[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE 2016 CALIFORNIA WATER SUPPLY OUTLOOK DURING THE EL NINO AND THREE
YEARS OF RESTRICTED WATER DELIVERIES
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-32
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-878 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Louie Gohmert, TX Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Doug Lamborn, CO Jim Costa, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
John Fleming, LA CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA Niki Tsongas, MA
Glenn Thompson, PA Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Jared Huffman, CA
Dan Benishek, MI Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Duncan, SC Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Matt Cartwright, PA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Norma J. Torres, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Debbie Dingell, MI
Paul Cook, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Bruce Westerman, AR Lois Capps, CA
Garret Graves, LA Jared Polis, CO
Dan Newhouse, WA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Ryan K. Zinke, MT
Jody B. Hice, GA
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Thomas MacArthur, NJ
Alexander X. Mooney, WV
Cresent Hardy, NV
Darin LaHood, IL
Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
Sarah Lim, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Jeff Duncan, SC Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Paul A. Gosar, AZ CNMI
Doug LaMalfa, CA Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Garret Graves, LA Norma J. Torres, CA
Dan Newhouse, WA Debbie Dingell, MI
Thomas MacArthur, NJ Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
----------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, February 24, 2016..................... 1
Statement of Members:
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Barbre, Brett, Director, Municipal Water District of Orange
County, Yorba Linda, California............................ 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Bettner, Thaddeus, General Manager, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation
District, Willows, California.............................. 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Birmingham, Thomas, General Manager/General Counsel,
Westlands Water District, Fresno, California............... 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Murillo, David, Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region, Bureau
of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC, accompanied by Ren Lohoefener, Director of
the Pacific Southwest Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in Sacramento, California.......................... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Pool, Richard, President and Owner, Pro-Troll Fishing
Products, Concord, California.............................. 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
LaGrande, Ken, Rice Farmer from Northern California, prepared
statement of............................................... 56
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE 2016 CALIFORNIA WATER SUPPLY OUTLOOK DURING
THE EL NINO AND THREE YEARS OF RESTRICTED WATER DELIVERIES
----------
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fleming, Gosar, McClintock,
Duncan, LaMalfa, Denham, Newhouse; Huffman, Costa, Ruiz,
Lowenthal, and Torres.
Dr. Fleming. The Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
will come to order. The Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee
meets today to hear testimony on an oversight hearing entitled,
``The 2016 California Water Supply Outlook During the El Nino
and Three Years of Restricted Water Deliveries.'' We will begin
with opening statements, starting with myself.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Dr. Fleming. Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Power and
Oceans meets to assess California's water supplies in light of
ongoing drought and the related water cutbacks while the state
has been partially drenched with powerful El Nino storms.
Today's hearing not only impacts California, but also taxpayers
and food consumers nationwide.
Four years of drought have now gone by, and Californians
are finally getting some rain and snow. But, will there be any
difference to those suffering in the San Joaquin Valley and
elsewhere? Will a 3-inch fish continue to be more important
than people? So far that answer is yes.
[Chart]
Dr. Fleming. Unfortunately, as this chart says, twice the
amount of water is flowing out into the ocean compared to last
year, but even less water is being sent to farms, due in part
to Federal endangered species regulations. As you can see by
the chart, in blue you have the Delta outflow, and then in red,
exports. So, as you can see, the exports remain pretty much
even, while the outflow is increasing. So that is not a good
ratio.
To illustrate how sad this situation has become, here is a
picture of imported carrots from China being handed out to a
food line in the San Joaquin Valley, which was one of the most
agriculturally productive areas of the world. In more
prosperous times, the people in these food lines helped provide
food to all of us.
[Chart]
Dr. Fleming. As this chart indicates, California produces
over two-thirds of the fruit and nuts in the United States. I
know that is hard to read, but you can see the percentages are
very high in virtually every one of those categories.
And yes, it used to produce 83 percent of domestic carrots.
The area went from a salad bowl to a dust bowl. This has
implications for all of us who shop at grocery stores
throughout the Nation. And we, as a Nation, pay for social
services for the people who just want jobs and water, not
handouts.
In fact, three of the five most impoverished counties in
the Nation are located in the Central Valley of California. The
town of Mendota is experiencing 34 percent unemployment, and
nearly half of its population lives below the poverty line, as
a result of water cutbacks. By contrast, of course, the
Washington, DC area has one of the highest-per-capita incomes,
if not the most.
Most would like to think there is light at the end of this
tunnel. But, according to water experts, 500,000 acre-feet of
water, or 162 billion gallons, have already been diverted from
Southern California during this wet year in the name of the
Delta smelt.
We will hear today of a very real scenario that these
communities could face another year of zero water, even in the
face of above-normal snowpack. We have the power to right these
wrongs. Sure, Mother Nature can play a role in reversing this
situation, but let's face it: loss of 162 billion gallons of
water in 2 months is a man-made problem deserving of a man-made
solution.
In the same way that we heard 2 weeks ago that it was
within Congress' power to reduce predation on endangered fish,
we have the same power to ensure that farming communities do
not become an endangered species as well.
Today is about marching toward administrative and
legislative solutions that help California and the Nation. I
look forward to today's hearing, and welcome our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. John Fleming, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Water, Power and Oceans
Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans meets to assess
California's water supplies in light of ongoing drought and the related
water cutbacks while the state has been partially drenched with
powerful El Nino storms. Today's hearing not only impacts California
but also taxpayers and food consumers nationwide.
Four years of drought have now gone by and Californians are finally
getting some rain and snow. But, will there be any difference to those
suffering in the San Joaquin Valley and elsewhere? Will a 3-inch fish
continue to be more important than people?
So far, that answer is yes. Unfortunately, as the following chart
says, twice the amount of water is flowing out into the ocean compared
to last year but even less water is being sent to farms due, in part,
to Federal endangered species regulations.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To illustrate how sad this situation has become, here is a
picture of imported carrots from China being handed out to a food line
in the San Joaquin Valley, which was one of the most agriculturally
productive areas of the world.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In more prosperous times, the people in those food lines helped
provide food to all of us. As the following chart indicates, California
produces over two-thirds of the fruit and nuts in the United States.
And yes, it used to produce 83 percent of domestic carrots. The area
went from a salad bowl to a dust bowl. This has implications for all of
us who shop at grocery stores throughout the Nation.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
And, we as a Nation pay for social services for the people who
just want jobs and water, not handouts. In fact, three of the five most
impoverished counties in the Nation are located in the Central Valley
of California. The town of Mendota is experiencing 34 percent
unemployment and nearly half of its population lives below the poverty
line as a result of water cutbacks.
Most would like to think there's light at the end of this tunnel.
But, according to water experts, 500,000 acre-feet of water--or 162
billion gallons--have already been diverted from Southern California
during this wet year in the name of the Delta smelt. We will hear today
of a very real scenario that these communities could face another year
of zero water even in the face of above-normal snowpack.
We have the power to right these wrongs. Sure, Mother Nature can
play a role in reversing this situation, but let's face it: the loss of
162 billion gallons of water in 2 months is a man-made problem
deserving of a man-made solution. In the same way that we heard 2 weeks
ago that it was within Congress's power to reduce predation on
endangered fish, we have the same power to ensure that farming
communities do not become an endangered species.
Today is about marching toward administrative and legislative
solutions that help California and the Nation. I look forward to
today's hearing and welcome our witnesses.
______
Dr. Fleming. At this time, I yield to the Ranking Member,
Mr. Huffman.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Good morning and thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, everyone. If there was any doubt, I think it is safe
to say we are now officially in election season. Like election
years past, today we are having a partisan one-sided hearing
aimed at bashing the Administration and rehashing the same
tired old narratives, blaming the drought on environmental
protection, instead of focusing on real drought solutions.
We are here, instead of that, to wage yet another
ideological battle against the Endangered Species Act, against
the 3-inch lowly Delta smelt, and to tell people that there is
a man-made drought caused by environmental protections, which
is simply bunk.
Never mind that experts say we are likely experiencing the
worst hydrologic drought in 1,200 years, or the fact that
California's 2014 and 2015 water years were the warmest on
record. Let's also forget that ESA protections accounted for a
mere 2 percent of the Central Valley Project's water supply
reduction in 2014, and that the State Water Board estimates
that in 2015 only 2 percent of all runoff in the Bay-Delta
watershed flowed to San Francisco Bay solely for environmental
protection. Only 2 percent, and yet still that is some kind of
a political outrage here in Washington today.
No, this hearing is not about looking at the actual facts,
it is about trying to score political points pursuing an agenda
that my Republican colleagues have pursued for many years now,
to weaken the Endangered Species Act, to gut fisheries
protections that support thousands of jobs in my district and
across the Pacific Coast, and to redirect water from one region
of the state to another.
Mr. Chairman, I hope some day we can hold hearings to
examine real drought solutions that Congress could be pursuing.
I have introduced a bill, H.R. 2983, that includes many of
these solutions, including the promotion of innovative de-
salination technologies, water recycling and reuse, groundwater
recharge, storm water capture, and reduced losses from
evaporation. All of these are tools that we could be able to
work on in advance on a bipartisan basis.
My bill also promotes water conservation through improved
reservoir operations. And if we want to find something to be
outraged about, let's consider that right now, water managers
at Folsom Lake, one of California's major reservoirs, are
releasing tremendous amounts of water, not for the Delta smelt,
not for the Endangered Species Act, but because an outdated
decades-old flood control manual tells them they need to do so
because of the date on the calendar. This is based on backward-
looking hydrology, and their refusal to look to the sky, where,
since the 1950s, we have invented things called weather
satellites that can tell us that storms are actually coming. We
could be saving an awful lot of water. It is not controversial,
it is not expensive, and that saving could start right away if
we would focus on the right issues. This is the kind of
solution water managers want.
Mr. Chairman, this is just one common-sense proposal, one
of many in the bill that I and over 30 of my colleagues who are
co-sponsors have introduced. We could be talking about those
things, but instead, we are rehashing this tired argument,
discredited claims about the Endangered Species Act.
Additionally, despite repeated requests from Democratic
members of this committee, the Majority has refused to hold a
single hearing examining how best to prepare for future
droughts, which we know are going to be more frequent and
severe across the West if we continue to ignore the dangers of
climate change.
We have also requested a hearing to look at how other arid
regions of the world have managed their droughts, places like
Israel and Australia, who have developed innovative new
technologies and drought management practices. We could be
learning from them. And things like that ought to be on the
agenda for this committee.
Unfortunately, it seems that all my colleagues across the
aisle want to talk about is how to roll back fishery
protections that support thousands of fishing industry jobs
from California and Oregon all the way to Washington State and
Alaska.
Mr. Chairman, California's anadromous fisheries are hanging
on by a thread. Just one example, Federal officials recently
announced there was a 97 percent mortality rate for juvenile
Sacramento winter-run salmon last year. The year before, it was
a 95 percent mortality rate. If we further weaken fisheries
protections, we need to think about what comes next.
A few years ago, we saw a complete closure of the West
Coast salmon fisheries, for 2 years in a row. That meant $158
million in Federal disaster aid from Congress.
We also need to think about the fact that we have already--
[microphone issues]--all right, I am just going to project, Mr.
Chairman. We have already redirected millions of acre-feet of
water away from environmental protections to water exports over
the last couple years of this drought, and the scientists are
starting to tell us that there is a real environmental cost to
that. We cannot continue short-cutting this vital threat of
environmental protection that we have for our salmon and other
fisheries.
So, Mr. Chairman, I welcome this discussion, but I think in
many respects we are having the wrong discussion. I look
forward to the time when we can come together as a committee
and talk about the many, many bipartisan solutions for
California and the arid West that we could and should be
pursuing together.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
Mr. Chairman, if there was ever any doubt, I think it's safe to say
we're now officially in election season. Like election years past,
today we have a partisan, one-sided hearing aimed at bashing the
Administration and rehashing the same tired arguments blaming the
drought on environmental protections. Instead of focusing on real
drought solutions, we're here today to wage yet another ideological
battle against the Endangered Species Act and to tell people there is a
``man-made'' drought caused by environmental protections.
Never mind that experts say we're likely experiencing the worst
hydrological drought in 1,200 years, or the fact that California's 2014
and 2015 water years were the warmest on record. Let's also forget that
ESA protections accounted for a mere 2 percent of the CVP's water
supply reduction in 2014 and that the State Water Resources Control
Board estimates that in 2015, only 2 percent of all the runoff in the
Bay-Delta watershed flowed to San Francisco Bay solely for
environmental protection.
No, today's hearing is not about examining these and other facts.
It's simply about trying to score political points and pursuing an
agenda my Republicans colleagues have pursued for many years now to
weaken the Endangered Species Act, head and gut fishery protections
that support thousands of jobs in my district and across the Pacific
Coast, and redirect water from one region of the state to another.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that someday we can hold hearings examining
the many real drought solutions Congress could be pursuing. I have
introduced a drought response bill, H.R. 2983, which includes many of
these solutions, including the promotion of innovative de-salination
technologies, water recycling and reuse, groundwater recharge, storm
water capture, and reduced supply losses to evaporation.
My bill also promotes water conservation through improved reservoir
operations. Right now, water managers at Folsom Lake--one of
California's major reservoirs--are releasing tremendous amounts of
water because of outdated, decades-old flood control regulations that
don't take into account modern weather forecasting. That's right, these
releases have nothing to do with environmental laws. My drought
legislation would update these regulations, allowing water managers to
use forecast-based decisionmaking for flood control releases, so we can
save precious water supplies during drought.
Mr. Chairman, this is just one common sense proposal--one of many
in my bill. Yet the committee has so far refused to even have a hearing
on it. Instead we're here today rehashing the same discredited claims
about the Endangered Species Act. Time and again we hear testimony
about the threatened and ecologically important Delta smelt, as if the
Majority has forgotten that big fish eat little fish. Additionally,
despite repeated requests from Democratic members of this committee,
the Majority has also refused to hold a single hearing examining how
best to prepare for future droughts, which we know will be more
frequent and severe across the American West if we continue to ignore
the dangers of climate change. We've also requested a hearing to look
at how other arid regions of the world have managed droughts like the
one we're facing. International allies like Israel and Australia have
developed innovative new technologies and drought management practices
that we should examine and learn from.
Unfortunately, all that my Republican colleagues seem to want to
talk about is how to roll back fishery protections that support
thousands of fishing industry jobs from California and Oregon all the
way to Washington State and Alaska. Mr. Chairman, many of California's
anadromous fisheries are hanging on by a thread. Just one example--
Federal officials recently announced that there was a 97 percent
mortality rate for juvenile Sacramento winter-run salmon in 2015. The
year before, we had a 95 percent mortality rate.
We simply cannot weaken fishery protections any more. We know what
will happen if we do. The closure of the West Coast salmon fishery in
2008 and 2009 is a recent illustration. The West Coast salmon closure
caused significant job losses across the West Coast and required $158
million in fishery disaster aid from Congress. We've already redirected
millions of acre-feet away from the environment to agricultural and
municipal water users during the drought, according to the State Water
Resources Control Board, and any further weakening of existing fishery
protections could put many of California's fisheries on the path to
extinction.
Beyond the lost fishery jobs, Californians simply do not support
sacrificing California's environment primarily for the benefit of a
small number of agricultural water users. Recent statewide polling
shows that Californians overwhelmingly oppose weakening the state's
environmental protections during the drought. What Californians do
support in overwhelming numbers is boosting our water supplies though
water recycling and reuse, storm water capture, and improving water use
efficiency.
Local water districts are crying out for Congress to do something
to prevent the hundreds of billions of gallons of water loss each year
simply because of aging and inefficient infrastructure. They're asking
for Congress' help in capturing the hundreds of thousands of acre-feet
of wastewater that could be reused for agriculture, industry, even
drinking water.
These shouldn't be controversial ideas. President George W. Bush's
Reclamation Commissioner described the water we could tap from
recycling and reuse as the next great river of the American West. Mr.
Chairman, when we're done with the political games, I hope to work
across the aisle to solve California's water problems through a
thoughtful, science-based process instead of debating the same old
proposals that create no new water and pit regions of the state against
each other.
With that I yield back.
______
Dr. Fleming. I thank the Ranking Member. As you can see,
Washington really is running out of money, because we don't
even have enough microphones today to serve everybody.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Fleming. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Gosar, Vice Chair
of the Subcommittee.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Chairman, my microphone works just fine.
While I disagree completely with Mr. Huffman's statement, I
would be more than happy to have him close to me over here, so
that I can straighten out some of his misconceptions. There are
great microphones on this side.
Dr. Fleming. Mr. Denham, that is duly noted by the Chair.
Moving along, Dr. Gosar? Not working? Here we go.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,
everyone. We have an expression in the West that whiskey is for
drinking and water is for fighting over. And, given that the
hearing today is the first major hearing this year on
California water, and that California and Arizona have a long
history of fighting over water that dates back to at least the
1920s, I brought some whiskey. And before we get to fighting, I
would like to propose a toast.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Gosar. May God bless this hearing. May we make progress
here today, so that Congress can finally provide some form of
relief for drought conditions and from policies that are
crippling western communities.
And finally, may the extreme environmental groups and
others that are holding back common-sense solutions and
comprehensive West-wide drought relief legislation that passed
the House last July, finally put the interests of small
businesses, farmers, and American families ahead of the
interests of a 3-inch fish. Let the fighting begin. Cheers.
Now, today's hearing is about bringing sanity back to our
Federal policies that have put thousands out of work, and
fostering accountability to the Endangered Species Act and the
bureaucracy charged with implementing it.
The Bureau of Reclamation's multi-purpose water projects
made the West what it is today. Generations of our prior
leaders focused on the need to capture water and deliver it to
cities and fields. These were nonpartisan endeavors, as
evidenced by the video that we are going to see with President
John F. Kennedy dedicating the San Luis Dam in California.
[Video shown.]
Dr. Gosar. While the Central Arizona Project came after
President Kennedy, it continues to bring prosperity to Arizona
cities, tribal communities, and ranches almost 50 years from
its inception.
The Glen Canyon Dam and other projects affiliated with the
Colorado River Storage Project provided the backbone of a
regional economy that produced year-round water and emissions-
free hydropower.
Lake Powell, the reservoir behind Glen Canyon, allowed for
millions of dollars worth of recreational boating annually, and
even provided the scenery for the astronaut crash landing in
the 1968 science fiction classic, ``The Planet of the Apes.''
For years, those bent on destroying the Glen Canyon icon tried
the frontal assault, by trying to get it torn down.
The so-called environmental community has gotten much more
creative by actively litigating against dams and the Federal
agencies that operate them, with the goal of making them
effectively useless. This is happening with the very dam that
we just heard from in John F. Kennedy's dedication. The
litigation tool in this case has been the Endangered Species
Act and a little 3-inch fish called the Delta smelt is the
subject today.
Biological opinions challenged by the environmental
litigation industry have been made even worse by court actions
and Federal agencies terrified of further litigation. These
Federal plans have created a situation where communities who
thought they were going to get more water in an El Nino year
are now faced with potentially less water than last season's
dry year. Meanwhile, Federal scientists have already killed at
least 120 Delta smelt, more than the equivalent of 12 impacted
by the Delta pumps this year alone, or 10 times more, and
double the amount with the water being released to the ocean
compared to last year.
And that is why this House passed comprehensive West-wide
drought relief legislation last year. It helps California, but
it also helps the entire West by ending the paralysis-by-
analysis through regulatory streamlining to build more water
storage, protecting state water rights and allowing water users
to pre-pay what they owe to the Federal Government.
This effort was 4 years in the making, and we now have a
chance to get it and other policies over the finish line, so
that we can start returning to a policy of abundance. This
hearing is part of that long-term goal, but it also serves as
an immediate step to help those most in need in California. I
welcome our panel of witnesses, and look forward to today's
hearing.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Paul A. Gosar, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Arizona
Today's hearing is about bringing sanity back to our Federal
policies that have put thousands out of work and fostering
accountability to the Endangered Species Act and the bureaucracy
charged with implementing it.
The Bureau of Reclamation's multi-purpose water projects made the
West what it is today. Generations of our prior leaders focused on the
need to capture water and deliver it to cities and fields. These were
non-partisan endeavors--as evidenced by this video of President John F.
Kennedy dedicating San Luis Dam in California.
While the Central Arizona Project came after President Kennedy, it
continues to bring prosperity to Arizona's cities, tribal communities
and ranches almost 50 years from its inception. The Glen Canyon Dam and
other projects affiliated with the Colorado River Storage Project
provided the backbone of a regional economy that produced year-round
water and emissions-free hydropower. Lake Powell, the reservoir behind
Glen Canyon allows for millions of dollars worth of recreational
boating annually and even provided the scenery for the astronaut crash
landing in the 1968 science fiction classic, the Planet of the Apes.
For years, those bent on destroying the Glen Canyon icon tried the
frontal assault by trying to get it torn down. The so-called
environmental community has gotten much more creative by actively
litigating against dams and the Federal agencies that operate them with
the goal of making them effectively useless. This is happening with the
very dam that we just heard John F. Kennedy dedicate.
