    [Senate Hearing 114-495]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-495

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                    S. 2524

                                    S. 2533

                                    S. 2616

                                    S. 2902

                                    S. 2907

                                   __________

                                  MAY 17, 2016

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

                                       ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    21-987                         WASHINGTON : 2018
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia

                        Subcommittee on Water and Power

                               MIKE LEE, Chairman
    JEFF FLAKE                           MAZIE K. HIRONO
    JOHN BARRASSO                        RON WYDEN
    JAMES E. RISCH                       BERNARD SANDERS
    STEVE DAINES                         AL FRANKEN
    CORY GARDNER                         JOE MANCHIN III
    ROB PORTMAN                          ANGUS S. KING, JR.

                          Colin Hayes, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
       Christopher Kearney, Budget Analyst and Senior Professional Staff
                                     Member
               Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
            Melanie Stansbury, Democratic Professional Staff Member

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Lee, Hon. Mike, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from
      Utah...........................................................     1
    Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon......................     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from California...........     3
    McCain, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from Arizona...................   140
    Lopez, Hon. Estevan, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
      Department of the Interior.....................................   142
    Weldon, Leslie, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
      Department of Agriculture......................................   159
    Quinn, Dr. Timothy, Executive Director, Association of California
      Water Agencies.................................................   167
    Keppen, Dan, Executive Director, Family Farm Alliance............   175
    Long, Bill, President, Board of Directors, Southeastern Colorado
      Water Conservancy District.....................................   188
    Buschatzke, Thomas, Director, Arizona Department of Water
      Resources......................................................   199
    Ziemer, Laura, Senior Counsel and Water Policy Advisor, Trout
      Unlimited......................................................   209

