Emergency Management Agency.
While each of these agencies has the potential to make a significant
contribution toward efforts to protect and restore the Delta ecosystem,
the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
(collectively, the Services) are the agencies that implement the ESA,
which is the statutory program that most severely restricts CVP and SWP
operations.
For two decades, California's major public water agencies have
tried to work with the federal regulatory agencies to find a balance
between the needs of species in the Delta and the provision of water to
the State's population. Most recently those efforts included the 1994
Bay Delta Accord and the CALFED Bay Delta Program. Both of those
efforts failed both to contribute to conservation of listed species in
the Delta and to assure water supply reliability.
As a result, the public water agencies initiated the BDCP as a way
to secure take permits under the ESA from federal and state agencies
for up to 50 years. To be successful, the BDCP requires the full
engagement of the CVP and SWP water contractors, environmental groups,
state agencies and federal agencies. Unfortunately, the engagement of
the federal agencies has been sporadic.
At the regional level, in California, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and Bureau of Reclamation
have worked hard to participate constructively and to help move the
BDCP forward. But their efforts are compromised by a lack of decision-
making above the regional level. Progress toward the completion of the
BDCP was substantial when new leadership was appointed to the
Departments of the Interior and Commerce to oversee the work of the
Services. Since that time the federal agencies have struggled to find
direction, commit to decisions, or advance solutions in negotiations
regarding the BDCP.
The federal agency staff at the regional level in California is
capable of making decisions and moving the BDCP forward. However, the
connection between the regional staff and the policy-makers in
Washington D.C. must be strengthened to facilitate timely decision-
making. If development of the BDCP comes to a standstill every time an
issue is sent to Washington D.C. it will fail just like the Bay Delta
Accord and the CALFED Bay Delta Program failed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, on behalf of the Kern County Water Agency, I want to
again thank the Subcommittee for investing their time and energy to
bring this hearing to California's Central Valley. The opportunity to
meet face-to-face and constructively work toward better collaboration
is appreciated and, we believe, can lead to new progress. Thank you for
considering our input and for your service on what are critical issues
to our state and country.
______
Mr. McClintock. Our final witness is Mr. Mike Connor,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee. I'm Mike Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation. I'm pleased to provide the views of the Department
of the Interior on these very important California water
issues. The testimony today compels action without a doubt. It
compels an accurate assessment of the facts and the formulation
of appropriate policies and I'm happy to participate in that
process.
California has been experiencing a twofold crisis over the
past several years--one related to water supply and the other
to the collapsing Bay-Delta ecosystem. Acres of land have been
fallowed, fisheries have been shut down and communities within
the Delta are concerned about their long-term survival. In
today's testimony I'll focus on positive developments for near-
term water supplies as well as efforts made to improve the
situation for the long term.
In 2011, California's water supply conditions have improved
significantly. Healthy snow and rainfall totals resulted in a
100 percent water supply to most of the Central Valley Project.
As a result of biological opinions from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service that
apply to CVP, operations are expected to have little impact on
this year's water supply. As of this time, the biological
opinion for Delta smelt has not resulted in any pumping
restrictions. The NMFS biological opinion for salmon and other
species has caused some restrictions on pumping, but only about
10,000 acre-feet or 0.3 percent of the total South-of-Delta
contractual quantities. And those impacts will probably be
offset this coming April.
In view of this year's hydrology and the fact that the ESA
restrictions have had little impact to water operations, it's
understandable that the Subcommittee and some of our customers
are asking why South-of-Delta agricultural water contracts are
only at 75 percent. Some context is in order.
First, Reclamation will deliver 100 percent of the
contractual water supplies for most CVP contractors, including
agricultural, refuge and M&I contracts. We have annual CVP
contracts for approximately 9 million acre-feet and currently
we have allocated over 7 million acre-feet in 2011.
Second, the 75 percent allocation figure is specific to
sub-set CVP contract, known as South-of-Delta agricultural
water service contracts.
As designed, the CVP pumps must operate at full capacity
all the time to meet 100 percent of the contract quantity
South-of-Delta. Since 1999, however, these contracts have been
allocated 100 percent only three times. This situation simply
did not develop overnight. It's been driven by many factors
over the last 20 years that have affected the quantity and
reliability of South-of-Delta supplies, including drought
conditions, listing of species under the ESA, state-imposed
flow and water quality requirements, state water rights
priorities, and enactment of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act.
Third, the delivery of water for the 2011 contract year
only began on March 1st. The State recently completed it's
fourth 2011 snow survey and runoff forecasts. Reclamation has
been updating its forecasts and increasing the South-of-Delta
allocation as conditions warrant as we did this past Friday.
Fourth, South-of-Delta agricultural and M&I water users are
dependent on the movement of water via the state and Federal
export pumps in the Delta. These exports are subject to the
water quality standards set forth in the State Water Resources
Control Board's Decision 1641. Water quality requirements for
salinity and Delta outflow govern operation of the export pumps
in order to protect the environment and communities within the
Delta.
Fifth, many factors in addition to the export pumps affect
species health in the Delta, including toxic substances, non-
native species, hatchery management, illegal fishing and local
water diversions. As a result of all the factors just cited,
the Delta's biologically diverse ecosystem is in serious
decline. Water exports through the Delta have been modified to
protect at-risk fish species and enhance Delta outflows which
affects water deliveries.
Hopefully, this context helps explain the factors that over
time influence the South-of-Delta allocation. As stated
earlier, this past Friday the allocation was 75 percent,
substantially higher than a 20-year average allocation of 62
percent. We expect there may be opportunity to further increase
that allocation. Nonetheless, we understand that reliability of
South-of-Delta water is not what it once was. We therefore
remain committed to working with our partners to develop short
and long-term solutions. There are many projects to fund and
there are also big picture activities of the Bay-Delta
Conservation Plan, or BDCP. Through our water recycling program
we invested substantial resources and produced 240,000 acre-
feet per year in California. Over the last two years we have
also provided 15 million in funding to develop groundwater
banking conjunctive use projects. Under CALFED we are studying
ways to increase water storage in California. We just issued a
record decision with Contra Costa Water District for the
expansion of Vaqueros Reservoir. In addition, we are completing
construction of the canal that was mentioned earlier with an
additional 35,000 acre-feet on average for the project. And we
have also prepared, as Congressman Costa referenced, the CVP
water plan to be used in the allocations of those. Long-term
requires a long-term and confident solution and the best office
to do that is the BDCP. It will serve as the basis for
providing new water to main facilities and also incorporate
Delta restoration projects.
In closing, I'd like to summarize that Reclamation has a
broad set of actions underway to develop solutions for the
short and long term. We look forward to working with everybody
to address all the issues at hand in order to construct that
long-term solution.
I'll answer questions at the appropriate time.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:]
Statement of Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano and members of the
Subcommittee, I am Michael Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to provide the views of the
Department of the Interior (Department) on challenges and opportunities
associated with California's water supply.
The title of this hearing is ``Creating Jobs by Overcoming Man-Made
Drought.'' The Administration strongly supports the idea of protecting
and creating jobs through water and environmental policies intended to
promote certainty, sustainability, and balance in the use of our finite
water resources. California has been experiencing a two-fold crisis
over the past several years--one related to water supply, and the other
related to the collapsing Bay-Delta ecosystem. The issues, of course,
are inextricably linked, and the 3-year drought that recently ended
made painfully evident the unsustainability of California's present
water supply system. Acres of land have been fallowed, once productive
fisheries have been shut down, and many communities within the Delta
itself and in coastal California are concerned about their long-term
survival. In today's testimony, I'll focus on near-term water supplies,
as well as efforts being made to improve the situation for the long-
term.
Fortunately, the Obama Administration, together with the State of
California, water users, community leaders, and members of the NGO
community, are not relying on the status quo--but are seeking to bring
back certainty, sustainability, and balance to all those relying on
California's Bay-Delta. In September 2009, the Department entered into
an MOU with the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
the Council on Environmental Quality to coordinate the federal response
to the California water supply crisis and to facilitate a partnership
with the State of California in addressing California's water supply
and environmental challenges. In December of that year, these same
agencies released an Interim Federal Action Plan for the California
Bay-Delta which outlines priority actions being taken by these agencies
to work closely with the State and local authorities, promote science-
based decisions, and ensure effective performance.
In 2011, California's water supply conditions have improved
significantly, and improved even more markedly since the Subcommittee
last conducted a field hearing in the state in January 2010. Federal
Central Valley Project (CVP) reservoirs are at or near capacity for
this point in the water year. The state's most recent snow surveys
reported statewide snow water equivalents to be 160% of normal
statewide as of this date, with snow water equivalents in the Northern
Sierras at 172% of normal for this date \1\. As a result of the large
amount of precipitation over the winter, projected run-off, and other
factors, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) biological opinions that apply to CVP
operations are expected to have little impact on this year's water
supply. As of March 31 this year, the FWS biological opinion for delta
smelt has not resulted in any restrictions on pumping. With respect to
the NMFS biological opinion for salmon and other species, to date it
has caused some restrictions on pumping, but only in an amount of
approximately 10,000 acre-feet--or 0.3% of total south-of-Delta
contractual quantities, and because of the flexibility offered by the
wet conditions those impacts will most likely be offset in April and
May.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/snow/DLYSWEQ
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In view of this year's hydrology and the fact that the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) restrictions have had little impact to water
operations, the Subcommittee and some of our customers are asking a
very reasonable question: how can Reclamation announce agricultural
water supply allocations south of the Delta of only 75%?
Reclamation appreciates the opportunity to address these issues and
answer questions of the Subcommittee. The question of allocations goes
to the heart of many of our activities underway in California, from
planning activities to daily operations to ongoing construction
projects. Before speaking to this year's allocations, some context is
in order regarding CVP operations and the factors affecting the
allocation.
First, it is important to understand that this year, Reclamation
will deliver 100% of the contractual water supplies for most CVP
contractors, including agricultural contracts and refuge level 2 water,
as well as municipal and industrial (M&I) water. We have contracts for
a total of about 9 million acre-feet of water from the CVP each year.
And, as of this date, we have allocated over 7 million acre-feet for
delivery in 2011, with the potential for higher South-of-Delta
allocations before a final allocation is made in June.
Second, the 75% figure is specific to a sub-set of the CVP's
contracts, known as South-of-Delta agricultural water service
contracts. The volume of South-of-Delta contracts is roughly 1.965
million acre-feet, or about 20% of the CVP's total contracted amount.
Prior to 1990, South-of-Delta agricultural water service contractors
received a 100% allocation in most years. As designed, the CVP pumps
must essentially operate at full capacity all the time, to meet 100% of
the contracted South-of-Delta quantity. Since 1990, however, these
contracts have been allocated 100% only three times. This phenomenon
did not develop overnight. It has been driven by a host of factors over
the last 20 years that have affected the quantity and reliability of
South-of-Delta supplies, including drought conditions, listing of
numerous fish species under the ESA, state imposed flow and water
quality requirements, state water rights priorities, and enactment and
implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA).
Third, the delivery of water for the 2011 contract year began on
March 1. The state recently completed its fourth snow survey and runoff
forecasts \2\. Reclamation made its initial allocation of water on
February 18, 2011, and since that time has been updating its operations
forecasts based upon the survey results and continuous monitoring of
conditions, including precipitation, timing of snowmelt, and water
demands, to determine if additional increases to the allocation can be
made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/snow/COURSES.04
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, South-of-Delta agricultural and M&I water users are
dependent on the movement of water via the state and Federal export
pumps in the Delta, and these exports are subject to the water quality
standards under the California State Water Resources Control Board's
(SWRCB) Water Right Decision 1641. The Delta is home to people and
wildlife reliant on a safe and dependable water supply. Urban areas
like Alameda and Contra Costa County draw drinking water from the
Delta, and agricultural water districts like the North, Central, and
South Delta Water Agencies draw water for crops directly from the
Delta. People also fish and recreate there. Commercial fisheries in the
area are dependent on adequate water quality. Water quality is a
significant factor in Reclamation's state permits to export water, and
for these reasons, water quality requirements for salinity and Delta
outflow heavily govern operation of the export pumps, including, at
times, restrictions on pumping.
