[Senate Hearing 112-16]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-16
DROUGHT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
ON WATER RESOURCES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE CURRENT DROUGHT CONDITIONS AFFECTING NEW
MEXICO AND THE STATUS OF REPORTS TO BE ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 9503
AND 9506 OF THE SECURE WATER ACT REGARDING A REVIEW OF THE CURRENT
SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON WATER
RESOURCES AND AN ASSESSMENT OF THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH CLIMATE CHANGE
ON WATER RESOURCES IN CERTAIN RIVER BASINS
__________
SANTA FE, NM, APRIL 27, 2011
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-455 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, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK UDALL, Colorado DANIEL COATS, Indiana
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
Connor, Hon. Michael, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation........ 19
DuBois, David, New Mexico State Climatologist, New Mexico State
University, Las Cruces, NM..................................... 3
Hurd, Brian H., Associate Professor, Agricultural Economics, New
Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM........................ 37
Lopez, Esteven, Director, NM Interstate Stream Commission........ 6
Newman, Corbin L., Jr., Regional Forester, Southwestern Region,
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture...................... 11
Overpeck, Jonathan, Co-Director, Institute of the Environment,
Professor of Geosciences, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences,
The University of Arizona...................................... 30
APPENDIX
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 51
DROUGHT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
ON WATER RESOURCES
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Santa Fe, NM.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m., at
Santa Fe Convention and Visitors Center, Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. Thank you all for being here. This is a
hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
It's a field hearing. The hearing is to focus on two related
subjects. Let me, before I really get into this, give a little
description of what we're going to try to do here or talk
about.
Let me thank the city of Santa Fe for allowing us to use
this wonderful facility. Councilor Bushee is here. Where is
she? I saw her here earlier. Thank you for being here and
thanks for letting us use this. City Manager Robert Romero is
here. We appreciate him being here and the use of the facility
as well and all the rest of the city council and the mayor.
The hearing will focus on two related subjects. First we'll
hear about the serious drought conditions that are now
affecting New Mexico. Despite receiving a little moisture over
the past few days at least in some parts of the State, the
majority of the State is experiencing a severe drought that has
impacted irrigation and municipal and environmental water
supplies.
The current Drought Monitor maps indicate that no part of
New Mexico is without impacts. The southern one-third of the
State is experiencing extreme drought conditions, having had
little or no rainfall for several months.
Below normal precipitation and snow pack resulted in flows
in the Rio Grande that are forecast to be 39 percent of normal.
Irrigators will have to use more water from storage this year
than was otherwise expected.
Some municipalities such as the city of Las Vegas will come
close to using up a majority of their existing supplies.
Environmental flows will also be impacted because of the
natural flows in many of the State's stream systems being
reduced.
Challenges due to an increased population, environmental
demands, and climate change as well are present even during our
normal water years. The drought conditions that we're
experiencing at this time make the ongoing stresses even more
difficult to manage.
The current drought provides an incentive for New Mexicans
to continue the collaborative efforts that already exist in
many basins. For example, water users will have to work
together with the Bureau of Reclamation this year to meet the
flow requirements called for in the Biological Opinion for the
endangered silvery minnow in the Lower Rio Grande area.
Communities throughout the State will need to continue to
engage in water planning activities and water conservation
efforts. Cooperative efforts such as water banking and shortage
sharing agreements will be essential tools to help communities
maintain economic stability even in times of drought.
Maintaining cooperation between Federal, State, and local
entities to address emergency situations such as fires will be
all the more important. So I'm looking forward to hearing
testimony on all of the efforts that are underway to address
the current drought situation. That will be the subject
primarily of our first panel.
The second panel of witnesses will focus on the impacts of
climate change on water supplies and will highlight a report
issued by the Bureau of Reclamation earlier this week in
response to the SECURE Water Act requirement that Congress
enacted in 2009.
I would just say for purposes of anybody here in the
audience or watching this that that entire report by the Bureau
of Reclamation is available on the Bureau of Reclamation web
site USBR dot gov. So I recommend any of you who want to, go on
there and download that and print it for yourselves, if you'd
like.
This issue has been receiving increased attention recently
in part due to shortage conditions on the Colorado River. But
research has been ongoing for several years. New Mexico's
national laboratories and universities are engaged in cutting
edge scientific research to help us better understand the
potential effects of climate change on our water supplies and
to learn how to better manage our existing resources.
For example, researchers at New Mexico State University are
studying the resilience of the acequia communities to climate
change. Sandia National Laboratory has scientists collaborating
on decision support tools to enable water managers to make
informed decisions about water uses in the face of an uncertain
future.
I'm very glad that the Bureau of Reclamation has completed
the report required by the SECURE Water Act. I'm looking
forward to hearing about the status of the science on the
effects that climate change may have on water supplies.
I'm also interested in hearing about adaptation measures
that can be taken to mitigate against negative effects. Even a
quick look at the information being presented today indicates
that temperatures are rising, precipitation is expected to
decrease.
The current conditions emphasize the need to support the
efforts to develop a sustainable water supply for the country
through the WaterSMART Program which the administration has in
place.
So again thanks to everyone for being here today. Let me
briefly introduce our first panel of witnesses and then have
them go ahead with their testimony.
Dr. David DuBois is the New Mexico State Climatologist. He
is here today to give us his views. Esteven Lopez, of course,
is Director of the Interstate Stream Commission. Esteven, thank
you very much for being here. Corbin Newman is the Regional
Forester for the U.S. Forest Service.
If each of you could take a few minutes and tell us the
main points that you want us to understand, I'll appreciate
that. Then I'll have some questions of the whole panel. So, Dr.
DuBois, why don't you start.
STATEMENT OF DAVID DUBOIS, NEW MEXICO STATE CLIMATOLOGIST, NEW
MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY. LAS CRUCES, NM
Mr. DuBois. OK. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. We thank you
again for the opportunity to testify about the status of the
drought in New Mexico. As you said I am the State
climatologist, I've been here about one year now, coming in
from the State of Nevada. I'm originally a native of New
Mexico. So it's very dear to me on--this State.
I also meet monthly with several State and Federal agencies
including the New Mexico Department of Agriculture, Office of
the State Engineer, National Weather Service, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Farm
Services Agency to discuss drought. We've been meeting pretty
much every month for many years now. I've been doing it ever
since I got here.
So I will give a briefing on the report of the
precipitation and drought indicators that we as a group and
myself have been tracking over the past year.
I would like to direct your attention to the map. This U.S.
Drought Monitor, that's the latest monitor from April 19.
Basically it's a community effort that basically incorporates a
lot of the local, State, Federal data on drought indicators,
local conditions. It comes out every Thursday. That is actually
last Thursday's. A new one will come out tomorrow.
That current one, the deep red is the extreme drought, what
they call D3. Then the brownish mustard color, that is severe
drought, D2. Basically it's sort of an indicator of the extent
and severity of the drought.
The latest draft--I'm part of the monitor team. So tomorrow
is actually--the draft of it is actually the--D3 is actually
starting to encompass more of New Mexico. So it's still draft.
But if you can imagine drawing a line from where it is on
the western corner about halfway up Catron County, including
most of Bernalillo County, and then connecting with the
easternmost portion of the red. So that's our draft extreme
drought according to the Drought Monitor for tomorrow. So it's
actually worsening compared to what was in the original
statement. So that's a very important thing.
Currently the extreme drought covers about 33 percent of
the State. I think it's some more--it's going toward more
about--maybe nearly half of the State, somewhere around there.
So that's a very important--even though there's been a little
bit of precip in the Rio Arriba County area, I think there's
still--the big concern is Southern New Mexico.
There's been many locations and reports that I've been
tracking and working with the National Weather Service. You
know, there are many sites that have not--haven't seen any rain
in over 3 months. The same with--I manage a station in Las
Cruces at the university that's been operating since 1892.
We haven't seen anything since our snow on February 2. That
was our only precip that we had. It was only eight-hundredths
of an inch.
So basically on a statewide basis, over the past 3 months,
so January, February, March, the statewide precipitation has
been the second lowest since records have been taken. So that's
a very important point.
Then there's another graph that I have in your packet that
shows the average precipitation from January through March.
This is on a statewide basis, showing every year the average
precipitation.
On the far right of the plot is the latest at 2011. Then I
highlighted that, circled that. So that was--that basically
describes the second lowest amount of precipitation, second to
the 1972 very low precipitation.
Just looking at this past March, statewide this has been
the third driest on record. So this is on the whole State.
There's actually a few stations that are actually--that are
actually the driest. But on the statewide, it's the third
driest.
Again I just want to magnify that the hardest hit locations
are in the southern deserts and along the central valleys. If
you look at just the southwest deserts, the precipitation is
about 7 percent of the long-term normal. So that's pretty low.
Not much better, the central valley is about 15 percent of
normal. So like I said in Las Cruces we have not had
precipitation for more than 80 days now.
So in the past 12 months, we've noticed sort of a--what I
would call a roller-coaster ride in precipitation. In 2009 to
2010, we were under the influence of an El Nino situation. We
had above normal precipitation, lots of good snow.
That sort of waned and we developed a La Nina which is the
opposite effect of an El Nino. That started in the fall of last
year. We are still under the influence of this La Nina, which
means--which tends to be--which trends to translate into drier
than normal conditions and warmer temperatures on average.
So this past El Nino was the highest since we had an El
Nino back in 1997, 1998, which you can sort of see that on the
chart a little bit, if you can look at the highs.
So there's tremendous--on the graph there's tremendous
variation in the precipitation from year to year. What I like
to do is track the El Ninos over time. The last chart on your
handout is labeled a Multivariate El Nino Southern Oscillation,
ENSO index. As you can see there's ups and downs, back and
forth. That's over the--starting in 1950 to the present. On the
far right is where we are right at this moment. We're in the La
Nina which is the blue, if you have a color handout.
You can see this going from a very strong El Nino to a
strong La Nina. That's sort of--kind of the picture that we as
climatologists look at, is what kind of situation are we in. El
Ninos tend to be wetter than normal, La Ninas tend to be drier
than normal.
It's not all the same in the whole State. Usually the La
Ninas tend to have more--in the past have had more influence on
Southern New Mexico. There's sort of a line--if you can draw a
line on Interstate 40, below that, that's the highest impacts
of the La Nina, a drier than normal. That's kind of what we saw
this spring.
So we're expecting to see the La Nina starting to wane to
more of an in between pattern for this coming next few months.
Then right now we're waiting for the monsoon prediction, which
right now they're looking at an equal chance of either high or
lower. There's really not a good sense.
But the last statement of this is that during the past La
Ninas that were very--that we had very little snow pack, the
precipitation in the summer has been about 96 percent of
normal. Those are for the conditions when we had a really low
snow pack. I think that was like 2006.
So if we look--if we learn from our past to see what kind
of things we can potentially see, there's--we can't use it as a
perfect predictor. But looking back in time, what happened
during the past La Ninas, that will help us.
So there's--that's kind of our discussion with our group,
is, you know, what happened--is there a pattern that we were in
in the past 30, 40 years, what happened then and can we--what
can we learn from that. So right now we're still waiting to see
what the predictions are.
But the best guess, educated guess would be maybe tending
toward a more neutral, an average start of the summer. But, you
know, we have to wait and see. So thank you for the opportunity
to report on this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DuBois follows:]
Prepared Statement of David DuBois, New Mexico State Climatologist, New
Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today regarding the status of the drought in New
Mexico. As the State Climatologist I direct the New Mexico Climate
Center based out of the Plant and Environmental Sciences Department at
New Mexico State University. I have been in this position for just over
a year coming from the state of Nevada. Under my direction the Center
maintains an archive of climate data collected throughout the state of
New Mexico from many public and private networks. As the State
Climatologist I meet monthly with the National Weather Service, Office
of the State Engineer, NM Dept of Agriculture, NRCS, Bureau of
Reclamation, and the Farm Services Agency to track the status of
drought in the state.
In this briefing I will report on the precipitation and drought
indicators that have been tracked over the past year. The US Drought
Monitor assesses drought conditions throughout the US incorporating
state and local data on a weekly basis. According to the latest drought
monitor map on April 19, 33 percent of the state of New Mexico is in
``extreme'' drought, 42 percent is in ``severe'' drought, 20 percent in
``moderate'' drought and 6 percent abnormally dry. Figure 1* shows a
map where these designations appear across New Mexico. Southern New
Mexico is seeing the brunt of the drought as the map shows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figures 1-3 have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many locations, particularly in southern NM, that have
not seen precipitation for more than three months. Over the past three
months state-wide precipitation has been the second lowest since
records have been taken. As the chart below shows the start of 2011 is
only second to a dry period back in 1972.
Looking at just March 2011 state-wide precipitation is the 3rd
driest on record. The hardest hit locations in the state are in the
southern deserts and central valleys. In the southern desert region,
over the past three months, precipitation is about 7 percent of the
long term normal. Not much better, the central valley region is at 15
percent of normal. In Las Cruces we have not seen precipitation for
more than 80 days.
Over the past 12 months we have been on a roller coaster ride in
precipitation. In the winter of 2009 to 2010 we were under the control
of a strong El Nino pattern and during the fall of 2010 a strong La
Nina developed. The 2010 El Nino was the strongest episode since the
one during 1997-1998. Below is a chart that shows the occurrences of El
Ninos and La Ninas over the past 61 years. The numbers are a measure of
the strength of the El Nino/La Nina signal. Our current status in the
La Nina is shown on the right hand side of the chart as the blue shaded
area.
Our understanding of the effects of La Nina in New Mexico based on
past events showed us that we would expect below normal winter and
spring precipitation throughout the state and especially south of
interstate 40. This is basically what we observed. While it's not
guaranteed that a La Nina will bring drought it tells us that it's more
likely.
The current observations are indicating a weakening La Nina and the
predictions are trending toward neutral ENSO by the start of the
summer. It is difficult to give a prediction of the monsoon at this
point in time. Based on the past we do know that La Nina's influence on
summer precipitation has not been as negative compared to winter and
spring. Summer precipitation in NM during all La Ninas has averaged 96
percent of normal.
Thank you for the opportunity to report on this very important
topic. I would be glad to answer any questions that you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
testimony. Esteven, go right ahead, tell us your perspective
from the views of the Interstate Stream Commission.
STATEMENT OF ESTEVEN LOPEZ, DIRECTOR, NM INTERSTATE STREAM
COMMISSION
Mr. Lopez. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
opportunity to speak to you about the drought in New Mexico.
As you've just heard, New Mexico has just suffered through
one of the driest winters on record. For several areas in the
State, the year-to-date precipitation is the lowest in the
State's recorded history. This as you might expect is already
creating significant challenges for water managers. Those
challenges are simply very likely to grow as the irrigation
season advances.
I just want to highlight a few examples of those challenges
around the State. In the Gallinas River, the city of Las Vegas,
New Mexico, relies on the surface water from the Gallinas River
for about 90 percent of its supply.
Given the severity of the drought, the city has already had
to ban most outdoor uses. Additionally, they need additional
infrastructure improvements. They have a funding request before
the New Mexico Water Trust Board for a replacement well that is
being considered right now. The current water supply emergency
will play a part in the Water Trust Board's deliberations.
In recent years the Office of the State Engineer has worked
with the Rio Gallinas Acequia Association to install flow
measurement stations that will help in managing water uses
there generally, but particularly in times of drought.
More recently both the city and the acequias have been--
successfully negotiated a water use rotation agreement that
should help minimize conflict between the 2 as they struggle
through the summer.
In the Lower Rio Grande, farmers within Elephant Butte
Irrigation District have yet to receive any surface water this
year. This means that all of the irrigation within EBID is
being done through groundwater, the pumping of which as you can
well imagine is more and more expensive as fuel prices rise.
Further, given that usable water in Elephant Butte
reservoir is less than 400,000 acre-feet, Article VII of the
Rio Grande Compact is in effect. Thereby, prohibiting storage
in upstream post-Compact reservoirs. This prohibition of
storage will likely be in effect through the remainder of the
calendar year and probably into next spring.
This year flows in the Rio Grande past San Marcial and into
Elephant Butte Reservoir are expected to be about 33 percent of
the long-term average. In recent years the New Mexico
Interstate Stream Commission working with the Bureau of
Reclamation has worked to construct and maintain over 20 miles
of pilot channel through the sediment delta to assure that the
water that does reach the reservoir actually makes it into the
active pool rather than simply spreading on the delta and
evaporating.
This has been helpful in terms of our Compact compliance.
To date we are carrying forward a Compact credit that is in our
deliveries to Texas of 164,000 acre-feet. That will help us
manage through the future years as well.
In the Middle Rio Grande, upstream reservoirs started the
year with a substantial amount of water in them. However, the
projected minimal runoff is still going to create quite a
challenge as you noted earlier in terms of meeting the flow
requirements for the silvery minnow under the flow requirements
required under the 2003 Biological Opinion while still meeting
the needs of other middle valley users.
The good news in that front is that the status of the
endangered minnow is far better today than it has been in
recent years. Thanks to the efforts of the Middle Rio Grande
Endangered Species Collaborative program, there is
substantially more usable low flow habitat available.
The needs of the minnow are much better understood. There
is an experimental population in Big Bend, Texas. Now there are
several off-stream refuges that are available to help them
weather this drought.
In the Lower Pecos River, water users and water managers
are fortunate to have implemented the Pecos River Settlement in
2009 and concurrently having built a 100,000 acre-feet Compact
credit. That should help us get through into the next few years
as well.
But under the terms of the settlement, when surface
supplies are limited, the settlement calls for augmentation
pumping of groundwater for the benefit of the Carlsbad
Irrigation District. This year the Interstate Stream Commission
has already begun augmentation pumping as of March 1. We will
likely have to continue pumping through the entire year. This
is going to cost the State dearly in a time of very tight State
budgets.
On the San Juan, as you can see from the drought map, the
San Juan is the one relatively wet area. It's still in drought.
But it's relatively wet compared to the rest of the State. The
Southern Colorado snow pack that feeds the San Juan is at about
100 percent of average. Yet the runoff into Navajo Reservoir is
expected to be about 80 percent of the long-term average.
Nevertheless, given the fact that there is a multiyear
supply sharing agreement in effect amongst the major water
users in the basin and the fact that we've successfully
installed measuring and metering equipment on all of the
surface water diversions, hired some watermasters, we think
that we're well-positioned to manage through what we hope will
continue to be just a fairly mild drought in this basin.
The preceding are just a few examples of the drought
challenges we're facing all over the State. Every community
around the State has drought-related challenges of its own.
The State Engineer has recognized the need to actively
manage and administer water rights and water uses. Ongoing
legal challenges to the State Engineer's proposed active water
resource management regulations have hampered his ability to
exercise direct priority administration.
However, the advancement of measuring and metering all
around the State, the hiring of watermasters, the admin--the
alternative administration schemes that have been negotiated
including some of the ones cited here, the rotation schedule on
the Gallinas, the Pecos Settlement, the supply sharing on the
San Juan, all demonstrate that we are slowly but surely getting
our act together in terms of the State Engineer's ability to
manage and administer water uses around the State. So that's
going to be critical through drought periods.
Finally, as you well know, a major element of effective
administration is the adjudication of water rights. Progress is
being made on that front. The negotiation, settlement,
authorization, and partial funding of the Navajo Nation,
Aamodt, and Taos Indian water rights settlements are certainly
major elements of that progress.
I want to take this opportunity to thank you, Senator, for
your continued assistance in helping New Mexicans improve our
ability to better manage our water supply. That support has
come in the form of continuing funding to the Federal water
management agencies, the support for the endangered species
programs around the State, and most recently your heroic
efforts in securing the Federal authorizing legislation and
direct funding for the Indian water rights settlements. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lopez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Esteven Lopez, Director, NM Interstate Stream
Commission
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about the drought
situation in New Mexico. New Mexico has just suffered through one of
the driest winters on record. Snowpack conditions around the state are
generally very poor and consequently, flows in the state's streams and
rivers are expected to be extremely low. For several areas in the
state, year-to-date precipitation is the lowest in the state's recorded
history. As you might expect, this is already creating significant
challenges for water management in the state and these challenges will
likely grow as the irrigation season advances.