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Alameda County Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................   105
    Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
      Zone 7:
        Letter for the Record........................................   107
    Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   265
    American Bird Conservancy, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   267
    American Rivers:
        Letter for the Record........................................   271
    American Rivers, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   274
    American Sportfishing Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   276
    Association of California Water Agencies:
        Letter for the Record........................................   104
    Bennet, Hon. Michael:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   278
    Buschatzke, Thomas:
        Opening Statement............................................   199
        Written Testimony............................................   201
    CalChamber Advocacy:
        Article entitled ``CalChamber Backs Renewed Effort on Federal
          Water Bill'' dated February 26, 2016.......................   118
    California Citrus Mutual:
        Press Release dated February 10, 2016........................   116
    California Farm Bureau Federation:
        Press Release dated February 10, 2016........................   115
    California Fresh Fruit Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   102
    California Natural Resources Agency:
        Press Release dated February 10, 2016........................   114
    California Water Service:
        Letter for the Record........................................    98
    Central Contra Costa Sanitary District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    96
    City of Benicia (California):
        Letter for the Record........................................    94
    City of Indio (California):
        Letter for the Record........................................    92
    City of Palo Alto (California):
        Letter for the Record........................................    90
    City of Pismo Beach (California):
        Letter for the Record........................................    89
    City of Pleasanton (California):
        Letter for the Record........................................    88
    City of San Buenaventura (Ventura) Water Department:
        Letter for the Record........................................    82
    City of San Diego (California):
        Letter for the Record........................................    86
    City of South Gate (California):
        Letter for the Record........................................    85
    City of Turlock (California):
        Letter for the Record........................................    83
    Coachella Valley Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    80
    Coastal Trollers Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   281
    Colorado River Board of California:
        Letter for the Record........................................   283
    Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado Department of Natural
      Resources:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   190
    Costa, Hon. Jim:
        Press Release dated February 10, 2016........................   112
    Cucamonga Valley Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    79
    Delta Diablo:
        Letter for the Record........................................    78
    Desert Water Agency:
        Letter for the Record........................................    77
    Dublin San Ramon Services District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    75
    Ducks Unlimited, et al.:
        Letter for the Record dated February 5, 2016.................    71
        Letter for the Record dated May 12, 2016.....................    73
    East Bay Municipal Utility District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    70
    Eastern Municipal Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    69
    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne:
        Opening Statement............................................     3
        Chart entitled ``5 years of California drought''.............     4
        California Long-Term Provisions for Water Supply and Short-
          Term Provisions for Emergency Drought Relief Act (S. 2533):
            Support for S. 2533--List of Letters, Press Releases and
              Op-Eds.................................................     6
            Water Supply Increase and Improvement Provisions.........   124
        Written Statement............................................   129
    Garamendi, Hon. John, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................     9
    Garamendi, Hon. John:
        Letter for the Record........................................    11
    Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    67
    GoldenGate Salmon Association:
        Initial Analysis of S. 2533..................................   286
    Goleta Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    65
    Indio Water Authority:
        Letter for the Record........................................    64
    International Union of Operating Engineers:
        Letter for the Record........................................    63
    Irvine Ranch Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    62
    Keppen, Dan:
        Opening Statement............................................   175
        Written Testimony............................................   177
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   253
    Las Virgenes Municipal Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    61
    Las Virgenes--Triunfo Joint Powers Authority:
        Letter for the Record........................................    60
    League of California Cities:
        Letter for the Record........................................    59
    Lee, Hon. Mike:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Long, Bill:
        Opening Statement............................................   188
        Written Testimony............................................   194
    Lopez, Hon. Estevan:
        Opening Statement............................................   142
        Written Testimony............................................   144
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   242
    Mape's Ranch and Lyons' Investments:
        Letter for the Record........................................   121
    McCain, Hon. John:
        Opening Statement............................................   140
    Merced County Association of Governments:
        Letter for the Record........................................    56
    (The) Metropolitan Water District of Southern California:
        Letter for the Record........................................    12
    Monterey County Board of Supervisors:
        Letter for the Record........................................    54
    Monterey County Water Resources Agency:
        Letter for the Record........................................    52
    Monterey Peninsula Water Management District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    51
    Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency:
        Letter for the Record........................................    49
    North Bay Water Reuse Authority:
        Letter for the Record........................................    47
    Northern California Water Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    45
    Orange County Sanitation District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    44
    Orange County Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    43
    Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations:
        Letter for the Record........................................   288
    Pacific Fishery Management Council:
        Letter for the Record........................................   291
    Quinn, Dr. Timothy:
        Opening Statement............................................   167
        Written Testimony............................................   169
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   250
    Reclamation District 108 (Grimes, California):
        Letter for the Record........................................    41
    Redwood City, California:
        Letter for the Record........................................    40
    Rincon Water:
        Letter for the Record........................................    38
    San Diego County Water Authority:
        Letter for the Record........................................    36
    San Joaquin Valley Water Infrastructure Authority:
        Letter for the Record........................................    34
    San Jose Water Company:
        Letter for the Record........................................    32
    Santa Clara Valley Water District:
        Letter for the Record dated January 22, 2016.................    27
        Letter for the Record dated April 8, 2016....................    29
    Sonoma County Water Agency:
        Letter for the Record........................................   295
    Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority:
        Letter for the Record........................................    25
    Valley Industry and Commerce Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    24
    Valley Sanitary District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    22
    Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority:
        Letter for the Record dated February 8, 2016.................    20
        Letter for the Record dated February 24, 2016................    21
    Walnut Valley Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    19
    Water Agencies:
        Press Release dated February 10, 2016........................   110
    Water Replenishment District of Southern California:
        Letter for the Record........................................    18
    Weldon, Leslie:
        Opening Statement............................................   159
        Written Testimony............................................   161
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   247
    West Bay Sanitary District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    16
    West Coast Salmon Fishing Industry and Related Businesses:
        Letter for the Record........................................   297
    Western Governors' Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   219
    Western Growers:
        Press Release for the Record.................................   108
    Western Municipal Water District's Board of Directors:
        Letter for the Record........................................    15
    Western Recycled Water Coalition, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   100
    (The) Wilderness Society:
        Letter for the Record........................................   303
    Wyden, Hon. Ron:
        Opening Statement............................................     2
    Yuba County Water Agency:
        Letter for the Record........................................    13
    Ziemer, Laura:
        Opening Statement............................................   209
        Written Testimony............................................   211
        Supplemental Testimony and Responses to Questions for the
          Record.....................................................   260

                                   __________
    The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this
    subcommittee hearing can be found on the committee's website at:
    https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-
    meetings?ID=A7AE5EAB-EB16-4CAF-A918-68A1A5D5BEB7.