Fifth, the Delta was historically a 700,000-acre tidal freshwater
marsh. Over a hundred years ago, much of this marsh land was reclaimed
by constructing 1,100 miles of levees and then draining the lands
behind them to allow for crop production. Wetland, marsh, and riparian
areas in the Delta have been transformed into farmland or urban
developments. Many factors in addition to the export pumps affect
species health in the Delta, including toxic substances, other water
quality issues, nonnative species, hatchery management, illegal
fishing, and smaller, local water diversions. The Delta of the future
will be affected by worsening land subsidence, heightened seismic risk
and possible effects of climate change which could include both sea
level rise and changes in storm timing, intensity, and frequency.
As a result of many of the factors just cited and as noted earlier,
the Delta's biologically-diverse ecosystem is in serious decline.
Several fish species have declined to the lowest population numbers in
their recorded histories. The commercial and recreational salmon
fishing season in California was completely closed in 2008 and 2009,
and the delta smelt population has continued to decline. As a result,
water exports through the Delta have been modified to protect at risk
fish species and the overall aquatic ecosystem, which affects water
deliveries to urban and agricultural water users who rely on the Delta
for their water deliveries. Notwithstanding their limited applicability
so far this year, the FWS and NMFS biological opinions for delta smelt,
salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon do address water exports at the State
and Federal pumps. The opinions, issued in 2008 and 2009 by the FWS and
NMFS respectively, determined that operation of the CVP and the State
Water Project (SWP) as proposed would jeopardize fish species protected
under the ESA and adversely modify their critical habitat. Both
opinions included a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) to the
proposed CVP/SWP operations to avoid jeopardizing the listed fish, and
in both cases, under certain conditions, the RPAs limit the ability of
the projects to export water at certain times of the year. Both
opinions are the subject of ongoing litigation.
Hopefully, this context helps explain all the factors that
influence the South-of-Delta allocation. As noted earlier, at this
point in time, this year's allocation for South-of-Delta agricultural
water service contractors is 75%--which is above the 20-year average
final allocation of 62%. There could be an opportunity to increase that
allocation in the next month based on runoff conditions South-of-Delta.
For example, in 2006, the last year when a final allocation hit 100%,
the initial allocation was 65%, increased to 85% at the end of April,
and revised to 100% in mid-May. Any increase above 75% will result in
South-of-Delta water supplies for agricultural water service
contractors to be well in excess of the twenty-year average.
Nonetheless, we understand that reliability and certainty of the water
supply South-of-Delta is not what it once was. We therefore remain
committed to working with our partners to develop short- and long-term
solutions, including those currently under consideration in the Bay
Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). I would like to take this opportunity
for the rest of my statement to describe actions the Department and
Reclamation (as well as other Federal agencies) are taking to assure
that water reliability can be maximized not just in 2011, but for
decades into the future.
Reclamation is committed to optimizing the use of available water
supplies. Through our WaterSMART program, we are focused on projects
that improve water management efficiency and provide funding for
projects focused on water conservation activities, water banking, and
water transfers. Over the last two years Reclamation has provided
almost $15 million in cost share funding for the development and
expansion of numerous groundwater banking conjunctive use projects in
the San Joaquin Valley. In addition to conjunctive use projects,
funding for water use efficiency projects was provided to several
Central Valley water agencies to improve water measurement and delivery
system automation that resulted in improved water accounting and
reduced water losses. Further, through our water recycling program,
Reclamation has provided over $477 million in cost-shared funding to
recycling projects in California through FY 2010. Statewide, these
projects are producing over 240,000 acre-feet of water per year.
Reclamation has a long history of working to address the water
supply needs of California. For the past several decades Reclamation
has been working toward solutions to resolve complex environmental and
water supply issues under the CALFED program and the CVPIA. Under the
CALFED program, Reclamation has been working with other Federal, State,
and local agencies to study ways to increase water storage in
California. Many of these studies are nearing completion and last
month, Reclamation issued a Record of Decision for a water operations
agreement with the Contra Costa Water District which will facilitate
the District's efforts to expand Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa
County. The expansion project will increase the existing reservoir's
storage from 100,000 acre-feet to 160,000 acre-feet. In addition,
Reclamation is midway to completing construction of the Delta-Mendota
Canal/California Aqueduct Intertie. This project will provide increased
water deliveries by restoring and improving CVP conveyance capacity to
match the Jones Pumping Plant capacity in the Delta. Improving existing
facilities and maximizing the use and flexibility of existing
facilities is cost-effective with less environmental impact.
When the current biological opinions were released in 2008 and
2009, all parties recognized the dire condition of the listed species
and their Delta habitat as well as the likely effects on water
supplies, and multiple lawsuits were filed almost immediately. As a
result, the National Academies of Science (NAS) were retained by the
Departments in late 2009 to conduct a phased review of the science in
the biological opinions, the RPAs, and the initial draft of the BDCP.
The first phase, concluded in March 2010, included a review report that
focused on the basis for the RPAs. In the second phase, the panel has
been asked to evaluate the use of science in the BDCP and to publish
its findings in a written report later this year. The final phase of
the National Academies study, due in late 2011, will address how to
most effectively incorporate science and adaptive management concepts
into holistic programs for management and restoration of the Bay Delta.
The request by both Department of the Interior and Department of
Commerce for the NAS to undertake this multi-layered study underscores
our commitment to ensuring that the Opinions and future regulatory
actions pertaining to the Bay Delta are based on sound science.
Bay Delta Conservation Plan
At the foundation of the jeopardy findings in the FWS and NMFS
opinions is the understanding that the CVP and SWP operate export
facilities in the middle of an aquatic ecosystem. For this reason, the
BDCP has been underway since 2007 and is currently investigating water
conveyance alternatives to move CVP and SWP water through, around, or
under the Delta while restoring the Delta ecosystem. The purpose of the
BDCP is to provide for a sustainable Delta and a more reliable water
supply to meet California's water needs.
BDCP participants are drafting a Habitat Conservation Plan under
the ESA that identifies proposed conservation measures addressing water
conveyance and project operations, habitat restoration, and other
stressors on the Delta environment. Options currently being considered
include water exports via dual conveyance facilities (using existing
south Delta intakes, new intake facilities in the north Delta, and a
new isolated conveyance facility around, under, or through the Delta);
large-scale restoration of tidal marsh habitat; and measures to address
other stressors such as pollutants, introduced species, predation, and
hatcheries management.
The BDCP will serve as the basis for the permitting of new water
conveyance facilities. It will also establish the parameters for
modifications to the operation of the CVP that are subject to
consultation under the ESA. These facilities and the operational and
restoration actions that would accompany them offer the best chance at
present to address the export constraints discussed above and address
the critically important concerns of water users regarding the
vulnerability of Delta levees and the potential impact of their
catastrophic failure upon the water supply. At the same time, it would
provide for a sustainable Delta that will meet the needs of people and
fish species dependent upon it. Over the last six months, federal and
state agencies, working with affected interests, have made significant
progress in working through a number of important issues related to the
BDCP. While there is still much analysis and review to be done,
Reclamation and the other Federal agencies are working with the State
of California and other appropriate parties toward a draft BDCP and
EIR/EIS.
As this process unfolds, it is important to bear in mind that the
BDCP is a collaborative, public planning process that will provide for
the conservation of species while improving water system reliability.
Reclamation is participating in this effort to help facilitate
activities of the BDCP with other State and Federal agencies because we
understand the importance of reliable water supplies and a restored
Delta environment. A significant amount of ecosystem restoration and
water conservation work is already underway in the Delta, through the
CALFED Program, and through initiatives by some of the water districts
participating in this hearing today. Throughout all the public
meetings, draft reports, workshops, town hall meetings and even
Congressional hearings, we will remain focused on the dual objectives
of this Program.
Conclusion
At last year's hearing, Reclamation highlighted the broad set of
actions underway today at the Bureau and Departmental levels to improve
California's water supply infrastructure and our ongoing operations.
The Interim Federal Action Plan for the California Bay-Delta released
in 2009 by six Federal agencies continues to leverage available Federal
resources, particularly in the areas of drought relief and financial
assistance. In the construction arena, more than 40% of Reclamation's
funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) has been
invested in this state. Many projects like the intertie between the
Delta-Mendota Canal and the California Aqueduct underway northwest of
here near Tracy and the Red Bluff Fish Passage Improvement Project near
Redding will be complete or are nearing completion this year. We also
have a suite of water transfer programs that facilitate the transfer of
water from willing sellers to willing buyers throughout the CVP. We are
pleased to discuss these actions in greater detail with the
Subcommittee today.
Understanding the need of farm operators to make early planting
decisions, Reclamation also developed a series of actions for the 2011
water year to help support water allocations earlier and higher and is
intended to be used to respond to dry-year conditions as necessary.
Those actions are identified in the CVP Water Plan for 2011.
Reclamation has a long history of commitment to science across the
agency including in the California Bay-Delta estuary. Reclamation is a
founding member of the Interagency Ecological Program, a four-decade-
old partnership of six federal and three state agencies that carries
out or coordinates most of the monitoring and research conducted in the
Bay-Delta. Reclamation believes that sound, peer-reviewed science is
key to the success of an adaptive management approach to achieving the
goal of increasing water supply reliability while continuing to protect
and enhance the Bay-Delta ecosystem.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that the Department and
Reclamation are acutely aware of this Subcommittee's interest in water
and power related issues in the Bay Delta region. The water supply and
Delta conditions have declined over several decades and the long-term
solution needs to be thoughtful, implementable, and supported by the
public. It will take time to achieve the goals of the BDCP. In the
interim, Reclamation is taking actions in cooperation with our State
and local partners to provide some relief to the environment and to
water users to prevent the loss of valuable resources before we are
able to find and implement long-term solutions.
As people who administer contracts for water and power, and who
work with water districts and farmers on a daily basis, we understand
the very real ramifications of water shortage and declining fish
populations on peoples' businesses, on families, and on communities. We
will continue to work to maximize our reliability in light of the
challenges presented by hydrologic droughts, environmental conditions,
or regulatory actions.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on this important
topic. I would be happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may
have.
______
Mr. McClintock. I'd also like to note for the record that
John Laird, the Secretary for the California Natural Resources
Agency, was invited to attend today's hearing, but Secretary
Laird declined the invitation.
To our witnesses who decided to attend, thank you very much
for all your testimony. At this point, we'll begin questions
for the witnesses. To allow all of our Members to participate
and also ensure that we can hear from all of our witnesses, we
are going to be limiting Members to five minutes for questions,
although we'll do a second round as requested. However, if
Members have additional questions, we'll accommodate them.
And I'll begin. And I'd like to start with Mr. Birmingham.
We just heard a statement a few minutes ago and that statement
was there is no more water and anyone who says that is just
trying to promote their career or words to that effect. As I
recall, there are four acre-feet per second passing under the
Sacramento Bridge right now on their way to the Pacific Ocean
that we can't store. My first question to you is if we had
simply built the reservoirs that were originally envisioned by
the Burns-Porter Act in 1958, would we be having any of these
discussions or problems today?
Mr. Birmingham. Mr. Chairman, the simple answer is no. We
are the beneficiaries of a water supply infrastructure system
that was designed by our forefathers and implemented, but it
was never really completed. And had we completed all of the
infrastructure associated with the original water plan of
California, we would not be experiencing these impacts. To say
there is no more water probably is technically correct, but the
reality is it's a question of how we manage the water resources
that we have. And we are doing a terribly inefficient job of
managing those resources.
There are a number of things we can do with a stroke of a
pen that would improve the efficiency of management of water
resources. Integrating the two water projects is a single
example and there are many, many others. But I'd like to touch
on something that Mr. Upton said and that is we need to apply
the standards of reasonable and beneficial use to environmental
uses of water. Really what we are talking about today as it
relates to the implementation of these biological opinions is
that water is being used for no reasonable purpose. We are
dedicating water to the fish, but it is not helping the fish.
And as a consequence, we are suffering enormous hardship on the
westside of the San Joaquin Valley regardless of how good
conditions might be someplace else.
Mr. McClintock. But it was mentioned by the Bureau of
Reclamation, for example, that existing plant facilities,
Temperance Flat, for example, don't need to appropriate cost-
benefit ratios. But as you begin to do that you realize what
about construction costs.