Since the start of 2011, the drought in New Mexico has been
intensifying. According to the United Stated Department of Agriculture/
National Agricultural Statistics Service's ``US Drought Monitor for New
Mexico'', drought conditions worsen as you move south through the
state. Currently, only the northwestern corner of the state, roughly
corresponding to San Juan County, has the least severe Drought Monitor
characterization--that is, ``abnormally dry.'' The rest of the northern
third of the state is experiencing ``moderate'' drought conditions, the
middle third of the state is in a ``severe'' drought condition and the
southernmost third of the state is experiencing ``extreme'' drought
conditions.
Recognizing the intensifying drought, State Engineer John
D'Antonio, Chairman of the New Mexico Drought Task Force convened a
meeting of the Drought Task Force on March 21, 2011. This was the first
Drought Task Force meeting under Governor Martinez' administration. The
meeting was intended to acquaint the new members of Governor Martinez'
team with the Task Force, its charge and of the need for coordination
among state agencies.
At the Drought Task Force meeting, the New Mexico State Forestry
Division reported that year-to-date as of March 18th, there had already
been 160 fires that had burned over 91,000 acres--more burned acreage
than in all of 2010. Given the intensity of the drought, the potential
fire outlook is severe. The representative of the New Mexico
Agriculture Department reported that the state's drought conditions are
having ``definitive negative impact'' on the state's agricultural
activities. Moreover, the Department of Agriculture has characterized
soil moisture conditions around the state as either ``very short'' or
``short'', much less than what is needed for normal plant development.
At this time, the New Mexico Department of Agriculture is monitoring
drought and considering requesting a disaster declaration of the
Governor but has not done so yet.
Some of the other challenges have begun to manifest themselves as
direct water supply problems. A few examples include:
Gallinas River
The city of Las Vegas, New Mexico relies on surface water from the
Gallinas River for about ninety percent (90%) of its supply. Given the
severity of the drought, the city has had to implement stage IV drought
restrictions banning most outdoor water uses. The city has begun
exploring funding options to rehabilitate its surface water reservoir
and replace some of its wells. The New Mexico Water Trust Board will be
considering a funding request for a replacement well by the city and
will take into account the current water supply emergency in its
deliberations.
In recent years, the Office of the State Engineer has worked with
the Rio Gallinas Acequia Association to install flow measurement
stations that will be critical to managing uses on the Gallinas River
effectively. More recently, the city and the acequias have agreed to a
water use rotation schedule that will help minimize conflict.
Lower Rio Grande
In the Lower Rio Grande, farmers within the Elephant Butte
Irrigation District (EBID) have yet to receive any surface water this
year. Although there is over 450,000 acre-feet of water in Elephant
Butte Reservoir, only about half of that amount is usable for
downstream Rio Grande Project irrigation purposes. Under a 2008
Operating Agreement between the US Bureau of Reclamation, EBID and the
El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 (EP1), most of the
usable project water has been allocated to EP1 leaving EBID with less
than 50,000 acre-feet. This means that all irrigation within EBID is
being done with groundwater the pumping of which is more and more
expensive as fuel prices rise. Further, given that usable project
supply is less than the key threshold of 400,000 acre-feet, Article VII
of the Rio Grande Compact is in effect--prohibiting storage of water in
upstream, post-compact reservoirs. This upstream storage prohibition
will likely to be in effect through the remainder of this calendar year
and into at least next spring. This upstream storage prohibition is
likely to have minimal upstream consequence given the lack of runoff
available for impoundment.
This year, Rio Grande flow past San Marcial and into Elephant Butte
Reservoir is expected to be about thirty-three percent (33%) of the
long term average. In spite of this low inflow, New Mexico has done
what it can that to minimize natural losses in the system. In recent
years, the Interstate Stream Commission has worked with the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation to construct and maintain over twenty miles of pilot
channel through the sediment delta at the upstream end of the reservoir
to assure that the water that does reach the reservoir actually reaches
the active reservoir pool instead of simply spreading on the delta and
evaporating. This has been critical to New Mexico's compliance with its
Rio Grande Compact water deliver obligations and has helped build New
Mexico's 164,000+ acre-foot Compact Delivery credit.
Also in recent years, the Office of the State Engineer has
successfully implemented metering requirements on most non-domestic use
wells in the Lower Rio Grande as part of his Active Water Resource
Management initiative. Although the Active Water Resource Management
regulations are being challenged in court thereby preventing priority
administration at this time, this metering information should be useful
in better understanding water uses generally. It could also provide the
information that would allow for voluntary shortage sharing agreements.
Middle Rio Grande
Upstream Rio Grande reservoirs in New Mexico started the year with
plenty of supply. Still, the projected minimal runoff will challenge
water managers in meeting the flow requirements for the Rio Grande
silvery minnow under the 2003 biological opinion while also meeting the
demands of middle valley users. This should not, however, diminish the
fact that the status of the endangered minnow is far better than it was
just a few years ago and in spite of the dire water supply outlook the
minnow should be able to weather this year's drought. This is the
result of the collaborative efforts of the Middle Rio Grande Endangered
Species Collaborative Program. There is substantially more useable
habitat available at low flow conditions, the needs of the minnow are
better understood, there is an experimental population in Big Bend,
Texas and there are now several off-river refugia available.
Lower Pecos River
Water users and water managers in the Lower Pecos River in New
Mexico are fortunate to have implemented the Pecos River Settlement in
2009 and built a 100,000 acre-foot Pecos River Compact credit. The
state is well positioned to meet its Compact delivery obligations.
However, the settlement also calls for augmentation of the surface
water supplies when water in storage for use by Carlsbad Irrigation
District falls below certain threshold values. The Interstate Stream
Commission is responsible for monitoring that available supply and has
had to begin augmentation pumping since March 1, 2011. The current
outlook is that pumping will probably have to continue through the
irrigation season unless there are significant monsoons. This pumping
is expected to cost the state dearly in a time of diminishing budgets.
San Juan and Colorado Rivers
In many regards, the San Juan is the one bright spot in the state.
Or perhaps I should say it's the one relatively wet spot. As indicated
earlier, this area of the state is only classified as ``abnormally
dry''. The southern Colorado snowpack that feeds this river is close to
average, yet runoff into Navajo Reservoir is projected to be about
eighty percent (80%) of average. Still, given that there is a multi-
year Supply Sharing Agreement in effect along with successful
implementation of metering and measuring of surface diversions and
hiring of water masters the state is well positioned to manage through
what will hopefully be a fairly mild drought in this basin.
Elsewhere in the Colorado River basin snowpack in the Upper Basin
is well above average (in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming) and inflow into
Lake Powell is also expected to be well above average. This in turn
means that there will be additional releases to Lake Mead under the
terms of the 2007 Coordinated Reservoir Operations and Shortage Sharing
Agreement. The net effect is that the immediate threat of a Lower Basin
shortage has abated and reduced tensions for the time being.
Nevertheless, unless we get into a substantially wetter cycle than the
last few years, the tensions will increase again soon. The Colorado
River basin states, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U. S.
International Boundary and Waters Commission and Mexico need to use
this current reprieve to make progress on longer term solutions for
dealing with potential shortages before they hit.
Conclusion
The preceding examples are but a few of the illustrations of both
how New Mexicans are suffering through the drought and of the
challenges facing water managers. Every part of the state is facing its
own drought-related issues.
As noted previously, the State Engineer has recognized the need to
actively manage and administer water rights and water uses. As the
state's population and water demands grow, and given the frequency and
severity of drought in the state, this will become increasingly urgent.
Also as noted above, the ongoing legal challenges to the State
Engineer's proposed Active Water Resource Management regulations has
hampered the State Engineer's ability to exercise priority
administration. Nevertheless, the advancement in measuring and
metering; the hiring of water masters; and the various alternative
administration schemes, including those cited here--rotation schedules
on the Gallinas, the Pecos Settlement, supply sharing on the San Juan--
all demonstrate that the State Engineer's ability to manage and
administer water uses around the state continues to improve.
Finally, a major element of effective administration is the
adjudication of water rights. Progress is being made on that front, as
well. And the negotiation, settlement, authorization and partial
funding of the Navajo Nation, Aamodt and Taos Indian water rights
settlements are major elements of that progress.
I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to thank
Senator Bingaman for his continued assistance in helping to improve the
state and its water users' ability to manage water resources both in
times of drought and in times of plenty. That assistance has come in
the form of funding to the federal water management agencies, support
for endangered species programs and, most recently, in the Senator's
heroic efforts to secure federal authorizing legislation and direct
funding for the Indian water rights settlements.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Corbin Newman, you're
our final witness on this panel. We appreciate you being here
as our Regional Forester. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF CORBIN L. NEWMAN, JR., REGIONAL FORESTER,
SOUTHWESTERN REGION, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Newman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for bringing
us together on this really important topic, one that's become
all too common here in the Southwest and particularly in New
Mexico.
For me the most obvious and outward appearance of drought
is forest fires, it's grass fires, it's woodland fires. I want
to talk about those. But first I would like to highlight some
of the connections that probably are more important in the long
term that we look at.
When we talk about drought, we think about it in sort of 3
phases. The idea that you've got a panel here on climate change
I think is critically important, because we think about drought
today and how it affects our management that we need to carry
on in our national forests particularly in fire.
We think about the persistence of drought, how long has it
been around. You know, decades-old changes in many, many things
in what we do. Finally it's about climate change and how do we
address the management of your national forests around climate
change to make them more resilient and able to deal with those
impacts that they have.
Here in the Southwest we all know it's dry. All of our
systems are fire adaptive. Fire has always been a component of
the land around us. For us, though, it becomes more of, well,
what has happened over the last century or half century.
What we found is that the climate has really created more
and more vegetation on the landscape that set us up for this
current long drought that we've had to create these
environments. Many of them we're seeing, like Cerro Grande and
the Red Sky fire, their impacts on systems where fire is not
behaving as it did in the past.
For us that's one of the major emphases we have, is how do
we restore some resilience to these landscapes? How do we bring
them into an environment that's different today than maybe when
they began 100 or 200 years ago.
For us that becomes a major emphasis of long-term
management of the national forests. We're making great progress
here in the Southwest.
As we think about the impacts of that drought today, as has
been mentioned here, this year we're faced with some
significant challenges. All of New Mexico is in drought,
every--a little over 9 million acres of national forest system
lands are affected by drought. The further south you go, the
worse it gets.
As we look at what our meteorologists are telling us, we
expect that May will be dryer and warmer than normal. We expect
an onset of the monsoons to come as they normally do. At least
the odds are that will occur. But that means for the next 2
months, 3 months we're going to have some significant issues
around drought and its effect on national forests.
As many of you know, the Last Chance fire is now 40,000
acres burning outside of Carlsbad. It's one of those evidences
of the things that we're finding are occurring now, sooner than
what we have normally had.
We have a Southwest coordinating group made up of the 5
Federal land management agencies as well as the State foresters
of Arizona and New Mexico that really are coordinating the
resources and preparedness for this fire season. So I would
like to talk a little bit about those so folks know what's
being done.
We saw early on that this onset was coming based upon what
we saw in the first 3 months of this year and what the
predictions were. So almost a month ahead of time we brought on
significant firefighting resources into New Mexico to be
prepared to deal with what we knew would be an active fire
season.
We brought in 2 helitankers, we brought in 3 air tankers.
We put on 20 crews early in order to be able to deal with
these. Now, unfortunately for the last few weeks, they've been
mostly employed in Texas. But now they're all back home and
work on the fires that are occurring here in New Mexico.
For me that's one of the evidences of how well things are
working in the Southwest amongst the folks who are taking care
of wildland fire in the Southwest. The Southwest Coordinating
Group is as strong as it's ever been. The partnerships are
evident in the way that we're sharing resources and working in
these interagency environments around fire.
For me part of that is the result of many things you were
involved in, Mr. Senator, a long time ago. The National Fire
Plan is an example of how it brought together collective
awareness about the need to collaborate and coordinate around
fire, to leverage our resources to take advantage of all levels
of government in our capabilities to fight fire.
We fully expect that as we move forward in this season,
that we'll be faced with many challenges around fire. But we
feel we're well prepared for those with the steps that we've
taken, to bring new resources into the area, to pre-stage them,
to deal with fires such as the Last Chance. I think we're going
to find that we're able to meet the challenges that are going
to be in front of us.
We also are moving forward to quickly and aggressively
treat fuels. It's one of those programs that ramped up in 2001,
2002. We have maintained a steady attack on hazardous fuels
particularly around communities to do the best we can to
protect communities from the effects of wildland fire.
We expect we'll have again a good year of accomplishing
many of those objectives. We intend to continue to try to build
capacity inside the State of New Mexico to deal with those kind
of activities.
One of the things again I would like to thank you for is
the CFRP program. That has had a tremendous effect not only in
treating land, but to building institutional capacity and small
businesses and communities to deal with this kind of effort.
The panel today is meeting for this year's awards. So for
me it's made a huge difference here in New Mexico and our
ability to respond to these things quickly.
There's much more I could say. But it seems like it's time
I should stop. Hopefully we'll get a chance to respond to more
things that are relevant in questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Newman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Corbin L. Newman, Jr., Regional Forester,
Southwestern Region, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to provide an overview of the current drought situation in New
Mexico and how it relates to the status of the U.S. Forest Service's
wildfire suppression capabilities in the Southwest Region.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
The Forest Service, in cooperation with partner agencies in the
Department of the Interior, is perhaps the premier wildland
firefighting organization in the world. We work together with our
State, local, and tribal government partners to maintain our
operational excellence and continually improve the safety and
effectiveness of the fire management program.
The Forest Service takes seriously its role in managing wildfire
with firefighter and public safety being the first priority in any fire
management activity. We are prepared for the 2011 wildland fire season
and are staffed to provide effective fire management.
We will continue our commitment to aggressive initial attack of
wildland fire, where appropriate, with full attention to firefighter
and public safety. Last year, our initial attack success rate was 98%.
Further, our commitment to informed, performance based strategies will
reduce firefighter exposure to unnecessary risk during fire incidents.
Additionally, we will continue to provide assistance to fire adapted
communities that have been or may be threatened by wildfire to enable
these communities to reduce future wildland fire risks. In providing
this assistance, we will continue to make hazardous fuels treatment in
wildland urban interface areas a priority, assist localities in
building their response capability, and work collaboratively with local
communities to understand the role of fire and find ways to mitigate
risk and to foster individual responsibility for property protection.
These commitments are fully in line with the recently completed
National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy signed off by the
entire wildland fire community: federal, tribal, States and local
officials. The wildland fire community, through the auspices of the
Wildland Fire Leadership Council, has developed the Cohesive Strategy.
This ground breaking blueprint provides a common underpinning for all
entities with statutory responsibilities for wildfire. This is a
national collaborative effort among wildland fire organizations, land
managers, and policy making officials representing federal, state and
local governments, tribal interests, and non-governmental
organizations. In addition, the federal, non-federal and tribal
wildland fire management partners will continue work this fiscal year
on Phase II, Development of Regional Assessments and Strategies, and
complete the implementation of the Cohesive Strategy next year in Phase
III, a national risk trade-off analysis.
FIRE RISK IN NEW MEXICO
Wildland fire and wildland firefighting are influenced by a complex
set of environmental and social factors. In recent years, fires across
all jurisdictions have become larger, impacting more acres, due in part
to persistent drought and hazardous fuels accumulations. In addition,
the expansion of development in the wildland urban interface has
increased the complexity of fighting wildland fire. These trends are
not expected to change. In fact, it is expected that effects of
persistent drought in some areas will continue to increase the
probability of longer fire seasons and bigger fire events and declining
forest health conditions in New Mexico. Unusually dry areas with above
normal potential for significant fire will most likely expand westward
across New Mexico through the spring and persist over much of the state
from May through July (See Figure* Below).\1\ \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figure has been retained in committee files.
\1\ National Interagency Fire Center Predictive Services. http://
www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/outlooks/monthly_seasonaloutlook.pdf
\2\ ``See Text'' in figure refers to narrative description in the
National Interagency Fire Center Predictive Services. Monthly seasonal
outlook report. http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/outlooks/
monthly_seasonal_outlook.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILDLAND FIRE PREPAREDNESS
The 2011 wildland fire season has begun in many parts of the
country. As of April 21, 2011 a million acres have burned this calendar
year. Most of this has been in Texas and Oklahoma with 124,450 acres
burned in New Mexico. The total number of acres burned is above the
ten-year average for this time of year.
To prepare for the 2011 fire season the Forest Service, along with
our partners in the Department of the Interior, the tribes, and the
States have worked to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our
firefighting resources. Fire managers assign local, regional, and
national firefighting personnel and equipment based on anticipated fire
starts, actual fire occurrence, fire spread, and severity. All federal
and state wildland fire agencies are represented in the National Multi-
Agency Coordination Group. This group provides oversight to the
National Interagency Coordination Center, located at the National
Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, and coordinates wildland
firefighting needs throughout the nation. Resources are prioritized,
allocated, and, if necessary, re-allocated. Prioritization ensures
firefighting forces are positioned where they are needed most. Fire
resources such as personnel, equipment, aircraft, vehicles, and
supplies are dispatched and tracked through an integrated national
system. In New Mexico, firefighting resources are often mobilized from
the northern Rocky Mountains in the spring, when fire season in the
northern States is still low.
If conditions become extreme and U.S. firefighting resources are
determined to be in short supply, assistance is available under
standing international agreements for firefighting forces from Canada,
Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand. Under specified instances the
Department of Defense, and specifically National Guard resources, may
also be available to assist.
Firefighting Forces
Responses to wildland fires in the United States involve not only
the resources of the Forest Service, but also permanent and seasonal
employees from other federal agencies, States, tribal governments,
local governments, contract crews, and emergency/temporary hires. For
the 2011 fire season, the available firefighting forces--firefighters,
equipment, and aircraft--are comparable to those available in 2010 with
more than 16,000 firefighters available from the Department of
Agriculture and Department of the Interior. The levels of highly-
trained firefighting crews, smokejumpers, Type 1 national interagency
incident management teams (the most experienced and skilled teams)
available for complex fires or incidents, and Type 2 incident
management teams available for geographical or national incidents, also
are comparable to those available in 2010. Additionally, the Forest
Service and the federal wildland fire fighting community work with
State and local fire departments, which serve a critical role in our
initial attack, and in many cases extended attack, success. We could
not achieve the successes we have without them.
For the Forest Service in the Southwestern Region of Arizona and
New Mexico, there are 110 Forest Service wildland fire engines
available for fire assignment along with an additional 40 engines from
other agencies. This spring, the Southwest Area's 22 Type 1 crews
(interagency hotshot crews) will be available nationally into
September-October. The Southwest Area will start the season with 30--35
Type II crews.
Aviation
Nationally, the wildland firefighting agencies continue to employ a
mix of fixed and rotor wing aircraft. The number of these aircraft may
fluctuate depending on contractual and other agreements. Key components
of the Forest Service 2011 aviation resources include 19 contracted
large air tankers, up to 26 Type 1 heavy helicopters, 41 Type 2 medium
helicopters on national contracts, and 52 Type 3 light helicopters on
local or regional contracts. The Forest Service also leases 13 Aerial
Supervision fixed-wing aircraft, owns and operates 1 fixed-wing and 2
aerial supervision helicopters, owns 8 Smokejumper aircraft and
contracts for an additional 4, owns 2 heat detecting infrared aircraft,
and contracts 2 single engine air tanker aircraft (SEATs).
Additionally, there are nearly 300 call-when-needed helicopters
available for fire management support as conditions and activities
dictate. The Forest Service maintains a contract for a 100-passenger
transport jet to facilitate the rapid movement of firefighters during
the peak of the fire season. The Forest Service also coordinates
closely with the Department of Defense (DoD) in maintaining 8 Modular
Airborne Fire Fighting Systems (MAFFS) that can be deployed in Air
National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130s. The MAFFS program provides
surge capability for large fire air tanker support.
Due to the fire risk in the Southwest, I have requested that
``exclusive use'' Type 3 helicopters be located on the Gila National
Forest (Silver City, New Mexico) and the Coronado National Forest
(Sierra Vista, Arizona) earlier than usual. I have also requested that
the national helitanker contract availability dates start three weeks
earlier than normal with 2 heli-tankers stationed at tanker bases in
Prescott, Arizona, and Silver City, New Mexico.