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2016

                                   U.S. Senate,
                       Subcommittee on Water and Power,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:13 p.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee,
    Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
                         U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

        Senator Lee. Welcome. It is a pleasure to have you here--
    form the basis of a drought legislation package aimed at
    California and at various other Western States.
        Although the final details of the legislative package
    remain in flux, I would like to highlight two concerns that are
    most important to my home State of Utah. First, any drought
    bill must be fully paid for. Two, it must contain the
    protections provided in the Water Rights Protection Act. I will
    discuss each of these in turn briefly.
        A little over a year ago, the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture designated Sanpete County in central Utah as a
    primary natural disaster area due to damages and losses caused
    by the recent drought. Farmers and ranchers in Carbon, Emery,
    Juab, Millard, Sevier, and Utah Counties also qualify for
    natural disaster assistance.
        I know Utah is not alone in fighting drought. California,
    New Mexico, Wyoming, Arizona, and Colorado are also dealing
    with similar problems, but simply because the drought crisis
    exists and is painful does not mean that it should be used to
    expand federal obligations, or at least to do so irresponsibly.
    Any new or expanded government spending authorization should be
    offset with Bureau of Reclamation prepayment revenue or
    spending reductions.
        We have a saying of the West: Water is for fighting. A
    hundred years ago, water disputes sometimes ended in bloodshed,
    now they end in years of litigation.
        It is precisely because of these tensions that federal
    regulators should be prohibited from blackmailing state and
    private water users into relinquishing their water rights.
        In 2014, the Forest Service proposed a new regulation that
    would require water rights to be transferred to the Federal
    Government as a condition for obtaining permits needed to
    operate 121 ski resorts across federal lands. Later, the Forest
    Service wisely withdrew this regulation.
        Included in S. 2902 is language that would protect state-
    issued water rights by prohibiting the Departments of Interior
    and Agriculture from requiring a transfer or limitation of
    water rights as a condition precedent for obtaining a permit to
    use federal land.
        Senator Wyden.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

        Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Senator Lee.
        We are glad to have our witnesses here today.
        Suffice it to say, what this is about is we are facing a
    water emergency in the West. Last year, the American West
    experienced an unprecedented drought with record-breaking
    temperatures and low snow pack and rainfall. This drought
    impacted communities. It impacted agriculture, industry,
    wildlife, and the environment.
        Conditions may be a bit better now with El Nino, but we are
    still stuck in the proverbial woods because conditions are
    expected to continue throughout much of the West in coming
    years. As a result, communities across the country face
    significant water security shortages and are trying to respond
    to these dwindling supplies.
        Managing our water resources for the future means
    developing smart and collaborative solutions that help people
    and the environment. Creative approaches that can end water
    wars and empower communities on the ground are like those in
    the Klamath Basin in my home state and the Yakima Basin in
    Washington.
        In Oregon, we have experienced drought disasters for
    several years now, and we are gearing up for another dry year.
    Extreme drought conditions impact farming, ranching, fish,
    wildlife, and wildfire.
        Chair Murkowski and the Ranking Member, Senator Cantwell,
    are working together to look for ways--and I think Senator
    McCain and Senator Feinstein know about this--to also better
    fund prevention of fire and make existing dollars stretch
    further than we have in the past.
        With the traditional big recreation season about to begin,
    I would also like to note that drought significantly limits
    opportunities for people to get outside, recreate, and enjoy
    the West and boost our recreation economy. You cannot paddle
    down a river when there is barely enough water to float a
    kayak, and you cannot hike through a forest when the dry
    conditions have sparked a wildfire.
        The recreation economy has the potential to be a major
    economic engine throughout the West. I recently introduced
    legislation, the RNR bill, which stands for Recreation, Not
    Red-Tape. Because we have witnesses here today, I will be
    talking more about that later this week.
        The problems in the Klamath Basin are especially on my mind
    today because they have been made worse by years of dry
    conditions that decrease supply and increase the tensions, but
    we were able to get a diverse group of community leaders
    together to find a sustainable solution and we are in a
    position now where we can turn a corner and start making real
    progress.
        The work that groups like Trout Unlimited and the Family
    Farm Alliance have done in the Klamath Basin is commendable. I
    bring this up simply by way of saying that these collaborative
    coalitions, and you see them around the country, they are doing
    the heavy lifting, but they can and do work. The Klamath Basin,
    in fact, proves that that is the case.
        I have had a number of conversations with my colleague and
    friend, Senator Feinstein, because she has been doing yeoman's
    work trying to make sure that the water challenges in
    California are dealt with. Her bill to address the drought is
    of special interest to our state for a variety of reasons, but
    one that I have not really learned about until recently is the
    potential impact on the health and sustainability of Oregon and
    Northwest salmon fisheries. I am looking forward to getting
    more information on those issues in the days ahead so that I
    can work closely with Senator Feinstein and our colleagues to
    make sure that Oregon fisheries will be able to benefit from
    drought management decisions that are made in California,
    number one, and that we avoid negative impacts on our
    fisheries.
        Let me close with one last point. Having worked with
    Senator Feinstein and Senator McCain on a lot of these natural
    resource issues in the past, I think we understand that nobody
    gets everything they want when you are dealing with tough
    resources issues. Nobody gets everything they believe they
    ought to have. The question is, can you get enough in order to
    strike a balance between the various interests that we all care
    about?
        I look forward very much to working with Senator Feinstein
    and Senator McCain, because we have traveled those roads
    before, and we have been able to navigate tough resources
    issues because we built around those kinds of principles. I
    look forward to our witnesses and working with both of them.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
        We have two panels of witnesses today. Our first panel
    consists of Senator Feinstein from California and Senator
    McCain from Arizona. We will hear from each of them now.
        Senator Feinstein, we will start with you.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

        Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
    Wyden, and Senator Manchin. Thank you very much for this
    opportunity.
        I would like to mention that there is a gentleman sitting
    behind me who is going to testify on the next panel. He is Tim
    Quinn. He is the Executive Director of the Association of
    California Water Agencies. They represent 430 public agencies.
    They are responsible for 90 percent of the water delivered
    throughout California. I think he brings an important
    perspective.
        Despite this most recent El Nino, California still faces
    severe drought conditions now going on five consecutive years.
    A picture is worth a thousand words.
        [The information referred to follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        If you look at this chart, and maybe if you tilt it just a
    little bit this way, you will see how dry California has been
    every week since the drought began in 2010. It shows the
    drought's progression from abnormally dry conditions in yellow,
    to severe drought in orange, and to extreme drought in red, and
    finally exceptional drought in the dark red color. I think it
    says it all.
        The sustained presence of exceptional drought, the most
    severe category since 2014, is alarming and illustrates
    California's emergency situation. This is also highlighted by
    our inadequate infrastructure.
        I think most people do not realize that the two big water
    conveyance projects, the Central Valley Project and the State
    Water Project--the State Water Project was built for the cities
    and the other project was built essentially by farmers for
    farmers. It was designed when California was 16 million people.
    Well, we are now 40-plus million people, and the infrastructure
    has not been significantly expanded.
        So this bill is the product of two years of work, 28
    drafts, 43 amendments to the last draft. It has been circulated
    to Republicans, Democrats, environmental groups, water
    districts, cities, rural communities, fishermen, and farmers.
        I would like to add to the record, if I may, Mr. Chairman,
    letters of 104 agencies and individuals throughout the state
    supporting the bill you have before you.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The House has passed a bill that I do not believe,
    candidly, can pass the Senate, so our goal has been to craft
    legislation that could pass the Senate and then, hopefully,
    will be able to conference with the House.
        The short-term provisions for emergency drought relief
    apply only to California. The long-term provisions apply to all
    17 Reclamation States West-wide, and some provisions, such as
    WaterSMART Reclamation grant programs and RIFIA, to Alaska and
    Hawaii as well.
        I am skipping, to shorten this.
        Data from Reclamation so far suggests that we have not seen
    flows this low in the Colorado River Basin for almost 1,000
    years. While the basin states are doing a tremendous job to
    work together in confronting the drought, we have to reach
    consensus prior to congressional action, and there appears to
    be no immediate end in sight.
        The state has estimated that 150 percent of average
    snowpack in March is necessary to end the drought. We ended up
    with about 80 percent the end of March, so this means the
    drought is going to continue through next year.
        The bill before you does not violate the Endangered Species
    Act (ESA) or the biological opinions or include any operational
    mandates for the agencies. The bill, we think, accomplishes the
    dual roles of maximizing water supplies and protecting the
    environment.
        To accomplish these goals, the bill's short-term provisions
    include increased operational flexibility to deal with the
    drought right now, and the long-term provisions invest in
    infrastructure and environmental restoration throughout the
    West. For example, for long-term, the provisions reshape how
    the Federal Government assists states in coping with drought.
    We provide and identify 110 recycling projects and 25 desal
    projects that could produce enough water in California to
    supply over 1 million acre-feet of water for 2.7 million homes.
    We increase WaterSMART funding by $150 million for projects to
    improve a range of water storage and water supply management.
    We fund the Reclamation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation
    Act, or RIFIA, at $200 million. We update Army Corps dam
    operations to increase water supply while reducing flood risk.
    We have $600 million in it for water storage projects to hold
    water in wet years for use in dry years, and the 17 states plus
    Alaska and Hawaii are all eligible; $560 million for recycling
    and water efficiency to better use the water that we do have;
    and $100 million for the desalinization plants.
        The bill's short-term provisions do not contain mandates.
    Rather, they provide that agencies base water operations on
    science, not intuition or guesswork.
        It is also important to note the short-term provisions last
    two years or the duration of the Governor's drought
    declaration, whichever is longer. For that brief time, the bill
    provides for more operational flexibility in the two big
    conveyance systems I spoke of, and a more precisely managed
    system for which we also include funding.
        For example, the short-term provisions allow for increased
    pumping during winter storms to capture peak flows, and it
    eliminates the automatic so-called payback of water supply so
    that agencies can keep the water they gain from the winter
    storms.
        Other examples of the short-term are maintaining a one-for-
    one ratio for water transfers through the spring and early
    summer to ensure that 100 percent of the water identified for
    transfer goes to communities that need it most, and the bill
    extends the time period for transfers by five months stretching
    supplies during the critical growing season.
        With the chair's permission, I would like to enter into the
    record eight ways in which the water bill provides supplies in
    the short-term, without going into them precisely.
        Senator Lee. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We have worked with relevant federal and state agencies for
    two years now to make sure this bill can produce real water in
    a manner consistent with the Endangered Species Act and
    biological opinions.
        To remove any doubt, we included a simple, clear savings
    clause to make it crystal clear that the bill is consistent
    with environmental laws and biological opinions. The bill
    provides $1.3 billion in authorizations, all of which are
    offset in two ways.
        First, the Bureau of Reclamation would identify, with
    public input, projects appropriate for deauthorization. This
    would reduce existing authorizations between $1 billion and
    $1.7 billion. These are all authorizations that have existed
    for a substantial period of time and have not been utilized.
        The second offset increases federal revenues by $632
    million over 10 years by inducing Western water contractors to
    accelerate their debt payments.
        So this is just a very brief summary of this bill, Mr.
    Chairman and Ranking Member Wyden.
        And thank you, Chairman Flake. I am sorry you missed this,
    but I know you are a quick study, so thank you very much.
        I look forward to today's discussion and to working with
    all of you to get a bill signed into law. Thank you very much.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Your documents
    will be admitted into the record, without objection.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Feinstein follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lee. Senator McCain.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