Those are the costs that, in all of the biological
opinions, have been issued regarding the price of the
facilities right into the stratosphere and we end up with
paralysis. So your suggestion is we essentially begin applying
the same cost-benefit analysis to all of the water diversions
and ask the simple question are they accomplishing what they
are supposed to be accomplishing and what economic value are
they adding?
Mr. Birmingham. Again, the simple answer is yes. And this
goes to a question that Ranking Member Napolitano circulated to
all of us, that is if we have new facilities, who's going to
pay for them. And the simple answer is the beneficiaries should
pay for them, but then the question becomes who are the
beneficiaries. And the classic example is in Public Law 99-546
Congress authorized that the Central Valley Project could be
used to meet water quality objective in the Delta. That was
going to be a new beneficiary of the project. And Congress
directed that the Secretary of the Interior undertake a cost
allocation study, because those costs of meeting those water
quality objectives in the Delta were supposed to be non-
reimbursable. That study has never been done despite our
repeated requests. We, the farmers, are still paying for
storage that has now been dedicated to the environment. And so
the beneficiaries pay and we need to do the cost-benefit
analysis that you're describing in order to determine whether
or not these projects make sense.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Watte, you are a farmer in
Tulare County. One of the messages here today is farmers are
just going to have to learn to deal with the fact that we are
going to have a lot more conservation, just grin and bear it.
In fact, a hearing in Washington D.C. Recently, one member of
the Subcommittee said, well, farmers they are always
complaining and the more they complain, the better they are
doing. What's your response?
Mr. Watte. Relative to water conservation, using it more
wisely, the concept that's overlooked is the amount of water we
use and the amount of units, the output that we create, we are
using similar amounts of water that we did 20, 30 years ago.
Some of our crops are producing 100 percent more. And so if you
think about it in terms of output, which is how it should be
thought of, we are doing a wonderful job, much more efficiently
than we ever have and we continue to work on it. But the whole
idea of saving water through conservation or using it, you
know, that's a concept that I think is sometimes overlooked.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much. I'll recognize Ms.
Napolitano.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is very
interesting to listen to both sides, because I have been at
hearings here several times through the last few years in this
particular area. Just as I was looking at information that July
of 2009--(Inaudible)--announced 40 million for the Recovery Act
for the drought--(Inaudible)--in California and in the Central
Valley in contrast to the 26 million--(Inaudible)--so it is a
little bit of a disparity there. The question that I have will
be addressed to several of you. And I have submitted those
questions for a reason, because I want to have a better idea.
And yes, Mr. Birmingham, it is an issue that I believe should
be on the record and that's why it's being submitted. I'm
looking for yes or no answers from all the ag members on the
panel.
Have the water shortages during 2007-2009, the extreme
drought years, affected agriculture production, yes or no.
Mr. Larson. Yes.
Mr. Watte. Yes.
Mr. Beck. Yes.
Mr. Birmingham. Yes. But I would want to challenge----
Ms. Napolitano. Yes or no.
Mr. Birmingham.--challenge the----
Ms. Napolitano. Yes or no.
Mr. Birmingham. Absolutely, the water supply reductions
in----
Ms. Napolitano. Next. Thank you. I just want a yes or no,
because I'm following up with something else.
Mr. Birmingham. Yes.
Ms. Napolitano. OK. Now, the three highest agriculture
sales on the record were in those three years, and I believe
they were good before that, according to the California
Department of Food and Ag 2009 figures and they coincide with
those three years of extreme drought. Why wasn't it that these
record-setting cash received translated into lowering the
unemployment for farming related jobs? Anybody.
Mr. Larson. There are areas in California that we had
plenty of water, plenty of production, plenty of labor, but the
area that I refer to in my testimony is the area on the
westside. 300,000 acres of dry land and 40 percent unemployment
over the last five years, that's still the case.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. That answers my question.
Anybody else? OK. To Mr.--Commissioner Connor, if the South-of-
Delta water service contractors were allocated 100 percent of
their contract this year, how would that impact other
contractors? In other words, here in the State with water flow
restrictions, where do you believe the water would come from
and how are we able to apply those water allocations.
Mr. Connor. Well, I think there's a Congressional question
as to if there was 100 percent allocation given away,
distributed out, whether we could provide that water, whether
we have the capacity and infrastructure to provide that water.
It couldn't be all taken. So there's a threshold question.
Perhaps we could deal with our storage facilities in a way that
we could. And I think that's something that would have to be
looked through.
The other answer to your question as to whether or not--who
would that water come from, well, it either would come from
senior water users, which would be at odds with the way we
operate the projects under our conditions, or it would come
from the Delta, which would be in violation of our permanent
conditions. Otherwise, how else will water cover any balancing
act with all of these permanent conditions, environmental
regulations as well as our contractual obligations that we
have. And that's the basis that we are maximizing our
allocation presently at the level we have right now, and we are
constantly reassessing it.
Ms. Napolitano. How many--very quickly, my time is running
out, Commissioner. What are the designations of the water
rights both for senior and junior?
Mr. Connor. Well, we commonly refer to them as senior or
junior, but we have settlement contracts both north and south
of the Delta that we honor first. We have M&I contract
obligations. We have a whole mix of different types of
contracts----
Ms. Napolitano. How about Native American?
Mr. Connor. With respect to?
Ms. Napolitano. Water rights.
Mr. Connor. With respect to water rights in the Native
American Community that has been part of--the treaty rights
recognized in the Tule River revision has been part of the
reason for our adjustment in water supplies being made
available to projects and to those Native American rights.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield with that.
Mr. McClintock. I'm pleased to introduce Chairman Hastings
of the State of Washington, a state that looks deceptively like
Oregon.
Mr. Hastings. Well, at one point Washington was part of the
Oregon area.
There's been a lot of discussion--first of all, I want to
thank all of the witnesses here today. There's been a lot of
discussion of----
Audience Member. Could you speak up, please?
Mr. Hastings. There's a lot of discussion based on making
decisions based on good science, which I certainly agree. I
want to put up a chart that has to deal with ocean conditions.
And I want to ask Mr. Collins and Mr. Birmingham some
questions. Your testimony created----
The Court Reporter. I can't hear him.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Collins, you suggest that water, river
water directly correlates--(Inaudible.) Mr. Birmingham says
otherwise. The National Marine Fisheries says that ocean
conditions were the main reason for a declining current. This
chart in front of you shows the measure of water temperature.
The top of the chart, it measures between 1980 and 2000 when
ocean conditions were relatively warm. The bottom chart relates
to the--(Inaudible.) Looking at this, there seems to me there
is a correlation and I would just like to have your
observations on both of those. Mr. Birmingham, I'll start with
you.
Mr. Birmingham. Mr. Chairman, there isn't any question that
fish need water. The question is always how much. And the
decline of the Sacramento River Chinook salmon fishery over the
course of the last four or five years has been attributed to
increased pumping out of the Delta. And, first, I would want to
challenge the question of has there been increased pumping. But
more than that, if the decline of the salmon fishery was a
result of increased pumping, then how do we explain the
reduction in salmon runs on virtually every tributary to the
Pacific Ocean up and down the West Coast, including Oregon,
Washington and California. And, fortunately, those runs are
improving. But pumping in the Delta does not explain the
decline of those runs. And what does explain, in large part,
the decline of those runs is ocean conditions. That's the
conclusion that NOAA Fisheries reached. And I'm not a
biologist, but it certainly tends to make sense that if the
fish lack food in the ocean, then they will not survive to
return to spawn.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. I think that there's a number of different
factors that affect salmon populations--ocean conditions, the
pumps, I disagree, I think they do affect, absolutely. I mean,
nowadays when they release the salmon from the hatcheries, they
get a very, very small percentage of them making it back, which
is why we have a trucking program to truck them around the
Delta all the way down to the Bay. We get a way bigger
percentage of those fish back, because the Delta's pretty much
lethal to the baby salmon going back to sea. As far as numbers
of fish on other rivers on the coast, I think being from
Washington you have seen the huge numbers. The returns on
Columbia were--the best is the 30s I think it was.
Mr. Hastings. Right now it is larger since we have started
keeping records. We started in 1938. The answer to your
question is yes. But you said--so both of you then, I hear both
of you saying that we ought to base the decisions based on
science, this is something we ought to take into consideration,
right?
Mr. Collins. Well, there's nothing we can do about the
ocean conditions. There is something we can do about it in the
river.
Mr. Hastings. Of course, but it is science, you know, and
we are trying to base decisions on science, so wouldn't you say
that that is a good starting point.
Mr. Collins. Yes, sir. Science is good.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Birmingham, you would say that too.
Mr. Birmingham. I certainly would, Mr. Chairman. And one of
the things that I would agree with Mr. Collins is that the
Delta is lethal to baby salmon out migrating. But the question
is why is it lethal?
We have very accurate records of the number of fish we
entrain at pumps and it's less than one percent. However, we
don't know how many of the baby salmon migrating out are eaten
by striped bass. But the National Marine Fisheries Service has
said if we want to improve the salmon runs, we ought to
eliminate the restrictions on the take of striped bass, because
they consume millions, literally millions of fish as they are
migrating out of the Delta.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to
make a point that if we are going to make a decision, we ought
to base them on the facts. This is a fact that ought to go into
our deliberation. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Costa. Well, everyone else
is in California, so I'm safe from here on.
Mr. Costa. Having been down to Chairman Hastings' District
of Washington, they have great farm country and we welcome you
here today.
I'd like to continue with Doc Hastings' questioning line,
both to Mr. Birmingham and Mr. Collins, about the factors that
we talked about that are impacting the Delta fish. How about
the--you mentioned earlier the ammonia, that a certain number
has been reported that goes into the Delta. Is that impacting
the fish?
Mr. Birmingham. The analysis of the impact of discharges of
ammonia is still being conducted. And what the analyses tend to
show, Mr. Costa, is that the discharge of ammonia affects the
food sources for fish which then has an indirect effect on the
Delta smelt.
Mr. Costa. Mr. Collins, you think that's impacting it.
Mr. Collins. Well, I think that--yes. You know, any time
you put pollution in----
Mr. Costa. How about the quadrupling of the population in
the Delta over the last two decades with all the non-point
source that flows into the Delta, is that impacting the Delta?
Mr. Collins. I think that any pollution that goes into the
Delta is impacting the wildlife of the Delta. The more flow,
you can flush stuff out into the ocean, the healthier the Delta
will be.
Mr. Costa. The whole statement, that's the best and most
reasonable use. I mean, you didn't talk about----
Mr. Collins. Well, to me that's----
Mr. Costa.--whether or not the upper----
Mr. Collins.--because I'm a salmon fisherman.
Mr. Costa.--Sacramento River Valley water users should be
contributing as well.
Mr. Birmingham, on the area of withdrawal of water from the
Delta on unscreened pumps, is that impacting the Delta?
Mr. Birmingham. Yes, Mr. Costa, unscreened diversions in
the Delta affect those fishes.
Mr. Costa. I think it's fair to say that there are many
factors which we have not been able to make a determination as
to which of those factors are contributing to which degree.
Is it possible, Mr. Chairman, that I could have Mr. Will
Stelle of NOAA--who is behind Mr. Connor--to ask him a question
at the table?
Mr. McClintock. Yes.
Mr. Costa. Mr. Stelle, I'm perplexed. I asked you this
question a couple weeks ago. Maybe you can give me a better
answer. Because, Mr. Collins, I agree that we need to address
all of the people that are impacted by our water decision,
including fishermen. I don't appreciate the condescending and
rather insulting comments you made in regard to people who work
very hard here, trying to make a living every day and need
water just as much as fishermen do.
Mr. Stelle, you made a decision earlier in the last month
to allow for the opening of fish in the fishing season, which I
think is good. As you said, the fishing season's been closed.
It's been determined that 20 percent of the river run salmon
will be lost as a result of opening up the season. I mean, you
have to fish, catch the fish. And those adult fish don't come
back to the Delta to spawn, right?
Mr. Stelle. (Nods.)
Mr. Costa. But you also made the decision that only a 1
percent take would be allowed or permitted at the pumps. I'm
trying to understand if we are trying to protect the fish, what
NOAA's position is you are allowing for a 20 percent take by
opening up the season, but your standard is 1 percent at the
pumps for export purposes. Can you explain it?