Budget
The Forest Service Wildland Fire Management Account suppression
funds for FY 2011 are similar to FY 2010. In addition, the Forest
Service has enough carryover balances to allow us to respond to a worse
than average fire season without transferring funds from non-fire
accounts. The FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund, established by
the FLAME Act of 2009, is intended to minimize the need to transfer
funds from non-fire accounts to the Wildland Fire Management
Appropriation for fire suppression. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
securing the FLAME account which has enabled the fire community to
stabilize its fire budgeting.
IMPACTS OF A CHANGING AND EXPANDING FIRE ENVIRONMENT
The impacts of a high risk fire environment have adverse effects on
natural resources and have socio-political ramifications as well.
Wildfire has a natural and valuable role in many ecosystems helping to
regulate forest and rangeland composition. Currently, many ecosystems
across the country are out of ecological balance and are in need of
restoration. This ecological imbalance results in ecosystems that are
more threatened by wildfire due to factors such as increased fuel
accumulation and infestation by invasive pests. These ecosystems
contribute to higher fire risks and extreme fire behavior with severe
fire effects such as significant impacts to municipal water supplies.
By managing vegetation and restoring natural function and land
resiliency, we can change fire behavior and the impacts of fire.
Through a combination of mechanical treatment and managed fire, we can
help improve the health of some fire adapted ecosystems and prevent
heavy accumulations of highly flammable fuels. The Integrated Resource
Restoration line item as proposed in the President's FY 2012 budget, is
a needed tool that will enable the agency to get more of this work
done. In FY 2010, the Forest Service treated over 2 million acres in
hazardous fuels, with the majority of acres in the wildland urban
interface. By mid-April 2011, we have already treated over \3/4\ of a
million acres. In Arizona and New Mexico, to date we have treated over
71,000 acres.
Working closely with our partners, we are continuing to restore
watersheds and reduce fuels to enable these forests to be more adaptive
to stresses like drought. For example, prescribed fire treatments
continue in the Santa Fe Watershed to reduce the probability of severe,
high-intensity wildfire threatening the city's municipal watershed and
impacting the local community and livelihoods. 7,000 acres of the
Watershed were analyzed, followed by thinning and prescribed burning on
5,260 acres. The city of Santa Fe hopes to fund analysis and treatment
of an additional 1,000 acres in pine stands in the upper reaches of the
Watershed.
In addition, the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
(CFLRP) has become a very valuable tool in our adaptive and restoration
efforts. The 210,000-acre Southwest Jemez Mountains project was one of
10 CFLRP projects selected nationally and received $392,000 in 2010.
The project which involves Santa Fe National Forest and its CFLRP fund
partner, Valles Caldera National Preserve (VCNP), focuses on thinning
and prescribed burning to restore more natural fire regimes. These
efforts will be conducted over many ecosystems, from grasslands and low
elevation pinon-juniper woodlands to upper montane coniferous, sub-
alpine and alpine forests and across multiple administrative
boundaries. The project area chosen spans 12 small watersheds within
the Jemez River Watershed and across boundaries of the Santa Fe
National Forest, Valles Caldera National Preserve, and Jemez Pueblo.
The cross-jurisdictional landscape presents an opportunity for
collaboration among several agencies and stakeholders on the strategy
of treatments.
One community we are focusing on is Ruidoso as it is rated one of
the ``most at risk'' communities in New Mexico. In 2006, the Lincoln
National Forest and the Mescalero Apache Tribe signed the 16 Springs
Stewardship Project under the authority of the Tribal Forest Protection
Act (TFPA, Public Law 108-248). This was the first Forest Service
stewardship contract under the TFPA authority, which permits the
Federal Government to enter into contracts and agreements with American
Indian Tribes for work on public lands bordering or adjacent to tribal
lands.
The project strategically thins identified forest stands, providing
specialized employment in harvesting, transporting, and processing
commercial saw logs and small-diameter biomass. Currently, the
commercial saw logs provide and maintain jobs at small local sawmills
and a pallet mill in El Paso, Texas. The small-diameter biomass
generated will support a new wood pellet mill, currently under
construction north of Alamogordo, and provide critical material for
facility development and testing. In the future, the biomass will
provide the Mescalero Apache Tribe with material to operate a 6-
megawatt power generation facility. The project has a cascading affect
on maintaining and creating jobs within local tribal communities and
area municipalities, enhancing the Mescalero Apache Tribe and Lincoln
National Forest relationship.
The fuel reduction work we do nationally not only reduces community
fire risk, it is an important contributor to the economic health of
many communities as many of the trees that are removed can go into
milling infrastructure and create green jobs. We plan to match or
exceed these accomplishments in the future.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Let me ask a few
questions of each of you here.
First let me just acknowledge Mayor Coss who came in. I
expressed earlier the great appreciation for the use of your
wonderful facilities here. Thank you very much. Thanks for
coming by today.
Let me also mention while we're all paying attention here,
Tanya Trujillo who works with me on the Energy Committee in the
Senate does a great job in a lot of respects. But particularly
she is the one that did most of the work in getting this
hearing organized. We appreciate her excellent effort.
She sent me a note here or gave me a note indicating that
all the testimony, the full testimony of all of our witnesses
today will be on the website of our Energy Committee. That's
energy dot Senate dot gov. So if any of you have an interest in
reading through that testimony in full, it will be there.
Let me ask the State Climatologist, Dr. DuBois: I think you
were saying that predictions as to the so-called monsoons will
be coming out soon? Do I take it that your office does
predictions looking forward 90 days or some period of time and
says this is what we can expect during the summer months or
over the next several months or did I misunderstand that?
Mr. DuBois. I don't do the predictions myself. I utilize
the NOAA, basically the products that come out on a nationwide
basis. They start at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months lead in
advance. They're real broad predictions of the climate. You
know, they will basically say it will be above normal or below
normal or equal chance.
Like, for instance, the monsoon for July, the 3 months of
the summer. The predictions that I looked at yesterday said it
was equal chance of either a wet or dry. So that's where I get
my information.
The Chairman. That's based primarily on the fact that
historically, when we have had one of these La Nina situations
and significant drought that came with that, it has been
followed by a normal monsoon period; is that what you're
saying?
Mr. DuBois. Yes. On many cases there have--that's kind of
what the past has shown us. The forecasts are based off of
models and what's been in the past, sort of the climates in
the--yes.
The Chairman. OK. Let me ask, Esteven, your view as to what
is the state of the efforts in communities around New Mexico
with regard to water planning? Is all of this information about
expectations on precipitation in the future, is this all being
utilized by communities in making decisions about water usage
and ordinances and those kinds of things as you understand it?
Mr. Lopez. Mr. Chairman, I think that by and large
communities are making use of that information. Obviously some
are better--are doing better than others. But I can point to
several examples.
If you look at the community of--the communities of Santa
Fe and Albuquerque, they're certainly diversifying their supply
portfolios. They both now have surface water diversions and
also diverse groundwater supplies. Albuquerque is looking at
aquifer recharge and recovery.
Las Cruces is also looking at diversifying its water supply
portfolio. You've seen and I've talked about Las Vegas and the
fact that they've got drought restrictions, that they're
already--they're acting pro--in advance of the worst that we
expect to see this year.
Similarly Santa Fe has--Santa Fe and Albuquerque all act
similarly. I think there are--planning efforts around the State
are more and more utilizing these sorts of information in terms
of communities making those decisions. But we can always
improve.
The Chairman. OK. Mr. Newman, let me ask you about--I think
you referred to the Southwest Coordinating Groups. I'm just
unclear. You talked about I think 20 different firefighting
teams that were being brought in to deal with the expected
problems that we have. A lot of those have been needed in
Texas.
How does that work? There's not a lot of national forest in
Texas the last time I checked. How does it work that your
firefighting teams wind up in Texas fighting grass fires, for
example?
Mr. Newman. Sure. When you talk about this coordinating
group, this country has an immensely successful interagency
structure for fighting wildland fire which includes grass,
woodlands, forests. For instance, we have grasslands in Texas
that we oversee here. It's a partnership.
So State foresters along with the Park Service, the BLM,
Forest Service, BIA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we join
our forces together to attack fire when it occurs in the
wildland wherever it may be. So it's sort of a mutual aid, if
you will.
So when it occurs, we have the ability to, if you will,
mobilize and direct those resources across the country. In the
Southwest we use the Southwest Coordinating Group to do that.
Nationally we have an organization called NIFC in Boise
that deals with the national interagency fire world. It helps
move, if you will, resources around the country when needs are
there, depending on where resources exist.
Right now fire is occurring across the south. So from North
Carolina over to Arizona, that's where most of the firefighting
resources are in the country today, as they take on the fires
before they begin to move to the north.
So that's why we'll tend to move resources into Texas where
fire is occurring and vice versa. If they didn't have any fires
occurring there currently in New Mexico and we needed them,
those resources would move to New Mexico.
The Chairman. Since we're here in Santa Fe, could you just
briefly describe what the Forest Service has done jointly with
the city of Santa Fe to help reduce the risk of catastrophic
fire here in the Santa Fe watershed.
Mr. Newman. You bet. You know, one of the things that as I
mentioned before, few people see the outward effects of drought
other than fire when they think about the Forest Service.
The reality is most of the water that flows in the streams
in the Southwest come off the national forest system lands,
either in Colorado or here in New Mexico and Arizona. So the
condition of those lands are critically important to that flow
of water.
What we found is particularly where municipalities have a
dependence on a watershed for a lot of their surface water
flow, those are the ones that are most at risk. I think to the
city of Santa Fe's credit, they saw that earlier on and
realized something needed to be done that probably was not
typical.
Management was needed to lower, if you will, the risk of
catastrophic fire that could have significant effects on both
the quality and quantity of water they would get off of the
Santa Fe watershed. So they entered a partnership.
Creatively that's being looked at across the country to
begin to help water users realize that connection, to take
money that water users pay and invest in those watersheds with
the Forest Service.
So we've treated I believe about 7,200 acres through
thinning and prescribed fire. We've got about probably 300
acres left to finish the cleanup from the original thinning
work and then continue to use fire to keep those fuels at a low
level so fire, when it does occur in the watershed, will not be
catastrophic.
The Chairman. Now, this thinning has the effect of heading
off catastrophic fires in the area that's thinned. Does it also
have the effect of increasing the availability of water or the
amount of water coming off of the watershed for use by the city
of Santa Fe?
Mr. Newman. To a certain degree. Of course, it depends on
how much water actually is input into the system, how much rain
you get in a particular year. But I always liken it to trees
are like straws. They're in the ground and they pull water out
and they transpire it.
So the more we have density management, fewer trees on that
landscape, the more water can really land on the ground and
filtrate or run off. There's less interception, less
evaporation. So it creates that ability.
But the real value there I believe when you look at the
treatments is lowering the risk that that--that a significant
fire could impact that watershed that would change it for
decades, if not a century.
The Chairman. OK. I gather the same kind of thing has
occurred in Southern New Mexico, particularly around the
Ruidoso area?
Mr. Newman. Yes, Ruidoso being one of the most threatened
communities in the country. We've focused a lot of energy
working with various entities including Mescalero in how do we
go about collaboratively treating that area to reduce the
chance of catastrophic wildfire.
A significant issue because it's very, very expensive.
We're trying to find economical ways, create industries that
can utilize that material so we can treat an ever greater
number of acres. But great progress has been made in treating
around Ruidoso.
Ruidoso Downs was the next on the list. We had the White
fire down there that had a--will have a significant effect on
Ruidoso Downs this summer. Monsoons there are not going to be
welcome.
The Chairman. Yes. This is very useful testimony. I
appreciate it very much. I thank all three of you on this first
panel. We will include the full testimony that you've prepared
as part of our committee hearing record. Thank you very much.
Why don't we go ahead with the second panel. If they would
come forward please.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. OK. Why don't we go ahead here. As I
indicated before we started, at the beginning of the hearing,
the second panel is to focus on the impacts of climate change
on water supplies and particularly to highlight the report that
was issued by the Bureau of Reclamation earlier this week in
response to the SECURE Water Act.
Let me introduce our panel members. Honorable Michael
Connor who is the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Dr. Jonathan Overpeck who is codirector of the Institute of the
Environment at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Thank you
for being here. Dr. Brian Hurd who is associate professor of
agricultural economics and agricultural business at New Mexico
State in Las Cruces.
I appreciate you all being here. Let me just--before I let
Mike go ahead with his testimony. Mike was working with us in
the same kind of--same position that Tanya now is working with
us on our Energy and Natural Resources Committee when the
legislation, the SECURE Water Act, was drafted up.
He's the person primarily responsible for getting that done
and getting it passed. Now he's the person primarily
responsible for getting it implemented. So he deserves great
credit for what progress has been made on this subject and for
the report that he's going to talk about today. So, Mike, go
right ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I found out that's
much easier to think up great ideas than to implement them.
The Chairman. I heard a great comment a year or 2 ago.
Someone said that now--this was in connection with healthcare
legislation. They said, you know, now they're going to find out
what Moses found out 2,000 years ago, it's a lot easier to
write it down than it is to get it done. So go ahead.
Mr. Connor. For the record I'm Mike Connor, Commissioner of
the Bureau of Reclamation. I thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the water issues in New Mexico this year and the longer
term subject of climate change and its affect on Western water
supplies.
I would like to start by discussing the current water year
in New Mexico. As noted the entire State is in drought. The Rio
Grande has seen lower than average precipitation and higher
than average temperatures. The Pecos River Basin has been even
drier, with only 51 percent of average precipitation for this
date.
These factors coupled with below average carryover storage
in both systems do not bode well for conditions in the spring
and summer unless significant spring and summer precipitation
occurs. Also while current conditions and projections are
positive for the Upper Colorado River Basin, a warming trend
during April has the potential to erode the above-average
conditions we're presently seeing.
The dry hydrology in the Rio Grande and Pecos River Basins
are of a significant concern to Reclamation with respect to its
operations in New Mexico. In the Middle Rio Grande, we are
working closely with the State, our contractors, and other
interested parties to ensure there is sufficient water to meet
endangered species' needs and still maintain water operations
in 2011.
Notwithstanding these actions, it is expected that
reservoir levels will fall over the course of the year. This
situation lends urgency to our efforts to put a new long-term
Biological Opinion in place upon expiration of the existing
opinion at the end of 2012.
In the Pecos Basin, Reclamation is working closely with its
partners to acquire additional water that will provide
sufficient flows for meeting the 2006 Biological Opinion,
assist in meeting Pecos River Compact obligations, and provide
efficient irrigation deliveries.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and Reclamation are
monitoring conditions and adjusting plans for reduced in-river
flow conditions on the Pecos so that the available supply is
optimized for the Pecos blunt-nosed shiner while still meeting
downstream needs.
To the west and north of here on the Colorado River, the
upper basin of the Colorado has received healthy, above-average
precipitation so far this year, 120 percent as of April 4. The
April to July inflow forecast to Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell,
which represents the bulk of the inflow, increased 4 percent
last month to 120 percent of average.
A favorable precipitation situation will allow for an
equalization operation between Lakes Powell and Mead, bringing
Lake Mead's storage closer to that of Lake Powell's. While
encouraged by the water availability this year, we would
caution that it's too early to say that we are out of the long-
term drought we've been facing since the year 2000 in this
basin.
A final note on this year's water supply challenges. Our
ability to successfully react to and address drought conditions
requires significant planning, not simply a reactive approach.
Our infrastructure has allowed Western water users to withstand
significant boom and bust cycles of water supply over the last
100 years.
Today the stresses on existing supplies are so significant
that there needs to be new institutional and on-the-ground
preventions to address future droughts. More flexibility needs
to be built into our water system such as more diversified
reserve supplies, efficient markets for short-term water
transfers, and the creation of new habitats to improve the
resiliency of important ecosystems. I think Esteven's testimony
earlier touched on all those points.
If we aren't proactive, then most likely the only way to
address drought is to try and mitigate economic losses. On this
point I would like to segue to the issue of future challenges
to New Mexico's water supplies and that of the rest of the
West.
Climate change and the prospects for reduced water supplies
over time are areas of special emphasis and study at the
department. Last year, on March 16, this committee held a
hearing on a departmental program called WaterSMART, which
stands for Sustain and Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow.
The WaterSMART program focuses the efforts of Reclamation
and the U.S. Geological Survey on improving water conservation
and helping resource managers make strategic decisions about
water use.
Much of my statement here today will review WaterSMART
activities. But I would also like to discuss future activities
and where the current research on climate change is pointing.
As a threshold, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to return the favor
and acknowledge and thank you for your leadership in this area.
A number of the actions I'm going to discuss were authorized by
the legislation you authored, specifically the SECURE Water
Act.
This legislation was enacted as part of the landmark
Omnibus Public Lands Package that you managed, Secretary
Salazar strongly advocated for, and President Obama signed into
law in March 2009.
This legislation overall including the SECURE Water Act
will benefit the entire Nation well into the 21st century. The
science is clear that climate change will add to the challenges
we face in managing our water supply, water quality, flood
risks, aquatic ecosystems, and energy production.
Certainty and sustainability are the goals Reclamation
strives for in the use of the West's limited water resources.
Climate change strikes at the heart of those goals. We simply
need to adapt.
Earlier this week the department published the report
called for under Section 9503 of the SECURE Water Act. The 9503
report synthesizes existing literature on climate change. It
also features an original assessment of climate change
implications for snow pack, hydrology, and overall water supply
in 8 major river basins in the West.
We've got some graphics up there to show those impacts and
where they lie with respect to those river basins.
The 9503 report affirms and adds more analysis to the
scientific studies which include in the 21st century,
temperatures may continue to increase by roughly 5 to 7 degrees
Fahrenheit in the Western United States. This increase is in
addition to the approximate 2 degree average Fahrenheit
increase that's been experienced across much of the West during
the 20th century.
As discussed in the report, warming temperatures will
significantly impact Western water management. The quantity of
what's available, water supply will change, some increases,
some significant decreases. Timing of available supplies will
change.
April 1st snow pack decreases in all basins. Demand for
water will likely increase with increasing temperatures.
Environmental issues will likely be exacerbated for aquatic
ecosystems. Finally energy use and generation is likely to be
affected.
Speaking to the basins of primary concern to New Mexico, in
the Colorado River Basin, the amount of increase varies
geographically and seasonally but is roughly between 5 to 6
degrees Fahrenheit.
This temperature increase is changing the dynamics of the
basin and changing the growing season with spring coming
earlier. Overall annual runoff is projected to decrease by an
average of 8.5 percent by the year 2050.
Although as a result of this year's good precipitation in
the Colorado River Basin and the prospects for lower basin
shortages in 2012 have been eliminated, the risks of shortage
in the lower basin are expected to increase over time to about
40 percent in the year 2026.
Risks can be reduced through alternative water management
strategies. Reclamation in cooperation with stakeholders basin-
wide is aggressively pursuing investigation of such studies in
its WaterSMART basin studies which I'll describe in more
detail.
In the Rio Grande Basin, first our report shows it will be
perhaps the most heavily impacted river basin in the West. To
be clear the report does discuss the uncertainties that still
exist in projecting future precipitation patterns and runoff.
Notwithstanding the use of the best available science,
those models still have some inherent uncertainty. Nonetheless,
the highly likely 5 to 6 degree Fahrenheit increase in average
temperature during this century will have a strong impact on
the basin.
Mean annual runoff is projected to decrease by 7.3 percent
to 14.4 percent in the Rio Grande Basin by 2050, with late
season flows most significantly decreased. These are the post-
April 1st flows which are projected to decrease by 14 to 16
percent by 2050.
As noted earlier water management systems across the West
have been designed to operate within wide envelopes of
hydrologic variability, handling variations from season to
season and year to year.
These systems were designed with local hydrologic
variability in mind. As a result their physical and operating
characteristics vary depending on storage capacity and
conveyance flexibility.
For example, the Colorado River Basin has a relatively
large amount of storage relative to annual runoff compared to
the California River Basin and the Columbia River Basin.
Accordingly, the assessment of water management impacts and
appropriate responses must be done on a local or regional
level. This is the approach taken within Reclamation's Basin
Studies Program and West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments.
In our fiscal year 2012 budget requests, Reclamation is
seeking a total of $53.4 million for the WaterSMART Program, of
which the Basin Studies and West-Wide Risk Assessments are a
part.
The request of $1 million for the Risk Assessments will
continue Reclamation's development of consistent baseline
projections of risks to Reclamation's operations due to climate
change. We're going to start a major part of the Risk
Assessments here in the Rio Grande Basin.