The litigation tool in this case has been the Endangered Species
Act and the little 3-inch fish called the Delta smelt. Biological
opinions challenged by the environmental litigation industry were made
even worse by court actions and Federal agencies terrified of further
litigation. These Federal plans have created a situation where
communities who thought they were going to get more water in an El Nino
year are now faced with potentially less water than last season's dry
year. Meanwhile, Federal scientists have already killed at least 120
Delta smelt, more than the equivalent of 12 impacted by the Delta pumps
this year alone--or 10 times more--and double the amount of water is
being released to the ocean compared to last year. This begs the
question of who's being accountable.
If it could happen in California, it could certainly happen in
Arizona and elsewhere. Our Nation's forefathers had the vision and
leadership to construct water and power projects that brought promise
and hope to a desert wasteland. We are now watching those projects and
the communities that rely on them being killed by a thousand cuts.
Rationing is now standard practice almost everywhere and the wasteland
is slowly returning. That needs to change.
And that's why this House passed comprehensive west-wide drought
relief legislation last year. It helps California, but it also helps
the entire West by ending paralysis-by-analysis through regulatory
streamlining to build more water storage, protecting state water rights
and allowing water users to pre-pay what they owe to the Federal
Government.
This effort was 4 years in the making and now we have a chance to
get it and other policies over the finish line so that we can start
returning to a policy of abundance. This hearing is a part of that
long-term goal but it also serves as an immediate step to help those
most in need in California. I welcome our panel of witnesses today and
look forward to today's hearing.
______
Dr. Fleming. OK, the gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Costa, our Democratic Vice
Chair, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member, members of the committee, and those witnesses who will
be testifying this morning, for this important hearing that we
are holding this morning.
The devastating drought that has impacted California has
been hardest hit in the San Joaquin Valley, the area that I
represent with my colleagues, David Valadao and Jeff Denham. We
have tried everything possible to try to, in effect, bring
together a bipartisan effort to fix what is a broken water
system in California. And, believe me, it is broken.
And this is not new. This 4 years of drought has
highlighted the inability of the water system that we have in
California, the Federal and the state water projects, to meet
all of the demands that are now asked of them; but this was
known 25, 30 years ago. Governor Brown, when he was last
governor back in the early 1980s, tried to fix California's
state water system. Governor Deukmejian tried, Governor Pete
Wilson tried, Governor Gray Davis tried, Governor
Schwarzenegger tried, and the reincarnation of Governor Brown
again is trying to fix this broken water system.
Because it is understood that, to meet the demands of a
growing state, when the initial water systems were developed,
we had 20 million people. Today we have 40 million people. And
we have much more intensive agriculture than we had back in the
1950s and 1960s. In addition to that, we have more demands
placed upon the water system for environmental needs that are
important, as well.
So, when you have continuous drought years as we have had--
these last 4 years were perhaps the driest 4 years in over
1,200 years, climatologists have determined--you see the
problems and the fault lines within the existing water system,
and why we have to fix it. It is a Federal issue and it is a
state issue, and we have to work together to make a difference.
In the last 4 years, we have seen people in my communities
have a situation in which they have gotten a zero water
allocation--zero--over the last 2 years. Communities on the
east side and the west side, 15 communities have had their
wells go dry, meaning no water. We have had a situation in
which it has had a disastrous impact as it relates to the
ground water and subsidence. And clearly, the current situation
is we are trying to hang in there, because we have over 600,000
acres that have gone fallow over the last several years,
fallowing crops that we would normally grow--tomatoes,
asparagus, melons, all sorts of good products that are healthy
for Americans' diet go unplanted because they are trying to
keep permanent crops alive. And that is just the nature of
farming.
But we are doing so in a way that is unsustainable, because
we are taking water out of the ground that in the long term
just is not feasible to continue to stay in business. And now
we are hearing that the El Nino conditions which we have been
blessed with over the last 6 weeks are beginning to collapse.
The high pressure ridge is coming back, and some climatologists
are predicting that we will get an inverse condition in which
next year will be a La Nina, which means we get less water,
another drought condition.
Nothing could be worse for the people of the San Joaquin
Valley, for the farmers, for the farm workers, and for the farm
communities in which we have experienced 30-40 percent
unemployment in recent years. These are people's lives that we
are talking about, and it is also our ability to produce the
food necessary for America's dinner table that is impacted.
And this is a combination of not just drought conditions,
but regulatory controls that I don't think is using the best
science. The biological opinions that we have operated under,
frankly, have not taken into account the dramatic stress that
is taking place.
Let's be clear. I mean we have been operating these
projects during these drought conditions for one first priority
only, and that is to try to protect the survivability of Delta
smelt and other species. And we have put that priority over
people. Whether you agree or disagree, that has been the
effect.
And I would feel a little bit better about it if we were
being successful. If we were propagating the Delta smelt and we
were increasing the salmonoid, at least you could see a cause
and effect. But I think you cannot see a cause and effect
because the science and the biological opinions are flawed.
We will hear more from the witnesses about the testimony
here, but let me just close with this thought. We could have
maybe--I don't know, we are at 115 percent of normal, maybe we
could have 150 percent of normal. We pray for rain and snow the
next 2 months. If we have those conditions, we could have all
of California having a better water supply, except the San
Joaquin Valley, where we could still have zero allocation for
water.
Let me tell you something. That is unacceptable, it is
avoidable, and it is immoral. Thank you very much for the time,
Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the witnesses' testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costa follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
I'd like to thank the Chair and the Ranking Member for holding a
hearing on this topic of great importance to the people of the San
Joaquin Valley of California.
As we have discussed in this subcommittee, California is
experiencing its most serious drought since the 1977 drought, and by
some accounts, the state's worst drought in over 1,200 years. It has
had its most serious impacts in the San Joaquin Valley.
In the last 4 years, agricultural water service contractors on the
west side of the San Joaquin Valley received an average of a 15 percent
allocation, and they received a zero percent allocation over the last 2
years. Impacts in the Friant Division, on the east side of the Valley,
have been equally severe.
In 2014, for the first time since the creation of the Friant
Division, Reclamation was unable to meet its obligations to the senior
water rights holders by withdrawing water from the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Bay-Delta.
Instead, the water that has historically been provided to the
communities in the Friant Division was directed down the San Joaquin
River to meet the needs of senior water rights holders. These factors
resulted in significant reliance on groundwater pumping, ultimately
leading to predictably disastrous groundwater overdraft and the wells
for 15 communities going dry.
Hydrological conditions for the beginning of this water year have
improved dramatically, though the last 2 weeks have been hot and dry
and it is now predicted that next year will bring La Nina conditions,
which exacerbate drought.
Today, tens of thousands of acre-feet of precious water will flow
through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta and out into the ocean.
Only a small amount of it will be pumped out of the Delta, to move
south to irrigate the fields of the San Joaquin Valley and to assist
communities across Southern and Central California in recovering from
the pernicious drought we have faced for the last 4 years.
There are many times this year that the pumps could have been
operated to their permitted capacity without impairing the water
quality for communities within the Delta. The simple reason that they
are not being operated to capacity is that regulatory controls will not
allow it.
Some of those regulatory controls are designed to ensure that
communities that draw water from the Delta do not draw brackish, salty
water. No responsible party is trying to make that happen.
However, there are other regulatory controls in place to protect
the Delta smelt and listed salmon runs that have serious impacts above
and beyond the standards to protect Delta communities from brackish
water. And it is these controls, known as Biological Opinions, that
have resulted in a disconnect between water supply reliability and the
underlying rainfall and snowpack falling in the state.
It is clear that the most serious impacts in the state over the
last few years have been because of a lack of rainfall and snowpack.
However, what is just as clear is that project operations this year,
when rainfall and snowpack have been plentiful, are being severely
impacted by regulatory controls.
A choice has been made--to take water away from communities in dire
need of it--in order to provide uncertain benefits to species that have
been harmed by a host of reasons, including being eaten by non-native
species that humans have introduced into the ecosystem, as we learned 2
weeks ago in this subcommittee.
This is not the first drought California has faced . . . nor will
it be the last. What we have to determine is what the future of
California looks like?
Will we allow communities to dry up and blow away? Or will we come
together and craft a solution that can improve conditions for everyone
across the state, while focusing on drought recovery for those who have
been most affected?
I continue to believe that government can still do great things, if
we come together and focus on achievable solutions. I remain committed
to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft a
solution that increases California's drought resiliency and provides
water to those communities most impacted by this most recent drought.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
______
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman. We are now ready for
witness testimony.
I will remind the witnesses how our clock works. You have 5
minutes for your testimony. You will be under a green light for
4 minutes. When it turns yellow, that is a caution that you are
within the last minute. When it turns red, if you haven't
already concluded, we ask that you quickly conclude. Trust me,
every word of your testimony will appear in the record, even if
it is 10 minutes long. We just cannot hear but 5 minutes of it.
So, therefore, I will introduce our witnesses today. First
is Mr. Brett Barbre, a Director of the Municipal Water District
of Orange County, from Yorba Linda, California. And now I defer
to Mr. LaMalfa for an introduction, as well.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to
introduce today Thaddeus Bettner, who is the General Manager of
the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District. He has decades of
experience with irrigation and water agencies in the planning,
design, operation, and management of water delivery systems on
the local, state, and Federal levels. He has worked for water
agencies in Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and Imperial
Valley, and began serving as the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation
District's General Manager in 2006.
He is actively engaged in the development, very
importantly, of the Sites Reservoir, and plays a key role with
the Sites Joint Powers Authority. He is a registered civil
engineer with the state of California and holds a bachelor of
science in Ag. from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo--go, Mustangs.
Thad's role as General Manager of GCID, which holds the
most senior water rights in California, means that in the past
few years he has balanced the needs of his district with its
ability to aid its neighbors. While GCID is one of the few
entities that has received Federal water deliveries, the
district has worked the surrounding water suppliers to help its
neighbors survive this drought.
Thad and GCID should be commended for this effort, and we
welcome them all here today. Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Next on the panel, Mr. Richard Pool,
President and Owner of Pro-Troll Fishing Products, from
Concord, California; Mr. David Murillo, Director of the Mid-
Pacific Region of the Bureau of Reclamation in Sacramento,
California--he is accompanied by Dr. Ren Lohoefener, Director
of the Pacific Southwest Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in Sacramento, California; and Mr. Thomas Birmingham, a
General Manager of the Wetlands Water District, which is based
in Fresno, California.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Barbre for his testimony.
You have 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF BRETT BARBRE, DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
OF ORANGE COUNTY, YORBA LINDA, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Barbre. Thank you very much, Chairman Fleming, Ranking
Member Huffman, and members of the committee. It is indeed a
pleasure to be here. My name is Brett Barbre. I am an elected
director of the Municipal Water District of Orange County. We
have 3.1 million residents in Orange County that depend on us
importing water through the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, of which I am also privileged to serve as
a Director.
Southern California, as you know, is a wonderful place to
live. It has wonderful weather. And it is basically an
irrigated desert. We have been able to survive because of three
things: we have developed substantial water storage, an
abundant source of power, and the ability to provide sanitary
conditions. And that is the definition of a first-world
economy.
In Southern California--I want to talk a little bit about
our history, and how we came to be, and just some critical
thoughts that may be helpful.
If you look at the dam development of California, it all
has to do with dams and water storage. The first major one was
the O'Shaughnessy Dam in 1923, which gave us the pipeline, also
known as Hetch Hetchy. Parker Dam, which Metropolitan paid to
build, allows us to provide water for both Arizona and
California, we built that in 1939. Shasta Dam, Central Valley
Project, that came on board in 1945. It has 4\1/2\ million
acre-feet of storage. Oroville Dam, part of the State Water
Project, 3\1/2\ million acre-feet, that came on-line in 1968.
Since that time, there has been one major storage facility
constructed in California, and that was the Diamond Valley Lake
that Metropolitan Water District paid for themselves with
ratepayer dollars. That came on-line in 1999.
So, if there is any reason why there is a shortage of water
in California, it is because we do not have enough storage.
I think it is important to compare and contrast both the
Colorado River and the State Water Project. The State Water
Project has four times the flow that the Colorado does, yet has
half the storage. The Colorado River, we have been in technical
drought for 15 years, yet we have no shortage, because we have
so much storage and we are able to balance it.
But I want to talk about 1977. Jerry Brown was governor
then; things have not changed much to 2014. But in 1977,
Metropolitan, which has an allocation of roughly 2 million
acre-feet, decided to turn back their water. A little community
of Marin was running out of water, so they had to jury-rig a
pipe across the Richmond Bridge to get water into their
reservoir. As it turned out, some of Met's water went into
their reservoirs, and we were happy to do that. In the water
business, we try to help everybody out.
So, Southern California decided we cannot really rely on
the State Water Project. We know we are going to have growth in
our area. In fact, in the last 25 years we have had a growth of
over 5 million people and we are serving less water. So, we
have become more efficient.
Between 1977 and 2014, we invested $14 billion of our
ratepayer dollars. We built Diamond Valley Lake. We did
substantial upgrades on our treatment plants. We developed
water use efficiency, groundwater storage. In Orange County, we
have the very first groundwater replenishment system, where we
take a stream of water from the sanitation district, purify it,
and put it back in the groundwater basin. We use the water over
and over and over again.
In 2014, we had 5\1/2\ million acre-feet of capacity of
storage. We had almost 2 million acre-feet in storage that we
could draw on. And, do you know what Marin had to do that year?
They had to jury-rig a pipe across the Richmond Bridge to get
water into their reservoir.
So, Southern California is making the investments. At the
Municipal Water District of Orange County we just completed a
reliability study to determine is the Delta really all that
important, because we hear from folks, ``Oh, you can conserve
your way, you can do groundwater storage, you can do
recycling.'' Without a Delta fix, we are reliable 3 out of
every 10 years. That means we are in shortage 7 out of 10. With
a Delta fix of some sort, it is 1 in 10 where we may have a
challenge.
The final point I will make--and I am not going to blame
this all on a fish, but in 1977, which was the driest year in
history, the State Water Project was able to produce 400,000
acre-feet for Southern California, which we turned back. Last
year only 100,000 acre-feet. So something needs to be fixed,
and I encourage this committee to move forward on that. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barbre follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Brett R. Barbre, Director, Municipal
Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and Director, Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (MWD) representing the Municipal
Water District of Orange County
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, distinguished members of
the committee, my name is Brett Barbre and I am an elected Director of
the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and am an
appointed Director of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MET) as one of four representatives from MWDOC. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning to share a few
thoughts regarding the impact on the Southern California water supply
due to the lack of resolution with the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-
Delta.
We have a water system in California that is broken under the
weight of environmental problems and regulations, lack of investment
and outright political obstructionism. When the rains finally returned
to California this winter and the rivers began to rise in Northern
California, our water system in the Bay-Delta had to decrease pumping
rather than take advantage of the opportunity to store as much as
possible for future use. In years past we started to face these kinds
of restrictions after the projects began taking Delta smelt. However,
this year the restrictions kicked in before the projects took a single
smelt as the regulations this year say we could face even greater
restrictions if we take 56 fish. That is right, 56 smelt. And bear in
mind that more than 3,000 smelt are routinely taken for research and
sampling purposes.
The California water system has been living off the investments of
past generations, and the bill of inaction is coming due.
There have been significant investments over the past generation at
the local level, most notably in Southern California within the
Metropolitan Water District service area. But statewide the system is
largely the same one we had more than a generation ago even though the
state population has more than doubled. Keep in mind that the planning
for the State Water Project began in 1956 and the first deliveries to
Southern California occurred in 1971--nearly 45 years ago.
As a representative of an agency that receives water from both the
Colorado River and the California State Water Project, it is fair to
compare and contrast the experience on both systems.
While the California system has four times the flows of the
Colorado River, it has less than half the storage. This disparity has
significant and demonstrable impacts. The Colorado system has
essentially been in drought conditions this entire century yet the
system has gone for more than 15 years without any shortage conditions
because its storage system can hold four times the average runoff of
the basin. When big storms have occurred this century on the Colorado,
the system can capture every drop. However, when big storms happen in
Northern California, we have seen up to 80 to 90 percent of the water
coming into the Delta going out to the ocean--not exactly a
``beneficial use'' of fresh water.
What we need in California is a new generation in investment and a
new management ethic that does not look for reasons to deny water for
the economy.
The design of the water system in the Delta needs to be improved so
that water can be captured in the northern Delta and transported to the
aqueduct system in the southern Delta. We must remember that this
supply is vital for the economies of the Silicon Valley, the Central
Valley and $1 trillion Southern California economy.
Versions of this improvement have been around for decades, and it
is beyond time to make this system investment. As far back as 1973 when
the Delta Environmental Advisory Committee was formed, it was
determined that a properly designed facility that eliminates the need
to use the Delta as a conveyance facility would guarantee that the
affected environments would be adequately protected.
Governor Jerry Brown's current administration is moving forward
with this project, known as California WaterFix and while it is part of
a solution, it is not THE solution. We simply need to regain our
ability to capture water when it is wet so the economy has supplies
when it is dry. We have lost that ability for various environmental and
regulatory reasons and strangling the economy's water supply is not
good for the environment; it is not good for anyone; it puts at risk
our Nation's food security.
The basic reason for California WaterFix is straightforward. We
need intakes in two different places in the Delta, north and south, in
order to reliably divert water and avoid conflicts with endangered
species; we need a flexible, modern system.
The California WaterFix would build three new intakes in the
northern Delta and a tunnel pipeline system to move the water to the
aqueducts. The California WaterFix does not solve all of the state's
water problems but it would eliminate a bottleneck in the heart of the
statewide system. California will need to continue to develop more
local supplies such as what we have done in Southern California.
In 1977, which was the driest year on record, the State Water
Project was able to deliver 400,000 AF of water to MWD; in 2014 we
received 100,000. We seem to be going backwards. Just since January 1,
2016, over 200,000 AF of water has been allowed to flow out to the
Pacific Ocean which ordinarily would be stored for later use. This is
simply unacceptable.
Across the state we need more storage, north of the Delta and south
of the Delta. Storing water away in the wet years means more for both
the economy and the environment in dry years. We have long tried to run
this water system with inadequate storage and the problem reveals
itself every time it stops raining. We need to stop fooling ourselves
that we can be the 7th largest economy in the world without a world
class water system that is up to today's challenges.
The Municipal Water District of Orange County supports both Mr.
Valadao's H.R. 2898 and Senator Feinstein's S. 2533 in hopes that a
FORMAL conference committee will be convened so an equitable solution
to the benefit of all Californian's can be reached.
This concludes my statement and will be happy to respond to any
questions.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Fleming. Thank you.
Now Mr. Bettner, I recognize you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THADDEUS BETTNER, GENERAL MANAGER, GLENN-COLUSA
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, WILLOWS, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Bettner. Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
present my testimony today, as well as the written testimony
for your record. My name is Thaddeus Bettner. I am the General
Manager of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, the largest
district in Northern California.
The multi-year drought has significantly reduced natural
inflows to reservoirs, including Lake Shasta, significantly
affecting our water supplies, as well as the Central Valley
Project. The drought has also complicated the management of the
system to benefit species like the winter-run Chinook salmon.
These pressures will continue to mount in dry years, and even
in normal years.
For the 2016 water year, fishery agencies have already
expressed concern that winter-run salmon losses in 2014 and
2015 have put the species at risk of extinction and, therefore,
will necessitate even greater protection. As Member Huffman
reported, only 5 percent of the winter-run Chinook salmon
supposedly spawned in 2014, and only 3 percent are expected to
this past year, in 2015.
Unfortunately, this factoid has now become the bumper
sticker of the current state of winter-run salmon, without much
critical evaluation of underlying data or science. The problem
we have is that the monitoring data are faulty during high-flow
events, which we experienced in 2014 and 2015, particularly in
December and January of those years. The modeling further shows
that winter-run actually should have survived, but that
modeling, which has been used for years, has now been rejected.
Improvements must be made in the monitoring locations and
calculations to more accurately estimate fish survival rates,
particularly if those estimates are used to impact the Central
Valley Project, as well as our water supplies.
For the past 2 years, our district, as well as other
districts, which we refer to as the settlement contractors,
have voluntarily reduced our diversions in April/May in order
to better align our diversions with the needs of winter-run.
And we have also diverted far less than what our contract
provided for in those years. We have also worked cooperatively
with our neighbors and entities south of the Delta to try to do
voluntary water transfers as a method to balance water in the
state.
However, in 2016, the perceived poor 2014 and 2015 winter-
run Chinook survival rates discussed earlier are leading the
fishery agencies to make extremely proactive and protective
decisions on the operations of the Central Valley Project (CVP)
that will affect releases to the project, as well as our water
supplies.
To date, the fishery agencies have focused solely on
temperature management as a key factor, yet other factors that
likely have a larger impact on salmon, from physical habitat
improvements to predation, are not being considered or
implemented.