        Senator McCain. Senator Lee, Senator Flake, Senator Wyden,
    Senator Manchin, thank you.
        You mentioned, Senator Lee, that, in the West, water is for
    fighting. You left out Mark Twain said, ``In the West, water is
    for fighting; whiskey is for drinking.'' That was his complete
    statement, for the record.
        Senator Lee. My apologies. That was the Mormon in me just
    editing that for television.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator McCain. My predecessor, Barry Goldwater, once said
    that in Arizona, we have so little water that the trees chase
    the dogs. I would not want to enter that into the record.
        But anyway, I am proud to cosponsor the legislation, the
    Western Water Supply and Planning Enhancement Act. I thank
    Senator Flake for his leadership on this piece of legislation.
    I want to thank our colleagues, Senator Heller, Senator
    Barrasso, Senator Daines, and Senator Risch.
        I am grateful that the Subcommittee will receive testimony
    from Mr. Tom Buschatzke, the Director of the Arizona Department
    of Water Resources. Tom is one of Arizona's foremost experts on
    water policy, and I applaud his leadership and that of our
    Governor, Doug Ducey.
        I believe water and fire are the defining environmental
    issues of the 21st century. Both issues are connected.
    Decreased levels of rain runoff and snowmelt have stressed our
    water supplies and degraded the ecosystems of our fire-prone
    forests.
        My home State of Arizona, like much of the West, is coping
    with its 16th consecutive year of drought, and the drought is
    taking its toll. According to the U.S. Geological Service,
    treasured rivers in my home state, like the Verde River and the
    free-flowing San Pedro River, could run dry within the next 80
    years.
        Mr. Chairman, 80 percent of our drought-stressed forests in
    Arizona have been consumed by wildfire in the last 20 years.
    You can do the math and figure out what is going to happen to
    the national forests in the State of Arizona.
        This is a critical, crucial, compelling issue, and it is
    time we sat down together, I would say to Senator Feinstein,
    and I thank Senator Wyden for his continued efforts at
    cooperation, to address this issue.
        If water levels in Lake Mead drop below the 1,075-foot
    mark, the Interior Department will trigger cutbacks in Colorado
    River water for the basin states. Due to Arizona's junior water
    rights, a shortage would impact water supplies for more than
    five million people across Phoenix, Tucson, and Yuma.
        Today, there is 50 percent likelihood that the first round
    of cutbacks will occur in 2018. Arizona planned for this
    eventuality and will withstand these initial shortages because
    of investments in conservation, reservoir construction, and
    groundwater banking. But with Lake Mead levels at their lowest
    since it was filled, there is no question that deeper shortages
    are looming.
        The United States will pay a profound environmental and
    economic price if greater attention and resources are not
    devoted to this issue.
        The bill we propose is a combination of our top strategies
    for curtailing the drought at the federal level. Among other
    things, the legislation proposes more equitable water storage
    arrangements for states whose proactive conservation keeps
    water in Lake Mead. We also propose to give the Forest Service
    expedited authorities for fire-prevention thinning near
    reservoirs. We need to thin our forests, Mr. Chairman. We need
    to thin our forests. Anyone who has ever flown over a forest
    fire, as I have, and watched trees explode because of the fuel
    that has built up around those forests over many, many years
    knows that we have to thin our forests.
        We have to propose to give the Forest Service expedited
    authorities for that thinning near reservoirs to guard against
    toxic ash runoff.
        The bill would develop a regional plan to eradicate the