Funding of $2.5 million will support the Basin Studies
through which Reclamation will continue to evaluate the ability
to meet future demands within a river basin and to identify
adaptation strategies where water supply and demands may not be
in balance.
The purpose of the Risk Assessment is to identify and
examine water supply and demand imbalances so that Basin
Studies can analyze how those imbalances impact operations. The
Basin Studies may then develop strategies to mitigate or adapt
to operations.
The Colorado River Basin Study, which is a partnership of
the 7 Colorado River Basin States including New Mexico as well
as other interested entities, is our largest scale basin study.
In 2012 Reclamation will begin providing funding for
specific feasibility studies for actions to adapt to and
address climate change impacts through the WaterSMART Basin
Study Program. We will also continue our support for
conservation efficiency improvements through the WaterSMART
grant program, the Title 16 water reuse programs, and our river
restoration activities.
As I identified in my written statement, adapting to
improve water management and infrastructure upgrades, including
improvements in our hydroelectric and environmental-related
facilities, is a very active area for the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Before concluding I would like to mention the USGS Section
9506 report that was released for public review earlier this
month. As you know the SECURE Water Act called for a report
assessing the adequacy of water resources measurement,
modeling, and data sharing systems that are relevant to climate
change adaptation.
USGS has taken the lead in preparing the report in
collaboration with many agencies at the Federal and State
level. In sum the report discusses the need and opportunity to
modernize data networks and climate-relevant data collection,
data management, mapping, modeling, and information
dissemination.
Through this report and its water availability end-use
assessment, USGS is ensuring that sound science is the
foundation for present and future water resources management.
Chairman Bingaman, once again I would like to thank you for
your leadership this area. If I could just take a couple
minutes, I would like to clarify something with respect to the
SECURE Water Act.
As I noted the SECURE Water Act was your bill. In April
2008 the Santa Fe New Mexican published an editorial lauding
the bill and the good science that it was going to promote. But
within that editorial the New Mexican stated about the bill--
and I'm going to quote this. ``It's got one of those too-cute
acronyms as a name, the SECURE[Science and Engineering to
Comprehensively Understand and Responsibly Enhance] Water Act.
Westerners long in need of such legislation no doubt will
forgive whoever thought up that mouthful as long as it doesn't
turn away prospective supporters.'' So the good news is----
The Chairman. I think you're the one who thought up that
name.
Mr. Connor. I was going to come clean on that point. I'll
confess I attribute the ideas and the programs within the bill
to your great leadership. I'll take the blame for the name
because it was mine. But we're pleased to be implementing that
bill. I'll take questions at the proper time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation
Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
Committee, I am Mike Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) at the Department of the Interior (Department). Thank you
for the opportunity to testify before the Committee today regarding the
water supply situation in New Mexico and within the Colorado River
Basin, as well as the longer-term subject of climate change and its
effect on western water supplies. These are areas of special emphasis
and study at the Department, and as a long-term New Mexican, I am
pleased to report on the many activities we have underway.
Last year on March 16, 2010, the Water and Power Subcommittee of
this Committee held a hearing on a Department program called WaterSMART
(Sustain and Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow). The WaterSMART
program provides the foundation for the Department's efforts to achieve
a sustainable water supply for this country. It includes efforts of
Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to improve water
conservation and help water-resource managers make sound decisions
about water use. It is a prominent feature in the Department's Fiscal
Year 2012 budget request. WaterSMART was established pursuant to
Secretarial Order 3297, and the Program functions as the Department's
implementation of the SECURE Water Act, Title IX Subtitle F of Public
Law 111-11. Much of my statement today will review WaterSMART
activities to date, but I'd also like to discuss future activities and
where the current research on climate change is pointing the Department
and Reclamation.
The science is quite clear that climate change will add to the
challenges we face in managing our water supply, water quality, flood
risks, wastewater, aquatic ecosystems, and energy production. These new
stresses are likely to be felt first in the western United States, the
fastest growing region of the nation. From 2000 to 2010, Nevada grew
the most at 35.1 percent, followed by Arizona, Utah, Idaho and Texas.
Nevada is the only state that has maintained a growth rate of 25.0
percent or greater for the last three decades,\1\ with some of the
fastest growth in the driest areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Distribution and Change:
2000 to 2010. Summary online at http://www.census.gov/newsroom/
releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn124.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier this week, the Department published the report called for
under Section 9503(c) of the SECURE Water Act (Report). The Report
synthesizes existing peer-reviewed literature on climate change, and
also features an original assessment of climate change implications for
snowpack and natural hydrology. The Report provides a presentation of
Reclamation's work to date on assessing the effects and risks from
global climate change on water resources in each major Reclamation
river basin; the impact of global climate change on operations in each
of these basins; mitigation and adaptation strategies to address global
climate change; and each coordination activity conducted by the
Department within Federal and state water resource agencies.
The Report re-emphasizes other scientific studies which conclude
that in the 21st century temperatures may increase by roughly 3 to 4
degrees Celsius (C) in the Western United States. This increase is in
addition to the approximate 1-2 C average warming experienced across
much of the West during the 20th Century. Also, in the coming years, it
is likely that the northwestern and north central portions of the
United States will have greater rainfall (e.g., Columbia and Missouri
basins), while the southwestern and south central portions are expected
to have less precipitation (e.g., San Joaquin, Truckee, middle to lower
Colorado, and Rio Grande basins). For the areas in between trends in
precipitation have not yet been identified, though increasing
temperatures may still affect water supply availability (e.g., Klamath
and Sacramento River Basins). April 1st snowpacks are projected in the
Report to decrease for almost all of the Western United States and
annual water supplies may change, with the peak flow in snow-pack
dominated watersheds occurring earlier.
Speaking to the Colorado River Basin specifically, the Report shows
that the entire basin experienced an increase in temperature in the
20th century. The amount of increase varies geographically and
seasonally, but is roughly between 1 and 3 C. This temperature
increase is changing the dynamics of the basin, identified through
measurement of the number of frost-free days, length of the frost-free
season, and in the growing season length (spring is coming earlier).
Results from climate simulations indicate a high degree of agreement on
projected changes in temperature. Temperature is projected to increase
by 1 to 2 C by 2040, 2 to 2.75 C by 2070 and by up to 4 C by the end
of the 21st century.
Precipitation changes in the basin are more variable than
temperature and the distribution of these changes are more complex.
Precipitation variability is tied to ocean dynamics, in particular, sea
surface temperatures in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. This partially
explains why Colorado River Basin precipitation varies through time.
However, the period from 2000 to 2010, inclusive, has been the driest
11-year period in the 100-year historical record on the Colorado River
Basin. It is unknown whether this current drought can be attributed to
climate change, as stream flow records reconstructed from tree-rings
indicate that droughts of this magnitude have occurred in previous
centuries. However, several scientific studies have concluded that the
recent drought is likely a harbinger of future conditions. Modeled
projections for precipitation indicate that there may be an increase in
the Upper Colorado River Basin and a decrease over the more arid
regions within the Lower Colorado River Basin.
Despite the significant range of potential changes in precipitation
patterns and quantities, the temperature driver is anticipated to
continue to alter snowpack conditions within the Colorado River Basin.
The trend towards earlier spring runoff is expected to continue,
changing the time when snowpack melts and the dynamics of runoff. These
changes are already apparent in that the snowpack in the Colorado River
Basin has been experiencing a general decline in the spring, reduced
fractions of winter precipitation occurring as snowfall, and earlier
snowmelt runoff. Reduced mountain snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and
reductions in spring and summer streamflow volumes originating from
snowmelt could trigger increased reliance on ground water resources.
However, warmer, wetter winters could increase the amount of water
available for ground water recharge, but this is an area that is poorly
understood and in need of further study.
Many studies investigating changes in Colorado River streamflow
have been conducted in recent years; in combination, they project
reductions from 6 to 20 percent by the middle of the 21st century. The
risks of shortage to users in the lower Colorado River Basin (as
defined in Reclamation's Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages
and Coordinated Operations of Lakes Mead and Powell)\2\, although
averted in 2012 due to a reasonably good snowpack and runoff this year,
are expected to increase over time to about 40 percent in 2026. With
current water management strategies throughout the Colorado River
Basin, risks of full reservoir depletion are less than 5 percent
through 2026, however these risks increase significantly between 2026
and 2057, inclusive. Risks can be reduced through alternative water
management strategies, and Reclamation, in cooperation with
stakeholders Basin-wide, is aggressively pursuing investigation of such
studies in its WaterSMART Basin Study, which I will describe in more
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/
documents.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not possible to infer water management impacts, nor develop
adaptation strategies, simply from these runoff changes alone. Water
management systems across the west have been designed to operate within
wide envelopes of hydrologic variability, handling variations from
season-to-season and year-to-year. These systems were designed with
local hydrologic variability and demand patterns in mind, and as a
result, their physical and operating characteristics vary depending on
storage capacity and conveyance flexibility. For example, the Colorado
River Basin has a relatively large amount of storage relative to annual
runoff compared to California basins, and particularly relative to the
Columbia basin. Each basin or Reclamation project also has different
constraints in which it operates including providing hydropower,
managing floods in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
delivering water to agricultural and municipal water users, and
supporting the recovery of threatened and endangered species. The
ability to use storage resources to mitigate future hydrologic
variability, changing water demands, constraints on operations, and
changes in runoff seasonality are key determinants of whether these
natural runoff changes will translate into significant management
impacts. Assessment of these water management impacts on a local level
is the subject of ongoing activities within Reclamation's Basin Studies
Program and West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments (WWCRAs).
In its Fiscal Year 2012 budget request submitted to Congress in
February, Reclamation requested $58.9 million for the WaterSMART
Program, of which the Basin Studies and WWCRAs are a part. Beyond the
initial Report, the request of $1 million for the WWCRAs will continue
Reclamation's development of consistent and comprehensive baseline
projections of risks and impacts to Reclamation operations due to
impacts of climate change. Funding of $2.5 million will support the
Basin Studies, through which Reclamation will continue to work with
state and local partners to evaluate the ability to meet future water
demands within a river basin and to identify adaptation strategies
where water supply and demands may not be in balance. Basin Studies
benefit from results generated through the WWCRAs. The purpose of the
WWCRA is to identify and examine water supply and demand imbalances so
that the Basin Studies can analyze how those imbalances impact
operations. The Basin Studies may then develop strategies to mitigate
or adapt to impacts to operations. The Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request
included $6.0 million for Basin Studies. As an example, the Colorado
River Basin Study is focusing on a more detailed, basin-wide assessment
of risk to Colorado River Basin resources from future water supply and
water demand imbalances and identification and evaluation of strategies
to resolve future imbalances and mitigate risks. As a separate activity
from the work developed for the Report, Colorado River Basin
stakeholders throughout the Basin are heavily engaged in the Colorado
River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study.
The Colorado River Basin Study contains four major phases: water
supply assessment, water demand assessment, system reliability
analysis, and development and evaluation of opportunities for balancing
supply and demand. A scenario planning process has been undertaken to
provide a framework to incorporate the high degree of uncertainty in
the assessment of future water supply and water demand. This process,
which includes input from stakeholders throughout the Colorado River
Basin, is being used to develop a broad range of plausible scenarios of
future supply and demand. Four water supply scenarios have been
formulated and quantified, one of which incorporates future climate
projections from Global Climate Models. The remaining three water
supply scenarios use approaches applied to observed and
paleoreconstructed streamflow records. Four water demand scenarios also
have been identified that incorporate plausible future trajectories
related to demographics and land use, technology and economics, and
social and governance factors.
All of this work is geared toward providing very real-world,
practical results: preparing our facilities to continue delivering
benefits in the future. Reclamation's customers--farms, cities, power
users, recreationalists and our ecosystem programs--all rely on the
stability provided by the existing water infrastructure in the West. In
2012 Reclamation will begin providing funding for specific feasibility
studies for actions to address climate change impacts through the
WaterSMART Basin Study Program. Funding for the studies will require a
50 percent non-Federal cost share, and will pursue strategies
previously identified in Basin Studies or equivalent appraisal level
analyses. Potential areas include the Colorado, Columbia, Klamath,
Missouri, Rio Grande, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Truckee rivers, to
be determined by Reclamation and its partners. In addition, a
WaterSMART Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) was published by
Reclamation and the Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) at the end of 2010 inviting irrigation
districts, water districts and other organizations to apply for
conservation projects. In partnership with Reclamation, NRCS will
provide funding and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers
eligible for on-farm conservation practices through the WaterSMART
program.
In addition to these programs, Reclamation is completing major
projects to recover power plant generating capacity and efficiency in
the face of a more than 100-foot decline in the level of water in Lake
Mead. These projects include installing new turbine components and
modifying or adjusting existing turbine components to increase
generation capacity available when the lake level is low. As a result,
the total increase in generating capacity achieved at Hoover Dam to
date is 93 megawatts (MW), and an additional 7 MW is scheduled for May
2011. Reclamation is also replacing existing turbine runners to wide
range turbine runners to improve efficiency and provide wide range
turbine operation at Glen Canyon and Hoover power plants.
As you can see, Reclamation's activities in the face of drought and
potential climate change impacts are many and varied. In addition to
the Programs described above, Reclamation also works with its many
partners on a day-to-day basis to better understand and incorporate
climate information into western water resource management as well as
in the implementation of Section 9503 of the SECURE Water Act. These
partnerships include:
Through the WaterSMART Program Task Force, each bureau and
office under the Department is tasked to use available program
discretionary authorities, within the scope of its mission. The
Task Force is responsible for working within existing
relationships and developing new partnerships between Federal
agencies, States, and tribes to collaborate on implementation
of WaterSMART. Through the WaterSMART Basin Studies,
Reclamation is partnering with local water and power delivery
entities to develop mitigation and adaptation strategies to
meet any water supply and demand imbalances that may exist now
and in the future. As noted above, within the Colorado River
Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, Reclamation is partnering
with the seven basin States (New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado,
Utah, California, Nevada, and Wyoming). Similar partnerships
exist for other basin studies.
Secretarial Order 3289 established the Department's
coordinated approach to dealing with climate change through the
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) and Climate Science
Centers. Reclamation's collaboration within the LCC framework
is part of its WaterSMART implementation. Each LCC functions in
a specific geographic area and will form a national and
international network for applied science to inform resource
management. Over the past year, Reclamation and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service have formed broad-based scoping committees
for the Desert and Southern Rockies LCCs, with participation by
multiple State and Federal agencies, non-governmental
organizations, tribes and universities. The steering committees
for the Desert and Southern Rockies LCCs will be established in
April 2011. Reclamation plans to integrate and coordinate its
WaterSMART activities with the LCCs. Additionally, the Bureau
of Reclamation has begun working with the DOI Climate Science
Centers and National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center
to identify develop and begin research specific to water
management.
In 2008, Reclamation collaborated with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), and the USGS to form the Climate Change and Water
Working Group (CCAWWG) to bring water managers and climate
scientists together to identify common information gaps to
assess, forecast, and adapt to climate change impacts on
Western water supplies. Additional CCAWWG Federal participants
include the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; non-Federal participants include the Western
States Water Council; local municipal water authorities; NOAA's
Regional Integrated Science and Assessment (RISA) Centers; and
the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Department of Commerce--NOAA--Reclamation continues to
collaborate with NOAA Regional Integrated Science Assessment
(RISA) teams and regional climate centers in the western U.S.
to assist in developing climate information to support
stakeholders in a variety of sectors, including identifying
information needs, development of decision support tools
related to climate variability and change, and data selection,
interpretation, and understanding. These centers include the
Climate Decision Support Consortium, the California-Nevada
Applications Group, the Western Water Assessment, the Climate
Assessment for the Southwest, and the Southern Climate Impacts
Planning Program. Reclamation also continues to collaborate
with the former RISA center at The University of Washington,
the Climate Impacts Group. In addition to engaging with RISA
centers, we are collaborating with NOAA Earth System Research
Laboratory to better understand the science surrounding climate
variability and climate change.
NRCS--NRCS's Snowpack Telemetry network provides an
extensive, automated system designed to collect snowpack and
related climate data in Alaska and the western United States
which is used to produce water supply forecasts. NRCS's Soil
Climate Analysis Network (SCAN) is an information system
designed to provide data on soil moisture and climate
information from a number of different sources also used in
forecasting.
The Department of Interior participates on the Interagency
Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, co-chaired by the Council
on Environmental Quality, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and the Office of Science and Technology
Policy. The Task Force works with Federal agencies to identify
actions to better prepare the United States to respond to the
impacts of climate change. The October 2010 Progress Report of
the Task Force recommends that the Federal Government implement
actions to expand and strengthen the Nation's capacity to
better understand, prepare for, and respond to climate change.
The Task Force's work has been guided by a strategic vision of
a resilient, healthy, and prosperous Nation in the face of a
changing climate. Reclamation participates on the Water
Resources and Climate Change Adaptation Workgroup that supports
the Task Force and is developing the National Action Plan for
adaptation of freshwater resources management to climate change
called for in the October 2010 Progress Report of the
Adaptation Task Force (see the October 2010 Progress Report of
the Task Force for more information).
Finally, I'd like to note that the Administration recently
transmitted a report to Congress that was required in Section
9506 of the SECURE Water Act. Section 9506 of the Omnibus
Public Lands Act (Public Law 111-11) calls for a report to
Congress on the adequacy of water resources measurement,
modeling, and data sharing systems that are relevant to climate
change adaptation. The Nation invests considerable resources in
monitoring, mapping, evaluating, assessing, modeling, and
managing water resources. Many of the existing observational
water data networks, models, and hydro-statistical methods were
developed for specific users and pre-date recent advances in
climate change science. As a result, these systems (networks,
methods, and models) were not designed to account for the
effects of a changing climate on water resources, or to
evaluate the effectiveness of climate change mitigation and
adaptation strategies. Today, there is a need and an
opportunity to modernize data networks and climate-relevant
data collection, data management, mapping, modeling, and
information dissemination. Of particular importance is
maintenance and strengthening of long-term ground-based and
remote observational capabilities to detect change. The report
addressing these concerns has been reviewed by the multiagency
panel authorized in Section 9506(a), and a draft version is out
for public comment. The panel looks forward to presenting its
findings to the Secretary for transmission to Congress.
hydrology--colorado river and new mexico water supply, 2011
Apart from the longer-term topic of west wide climate change, the
other focus of the Committee today is the near-term water supply
picture on the Colorado River and here in New Mexico for 2011. We've
discussed long-term trends on the Colorado above, so let me turn now to
the Rio Grande.
In New Mexico, predictions of a strong La Nina, with drier
conditions expected in the Rio Grande and Pecos river basins, are
proving accurate this year based on the early season conditions in
these basins. The Rio Grande is seeing lower than average precipitation
(80 percent as of April 17), and higher than average temperatures. The
Pecos River Basin has been even drier, with only 51 percent of average
water year precipitation for this date (April 17). These factors,
coupled with below average carryover storage in the systems, do not
bode well for conditions in the spring and summer in these two basins
unless significant late spring precipitation occurs. While current
conditions and projections are positive for the Upper Colorado River
basin, a warming trend during April has the potential to erode the
above average conditions that we are currently seeing.
The low precipitation levels that currently exist in the Rio Grande
and Pecos river basins are of significant concern to Reclamation with
respect to its operations in New Mexico. In the Middle Rio Grande,
although there is likely to be sufficient water to meet endangered
species needs and still maintain water operations in 2011, reservoir
levels will fall and the situation lends urgency to our efforts to put
a new long-term biological opinion in place upon expiration of the
existing opinion at the end of 2012.
In the Pecos river basin, Reclamation is working closely with its
water user partners and the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission to
acquire additional water through lease and forbearance agreements that
will provide sufficient flows for meeting the 2006 biological opinion
flow targets, assist in meeting Pecos River Compact obligations, and
provide efficient irrigation deliveries. The U.S. Fish Wildlife Service
and Reclamation are monitoring conditions and adjusting operational
plans for anticipated reduced in-river flow conditions on the Pecos so
that the available supply is optimized to protect the Pecos Bluntnose
Shiner while meeting downstream needs.
Finally, with respect to the Rio Grande Project, forecasted inflow
to Elephant Butte Reservoir is 36 percent of average and the reservoir
is expected to drop 24 feet this summer impacting the recreational
economy of the area. Water users, the states of New Mexico and Texas,
and Reclamation are looking at alternatives to conserve storage while
meeting irrigation demands for two irrigation districts and treaty
obligations for water deliveries to lands in the Republic of Mexico. As
part of its primary mission in the Middle Rio Grande, Reclamation
continues to improve the Rio Grande channel conditions for the
efficient transport of water and sediment to Elephant Butte in
collaboration with the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, and is
working closely with irrigation districts to increase their
conservation efforts.