For 2016, the settlement contractors are working closely
with Reclamation--and, hopefully, David Murillo will report on
that--on our diversions to maximize the efficient operation of
the Central Valley Project and our supplies, as well.
Additionally, we are trying to work to meet more flows to
the Delta to help with Delta operations and exports for our
partners south of the Delta.
While that is of a critical nature, I do want to report
some good news. We have been working very closely with our
settlement contractors, Reclamation, and the Golden Gate Salmon
Association (GGSA), on developing voluntary restoration
projects in the Sacramento Valley. In addition to the $600
million that have been invested in the Sacramento Valley on our
diversion structures and fish screens, we are also implementing
voluntary restoration projects.
In my written testimony, I reported on four such projects
that we are currently working on. We have completed two so far.
One was a gravel restoration project for side stream channels
last year, again, as partners with Reclamation and GGSA.
Another settlement contractor completed a structure called
Knights Landing Outfall Gates, which will prevent the strain of
salmon historic drainage channels, therefore increasing the
number of salmon moving upstream to spawn.
Currently, we are working on another gravel restoration
project in the Sacramento River, putting about 8,500 cubic
yards of gravel into the river to assist with winter-run and
other salmon spawning activities. And last, there is
significant work currently occurring in the Yolo Bypass in
order to prevent stranding there.
As Congressman LaMalfa reported, we are also working on
Sites Reservoir, which we believe is another vital piece of
infrastructure in the Sacramento Valley, which will improve the
operations of the Central Valley Project, provide cold water
for fishery when needed, and also provide additional winter
water supplies available to other contractors.
In terms of recommendations, I have included five. As I
reported earlier: (1) better monitoring needs to be done on
winter-run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento Valley,
particularly to address high-flow scenarios; (2) funding and
permitting--we need expedited permitting to get our projects
done. As I reported, four projects, where it took an enormous
amount of time and cost in order to complete these projects;
(3) predation and other factors impacting survival--needs to be
addressed; (4) improved habitat; and (5) I addressed storage.
I thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bettner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thaddeus Bettner, PE, General Manager, Glenn-
Colusa Irrigation District
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman and members of the
subcommittee, I am Thaddeus Bettner, the General Manager of the Glenn-
Colusa Irrigation District (GCID), the largest irrigation district in
the Sacramento Valley. Thank you for the opportunity to provide GCID's
perspective on the issue of how the Federal Government can help address
the challenge of this coming 2016 water supply limitations and impacts
of a multi-year drought in California.
GCID covers approximately 175,000 acres in Glenn and Colusa
Counties, and is located about 80 miles north of Sacramento. Our
district contains a diverse working landscape including a variety of
crops such as rice, tomatoes, almonds, walnuts, orchards, vine seeds,
cotton, alfalfa, and irrigated pasture. Just as important, we convey
water to three Federal wildlife refuges totaling more than 20,000
acres, private wetland and habitat lands of approximately 1,500 acres,
and in the fall and winter deliver water to more than 50,000 acres of
seasonally flooded irrigated lands that also serve as surrogate
wetlands for the Pacific Flyway. GCID is a Sacramento River Settlement
Contractor and diverts water directly from the Sacramento River through
the largest flat plate fish screen in the world. GCID's Settlement
Contract was first entered into in 1964 and it resolved disputes with
the United States related to the seniority of GCID's rights over those
of the United States and, in fact, allowed the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) to obtain water rights from the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for the Central Valley Project (CVP).
GCID's water rights originated with a filing in 1883 for 500,000
miner's inches under 4 inches of pressure, one of the earliest and
largest water rights on the Sacramento River.
Other water right holders on the Sacramento River also entered into
Settlement contracts with Reclamation. The Sacramento River Settlement
Contractors (SRSC), covering approximately 480,000 acres, are various
irrigation districts, reclamation districts, mutual water companies,
partnerships, corporations, and individuals situated in the Sacramento
Valley, and formed under the provisions of California law. Among
Reclamation's hundreds of CVP water supply contracts, the SRSC have a
unique history and nature. The SRSC divert water from the Sacramento
River, miles upstream from the Bay-Delta and the boundaries of the
Delta habitat, under water rights that were vested under California law
well before the construction of the CVP began. The SRSC own and operate
their own diversion facilities, and their water rights are not
dependent in any way upon the operations or facilities of the CVP. The
SRSC every year manage water for various beneficial purposes in the
Sacramento Valley, including farms, birds and the Pacific Flyway,
cities and rural communities and fisheries. This requires creative
management and trade-offs by water resources managers.
Notwithstanding the seniority of our water rights on the Sacramento
River, the multi-year drought has significantly reduced natural inflow
into reservoirs, including Lake Shasta, putting extreme pressure on our
water supply and the CVP. The drought has also greatly complicated the
management of the system to benefit endangered species, like winter-run
Chinook salmon. These pressures will continue to mount in dry years and
likely exist even in normal water years.
In this context, I want to focus on the following issues:
1. How winter-run salmon fishery monitoring limitations are
affecting CVP operations;
2. A summary of CVP operations in 2014/2015 and the plan for 2016;
3. SRSC initiatives and experience in actions and restoration
projects to benefit salmon; and,
4. Recommendations on how the Federal Government can help address
the fishery-related water supply challenges of 2016 and
beyond.
winter-run salmon fishery monitoring limitations are affecting cvp
reservoir operations
For the 2016 water year, fishery agencies have already expressed
concern that winter-run salmon losses in 2014 and 2015 have put this
species at the risk of extinction and, therefore, will necessitate even
greater protection. As stated in the National Oceanic, and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Species in the Spotlight \1\ document,
``California's current drought began in 2012, and winter-run Chinook
salmon are experiencing the consequences of low water storage and a
limited volume of cold water in Shasta Reservoir. Monitoring data
indicated that approximately 5.6 percent of winter-run Chinook salmon
eggs spawned in the Sacramento River in 2014 survived to the fry life
stage.'' For 2015, the fishery agencies are predicting only a 3 percent
survival, again based on monitoring data only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species in the Spotlight, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/
2016/02/docs/sacramento_winter_
run_chinook_salmon_spotlight_species_5_year_action_plan_final_web.pdf.
Unfortunately, this factoid has now become the ``bumper sticker''
of the current state of winter-run salmon, without much critical
evaluation of the underlying data or science. The following discussion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
will focus on two main points:
The estimated survival rates are based on interpreted fish
trap monitoring data not temperature modeling; and
Late-fall run salmon estimated survival comparison.
Fish Monitoring versus Temperature Modeling
The estimated high mortality of 95 percent for winter-run eggs in
2014 and the estimated 97 percent mortality for 2015 were not based on
modeling of thermal impacts on eggs, but instead were based on
comparing the estimated total numbers of eggs laid in the river gravels
in upstream spawning areas near Keswick Dam to the numbers of fish
captured 50 river miles downstream at Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD),
see Figure 1. The Species in the Spotlight document states, ``The
extremely limited production in 2014 is hypothesized [emphasis added]
to be the result of warm water temperatures that caused egg and newly
hatched fry mortality and low flows that led to increased predation.''
In fact, however, detailed analyses of water temperature effects on
incubating winter-run Chinook eggs, using three independent models,
revealed that some mortality did occur but was far less than
hypothesized. Depending on the model, egg mortality from time of
deposition to fry emergence from the river gravels, based solely on
water temperatures, ranged only from 9 percent to 19 percent in 2014
and 2 percent to 18 percent in 2015. So, why the difference?
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fig. 1. The upper Sacramento River between Keswick Dam (River Mile
302) and Red Bluff Diversion Dam (River Mile 243)
These widely divergent egg mortality estimates are likely due to
the manner in which the fishery agencies interpolate the downstream
fish monitoring data. In this regard, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) operates three to four 8-foot diameter rotary screw
traps at Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD) that filter a small percentage
of the Sacramento River flow, see Figure 2. The number of fish caught
in the traps is then extrapolated to determine the total number of fish
that would have passed in the river. While the traps function well
during stable flows, the fish traps cannot operate during high-flow and
turbid events due to debris and safety issues. GCID has its own fish
trap at its screened diversion facility, and during very high flow
events we also have to stop operating our trap due to safety and debris
issues. Unfortunately, however, these events are when large numbers of
juvenile winter-run Chinook would be expected to migrate downstream,
particularly under hydrologic conditions present in 2014 and 2015.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fig. 2. Location of Rotary Screw Traps at Red Bluff Diversion Dam
This circumstance is problematic because large numbers of young
winter-run salmon display a pattern of holding and rearing in upstream
areas during summer and fall low-flow conditions then exhibit a large-
scale, episodic out-migration when the first seasonal storms cause
increased flows and turbidity. During 2014, when large numbers of
winter-run salmon would be expected to migrate downstream during
increased flows, the RBDD fish traps were not in operation much of the
time and, undoubtedly, many fish passed RBDD undetected. To account for
these data gaps, the USFWS estimates the numbers of fish not sampled
(when traps are not in operation) by interpolating numbers of fish
captured prior to and after unsampled time periods. This interpolation
method to estimate the numbers of salmon migrating past RBDD during
unsampled days is probably satisfactory if riverine conditions (e.g.,
flow and turbidity) are relatively stable, the period of consecutive
unsampled days is short, and expansion factors are appropriate.
However, in December 2014, the upper Sacramento River experienced
major storms and runoff leading to 24 unsampled days and just 7 sampled
days (see Figure 3, which shows the daily flows (cfs) and turbidity
(NTUs) measured at the Bend Bridge gauge upstream from RBDD during the
periods when no fish sampling occurred at RBDD). The present
interpolation method is likely to bias the estimates too low, possibly
extremely low, because of large-scale salmon out-migration occurring
during high, turbid flows. As a consequence, the overall estimates of
fish survival were likely underestimated (or mortality overestimated).
Additionally, factors used to expand the actual numbers of fish
captured in the fish traps at RBDD to estimate total daily numbers of
fish passing the dam possess questionable reliability and accuracy to
compare annual fish survival estimates.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fig. 3. Daily flows (cfs) and turbidity (NTUs) measured at the Bend
Bridge gauge upstream from RBDD during December 2014 and the periods
when no fish sampling occurred at RBDD (which is used to estimate
juvenile salmon production)
Late-Fall Run 3 Percent Survival Example
The problem with the use of the existing RBDD fish trapping data to
estimate fish survival is evident by comparing annual survival
estimates for late-fall-run Chinook salmon with winter-run Chinook
salmon. An examination of past estimates for late-fall-run Chinook
survival revealed the 11-year average of survival from 2002 through
2012 was just 3 percent (lower than the purported winter-run survival
in 2014 and 2015), see Table 1. If late-fall-run Chinook experienced
such a consistent extremely high level of mortality in the earliest
life stages solely in the reach upstream of RBDD for 11 consecutive
years, it is doubtful the run would have persisted. Or conversely,
since 3 percent survival is adequate for the existence of the late-fall
run species, the concern of extinction for winter-run is unfounded.
Further examination of the data, however, shows biologically
implausible results. For example, the late-fall-run egg-to-fry survival
in 2004 was only 1.2 percent (or 98.8 percent mortality), yet 3 years
later when most of that brood year would be expected to return and
spawn, the numbers of adults increased enormously to 13,939 fish (Table
1). This indicates that the population survival cannot be this low and,
as such, the monitoring data must not be providing an accurate enough
escapement number at RBDD, which is the same issue on the low
survivability of winter-run in 2014 and 2015. Improvements must be made
in the monitoring locations and calculations to more accurately
estimate fish survival rates, particularly if those estimates continue
to impact how the CVP is operated to meet all project purposes.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Table 1. Annual estimates of late-fall-run and winter-run Chinook
adult salmon upstream of RBDD and corresponding egg-to-fry survival
estimates (data obtained from Poytress et al. 2014)
summary of operations in 2014/2015 and plan for 2016
2014 Summary
In 2014 and 2015, the SRSC and Reclamation continued coordination
efforts related to diversions, water transfers, and general CVP
operations through regular conference calls and meetings. As part of
the water made available under the Settlement Contracts by Reclamation,
the SRSC voluntarily committed to shift their diversion pattern to
better align with the timing of releases for fishery needs. By
voluntarily delaying SRSC diversions in April and May, Reclamation was
able to conserve additional storage in Shasta Reservoir to benefit the
cold water pool and the Upper Sacramento River temperature control
operation for fishery needs. In addition to the meetings with
Reclamation, the SRSC met with members of the SWRCB, Division of Water
Rights staff, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the Department of
Water Resources (DWR), and other CVP contractors to discuss operations,
including the technical details of Reclamation's forecasting modeling
and Sacramento River temperature planning.
In 2014, the unprecedented effort undertaken by the SRSC to
voluntarily reduce and minimize diversions in April and May, and the
subsequent benefits to Shasta Reservoir levels and operations received
from this effort, were substantial. The efforts by the SRSC
coordination group shifted more than 125,000 acre-feet (AF) of
diversions out of April and May, again, to benefit the fisheries by
expanding the Shasta cold water pool and Upper Sacramento River
temperature control operations. By delaying planting, this shifted the
highest crop demand for water to later in the season to align with
fishery releases. Our landowners were concerned about the delay in
planting due to postponing harvest and the increased potential for
precipitation causing complications, increased costs, and reduced crop
yields. Nevertheless, throughout the period April through October, the
SRSC were able to limit diversions to less than the scheduled
diversions coordinated with Reclamation, except for October. In
October, it was recognized that the remaining water supply was
available to decompose rice straw while at the same time providing a
valuable food source for migratory birds and the Pacific Flyway.
Related to the Settlement Contract provisions, 2014 was classified
as a Critical Water Year for the Sacramento Valley, and the SRSC
received a 75 percent Contract Supply. In addition to this 25 percent
reduction in Contract Supply, the SRSC through careful management and
coordination, diverted approximately 82 percent of their reduced 75
percent Contract Supply (or 61 percent of a full 100 percent Contract
Supply) for agricultural purposes and to incidentally benefit wildlife
habitat during the period April through October. Through these
voluntary actions by the SRSC, the CVP was able to operate more
efficiently and allowed for better management for the winter-run
salmon.
The SRSC also agreed to transfer approximately 113,400 AF to areas
in need of water supplies. After accounting for losses and considering
demands, approximately 35,500 AF was delivered to CVP water contractors
in the Sacramento Valley on a similar pattern to which it was made
available. Transfer water is typically conveyed through the Delta from
July through September. However, this was not possible due to the
restrictive operations required to address worsening drought conditions
and cold-water pool management at Shasta Reservoir. Therefore,
Reclamation entered into consultation with USFWS and NMFS, to propose
modifications describing the drought response measures and requested
extension of the period transfer water may be pumped at Jones Pumping
Plant, allowing for delivery to the CVP water service contractors
south-of-Delta. Reclamation received concurrence from the USFWS and
NMFS, and water was transferred at a time that allowed for stabilizing
river flows to help with fall-run salmon spawning and preventing red
de-watering on the Sacramento River.
2015 Summary
In the spring of 2015, the SRSC again worked closely with
Reclamation to voluntarily shift diversion patterns to better align
with the timing of releases from Shasta and Keswick Reservoirs for
fishery needs. Reclamation requested the total diverted quantity in
April and May be similar to the total April and May quantity diverted
during 2014, but be more evenly distributed between the 2 months. An
increase of 10 percent above the total April and May quantities was
believed to be needed due the even drier spring months experienced in
2015 compared to 2014. The SRSC developed estimated schedules to meet
this goal to delay and minimize diversions for planting until later.
The SRSC provided daily diversion schedules to Reclamation on a regular
basis and held weekly coordination calls with Reclamation to closely
monitor Keswick releases, Sacramento River flows (particularly at
Wilkins Slough), and diversions, making adjustments as necessary.
In addition to the meetings with Reclamation, the SRSC met with
members of the SWRCB, the NMFS, DWR, and CDWFW to develop an even more
stringent plan for 2015.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Joint Agency Press Release on ``Drought Conditions Force
Difficult Management Decisions for Sacramento River Temperatures'',
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/press_room/press_releases/2015/
pr061615_shasta.pdf.
Due to the SRSC voluntarily delaying diversions from April and May,
Reclamation was able to hold more water in Shasta Reservoir to benefit
the cold-water pool and temperature management on the Upper Sacramento
River. As in 2014, due to the effort voluntarily undertaken by the SRSC
to reduce and minimize diversions in April and May, Reclamation allowed
the rescheduling of water not diverted in April and May into later
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
months including July, August, and September.
As in 2014, 2015 was classified as a Critical Water Year, and the
SRSC received a 75 percent Contract Supply. In addition to this 25
percent reduction in Contract Supply, the SRSC coordinated the timing
and reduction of diversions throughout the period of April through
October. In total, the group diverted approximately 78 percent of their
reduced 75 percent Contract Supply (or 58 percent of a full 100 percent
Contract Supply) for agricultural purposes and to concurrently benefit
wildlife habitat during the April through October period, and extending
through December 10, 2015. Figure 4 shows the SRSC contract diversion
rate, estimated/scheduled diversions, and actual diversions on a daily
basis from April 1 through December 2015.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fig. 4. Sacramento River Settlement Contractor Diversion Schedule
Additionally, at the request of Reclamation and the SWRCB, the SRSC
agreed to pursue water transfers to areas of critical need through crop
idling/shifting and groundwater substitution to further reduce spring
diversions to maximize and preserve cold water in Shasta Reservoir. As
a result, the SRSC transferred a total of approximately 207,000 AF to
areas in need of water supplies, including the San Luis & Delta-Mendota
Water Authority, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, and the
Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority. Additionally, with limited diversion
capacity from the Sacramento River in the summer to protect winter-run
salmon, the SRSC also voluntary pumped groundwater to meet local
demands. Later in the year, the SRSC again voluntarily deferred
diversions to help Reclamation manage cold water and transferred water
in Lake Shasta, while providing water for approximately 50,000 acres of
critical bird habitat during the fall before the rains started.
2016 CVP Upstream Operations
According to Maria Rea, Assistant Regional Administrator of the
NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region, ``With the loss of two out of three
cohorts of endangered wild winter-run, it is also critical that we
develop cold water pool resources this winter and spring to support
temperature management needed later in the year for this third wild
winter-run year class.'' \3\ The focus on perceived poor 2014 and 2015
survival rates is leading the fishery agencies to make extremely
protective decisions on the operations of the entire CVP project,
including releases from Shasta Reservoir, diversions by SRSC, flows in
the Delta, and water available for export to south of Delta CVP
contractors. To date, the agencies have solely focused on temperature
management as the key factor, yet other factors that likely have a
larger impact on salmon, from physical habitat improvements to
predation, are not being considered or implemented. As an example, the
Salmon in the Spotlight document states, ``In addition to the drought,
another important threat to winter-run Chinook salmon is a lack of
suitable rearing habitat in the Sacramento River and Delta to allow for
sufficient juvenile growth and survival.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Letter from Maria Rea, NMFS to Ron Milligan, USBR. http://
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/Central_Valley/
Water%20Operations/winter-run_ juvenile_production_estimate_jpe_-
_january_28_2016.pdf.
For 2016, the SRSC are coordinating with Reclamation on diversions
in order to maximize the efficient operation of the CVP while also
protecting winter-run salmon. However, we are concerned that excess
protections being requested by the fishery agencies could result in
limited diversions in the spring, which will lead to mass fallowing of
land within the SRSC service area. While not a drought impact, these
actions by the Federal agencies will cause significant harm to this
region, the local economies, and affect other species like the giant
garter snake and the Pacific Flyway. Additionally, this will result in
decreased flows to the Delta impacting operations of the other CVP
assets, and minimizing exports since most of the remaining flow will be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta outflow or meet Delta consumption.
initiatives and experience in actions and restoration projects to
benefit salmon
Working with our biologist, Dave Vogel, the SRSC and the Northern
California Water Association (NCWA), with participation by several
environmental groups, have developed a Salmon Recovery Program \4\ for
the Sacramento Valley. There has been tremendous progress on projects
that have had a positive impact on salmon, yet more work is ahead. The
Program focuses on fish passage improvements, remanaging flows, and
habitat improvements. These priorities were originally developed as
part of Dave Vogel's 2011 comprehensive report, Insights into the
Problems, Progress and Potential Solutions for Sacramento River Basin
Native Anadromous Fish Restoration.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Sacramento Valley Salmon Recovery Program, http://
www.norcalwater.org/wp-content/uploads/Salmon.version.FINAL-
6.17.15.pdf.
\5\ Vogel Report, http://www.norcalwater.org/wp-content/uploads/
2011/07/vogel-final-report-apr2011.pdf.
Unfortunately, we have seen few projects completed by the fishery
agencies in the Upper Sacramento River that benefit winter-run salmon.