Mr. Stelle. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. My name is Will
Stelle and I work for NOAA Fisheries----
Mr. Costa. Mr. Stelle, my question----
Mr. Stelle. Yes. The answer is that we are trying to do two
basic things. One is to improve significantly the survival of
juveniles going out to sea. If you are trying to rebuild the
population of the San Joaquin and Sacramento systems, the
salmon populations, you have to do two things--you have to make
sure that the young survive and you have to make sure the
parents get back----
Mr. Costa. I get that part. But 1 percent versus 20
percent.
Mr. Stelle. The 1 percent at the pumps serve as a testament
of entrainment rates. It's not an estimate of overall
mortalities associated with pumping. There is a significant----
Mr. Costa. I realize that's part of the problem. I'd like
to get more detail later on.
Mr. Stelle. I'd be happy to.
Mr. Costa. Mr. Connor, I agree with some of the witnesses,
Supervisor Piepho, Dayatra Latin, that we need more water south
of the Delta. Where are we on the Temperance Flat?
Mr. Connor. Temperance Flat study is one of the four
studies that we have in progress. I don't have a specific due
date at this point in time when we expect that we'll get the
draft and get this study out. I know, as mentioned earlier, the
economics have been called into question. And so what we are
doing right now is we are looking at how to integrate that
project----
Mr. Costa. We need to have a thorough discussion with the
Chairman and the Subcommittee, a cost-benefit analysis----
Mr. Connor. Happy to do that.
Mr. Costa.--other projects as well. I have another question
with regard to BDCP, but my time has expired and hopefully in
the second round I'll get to it.
Mr. McClintock. Next is Congressman Denham.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Connor, I'd like to follow up on
that last questioning, specifically San Joaquin River
Restoration Settlement. To reintroduce salmon back into the San
Joaquin River system above the Mendota Pool by utilizing eggs
from other Central Valley salmon run that are listed as
threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species
Act, how much will this program cost in the first fiscal year,
2012, and every year after.
Mr. Connor. The overall San Joaquin River Restoration
program, all the activities or just those related to the
fisheries, just the reintroduction.
Mr. Denham. Just the reintroduction, to reintroduce the
salmon.
Mr. Connor. I don't have that specifically broken up for
reintroduction of salmon. I think overall for all the
activities that we are looking at to do the next fiscal year,
we are probably spending something close to the 35-40 million
dollar range. That doesn't include spacing east of us which is
calling in large part we have that for the average
reintroduction.
Mr. Denham. So you haven't done a cost-benefit analysis to
know how many fish we are going to have and what expense per
fish that would cost?
Mr. Connor. Cost-benefit analysis, that's not part of the
settlement program.
Mr. Denham. It's a big part of the settlement, because it's
reintroduction of salmon. Why wouldn't we have done a cost-
benefit analysis up to now?
Mr. Connor. This is a settlement of litigation over
violation of the Bureau of Reclamation of a state water code.
As a condition of this settlement and part of the stipulation
and part of the agreement as it was ratified by Congress, we
are supposed to be restoring the river, which includes the
release of flows, the channel maintenance activities that we
are doing, we are working on water management goals and we are
looking at specifically what we need to do to reintroduce fish
into the river. That's the fundamental part of the settlement.
The settlement legislation specifically calls for a cost-
benefit analysis, a feasibility analysis on some of the water
supply, does not call for a cost-benefit analysis of the
fishery reintroduction part of the program.
Mr. Denham. Well, I think that would be an important part
as we are struggling as a nation to figure out how we can solve
our difference. So let me move on to the next issue. All
Central Valley salmon runs struggle to regain their historic
numbers. Why would Reclamation purposely reduce the numbers of
available salmon in other streams, plant them into the San
Joaquin system and further threaten current runs?
Mr. Connor. Well, I think initially what we are going to be
looking at in the reintroduction process are runs that aren't
endangered or threatened, second of all, what they will be at
some point in time, looking at some of those runs. And there
will be very tight conditions to ensure the overall
survivability of the species.
Mr. Denham. You haven't done an analysis on what it's going
to cost per salmon? Has Reclamation formed a benefit-cost ratio
of not reintroducing the salmon run in the San Joaquin River?
Mr. Connor. No, we have not.
Mr. Denham. How long will Reclamation attempt to
reintroduce salmon into the San Joaquin system?
Mr. Connor. How long are we looking at?
Mr. Denham. How long?
Mr. Connor. We are looking at an--overall it's a 20-year
program. There are a number of activities that are threshold
before any reintroduction takes place, that includes the
analysis of the interim flows and the restoration flows,
evaluating the seepage impacts, we have channel capacity
projects that we have to get done, and we have to do this all
in tandem with our water management goals. And so overall, I
can't remember the specific day that we are looking at
reintroduction. I think it might have been as early as 2012.
But the Bureau of Reclamation in implementing these programs
will make those decisions and will not move to reintroduction
until the system is ready to support those. And we have to work
with our settlement parties as part of that process in working
through those deadlines, et cetera. The basic improvements to
the river, to the channel and to our ability to ensure the
success of the program is critical before we make any
reintroduction.
Mr. Denham. So you do have goals for the 20-year program,
correct?
Mr. Connor. We do overall, yes.
Mr. Denham. And you do have a defined amount of money that
is going into the program, correct?
Mr. Connor. We have an overall budget and expectation of
what the program's going to cost us.
Mr. Denham. So if you have an overall budget and you have
an overall expectation and you have both for a 20-year program,
how can you not have a cost-benefit analysis to understand
exactly how much you are going to spend on each fish so you
know if you are going to meet your goal or not?
Mr. Connor. The goal is to have a successful fishery and
what that is in terms of overall, the population--or the
current population is going to be something that's defined over
time based on if we can restore the flows that are part of the
whole situation. Once again, we have not been called or
requested as part of the overall settlement to do a cost-
benefit analysis. Overall, I have seen figures that indicate
that the goal that the legislation was going to do was going to
be something where we repair natural fisheries with around
30,000 fish.
Mr. Denham. Defined over time is not something these
farmers could take to the bank. I have a number of other
questions, but I'll refrain until the second round.
Mr. McClintock. Next is Congressman Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a very
interesting hearing and a rather good example of why we don't
get very far. We mostly point to each other and say you are to
blame. In fact, I think all of us share in the responsibility
and to a large extent we all share the blame. I'd like to ask
Supervisor Piepho if you could expand on those things that
could be done immediately in the short-term to enhance
everybody's opportunity for more water north of the Delta as
well as south of the Delta.
Ms. Piepho. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. I'd be happy to. As
I mentioned, additional storage south of the Delta is very,
very important in that since December there have been several
extended periods where their pumps were not constrained by
biological opinions and water can be flowing through. If
agencies were not getting their full amounts this year, it is
because investments have not been made for storage to enable
more water to be pumped in wet years, which would also help in
dry years obviously.
Second, the adoption of the solutions-oriented approach
begins with immediate short-term actions, fish screening, levee
protection, emergency preparedness all would help to promote a
healthy ecosystem that would also enhance water supplies and
improvements for water quality throughout California.
An additional and absolutely critical investment, again, is
the emphasis for ensured reliability on high quality water
throughout the system as encouraged by the Delta Vision report,
not only for flood control or for protection of the locally
private owned lands, but for the water system throughout the
State. Levees protect water quality and important
infrastructure to keep California running and will for the
foreseeable future. We must protect levees today in order to
protect the existing water supplies, state power grids, oil and
gas lines, interstate highways and the railroads that traverse
the Delta today.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much. I wanted to get that on
the record that there are things we can do immediately that are
important for north of the Delta as well as for south of the
Delta. It's critical that we protect the Delta levees. They
could go at any time. Those who want to build a canal, it would
be realistically about 10 to 20 years before we get a single
drop of water out of it. What do you do in the meantime?
Supervisor, thank you for that testimony.
Mr. Beck, you raised a point about a viable water storage
south of the Delta, that is the underground aquifers. Would you
please expand on that and could you please tell us if there are
any particular reasons why it does not have limited capacity?
Mr. Beck. Yes, Mr. Congressman. In Kern County we've
probably got the most extensive groundwater bank program in the
country. And what it takes is you have to have the right
hydrogeologic conditions and the subsurface has to have the
right structure to support that type of recharge and recovery
act. It's also got to be located next to the right reconveyance
facility and have the right quality of water. Most important,
you have to have water to send to those areas. So without water
supplies, our banking projects sit empty. So while our pumping
capacities are available----
Mr. Garamendi. Well, are you banking water now in the
groundwater supply?
Mr. Beck. Yes. Our banking projects are full right now
because of the hydrologic conditions.
Mr. Garamendi. You have reached capacity.
Mr. Beck. Yes, we have.
Mr. Garamendi. Well, that speaks to the need for storage
south of the Delta and the need for the Temperance Flat and
other storage facilities in Madera and other places to move
forward vigorously on the studies and the cost-benefit that
goes with it. We'll have to sort that out as those studies are
done. I guess I'll wrap up. I have a minute.
There are solutions that are available to us and we need to
move on those that are immediately available, the storage
facilities that are there today need to be fully utilized,
whatever they may be. And most of them are at the moment, but
others can be developed rather quickly and those need to be put
in place. Some are going to be very, very expensive and may not
be desirable because of the cost.
In regard to the Delta itself, there are things that need
to be done immediately in the Delta and there has been some
state fund available. There's enough Federal money available
right now for those facilities in the Delta. Those are
basically enhancing the Delta levees that are there that ensure
us for the next decade, maybe for two decades, that water will
be able to flow through the pumps when it is viable.
My final point is that the Endangered Species Act does
allow for Section 10, which is an adaptive management program,
and the Bureau of Reclamation is not blocking nor is the Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Both of them have over time engaged in the adaptive
management programs. We need to do that. We need to be very
aggressive in setting up an adaptive management program based
upon science and over time making modifications in the pumping
and in other aspects of the transfer facilities so that we can
make adjustments. It's possible. It can be done. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Finally, our final questions
from Devin Nunes.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Connor, I'd like to go to you first. Would the Obama
Administration support a temporary waiver of the Endangered
Species Act to allow the pumps to run despite whether or not
there's water or non-water for the next few years until you can
get all of your studies done?
Mr. Connor. I'd have to look at the--in the Administration,
I would have to look at the tax assessments section, so I'm not
going to offer any kind of notion of support or non-support. I
think, quite frankly, it will be an uphill battle. We have to
look at a lot of ways to--there's other ways we can improve
this overall system, including science as one of them. I think
we have learned a lot over the last few years that we can make
an impact on water supply projects.
Mr. Nunes. Sure. In the meantime though you have folks here
that need to go back to work, because you are going to have
flooding this year and you are also still going to have land
that will be idle because there will not be enough water
because the Bureau of Reclamation has not been able to move the
water because of the Endangered Species Act. So I was just
hoping the Obama Administration would support a waiver. And I
think there's been----
Mr. Connor. There has been no restriction because of the
ESA this year as I stated in my testimony.
Mr. Nunes. I want to let Mr. Birmingham respond to that
very quickly, but I think you do have some experience with
waivers, if I'm not mistaken. Wasn't there a waiver done back
in the early 2000s for the silvery minnow in New Mexico----
Mr. Connor. There was----
Mr. Nunes.--the State of New Mexico?
Mr. Connor. There was something about the minnow, right,
addressed----
Mr. Nunes. You are familiar with that, I assume.
Mr. Connor. I'm very familiar with that.
Mr. Nunes. You want to state for the record your prior
employment.
Mr. Connor. I was with the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee counsel working on the Water and Power
Subcommittee.
Mr. Nunes. Who was the Chairman, or its Ranking Member?
Mr. Connor. Chairman Jeff Bingaman.
Mr. Nunes. From New Mexico.
Mr. Connor. That is correct.
Mr. Nunes. Right. Mr. Birmingham, would you like to
respond?