To the west and north of New Mexico on the Colorado River, the
upper basin of the Colorado has received healthy, above average
precipitation so far this year (121 percent of average as of 4/21). The
April to July inflow forecast to Glen Canyon Dam / Lake Powell, which
represents the bulk of the inflow, increased by 6 percent since March 1
to 122 percent of average. The above average inflow forecast will
result in increased releases from Lake Powell under the equalization
rules. These additional releases from Lake Powell will increase Lake
Mead's content to approximately 46 percent of capacity by the end of
the water year, more closely balancing the contents between Lake Powell
and Lake Mead. While we are encouraged by the water availability this
year, we would caution that it is too early to say that we are out of
the long-term drought we have been facing since 2000 in the southwest.
As of April 21, 2011, the storage in Lake Mead was 11.1 million
acre-feet (43 percent of capacity) and its surface water elevation was
1,096 feet above sea level. Total overall reservoir storage in the
Colorado River Basin was 31.4 million acre-feet (53 percent of
capacity).
Due to winter storms in the Lower Basin in late 2010, tributary
inflows were well above average in December. Inflows resulting from
these storms increased Lake Mead's elevation by nearly 2 feet during a
7-day period in December 2010. Also due to the winter storms in late
December 2010, and additional storms in February 2011, demands in the
Lower Basin were less than projected during the months of January and
February 2011. The month of February brought cooler than normal
temperatures and precipitation varied with below normal precipitation
in some areas and above normal precipitation in other parts of the
Lower Basin. During March, temperatures were warmer than normal and
precipitation was well below normal throughout the basin. The Climate
Prediction Center outlook (dated April 21, 2011) indicates that over
the next three months that more likely than not it will be warmer than
normal with equal chances for above or below normal precipitation in
the Lower Basin.
WATERSMART WATER AVAILABILITY AND USE ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE
The Department of the Interior's High Priority Performance Goal set
a target for water conservation through the WaterSMART Program. For
Fiscal Year 2012, Reclamation is seeking to achieve 490,000 acre-feet
of water savings. In Fiscal Year 2010, Reclamation achieved a savings
of 150,000 acre-feet of water. The Fiscal Year 2011 assessment is still
underway.
As previously mentioned, the USGS is an important partner of
Reclamation on the WaterSMART initiative. I would like to end this
statement with a discussion of the USGS's WaterSMART Water Availability
and use Assessment Initiative. Many factors affect the amount of water
that is available; precipitation patterns, streamflows, groundwater
availability, and land uses all affect water availability. The USGS's
WaterSMART Water Availability and Use Assessment Initiative will
account for the changing amount, quality, and use of water resources
across the Nation. It provides a standard way for the Nation to
understand water availability using measurements or estimates of the
different components of the water cycle, including precipitation,
surface water, and groundwater. The President's 2012 budget includes
$10.9 million USGS to carry out this initiative. The key components of
this initiative include:
A nationwide system to deliver information about water
availability factors that every manager needs when dealing with
availability questions--precipitation and evapotranspiration,
surface-water runoff and baseflows, recharge to groundwater and
changing storage in aquifers.
Increased knowledge of water use science--withdrawals,
demands, consumption, and return flows.
An investment in the science of ecological flows.
A new grant program for state water resource agencies to
assist them with critical work on their water use databases.
A series of ``focus area'' studies that will include a
comprehensive three-year technical assessment of water
availability with the best available tools.
The ultimate objective of USGS WaterSMART efforts is to provide the
ability to track water use from its point of withdrawal, through how
the water is used and consumed, and ultimately how it is returned to
the environment. The Administration fully recognizes the important role
of states in producing water use information, and we realize the heavy
burden that states currently bear financially. For that reason, USGS
investment in water use science will include a program of grants to
state water resource agencies to assist them with critical work on
their water use databases.
Finally, throughout the United States there are areas where
competition for water resources has reached a level of national
attention and concern. Sometimes the competing interests are multiple
human needs--needs for potable water, for irrigation, for energy, for
industrial processes or for other uses. In other circumstances, the
competition is between human and aquatic ecosystems needs. Through
WaterSMART, USGS proposes a series of studies, focused on selected
watersheds, where there is a desire on the part of watershed
stakeholders to conduct a comprehensive technical assessment of water
availability with the best available tools. These studies will provide
critical information to land and water resource managers through a
comprehensive technical analysis of the factors affecting the
availability of water. The first three geographically focused studies
of water availability and use will be in the Colorado River (CO, UT,
WY, NV, NM, AZ, CA), Delaware River (NY, PA, NJ, DE), and Apalachicola,
Chattahoochee, and Flint River Basins (AL, FL, GA). USGS will work with
watershed stakeholders and the various agencies involved in these
geographic focus areas to scope and conduct these studies. During the
early months of 2011, USGS began seeking stakeholder input to develop
the scope of the Colorado River geographic focus area study.
The 2012 budget provides $10.9 million for USGS activities in the
WaterSmart initiative, $9.0 million above the 2010 Enacted/2011 CR
level, to implement the WaterSmart Availability and Use Assessment.
USGS will conduct comprehensive water supply and demand inventories to
provide the baseline information needed by public and private water
managers to work toward sustainable water supplies. This effort will
include estimating freshwater resources, how those supplies are
distributed, and how they are changing over time; evaluating factors
affecting water availability including energy development, changes in
agricultural practices, increasing population, and competing priorities
for limited water resources; and assessing water use and distribution
for human, environmental, and wildlife needs.
CONCLUSION
Droughts and dry weather are nothing new in the Southwest. And as
you know, the water infrastructure constructed by Reclamation and our
partners in the West was built to mitigate for that reality. This year,
we will work with the hydrology in New Mexico and on the Rio Grande and
Colorado River together with our partners to maximize water reliability
on the rivers, and meet our obligations to the maximum extent
practicable.
In the longer term, the Department is working every day to equip
our agencies and other resource managers with the data they need to
answer the questions they face about water supply and use and to
continue delivering water and power in the face of a changed climate.
While the activities described here today are wide-ranging, they
are by no means inclusive of every avenue we're pursuing. New ideas are
at the heart of innovation, and we value our partnership with Congress
to bring the best thinking to the challenge of climate change. In ways
both large and subtle, this challenge will impact nearly every facet of
Reclamation's operations, so if new thinking on how to anticipate and
adapt to climate change comes to our attention, we will pursue those as
well.
Chairman Bingaman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss these
important topics. I would be pleased to answer any questions the
Committee may have.
The Chairman. Thank you again. Thank you for your testimony
here today. Dr. Overpeck, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN OVERPECK, CO-DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF THE
ENVIRONMENT, PROFESSOR OF GEOSCIENCES, PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC
SCIENCES, THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
Mr. Overpeck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to speak with you today on the topic of climate variability and
climate change as they relate to water supply in New Mexico and
the broader Southwest United States.
My name for the record is Jonathan Overpeck. It's a
pleasure to be testifying in a hearing in my parents' hometown
of Santa Fe.
In addition to being codirector of the Institute of the
Environment at the University of Arizona, I'm also professor of
geosciences and professor of atmospheric sciences. I have
published over 140 papers on climate environmental sciences and
have played a prominent scientific role in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as various
U.S. and national science programs.
I've been awarded numerous U.S. Government and professional
awards for my climate-related work. Most important at this
hearing perhaps, I serve as the principal investigator for the
Climate Assessment of the Southwest Program which is an
interdisciplinary science program focused on climate
variability and change with the goal of helping promote
improved decisionmaking.
In my written testimony, I discuss the current drought in
some detail, the drought that's affecting New Mexico, Arizona,
Texas, Oklahoma, and the adjoining region. But Dr. DuBois and
others testifying before me have done a good job on this topic
already.
So for this reason I will start by trying to put the
current drought in a much longer 2,000 year paleoclimatic
perspective that makes it clear that the current drought,
although serious, is modest compared to the magnitude of
drought that has happened in the past and thus could happen in
the future, even in the absence of climate change.
I will start with a focus on the Colorado River and then
shift to new scientific results that have serious implications
for both the Rio Grande and the Colorado Rivers.
The state-of-the-art published tree-ring based stream flow
reconstruction for the Colorado River at Lee's Ferry just below
Lake Powell indicates that several megadroughts, those are
droughts that last decades, have occurred in the Southwest,
with the worst in the 12th century A.D. lasting over 30 years.
Most of these natural droughts were apparently driven by
low precipitation during the winter and spring, much like the
drought currently affecting New Mexico. Most were also
apparently associated at least in part with cool, La Nina-like
conditions in the Equatorial Pacific, again quite similar to
the current drought in New Mexico. It's important to remember
La Nina through this testimony.
The difference between the current drought and the earlier
droughts is that the earlier ones were much longer and more
severe; that is, a good deal drier than the current drought.
Because a megadrought like that of medieval times lasting
not years but decades could occur on top of the reduced
Colorado and Rio Grande flows projected in the just released
Bureau of Reclamation report, the issue of future drought is a
serious concern. Droughts on top of climate change will likely
be a double-whammy, much worse than drought alone and much
worse than just climate change alone.
However, as serious as the just discussed megadrought
sounds, one lasting 30 years, new scientific research not yet
published provides evidence that the megadroughts currently
believed by scientists and water managers alike to be the worst
case possible may not be as bad as it could get.
There is now evidence that even longer and more severe
megadroughts apparently occurred in the headwaters of both the
Colorado and Rio Grande Rivers. More detail are in my written
testimony.
But we now have reason to believe that a drought as long as
49 years interrupted by only one wet year happened in recent
history; and thus, this could happen in the future.
Moreover, we now have reason to believe that the worst-case
medieval megadrought mentioned in the new Bureau of Reclamation
report; that is, 85 percent of normal Colorado flow for 25
years--University of Arizona work by the way--may have in
reality been substantially more severe; that is, substantially
drier than we believed before.
Further research is needed to confirm these new results and
integrate them into water planning efforts being carried out by
the Bureau of Reclamation and others in the Southwest.
Turning to climate change, I would like to start by
commending the fine work that is contained in the just released
Bureau of Reclamation report. I believe that the scientific
evidence strongly supports the Bureau of Reclamation finding
that the Southwest and particularly the Colorado/Rio Grande
River Basins will become substantially hotter and drier if we
choose to let human-caused climate change continue into the
future.
What gives climate scientists confidence in these
projections is that the change is already happening. It is
happening as the climate models suggest it should. The
Southwest is already warming rapidly.
The spring snow pack and the Colorado stream flow are
already declining. A large majority of climate models agree
that we are likely to see less late winter precipitation just
as occurring--as it's occurring in the real world.
All of the published peer-reviewed stream flow projections
for the Colorado, and that's the river that's received the most
scientific attention, indicate that future stream flow will be
on average less in volume, with a chief uncertainty being how
fast the stream flow will decline into the future.
Most recent work suggests a 10 to 20 percent decline by
mid-century with a finite chance that all reservoir storage on
the Colorado could go dry absent effective shortage management,
which we know will happen. There will be effective management.
My foregoing discussion of possible future megadrought will
only make this possibility more likely. The dry will not
magically stop at mid-century if we choose to let human-caused
climate change continue.
Now, I would like to highlight some factors that should be
the focus of greater research because they could have a big
impact on our future water supply in the Southwest.
First the future behavior of the El Nino Southern
Oscillation or ENSO system as we like to call it is highly
uncertain. If it turns out that more frequent or severe La
Ninas are likely; that is, La Ninas like this year happening
more frequently and in a more severe manner, it could increase
future drought risk substantially. Research is needed to
unravel the mystery of El Nino and La Nina under changing
climate.
Second, new research indicates that state-of-the-art
climate models appear to underestimate the true risk of future
megadrought. Correcting for this bias suggests that the odds of
a megadrought lasting 25 or more years in this century are as
high as 1 in 2 for parts of the Southwest. This new result is
shocking and needs to be fully researched.
Third, it is unclear whether future changes in the summer
monsoon will help offset water losses that could occur in the
winter and spring or whether summer drought could make the
future situation more challenging. Work is underway to answer
these questions. But definitive results will emerge slowly
unless more dedicated funding for monsoon research becomes
available.
Fourth, the growing incidence of climate-related tree die-
off could further limit water supply. Over 7 percent of
Southwestern forests and woodland area has recently seen die-
off of trees due to drought and insects. An additional 3
percent of the forests and woodland area has been affected by
wildfire.
Recent research, again not yet published but almost
published, needs to be tested. But it suggests that it would be
prudent for water management to assume that the widespread and
growing tree die-off in the Southwest could act to further
reduce, not increase, flow in some of our rivers.
Fifth, poor land use and desertification in the Southwest
could further reduce stream flow in snow-dominated systems like
the Colorado/Rio Grande by allowing greater amounts of dust to
blow out of our lower elevations and into our headwaters, where
the dust is known to speed the melting of snow and reduce the
flow in our rivers.
Research on how sensitive our biggest watersheds, for
example, the Colorado and Rio Grande, are to desert dust is
needed; just as we need to learn how to reduce the amount of
dust that is blowing up into our headwaters.
To conclude Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that it
is both safe and wise for people and decisionmakers in the
Southwest to assume that the future will be hotter, drier, and
more drought prone.
Scientists and decisionmakers need to work together to
study the details of what lies ahead and to develop strategies
to make effective decisions under the uncertainties that will
always exist while at the same time reducing these
uncertainties.
Scientists and water managers alike should be careful to
avoid the belief that the currently estimated worst-case
scenario is really the worst that it could get.
But finally, it is critical to realize that we can
certainly make the worst case for the Southwest less worse by
eliminating the human causes of the climate change that is
already affecting the Southwest.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, for giving me the
opportunity to discuss climate and water issues with you. I'd
be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Overpeck follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan Overpeck, Co-Director, Institute of the
Environment, Professor of Geosciences, Professor of Atmospheric
Sciences, The University of Arizona
Chairman Bingaman and other members of the committee, thank you for
the opportunity to speak with you today on climate variability and
climate change as they relate to water supply in New Mexico and the
broader Southwest United States.
My name is Jonathan Overpeck. I am the founding co-director of the
Institute of the Environment at The University of Arizona, where I am
also a professor of geosciences and a professor of atmospheric
sciences. I have published more than 140 papers on climate and the
environmental sciences, and recently served as a coordinating lead
author for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Fourth Assessment (2007). I have been awarded the US Department of
Commerce Bronze and Gold medals, the Walter Orr Roberts award of the
American Meteorological Society and a Guggenheim Fellowship for my
interdisciplinary research. I also serve as principal investigator of
the Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), an interdisciplinary
Regional Integrated Science and Assessment (RISA) project funded by
NOAA. In this capacity, and others, I work not only on generating
climate system knowledge, but also on supporting use of this knowledge
by decision-makers in society. I am a well-known expert on climate
variability and change, as well as drought.
OVERVIEW OF TESTIMONY
In this testimony I first discuss the current severe drought that
is affecting New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and adjoining
regions. I then put this current drought in a 2000-year perspective
that makes it clear that the current drought, although serious, is
modest compared to the magnitude of drought that could happen in the
future even in the absence of climate change. I then focus on the
dominantly human-caused climate change that has already started in the
Southwest, and how continued climate change could make the risk and
impacts of drought and decades-long megadrought much greater for the
region that includes New Mexico. In my discussions of past natural
drought and likely future human-caused climate change, I cover the
well-established science, as well as provide updates on important new
science that is just emerging. The bottom-line is that New Mexico and
the rest of the broad Southwest--extending from California through east
Texas and Oklahoma--are at an increasing risk of unprecedented warming,
drying and drought, and should prepare accordingly to ensure secure
water supplies through this century.
THE CURRENT DROUGHT
The current drought is part of a broader western--and
southwestern--drought that has persisted on and off across the region
since the late 1990's. As such, the current drought is an extension of
the worst drought the region has seen in the 100+ years of rain gauge
record. At the present time, the drought is most severe eastward from
southern Arizona, across New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and into Arkansas
and Louisiana (Figure 1).* All of New Mexico is in drought. For New
Mexico as a whole, the October to March period has been the 6th driest
on record (116 years; according to PRISM data) and two climate
divisions in southern New Mexico have endured their 2nd and 3rd driest
winters on record (Z. Guido, CLIMAS, pers. comm.). Since the start of
the ``water year'' (October 1, 2010) all climate divisions in New
Mexico measured precipitation less than 68% of the 1971-2000 average,
and drought has worsened to the present (Figure 2). Headwater regions
for New Mexico's large rivers are also experiencing drought, a fact
that has led to spring-summer streamflow forecasts across the state
being well below normal as of April 1, 2011 (Figure 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figures 1-7 have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NATURAL RANGE OF DROUGHT VARIABILITY IN THE SOUTHWEST
Although the current drought is quite notable, particularly as part
of a drought that has plagued the Southwest off and on over the last
decade, it is modest compared to some of the longer and more severe
droughts of the last 1200 years (Woodhouse et al., 2010). For example,
the state-the-art published tree-ring based streamflow reconstruction
for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry (Meko et al., 2007) indicates that
multiple ``megadroughts'' (droughts lasting multiple decades) have
occurred in the Southwest, with the worst--in the 12th century--lasting
over 30 years. Most of these natural droughts were apparently driven by
low precipitation during the winter and spring (Woodhouse et al.,
2010), much like the drought currently affecting New Mexico (Figure 2).
Most were also apparently associated, at least in part, with cool La
Nina-like conditions in the equatorial Pacific--again, quite similar to
the current drought in New Mexico (Conroy et al., 2009; Seager and
Vecchi, 2010). The difference between the current drought and the much
longer and more severe droughts of the last 1200 years is that the
latter droughts were likely associated with monger longer periods of
below average sea surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific.
New scientific research, not yet published, provides evidence that
the megadroughts currently believed by scientists and water managers
alike to be the worst-case possible may not be as bad as it could get.
Longer and more severe megadroughts occurred in both the Upper Colorado
River Basin and the headwaters of the Rio Grande:
New paleoclimatic work at the University of Arizona
indicates that even the worst southwestern droughts of the last
1200 years (i.e., the 12th century megadrought) was eclipsed by
a drought in the 2nd century A.D. that lasted 49 years in the
headwaters of the Rio Grande, and was interrupted by only one
year with above normal precipitation (C. Routson, Woodhouse and
Overpeck, in preparation)
Other new work at the University of Arizona also indicates
that the severity of ``worst-case'' medieval period
megadroughts of the last 1200 years (Meko et al., 2007) may
have been underestimated by 20% or more. (Ault, Pederson, Cole,
Overpeck, and Meko, in prep.; also G. Pederson et al. in prep.)
WIDELY RECOGNIZED LIKELY CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON THE SOUTHWEST
Climate change is already clearly affecting the Southwest,
particularly in terms of increasing temperature (Figure 4), decreasing
precipitation falling as snow (Figure 5), decreasing spring snowpack,
and decreasing Colorado River flow (Karl et al., 2009; Overpeck and
Udall, 2010). These changes were anticipated by climate scientists, and
simulated by many climate models (e.g., note current temperature and
precipitation projections, Figures 6 and 7). The mechanisms of change
observed in nature are similar to those driving the change in the
climate model simulations. All of these factors give the climate
science community greater confidence in asserting that the current
warming and drying trends will continue into the future unless
greenhouse gas emissions are reduced significantly, and this spells
trouble for water supplies throughout the Southwest, particularly where
the supplies are currently snow-fed (e.g., the Colorado and Rio Grande
Rivers).
Indeed, all of the published streamflow projections for the
Colorado (the river that has received the most scientific attention)
indicate future streamflow will be on average less in volume, with the
chief uncertainty being how fast. Most recent work suggest a 10 to 20%
decline by mid-century, with a finite chance that all reservoir storage
on the Colorado could go dry absent effective shortage management
(Rajagopalan et al., 2009; Overpeck and Udall, 2010).
ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT COULD PLACE SOUTHWEST SURFACE WATER SUPPLY
MORE AT RISK
1) Future behavior of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) system
could increase future drought risk substantially
The current drought, as well as the worst megadroughts of
the last 1200 years, were all apparently associated with cool
``La Nina like'' conditions in the equatorial Pacific, and this
will likely be the case in the future. However, state-of-the-
art climate modeling is still not able to determine if there
will be more or less La Nina-like conditions in the future. If
there are, then the worst-case droughts of the future might be
substantially worse than currently simulated (Seager and
Vecchi, 2009).