The SRSC have completed fish screens on all larger diversions along the
Sacramento River at a cost of nearly $600 million, which according to
some, should have restored the winter-run salmon populations. In
absence of projects being completed (or even initiated) by the fishery
agencies, the SRSC have begun implementing the Salmon Action Plan,
including funding the projects wholly or in part, securing all the
necessary permits, and completing the restoration activities on our
own. The SRSC have completed two projects and two new projects are
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
currently underway, including the following:
Painters Riffle--completed;
Knights Landing Outfall Gates--completed;
Market Street Spawning Habitat--under construction; and
Wallace Weir Rescue Facility (Yolo Bypass)--planned for
construction in July 2016
Painters Riffle
A unique partnership of GCID, Reclamation, Golden Gate Salmon
Association, NCWA, CDFW, and the city of Redding developed and designed
the Painter's Riffle restoration project, see Figure 5. With
Reclamation staff's technical assistance and support from the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), GCID used its own staff and
assets to obtain final permits and construct the proposed Painter's
Riffle Project in December of 2014. Once the permits and agreements
were received from numerous agencies including CDFW, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (in consultation with NMFS and USFWS), Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Flood Protection
Board, California State Lands Commission, and the city of Redding, GCID
staff spent over 500 hours preparing and moving approximately 8,000
cubic yards of gravel to re-establish the spawning habitat in the side
channel. The cost of the project, including obtaining the permits,
actual construction and completion tasks was approximately $300,000.
Salmon are now spawning in this restored side channel.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fig. 5. 2015 Diversions Painters Riffle Restoration Project
completed by GCID. Video can be seen at http://www.gcid.net/#!painters-
riffle-project/qs7o8
Knights Landing Outfall Gates
In 2015, Reclamation District 108 (RD 108) constructed a fish
barrier at the Knights Landing Outfall Gates (KLOG) to prevent adult
salmon from entering the Colusa Basin Drain (CBD) through the KLOG, see
Figure 6. Before the barrier was constructed, adult salmon were able to
enter the CBD through the KLOG when certain flow velocities were met
that attracted migrating salmon. Once salmon enter the CBD, there is no
upstream route for salmon to return to the Sacramento River and, absent
fish rescue operations, the fish perish and are lost from production.
To address this, RD 108 constructed a positive fish barrier with new
concrete wing walls and metal picket weirs on the downstream side of
the existing KLOG in the CBD, and placed a small amount of riprap on
the right bank of the CBD immediately downstream of the KLOG to address
levee erosion. Construction began in the latter part of August and was
completed in November 2015. The total cost of the project was $2.454
million. Funding for the project was provided by Reclamation ($1.45M),
DWR ($300,000), CDFW ($304,000), and the SRSC ($400,000).
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fig. 6. Knights Landing Outfall Gates (KLOG)
Market Street Spawning Habitat
Reclamation, in partnership with GCID, Western Shasta Resource
Conservation District, DWR, and CDFW are currently placing salmonid
spawning gravel in the Sacramento River, immediately below the Anderson
Cottonwood Irrigation District Diversion Dam and Market Street Bridge,
in Redding, see Figure 7. From February 15 through March 18, 2016, GCID
will be placing approximately 8,500 cubic yards of gravel into the
river to help improve spawning habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead
trout. The project is a continuing effort to help meet requirements of
the CVPIA to restore and replenish spawning gravel and rearing habitat
for salmonid species. Environmental documentation was recently
completed for the project.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/
nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=23758.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fig. 7. Market Street Gravel Placement Project for Salmon Spawning
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat
Wallace Weir Rescue Facility
Under certain flow regimes, adult salmon migrating upriver are
attracted to enter the CBD from the Yolo Bypass through the Knights
Landing Ridge Cut (Ridge Cut), see Figure 8. Once salmon enter the CBD,
there are no upstream routes to return to the Sacramento River and
absent fish rescue operations, the fish perish and are lost from
production. Each year at the confluence of the Yolo Bypass and the
Ridge Cut, a temporary 450-foot long earthen berm, known as the Wallace
Weir, is installed to create an irrigation backwater. This temporary
berm blocks fish passage until it is compromised by flood flows each
year. Once the weir is compromised, fish have free passage into the CBD
via the Ridge Cut.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fig. 8. Yolo Bypass Ridge Cut Project
This project proposes to replace the temporary berm with a
permanent earthen weir that will be hardened to withstand winter
floods. A fish rescue facility will be incorporated into the weir so
fish that arrive at the Wallace Weir via the Yolo Bypass can be safely
and effectively rescued and returned to the Sacramento River to resume
their migration to upriver spawning grounds. An inflatable dam and
positive fish barrier will also be incorporated into the new weir
structure to better control water releases and fish attraction flows
through the weir while blocking fish passage. The Wallace Weir Fish
Rescue Facility will complement the Knights Landing Outfall Gate (KLOG)
Fish Barrier Project completed in 2015 by RD 108.
Given RD 108's success in expediting implementation of the KLOG
Fish Barrier project, DWR has requested that RD 108 take the lead in
implementing the Wallace Weir Fish Rescue Facility on DWR's behalf.
This project serves as a fish passage improvement action that will
impede salmon entry into the CBD while also providing for safe and
effective fish rescue. The project is one of several being pursued by
DWR and others to be consistent with the NMFS's 2009 Operations
Biological Opinion, Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Action, I.7. In
addition to improving fish passage, the project will also be designed
to maintain appropriate irrigation water surface elevations without
impeding outflows during flood season. The weir, inflatable dam and
fish barrier will be owned and operated by DWR with a construction cost
of approximately $8,560,000.
water storage
Finally, to help address the longer term water supply needs of our
region and the state as a whole, we need new Federal assistance tools
to help local agencies better manage and develop new water supplies
critical to a more drought resilient economy.
Sites Reservoir, for example, is foundational to the long-term
economic health of our region and the state. Sites will bring 1.8
million AF of new water storage to California. The Sites Project
represents the kind of new, smart storage that our state needs, one
that will not only create additional supplies behind the dam itself,
but will allow significant additional water to be stored in other
upstream reservoirs (Trinity, Shasta, Oroville and Folsom) due to
coordinated operations and integration efficiencies. In a year like
2015, if Sites were in place, it is estimated there would have been an
extra 400,000 AF of water in storage north of the Delta to meet the
water needs of agriculture and our cities, as well help meet the
Central Valley Project obligations for environmental water for fish and
waterfowl. For 2016, DWR has estimated that an additional 346,000 AF of
water could have been diverted during the storms through February 9.
GCID, SRSC, and NCWA strongly support the work of Rep. LaMalfa,
working with Congressman Garamendi and others, through the introduction
of H.R. 1060 and their work on other bills to advance the Sites
Project. We support the work of this committee to seek new ways to
streamline the environmental review process for new water supply
infrastructure investments, such as the Sites Project, including the
water infrastructure environmental review streamlining provisions
included in H.R. 2898, sponsored by Rep. Valadao. While delays in the
water supply project environmental review and permitting process are
due, in part, to the complexities associated with multiple state and
Federal agencies being involved in the project, other delays are
attributable to shifting environmental requirements.
H.R. 2898 seeks to address many of these challenges by establishing
a lead agency to coordinate all Federal environmental reviews related
to a surface water storage project and directing that a schedule be
established and strictly adhered to by Reclamation for the completion
of all environmental review processes. And, we appreciate that the
environmental streamlining process proposed in H.R. 2898 includes
projects, like the Sites Project, which are being developed by non-
Federal entities in cooperation with Reclamation and other Federal
agencies on non-Federal lands.
In addition, we encourage the committee to give favorable
consideration to proposals like those included in S. 2533, introduced
by Senator Dianne Feinstein, and other bills that seek to authorize new
funding and financing opportunities to support non-Federal investments
in needed water supply projects, like the Sites Project. Specifically,
we strongly support language authorizing the Reclamation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (RIFIA), which would provide local agencies
with access to low-cost, long-term financing for much needed water
infrastructure investments. If a RIFIA loan program were in place
today, the program would provide water project sponsors with access to
loans with a repayment period of up to 35 years at a rate of
approximately 2.9 percent. For the Sites Project, this would drive down
the cost of water by approximately $131 an acre-foot, dropping the cost
from a projected $571 dollars an acre-foot to $440 an acre-foot, an
overall 23 percent reduction in the cost of water from the project.
recommendations
The perceived lack of survival of winter-run Chinook salmon in 2014
and 2105 has impacted every aspect of California's water system and
caused friction in decisions made by Federal, state, and local
agencies. More must be done to better understand the state of winter-
run salmon, and ensure that the best available science is being
utilized to determine what projects and actions should be taken to
ensure the survival of winter-run in the managed system in which we
operate. The following recommendations are actions that can be taken
immediately:
1. Monitoring. If the RBDD fish sampling program will continue to be
used to estimate fish survival, an improved method is
necessary to account for fish passage during unsampled
periods when flow and turbidity are high. Alternatively, an
additional fish sampling site farther upstream where
channel and riverine conditions are more stable would
provide more-accurate estimates of fish survival, and would
be more effective in monitoring annual winter-run survival
and the effectiveness of salmon habitat restoration
projects in the upper river.
2. Funding and Permitting. As stated previously, little if any
salmon habitat restoration projects have been done by
fishery agencies on the upper Sacramento River. The
agencies need to prioritize funding and expedite permitting
for local, state, and Federal efforts on the river.
3. Predation and Other Factors Impacting Survival. The agencies need
to look at all factors that affect winter-run salmon like
predation, lack of spawning habitat, lack of rearing
habitat, timing of flows, etc. and not focus on temperature
alone.
4. Habitat. The monitoring of physical habitats utilized by winter-
run Chinook should be an important component of future
monitoring programs. Additionally, there needs to be a
concerted effort to improve rearing habitat quality for
young winter-run Chinook salmon, which appears to be of
poor quality and severely deficient.
5. Storage. The evaluation and construction of new water storage
that can provide additional cold water benefits during
normal and drought years needs to be expedited.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, sir. Next, Mr. Pool.
Five minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD POOL, PRESIDENT AND OWNER, PRO-TROLL
FISHING PRODUCTS, CONCORD, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Pool. Thank you, Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member
Huffman, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Richard
Pool, and I am here today representing the salmon industry of
California. This includes the commercial industry, the
recreational industry, the charter boat industry, wholesalers,
retailers, and all of the related businesses and communities
that serve and derive their incomes from the salmon resources
of California. My written testimony provides more on my
background, but I have been heavily involved in salmon issues
for 35 years.
The subject of this hearing is the impact of 3 years of
drought on the water supply. I will address these issues as
they relate to the salmon of the Central Valley. When the
Central Valley runs are healthy, they support 20,000 jobs in
California with an economic contribution of $1.4 billion. These
same fish also support about half of those numbers in the state
of Oregon.
Salmon runs are the backbone of the salmon industry. They
support the coastal communities all the way from Morro Bay in
California to Cape Falcon in northern Oregon. California fish
also contribute to the Washington State fisheries. When the
salmon industry suffers, these communities also suffer.
[Chart]
Mr. Pool. I have put up a chart that shows the returns of
the fall-run fish that have returned to the Central Valley to
spawn between 1991 and 2014. The fall-run fish is the run that
we fish on in the fishing industry. As you can see, in 1991 the
run was very, very low. All the runs were low that year. We had
just finished a drought.
The up-sloping line shows what happened after the winter-
run was listed. The Federal Government spent $1 billion in the
right kind of fixes in the Sacramento River and all the runs
responded. By 2002, over 700,000 fall-run fish returned to the
Central Valley to spawn. On top of that, another 700,000 were
harvested. Therefore, in 2002 we had 1.4 million fish in the
ocean.
You then see the crash between 2002 and 2007. In 2004,
pumping restrictions in the Delta were lifted, and when the
pumping went up, the salmon runs went down. Then, in 2005 and
2006, the ocean conditions went very severely poor, and the
survival, again, was very low.
By 2007, conditions were so bad the entire salmon industry
was shut down for 2 years. It was devastating. Boats were
scrapped, houses were foreclosed, nearly 100 salmon retailers,
boat dealers, and others were forced to shut down.
Starting in 2009, things got better. The new Delta
biological opinions were put in place, and the winters of 2010
and 2011 were very wet. We had a bump in 2013, and that is the
bump up.
The drought started in 2012. A high percentage of the 2012
juvenile fish were destroyed by the drought. What happens when
we lose the juvenile fish in the upper river and they do not
get into the ocean, we are hurting bad.
There is a 3-year cycle between when the small fish go out
to the ocean and the adults come back. We just recently got a
report card. The number of returns recently were announced. We
have some meetings next year to get the details. The report
card on 2012 returns were an all-time 15-year low. They were 70
percent below the average for the last 15 years.
The number of fish landed by the fishing industry was also
down. The fishermen are now in a desperate financial condition,
particularly since the crab season also closed. Most of the
commercial fishermen in 2015 were unable to make enough money
to pay their bills.
The drought years of 2013-2015 were even worse. Mr. Bettner
reported that only 5 percent of the fish from the upper river
survived in 2013, 2014, and 2015. To put that in perspective,
when only 5 percent survive in the upper river, it takes 35
percent getting outside of the Golden Gate to have a
sustainable salmon run.
So, we are in the process in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018--I
think we are facing devastation in the salmon fishery. If you
do not get them out of the upper river and into the ocean, 3
years later you will not recount it. I don't think that the
magnitude of what we are facing in the industry is understood
by hardly anyone, and I believe it is important for this
committee at least to understand this.
There are things that can be done, and they are currently
not underway. Mr. Bettner mentioned a few things. We have a
host of projects we have been promoting. Most of them do not
take more water. Habitat improvements for the salmon----
Dr. Fleming. Mr. Pool, I am sorry, but time is up.
Mr. Pool. Let me conclude.
Dr. Fleming. Sir, I am sorry.
Mr. Pool. All right.
Dr. Fleming. Everything, I promise you, will be in the
written record.
Mr. Pool. I think you got my message. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pool follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Pool, Representative of the California
Salmon Industry
introduction
Good morning, Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and members
of the subcommittee. My name is Richard Pool and I am here today
representing the salmon industry of California. This includes the
commercial industry, the recreational industry, the charter boat
industry, wholesalers, retailers and all of the related businesses and
communities that serve and derive their livelihoods from the salmon
resources of California.
I am Secretary of the Golden Gate Salmon Association, President of
Water4Fish, and past board member of American Sportfishing Association.
I am also a member of the two primary California commercial salmon
organizations (Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and
Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen's Association) and I am a member
of the San Francisco based charter fleet association (Golden Gate
Fisherman's Association). I have served on numerous state and Federal
salmon advisory committees for over 35 years. I am a resident of
Lafayette, California and my business is Pro-Troll Fishing Products, a
manufacturer of salmon fishing equipment. We manufacture approximately
800 types of salmon lures, attractors and electronic devices for
catching salmon. We sell all over the world but mainly in North
America.
The subject of this hearing is the impact of 3 years of drought on
the water supply. I will address these issues as they relate to the
salmon of the Central Valley. In addition, I will discuss the impact
the drought has had on the salmon and the impact it has had on those
who derive their livelihoods from the harvest of salmon. Then, I would
like to share with the committee some solutions to these serious
problems and ask for your help.
impacts of drought on salmon runs and the industry
When Central Valley salmon runs are healthy, they support over
20,000 jobs in the state with an economic contribution of $1.4 billion
(Southwick Associates, August 9, 2012). These same fish also support
about half of those same numbers in Oregon. Those salmon runs are the
backbone of salmon fishing and are a major economic contributor for
coastal communities all the way from Morro Bay California to Cape
Falcon in northern Oregon. California fish also contribute to the
Washington State salmon fleet. When the salmon industry suffers, these
communities also suffer. Both are currently suffering a lot.
The drought impact on these salmon has been devastating. Some of
the impact was unavoidable and some of it was man-made. Let me start
with a little history. The chart on the screen shows the history of the
returns of the fall-run salmon from the ocean to the freshwater from
1991 to 2014. There are four salmon runs in the Central Valley. The
fall-run has been the largest by a wide margin and it is the only one
that supports the commercial and recreational salmon industry. As you
can see, in 1991 and 1992 the run was nearly gone. At that point all
the runs were near total collapse. In 1992 only 191 winter-run fish
returned to spawn. At that point, the winter-run was petitioned for an
endangered species listing under the Endangered Species Act. It was
listed and a result, the Federal Government spent $1 billion on four
major recovery projects in the Sacramento River. It worked and all runs
including the fall-run shown here, benefited.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
You can see that by 2002, over 700,000 fall-run fish returned
to spawn (Source: CDFW Ocean Salmon Fisheries Report 2009). That was a
modern day record. On top of that, another 700,000 fall-run fish were
harvested by the commercial salmon industry. That totals 1.4 million
adult salmon that were in the ocean in 2002.
We then see the big slide in the returns between 2002 and 2007.
There were two primary causes of that slide. First, from 2000 to 2006
average exports from the Delta increased to 6 million acre-feet--a 20
percent increase over the previous decade. This was made possible by
the weakening of Federal protections for the Delta in 2004. The pumping
went up, particularly in the springtime at a crucial time when all
juvenile salmon migrate through the Delta. That impact took a heavy
toll.
The second reason for this dramatic drop was that in 2005 and 2006
the ocean conditions for salmon survival were very poor. Very low
numbers of fish came back. The result is what you see. By 2008 and 2009
the survival rate was so low that the entire salmon industry was shut
down for those 2 years. The human impact of that shutdown was tragic.
Fishing boats were scrapped because the owners could not pay the
mooring fees. Homes were repossessed and nearly 100 coastal retail and
service businesses failed. There were similar impacts on hotels,
restaurants and other supporting businesses that relied on the salmon
industry. My company lost money in those 2 years and also in the 2
following years until the runs recovered.
In 2009, the new biological restrictions on export pumping and
upriver flow changes took effect and we began to see a recovery. Those
changes, plus a very wet year in the winter of 2010 and the spring of
2011, allowed millions of additional juvenile salmon to avoid the
losses and get to the ocean. The result was evidenced 3 years later
when those fish matured and returned to freshwater in 2013.
We then come to the drought years of 2012 through 2018. The damage
done to the salmon in these years is unparalleled. The main problems
were lethal water temperatures, low river flows and extremely limited
habitat, including spawning and rearing areas and the dewatering of
redds (salmon egg nests) that were laid along the edges of the
Sacramento River. Salmon laid their eggs when the flows were high, but
when water flows were later cut, the redds were dried up causing high
mortality.
If the water temperature in the spawning streams is 56 degrees
Fahrenheit or lower, the salmon eggs are stressed but survive. But,
above 56 degrees the eggs begin to die and at 62 degrees 100 percent of
them die. Temperatures in 2014 and 2015 were over 62 degrees in almost
every tributary in the Central Valley. The egg loss was near 100
percent (Sources: USBR CVO Temperature and Flow Reports, USGS National
Water Information System Reports by Station).
The numbers of juvenile salmon migrating down the Sacramento River
system are counted by the fish agencies with rotary screw traps near
the city of Red Bluff. In 2014 the data showed that 95 percent or more
of the juveniles that should have hatched and migrated to Red Bluff
never showed up. This means survival was only 5 percent. The 2015
survival was worse yet. This represents a near complete loss of all
four runs of the wild spawning salmon. A sustainable salmon fishery
requires that in the order of 35 percent of the juveniles need to make
it to the Golden Gate and out into the ocean. That did not happen and
we have lost nearly 100 percent of all the wild spawning fish for 2
years running in all four of the Central Valley runs. That includes the
severely depressed populations of the endangered winter-run. The bottom
line of all of this is that in 2016, 2017 and in 2018, there will be an
unsustainable low number of adult fish in the ocean. This will create
another major disaster for the salmon industry.
Referring back to the chart, the yellow and black line near the
center is at the ocean abundance figure of 400,000 fish. This
represents the minimum number of adult salmon in the ocean that it
takes for the commercial salmon industry to pay their bills and to make
money. Normally they would harvest about half of these fish (200,000)
and the other half would return to the freshwater to spawn. You can see
that most of the recent years are well below that minimum. The 2015
commercial season is a good example. A high percentage of the
commercial fishermen did not catch enough fish in 2015 to pay for fuel
and other bills. For a good part of the season their boats remained
tied up at the docks. They are in a desperate financial condition
particularly since the crab season was also canceled. I am aware of
some who have already had to sell their boats to survive. Because of
the drought, the 2016, 2017 and 2018 results are destined to be even
worse than those of 2014 and 2015.
The California Legislature has registered deep concern about the
severe losses in the salmon populations. Senator Mike McGuire is
Chairman of the California Joint Committee on Fisheries and
Aquaculture. In a Sacramento committee hearing in early February, he
said, ``These are truly desperate times. Imagine losing 75 to 100
percent of your annual income, and trying to survive. I cannot say this
more bluntly. We are facing a fishery disaster in California and
families who have relied on the mighty Pacific for their livelihood are
on the brink.''
uniting salmon stakeholders around potential solutions
The salmon industry is obviously deeply concerned with this outlook
for the next 3 years. Our future has been put very much in doubt. We
have examined the issues carefully and worked hard to develop plans and
actions that can turn this situation around. In 2011 we pulled all the
key people in the industry together and created the Golden Gate Salmon
Association (GGSA) to work on recovery. We then created a salmon
rebuilding task force to develop strategies and actions that can
rebuild the runs. The three fish agencies, along with the Bureau of
Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources, joined us
in an advisory capacity.