Mr. Birmingham. Thank you, Mr. Nunes. I would like to
respond, because what Mr. Connor said about the impact this
year of the biological opinions, again, is technically correct,
but it's not the entire question. The allocation that we
received this year, the initial allocation was 50 percent and
we got a 50 percent allocation notwithstanding the projections
that it was going to be wet. We got a 50 percent allocation
because the Bureau of Reclamation had to assume the worst-case
scenario in terms of how the biological opinions and all of the
other restrictions that have been in place throughout the years
would affect the operations of the project. And so had the
Bureau of Reclamation not had to project the worst-case
scenario, our initial allocation this year would have been
significantly higher. It could have been 75 percent and----
Mr. Nunes. Not to mention, Mr. Birmingham, that the last
two years would have been much higher also, because the
biological opinions weren't in place. Water wasn't stored and
held over. And that's why I want to point out that in some
cases the Congress will make waivers to the Endangered Species
Act, which Mr. Connor is familiar with. And I'm not holding him
responsible for what President Obama's decision will be. But
the fact is that Congress has made waivers, be it temporary,
and that will be a logical course ahead.
I want to switch to Mr. Collins. I thought your testimony
was very well enlightening for me. I haven't met these
billionaire farmers yet, but I'd like to meet them. You are
quote, ``the Delta is lethal for fish,'' I thought that was
fascinating. Why is the Delta lethal to fish?
Mr. Collins. I'm not a scientist. I'm a commercial
fisherman. But I know that the returns of fish that we truck
around the Delta do way, way better than the ones that try to
naturally swim out. There's a lot reasons----
Mr. Nunes. So loading fish and----
Mr. Collins. There's a lot of reasons----
Mr. Nunes.--moving them around the Delta, that's a good job
for the government to do.
Mr. Collins. There's a lot of reasons that the fish aren't
making it through the Delta. When the pumps are running, you
know, they are turning the river backwards, the quality----
Mr. Nunes. Hold on, Mr. Collins. The pumps are man-made,
correct?
Mr. Collins.--the quality----
Mr. Nunes. The pumps are man-made, correct?
Mr. Collins.--the chemicals that are coming off the farm
fields and everything else. There's a lot of pollution factors.
Mr. Nunes. Including the farmers in the Delta.
Are those islands man-made just like the pumps, the islands
in the Delta and the levees that you are so concerned about?
Are those man-made?
Mr. Collins. The hydrology in California used to be way,
way simpler than it is today. You had two rivers that ran down
into the Delta that ran out to the ocean. Back then the fish--
--
Mr. Nunes. So shouldn't you tear down all those levees.
Mr. Collins. I'm not suggesting that the only use of water
in California is for salmon. I'm not suggesting that. That
would be ridiculous for me to suggest that.
Mr. Nunes. But why do you pick on some man-made projects
and not others? When you say--when you talk about----
Mr. Collins. Ten years ago there was farming going on and
there was fishing going on.
Mr. Nunes. One final question. Who stopped you from
fishing?
Mr. Collins. The government----
Mr. Nunes. The government.
Mr. Collins.--because there weren't enough salmon. The
number of salmon got down to 39,000 that returned from millions
of fish, so we stopped fishing because we don't want to catch
the last salmon.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make sure for
the record that it was the government that stopped Mr. Collins
from fishing, not the pumps.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Nunes. We'll now begin the
bonus round of questioning.
I'd like to pick up where Congressman Nunes left off, your
statement of hydrology. Hydrology of the Delta was a lot
different in prehistoric times. Obviously, the agenda of the
environmental Left is to restore it to prehistoric times, which
only requires restoring the human population to its prehistoric
condition. I am well aware that we have floods and we have
droughts. Then we went to the construction of facilities that
even out those flows, provided year-round water flows that made
the current ecology of the Delta possible in the first place.
And when I look at the tremendous facilities that were
envisioned by the previous generation, the Burns-Porter Act,
and realize how little of that actually was completed and
realize that if we had it, we wouldn't be having any of these
discussions today, there would be plenty of water to go around
for everybody, it breaks my heart. The Bureau of Reclamation
was established within the Federal Government for the purpose
stated, and proudly stated, of making the desert bloom again.
So, Mr. Connor, I'd like to ask you, what are this Bureau's
plans for making the desert bloom again?
Mr. Connor. Making the desert bloom requires addressing all
of our legal obligations effectively and coming up with more
additional water management strategies. I would agree with Mr.
Birmingham completely and totally that we can do a much better
job of managing the water supplies that we have. But the fact
is we operate in the reality of certain laws and recognize
certain values and the impacts of the projects that we
construct, so we need to deal with that. We need to deal with
our ESA obligations and we need to construct better
infrastructure, more efficient water management strategies----
Mr. McClintock. I want to get some specific answers from
you, if not have a very short one. You mentioned we need to
allocate our supplies better.
Well, we are watching four acre-feet per second pass under
the Sacramento Bridge right now right out to the Pacific Ocean
that we could just store for use in dry years or in dry
seasons. I'd like to know what conditional water storage
facilities you have in the works to alleviate this situation.
Mr. Connor. Well, we just approved a record decision on the
Contra Costa project to raise Los Vaqueros, so there's one
study that's turned into an action that's going to result in a
raise there. We also have ongoing studies there with Shasta and
the Temperance Flat site, as well as the offstream Sacramento
reservoir. What's happening with those studies, we are working
on those very hard. Quite frankly, until conveyance issues in
the Delta--because these projects--the storage facilities have
to be integrated with the overall migration. Until we fix the
conveyance out there, the cost-benefit ratios are not going to
pan out. So we are going to go ahead and publish the data so
everybody knows at least the technical aspects of these storage
studies, but the reality is we are going to have to deal with
the conveyance issues in order to keep the technology alive. At
the same time we are working on groundwater projects. We are
investing in conjunctive use groundwater----
Mr. McClintock. OK. You mentioned Temperance Flat. The
Natural Resources Defense Council calls Temperance Flat the
dumbest dam in America. You disagree with that apparently.
Mr. Connor. The Bureau of Reclamation has not made that
judgment. We are working on the study. We are analyzing with
our partners the data and we are going to take that study to
completion----
Mr. McClintock. What was Temperance Flat's current
condition of water storage? About a million acres?
Mr. Connor. I was looking at that this morning and I'm
stumped on that. I can probably lean over my shoulder and get
you an answer.
Mr. McClintock. Let me hit one other point along the lines
of Congressman Costa, except in this case in regard to the
Delta smelt. My understanding is the Federal Government's
Interagency Ecological Program calls for a take of up to 33,500
Delta smelt annually, but the level of authorized take
established there is quite a bit more than 167, 124 and 211
adult Delta smelt that were authorized to be taken in the last
few years by the Federal and state pumps. How do you reconcile
those numbers?
Mr. Connor. I didn't quite follow the question. With
respect to the----
Mr. McClintock. The Federal Government's Ecological Program
calls for a permissible take of 33,500 and yet over the last
three years no more than 211 Delta smelt had been authorized at
the Federal state pumps.
Mr. Connor. I'm not sure, quite frankly, how the Fish and
Wildlife Service comes up with those takes. I do know that----
Mr. McClintock. Can I get a brief answer to that, Mr.
Birmingham? In about two seconds can you respond.
Mr. Birmingham. Mr. Chairman, I'm not familiar with the
specific program that you just articulated, but as an example,
earlier--or late last year the official--the USGS was given an
incidental take permit to conduct a study in the Delta and they
were authorized to take 2500 Delta smelt, 2500. If we take nine
Delta smelt, we shut down the economy of the State of
California and I think that's the inequity that you are talking
about.
Mr. McClintock. OK. Thank you. Ms. Napolitano.
Ms. Napolitano. First of all, I'd like to--(Inaudible.)
Water Supply San Joaquin Valley in 2009, another one from the
California Natural Resources Agency and another one, California
water shortfall.
Mr. McClintock. Do we have objections?
Ms. Napolitano. Second, I'd like to have the panelists
please answer in writing the questions that were submitted to
you that you have in writing. Then in regard to the silvery
minnow, the 2003 amendment in question did not waive the
Endangered Species Act. The water project in question remains
subject with respect to the silvery minnow. Instead of
overturning the biological opinion as so many have sought to do
in their debates, it protected biological opinion from
litigation and that's for the record.
Third, I want to make for the record known that I'm from
Southern California, as you all know, and in our--just in that
county alone, Los Angeles County, there are supposedly 11
million people, well, it looks more like up to 12, 13 million.
That's about a third of this population. So in essence when you
pass water bonds and you do all of that, a third of it's paid
for by just the LA County. Never mind San Diego--(Inaudible.)
So we understand the issue when we have to pay 1100 to 1500 an
acre-foot of water. Figure that one out. And then there's the
issue of the water coming in that is contaminated with
pesticides, fertilizers, cadmium and other toxins which is an
additional cost to be able to run through the water through the
membranes to make--to ensure treatment. So you understand the
frustration that we bring to the record.
Now, Mr. Stelle, what kind of flexibility can the National
Marine Fisheries Service exercise with respect to a biological
opinion, especially in terms of an annual described spring
operations?
Mr. Stelle. Congresswoman, the Endangered Species Act gives
us, NOAA Fisheries and Fish and Wildlife Services, a
significant degree of flexibility in making adjustments
annually and programmatically. There is no question about that.
So the real issue is what kind of adjustments are warranted and
what can we support scientifically. If we have new ideas on
better ways to operate, to improve survivals, then we can
capture those in the biops on an annual basis, on a rolling
basis. We do so on an annual basis at the present time and we
will continue to do so.
Ms. Napolitano. Why on an annual basis?
Mr. Stelle. Because we learn every year as we operate. So
in the fall time after the close of the season, we can convene
an independent science panel and ask that panel what we learned
and what kind of adjustments should we be making the next year
in order to benefit from what we learned. We have done that
once, we will do it again this fall and we are committed to it
with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau, learn as we
go.
Ms. Napolitano. Then why does the National Marine Fisheries
Service claim its biological opinion is sufficiently flexible
if it has never exercised any of those flexibilities?
Mr. Stelle. Ma'am, with all due respect, we have exercised
that flexibility. In fact, we are sending a letter to the
Bureau and the State which will be ensuring some of the
adjustments that we made based on the panel last fall.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Stelle. And it's an absolute ongoing commitment and
it's sincere. Good ideas, we will capture them. It's our
responsibility.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. I believe I'm out of--well, I
have a minute. Mr. Watte, you mentioned in your testimony the
construction of Temperance Flat was necessary and that
Reclamation is no longer an able partner in the efforts. If
Reclamation is no longer an able partner, what is stopping the
local business from meeting the construction efforts and why
not build it yourself?
Mr. Watte. Well, it's not something we can do just--you
know, an independent, smaller-type district can do. I'm not
exactly sure of the entirety of your question. You want to
repeat that.
Ms. Napolitano. Well, we have long considered that the user
pay. We heard it over and over again.
Mr. Watte. Beneficiaries pay, yes.
Ms. Napolitano. Correct.
Mr. Watte. Yeah.
Ms. Napolitano. So the dam is going to be constructed by
the users, paid for by the users.
Mr. Watte. There's many projects that users, beneficiaries,
would be happy to do, but as I said in my testimony, trying to
get even the smallest projects accomplished, anything in
California, is extremely difficult and very expensive.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Birmingham. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, may I correct a
statement I made a moment ago in response to your question?
Mr. McClintock. I'm sorry.
Mr. Birmingham. In response to your question, I said that
the United States Geological Survey was given an incidental
take permit for 2500 Delta smelt. In fact, it was 2200 Delta
smelt. And I just wanted to correct the record. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. Next is Chairman Hastings of Washington.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you. Thank you very much. I have----
The Court Reporter. I can't hear you.
Mr. Hastings.--so let me try to capitalize this.
Audience Member. Can you speak up, please?
Audience Member. Can you get closer to the mic?
Mr. Hastings. I'm sorry. You know, maybe this particular
Councilman doesn't speak often. I would like to just ask a very
simple question to Supervisor Larson and Mr. Birmingham. You
have both experienced drought. And so my very simple question
to you this year is did the Federal Government or was it Mother
Nature that alleviated the drought this year.
Supervisor Larson?
Mr. Larson. The Federal Government has done nothing this
year other than give us 75 percent of the water. Mother Nature
alleviated the drought with 175 percent of rainfall.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Birmingham?