    non-native salt cedar tree. Each salt cedar tree is estimated
    to consume about 200 gallons of water a day. I repeat, one salt
    cedar tree consumes about 200 gallons of water a day. It is all
    up and down our rivers and the Colorado River, as the Chairman
    well knows. The Central Arizona Project (CAP) estimates that
    removing salt cedar, replanting with native vegetation, and
    that second part of the equation is critical, like cottonwood
    and willows, could save up to 860,000 acre-feet of water across
    the lower basin. I repeat, 860,000 acre-feet. I have seen salt
    cedar removal projects work in places like the Yuma Crossing
    National Heritage Area, where only 400 acres of salt cedar
    stretching two stories high were restored as wetlands habitat.
        Our bill would augment the work of the Kazakhstan salt
    cedar beetle. Not many Americans are familiar with the
    Kazakhstan salt cedar beetle. This wonderful little beetle, the
    best thing I have ever heard of that might have come from
    Kazakhstan, is now eating its way down the Colorado River and
    killing the salt cedar. That is the good news. The bad news is,
    Mr. Chairman, we are not replacing the dead salt cedar. But God
    bless the Kazakhstan salt cedar beetle.
        Some biologists predict that the beetle will populate most
    of the Colorado River corridor by 2020. I believe it is prudent
    to begin planning for the beetles' presence and to move
    aggressively on these and other innovative water strategies
    covered under our bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up much more time of
    the Committee. I believe that the United States of America and
    those of us who are seeing a threat to the lives and lifestyle
    of our children and our grandchildren should get together and
    fix this problem. We have not faced a problem that we cannot
    fix. But right now, this threat in the 14th or 15th year of a
    drought is a direct threat to our lives and that of our
    children and our grandchildren. I think we owe it to them to
    act in a most constructive fashion.
        I would like to again ask California to return the water
    they have stolen from us.
        [Laughter.]
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Lee. I am sure Senator Feinstein will arrange that
    very quickly.
        Thank you very much, both of you, for being here and for
    your testimony today.
        I would like to now ask those participating in our second
    panel to come forward. Specifically, Commissioner Lopez, Deputy
    Chief Weldon, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Keppen, Mr. Long, Mr. Buschatzke,
    and Ms. Ziemer, if you can come forward to the witness table.
        As they are coming forward, I will be introducing them.
        We are going to begin this panel by hearing from the
    Honorable Estevan Lopez, the 22nd Commissioner of the Bureau of
    Reclamation. After Commissioner Lopez, we will have Leslie
    Weldon of the USDA Forest Service, who has served as the Deputy
    Chief for the National Forest System since 2011. We welcome you
    back to the Committee, Deputy Chief Weldon. Then we will have
    Tim Quinn, the Executive Director of the Association of
    California Water Agencies. Following Mr. Quinn, we will have
    Dan Keppen before the Committee once again. Mr. Keppen is the
    Executive Director of the Family Farm Alliance and testified at
    the Committee's last legislative hearing on drought. Then we
    will have Bill Long, the President of Southeastern Colorado
    Water Conservancy District. After him, we will have Tom
    Buschatzke, who was before the Committee last summer to discuss
    drought. Tom is the Director of the Arizona Department of Water
    Resources and has been a powerful voice for Arizona's water
    interests. Thank you for being here, Tom, and for your
    leadership on water issues in Arizona. Finally, we will have
    Laura Ziemer, the Senior Counsel and Water Policy Advisor for
    Trout Unlimited.
        Mr. Lopez, we will start with you.