GGSA now has 28 projects and a number of actions that the industry
feels are very necessary to begin the turn around. We have shared them
with some members of this committee and would hope you can support
them. The following are some of our concerns and proposed actions:
We believe a great deal of money has been misdirected by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of
Reclamation on spending the approximate $25 million a year
provided by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(CVPIA) Legislation of 1992. Many of the water contractors
that provide the annual $25 million agree with us. We
support the conclusions of the Listen to the River panel of
2008. This CVPIA program badly needs restructuring with a
better management and better investment targets. There is
an effort under way to do this and we urge Congress to help
see that the CVPIA restructure is successful.
In 2009, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
issued new biological opinions to make important changes to
avoid extinctions. Several of these are languishing with
little or no action. Some of them would be very helpful in
arresting the declines. We urge more NMFS action.
In recent years the annual water delivery plans of the
Bureau of Reclamation and State Water Board have done
damage to the winter and fall-run juveniles in the upper
Sacramento River. These plans need to be better to avoid
these damages. The agencies have admitted that to prevent
additional damage to salmon, they must be more protective
in 2016. With the loss of two out of three cohorts of
endangered wild winter-run salmon (2014 and 2015) it is
critical that we develop cold water pool resources in the
winter and spring and then protect them to support the
temperature management needed later in the year.
There have been a number of Federal legislative proposals
that one way or another would overturn the current
biological opinions in the Delta. Maintaining those
biological opinions intact is critical to avoiding the
complete loss of the salmon. In 2009, when the opinions
were first put in place several water contractors filed
lawsuits in an effort to overturn them. After 2 years of
conflicting science testimony, the court upheld the BOs. It
also then ordered the litigating water contractors and NGOs
to form a committee to study and collaborate on the science
until they agreed. That committee was formed and has made
progress on reaching agreements. Where there are science
disagreements, it continues to sponsor science studies to
fill the gaps. I sit on that committee representing the
salmon industry.
The 28 salmon rebuilding projects developed by the GGSA
task force spell out engineering changes that will result
in more ocean salmon abundance. They do this by proposing
physical changes that improve juvenile survival, add
spawning and rearing area and reduce predation. Many of
these projects have no impact on water deliveries and are
supported by the contractors. We will furnish the entire
list to the committee and urge your support. Some of the
highlights are:
-- The plumbing from the Oroville Dam on the Feather River
to the Thermalito Afterbay needs changing so that cold water
can flow to the 20 miles below the Thermalito outlet. This can
be a prime fall-run spawning area but its current temperature
is lethal to eggs. DWR, water users and others agreed in 2006
that this retrofit was needed, but it has made little or no
progress over the past decade.
-- In the upper Sacramento River, there are very few places
where the newly hatched fry can hide from predators and grow
until they are strong enough to migrate downstream. The
predator losses are very high. More side channel rearing areas
are needed where these fish can hide and feed and grow.
Floodplain restoration in the Yolo and Sutter bypasses also
could significantly improve fitness and survival.
-- In 2009, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued new
biological opinions for the Delta pumps and the pump salvage
system. Millions of out migrating juveniles are lost at these
operations. The biological opinions call for major improvements
here but they have never been enforced. NMFS needs to be more
aggressive.
-- In low water years, the upper Sacramento River is running
very slow. The newly hatched salmon fry are not strong enough
to swim and migrate down the river on their own. A high
percentage of them are lost to predators. Pulse flows from the
Shasta and Keswick reservoirs are needed to push the juvenile
fish down the river to safer areas.
Several of the water contractors agree with our concerns
and some are already helping bring some of the projects
about. In the upper Sacramento River, a former salmon
spawning area called Painter's Riffle was identified by
GGSA as a potential spawning area but it was blocked by a
high gravel barrier. The Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
(GCID) and Mr. Thad Bettner who is the General Manager of
the District stepped forward and agreed to fund the
project, offering their equipment and manpower at no charge
to clear the barrier. GCID completed the project in 2014
and in the fall of 2015 the salmon successfully used it.
Over a million new salmon fry are about now emerging from
the area and beginning their migration. Mr. Bettner is
present here today as a witness. We very much appreciate
his help.
In the spring of 2015, a number of us from the fishing industry met
with Chairman Hastings to discuss fishery issues in the different
states. As the meeting progressed, I brought up the problems of the
California salmon industry and asked for his help. Following his strong
words about the salmon mess in California, we discussed some ideas that
might be in the interest to all concerned. The Chairman asked that we
send our ideas, which we did and continue to develop.
conclusion
In summary, it is very clear the salmon industry has a very
difficult future in 2016, 2017 and 2018. These may be the worst years
ever. If the conditions continue to get worse, every water user in this
room and many more will suffer. If we get busy on the things the salmon
need, we can keep that from happening. What do they need? They need
adequate flows and temperature protections, as well as ambitious
habitat restoration actions and they will recover.
We hope the committee agrees that these actions are in everyone's
interest. We are asking for the committee's support wherever you can
provide it and we stand ready to work with you and lend our resources
and expertise as needed.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. I
appreciate the subcommittee's time and attention to these important
issues. I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Dr. Fleming. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Murillo.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MURILLO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MID-PACIFIC
REGION, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, DC, ACCOMPANIED BY REN LOHOEFENER, DIRECTOR OF THE
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION OF THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
IN SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Murillo. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member Huffman,
and members of the subcommittee. My name is David Murillo,
Regional Director of the Mid-Pacific Region of the Bureau of
Reclamation. With me is Ren Lohoefener, Regional Director of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Pacific Southwest Region.
We are pleased to appear today to discuss the current El Nino
weather cycle and actions we are taking, together with the
state of California, to deliver water and address persistent
drought. My full written testimony has been submitted for the
record.
For the past 4 years, we have seen reduced snowpack,
reduced precipitation, significant groundwater withdrawals in
much of the West, and in California, in particular. In the face
of these conditions, carryover reservoir has been severely
drawn down. And as we begin water year 2016, the Central Valley
Project's carryover storage from 2015 into 2016 was 2.9 million
acre-feet, which was 24 percent of capacity and 47 percent of
the 15-year average for that date.
As of this time last month, storage in major CVP reservoirs
was 963,000 acre-feet lower than the same time last year. These
conditions have taken their toll on water users, the
environment, the economy, and the communities across the state.
In these situations, innovative local agreements, adaptive
management, and sheer resilience have been essential to the
very survival of many farms and small communities.
The Department understands the urgency of this El Nino
cycle. We appreciate the chance to discuss these efforts and to
continue a dialogue with this subcommittee on how we can best
meet the needs of the water users, environment, and larger
communities we all serve.
Reclamation, the California Department of Water Resources,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Water
Resources Control Board, National Marine Fisheries Service,
and, of course, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have
coordinated CVP and State Project Operations at the highest
level possible. This has enabled the State Board to support
several joint Reclamation and Department of Water Resources
(DWR) requests for modifications to requirements under State
Water Right Decision 1641. Those actions have borne fruit with
the conservation of approximately 880,000 acre-feet that
otherwise would not have been conserved, if not for the jointly
filed petition approved by the State Board.
As the subcommittee is aware, water delivery for farms and
cities is not the only demand on operations of the CVP, or the
State Water Project, for that matter. The CVP is authorized to
serve multiple purposes, and it provides significant benefits
for flood control, recreation, water quality, and power
generation every year. Compliance with state water rights and
environmental laws are, obviously, significant
responsibilities, governing the operations of the CVP, along
with the water delivery contracts in place with over 200 water
user organizations in California.
It is true that the state and Federal facilities in the
Delta have not operated at maximum capacity during these
periods of elevated El Nino precipitation and runoff. The Bay-
Delta is an estuary that is home to its own in-Delta farming
community, many towns where water quality can be impacted by
operations of the pumps, as well as dozens of threatened and
endangered species.
While it is easy to attribute the state's water supply
cutbacks entirely to the environmental regulations, it has been
drought, extreme decline in annual precipitation, and snowpack
in California since 2012, far more than any other factor that
has constrained the ability of the state and Federal projects
to deliver full allocations during these past 4 years.
So far during 2016, Reclamation's El Nino operations have
been adaptive and strategic. To the extent that Reclamation and
the state can maximize export pumping, particularly during
surges in inflow to the Delta, we have done so and will
continue to do so.
But we have also proactively reduced export pumping on some
occasions to protect listed species, such as the Delta smelt,
and we will continue to do so when warranted, because we
strongly believe that not doing so would necessitate far more
restrictive export levels days or weeks down the road. We want
to manage expectations, even as we keep releases from
Reclamation major storage facilities conservative in
recognition of the fact that the preceding years of below-
normal to critical dry hydrology have left carryover storage
levels far below where we like to see them.
My written statement describes multi-faceted actions that
the Department is taking to assist western communities impacted
by the drought. If sustained, we believe our efforts can build
long-term drought resiliency, even accounting for what the El
Nino may or may not bring in this and future years.
That concludes my written statement. In closing, Ren and I
thank the subcommittee for its attention to this issue, and the
working relationship with all the parties represented here
today.
We would be pleased to answer any questions at the
appropriate time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murillo follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Murillo, Regional Director, Mid-Pacific
Region, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman and members of the
subcommittee, I am David Murillo, Regional Director in the Mid-Pacific
Region of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to
appear before the subcommittee today to discuss activities underway in
California to adapt to the challenges and opportunities associated with
the current El Nino weather cycle, and actions the Department of the
Interior (Department) is taking together with the state of California
and our partner agencies to mitigate the effects of persistent drought.
The past 4 years have been characterized by severely reduced
snowpack, reduced precipitation and significant groundwater withdrawals
in much of the West and in California in particular. Water Year (WY)
2015 was the 8th of 9 years with below-average runoff. Beginning with
2012, the last 4 years have been hydrologically classified as below
normal (2012), dry (2013), and critically dry (2014 and 2015).\1\ Under
average conditions, a major source of California's water for cities and
farms is runoff from snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade
mountains (about one-third), and on April 1, 2015, California's
Department of Water Resources measured statewide water content of
Sierra snowpack at 5 percent of average for that date. These levels
were lower than any year on record going back to 1950.\2\ Moreover,
California's 2014 and 2015 water years were also the warmest on
record,\3\ exacerbating the effects of the current drought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/iodir/WSIHIST.
\2\ www.water.ca.gov/news/newsreleases/2015/040115snowsurvey.pdf.
\3\ www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/climatological-rankings/
index.php?periods%5B%5D=12&
parameter=tavg&state=4&div=0&month=9&year=2014#ranks-form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the face of these conditions, carryover reservoir storage has
been severely drawn down during this drought, and as we began water
year 2016 the Central Valley Project's (CVP) reservoir carryover
storage from WY 2015 into WY 2016 (October 1, 2015) was 2.9 million
acre-feet, which was 24 percent of capacity and 47 percent of the 15-
year average for that date. As of January 19, 2016, storage in major
CVP reservoirs was 963,000 acre-feet lower than the same time last
year. These conditions have taken their toll on water users, the
environment, the economy and communities across the state. And, against
the backdrop of that complex water and precipitation picture,
innovative local agreements, adaptive management, and resilience have
been essential to the survival of many farms and small communities.
The El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is characterized by year-
to-year fluctuations in sea surface temperatures in the equatorial
Pacific Ocean. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Climate Prediction Center classifies present ENSO conditions as a
strong El Nino, one which is expected to peak during the winter of
2015-16 with a transition to ENSO-neutral conditions expected during
the late spring or early summer of 2016.
The Department understands the urgency this subcommittee, and
numerous stakeholders in California, associate with questions about how
agencies will operate during the current El Nino cycle, and whether the
decisions made during this winter will meaningfully change the water
supply picture in 2016 and beyond. We appreciate the chance to discuss
these efforts, and we're glad to have an opportunity to continue a
dialog with the members of this subcommittee on how we can best address
the needs of the water users, environment and larger community we all
serve.
Since December 2013, state and Federal agencies that supply water,
regulate water quality, and protect California's fish and wildlife have
worked closely together to manage through the drought and problem-solve
with the larger stakeholder community. Reclamation, the California
Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW), State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), (collectively, the state and Federal Agencies) have coordinated
CVP and State Water Project (SWP) operations at the highest level
possible, to manage water resources through both forward-thinking and
real-time efforts. This cooperative environment has allowed the state
and Federal Agencies to collectively provide the necessary information
to the SWRCB to support evaluation of several joint Reclamation and DWR
requests for modifications to operational standards required under
State Water Right Decision 1641 (D-1641). Those collaborative actions
have borne fruit with the conservation of approximately 880,000 acre-
feet that would not have been conserved but for the jointly filed
Temporary Urgency Change Petitions (TUCPs) approved by the SWRCB.
Last month the state and Federal Agencies prepared and submitted a
2016 Drought Contingency Plan \4\ (DCP) to provide a framework of more
potential operational actions that may be requested from the regulatory
authority of the SWRCB this year. The actions summarized in the DCP may
be necessary even if California continues to experience the current
wetter-than-average hydrology. As of this writing, the DCP provides the
best big-picture summary of the objectives that will guide the state
and Federal Agencies in 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/docs/2016-
DroughtContingencyPlan-CVP-SWPOperations-Feb-Nov_1.19.16-FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the subcommittee is aware, water delivery for farms and cities
is not the only imperative at play in the operation of the CVP, or the
state's water project for that matter. The CVP and its reservoirs are
authorized to serve multiple purposes, and they provide significant
benefits for flood control, recreation, water quality and power
generation every year, in all types of hydrology. In 1992 Congress
specifically amended the CVP's overlying authorization (dating to
1937), with the statutory directive that CVP project purposes include
the ``mitigation, protection, and restoration of fish and wildlife''
and ``fish and wildlife enhancement.'' Similarly, California State Fish
and Game Code Section 5937 requires releases below dams ``to keep in
good condition any fish that may be planted or exist below the dam.''
Compliance with state water law and the major environmental statutes
such as the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act are obviously
significant responsibilities governing the operation of the CVP along
with the many water delivery contracts in place with more than 200
water user organizations in California.
It is true that state and Federal export facilities in the Delta
have not operated at maximum capacity during these periods of elevated
El Nino precipitation and runoff. The Bay-Delta is an estuary that is
home to its own in-Delta farming community, many towns where water
quality could be or is acutely impacted by operation of the pumps, as
well as dozens of threatened and endangered species.\5\, \6\
The Delta serves these roles in addition to the water conveyance
function it serves in providing millions of acre-feet of water to users
south of the Delta every year. While some have argued the state's water
supply cutbacks are entirely due to environmental regulations, it has
been drought--the extreme declines in annual precipitation and snowpack
in California since 2012--far more than any other factor, that has
constrained the ability of the state and Federal projects to deliver
full allocations of water during these years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/es/species_info.cfm.
\6\ www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/
salmon_steelhead/salmon_and_steelhead _listings/
salmon_and_steelhead_listings.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far during 2016, Reclamation's operations during the El Nino
pattern can be characterized as adaptive and strategic. Many variables
such as temperature, salinity, turbidity, tidal action, inflow, outflow
requirements, storage levels and the location of threatened and
endangered fish species or their habitat have required us to adapt to
determine what level of exports can be supported at the pumps. To the
extent that Reclamation and the state can opportunistically maximize
export pumping, particularly during surges in inflow to the Delta, we
have done so and will continue to do so. But we've also proactively
reduced export pumping on several occasions to protect listed species
such as the Delta smelt, and we will continue to do so when warranted,
because we strongly believe that not doing so would necessitate far
more restrictive export levels days or weeks down the road. Federal and
state agencies are working to avoid the potential extirpation of
species like winter-, spring- and fall-run Chinook salmon, Central
Valley steelhead, and Delta smelt, which has been found to be in danger
of extinction throughout its range.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/species/delta_smelt.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the implementation of a series of Federal actions and
investments laid out in the Interim Federal Action Plan, we and our
resource agency partners are taking affirmative steps to address the
role of stressors like predation by invasive species, further
complicating recovery of threatened and endangered species. In fact, in
his testimony last October on H.R. 2898 and S. 1984, Deputy Secretary
Mike Connor stated ``the Department strongly supports well-designed
collaborative scientific research into predation.'' These factors, and
4 years of drought, will not be remedied with 1 year's above-average El
Nino hydrology. And so we want to manage expectations, as we keep
releases from Reclamation's major storage facilities conservative in
recognition of the fact that the preceding years of below normal to
critically dry hydrology have left carryover storage levels far below
average.
As stated by Deputy Secretary Connor before the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee this past October, the Department is taking
a multi-faceted approach and marshalling every resource at its disposal
to assist western communities impacted by drought. Through the
WaterSMART Program, hundreds of thousands of acre-feet are being
conserved every year that would otherwise be lost. In June of last
year, Reclamation announced investments of more than $24 million in
grants for 50 water and energy efficiency projects in 12 western
states, more than $23 million for seven water reclamation and reuse
projects in California, and nearly $2 million for seven water
reclamation and reuse feasibility studies in California and Texas. On
February 8 we announced the allocation of $166 million in additional FY
2016 funding, $100 million of it directed at western drought response.
And in the coming months, we will announce funding awards for dozens of
additional WaterSMART awards, getting the 2016 funds out to the
districts that will put them to work on the ground.
While these and many other measures have not and can never fully
alleviate the drought's impacts, we've proven that we have the capacity
to improve overall water management by building on the work of creative
local partners. If sustained, the Department believes we can build
long-term drought resiliency, even accounting for what El Nino may or
may not yield in this and future years.
As we move through the remainder of this El Nino year, Reclamation
will remain consistent in developing and adjusting our operations plan
in conjunction with the state, requesting as much flexibility as
possible while at the same time protecting the fish species. We look
forward to engaging in discussions with water users on possible
operational scenarios to address the needs of fisheries at the same
time improving project yield.
Finally, while we understand that today's hearing is focused on
near-term operational issues during the current El Nino cycle, I want
to reiterate the Department's commitment to working with the state of
California on long-term goals of improving California's water supply
reliability, and protecting and restoring the Bay-Delta environment.
That concludes my written statement. In closing, I thank the
committee for its attention to this issue, and for fair consideration
of all we are doing to operate the state and Federal projects in
compliance with the law for the benefit of all Californians and the
environment. Reclamation values its working relationship with all the
parties represented here today. I would be pleased to answer questions
at the appropriate time.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Murillo.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Birmingham for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS BIRMINGHAM, GENERAL MANAGER/GENERAL
COUNSEL, WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Birmingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee. I want to express my appreciation for being
invited to testify before the subcommittee on the 2016
California water supply outlook during the El Nino and the 3
years of restricted water deliveries.
As the subcommittee is aware, there has been a dramatic
improvement in the hydrologic conditions in California. We have
seen significant increases in storage and significant increases
in Delta inflow and outflow. And, based on the February 1 snow
survey conducted by the California Department of Water
Resources, the Northern Sierra snowpack was at 120 percent of
the long-term average for that date, and the rainfall in the
three regions tracked by the Department of Water Resources was
123 percent of the historical average for that date.
The dramatic improvements in the hydrology are depicted in
two exhibits that I submitted to the committee. Exhibit 1 is a
graph of the storage in Folsom Lake, the reservoir that Mr.
Huffman referred to in his comments. And Exhibit 2 is a graph
depicting Delta inflow during this year.
But, unfortunately, despite the improved hydrologic
conditions, those conditions will not equate to an improved
water supply for south-of-Delta Central Valley Project
agricultural water service contractors. For the third year in a
row, those contractors will receive a zero allocation.
For the third year in a row, the Bureau of Reclamation is
likely to have to make releases from Millerton Reservoir on the
San Joaquin River to the exchange contractors to meet the
United States' obligation to the most senior water right
holders on the San Joaquin River. And prior to 2014, that had
never happened in the history of this project. There cannot be
any debate that these impacts, as Mr. Murillo said, are as a
result of drought. But there cannot be any reasonable debate
that the impacts have also been a consequence of the
implementation of the Endangered Species Act and biological
opinions.
During his comments, Mr. Huffman made some remarks with
which I completely agree. He talked about the necessity of
looking at the facts. In fact, I remember very distinctly Mr.
Huffman making a comment in a Floor debate to the effect that
facts are stubborn things, and the facts are that, over the
last 2 years, that 3-inch fish has taken exactly zero water
from those who depend on water diverted out of the Delta
system. We need to have an honest debate.
I will be the first to acknowledge that in 2014 it was so
dry that the biological opinions had very little effect on
water supply. But to make a statement that in 2015 there was no
effect, that is absolutely false. I could very easily discover
this morning, looking over the change orders, a February 22,
2015 change order directing that the pumping at the Jones
Pumping Plant be reduced to 850 cubic feet per second, and the
reason was Delta smelt concerns. We absolutely have to have an
honest debate about what is causing these impacts.