Mr. Birmingham. Like so many other questions, Mr. Chairman,
that is a difficult question. We have been helped significantly
by the above-average, significantly above-average precipitation
and runoff that we have had, but I would not want the Committee
to be left with the impression that Reclamation and Fish and
Wildlife Service have done nothing. In particular, this year
the Bureau of Reclamation developed a number of actions so that
it could give us a higher allocation earlier. Had they not
taken those actions, our initial allocation would have been
rather than 50 percent, probably would have been 25 percent or
30 percent, so they have been trying to find some flexibility
and where they can they have utilized that flexibility. But the
basic point is that the water supply shortages that we have
suffered this year--and 2007 and 2008 were not critically dry
years. They were below-average years, but 2008 was not
critically dry. Look at the hydrograph I have attached to my
testimony as Exhibit 1. It shows 2008 was essentially an
average year, yet we were 45 percent supplied. Those were a
consequence of the regulations that have been imposed on the
operation of projects.
Mr. Hastings. But 75 percent more came from Mother Nature;
is that correct?
Mr. Birmingham. This year 75 percent came from Mother
Nature. And we could get to 100 percent without taking water
away from anyone else as we did in 2006.
Mr. Hastings. This is a good follow-up. On a scale of one
to ten, with ten being the absolute highest, is there a risk
that a drought could return with existing regulations in place?
Supervisor Larson?
Mr. Larson. Yes.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Larson?
Mr. Larson. They haven't changed any rules and we are----
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Birmingham?
Mr. Birmingham. Yes. And on a scale of one to ten, ten
being the likelihood of a drought coming back, it's a ten.
Mr. Hastings. OK.
Mr. Birmingham. Regardless of how wet it is.
Mr. Hastings. But the question speaks to the issue that
there has to be something coming out of this Committee to
resolve these issues and that is why this hearing is held here
today after having gone through a couple years of not having
this discussion.
Final question to Supervisor Piepho. And I wanted to ask
you this question, because in your oral testimony and in
response to Congressman Garamendi's question, you were talking
about solutions being prospective; is that correct?
Ms. Piepho. No. No, there are direct short-term----
Mr. Hastings. Well, that's prospective. It could happen in
the future is a solution that's prospective; is that correct.
Ms. Piepho. I don't know that I would agree. I know that
the voters in this State have passed a water bond to do levee
improvements that have not been implemented. So if a
prospective vote has already been taken to apply the revenue to
a project that should move jobs forward and stay in the Delta
is prospective I'm not sure I understand.
Mr. Hastings. OK. Well, all right, maybe that's a bad
choice of term. But in your oral testimony you said that one
thing we can't do is go back. Now, I'll tell you it struck me
because going back farmers here have water. Would you like to
explain that phrase where you said we can't go back?
Ms. Piepho. Sure. My reference to going back has been a
historical debate that's occurred on California's water for
hundreds of years, frankly. And we all know the Mark Twain
story about whiskey and water and fighting. My point to the
words is that I believe, as an optimist, that with good people
at the state, Federal and local level working together, we can
find comprehensive solutions for the State's water system,
build an infrastructure that benefits short, mid and long-term
goals and use our revenue, our infinite tax--I'm sorry,
uninfinite tax dollars to good, higher best purposes. And we
agree with the cost-benefit analysis on infrastructure
projects, including high speed rail.
Mr. Hastings. Well, it struck me in this whole discussion,
and there certainly appears to be a couple--two of the same
sides on that. But when I heard that phrase, it, frankly,
raised a red flag. Whether you share that or not, there may be
others that have the same red flag that I would have, so I
thank you.
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Beck, you spoke about the efforts to focus on water
supply. I think Kern County Water Agency is a good example in
terms of water management and tools and using all the tools and
your efforts since. But I authorized the water bank that you
spoke of earlier originally some 400,000 acre-feet in 1988.
What is the capacity of that water bank today.
Mr. Beck. Congressman Costa, we have projects along the
Kern bank that encompass over 30,000 acres. Those projects
recharge in a wet year over 300,000 acre-feet of water each
year. They can also recover about the same amount. So those
current bank projects have been very important in our ability
to withstand the regulatory drought that we have experienced.
Mr. Costa. In terms of dealing with the Endangered Species
Act, I'm glad that you talked about using the Section 10 and
the entire conservation plan is something that I think the
Bureau needs to look at in more depth. You also indicated
though, Mr. Beck, in your testimony, the Bay-Delta conservation
plan, as many of us believe, is really the long-term solution.
Today we have been talking about a lot of short-term efforts.
In terms of long-term efforts, you mentioned that sporadic
involvement of Federal Government has caused delays today.
Could you be more specific about what we ought to be doing if
we want to get our act together and be a real partner in taking
care of California's long-term water lease, which I said in my
opening statement we need to do?
Mr. Beck. Yes. I think there's a theme that you have heard
today, we have all got to work together on this. It's such an
important issue. Those of us that are on the ground, whether
it's Tom or myself or the farmers that are represented today,
understand every day you wake up thinking about how you are
going to get water for California, what's the next step and
what it takes for us to do our jobs to keep the ball rolling.
We have seen good progress with the new state Administration.
They have hit the ground running.
They are actively engaged. The difficulty we have had with
the Federal Administration is that it's taken some time to get
them as directly engaged at the Washington level as we felt is
appropriate. We have seen great representation from the folks
in California, folks on the West Coast.
Mr. Costa. We have been pushing them. You think it's
getting better? I have other questions I want to ask.
Mr. Beck. I think it is getting better, but what I said
when I met with them is you can't take a breath. It isn't like
you get over----
Mr. Costa. And we have to hold them to milestones. Is that
not the case? Hold them to milestones----
Mr. Beck. That's correct. We have some deadlines ahead.
Mr. Costa. OK. Mr. Birmingham, we counted up the amount of
water that we have given up, taken according to Mr. Collins. No
other part of the entire state has given water away, not
freely, but as we have as a result of various court decisions,
state and Federal statutes and other impacts. When you look at
the CVPIA reform in 1992, Mr. Birmingham, if you look at the
settlement agreement and other factors, court decisions you are
aware of, how much water has been taken from the San Joaquin
Valley, not willingly, to benefit other regions of California
and benefit other areas.
Mr. Birmingham. Well, Mr. Costa, that's an excellent
question and it goes right to a point Mr. Garamendi made. I
hope that I haven't impressed the Subcommittee that I'm blaming
anybody else, particularly the fishermen, for the situation we
are in. I'm not. And I agree with Mr. Garamendi that we all
share some blame and we all share some responsibility. And it's
for precisely that reason, Mr. Garamendi, as you'll recall, in
1994, December 15th, 1994, we signed a Bay-Delta Accord, in
fact, you negotiated the Accord, where collectively the state
and Federal projects voluntarily gave up a million acre-feet of
water for the protection of listed species.
But to answer your question directly, Mr. Costa, we have
lost--in the San Joaquin Valley we have lost in excess of a
million acre-feet of water annually under the biological
opinions of the Central Valley Improvement Act and that water
is now being used for fish and wildlife enhancement.
Mr. Costa. If you add the east side, it would be a million
two.
Mr. Birmingham. If you add the east side, it would be a
million two. And there are other programs that I have not
included. The Trinity River Restoration Program I have not
included in that million acre-feet that we have lost.
Mr. Costa. The fact is that every part of this state is
going to have to get involved if we are going to provide enough
water for a population of 50 million people by the year 2030,
which we know is going to happen just as well as we know the
droughts and floods will happen. And we are not taking care of
our short-term or long-term water lease. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. The Chair would like to ask that
you be careful with these signs. The Committee is very tolerant
of signs, but I do have to ask they not be hung over the
balcony and they not obstruct anyone. With that, we'll go to
Congressman Denham.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Upton, allotments
made out of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement could
help solve a number of Valley problems. How much money do you
spend on water storage out of that settlement?
Mr. Upton. I'm not aware of any on water storage.
Mr. Denham. That was part of the settlement though, was it
not?
Mr. Upton. I had suggested that in the early part of the
settlement when we were negotiating, because I learned from my
salmon education that they liked cold water. So it made a lot
of sense that they could build Temperance Flat, because then
you'd have more cold water to put down the river for the fish,
but the environmentalists rejected that out of hand.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Connor, on that same line of
questioning, part of the settlement, some water storage, some
projects equity of implementation.
Mr. Connor. We are working on a number of water management
actions. Water storage is not one of them. The primary goals of
the water management program are to restore capacity of the
Friant-Kern Canal and Madera Canal. And those have active eco
studies ongoing right now with the anticipated releasing later
this year.
Mr. Denham. So only water flow?
Mr. Connor. Increased capacity could take more water
through those canals as they were originally designed. We are
also working on a current water account. We just made an
announcement now that it will allow credit to be given for the
flows being made available for the fishery restoration program.
The advantage of that, and we are going to look prospectively,
which is going to help the Friant district's now to move out
460,000 acre-feet of credit, so that they will get that in a
water year like this. They will be able to purchase that water
at very low rates as contemplated as part of the settlement.
They can take that water if they have capacity. Also, water
management goals would look at increasing the canal capacity
which would also help in that regard.
Mr. Denham. OK. How about the farmers that are along the
river itself, what about the seepage issues that they are going
to be facing with a large flow.
Mr. Connor. The seepage issues are a high priority and we
have had some seepage concerns and issues already in their
field. And we are releasing our environmental impact statement
in April, our program statement to deal with those seepage
issues. But that doesn't change the fact that we already have
issues with that. We have installed 110 monitoring wells so far
to better understand the seepage and we are trying to work with
those farmers that have already been affected. In fact, I'm
going out to meet with some of those folks this afternoon.
Mr. Denham. And I wanted to address a couple of the
projects that we are working on here today. I have H.R. 869,
which deals with Exchequer. Has Reclamation taken a position on
that bill yet?
Mr. Connor. We have not taken a position on that bill yet,
but I am aware of the bill and we have talked about it internal
so we'll be prepared to take a position when the U.S.----
Mr. Denham. And the Madera groundwater bank, where is
Reclamation as far as the Madera water bank?
Mr. Connor. I'm not exactly sure where we are in working
with those issues associated with the Madera groundwater. I
know we see opportunity for our owners as far as banking. It's
a work in progress, but I can't expand on that for the record
for you.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Upton, can you comment on the water bank?
Mr. Upton. Well, they have had it for seven years and have
spent millions of dollars. And it goes with what Mr. Watte
said, trying to get anything done in this state is almost
impossible because of all of the impediments that are put in
place. But the water bank is exactly, I would think, what
everybody would want to do here. It's a great project. But it's
been held up by--I don't--you know what it's been held up by. I
would urge the Bureau to certainly call the Madera District,
Lance Johnson, and get it done. They are ready.
Mr. Denham. We will help facilitate that if there's some
type of communication breakdown. Seven years of trying to push
a project through, we'll make sure that you have all the
information on that too. It's certainly a non-controversial, no
expense project. If we can't get those done, it would sure show
a lack of involvement to get anything done. I yield the rest of
my time.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of things.
I think we need to have an understanding that, in fact, salmon
populations in California have crashed. I'd like to introduce
into the record two charts that just simply show the crash of
the salmon. This particular chart begins in '98 with a robust
salmon and ends down here in 2008. There's no doubt we have
seen the crash of the salmon population in the state. A similar
one, slightly different population run, but the same results.
We have a problem. We have a real problem and we have to find a
solution to that problem, and the solution is going to require
a lot of cooperation and it's going to require a toning down of
the rhetoric, although I have certainly had my share of it over
the years.
One other thing it's going to require, Mr. Chairman, is a
lot of money. As you certainly know from your own speeches, the
Federal Government's supposed to reduce its expenditures,
significantly reduce its expenditures while reducing taxes. So
where is the money going to come from for these projects? In
the studies that are being done of Temperance and the other
storage facilities, the question will inevitably arise over who
is going to pay, and that raises the question of the Federal
Government's share. The way the Federal Government is headed,
or at least you and your colleagues want it to head, is to
significantly reduce Federal expenditures. This may be a high
priority and we can find the money to do these things, maybe
not. But this is a very, very real question for all of us.
Where is the money going to come from to pay for all these
facilities?
Mr. Chairman, you have mentioned the Burns-Porter Act. I
think I was around shortly after it was passed. My recollection
is there's one facility that has not yet been built from the
Burns-Porter Act and that's the Peripheral Canal. I think all
the other facilities have been built.