2) More generally, current state-of-the-art climate models appear to be
underestimating the true risk of future megadrought
New research results at the University of Arizona indicate
that state-of-the-art climate models underestimate the full
range of drought variability exhibited in a variety of
paleoclimatic records. Correcting for this bias suggests that
the odds that a megadrought like that of the 12th-century could
occur in the next 90 years are as high as one in two for parts
of the Southwest (Ault, Pederson, Cole, Overpeck, and Meko, in
prep.).
3) It is unclear whether future changes in the summer monsoon will help
offset water losses in the winter and spring, or whether summer
drought could make the future situation more challenging
Projections of future monsoon rainfall are still highly
uncertain because global models lack the realistic regional or
``mesoscale'' processes needed to simulate the monsoon
correctly. However, work at the University of Arizona and
elsewhere is employing both global and regional climate models
to solve this problem. It also remains uncertain if the large-
scale influences on summer precipitation in the Southwest are
captured realistically enough in global models for regional
modeling results to be robust.
As with cool-season precipitation (snow and rain), the 20th
century record of summer monsoon rainfall variability
underestimates the full range of variability that can occur
naturally. For example, a new tree-ring reconstruction of
monsoon variability over the last 350 years indicates that the
20th century lacked monsoon droughts of the type that occurred
in the 19th century. Moreover, comparisons of the new monsoon
reconstruction with cool-season drought reconstructions
indicate that winter-spring droughts are never compensated
fully by wet monsoons, and that cool-season droughts are
frequently accompanied by summer drought (work by University of
Arizona climate scientists D. Griffin, C. Woodhouse and
colleagues).
4) Growing incidence of climate-related tree die-off could further
limit future water supply
Forests and woodlands in the Southwest appear highly
sensitive to drought and warmth, with over 7% of southwestern
forest and woodland area in the region recently (since 1997)
impacted by die-off of trees due to drought and insects since
1997, and an additional nearly 3% of forest and woodland area
also affected by wildfires (Williams et al., 2010).
Growing drought and infestation-triggered tree die-off in
the Southwest will likely affect water supply in different
ways, and the latest research (Adams et al., 2011) suggests it
would be prudent for water managers to assume the widespread
(and growing) tree die-off in the Southwest could act to
further limit available water in the future.
5) Growing land-use and desertification in the Southwest could further
reduce streamflow in snow-dominated river systems (e.g., the
Colorado and Rio Grande rivers)
Recently published research (Painter et al., 2010) indicates
that human land-use and desertification in the Southwest (and
particularly in the Four Corners region) is already decreasing
the duration of snow cover in the Colorado headwaters by
several weeks, and that this in turn is likely contributing to
reduced flows in at least the Colorado River. Better land-
management could therefore yield greater water supply.
bottom-line advice to water managers in new mexico and the southwest
1) There is broad agreement in the climate science research
community that the Southwest, including New Mexico, will very
likely continue to warm. There is also a strong consensus that
the same region will become drier and increasingly snow-free
with time, particularly in the winter and spring. Climate
science also suggests that the warmer atmosphere will lead to
more frequent and more severe (drier) droughts in the future.
All of the above changes have already started, in large part
driven by human-caused climate change.
2) However, even in the absence of significant human-caused
climate change, the Southwest is prone to drought and
megadrought much more severe than droughts witnessed in the
last 100 years. The 2000-year record of drought in the region
makes it clear that droughts lasting decades are likely
independent of human-caused climate change. For this reason,
the ``no-regrets'' strategy is to plan and prepare for droughts
no matter the cause--human or natural--and to do so under the
assumption that droughts will very likely be hotter and thus
more severe in the future than in the past 2000 years.
3) Scientists and water managers alike, however, should be
careful not to assume the currently estimated ``worst case''
drought scenario will remain so for long. As climate science
has advanced in the Southwest, there have been a steady
progression of new results that imply that today's ``worst-
case'' drought scenario is tomorrow's second-worst case
scenario. Water managers should pay particular attention to the
emerging science that has been highlighted in the testimony
above.
4) Finally, it is critical to realize that the people of New
Mexico, the Southwest, and our nation can certainly make the
worst case for the Southwest less worse by eliminating the
greenhouse gas emissions that are the primary cause of the
climate change that is already affecting the Southwest.
Thank you Chairman Bingaman and colleagues for giving me the
opportunity to discuss climate and water issues with you.
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, H. D., C.H. Luce, D.D. Breshears, C.D. Allen, M. Weiler, V.C.
Hale, A.M.S. Smith, T.E. Huxman. (2011). Ecohydrological
consequences of drought-and infestation-triggered tree die-off:
insights and hypotheses. Ecohydrology (in press).
Conroy, J. L., J.T. Overpeck, J.E. Cole and M. Steinitz-Kannan. (2009).
Variable oceanic teleconnections to Western North American drought
over the last 1200 years. Geophysical Research Letters 36: L17703
10.1029/2009gl039558
Karl, T. R., J. M. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson, editors. 2009. Global
climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University
Press, New York.
Meko, D. M., C. A. Woodhouse, C. A. Baisan, T. Knight, J. J. Lukas, M.
K. Hughes, and M. W. Salzer. (2007). Medieval drought in the upper
Colorado River Basin. Geophysical Research Letters 34. doi:
10.1029/2007GL029988.
Overpeck, J. and B. Udall. (2010). Dry Times Ahead. Science 328:1642-
1643.
Painter, T. H., J. S. Deems, J. Belnap, A. F. Hamlet, C. C. Landry, and
B. Udall. (2010). Response of Colorado River runoff to dust
radiative forcing in snow. Proc. of the Natiional Academy of
Sciences 107:17125-17130.
Pierce, D. W., T. P. Barnett, H. G. Hidalgo, T. Das, C. Bonfils, B. D.
Santer, G. Bala, M. D. Dettinger, D. R. Cayan, A. Mirin, A. W.
Wood, and T. Nozawa. (2008). Attribution of Declining Western US
Snowpack to Human Effects. Journal of Climate 21:6425-6444.
Rajagopalan, B., K. Nowak, J. Prairie, M. Hoerling, B. Harding, J.
Barsugli, A. Ray, and B. Udall. (2009). Water supply risk on the
Colorado River: Can management mitigate? Water Resources Research
45, W08201.
Seager, R. and G. A. Vecchi. (2010). Greenhouse warming and the 21st
century hydroclimate of southwestern North America. Proc. of the
National Academy of Sciences 107:21277-21282.
Williams, A. P., C. D. Allen, C. I. Millar, T. W. Swetnam, J.
Michaelsen, C. J. Still, and S. W. Leavitt. (2010). Forest
responses to increasing aridity and warmth in the southwestern
United States. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences 107:21289-
21294.
Woodhouse, C. A., D. M. Meko, G. M. MacDonald, D. W. Stahle, and E. R.
Cook. (2010). A 1,200-year perspective of 21st century drought in
southwestern North America. Proc. of the National Academy of
Sciences 107:21283-21288.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, appreciate that
testimony. Dr. Hurd, why don't you go right ahead and give us
your views.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN H. HURD, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, AGRICULTURAL
ECONOMICS, NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY, LAS CRUCES, NM
Mr. Hurd. All right. Mr. Chairman and members of the panel
and audience members, thank you for the invitation to appear
before you today and to provide testimony regarding my views on
adaption to climate variability and change.
Specifically I would like to first summarize how investing
in adaptive capacity can reduce the possible magnitude and
extent of adverse consequences. Then provide some examples that
characterize some of the strategies, opportunities, and options
available to governments and communities.
In appearing before you today, I'm representing my own
individual views and not those of any current or past employer,
organization, or association. My views have been informed by
nearly 2 decades of research on climate change economics,
impact, and adaptation, with a primary focus on agricultural
and water resources.
For example, during my current faculty appointment for the
past 10 years with New Mexico State University, I've had the
opportunity to study and research water, agricultural, and
economic systems in New Mexico and across the Southwest
including both the Rio Grande and Colorado River watersheds.
We are well aware of many instances and anecdotes that
raise our concern about the nature and power of climate and of
extreme weather events. Even in the most recent past, we are
reminded the power of intense storms including hurricanes, the
tornados that are devastating communities around the country
these days right now, snow and ice storms; of the human and
economic losses from extended periods of both high and low
temperatures, wildfires, and persistent droughts and floods.
The chronicle of weather and climate is ever present in our
consciousness such that we constantly observe, track, sometimes
name, and often recollect those phenomena. ``How is the
weather'' we ask. Answers and stories abound. ``Fine, gloomy,
worst in decades, not since records have been kept.''
Permit me just a moment to give a quick anecdote from my
experience this past winter. Late January and early February
saw temperatures lower and for longer periods than ever seen
before in Southern New Mexico, far West Texas, and Chihuahua,
Mexico.
In my 10 years, I had never seen single digits let alone
sub-zero temperatures in the deserts near Las Cruces, New
Mexico. The mercury hit a low of minus 6 degrees Fahrenheit,
and never rose above freezing for 4 consecutive days.
Perhaps most surprising was the incapacity of the
electrical system to cope with the event. For a week residents
dealt with rolling blackouts, closed schools, universities, and
businesses, broken pipes and pumps, and flooded rooms. Crop
losses are widespread.
Homeowners and businesses across the region--some are now
just beginning to confront the damages and to replace lots of
damaged landscape plants and trees. Not to mention the recent
heat wave and record high temperatures in March and April that
have set West Texas ablaze.
Some might begin to ask questions about this region's
capacity to adapt and the capability of utilities, residents,
and businesses to cope with such climatic extremes. It is
difficult to know and to assign blame to so-called acts of God.
Of course, there are limits to what even the best-prepared and
well-adapted community can hope to withstand.
But that really is not the point. Rather the point I'd like
to make should be focused on future preparedness and what might
be done to lessen the losses and damages in the future.
Climate extremes I think we can generally agree present
challenges to vulnerable communities, whether or not these
extreme events are attributable to normal variability or to
climate changes induced by rising greenhouse gas
concentrations. It doesn't matter.
How well communities anticipate and assess the likelihood
of climate extremes and how well they choose to prepare for
them depends to a large extent on 4 key ingredients: First
quality and accessibility of climate change scenarios and
information including frameworks to use and transform them into
relevant forms for decisionmakers, the local decisionmakers.
Following the work that's coming out of the SECURE Waters
report Mr. Connor had presented is a great step in that
direction.
Understanding--second, understanding an assessment of
vulnerable environmental and economic systems and their
impacts, including the sensitivity to climate, the degree and
routes of exposure, and the capacity that these systems have to
adapt.
Third, the need--the capacity to identify trends and render
plausible scenarios not only of changes in climate and climate
extremes, but the demographic and economic conditions, relevant
institutions and policies, and environmental stresses and
conditions that are expected to emerge over the coming decades.
Finally the fourth ingredient that's very critical is the
state of institutional preparedness, our leadership and support
for integrating climate science into relevant and appropriate
programs, procedures, and policies.
Time does not permit addressing each ingredient. But I will
draw attention to the second component; namely, that of
assessing vulnerability and quickly illustrate key issues
looking at water and adaptation.
Essentially one of the goals of most water supply systems
and institutions especially in the West thanks in large part to
the Bureau of Reclamation is to help communities cope with a
moderate range of climate and water supply variability.
With few exceptions most water system and utility managers
agree that U.S. communities, industries, and water users are
generally well-prepared and well-adapted to manage successfully
within normal fluctuations, often including occasional extremes
such as events that typically occur once every decade or 2.
However, problems begin to arise when relatively rare or
unexpected events occur and reoccur with unusual frequency.
Witness, for example, the flooding along the Red River of the
North between Minnesota and North Dakota, where historic floods
once thought to be rarer than once in 100 are occurring
surprisingly in rapid succession.
If as the accumulated science indicates climate changes can
result from rising greenhouse gas concentrations and emissions
and if these changes contribute to greater climate uncertainty
and extreme events such as those that Dr. Overpeck has just
described, then it might be reasonable and prudent to expect
more severe and/or frequent extreme events.
Such events can quickly become a significant economic and
environmental concern, pushing beyond the prevailing capacities
of water users to cope and indicating the need for additional
adaptive capacity. Adaptation as such can be viewed as a
complement to climate change mitigation activities within a
comprehensive and coordinated climate strategy.
It is during the process of assessing vulnerability that
the question of adaptation begins to arise. For example, with
their primary focus on the physical systems, the earliest
climate change impact assessments often neglected expected
natural responses from affected people such as farmers once
they had realized that a change occurred.
After all, a great evolutionary strength of humans is their
capacity to observe and recognize changing conditions and to
react accordingly, although it might take some time to realize,
confirm, and learn that the observed changes are likely to
persist.
This capacity to recognize and react to changing conditions
confers economic advantage and success. However, and this is
key, even greater advantage and long run economic success
follows from the ability to observe patterns and trends; and to
combine these with knowledge and understanding of our economic
and environmental systems in anticipation of likely outcomes
and consequences.
I describe in my written testimony a little bit more about
the differences between reactive and anticipatory adaptation.
But in the interest of time and to make my presentation right
now brief, I'd like to finish with some specific adaptation
strategies and opportunities that I feel we have before us.
They fall into 4 broad categories.
No. 1, I think we should work toward improving science and
technical information including development, integration,
education, and dissemination. A great start of that would be
the work of the Bureau and the USGS in this regard.
There is a need for continued development of climate,
environmental, and resource management sciences and their
integration. For example, there has been progress in
development of assessment methods. But uncertainties which
compound and cascade throughout the process result in often
broad and otherwise not-well defined scenarios that are not
very useful for local scale planning.
By facilitating partnerships and strategic alliances
between Federal and State agencies, the national laboratories,
local governments, universities, and NGO's, cross-organization
capacities can be better harnessed and focused.
Second, look toward developing more appropriate risk
management institutions and policies. Risk management
institutions, policies, and insurance programs are often at
odds, resulting in inappropriate development in high-risk
areas; and then promoting rebuilding without appropriate regard
to risks.
It might be prudent to develop programs and policies with
greater risk sharing and stakeholder awareness rather than
blanket protection from climate-related risks.
Third, increase the use of resource markets and incentive-
based policy designs. The goal is to create a context in which
communities, organizations, and individuals can make smarter
decisions and wiser choices. Institutions and policies that
establish and use decentralized approaches help to provide
appropriate economic signals to decisionmakers and generally
improve compliance and voluntary solutions.
For example, water-use efficiency could be promoted,
resulting in more flexibility and responsiveness to climate
changes; for example, the work that the State Engineer is doing
on water rights adjudication, efforts to make those water
rights better defined, right-holders could be compensated or
could lease the value of saved water in a similar fashion as we
have in electricity cogeneration and buy-back.
Finally and my last example here, add flexibility and
safety to infrastructure design and construction and
incorporate climate factors in land-use planning and building
codes. Especially with long-lived infrastructure, the added
costs may provide good value in providing both additional
services and reliability.
Risk-appropriate zoning and building codes may also add to
short-run costs but provide better long-run protection. An
example of this is the LEED certification program for energy
efficiency in building design.
That's the end of my remarks. I thank you, Senator, for
your interest and contribution to this important topic.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hurd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian H. Hurd, Associate Professor, Agricultural
Economics, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
invitation to appear before you today and to provide testimony
regarding my views on adaptation to climate variability and change.
Specifically, I would like to first summarize how investing in adaptive
capacity can reduce the possible magnitude and extent of adverse
consequences, and then provide some examples that characterize some of
the strategies, opportunities and options available to governments and
communities. In appearing before you today, I am representing my own
individual views, and not those of any current or past employer,
organization, or association. My views have been informed by nearly two
decades of research on climate change economics, impacts and
adaptation, with a primary focus on agricultural and water resources.
For example, during my current faculty appointment for the past ten
years with New Mexico State University, I have had the opportunity to
study and research water, agricultural, and economic systems in New
Mexico, and across the Southwest including both the Rio Grande and
Colorado River watersheds.
KEY INGREDIENTS FOR SUCCESSFUL CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
We are all well aware of many instances and anecdotes that raise
our concern about the nature and power of climate and of extreme
weather events. Even in the most recent past we are reminded of the
power of intense storms including hurricanes, tornadoes, snow and ice
storms, of the human and economic losses from extended periods of both
high and low temperatures, wildfires and persistent droughts and
floods. The chronicle of weather and climate is ever present in our
consciousness such that we constantly observe, track, sometimes name
and often recollect these phenomena. ``How is the weather?'' we ask.
Answers and stories abound. ``Fine.'' ``Gloomy''. ``Worst in decades.''
``Not since records have been kept.'' Permit me to give a quick
anecdote from my experience this past winter. Late January and early
February saw temperatures lower and for longer periods than ever seen
before in southern New Mexico, Far West Texas, and Chihuahua, Mexico.
In my ten years I had never seen single digits let alone sub-zero
temperatures in the deserts near Las Cruces, New Mexico. The mercury
hit a low of ^6 degrees Fahrenheit, and never rose above freezing for
four consecutive days.
Perhaps most surprising was the incapacity of the electrical system
to cope with the event. For a week residents dealt with rolling
blackouts, closed schools, universities, and businesses, broken pipes
and pumps, and flooded rooms. Crop losses are widespread and homeowners
and businesses across the region are just now beginning to confront
damages and to replace damaged landscape plants and trees. Not to
mention the recent heat wave and record high temperatures in March and
April that have set west Texas ablaze. Some might begin to ask
questions about this region's capacity to adapt and the capability of
utilities, residents and businesses to cope with such climatic
extremes. It is difficult to know, and to assign blame, to so-called
`acts of god.' And of course there are limits to what even the best-
prepared and well-adapted community can hope to withstand. But that
really is not the point. Rather the point should be focused on future
preparedness, and what might be done to lessen the losses and damages
in the future.
Climate extremes, I think we can generally agree, present
challenges to vulnerable communities--whether or not these extreme
events are attributable to `normal' variability or to climate changes
induced by rising greenhouse gas concentrations. How well communities
anticipate and assess the likelihood of climate extremes, and how well
they choose to prepare for them depends to a large extent on four key
ingredients:
Quality and accessibility of climate change scenarios and
information including frameworks to use and transform them into
relevant forms for decision makers.
Understanding and assessment of vulnerable environmental and
economic systems and impacts, including sensitivity to climate,
degree of exposure, and capacity to adapt.
Capacity to identify trends and and render plausible
scenarios not only of changes in climate and climate extremes,
but of demographic and economic conditions, relevant
institutions and policies, and environmental stresses and
conditions.
State of institutional preparedness, leadership and support
for integrating climate science into relevant and appropriate
programs, procedures and policies.
Time does not permit addressing each ingredient but I will draw
attention to the second component, namely that of assessing
vulnerability. I will quickly illustrate some key issues using water
resources as an example, looking first at the impacts and then at the
potential for adaptation.
CAN ADAPTATION REDUCE ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES?
Essentially one of the goals of most water supply systems and
institutions, especially in the West, is to help communities cope with
a moderate range of climate and water supply variability. With few
exceptions, most water system and utility managers agree that U.S.
communities, industries and water users are generally prepared and well
adapted to manage successfully within `normal' fluctuations, often
including occasional extremes (such as events that typically occur once
every decade or two). However, problems begin to arise when relatively
rare or unexpected events occur and re-occur with unusual frequency
(such as flooding along the Red River of the North where historic
floods once thought to be rarer than once in 100 years are occurring in
surprising rapid succession). If, as the accumulated science indicates,
climate changes can result from rising greenhouse gas concentrations
and emissions, and if these changes contribute to greater climate
uncertainty and extreme events, then it might be reasonable and prudent
to expect more severe and/or frequent extreme events. Such events can
quickly become a significant economic and environmental concern,
pushing beyond the prevailing capacities of water users to cope, and
indicating the need for additional adaptive capacity. Adaptation as
such can be viewed as a complement to climate change mitigation
activities within a comprehensive and coordinated climate strategy.