Mr. Huffman talked about things over which we should be
outraged, and he is absolutely right. What is going on right
now at Folsom is outrageous. But where is the outrage that
there are going to be communities in the San Joaquin Valley
that have no water?
I have watched the press talk about what has happened in
Flint, Michigan, and the outrage over the governmental action
in Flint, Michigan that put the population at Flint at risk.
Where is the outrage that it is governmental policies that have
created zero water supplies for communities in the San Joaquin
Valley, disadvantaged communities that have no resources to
respond to zero water supplies, as Mr. Costa said, that are a
result of government action?
In 2015, the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority,
which is a joint-powers entity created under California State
Law that actually operates the Delta facilities of the Central
Valley Project, estimated that the biological opinions cost
470,000 acre-feet of water. In January and February of this
year, despite the improved hydrology and increased inflow, the
Delta smelt biological opinion has cost 500,000 acre-feet of
water. That is enough to irrigate 200,000 acres of land and to
produce tens of thousands of jobs.
No one wants to see these species go extinct. In fact, one
of the things we should be outraged about is the fact that over
the last 20 years we have dedicated millions of acre-feet of
water to the protection of these species, and the species have
continued to decline. Today, the Delta smelt index is zero. The
fish are gone. We should be outraged that nothing is being done
to actually protect these fish.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Birmingham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Birmingham, General Manager, Westlands
Water District
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Thomas W.
Birmingham, and I am the General Manager of Westlands Water District
(``Westlands'' or ``District''). Thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to testify on one of the most, perhaps the
most, important resource issue facing the state of California, its
broken water supply infrastructure.
Westlands is a California water district that serves irrigation
water to an area of approximately 600,000 acres on the west side of the
San Joaquin Valley in Fresno and Kings counties. The District averages
15 miles in width and is 70 miles long. Historically, the demand for
irrigation water in Westlands was 1.4 million acre-feet per year, and
that demand has been satisfied through the use of groundwater, water
made available to the District from the Central Valley Project under
contracts with the United States for the delivery of 1.19 million acre-
feet, and annual transfers of water from other water agencies.
Westlands is one of the most fertile, productive and diversified
farming regions in the Nation. Rich soil, a good climate, and
innovative farm management have helped make the area served by
Westlands one of the most productive farming areas in the San Joaquin
Valley and the Nation. Westlands farmers produce over 50 commercial
fiber and food crops sold for the fresh, dry, and canned or frozen food
markets; domestic and export. These crops have a value in excess of $1
billion.
In April 2011, I testified at a field hearing of the subcommittee
in Fresno, California. At the time I observed that it was ironic that
the subcommittee was in Fresno to hear about drought and the impact of
drought on jobs at a time when California's reservoirs were full and
rivers, streams, and flood control by-passes were running high. In the
years subsequent to 2011, hydrologic conditions in California were
dramatically different; in the 4 years after 2011, California
experienced a prolonged drought. However, the wet hydrologic conditions
in 2011 and the 4 subsequent years of drought were not an anomaly.
Floods and drought, the continual alteration between these two
extremes, is part of the natural cycle of life in California. And
California's water supply systems were designed to help the state
withstand the impacts of extended drought.
Indeed, the ``firm yield'' of the Central Valley Project was
historically defined as the measure of the availability of water to
meet authorized purposes of the Central Valley Project based on the
assumed operations of the Project throughout the simulation of the
critically dry 1928-34 period, the most severe drought in California's
recorded history. Bureau of Reclamation (``Reclamation'') decisions
concerning the quantities of water that would be made available under
water service contracts were based on this measure.
Prior to the enactment and implementation of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act and the application of the Endangered Species
Act to the operations of the Central Valley Project, Reclamation's
estimate of the availability of water to meet authorized project
purposes during extended drought was reasonably accurate. This is
reflected by allocations to south-of-Delta Central Valley agricultural
water service contractors during the 1987-1992 drought. During the 6
years of that extended drought allocations were 100 percent, 100
percent; 100 percent; 50 percent, 25 percent, and 25 percent.
Allocations to south-of-Delta Central Valley agricultural water
service contractors during the 2012-2015 drought demonstrate the degree
to which restrictions imposed on operations of the Project have reduced
its deliver capability. However, to put the 2012-2015 drought into
perspective, it must be noted that 2010 and 2011, the two hydrologic
years preceding this most recent drought, were above average and
significantly wet, respectively. Notwithstanding these wet conditions
in 2010 and 2011, the allocation to south-of-Delta Central Valley
agricultural water service contractors in 2012, the first year of
drought, was only 40 percent. In 2013, 2014, and 2015 the allocations
were 20 percent, 0 percent, and 0 percent, respectively. Moreover, in
2014 and 2015, north-of-Delta agricultural water service contractors
and Friant Division Class I contractors also received zero allocations.
For the first time in the history of the Central Valley Project,
releases had to be made from Millerton Reservoir on the San Joaquin
River to meet the United States' obligation to the San Joaquin River
Exchange Contractors, and Reclamation was unable to meet its core
obligations to Sacramento River settlement contractors and refuges.
Stated differently, in the third year of a drought, a drought which was
not significantly more severe than prior extended droughts, the Central
Valley Project was incapable of meetings even its most basic
obligations.
As anticipated, 2016 is an El Nino year and the hydrologic
conditions have improved dramatically. According to the California
Department of Water Resources' February 1, 2016 manual snow survey,
rainfall and the Sierra Nevada snowpack's water content are both
markedly improved this water year, and storage in the state's major
reservoirs also has increased significantly since January 1. Rainfall
in the three regions (northern Sierra Nevada, central Sierra Nevada,
and southern Sierra Nevada) tracked by DWR was 123 percent of the
historical average between October 1 and January 31. In addition, the
water content of the northern Sierra Nevada snowpack was 120 percent of
average for the date.
The dramatic improvement of storage in Folsom Reservoir, a Central
Valley Project reservoir that has received widespread media attention
during the drought, is shown in the graph below prepared by the
California Department of Water Resources (Exhibit 1). In fact, storage
conditions have improved to the point that on or about February 10,
2016, Reclamation significantly increased releases from Folsom Dam to
comply with flood control criteria established for the reservoir.
Exhibit 1
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
However, despite improved hydrologic conditions, the outlook
for water supplies from the Central Valley Project has not
significantly improved. Westlands currently forecasts that the initial
allocation for south-of-Delta Central Valley Project agricultural water
service contractor will, for the third consecutive year, be zero, and
the allocation is likely to remain at zero. In addition, I am informed
that Reclamation has informed the San Joaquin River Exchange
Contractors and Friant Division contractors that it is likely releases
from Millerton Reservoir will, for the third consecutive year, have to
be made to satisfy the United States' obligation to the Exchange
Contractors. And despite flood control releases having to be made from
Folsom Dam, pumping in the Delta has been reduced.
Reclamation's current inability to make water available to large
areas of the Central Valley Project despite improved hydrology is a
function primarily of constrains imposed on Project operations under
the 2008 biological opinion for the protection of Delta smelt. This
fact is illustrated dramatically by the graph below (Exhibit 2), which
depicts Delta inflow and rates of pumping at the Central Valley Project
and State Water Project southern Delta pumping plants from December 1,
2015, through February 7, 2016. The red curve on Exhibit 2 indicates
the rates of pumping permitted under Water Right Decision 1641, the
California State Water Right Decision that established operational
criteria intended to protect fish and wildlife resources in the Delta.
As depicted in Exhibit 2, in early January 2016, when the El Nino rains
began to produce increased inflow into the Delta, rates of project
pumping were decreased, rather than increased as permitted under D-
1641. The decreased rates of project pumping were implemented to comply
with the reasonable and prudent alternative established by the Delta
smelt biological opinion, and between January 5 and February 7, the
Central Valley Project and the California State Water Project lost a
combined 397,000 acre-feet.
Exhibit 2
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Losses of water resulting from the Delta smelt biological
opinion have continued to accumulate, and it is presently estimated
that the losses exceed 500,000 acre-feet. The irony, some might say
absurdity, of Central Valley Project operations in this El Nino year is
demonstrated by a comparison of cumulative Delta pumping by the Central
Valley Project for the period from October 1 through February 7 for the
2015 and the 2016 water years. Despite dramatically improved hydrologic
conditions in 2016, the Central Valley Project has pumped significantly
less water this year, more than 200,000 acre-feet less, compared to the
same period of the 2015 water year.
I hope my testimony has made it clear that there is a complete
disconnect between hydrology and Central Valley Project water supply
under the 2008 Delta smelt biological opinion. Since the beginning of
December 2015, two Delta smelt have been observed at the fish recovery
facilities operated at the Central Valley Project and California State
Water Project pumping plants. (These two observed fish are expanded to
eight for purposes of the incidental take level established under the
Delta smelt biological opinion.) But for reasons beyond explanation by
me, Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service have adopted very
conservative decisions concerning compliance with the biological
opinion's reasonable and prudent alternative.
It is beyond reasonable dispute that the continued, prolonged water
supply shortages being suffered in the San Joaquin Valley are the
result of policy choices made by the Federal Government, not by
hydrologic conditions. As a consequence, it is unlikely that the
current El Nino conditions will produce any water supply benefits.
I would welcome any questions from members of the subcommittee.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Birmingham, and thank you,
witnesses, for your testimony. At this point we would like to
begin our questions. To allow all Members to participate and
ensure we can hear from all the witnesses today, Members are
limited to 5 minutes for their questions. I now yield myself 5
minutes for questions.
Back to you, Mr. Birmingham. Some have opposed legislation
because they say Federal agencies have discretion and,
therefore, Congress should not meddle in this discretion. Are
the agencies using that discretion?
Mr. Birmingham. Well, the agencies, Mr. Chairman, are
exercising their discretion, but they are not exercising it in
a way to maximize water supplies. To the contrary, they are
exercising the discretion in a way to operate the project in a
very conservative way. By that I mean they are doing everything
that they can to avoid the take of listed fish at the two
pumping plants in the south Delta.
So, discretion is being exercised, but it is not being
exercised in a way to make water available for people.
Dr. Fleming. OK, thank you.
Now, Mr. Barbre and Mr. Bettner, is legislation necessary
to help bring Federal fixes to California, since the Federal
Government created some of these problems?
Mr. Bettner. In my oral and written testimonies, we have
some specific recommendations we believe that can be done now
that are not controversial, like other things: streamline
permitting for projects, particularly for environmental
restoration projects, would be helpful. We have included a
discussion on new storage--I think, again, looking at new ways
to permit storage. Strategic storage that would benefit the
environment would be another way.
These are things that can be done now. They are not
controversial, and will have immediate impacts on improving the
project, the operations, and the environment.
Dr. Fleming. Mr. Barbre?
Mr. Barbre. I would concur with that. I think the Federal
Government could do quite a bit for local projects and doing a
one-stop period of time to challenge everything.
For instance, trying to build a de-sal plant in Southern
California, it is probably $75 million in up-front studies in
permitting and 35 different permits you have to obtain between
the state and Federal system. It is a tremendous burden on
local entities, because every step of the way you can be
challenged under a whole host of state and Federal statutes. So
something like that, to make it easier to develop some of these
projects, would be significant assistance.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Again, to Mr. Barbre, how did Southern
California prepare for the future following the 1977 drought?
Mr. Barbre. Yes. Great question. We did what most people
have done, historically. We built up our storage, we developed
new technologies, we have developed recycling. We have de-sal
plants. We just had a de-sal plant that came on in Carlsbad. We
have one plant in Huntington Beach, one in Dana Point.
We spent a tremendous amount of money building storage. We
built Diamond Valley Lake, which was $2 billion. We built a
tunnel through the mountains called the Inland Feeder, which
gives us more operational flexibility. We spent over $2 billion
in upgrading our various treatment plants, whether it is
getting ready for the next earthquake, whether it is a
regulatory piece, things like that, and we also did a lot in
water transfers.
One of the challenges in water transfers, today, for us in
the state of California, there are a lot of willing sellers,
but you cannot move it south through the Delta. In the early
1970s, and I put this in my written testimony, the Delta
Environmental Advisory Committee, everybody agreed--the
fisheries, the environmental community, labor, north/south of
the Delta folks, farmers--they all agreed you need to do
something to fix the Delta, you need to have some conveyance
around the Delta. Otherwise, you are going to force the Delta
to become a conveyance facility, which will destroy the Delta.
That is what we are witnessing today, because we did not build
that.
Dr. Fleming. Right. And then back to you, Mr. Birmingham.
What did the Federal Government do after the 1977 drought in
California?
Mr. Birmingham. Exactly the opposite of what was done in
Southern California. Southern California reacted to create
flexibility. The Federal Government, since 1977, has imposed
layer upon layer upon layer of restrictions that have
constrained the use of water resources in the state of
California.
It is ironic to me that I hear people talk about you cannot
pass legislation because we need to respect state water rights.
But in 1992, George Miller introduced and ultimately had it
enacted, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, a Federal
statute that reallocated more than 1 million acre-feet of water
from farmers to the environment. That was a Federal law. And
what we are talking about today are Federal laws, the
application of the Endangered Species Act, that are
constraining the operation of these projects. That is a Federal
law.
Dr. Fleming. OK, thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Huffman. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Huffman. I think we are going to be sharing this
microphone, Mr. Chairman.
I think we need to all be very careful about the facts on a
subject as potentially loaded as California water. That Central
Valley Project Improvement Act did not affect any state water
rights. In fact, it reallocated within the Federal water right
of the Central Valley Project. There is no conflict between the
CVPIA and the principle of respecting state water rights. It
simply changed the way certain contractors, especially junior
contractors like Westlands, within the CVP got their water. It
changed Federal law, but not state water rights.
Similarly, Mr. Birmingham, I am happy to be corrected if I
get a fact wrong, but I try to be very careful. When you cite
data from one water year to suggest that when I made a quote
about a prior water year I was wrong, that is not being very
careful. So I want to urge everyone to be careful and precise
when we talk about this subject.
Mr. Birmingham. Well, Mr. Huffman----
Mr. Huffman. No, I listened carefully and politely while
you misstated the facts, and so you get to listen carefully to
my correction of them.
Mr. Birmingham. Then I hope I have an opportunity to----
Mr. Huffman. My friend from Orange County----
Mr. Birmingham [continuing]. Correct the correction.
Mr. Huffman. This is my time, Mr. Birmingham, you had your
time.
I am glad that my friend from Orange County brought up 1977
and Marin County, and you are right, Marin County was bailed
out by an emergency pipe across the Richmond Bridge with water
from the Metropolitan Water--we are probably not grateful
enough for what happened in 1977. But I believe I heard you say
that after all the investments that Orange County did after
that drought--which I am a big fan of, by the way, you have
done terrific work down there, and put you in a good position
for this current drought--that Marin County had to string a
pipeline again in 2014. That is factually incorrect. You have
some bad information there.
In fact, Marin did essentially what Orange County did.
After that 1977 drought, they invested in new storage, they
invested in agreements with their neighbors to the north for
imported water, and they invested heavily in water recycling
and conservation. As a result, Marin County came through about
as well as Orange County for this current drought. So, I wanted
to point out that important clarification, again urging
everyone to be careful as we talk about this issue.
I want to ask you, Mr. Murillo, about hydrology. In your
view, what is the primary factor driving low water supply
allocations, hydrology or endangered species pumping
restrictions?
Mr. Murillo. Yes, I appreciate the question, Congressman.
Right now, we cannot ignore the fact that we have had low
hydrology the last 3 or 4 years. It is there. And that is what
has impacted our carryover, and that is what has impacted our
operations.
In addition to that, we do have some biological opinions
that we have to comply with. Those also affect the species. So,
the hydrology is going to affect the yield, it is also going to
affect how we operate to protect the species.
Mr. Huffman. One other statement that we often hear is
about zero water allocations. My colleague mentioned that the
San Joaquin Valley has gotten zero allocation, is likely to get
another zero allocation of surface water. I just want to
clarify. The whole Valley has not gotten a zero allocation, or
isn't getting one. That applies only to junior contractors of
the CVP, right?
Mr. Murillo. Yes, it does.
Mr. Huffman. And only to their surface water supplies, as
opposed to other supplies they may have?
Mr. Murillo. Yes. Right now, the senior exchange
contractors are going to get water, and so will the----
Mr. Huffman. I am not trying to trivialize the very
significant impact that has on junior contractors, it is very
real. But the bigger picture is important, too.
And tell us about senior water right holders. For example,
right next door to Mr. Birmingham you have the San Joaquin
Valley exchange contractors. Tell us about their allocations
through the drought and for this coming year. What do you think
they are likely to get?
Mr. Murillo. Well, about a week or so ago we were believing
that they would be able to get a full contract volume.
Mr. Huffman. A hundred percent?
Mr. Murillo. A hundred percent. But that has changed a
little bit within the last year, because February was not an
average precip month. So, it just depends on how we move
forward, whether they are going to get a full allocation or
not, along with the refuges.
Mr. Huffman. OK. Often when we hear about pumping
restrictions in the Delta, those restrictions are sometimes for
water quality purposes that are required to maintain outflows
to the whole system works, and so you are not pumping brackish
or salt water at the Delta pumps.
But sometimes these restrictions are conflated with
Endangered Species Act pumping restrictions. Can you talk about
the difference between the two, and tell us what has had a
bigger impact on Delta pumping levels during this drought?
Mr. Murillo. Yes. So, our pumping does get affected by the
D-1641 state requirements, the water quality requirement, and
then also the biological opinion. I think there are quite a few
days throughout the year, throughout the last several years,
that water quality has been the factor affecting our pumping at
the Jones and State pump facilities.
But, we have to push salinity out of the Delta, so the
water goes out into the ocean. And then, with respect to the
Delta smelt, we have to protect the Delta smelt. And that is
influenced by the San Joaquin River reverse flows, but that
will also affect our pumping.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have a few
more for the next round, if we have one.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Dr. Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much.
Mr. Barbre, you testified clearly that the status quo is
not working for Orange County water users. Can Californians
conserve their way out of this drought?
Mr. Barbre. There is a false belief within the state of
California that if you have grass in your yard or have a
swimming pool, that is a cause of the drought. In fact,
Metropolitan invested $400 million telling people to tear out
their grass. We can conserve all we want, but it is not going
to make a long-term difference. We still need storage. Storage
is what has gotten us through this. And you know this all well,
being from Arizona. Having that significant storage, and being
able to ride it up and down, is incredibly helpful.
So, probably the most important thing Southern California
has done has been to develop their storage above ground, below
ground.
Dr. Gosar. I went last year to the Poseidon Water Carlsbad
de-salinization plant. Oh my God, it took over 20 years to get
that permitted. Jiminy Christmas.
And you are exactly right, the Tale of Two States, Arizona
versus California, for the most part. They are very different
looking in infrastructures.
But I want to reiterate for those that are watching. With
recycling and water, can't we create more water without having
to put more storage in place? People do not quite understand
this.
Mr. Barbre. Yes, and you need someplace to put it, because
you are not always going to have constant flows of water usage.
You need someplace to put it for those times when it is not
needed.
We have had people that have challenged us and said, ``Why
don't you just walk away from the Bay-Delta? That is worth 2
million acre-feet to us.'' Well, to replace that, whether it is
in de-sal plants or whether it is in recycling, we would need a
plant about every 3 miles from Ventura down to San Diego. I
don't think people would want that, and it would be incredibly
expensive, and it would not be nearly as reliable. We would
have to completely replumb the system, because we use gravity,
and we try to generate power as we let the water flow, and we
would have to pump it all up into the hills again to let it
flow back. So, it is just not as practical.
It is part of the portfolio. We need 30,000-50,000 acre-
feet a year, just because of people moving to Southern
California, because it is 75 degrees out there today. That is
why people move there.
Dr. Gosar. Wonderful. Mr. Birmingham, conservation last
year reportedly saved 1 million acre-feet in California. Yet,
you testified today that communities in your area lost 500,000
acre-feet since January 1 to the ocean. What kind of message
does that send to San Joaquin Valley?
Mr. Birmingham. That nobody cares. Very simply, nobody
cares. I mean, I appreciate Mr. Huffman's expressions of
sympathy, and his characterization that we get zero because we
are a junior contractor, but the reality is the Central Valley
Project was designed so that it could deliver water during
extended droughts, the most severe drought in the history of
the state of California. And the amount of water that the
Bureau of Reclamation contracted with, including the junior
contractors like Westlands--and I am using his term; I would
not characterize it that way--the amount that we contracted for
was based on the analysis of the firm yield of the Central
Valley Project.
But what has happened over the course of the last 25 years
is that the firm yield has been eaten away and eaten away and
eaten away by different regulations. So, today, the Bureau of
Reclamation not only cannot deliver us any water, when Mr.
Murillo says that the exchange contractors are going to get
their full contractual volume, it is not going to come from the
source anticipated. That full contractual volume is going to
have to come from releases out of Millerton Lake, on Friant
Dam. And that, prior to 2014, was never done in the history of
this project.