There are certainly other facilities that have been
suggested over the years. I think that's the only one. Now, as
I said earlier, even if we were to have a significant start on
building a facility today, it would be probably 15 to 20 years
before the first drop of water would be available. We have to
deal with what happens in the near term, that is in the next 10
to 20 years, and that takes us back to the Delta and what
Supervisor Piepho has suggested.
My final point is I want to thank everybody for their
participation today. These are profoundly important issues in
California. There are solutions.
And I would recommend that we look at several things. First
of all, conservation everywhere. Second--and that's, I mean,
everywhere, city, county, everywhere.
Second, the Delta is stressed for many reasons. Pumping is
clearly one of the reasons as are other stressors in the Delta
from striped bass to ammonia from the Sacramento and other
sanitation facilities.
All of those have to be addressed, including those of us
who farm in the Delta and pump dirty water back in the
estuaries. All of these things are important, all have to be
dealt with. Second, we need storage facilities. We need a lot
of them. We need to move forward with all of the studies. The
studies are the cheap part. What comes next is very, very
expensive and all of us are going to have to dig deep and think
very hard about how we are going to pay for those storage
facilities.
Finally, we are going to need to address the need for
recognizing that the climate is changing.
I want to thank the water users here and some years ago,
four or five years ago, we talked about re managing the
operations of the reservoirs so that we could have real time
information about water conditions, snow conditions, rain
conditions and the like. I know there's progress on this and we
focus on the American River to accomplish that. And I urge us
all to move forward on that so that we make better use of what
we already have. Many things need to be done. The era of
plenty, well, that's a challenge.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing. And for those of
you that participated, thank you. I yield with that.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Nunes.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Collins, I'd like
to go back to some fishing questions for you. The stripe bass,
do you fish for stripe bass?
Mr. Collins. No. There's no commercial fishery for striped
bass.
Mr. Nunes. So you don't fish for them at all?
Mr. Collins. No. We are not allowed to catch them.
Mr. Nunes. They are non-native species to the Delta,
correct?
Mr. Collins. Yeah. I remember hearing a story about the
last line rail cars back in 1890s or something like--milk cans
or something like that back in the 1890s.
Mr. Nunes. But would you--since they are non-native, would
you support allowing people to catch as many stripe bass as
possible?
Mr. Collins. It's a non-issue for me. I mean, I don't do
fisheries management. I mean----
Mr. Nunes. But they are not native, so it seems like why
wouldn't they just fish them if they weren't there to begin
with.
Mr. Collins. Yeah.
Mr. Nunes. Yes is a good answer. We finally agreed on
something.
Mr. Collins. I mean, yeah. I mean, I'd like to see
everybody catch plenty of fish to eat.
Mr. Nunes. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Collins.
Supervisor Piepho, excuse me, do you support long-term either
having a Peripheral Canal or some kind of ability to move
freshwater around the Delta?
Ms. Piepho. Around the Delta, no. We prefer through Delta
conveyance. We do not feel that the State should abandon the
Delta for its value of its infrastructure and beyond just water
supply.
Mr. Nunes. As in a pipeline underneath the Delta?
Ms. Piepho. You can do dual pipe lines through the Delta
definitely to preserve it and the integrity and the importance
of the Delta into the State, not just to the locals around the
Delta.
Mr. Nunes. Does Contra Costa County take any responsibility
for problems in the Delta?
Ms. Piepho. I think there are many stressors to the Delta
from locals to parties beyond from environmental to
agricultural to business and that's why we seek and advocate
for true science and looking forward to the National Academy of
Sciences' study coming forward that will hopefully identify
what those stressors are, what those precursors are and what we
collectively have a role and responsibility to address. It
isn't just one thing. It's not just flows. It may be size of
flows, timing of flows, does the Bay need freshwater flow
through the Delta to remain healthy and salmon to populate. I
think the answer to that is yes, but I'm not a scientist. But
yes, we all do have a role and responsibility.
Mr. Nunes. So you support freshwater flows in the Delta and
I understand you don't know the exact type of flows that they
need, but----
Ms. Piepho. Unfortunately, none of us do, because that
study has not been made and it's one we advocate for.
Mr. Nunes. Do you think it's fair that the freshwater from
this area is taken away when you have--San Francisco gets their
water supply from Hetch Hetchy and they have had to give up
zero?
Ms. Piepho. Well, I think that we all do need to look at
allocations as a part of the comprehensive plan throughout the
state, senior and junior water rights beginning and then the
percentages. Westlands Water, Mr. Birmingham's talking about
percentages of allocations, but we are not talking about the
numbers themselves. And I think the number themselves are very,
very important to have on the table, not just the percentages.
Mr. Nunes. But specifically do you think that San Francisco
should give up some of their water supply?
Ms. Piepho. Well, I'm not from San Francisco, so I don't
wish to speak for them, but----
Mr. Nunes. But you are willing to advocate taking our water
supply?
Ms. Piepho. No. I didn't say that. I didn't say that. What
I said was we have allocations that are very important and the
Delta has been overcommitted to the State's water supply and
that we all have a role and responsibility, in my opinion, of
preserving and protecting the Delta so it has a value to all of
us, not just North versus Southern California, not just the
valley here versus the valley where I come from. We all have a
role and responsibility, so we can all benefit from the Delta,
because I believe if it is restored, we identify what the flows
are, we identify what the surplus is, then we can have a
better----
Mr. Nunes. Supervisor Piepho, thank you for your testimony.
My time is running short here. I do want to just clear up some
things for the record.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that the Committee does
go back and study--Ms. Napolitano unfortunately had to leave,
but the last time I checked, she does get water, whether it has
pesticides, fertilizer and anything else that she claims it
has, that is where a majority of her constituents get their
water supply, so I'd like to know specifically if the Ranking
Member wants to give up their water supply, sounded today like
she wanted to, so I'd like to have it on the record.
Also, the charts that Mr. Garamendi put up, they are very
interesting, because they happen--they start at the year where
there were record salmon flows. If you go back ten years prior
to that--or salmon runs, I'm sorry--the salmon runs were
basically what they are a couple years ago. And so they went
like this, your chart starts right there, of course, and shows
a collapse. So I think it's important if we are going to look
at salmon runs, this Committee should look at the history of
salmon runs over whatever we have records for, for three or
four decades. With that----
Mr. McClintock. I want to thank everybody who's
participated in the hearing today, all of our witnesses who
traveled quite a ways, all of our Members of Congress and the
State of Washington and to all of you for spending your
valuable time with us here today.
Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions
for witnesses. We ask that you respond to those in writing.
Again, I want to thank all of you. It's been a very
constructive and enlightening hearing. The purpose of this, of
course, is not just to talk at one another, it's to gather and
consolidate legislative recommendations to resolve this issue.
I'd like to invite all of you to present any of your--any
recommendations that you have on the legislation that Congress
needs to consider on this issue. The hearing record will be
open ten business days to receive these responses. And if
there's no further business, without objection, Subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Steve Chedester, Executive
Director, San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Steve Chedester and I am the Executive Director of the San Joaquin
River Exchange Contractors Water Authority (Exchange Contractors). The
Exchange Contractors are a public agency of the State of California and
are comprised of four water agencies that provide water to farmers
along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, for some approximately
153 miles to the confluence with the Merced River. We provide water to
240,000 acres of irrigated agriculture. Our water rights result from
water development in the 1850s. Through a contract with the Bureau of
Reclamation, we exchange these water rights for water when available
from the Central Valley Project Delta Mendota Canal. When water is not
available from the DMC, the Bureau of Reclamation is obligated to
provide us with water from the San Joaquin River. This contractual
arrangement was a central component of the development of the Central
Valley Project in the San Joaquin Valley.
I am providing the Sub-committee with a substantial amount of
information that will be useful in understanding the current status of
implementation of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (Program).
I will summarize that information by highlighting some of our key
concerns.
The Program is faced with the following problems:
i. The Program is not on schedule. The San Joaquin River
Restoration Settlement Act (Act or Legislation) was enacted two
and a half years after it was expected to be enacted by the
Settling Parties. The delay was not the fault or responsibility
of any of the Parties. Despite this delay, the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation), United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are
all proceeding as if the Legislation had not been delayed. The
result is that development of the Program is not proceeding
logically or comprehensively.
ii. The Program is being implemented out of sequence. The
reintroduction of fish to the river was to occur by the end of
2012 and several infrastructure projects were to be completed
by 2013. Despite the fact that not one shovel of dirt has been
turned for any of the infrastructure required to protect the
fish and downstream landowners, FWS, NMFS and the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) have indicated they intend
to stick to the schedule in the Settlement unless someone or
something determines that they not proceed. This is despite the
present knowledge that the required infrastructure as called
for in the Settlement will not be in place by 2014.
iii. The Program is broke. The burn rate on the Program has
been about $20 million/year. Of the $88 million in federal
funds the Program started with, according to Commissioner
Connor, only $39 million remains. In two years the Program will
be out of money.
The costs and funding for the Settlement and the estimated costs
for the near term actions are set forth on the chart on the next page:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5822.009
.epsiv. The Program is Harming Third Parties. The Settlement,
the Legislation, the Settling Parties, and every member of
Congress involved in promoting the Legislation promised that
the Third Parties would not be harmed. Section 10004(d) of the
Act requires that the Secretary of the Interior mitigate any
impacts before implementing a single project, including the
release of water from Friant Dam. Despite these legislative
directives and assurances, Reclamation has not yet issued a
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), and due to
lack of installed mitigation measures, downstream farms have
been flooded, crops damaged, a levee destroyed, and monetary
impacts incurred.
v. The Program Has Not Yet Met Its Obligations Under the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). A Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was supposed to have been
finalized over two years ago according to the schedule
Reclamation set forth at the beginning of this process. The
PEIS was required so that the public and Congress could
understand how the Program was going to be developed, what
environmental impacts would occur that would require mitigation
and whether the Program was likely to achieve the goals for
fish restoration and water management. Rather, Reclamation has
proceeded to implement the Program on a segmented or piecemeal
basis. For instance, without a PEIS, for the past two years
Reclamation has been implementing the Program by releasing
water from Friant Dam with nothing more than Environmental
Assessments and Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and
they have started environmental scoping processes on Reaches 2B
and 4A. They have proceeded without benefit of a feasibility
report, overall plan for implementation, or comprehensive
environmental review of the entirety of the Program. For a
program that spans over 140 miles of river, involves ESA-
protected species, adversely impacts downstream landowners,
water agencies and the physical environment, and costs $500
million or more, this is not a reasonable or rational way to
proceed.
How We Got to this Point.
Along with the Exchange Contractors, the other Third Parties
include the Central Valley Project Contractors that comprise the San
Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority, and the independent irrigation
districts located on the east side of the San Joaquin River on the
Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Merced Rivers. Each of these sets of Third
Parties have particular interests at stake as a result of the
Restoration Program.
I would like to provide the Sub-committee with some background that
is essential to apprise you of the situation we face today.
The stipulated Settlement among the Settling Parties, which
includes, among others, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Friant Water
Users Authority and the Natural Resources Defense Council, was entered
into in 2006. At that time, the Settlement was negotiated and
legislation drafted without consulting the Third Parties. After the
fact, we were afforded an opportunity to seek amendments to the
legislation. Senator Feinstein and Representatives Cardoza, Costa and
Radanovich spent countless hours trying to work through amendments to
the legislation that was already secretly agreed to by the Settling
Parties. To an extent, we were successful; to some extent, we were not.
One of the major issues of concern to us was the adequacy of
funding for the Restoration Program. The Environmental Protection
Agency funded a study that was conducted by the engineering firm of
CH2MHill. That study and further analysis estimated that the Program
would cost approximately $1.4 billion. The Settling Parties did not
agree with that amount, but, rather, maintained that the program could
be funded for about $500 million. As a result, we Third Parties tried
to obtain in the legislation a requirement that the Program be
implemented on a project-by-project basis, consistent with the amount
of money that was available. Our concern was that we not have a
repetition of the dismal situation that we still face to this day as a
result of the partial funding and construction for the San Luis Drain
and the long-term damage that has occurred.