To determine if and how adaptations can reduce economic and
environmental consequences, we need to first identify and estimate
vulnerabilities and specific impacts. A general approach would begin
with an examination of the physical and environmental systems that
support economic and environmental health. For water resources this
begins with the question, ``What if climate changes and it brings about
changes in streamflows, water storage, and water availability?'' which
draws upon the expertise of climate and hydrology scientists. The
result is a scenario analysis which could include a projection of how a
river's hydrograph could be expected to change (an example is shown in
Exhibit 1).*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Exhibits 1 and 2 have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then economic and environmental scientists can proceed to ask:
``What might these changes in streamflows imply for ...''
Water storage and distribution systems
Urban and rural water users
Water quality
Hydropower
Recreational and cultural functions
Riparian ecosystems and migratory patterns
Local employment, jobs, and income?
A quick summary of key climate change impacts estimated for the Rio
Grande by Hurd and Coonrod (2007) indicate the likelihood of:
Earlier snowmelt and peak runoff, greater evaporation
losses, and reduced streamflows even if total annual
precipitation should increase, and if precipitation should
fall, runoff could be reduced by as much as 1/3.
Rising populations and lower water supplies will raise
pressure to tighten and fine tune water management systems.
Systems with limited storage capacities are most vulnerable.
Projected annual economic losses than range from $13 million
to $115 million by 2030, and from $21 million to as much as
$300 million by 2080.
Traditional agricultural systems and rural communities are
most at risk, and may need transitional assistance.
Losses to New Mexico's residents, tourists, and wildlife
could go well beyond such market-derived figures, including
losses to the environment, water quality, and quality of life.
It is during the process of assessing vulnerability that the
question of adaptation begins to arise. For example, with their primary
focus on the physical systems, the earliest climate change impact
assessments often neglected expected natural responses from affected
people, such as farmers, once they had realized that a change occurred.
After all, a great evolutionary strength of humans is their capacity to
observe and recognize changing conditions and to react accordingly
(although it might take some time to realize, confirm and learn that
the observed changes are likely to persist).
This capacity to recognize and react to changing conditions confers
economic advantage and success. However, and this is KEY, even greater
advantage and long-run economic success follows from the ability to
observe patterns and trends, and to combine these with knowledge and
understanding of our economic and environmental systems in anticipation
of likely outcomes and consequences. It is worth taking a moment to
more clearly illustrate the essential difference between reactive and
anticipatory (or proactive) adaptation strategies. This illustration
also highlights the importance of investment timing in the effort to
build adaptive capacity.
Imagine that we can illustrate these differences using a timeline
over which net economic performance is measured (call it something like
`gross domestic happiness' to distinguish from the flawed concept of
`gross domestic product'--which most often shows a boost to economic
production after a disaster). Also imagine that a significant climate
catastrophe occurs at a given point in the timeline (see Exhibit 2).
Consider the case of reactive adaptation, and note that it can
result from either of two situations. The first is when little or no
consideration is given at all to evolving trends and future conditions
or events. In this case any adaptation that occurs is after-the-fact
and in response to events and conditions after they have occurred. The
second way that results in a reactive response is when investment
decisions are delayed or postponed, either rationally and deliberately
because of inherent uncertainties and costs, or inadvertently because
of indecision. In either of these cases the outcomes are similar, net
economic benefits are positive and continue to grow until the adverse
event or change. A significant adverse event then occurs, significant
economic losses ensue, and the path to recovery is protracted and
costly. After recovery and the economy is reestablished, which now may
even perform better than before because degraded and depreciated
infrastructure has been replaced (like with the Marshall Plan). But
maybe the redevelopment occurs without any change for future defenses,
production of economic and environmental services continues--until the
next adverse event. Several questions then arise, ``Could we have done
better?'' ``Were events and changes foreseeable?'' And, ``Would better
preparations, designs and policies have lessened the damages and
speeded recovery?''
Now consider a well planned and executed proactive adaptation
strategy, one that tries to anticipate changing conditions and to
prepare for them in advance. In this manner, prior and/or continuing
investment to build and strengthen adaptive capacity will undoubtedly
redirect resources away from current consumption, resulting in lower
net economic rewards relative to no-or postponed-investment, but only
for the duration until the adverse event occurs. Generally, if the
adverse event is not a question of `if' but rather `when', then
anticipatory adaptation strategies share many similar aspects to a
prudent and effective risk management or insurance-type strategies. In
this case, when the adverse event occurs there is also the potential
for significant economic loss and disruption but with effective
preparation it may only be a fraction of what it would have been. In
addition, with proactive adaptation the path and duration of economic
recovery may be much shorter, resulting in greater net economic
performance in the long-run.
STRATEGIES, OPPORTUNITIES AND OPTIONS TO STRENGTHEN ADAPTIVE CAPACITY
Many adaptation strategies and opportunities fall within four broad
categories.
1. Improve science and technical information including development,
integration, education, and dissemination
There is a need for continued development of climate,
environmental, and resource management sciences and their integration.
For example, there has been progress in development of assessment
methods but uncertainties which compound and cascade throughout the
process result in often broad and otherwise not-well defined scenarios
that are not very useful for local scale planning. By facilitating
partnerships and strategic alliances between Federal and State
agencies, National Laboratories, local governments, universities, and
NGOs cross-organization capacities can be better harnessed and focused.
2. Develop appropriate risk management institutions and policies
Risk management institutions, policies and insurance programs are
often at odds, resulting in inappropriate development in high risk
areas, and then promoting rebuilding without appropriate regard to
risks. It might be prudent to develop programs and policies with
greater `risk sharing' and stakeholder awareness rather than `blanket
protection' from climate-related risks.
3. Increase the use of resource markets and incentive-based policy
designs
The goal is to create a context in which communities, organization,
and individuals can make smarter decisions and wiser choices.
Institutions and policies that establish and use decentralized
approaches help to provide appropriate economic signals to decision
makers and generally improve compliance and voluntary solutions. For
example, water-use efficiency could be promoted, resulting in more
flexibility and responsiveness to climate changes if water-rights were
better defined and right-holders could be compensated or could lease
the value of `saved' water. In a similar fashion to electricity
cogeneration and buy-back.
4. Add flexibility and safety to infrastructure design and
construction, and incorporate climate factors in land-use
planning and building codes
Especially with long-lived infrastructure, the added costs may
provide good value in providing both additional services and
reliability. Risk-appropriate zoning and building codes also may add to
short-run costs but provide better long-run protection.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Hurd.
Let me start with a question or 2 about--Dr. Overpeck, your
description of these megadroughts in the 12th century and
before and since the 12th century leads me to wonder whether or
not we are correct in assuming as I have--I have assumed that a
lot of the drought problem that we might face in the future in
the Southwest was related to climate change.
That as temperatures warmed because of climate change or as
they're expected, temperatures are expected to warm, that that
would then in some way be a cause of the drought situation or
bring about the drought situation. What you described would
lead me to conclude that maybe the drought situation has been
there, will be there in the future regardless of what happens
to the temperature.
I guess I'm just trying to get straight in my head the
extent to which hot and dry necessarily go together here in
this process or whether we're really dealing with 2 separate
phenomena which are somewhat disconnected.
Mr. Overpeck. Right. You know, the scientific community is
trying to disentangle these as we speak. It's not a completely
straightforward problem. But we really do have 2 issues going
on here.
One is that we live in a drought-prone, dry part of the
world. You can see these dry belts on both sides of the
equator. That is well-known climate science.
We can see in the Southwest ample evidence, for example,
age-old pueblos in ruins, that there has been drought. That's
essentially tied to these megadroughts I've been talking about.
The best science says that we've been in a drought-prone
region, we'll always be in a drought-prone region in the
future, meaning it's a no-regret strategy to prepare for these
long droughts even in the absence of climate change.
Now, when you add climate change to the equation, it makes
the situation a heck of a lot worse. The first and foremost
problem is the temperature rise that you've been talking about.
You're absolutely right that there's a trend in the average
background climate of the Southwest; that is, toward warmer and
drier conditions.
That is the climate, the average climate on which these
droughts, these extreme events will be superimposed. So now we
have these superimposed on a relatively wet Southwestern
climate as in the past. In the future it will be drier and
drier so the droughts will likely be worse and worse.
That will be driven both by the temperature increases which
we have huge confidence is going to occur as well as reductions
in, you know, the baseline average precipitation. So these
things are pretty tightly connected.
The third aspect of this is that climate theory suggests
that, and we're seeing this worldwide, with global warming
droughts should be more frequent in these dry zones.
So all things equal, even though we have quite a bit of
uncertainty with this one in this region, if you're a betting
person, you would say we're going to have more frequent drought
in the future. For us that means more frequent megadrought as
well.
The Chairman. OK. Let me ask Mike a question. Then if
either or the other of you want to comment, please do.
First let me also commend you for this report. I think it's
an excellent first report. As I understand the legislation that
both of us worked on here, this SECURE Water Act Section 9503
[C] report is to be done or updated every 5 years, is that
the plan?
Mr. Connor. That's correct.
The Chairman. So this is the first of those. I think it's
an excellent effort. This chart that's up here on the left,
Bureau of Reclamation chart with the heading Climate Change
Impacts in Western Basins, again you start out and it says
increasing temperature, that's in all basins. I understand
that.
Mr. Connor. Correct.
The Chairman. Yes, there's no confusion there. The next 2
categories on your chart are a little--raise other questions,
though. You've got decreasing precipitation which is what we've
been talking about here primarily, and that is here in the Rio
Grande Valley, Lower Colorado River Basin--or Upper Colorado
River Basin.
But then the next one is increased precipitation. So we are
in a circumstance where your report is concluding that, as we
are going to face more and more drought in this area, other
river basins are going to face more and more precipitation.
I guess I'm questioning how confident we are in those
predictions, where we can say, you know, there's good
consensus--as Dr. Overpeck just said, there's good consensus
among scientists that the temperature is going to go up
worldwide.
Is there also good consensus as to where the droughts are
going to worsen and where the precipitation is going to
increase?
Mr. Connor. I don't think there's as much confidence level
in those kind of predictions as there are with respect to
temperature rise. Let me just say with respect to--and I think
Dr. Overpeck--I'm going to be cautious here because I'm going
to be followed up by I think a true expert here with respect to
some of the work done by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change.
That's kind of the foundation work for what we did in the
SECURE Water Act report. So we used the global climate
circulation models there and the climate change projections
that were developed by the IPCC.
So from that it's foundational and from our view the gold
standard for projections of what's going to change over time.
So I think inherent even within those reports done by the IPCC
there's the recognition of some inherent uncertainty with
respect to changes in precipitation patterns.
Now, we took that a step further and then we combined that
with hydrologic models and then did some downscaling that I
think--that's kind of the Reclamation new work that's been put
into these reports. That's been peer-reviewed. But there's
still--it builds off of that, those models, with respect to
changing precipitation patterns, et cetera, that do have some
uncertainty. So we've tried to describe that in the report in a
way to be transparent.
As you mentioned the idea over time is to get better
information, better models, and then reassess risks through
these 5-year iterations of our report.
The Chairman. Dr. Overpeck, did you want to add anything to
that?
Mr. Overpeck. Sure. I think Mike got it right. I do want to
say once again I believe his report, having read the whole
thing, is definitely state-of-the-art.
The scientific community is inherently quite conservative
on some issues. One of the things--and we like to highlight the
uncertainties. There is a good deal of uncertainty about
precipitation in many parts of the world and how it will
change.
But there is--seems to be a higher than average certainty
that in our part of the world, the Southwest, we should see a
steady decline. Not every year. But decade by decade it should
get drier and drier here in the Southwest just as to the north
of us it should get wetter.
The reason for this is tied to how climate, global climate,
hemispheric climate and warming affects the mean circulation of
the atmosphere. It acts to actually drive the late winter
spring storm tracks northward as the planet warms.
We see this happening now, we see it in models, we see it
in paleoclimates. So in ancient periods, you know, back in the
ice ages, for example, when we had warm periods interrupting
the ice ages, this same phenomena occurred, the storm tracks
moved northward.
The thing that's worrisome to me--and again my job here I
see on this panel is to be a little less conservative and look
at where are those places where we better make sure we got it
right. So we don't--avoid, you know, an earthquake/tsunami
situation or are terribly surprised by something really much
worse than we anticipated.
One of the things that worries me is that in both
hemispheres you see this widening of the tropical belts,
movement polar-ward of the westerly circulation, the
circulation that brings our late season snow pack. The only
difference is in mother nature it's happening faster than the
models say it should be happening.
Now, we don't know why that's occurring. It could be
because the system is just more sensitive than we thought, some
of the models simulate more sensitivity. Again the Bureau of
Rec is playing it safe. They're looking at all the models.
That's probably the best--wisest move to get the most likely
outcome.
Or is it because of the interaction of the climate change
problem and the stratospheric ozone problem. That is affecting
the circulation as well, because we're developing now an ozone
hole in the northern hemisphere. That also acts to tighten up
the circulation in the northern hemisphere. That is also going
to continue into the future.
So whatever reason the big uncertainty here is just maybe
how far north this dry belt will actually progress through this
century. It might be as the Bureau of Reclamation portrayed it,
as the IPCC portrayed it. It might be further north, in which
case things will be a little less fun in the United States of
America.
The Chairman. Let me ask an obvious question here. Is
there--is there--is the modeling that is--that we are relying
on here, that the Bureau of Reclamation is relying on in
preparing this report, is this accepted as the modeling that
best incorporates the data that we have and information we have
going forward or is there someone else with a different model?
I mean could we be having a hearing with a different set of
experts who made their conclusions based on a different model
and they would be telling me just the opposite as to--maybe not
as to the temperature rise. But as to the places where the
drought would occur and the places where the precipitation
would occur?
Mr. Overpeck. I think you would have a tough time finding
any expert who has worked on climate for decades to, you know,
say that the general pattern that's reflected in the Bureau of
Reclamation report and in the IPCC results is wrong.
The Chairman. That's the pattern on precipitation as well
as the pattern on temperature?
Mr. Overpeck. Yes. I mean everyone would say it's going to
warm. It's a question of how much it's going to warm. We can
talk about that if you wish, because again I think it could
warm more, especially if we let greenhouse gases go unchecked
as we are. It could warm substantially more than is reflected
in the results. But again they're looking at the average across
many models and scenarios.
The way the scientific community works is there's always a
new model. One of the reasons we have the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change is because the governments of the
Intergovernmental Panel, meaning over 100 nations of the world,
said--people like yourself, leaders of these countries said we
really need to have, you know, a consensus.
So in these cycles that last approximately 7 years, the new
models are brought together and assessed together, the newest
results, and brought out and peer-reviewed and essentially work
their way--eventually work their way into these management
documents.
So we're now in midway through the next cycle that will
update the work that's in the Bureau of Reclamation. But I need
to emphasize that right now what they've got in there is state-
of-the-art and best we know.
The Chairman. So by the time the next 5-year report is
done, there will be a new model or an updated model?
Mr. Overpeck. There will be many models. They will be
analyzed and they might give a different picture. What we will
not see, though, is a change away from it's going to warm. It's
going to warm a lot.
What we will not see I believe is that it's going to get
wetter in the Southwest. What we might see is that it will get
drier in some of the places that the Bureau of Reclamation now
is saying might get wetter. So there's some uncertainty there.
But the big things especially that matter to us in the
Southwest are unlikely to change.
What we'll also see in this new report is more addressing
of this issue of the droughts I think and incorporating those
into the same picture.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mike, could you give me a little
more explanation of this other report that you indicate is
forthcoming that the Geological Survey is working on and what
will it address that has not been addressed in the report that
you've released this week?
Mr. Connor. I kind of look at the 2 reports as very much
working together. Our report being very much--I guess I would
say the primary audience is the water user community and
certainly policymakers, about what we can do to best assess the
risks out there right now as to how water resources
management--water resources supplies are going to change and
how management is going to change.
The idea--that's the 9503 report. The 9506 report is more
geared toward a scientific basis, which is what kind of inputs
do we have, data inputs, observational capabilities to take in
data about water resources, about the use of water resources,
et cetera, about--more data with respect to climate, and where
do we have gaps and how we can improve and update those data
systems.
So that's what the USGS in collaboration with a number of
Federal and State agencies and other entities was putting
together, kind of a very science-based approach on how to get
the best data and where we should go from a policy perspective.
The beauty of it, though, is I think the idea here. I think
Dr. Overpeck mentioned this earlier, is we need to bring the
science community, the water manager community, and the
policymaker community all together.
That's hopefully what's going to keep occurring with these
separate reports that come out that build upon each other; and
we use and we improve our data collection and we improve our
modeling; therefore, we improve or risk assessments, et cetera.
So I think they're very much going to work in synergy
together, but they do have different purposes coming out of the
gate.
The Chairman. Let me ask a more practical question. For
communities that are encountering very severe drought
conditions here in New Mexico, are there programs of assistance
that the Bureau of Reclamation can provide or through the
Department of Agriculture, are there ways that these
communities can get assistance in dealing with drought
circumstances?
Mr. Connor. There are. I guess initially I would go back to
saying the best thing that we can do in reacting to the drought
is to not do it after it occurs.
So a lot of the assistance or activity that we've got
ongoing, whether it be the Middle Rio Grande, with the issues
of trying to secure water supplies for--to ensure that we're in
compliance with the Biological Opinion or in the Pecos River
Basin is to create opportunities so that we can access
supplemental water supplies, that we have them in hand, that we
know other opportunities to get more in a situation like this
year, where we may need additional water supplies, because we
first want to avoid that crisis from not being in compliance
with Federal law. Because that's going to affect not just the
Bureau of Reclamation but all water users up and down.
Certainly as Esteven mentioned a lot of the communities
have diversified their own supplies, the city of Albuquerque,
the city of Santa Fe. So they've got groundwater resources,
they've got surface water resources. That's going to help them
over time deal with the drought situation.
We do have a drought relief program within the Bureau of
Reclamation. We've used that within the last decade on numerous
occasions within New Mexico to drill, provide resources to
drill supplemental wells. We've still got some activity going
on.
We've partnered up with the Indian Health Service on many
pueblos to drill some supplemental wells. We don't have a lot
of resources in that particular program right now. So we are
looking at other opportunities to partner up with USDA which
does have drought relief programs.
So there are just inherently those opportunities to react
and bring immediate resources to the table. But at this point
in time, it's hard to get wells drilled quick enough to provide
water when you're in the middle of a drought. Sometimes as I
mentioned we're more left in the position of mitigating
economic losses in those types of situations.
The Chairman. Dr. Hurd, let me ask you, one of the--you had
your 4 strategies and opportunities and recommendations here in
your testimony. You talk about developing appropriate risk
management institutions and policies.
You say ``Risk management institutions, policies, and
insurance programs are often at odds, resulting in
inappropriate development in high-risk areas and then promoting
rebuilding without appropriate regards to risk.'' Then you also
say ``It might be prudent to develop programs and policies with
greater risk sharing and stakeholder awareness rather than
blanket protection.'' Could you elaborate on what you--maybe
give an example of what you're talking about there so I have a
better understanding of what you're recommending.
Mr. Hurd. Certainly. Thank you again. One of the ways in
which I've observed that risk--risk-prone areas, for example,
in sea level coastal communities, where sea level storms or sea
level rise could be affecting properties and communities, we
have flooding events that are going on unfortunately perhaps as
we speak in the Midwest as the rise of the Ohio River and the
Mississippi River inundates some communities, protected
ostensibly by levees that may or may not be well-developed or
well-managed for flood protection and in protecting or
ostensibly protecting areas that may in the future, if we gave
regard to the climate science, the changing risk-prone nature
of some of these areas might be affected.
In the Southwest what--we will see that--similar types of
events again related to flood risk, development near arroyos.
We saw the floods that were quite tremendous in 2006 that
flooded the community of Hatch and great floods through the
city of El Paso as well and making sure that we are aware of
what those flood risks are along the arroyos and riverbanks.
I do know the flood--the FEMA agency has been developing
new flood risk maps. Those are often quite contentious as you
are probably well aware and affecting how risk--flood insurance
is provided and which communities are at risk.
Oftentimes those--even those updated flood risk maps are
not reflecting anything to do with changes in climate. So what
I'm suggesting is that we ought to develop some ways and tools
and methods to enhance those kinds of development.
Similar things with drought risk and crop insurance. We
ought to be able to provide better information and better tools
to farmers on crops that are likely to succeed in certain areas
and reduce our coverages of--in regions where drought risk is
rising or changing. Maybe we need to have better information to
promote awareness and responsible behavior from resource
owners.