Dr. Gosar. Now, pointing to the screen, a chart is going to
come up. The Delta outflow from one period in 2015 to the same
period this year. Can you describe the significance of this
chart? Nothing coming up?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Birmingham. Well, if it was the chart that was shown at
the beginning of the hearing----
Dr. Gosar. Yes, outflows.
Mr. Birmingham. What it depicts is the volume of outflow in
2015 compared to the volume of outflow in 2016. And what that
shows is Mr. Murillo is absolutely correct: 2015 was a dry
year, and exports were limited for much of the year because of
water quality constraints under Water Right Decision 1641; 2016
is a wet year, at least it started out as a wet year.
So, we have increased Delta outflow, but yet we have
exported less water than we did last year, in a dry year. Our
experience in California is when the water is available you
have to take the opportunity to capture it. We are doing
exactly the reverse of that.
From December 1, 2012 through the end of February 2013, the
projects lost 815,000 acre-feet at a time when we had hundreds
of thousands of acre-feet of water flowing out of the Delta.
Then it turned dry. If 2016 turns dry, then we will have lost
maybe the only opportunity we had to capture some of the water
flowing into the Delta.
Dr. Gosar. I thank you, Mr. Birmingham, and yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Costa is
recognized.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to get
some perspective here.
Mr. Murillo, would you consider the east side of the San
Joaquin Valley, the Friant water users unit, a junior water
rights holder?
Mr. Murillo. What was that question, again?
Mr. Costa. The Friant water users, would you consider them
junior rights water holders, as was described?
Mr. Murillo. For Friant?
Mr. Costa. Right.
Mr. Murillo. [No response.]
Mr. Costa. No, and it got a zero allocation this year, a
zero allocation before. Let's get a little more perspective.
Yes, the exchange contractors should maybe get 100 percent of
their water this year, but that is 200,000 acres plus. And the
exchange contractors up in the Sacramento Valley, by the way,
will be getting the same amount of water. But they are under
400,000 acres of productive land.
We have 6 million acres in California that we farm, 600,000
acres in the valley were fallow, fallow because they have no
water. To compare one small area of the Valley getting, because
they had the senior water rights, just like the city and county
of San Francisco and the upper Sacramento Valley, and say
somehow it is all fine, it is not. You have 600,000 acres that
were fallow last year, unplanted, period.
Now, let me also talk about another contradiction. I love
the examples you gave in Marin, in Orange County, and Diamond
Lake, which I helped the Metropolitan Water District with. And,
guess what? A key component of using water tools to satisfy
those regions involves storage, right? Yes. But when we talk
about storage in the Valley, ``Oh, no, we don't think we have
to have storage. We don't think you ought to raise the gates at
Exchequer or Lake McClure because you don't think we can use
the same tools that you use.'' I don't get it. I don't get it.
We ought to be fair and equitable for every region in
California when we talk about the water tools that are
available to solve those regional water needs for those areas.
Now, let me get to some questions here. Mr. Murillo, the
amount of rainfall and snowpack that you have from the fall to
the end of this water year, what allocation of water do you
think will be made available to your contractors, both on the
west side and the east, side, given the current status?
Mr. Murillo. Probably, right now, we are looking at initial
allocations. You know, it is going to be close to zero and----
Mr. Costa. Zero, OK. Is it your opinion that the Central
Valley Project will ever meet its contractual obligations to
the junior contractors--it is the term we are using now--under
the current regulatory structure?
Mr. Murillo. Yes.
Mr. Costa. You do?
Mr. Murillo. If you are talking for the long term, yes. If
you are talking this year, if you are talking whether we are
going to meet that allocation----
Mr. Costa. Is it your opinion that the co-equal goals of
providing a more reliable water supply, and it appears it is
being operated primarily for the purpose of the species
recovery that, in fact, we can ever provide our commitments to
the contractors with the current system?
Mr. Murillo. I believe in the future we will provide
allocations to the junior----
Mr. Costa. Yes, but we have a historic delivery of 75
percent. Do you think you could do that with the existing
system?
Mr. Murillo. I don't know.
Mr. Costa. I think not. Let's be candid here. It is very
difficult.
What improvements do you think need to be made in order to
meet those co-equal goals?
Mr. Murillo. Like I said, in order for us to be able to
improve the allocations to the junior right holders, we are
impacted by the drought. We are going to have to have some wet
years. We have flexible----
Mr. Costa. No, but we need to fix a broken water system,
don't you think?
Mr. Murillo. No, the broken water system--what we are
doing, we have WaterSMART programs for conservation----
Mr. Costa. No, I know. But in the bigger picture, Mr.
Murillo--you and I have worked on this for many years. If you
do not use other water tools in the water toolbox--raising San
Luis, raising Shasta, building----
Mr. Murillo. Storage studies, yes.
Mr. Costa. Right?
Mr. Murillo. Yes, storage studies----
Mr. Costa. For a growing state?
Mr. Murillo. What is that?
Mr. Costa. For a growing state, more demands on the water
system?
Mr. Murillo. Like I said, we are also doing storage. There
are five storage studies, Congressman, that we are also working
on, and we are going to complete----
Mr. Costa. My time is expiring here, but I want to get to
Mr. Pool, because it is good to see you, Richard, and I
appreciate your efficacy on behalf of the salmon industry over
the years.
You have a lot of experience and expertise. Do you believe
that we can recover the salmon fisheries in California, of
which I guess 90 percent now are not native, with doing other
improvement conditions by simply water flows alone? I mean just
using one tool--i.e. the flow of water, is that going to be
enough to fix the devastated salmon runs?
Mr. Pool. If I understand your question, I don't think that
is nearly enough. I think the biological opinions, the way they
stand today, are about right. There are a number of science
studies going on----
Mr. Costa. How about the other impacts?
Mr. Pool. The other impacts, we do not have nearly the
things going. There are predation impacts, there are things
that are needed in flows, in habitat, a number of things for
the salmon, and I think we are not doing those things. That has
been part of the problem. We can blame the past for not doing
the things that the system needed for a fix. But it is never
too late to start, and we have a lot of projects that can help
that situation. And, I think we need a whole bunch of stressor
actions.
Mr. Costa. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this gentleman has been
a respected expert for 30 years in this effort, and I think he
has a big-picture view on all of the factors that are
contributing to the decline in the fisheries. But we do not
talk about those for reasons.
I thank you, Mr. Pool, for your comments.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Our sound system works about as well as our
water system, I guess.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Birmingham, you were about to make a
statement regarding the relationship of the biological opinions
on smelt to water pumping and were cut off. I would be
interested to hear your answer.
Mr. Birmingham. Mr. McClintock, thank you. I am not sure
specifically what you were referring to. If it was Mr.
Huffman's----
Mr. McClintock. Yes. That is specifically what I was
referring to.
Mr. Birmingham. On July 16, 2015, Mr. Huffman, on the Floor
of the House in the debate on H.R. 2898, said the following,
and I will quote, ``Facts are stubborn things.''
Mr. McClintock. No, I remember that. I was incredulous by
his statement. You were in the process of correcting that.
Mr. Birmingham. Well, thank you, Mr. McClintock. I went
back this morning and I looked. I was looking at the change
orders for 2015, the 2-year period that he was referring to. I
very quickly found a change order from the Bureau of
Reclamation saying, ``Reduce pumping at the Jones pumping plant
to 850 cubic feet per second,'' the bare minimum. And the
reason for it was ``Delta smelt concerns.''
So, in fact, over that 2-year period, that 3-inch fish did
cost the projects water. And that was the point I was trying to
make.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Last year the House----
Mr. Huffman. Will the gentleman yield for a correction?
Mr. McClintock. No, Mr. Huffman, I respected your time, I
would ask you to respect mine.
Mr. Huffman. You don't have to yield.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Birmingham, last year the House adopted
the Valadao bill. It is sitting in the Senate right now. Had
that been enacted into law, what impact would it have made on
our current situation?
Mr. Birmingham. If that bill had been enacted, of the
500,000 acre-feet of water that was lost, compared to Water
Right Decision 1641, we would have been able to capture at
least 200,000 acre-feet of that water.
Mr. McClintock. And how many residential customers would
that serve?
Mr. Birmingham. It would serve 400,000 households of 4
people.
Mr. McClintock. So about 1\1/2\ to 2 million residential
users for a year.
Mr. Birmingham. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. And that is just what would have been saved
if that bill was currently law.
Mr. Birmingham. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. I think the Ranking Member was right, that
the current releases from Folsom are due to flood control
regulations that are badly outdated. Yet, the water, once that
has been released for flood control purposes out of Folsom,
could have been pumped south to be stored in reservoirs
downstream. Could it not have?
Mr. Birmingham. Yes. In fact, historically, when water was
released from Folsom----
Mr. McClintock. But we cannot do that because of
environmental regulations that are not only outdated, but, in
many cases, have been found to be either defective or actually
fraudulent.
Mr. Birmingham. Yes. And if I can elaborate----
Mr. McClintock. Perhaps we ought to be revisiting both of
those sets of regulations, the outdated flood control
regulations, as well as the outdated environmental regulations
that have prevented hundreds of thousands of acre-feet that are
being released out of dams like Folsom for flood control, so
that they can be stored downstream for beneficial human use in
dry periods.
Mr. Birmingham. The simple answer to that question is,
absolutely, yes.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Murillo, how can we expect residents to
continue their Herculean efforts to conserve water, to stretch
every drop, to watch their lawns turn brown, to watch their
prized gardens wither and die, when they see the government
releasing tens, and in some cases hundreds, of thousands of
acre-feet of water to adjust river temperatures for fish in the
middle of the worst drought in the recorded history of
California?
I am very concerned that the lesson that this government is
teaching is that it does not care about the residential needs
of users. And, therefore, I wonder why those residents should
care to continue these enormous efforts that they are making to
conserve when they watch this enormous, outrageous amount of
wasted water coming out of our dams. Do you worry about that?
Mr. Murillo. Well, when we operate the CVP, we have to not
only take a look at providing the project yield, but we also
have to comply with the law. And, the law says that we have to
protect a certain species. It is the Delta smelt and the
winter-run salmon; and we are doing that.
I know that people are disappointed with the operations,
but that is the job we have.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Birmingham was right. These laws were
put in place to protect the environment, like the Delta smelt.
How is the environment doing after all of these years of
experience with these laws and regulations?
Mr. Murillo. Well, I know that the abundance of the Delta
smelt is pretty low right now.
Mr. McClintock. So, we have not only decimated our economy,
we have not only done enormous harm to millions of people, but
we have not accomplished the stated purpose of these laws,
which was to improve the environment. In fact, I would say we
have actually harmed the environment. They want to tear down
the Iron Gate Dam on the Klamath, which would take with it the
Iron Gate fish hatchery that produces 5 million salmon smolts
every year. This is just lunacy.
Dr. Fleming. OK. The gentleman yields. Mr. Lowenthal is
recognized.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank all
the witnesses for coming today. After listening to this
discussion, I want to preface my questions with kind of how I
am framing what we are talking about.
We have many important water decisions to be making in
California. Much of our state is hurting, as we have heard
today. It is frustrating. We have heard that from our
witnesses. But, we should also keep in mind that the dominant
factor in our decreased water availability and decreased
pumping out of the Delta is the drought. And the drought was
not caused by the Delta smelt.
The truth is that the effects of the Endangered Species Act
on our water supply are only around the edges of our state's
water balance. Let's really be honest. We have a much bigger
and harder problem to address to get our house in order and to
create a long-term solution for our water system that our
future and our entire state depends upon.
These are problems that are going to take a great deal of
courage, and to find solutions it is going to require
compromises by all sides. Much of that solution--and I am going
to say that again--much of that solution lies in investing in
water infrastructure, big and small, that will allow us to use
less water, use the same water over and over again, and capture
and save more water for later use.
I am--just an example, I am proud to represent two world-
class water districts that have been leading the way on
building sustainable water systems using less water and
reducing their dependence on imported water. For example, the
Orange County Water District, different than the Municipal
Water District, in partnership with the Orange County
Sanitation District, has built the world's largest potable
water reuse facility, the world's largest.
That system now produces 100 million gallons per day of
local drought-proof water supply, which is enough water for
850,000 people. Other nations throughout the world come to
Orange County to understand this engineering feat, which was
created by the Orange County Water District, in partnership
with the Sanitation District.
Just to the north, the city of Long Beach, its mayor,
Robert Garcia, is working to increase our storm water capture
from the San Gabriel River, and to complete a recycled water
purification plan that will reduce imported water demand by 1.9
billion gallons per year. Thousands of drought-tolerant
landscapes have been installed in homes and businesses in the
Long Beach and Orange County area, replacing 2.3 million square
feet of turf grass. And Long Beach is also planning to use
recycled water for cooling of all of its power plants.
These are the kinds of investments that have helped to
protect my district in Southern California from drought and
import dependence, and have set an internationally-recognized
standard for sustainable water use. But those infrastructure
investments took a lot of time, planning, and lots of capital.
Let's be clear about that.
We should be encouraging all of our water districts to make
these kinds of long-term investments, because unfortunately, if
we are really going to face this, we will have an even bigger
problem in today's drought that we all must face, and that is
climate change. And, we have not discussed that at all. We have
just summarily dismissed that this is just the beginning.
The greatest driver behind long-term, as I will say again,
is precipitation changes, climate change. And we need to
acknowledge that our universities are telling us--for example,
recently Stanford University released a study that by 2030 we
can expect nearly all dry years to be abnormally warm. In other
words, many more droughts are coming, like the one like we have
now, in the near future because of climate change.
This brings me to a question now for Mr. Murillo to focus
on where we are going in the future.
What is the Bureau of Reclamation doing to prepare for the
increased frequency of drought conditions that our universities
are predicting? That is where we are going. I want to know what
you are doing about what we are hearing from our universities.
Mr. Murillo. Thank you for a good question, Congressman.
Just a quick response. You know we are doing storage studies.
There are five storage studies we are doing. There is the
WaterSMART program, which is conservation. Then we also have
these climate change pilot programs that look at our
operations.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I would continue this in
questions, but I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields. Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to enter into the record a
written testimony from a long-time constituent, Ken LaGrande,
who is a rice farmer from Northern California. What he
underlines is that the prospective Federal agencies' role in
the refusal to declare an end to the drought means a loss of
control, power, authority, value, or relevance. And in light of
the situation at Folsom Lake, you could argue that perhaps the
drought is over for that entity, in light of over-doubling of
releases because of flood control needs, which leads to many
other questions.
So, I would like to enter that in the record, please.
[No response.]
Dr. Fleming. Without objection, so ordered.
[The letter entered by Mr. LaMalfa for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Ken LaGrande, Rice Farmer from Northern
California
As a fifth generation farmer and landowner in the Sacramento
Valley, I have lived the ups and downs of our region's agricultural
economy--ups and downs that are driven as often as not by issues of
water supply. Unfortunately, negative fluctuations in our regional
water supply are increasingly being driven by forces other than Mother
Nature.
With that said, I am strongly encouraged by Mother Nature and her
recent delivery of El Nino. Its ongoing performance has already brought
us an above average snow pack, rising reservoir levels across the
state, and noticeable improvements in groundwater measurement.
The fact that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is currently dumping
water from Folsom Reservoir for flood control purposes should be
another encouraging sign of ample water supply. I fear, however, that
it is yet another example of the so-called ``regulatory'' drought.
And I fear that it is the harbinger of things to come--a refusal to
declare an end to the drought by those for whom an end to the drought
means a loss of control, power, authority, value or relevance.
Constituents are watching as these high flood flows surge down the
American River at the command of the Federal Government, and at the
same time they are staring at their notices from the State Water
Resources Control Board and the Governor's Office as to the continuing
severity of our drought in California. This is not sitting well out
with many residents of Sacramento, not to mention the Sacramento
Valley.
To be certain, as a slap in the face to every average resident of
Sacramento who is doing their part to conserve water, this Folsom
release situation is critical. But, it is also critical because, as you
know, the California water storage system is operated on an integrated
basis; water supply in Shasta, Oroville, Folsom and elsewhere is all
taken into account when needs and uses are allocated. The point? Less
water in Folsom means more demand on water in other reservoirs--namely
Shasta and Oroville. Regulatory drought.
The good news? Clearly, the inflows at Shasta appear to be on track
to meet the contractual thresholds for full 100% deliveries to
Sacramento River Settlement Contractors. For that, we can all be
thankful.
We are already hearing cries, however, from the litigious
environmental groups such as the Ms. Kate Poole at the Natural
Resources Defense Council that the drought is not over and that the
``fish flows'' must come first. This must be dismissed categorically.
It will not be easy, however. The State Water Resources Control
Board, led by Chairwoman Felicia Marcus and Executive Director Tom
Howard, is by all appearances extremely reluctant to acknowledge that
the drought is over or that any of their draconian emergency powers may
be relaxing anytime soon.
A concerted effort by and between these litigious environmental
groups, the SWRCB and even several Federal resource agencies appears to
be under way to minimize agricultural diversions and certainty of water
supply in California. The mantra seems to be: if Mother Nature will not
cooperate, we will.
The state of things today in the Sacramento Valley? Mother Nature
has delivered on her promise and has ended the recent drought.
Reservoirs are filling and snow is continuing to fall. But there are
those who tasted the control of the supply of water during the recent
drought--and found it to their liking. They are giving clear evidence--
to anyone who is paying attention--that they will fight tooth and nail
to maintain the fiction that the drought is continuing, thereby
preserving their mouthful of power. And control.
I am testifying today that in my view, the very foundations of the
entire California water system are under serious attack. And not by
Mother Nature. But from within. It is incumbent upon this Congress to
be vigilant in protecting the rights and properties of the United
States and of one of the largest economies, agricultural and otherwise,
within this great Nation.
May God continue to bless us with rainfall. And may God continue to
bless the United States of America.
Thank you.
______
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. I will start out with Mr. Bettner
from the neighborhood here.
In your written testimony, you suggest it seems that the
NOAA Fisheries are demanding that Reclamation operate the CVP
in a way that is going to result in shortages to water users,
even when the drought situation, it could be argued, is easing
on that system. Can you explain more about these concerns? And,
if you can, would you discuss the role you see the state
playing in dictating how the CVP is operating on that
Sacramento River system?
Mr. Bettner. Sure. A lot has been discussed about Delta
operations and Delta smelt. But, things downstream like the
Delta affect operations upstream and upstream reservoirs.
For us, an endangered winter-run is currently driving a
significant portion of the upstream operations of the Central
Valley Project. So, that affects Lake Shasta, which in turn
affects Lake Oroville, which also affects Folsom Reservoir. We
are seeing that just the number, and how the fishery agencies
are calculating the number of fish surviving, while it is
challenging to monitor on the river, we just think a better job
needs to be done, potentially----
Mr. LaMalfa. Let me jump in. You alluded a while ago that
there is a portion of the season during the high flows where
they are not even monitoring, but they are modeling off of
that, correct?
Mr. Bettner. No, what actually happens is during high-flow
events, and we have this with our fish screen, as well, you
cannot operate the traps because of debris, safety issues. So,
what happens is, you use data before and after those high flow
events to average in what the number of fish would have moved
through the system were.
We know that salmon moved during high flow and turbid
events, and what happens is that those fish are not caught or
counted.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, they have to basically model or guess at
what is happening during the high events----
Mr. Bettner. Yes. And, there is a current under-projection
of the number of fish moving, which says there is an extremely
low count, artificial low count. This is evidence that is fact
with the late fall run. The late fall run currently has only a
3 percent annual survival rate. If you look at the same data,
the same calculations, the same tools that they calculate how
the late fall run are surviving, from 2002 to 2012, the average
survival is 3 percent.
So, that number alone would say that run should not be
sustainable. That run should have died and not come back with
those numbers that are that low. And, that has been the same
concern expressed on winter-run of the 3 and 5 percent.
So we know, based on the late fall run, the data is not
right. The calculations cannot be right to have numbers that
low. And that is the same number and the same method that is
being calculated for winter-run. And that is driving the
operation of Lake Shasta, which drives our water supply, which
drives how the Bureau ultimately operates the rest of the
system.
Mr. LaMalfa. Do you believe the CVP is being solely
operated for the benefit of the winter-run only?
Mr. Bettner. The upstream reservoirs, yes. And that
ultimately does affect the Delta, as well.
We believe the fishery agencies are doing the best they can
with the data they have, but they need better monitoring, like
I said, additional monitoring. We have talked to the agencies
about even potentially helping fund some of those activities,
so we can get better data to make better decisions.
Mr. LaMalfa. Speak to us a little bit about the regime of
cold water being held behind in Shasta Dam where, right now,
the operation did not allow releases of significant Ag. water,
I believe, until May 1 last year. And there is discussion of,
and talk about that, and seasonal----
Mr. Bettner. Yes. Well, the last 2 years, there have been
limited diversions in order to protect the cold water pool.
This year, there is potentially even more.