We were unsuccessful in obtaining that amendment to the proposed
legislation. In 2006 and 2007, as the Settling Parties and Third
Parties were negotiating changes to the legislation, we did not know
then what we know now. Importantly, we now know that there are grossly
insufficient funds to support the Restoration Program. In fact, in
2009, because of the implementation of ``PAYGO'' requirements, of the
approximately $300 million that was sought to be obtained from the
federal portion, only $88 million became available. At that time all
parties hoped the additional funding would be obtained in 2010. That
did not happen.
The Settlement and initial legislation did not undergo the normal
process for Congressional approval. There was no report to Congress, no
feasibility study conducted, and no environmental review pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act. Rather, this extraordinary
process took place without the usual protections and refinements that
ordinarily would accompany such a program. As a result, Congress was
never able to appreciate and debate the merits of the daunting task of
restoring the San Joaquin River. That task is made even more daunting
today, due to the lack of funds.
Where We Are Today.
The Bureau of Reclamation identified the funds that would be
available, the projects that would need funding, and the timetable for
the construction of these projects. It was anticipated that after these
projects were funded, spring run Chinook salmon would be restored to
the San Joaquin River. Just to give you an idea, pursuant to the
Settlement, the following projects were to be completed by the end of
2013. Along with some of the items are dollar amounts in bold that
indicate Reclamation's estimates of the costs for development as of
2008:
September 2009--Complete environmental permitting (in
excess of $30 million)
December 2011--Complete modification of Reach 4B to
capacity at least of 475 cfs ($15 million)
December 2012--Complete Reach 2B-Mendota Pool bypass
channel for 4,500 cfs ($80 million)
December 2012--Complete modifications of Sand Slough
Control Structure ($5 million) and San Joaquin River headgate
for 500-4,500 cfs and fish passage
December 2012--Complete screening of Arroyo Canal and
fish ladder at Sack Dam ($11 million), but a revised project
deemed preferable by USBR will replace Sack Dam ($30 million)
December 2012--Complete modification of structures in
the Eastside and Mariposa Bypasses (flood control structures
owned by California Department of Water Resources) for fish
passage ($38 million)
December 2012--Complete construction of low flow
channel in the Eastside and Mariposa Bypasses for fish passage,
if necessary
December 2012--Complete steps to enable deployment of
fish barriers at Salt and Mud Sloughs ($1 million)
December 2013--Complete Reach 2B channel capacity
increase to 4,500 cfs with floodplain and riparian habitat ($75
million)
By the end of 2016 the following Phase 2 projects were to be
completed:
December 2016--Complete modification of Reach 4B for
4,500 cfs
December 2016--Complete filling and isolating gravel
pits in Reach 1 (gravel pits create habitat for warm water
fisheries, like bass, that eat salmon)
December 2016--Complete modifications to Bifurcation
Structure (upstream of Mendota Pool) for fish passage and to
prevent entrainment
None of these projects have even been started. None of these
projects have undergone environmental review; none of these projects
have been studied within the context of the overall development of the
fish restoration program; and none of these projects have commenced
construction. In fact, it is only once the PEIS is issued that we will
be able to even have a glimpse of how Reclamation intends to develop
this program.
Based on this information and the costs identified in the chart
above, below is a graphical depiction of the problem faced by
Reclamation to fund this Program. As is obvious, the deficit in the
Program is going to be growing rapidly commencing in 2013. Within the
darkened portion of the graph, the blue line indicates the cumulative
restoration costs as distinct from the water management costs and the
entire darkened area is the Program funding deficit.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5822.010
The Fish Restoration Efforts.
Currently, we have a situation where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Marine Fisheries Services, and California Department
of Fish and Game are proposing to go forward with the fish restoration
portion of the Restoration Program without having the infrastructure in
place that is necessary to protect the fish.
From the outset of the Restoration Program, it was understood that
fish would be returned to the river once significant infrastructure was
in place. Attached to my testimony as Exhibit A is an excerpt from the
Stipulated Settlement that sets forth the Bureau of Reclamations
schedule for development of the necessary infrastructure. According to
Reclamation, the major facilities listed above were to be in place
prior to the introduction of spring run Chinook salmon to the San
Joaquin River. I note that the schedule calls for fish to be inserted
in the River in about mid-2012, but as I understand it, those are test
fish not meant to be the first generation of the hoped for sustainable
population of spring run salmon.
Further, the fish reintroduction program was going to start with
non-protected species of salmon, such as Sacramento fall run Chinook
salmon. Those fish would have been used to test the new system to
determine the effectiveness of the completed infrastructure and to
identify areas where additional infrastructure, such as screens or
other devices to keep fish out of irrigation works, would be needed. In
part, these facilities were identified extensively by Edward Donahue,
an expert who prepared a report for the settlement of the litigation.
As I said before, no infrastructure has been put in place. And yet,
the Program is moving forward this year, placing fall run Chinook
salmon into the San Joaquin River. The validity of this experiment is
highly questionable for several reasons. While CDFG identified several
studies that could be conducted this year, due to the fact that the
river is in flood flow condition, CDFG has conceded that the only
benefit to putting fish in the river is to train staff in the handling
of fish. This is a very expensive training program.
According to Dr. Forrest Olson, a fisheries biologist with CH2M
HILL, the following problems arise with the proposed planting of fall
run Chinook salmon into the river at this time:
Fall run Chinook salmon behave differently than
spring run Chinook salmon. Due to their life histories, spring
run will be larger when they out-migrate, and therefore have
greater swimming ability and the ability to avoid predators.
Juvenile fall run Chinook salmon will be swept down with the
flood flows.
Putting fish in the river at this time, during flood
flows, will not replicate conditions that the fishery will
normally experience during the course of a year. Therefore, for
a meaningful experiment, fish should be planted in the river at
various times and under various flow conditions.
Because the river is in flood flow operation, the
vast majority of water is conveyed through flood control
channels around the San Joaquin River. This is to avoid
downstream flooding. These flood control channels were
constructed by the State of California and are operated by
local flood control districts. The experience of the fish in
the flood control channels is remarkably different than that in
the main stem of the river.
The river is going to be reconfigured under the
Restoration Program. Testing fish survivability under current
conditions will bear little to no relationship to the
survivability of fish once the river is reconfigured.
Conclusion.
The current fishery proposal exemplifies the problems with the
implementation of the Restoration Program. A logical development of the
Program, assuming that funding was not a problem, would dictate that
analysis be conducted, a preferred alternative adopted, infrastructure
constructed, mitigation measures put in place to avoid harm to
downstream interests, and only thereafter would the fish restoration
part of the Program commence. Yet, here we are, with no infrastructure,
little to no mitigation measures, running out of money, and yet the
National Marine Fisheries Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
California Department of Fish and Game, and the Bureau of Reclamation,
are proceeding with the fish restocking program as if the rest of the
Program had been implemented according to plan. This makes no sense.
The program needs to get back on track. To that end, the Exchange
Contractors request that the following eight measures be implemented
expeditiously:
1. No spring run Chinook salmon should be introduced to the
river until adequate improvements are in place. This is by far
our number one concern as putting spring run in the river too
soon will have detrimental impacts on the downstream property
owners and potentially jeopardize the success of the fish
reintroduction.
2. Reclamation must agree in writing to not release Program
flows of a magnitude that would exceed 1300 cfs in Reaches 2A--
nor more than 50 cfs in Reach 4A (below Sack Dam).
3. Form a working group of the settling parties, Third
Parties, representatives from the State of California, and
Senator Feinstein and the local Congressional representatives.
The purpose of the working group would be to analyze current
conditions facing the implementation of the Restoration Program
and to come up with a plan that reflects the current schedule;
loss of 2\1/2\ years due to the delay in implementing the
legislation and related adjustments to the schedule;
determining what can be done, given the money that remains,
which is clearly insufficient to carry the program to 2019; and
to set a course of action that properly sequences the Program
in a manner that meets the needs of both the Restoration
Program and the affected Third Parties.
4. Revise the Technical Advisory Committees (TAC) for flow
releases and fisheries so that third parties are included in
these committees. The TAC is comprised of only NRDC and the
Friant contractors. The federal and state agencies are afforded
input and receive recommendations, but the affected Third
Parties are only afforded an opportunity to learn of decisions
being made after the fact. This is too late, particularly given
our experience with and knowledge of the river. The request to
participate in the TAC was made by the Third Parties at the
time they were informed of the settlement. Recent events
concerning flows and the fishery issues have proven that it
would be even more useful to have the Third Parties participate
on these committees.
5. Congress should include in the appropriations for the
Restoration Program sufficient funds to pay for damages already
incurred.
6. Legislation should be enacted, or if feasible funds
directed through the appropriations process, to establish a
claims fund to pay for future damages without the need to go
through the Federal Tort Claims Act and litigation processes.
This would be a mini version of the ``Gulf Oil Spill'' type of
fund, that could be administered either by an independent
third-party administrator, or by the Bureau of Reclamation. The
fund would need to be transparent and contain a right to appeal
should there be a dispute over the damages that are incurred.
7. Despite the impending publication of the Programmatic
Environmental Impact Study, unless it is included in the PEIS,
Reclamation should be required to conduct a feasibility study
that assesses the Restoration Program for the next eight years
based upon the amount of money actually available and the
timing for the investments in infrastructure and implementation
of the program. The feasibility study will provide everybody
with an opportunity to understand how a roadmap for
implementation of the program can be created under the current
funding circumstances.
8. Based on the results of the feasibility study and the PEIS,
Reclamation should pursue ``no regrets'' projects that have
independent utility, until such time as the program is fully
funded. Such projects might include Mendota Dam improvements,
installation of tile drains, reinforcement of levies, and
reconstruction of Sack Dam.
With the exception of the payment of claims and the formation of
the claims fund, we do not believe that legislation is necessary to
address any of the other measures. Rather, this can be accomplished
administratively, but subject to Congressional oversight and input.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
______
EXHIBIT ``A''
(Stipulated Settlement ``Exhibit C'')
EXHIBIT C
The Parties have collectively developed the following timeline for
the development and implementation of the improvements described in
Paragraph 11 of the Stipulation of Settlement. In so doing, the Parties
have considered a variety of factors including, but not limited to, the
desire to commence Restoration Flows (and other restoration-related
activities) at the earliest possible date, as well as the challenges
associated with the development and implementation of these
improvements. For these reasons, the dates set forth below represent
milestones for purposes of implementing the Settlement. The enforceable
deadlines are set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement.
These dates were drawn from a schedule the Federal Defendants
developed to assess the estimated minimum period to complete the
Paragraph 11 improvements. The Parties recognize that this schedule is
ambitious and reflects the Parties' intent to complete the improvements
in an expeditious manner. Many assumptions were made in developing this
schedule and include, but are not limited to: technical understanding
of the nature of the improvements given the current limited
availability of detailed site-specific information, availability of
sufficient funding and resources, timely acquisition of necessary land
and entry rights, timely availability of detailed information and
survey results for environmental analysis, timely issuance of necessary
permits, and no reduction in the estimated annual 120-day construction
period due to weather, in-stream flows events, environmental or
permitting requirements.
Program Environmental Compliance
September, 2009:
Complete necessary and appropriate NEPA, NHPA, ESA, CEQA
review
Phase 1 Improvements
December, 2011:
Complete modification of Reach 4B to route at least 475
cfs
December, 2012:
Complete Reach 2B-Mendota Pool 4,500 cfs bypass channel
Complete modifications of Sand Slough Control Structure
and San Joaquin River headgate for routing 500-4,500 cfs and fish
passage
Complete screening of Arroyo Canal and construction of
fish ladder at Sack Dam
Complete modification of structures in the East Side and
Mariposa Bypasses for fish passage
Complete construction of low-flow channel in East Side
and Mariposa Bypasses, if necessary
Complete steps to enable deployment of fish barriers at
Salt and Mud Sloughs December, 2013: Complete Reach 2B channel capacity
increase to 4,500 cfs with floodplain and riparian habitat
Phase 2 Improvements
December, 2016:
Complete modification of Reach 4B for routing 4,500 cfs
Complete filling and isolating gravel pits in Reach 1
Complete modifications to Bifurcation Structure for fish
passage and to prevent entrainment, if necessary