The Chairman. OK. I appreciate very much the great
testimony of all of you and appreciate the hard work that went
into developing the report that the Bureau of Reclamation has
done. We thank you all for coming and participating in the
hearing.
Let me indicate that we will be glad to accept statements
for the record that we will include in the committee record of
this hearing. They can be submitted to our committee, which--
the same website, what, energy dot Senate dot gov through the
11th of May.
So I thank everyone for participating, thanks for coming.
We will stop the hearing at this point.
[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Christine Reimer, Government Affairs Director, on behalf
of National Ground Water Association, Westerville, OH
The National Ground Water Association (NGWA) appreciates the
opportunity to provide testimony for this hearing. NGWA is the world's
largest association of groundwater professionals, representing public
and private sector engineers, scientists, water well contractors,
manufacturers, and suppliers of groundwater related products and
services. NGWA's comments will focus on groundwater's role during
droughts and the scientific understanding of impacts of climate change
on groundwater resources.
Groundwater, the nation's subsurface reservoir, will be relied on
more in the future, to help balance the larger swings in precipitation
and associated increased demands caused by heat and drought.
Groundwater will also be used to increase water supply reliability
through periods of climate fluctuations and may serve as future
repositories for CO2 emissions. There will be more emphasis on
conjunctive use, which involves the coordinated and planned operation
of both surface and groundwater resources for conservation and optimal
use. There will be an increased focus on efforts to manage aquifer
recharge, and there should be a greater emphasis on protecting our
valuable groundwater supplies.
Groundwater has and continues to take on an expanding and pivotal
role in water resource planning. The expanding emphasis on the need and
usage of groundwater resources will require policy tools based on sound
science to provide the nation with safe, reliable water supplies.
While groundwater management decision making is most effective when
done at the state and local level where site-specific considerations
can be taken into account, the federal government is currently playing
and must continue to play a leadership role. Federal leadership is
needed to help ensure these water professionals have the tools they
need to promote the long-term sustainable use of our groundwater
resources, including addressing the potential impacts of climate
change.
In particular, NGWA calls on the federal government to provide
federal funding to the U.S. Geological Survey's Ground Water Resources
Program to begin implementation of a systematic nationwide groundwater
level and quality monitoring network and data management system.
Currently, there is no systematic nationwide groundwater level or
quality monitoring network.
Congress authorized a national groundwater monitoring network with
passage of Public Law 111-11 (Omnibus Public Land Management Act) in
2009. In 2010, six states\1\ voluntarily pilot tested concepts for a
national groundwater monitoring network as developed by the federal
Advisory Committee on Water Information's (ACWI) Subcommittee on Ground
Water (SOGW). If this effort moves forward, consistent, comparable
nationwide data would become accessible through a web portal for
federal, state, local government and private sector users. In these
tight fiscal times, the proposed network would build on existing state
and federal investments, maximizing their usefulness and leveraging
current dollars to build toward systematic nationwide monitoring of the
groundwater resource.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The six pilot states were Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota,
Montana, New Jersey, and Texas. Additionally, Idaho, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Washington and Wyoming volunteered as pilots but were
not included given limited oversight resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groundwater provides 40% of the nation's drinking water supply. For
a small investment, the nation can begin finally to put in place
adequate monitoring of this irreplaceable resource.
Thank you.
______
Statement of The Wilderness Society
Thank you Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski for this
opportunity to address the issue of water and climate in New Mexico.
The Wilderness Society\1\ shares your concern for maintaining the
viability of community water supplies in the face of global warming.
America's public lands--some 635 million acres of land and 150,000
square miles of protected waters--are a legacy we hold in trust for
generations to come. Global warming poses an unprecedented threat to
the nation's iconic landscapes--our national parks, forests, wilderness
areas, desert lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and
wildlife refuges. At the same time, our country's parks and other
public lands offer one of our best hopes for sustaining the plants,
animals, birds, clean water and air, and recreational opportunities
that are important to our heritage. They store water and carbon and
provide large core protected areas that will be essential in adapting
to a changing climate. These lands also provide critical services for
our communities, including filtering the air we breathe and the water
we drink and rely on for food production. Protecting these natural
places is more important now than ever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Wilderness Society was established 75 years ago to protect
wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our wild places. Our
mission is to maintain the integrity of America's wilderness and public
lands and ensure that land management practices are sustainable and
based on sound science. With more than half a million members and
supporters nation-wide, TWS represents a diverse range of citizen
support for wise stewardship of our network of wild natural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wilderness Society appreciates the leadership of this Committee
in undertaking a review of water supplies in the West, both through
understanding climate impacts on reclamation\2\ and data collection
relevant to monitoring hydrologic conditions. To supplement these
reports, we are submitting a set of case histories below so that the
Committee may consider examples of water protection initiatives that
have relied extensively on the maintenance of natural ecosystems. The
health of our nation's public lands--particularly its forests--are
critical to maintaining the viability of thousands of communities
across America. Just as a car won't start if the battery is low,
economic activity weakens and dies if our natural water systems--acting
as a battery for sustainable water supplies from season to season--run
dry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See reports generated in response to the SECURE Water ACT:
http://www.usbr.gov/climate/SECURE/docs/SECUREWaterReport.pdf and
http://acwi.gov/Rpt.Congress3.18.11.pdf.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, forests supply drinking water to more than 180 million
people and over sixty million people rely on a national forests for
their water.\3\ Climate change threatens both the health of our forests
as well as the water resources they provide. Protecting forests today,
and keeping them resilient in a warming world by investing in climate-
smart conservation, is a cost-effective strategy to mitigate future
climate impacts and ensure our wildlands and communities have the water
they need in years to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/
FSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb5107789.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoring and protecting forests for their water resources is not a
new concept. In fact, many of America's forests were originally
established for this exact reason--and we benefit today from this
foresight. The case studies below highlight this legacy, and we hope
inspire a renewed commitment to keeping our forests resilient as we
face changing climates.
CASE HISTORIES
1. The Tolt River Watershed is smaller area of land, but
similar to the Cedar River Watershed in its contribution of
fresh water to the Seattle area. The entire watershed is 63,800
acres, although only 8,400 acres is owned by the City of
Seattle. This forestland is located at the foot of the
breathtaking Cascade Mountains and produces up to 100 million
gallons of clean drinking water per day. The City of Seattle
recognized the importance of this watershed and traded
Weyerhaeuser Timber Company for the land, which now belongs
solely to the city. Today, the Tolt River Watershed supplies
30% of fresh drinking water to the 1.3 million people in the
greater Seattle area. Earth Economics estimates that the entire
watershed has a present value of between $5.6 and $20.9 billion
at a 7% discount rate, using a 3.5% discount rate (used for
renewable and self sustaining ecosystem services,) that number
would be between $10.9 and $40.3 billion.
``Tolt River Watershed.'' Seattle.Gov: Seattle Public Utilities.
Seattle Public Utilities, 2011. Web. 30 Mar 2011. .
Batker, David K. ``Supplemental Ecological Services: Tolt River
Watershed Asset Management Plan.'' Earth Economics. Earth Economics,
December 16, 2005. Web. 31 Mar 2011. .
2. The Cedar River Watershed is 90,638 acres of forestland
that has been regulated by the City of Seattle since 1899. The
watershed continued to be logged until erosion, forest
degradation and forest fires lead the City to take the first
steps in protecting this forestland. An extensive watershed
assessment was done, which resulted in the creation of more
sustainable logging practices and the replanting of local
species. Today, 17% of old growth remains in the Cedar River
Watershed and this watershed currently provides clean drinking
water to 1.4 million people in the Seattle area. If the Cedar
River Watershed was not there to filter the water being used by
the city, the City of Seattle would have to pay over $250
million for a water filtration plant like other cities in the
U.S.
``Cedar River Watershed.'' Seattle.Gov: Seattle Public Utilities.
Seattle Public Utilities, 2011. Web. 30 Mar 2011. .
``Flood Protection and Ecosystem Services in the Chehalis River
Basin.'' Earth Economics. Earth Economics, May 2010. Web. 1 Apr 2011.
.
3. The Bull Run Watershed is within the larger Sandy River
Watershed, in the Mt. Hood National Forest. The City of
Portland successfully lobbied President Harrison in 1892 to
make Bull Run a national forest Reserve. In recognition of the
paramount importance of this watershed, the US Congress passed
amendments to the 1977 Bull Run Act in 1996 that limited
activities and increased protection in the Bull Run Watershed.
Bull Run has is the primary source of drinking water for almost
one-fourth of the population of Oregon, around 787,000 people.
Bull Run watershed, along with the Mt. Hood National Forest,
serves as emergency water sources during summer droughts.
``The Bull Run Watershed.'' City of Portland: Portland Water Bureau.
Portland Water Bureau, 2011. Web. 31 Mar 2011. .
Hopper, Kim, and Caryn Ernst. ``Source Protection Handbook: Using Land
Conservation to Protect Drinking Water Supplies.'' Trust for Public
Land. (2005): Print.
4. The Upper Neuse River basin in North Carolina is a huge
watershed in the central part of the state. The basin covers
770 square miles and is managed by multiple agencies, all of
which have different management objectives ranging from water
quality monitoring and conservation to wastewater treatment and
storm water management. The Upper Neuse River Basin Association
is a regional collective of local governments who have
jurisdiction in different regions of the Upper Neuse. The
association is an attempt to aid cooperative management between
agencies. The whole basin supplies more than .5 million people
in North Carolina with fresh drinking water.
Terziotti, Silvia. ``The Upper Neuse Watershed Evaluation Tool.'' USGS.
USGS, 2006. Web. 31 Mar 2011. .
NOTE: for the Snohomish and Nisqually---both estimates are low, because
these are estimated values of natural systems, they technically should
be treated differently than other economic assets and so their value
over, say, 100 years is actually huge because they would receive 0%
discount rates.
5. The Snohomish Basin provides multiple ecosystem services
to Western Washington including providing fresh water,
buffering against flooding, supporting fisheries and
agriculture, and providing waste treatment. These combined
services are estimated to be providing between $383.1 million-
$5.2 billion every year. These ecosystem services have a
present value of between $13.2 billion and $180.1 billion,
(using a 2.7% discount rate). If we fail to protect this
important watershed and allow natural systems in the Snohomish
to become degraded, we could face huge economic value losses.
Batker, David, Rowan Schmidt, Jennifer Harrison-Cox, and Briana Lovell.
``The Whole Economy of the Snohomish Basin.'' Earth Economics. Earth
Economics, November, 2010. Web. 31 Mar 2011. .
6. The Nisqually Watershed links the glaciers of Mount
Rainier to the Puget Sound and crosses multiple municipalities,
but it is unique in that it's headwaters are in a National Park
and its delta is in a National Wildlife Refuge. In 1985, the
Washington State Department of Ecology created a management
plan and council for the protection of the watershed. The
Nisqually River Task Force was created and includes
representatives from federal, state, and local governments,
agencies, and organizations as well as members of the Nisqually
Indian Tribe. Earth Economics did an assessment of the economic
benefits that this watershed provides people living in the
Pierce County area and have estimated that the value of just 12
of the 23 ecosystem services that this watershed offers is
between $287,600,000 and $4,165,990,000 in yearly benefits. If
the watershed was viewed as an economic asset, its asset value
would be between $9.5 billion and $138 billion.
Batker, David, Isabel de la Torre, Maya Kocian, and Briana Lovell.
``The Natural Economy of the Nisqually Watershed.'' Earth Economics.
Earth Economics, 2009. Web. 31 Mar 2011. .
``The Nisqually Watershed Stewardship Plan.'' Nisqually River Council.
Nisqually River Council, 2009. Web. 31 Mar 2011. .
``Nisqually Land Trust Facts.'' Nisqually Land Trust. Nisqually Land
Trust, 2006. Web. 31 Mar 2011. .
7. Puget Sound is in the western part of the state of
Washington and is made up of interconnected estuarine systems
and waterways. The basin is home to 4.3 million people and one
of the largest cities on the West Coast, Seattle. The basin
provides drinking water, recreation, fish , flood and storm
protection, and erosion control, just to name a few. As a
whole, the ecosystem services within the basin provide between
$7.4 and $61.7 billion in benefits to human communities every
year. If viewed as an economic asset, the basin is worth at
least between $243 billion and $2.1 trillion.
Batker, David, Paula Sweeden, Robert Costanza, Isabel de la Torre, and
Roelof Boumans. ``A New View of the Puget Sound Economy .'' Earth
Economics. Earth Economics, n.d. Web. 1 Apr 2011. http://
www.eartheconomics.org/FileLibrary/file/Reports/
A_New_View_of_the_Puget_Sound_Economy.pdf
8. The Skokomish River is in the Southeast part of
Washington's Olympic Peninsula and is one of the US Forest
Service's focus points in terms of restoring damaged
watersheds. The Skokomish watershed was overcut in the early
1950's and continued until the 1980's. By this point, 60% of
the Skokomish had been clearcut and hundreds of miles of
logging roads had been built, causing erosion. Sediment and
gravel were deposited in the River and created buildup, which
lead to flooding in Skokomish Tribeland. Since the 1990's, the
Forest Service has been working on restoring the watershed and
decommissioning old logging roads. In 2006 by the Wilderness
Society, the Olympic Forest Coalition and others organized the
Skokomish Watershed Action Team (SWAT) to help restore the
watershed. The Skokomish watershed is economically valuable
because it is the main source of fresh water for the Hood Canal
in Puget Sound.
Anderson, Mike. ``Washington's Skokomish Watershed: Exemplar of the
Legacy Roads and Trails Initiative.'' Wilderness CPR. Wildlands CPR,
2010. Web. 13 Apr 2011. .
9. The Upper Little Tallapoosa Watershed is a 95 square mile
area about an hour west of Atlanta. This land has historically
been used for traditional farming and forestry, but over the
past few decades it has begun to be developed into large scale
residential communities and commercial buildings. This
watershed provides drinking water for 30,000 people, mostly in
Carrollton and in Carol Country, Georgia. In 1987, there was an
outbreak of Cryptosporidum, an intestinal parasite that made
residents in Carol County very sick and resulted in an
increased awareness of water quality in the region. In 2003,
the citizens of Carroll County voted to raise sales taxes to
generate almost $85 million over five years to fund quality of
life projects, $19 million went toward land conservation to
protect drinking water.
``Source Water Stewardship: Upper Little Tallapoosa River, Georgia.''
The Trust for Public Land. The Trust for Public Land, 2003. Web. 12 Apr
2011. .
10. Two primary watersheds are responsible for providing
fresh, clean water for the Boston area: the Wachusett Reservoir
and the Quabbin Reservoir. The Wachusett Reservoir can be dated
back to the late 19th century, when Boston was experiencing a
period of rapid growth and was beginning to require large
quantities of water not just for drinking, but also for
plumbing. City planners decided that an additional water source
was needed, and in 1897 the Wachusett dam was built on the
Nashua River. Construction was finished in 1905, and the
reservoir started to be regularly used in 1908. The Quabbin
Reservoir was constructed a few years later, in 1926. The
Division of Water Supply Protection and the Department of
Conservation and Recreation oversee management of these two
watersheds. Because they are both unfiltered supplies they rely
on forest bio-filtration to maintain drinking water standards,
so the Division also manages 100,000 acres of forests
surrounding the watersheds. The Wachusett and Quabbin
Reservoirs provide drinking water for almost 2.2 million people
and 5,500 city industrial users and are essential water sources
for the city of Boston.
``The Water System.'' Water Resources Authority. State of
Massachusetts, April 2011. Web. 19 Apr 2011. .
``Office of Water Management.'' Department of Conservation and
Recreation. State of Massachusetts, 2011. Web. 19 Apr 2011. .
11. The Kenai Watershed is about 1.4 million acres and the
majority of the water in this watershed is the result of
glacier melt, which gives the River a light turquoise color.
The Kenai Watershed is a drastically important watershed to
fish species and has a very high economic value. The local
Alaskan commercial salmon fishing industry generates between
$75 and $175 million every year, Over 40% of this number can be
attributed to the Kenai River. The Kenai River Watershed is
owned by different parties. The lower 50 miles of the Watershed
are owned by private entities and are already being developed.
This development affects water quality and fish livelihood. The
headwaters of the watershed are in the Chugach National Forest.
``Living and Playing in the Kenai River Watershed.'' Kenai Watershed
Forum. Kenai Watershed Forum, n.d. Web. 22 Apr 2011. .
The Wilderness Society thanks the Committee for its attention to
the critical connections between water, climate and community health.
It is our hope that the case histories set forth in this testimony will
improve public understanding of successful, cost effective strategies
for water management and can give direction to adaptation strategies
needed to meet the challenge of climate change in the years ahead.
______
Statement of Meredith R. Machen, President, League of Women Voters,
Santa Fe County
WATER (ADOPTED 2010)
The League of Women Voters of New Mexico believes that consumptive
use of water in New Mexico must be in balance with renewable supply.
Healthy ecosystems naturally perform services that benefit both people
and nature, such as cleaning water, reducing floods, and creating fish
and wildlife habitat. To secure the benefits of functioning ecosystems
and to conserve New Mexico's biodiversity, sufficient water must be
budgeted for environmental flows. The creation and adherence to
comprehensive water budgets is essential to preserve public lands,
water, and open space, and to ensure that there will be enough water
for future generations of New Mexicans. The state, water regions, and
local governments must
1. monitor and measure all water resources and uses, and
publish this information;
2. use a public process to create and follow water budgets;
3. educate citizens on their responsibilities as well as
their rights;
4. promote strategies to reduce demand;
5. minimize water contamination in order to promote the
health and safety of all life;
6. preserve and restore rivers and watersheds.
Conservation of water and efficiency of use must be encouraged to
enable New Mexico to meet its interstate compact obligations, to help
balance use with supply, to relieve stress on the physical system, and
to reduce net depletion.
Regional Water Planning
The League supports continued funding for regional planning. Using
a public process, regional planning should
1. gather and publish data on supply and demand, and provide
regular updates;
2. create a balanced water budget;
3. identify critical and emerging issues.
Local land use plans should be required to be consistent with
applicable regional water plans.
The public welfare statements of a regional water plan should be
considered by the State Engineer when reviewing applications for
transfer of water rights.
Land Use and Water
Land use and development must be tied to water availability. To
encourage this:
1. Compliance with water availability determinations by the
Office of the State Engineer (OSE) under the Subdivision Act
should be mandatory.
2. Review of subdivision applications pursuant to the
Subdivision Act should be expanded to encompass all divisions
of land.
3. Long-term cumulative impacts as well as short-term water
requirements of development should be taken into consideration
by the local permitting authority.
4. The applicant must be required to acquire water rights
before development can proceed.
5. The impact of any transfer of water rights on the area of
origin must be assessed.
6. The permitting authority should evaluate the impact of
proposed developments on ``public welfare'' as defined by the
applicable regional water plan and be able to demonstrate that
the proposed development is consistent with the plan.
7. New residential and commercial developments should be
water-efficient.
8. Growth should not be permitted where water is not
available.
Local zoning and subdivision statutes should be updated. State and
local governments should collaborate in addressing the problem of
antiquated subdivisions in order to facilitate planning and to make the
water budget process meaningful.
Role of Government
State government and the legal process must work to reconcile the
many claims on New Mexico water in a manner that is open and as fair as
possible. Among other considerations:
1. Communal as well as private interests must be respected in
applying water law;
2. Maintenance of in-stream flow and general ecological
health must be recognized as a ``beneficial use'' of water.
The Office of the State Engineer should be adequately funded to
execute its functions. In addition:
1. The OSE must be given more authority to regulate domestic
well permits. Improved regulation and monitoring of domestic
wells and septic systems is essential to protect groundwater
supplies and should be adequately funded.
2. The effort to gather data must be coordinated and
adequately funded by the state, which should establish
consistent protocols, accounting methods, and terminology.
3. The state should also help implement the regional water
plans and provide coordination among planning activities at the
different levels of government and across river basins.
Government should support research on water-related issues
including
1. methods to manage and store water that lose less to
evaporation,
2. best agricultural practices that optimize the use of water
for both farmers and downstream users, while sustaining the
natural flow;
3. urban systems that maximize water re-use;
4. health of the state's rivers and watersheds.
Governments at every level must educate citizens by developing and
disseminating data about water resources. Local governments must
promulgate and enforce regulations promoting conservation, including
positive incentives and rate structures.