So, while we have water rights in our contract that say we
may get X supply, right now we don't know what the Bureau is
going to give us.
Mr. LaMalfa. Talk about the planting season. My
understanding is that May 1 is when the first water can be
drawn. Now they are talking about mid-June. My understanding is
farmers tend to plant in the spring, and they need water
starting maybe in April or May. So, if we are putting off
deliveries to mid-June or----
Mr. Bettner. We don't know. I mean today I cannot tell you
when we are going to get water, how much. We are currently----
Mr. LaMalfa. You cannot tell your banker when you are going
to get water, or----
Mr. Bettner. We cannot tell our growers right now what we
are going to----
Mr. LaMalfa. Growers? Yes.
Mr. Bettner. And we are a senior water holder. We are
trying to do our own modeling, provide that. We work with the
Bureau closely, but we have the State Board asserting its
influence, as well. We are trying the best we can----
Mr. LaMalfa. So, your growers are in there with their
banker right now, trying to predict if they are going to get a
crop loan this year. They cannot tell their banker if they are
going to get a water supply on time or at all, or is it going
to be in September, after they have already harvested.
Mr. Bettner. That is correct, we do not know.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. OK, the gentleman's time up. Mr. Denham is
recognized.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me
say on record that the Ranking Member and I work very closely
together on a variety of different issues, especially as they
pertain to California. But on this issue, the arrogance to
trivialize such a critical issue that affects so many people in
the state of California and around the country, I think is
disrespectful to the people in Porterville.
I mean, this Administration continues to talk about
environmental and social justice. Yet, where is the social
justice to large Hispanic communities in the Central Valley,
like Porterville, that are now forced to use government showers
that are brought in, or water that is now being trucked in?
Where is the social justice of 34 percent unemployment going
back up to 50 percent in large Hispanic areas like Mendota, or
areas that Mr. Costa represents over in Los Banos?
This is not an ideological battle. This is not an election-
season battle. This is a battle of basic necessities of life.
This is a battle of whether or not they are going to have food,
or whether we are going to truck it in from other countries.
This is not an issue to be trivialized. On election season?
Mr. Huffman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Denham. We have 2-year terms.
Mr. Huffman. Will the gentleman----
Mr. Denham. Every year is an election year. Every year is
an election season. Every year we need to continue to bring up
bills and amendments to address this important issue.
On the environmental justice side, I plant trees, and those
trees actually clean the carbon out of the air. If we are going
to talk about climate change, shouldn't we be considering the
trees that we plant? Shouldn't we actually be talking about the
cleanest energy there is, of hydro? But yet in the climate
change issue, the social environmental justice issue does not
consider hydraulic energy.
Mr. Huffman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Denham. I only have a couple minutes to ask a couple
questions. I hope we will have a second round, because I know
you have more, and so do I, but obviously, this is an issue
that goes across party lines and should be addressed by
Californians and Americans. It is a real social injustice, and
a real environmental injustice. We cannot just talk about it or
ship in supplies because we are afraid to address this on such
a huge magnitude issue.
One of the focuses of this hearing has been whether
reducing the Delta pumps has been helpful to endangered
species. I think that is debatable. I think we ought to
continue to debate it, and we ought to continue to come up with
sound science.
But yet, 2 weeks ago, this subcommittee talked about non-
native striped bass predation, how big of an impact that has to
the overall fish population. Here, on one hand, we are trying
to address the threatened and endangered species, yet we have a
doubling goal on non-native predator fish. So, the predator
fish that are eating 98 percent--Mr. Pool talks about 97
percent of the salmon that do not make it out to the ocean, be
it 98 percent of them, by the Administration's own numbers, by
NOAA's numbers, 98 percent of those get eaten by the predator
fish that, under CVPIA, we are supposed to double.
So, we are going to double the amount of fish that are
eating the endangered species. It would seem like the
Administration's goal is to kill the endangered species that we
are spending millions and millions of dollars and millions of
acre-feet of water, affecting all of California at the time of
a fifth-year drought.
I would ask specifically, controlling predation seems like
the easiest of fixes, and certainly, if you want to save the
endangered species, which certainly seems to be an easy fix to
fish or address the predator fish population, I would ask each
of you for a very, very brief answer on whether you think
predation is something that can help to solve this overall,
starting with Mr. Barbre.
Mr. Barbre. I cannot find much to disagree with your
comment. Obviously, these predators are killing what we are
supposed to be protecting. It is a two-edged sword. So, I
concur with you.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Bettner?
Mr. Bettner. I would agree, as well. I mean we have seen
evidence of predation moving further up into the Sacramento
River system, and it is being a significant issue, especially
with winter-run that are holding upstream in the river longer.
The longer they sit upstream before they move out, they are
going to get predated on. So, I totally agree.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Pool?
Mr. Pool. I would agree. Predation is a huge, huge problem.
And it needs dealing with. We have developed 39 engineering
projects that will deal with predation. There is massive
predation in the Delta that can be taken care of with projects,
and we cannot get those projects moving. So, I agree with you,
we need to do the things that we have identified.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Murillo?
Mr. Murillo. Yes, I would also agree that predation is one
of the stressors for the endangered species.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Birmingham?
Mr. Birmingham. There is unanimity here.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Well, it is nice that we can all
agree on one thing. I actually have a bill that has just been
introduced. I would love to have all of your support on it.
If I could just follow up with one last question, I will
make it brief, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Murillo, one of our Senators introduced a California
drought bill. In regard to Senator Feinstein's bill that she
just introduced----
Dr. Fleming. Wait, Mr. Denham.
Mr. Denham [continuing]. If enacted----
Dr. Fleming. Mr. Denham, let's do this. We are going to
have a brief round after this. So let's save that, because we
need to go ahead and move on.
So, Mr. Newhouse, I will recognize you, and then we will
come back for a 2-minute round.
Mr. Denham. Well, at this time I would be happy to yield
back the time that I do not have left.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Fleming. OK. I thank you for that.
Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
yielding, Mr. Denham. Let me just ask a couple of questions.
I come from the Pacific Northwest, the state of Washington,
where, fortunately or unfortunately, we are experiencing
drought conditions, but certainly not to California's extent
yet. But, we are watching with grave interest what is going on
to our neighbors in the South.
So, just to allow you to expand on a couple of these
things, Mr. Barbre, in your testimony you talk about the need
to increase the surface water storage capacity to mitigate
future water crises. Could you expand a little bit on how H.R.
2898 could help address these issues, while also working within
the current biological opinions that we are discussing here
today?
Mr. Barbre. I think certainly expanding water storage is a
critical part of the future of this. We have enough studies
where we know when the fish are running and when they need the
cold water. If we have the water in storage, we can let it go.
This shows man and nature can co-exist.
You hear a lot of talk about climate change. If climate
change truly is happening, we are going to have less of a
snowpack. It means we are going to have significantly more
runoff. So, we need to be able to capture that. I go back to
the Colorado River System. We capture every drop in that
watershed. We capture every drop, and it saved us. We have the
ability to move a drop of water from the Oregon-California
border down to the Mexican-California border, we just have the
unwillingness, it seems, to fix the Delta. And that is the main
hub. That is what is critically important at this point.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you.
Mr. Birmingham, I think, from what I can tell, part of the
problem that California is facing is due to a failure to
continue to improve water storage and delivery systems. I see
in our state that the runoff that you are talking about--the
Yakima River is high, we are losing our valuable snowpack
early. So, the summer could be another long, dry spell for us.
With the state of California population scheduled or
predicted to increase in the next 30-some years, how will
people in California, especially farmers, be impacted without
some kind of a forward-looking water management policy?
Mr. Birmingham. Well, the state of California absolutely
has to have a forward-looking water policy. Mr. Huffman and Mr.
Lowenthal made some comments, and some of those comments are
spot on about the need to have a comprehensive water policy.
But, as an example, Mr. Lowenthal talked about the
Herculean efforts made by one agency to save 1.9 billion
gallons of water. Sounds like a lot of water. That is 5,830
acre-feet. Over the next 2 days, the Bureau of Reclamation is
going to release out of Folsom Reservoir nearly 30,000 acre-
feet. That water is going to be gone forever.
So, we have to do the things that Mr. Lowenthal was talking
about, we have to build new storage, we have to figure out
smarter ways to move water from where it exists to where the
demand exists, we have to conserve, we have to use de-
salinization, and we have to do all of those things. But we
also need to have smart policy that governs the operation of
these projects.
And pardon me for saying this, but, from my perspective, a
policy that does not do anything to benefit fish or apparently
does not do anything to benefit fish, given the decline of all
of these species, when it has the type of impacts that Mr.
McClintock was talking about, does not represent sound policy.
We want to protect the fish, but it needs to be done in a smart
manner that allows us to deliver water to people.
Mr. Newhouse. Let me follow up with that, if I could. How
would you respond to those that argue that the current level of
water diversions are necessary for the protection of the Delta
smelt species?
Mr. Birmingham. We have talked a lot about the amount of
water that is lost. And I said 500,000 acre-feet over 2 months
compares to operations under D-1641, the Water Right Decision
in the state of California, that describes how much water has
to go out of the Delta to protect fish. It is 500,000 acre-feet
of water. I suspect, and you can ask the experts, but if they
were to have pumped that 500,000 acre-feet, it probably would
not have had any effect on the long-term abundance of the Delta
smelt.
And, there are reports--for example, the National Academies
of Science did an analysis that described some of these
relationships, the rates of pumping at the Delta pumping plants
to the survival of salmon as being weak. They said flow is very
important, but pumping apparently has no effect on salmon
abundance moving out of the San Joaquin River. That is an
objective analysis, and yet we continue to implement policies
that severely limit our ability to deliver water to people,
both farmers and urban areas.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that answer. I see my time has
expired, so I yield back, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman. Well, panel, it seems
that we are so close to a solution here today that Members
would like another round of questions. We are going to limit it
to 2 minutes and just hold a queue. For instance, I am not
going to ask any further questions. I know Mr. Huffman wants to
ask further questions, so we will keep a queue for Members who
do want in.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Huffman for 2 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not enough time to cover
all the ground I would like to, but a couple of important
points need to be made.
Mr. Birmingham, we have gone back and forth a little, but
you do not have to take my word for it from last summer on the
Floor of the House. Right there in that chair, we had Mike
Conner and other folks saying the exact same thing. At the time
those statements were made, they were true and correct. Citing
data that was only released by the Bureau this week is not much
of a gotcha moment, and it is not very productive, quite
frankly. So, I think we need to be more careful, as I said
before, on how we assert and use these facts in a discussion of
a subject like this.
Jeff Denham, you are my friend, and we do work well
together on a bunch of issues. But, I want to correct the
notion apparently that I have somehow trivialized the suffering
in places like Porterville and other parts of the Valley. You
will never hear me trivialize that suffering. What I will do is
ask that we tell the whole story.
Porterville, East Porterville, is an environmental justice
tragedy and a disgrace. It is an area that, even in wet years,
has to drink nitrate-laden, toxic water for a community that
deserves better. It is a community that needs to have clean
water that, unfortunately, is not being shared with the hard
workers who helped build the Ag. economy. It is flowing right
by them, in many cases, in canals. But they are forced to drink
nitrate-laden water from wells. When the wells dry up, water
had to be trucked in----
Mr. Denham. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Huffman. I would work with you. I would be delighted to
work with you on a solution to that environmental justice
problem. And the same goes for communities like Mendota and
other places that are suffering not just this year, but every
year, from chronic unemployment. I will never trivialize those
issues.
But I will ask that we tell the whole story, because even
just a few years ago, when water deliveries were much higher,
when the Ag. economy was booming in the Valley, unemployment
was 40 percent or greater in many parts of the Valley. So,
let's be very clear. This is not trivializing, but there is a
bigger context. And thankfully, Jim Costa talks about these
communities each and every year, not just in critical drought
years. But we need to be very careful with the context of this
discussion.
Mr. Denham. If the gentleman would be willing to support
the predation issue--I mean you heard it from every one of
these experts, that it is a big issue, and 2 weeks ago you
heard that 98 percent of the endangered species are getting
eaten by these predator fish. We would ask you to support that
bill to make sure that the social injustice stops.
Mr. Huffman. As I told you, I am happy to look at that
pilot project.
Dr. Fleming. All right. Mr. McClintock is recognized.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Murillo, I want to follow up
on a point that Mr. Costa had made. The El Nino is an
unreliably wet weather cycle. We had hoped for much more than
we now appear to be getting. It looks like it is fizzling. It
is usually then followed by a La Nina, which is a reliable dry
period.
Is it possible that we are simply in a 1-year respite from
a multi-year drought that has yet to unfold?
Mr. Murillo. That is a possibility.
Mr. McClintock. And if that occurs, are we going to be
looking back on the release of these hundreds of thousands of
acre-feet of water that could have been retained for productive
human use very wistfully in a year or two?
Mr. Murillo. Yes. I just want to make sure that people
understand. We talk about these flood control releases out of
Folsom. Some of that water, when we are not in excess
conditions--and we are, at times, the last few weeks--some of
that water is used to meet our exports on the south of Delta--
--
Mr. McClintock. No, I understand that. But those exports
then have been severely restricted because of the biological
opinions that we have been discussing for the smelt.
In addition to that, that is still water lost out of
Folsom, which is necessary to serve the community of Roseville
and other surrounding communities.
Mr. Murillo. Well, this is a system we operate, Folsom is
part of the system----
Mr. McClintock. I want to get in one more question. Mr.
Barbre, you mentioned the raising of Shasta Dam. Shasta was
built to 600 feet of vertical elevation that stores about 4\1/
2\ million acre-feet. It was designed to be 800 feet of
elevation. That 200-foot difference in vertical elevation of
the dam means about 9 million additional acre-feet of water
storage. Why aren't we doing that?
Mr. Barbre. That is a good question. We should be doing
that.
Mr. McClintock. Is it the same environmental regulations
that have so vastly inflated the cost of these projects that
has made them cost-prohibitive?
Mr. Barbre. Well, I think it is that, but also I believe
there is a tribal issue that is asserted that some of their
lands may be disturbed by the raising of Shasta.
Mr. McClintock. Yes, but again, that is not an Act of God,
these are all acts of government.
Mr. Barbre. Exactly.
Dr. Fleming. Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As Mr. Denham
indicated, this is not only a social economic injustice issue
that so many people in the San Joaquin Valley, 4 million
people, have been impacted because their very existence is
threatened by whether or not they will have a reliable water
supply in the future, but it is also a national security issue.
We need food in this country, and we produce food in this
country.
In California, we have 300 commodities that we grow. It is
the Number One dairy state in the Nation, it is the Number One
citrus state in the Nation. We produce half of the Nation's
fruits and vegetables. And the list goes on and on. My time
does not allow it, but these are some of the most nutritious,
healthiest food products in the world.
And I must make issue with some of my colleagues who like
to villainize the people in the Valley, these 4 million people
who are trying to put the food on America's dinner table and
say, ``No, you really don't need water, you can just dry up and
blow away.'' That is what it feels like, I can tell you. That
is what it feels like over the years that we have debated and
debated these issues, and tried to come together with
bipartisan solutions to fix a broken water system.
Mr. Birmingham, it is nice to hear the efforts of
conservation that take place in Marin, in Orange, and in
Imperial. Let's talk about the conservation that agriculture is
doing. How much of Westlands Irrigation District is under drip
or other high-tech water effective utilization?
Mr. Birmingham. Well over 80 percent. The farmers in
Westlands Water District are the most efficient farmers in the
world.
Mr. Costa. How much do you pay for water that you--when you
can get water, you have not been able to get it for 2 years.
Mr. Birmingham. Next year we are hopeful to be able to
deliver water for approximately $900 an acre-foot.
Mr. Costa. And normally it would cost $130 an acre-foot?
Mr. Birmingham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Costa. And I think that people need to understand that,
because of the cost of the water--every efficiency is being
used, but when you only irrigate the roots, you do not recharge
the groundwater, and there is a double-edged sword. We need to
take that into account, as well.
Dr. Fleming. OK, the gentleman yields. Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barbre, there was a little back-and-forth a while ago,
talking about 1977, a pipeline was run from across the Richmond
Bridge to help out Marin County with water supply that belonged
to MWD during water trades, right? Was there also something
that happened in 2014?
Mr. Barbre. No, in 1977, that was a line that the Marin
folks had to construct themselves. It was just temporary, but
they ended up moving Metropolitan Water that we had turned back
to the rest of the state.
Mr. LaMalfa. MWD water was able to be used for that?
Mr. Barbre. Yes.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK.
Mr. Barbre. And from that point forward, that is when we
made the $14 billion in investments. We had to diversify our
portfolio.
Mr. LaMalfa. Certainly. OK. I am short on time.
So, since then, Marin has gone on to build new storage and
take other measures importing water. They built new storage
there to help their situation. OK. Very good.
Now, we talk about regulatory drought. You mentioned a
while ago you have $75 million worth of costs just to study and
permit a de-sal plant in your neighborhood?
Mr. Barbre. Yes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Amazing. Mr. Bettner, when we talk about the
regulatory drought, which means not just on the flows, but
also, evidently, leading up to building something to help with
the drought, one of the things you talked about were delays in
environmental review are related to shifting environmental
requirements. What does that mean, when we are talking about
the projects in our neighborhood, as far as the years and years
it has been studied and talked about, and here we are, ready to
go--especially since the voters in California passed a bond to
build storage----
Mr. Bettner. Well, I think we are at a point, from a local
perspective, to start moving this project, get the feasibility
study done, and the work done for DWR----
Mr. LaMalfa. What is the delay?
Mr. Bettner. We are getting that worked out. I think our
concern is there is no permit strategy. So, we are going to be
ready to go build a project, and if we are stuck with having to
go through state and Federal permits, there is not alignment,
there is not any way to expedite those permitting, then we are
going to have a project that is going to provide a lot of
benefits for water supply in the environment, and----
Mr. LaMalfa. How much water would have been saved during
the drought years, had it already existed?
Mr. Bettner. About a half-million acre-feet every year.
Mr. LaMalfa. Half-a-million acre-feet during drought flows
would already be there.
Mr. Bettner. Yes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. I yield back, sir.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Mr. Denham.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Murillo, I just wanted to follow
up. In regards to Senator Feinstein's bill that was recently
introduced, if it were enacted, what operational changes would
it make in this year, 2016?
Mr. Murillo. It probably would not change our operations
this year. We would continue to operate the way we are
operating right now, because the bill basically says we still
have to comply with the state and Federal law----
Mr. Denham. So, none. As we discussed yesterday, there
would be no changes in pumping, which means Mr. Costa's area is
going to face the same thing that it has faced for the last 4
years.
Mr. Murillo. Yes, with respect to pumping that we are doing
in the Delta, it would probably be the same.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. For that reason, much, much more
needs to be done.
Mr. Pool, there is a very successful program in the lower
Columbia River that pays people to catch pikeminnow, very
similar to the striped bass that are eating our endangered and
threatened species. Do you believe that Federal fish agencies
and the California Fish and Wildlife should begin a similar
program in California?
Mr. Pool. I think we should take a look at it. Pikeminnow
are a major, major predator. Unfortunately, they are a native
fish. But we should take a look at that one, because it has
been quite successful in the Columbia River.
Mr. Denham. With striped bass being a non-native fish that
is proving to eat 98 percent of our salmon population----
Mr. Pool. No, I would like to talk to you about that. It is
not eating 90 percent. We are losing 90 percent. But that is
temperature problems in the last few years, not predation
problems. Predation is very high.
Mr. Denham. It is very high. We just had----
Mr. Pool. I would like to talk to you----
Mr. Denham [continuing]. NOAA here 2 weeks ago, and their
numbers--not my numbers, not this committee's numbers, but the
Obama administration, their numbers say that 98 percent of the
fish that we are trying to save are getting eaten by these
predator fish. So, it makes sense to me.
By your numbers, you say how many? What percentage are
getting killed or are not making it out to the ocean?
Mr. Pool. Oh, 5 percent survival from the upper----
Mr. Denham. OK, so 5 percent survival----
Mr. Pool. From the upper river.
Mr. Denham. If the 95 percent that are not making it are
getting eaten by predator fish, this would seem like a very,
very cost-effective way to try to save the fish that are being
prioritized over the people in Mr. Costa's and other people's
districts.
Mr. Pool. We would like to interact----
Mr. Denham. I yield back, thank you.
Mr. Pool [continuing]. On predation more with you. There
are some subtleties.
Dr. Fleming. I have been hanging on the edge of this cliff,
waiting for the final solution here. But, unfortunately, we
have----
Mr. Denham. Do you want to have a third round?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Costa. Did you get it?
Dr. Fleming. I have a feeling that if we go a third round,
we are not going to get to the final solution.
I do want to thank our witnesses for their valuable
testimony. Members of the subcommittee may have additional
questions for witnesses. We would ask for you to respond to
these in writing. The hearing record will be open for 10
business days to receive these responses.
Therefore, being no further business before us today, and
without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]