            STATEMENT OF HON. ESTEVAN LOPEZ, COMMISSIONER,
             BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
                                INTERIOR

        Mr. Lopez. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Wyden, and members
    of the Subcommittee, I am Estevan Lopez, Commissioner of the
    Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
    before the Subcommittee to provide the Department's view on
    four of the five bills before the Subcommittee today.
        I am accompanied by John Bezdek, who many of you know, and
    who serves as our Counselor to the Deputy Secretary.
        My written statements have been submitted for the record,
    so I will summarize those very briefly in the interest of time.
        To begin, S. 2533 by Senator Feinstein is a multi-part bill
    aimed at mitigating the extreme drought experienced for the
    past four years in California. As you know, the Department has
    testified on prior versions of the bill before this Committee,
    and we are happy that the Senator and her staff have worked
    very closely with us, particularly with Mr. Bezdek, to address
    technical issues and refine the bill.
        This collaborative process has produced a good result, and
    we believe that the bill before the Subcommittee today would
    improve the water supply situation in California while being
    protective of the environment, endangered species, and the very
    important salmon fishery that migrates through the Sacramento-
    San Joaquin Delta.
        I know that there are some elements of the bill that have
    created concern for some parties, and we understand those
    perspectives. We are glad to continue working with Senator
    Feinstein in the process she has employed to date on any of
    these issues. But on balance, we are confident and comfortable
    with the measured approach contained in S. 2533.
        Next, S. 2616 by Senator Gardner would modify certain cost-
    sharing and revenue provisions relating to the Arkansas Valley
    Conduit in Colorado. This is a project with a long history. The
    Bureau of Reclamation has been able to maintain a certain level
    of funding to complete preconstruction work that needs to be
    done. Reclamation and the Southeastern Colorado Water
    Conservancy District began discussions last year to develop an
    approach for funding construction, which is an important step
    toward meeting the drinking water needs of six Colorado
    counties where water contains high levels of naturally
    occurring radium and uranium.
        S. 2616 aims to help advance long-awaited construction of
    the conduit by authorizing miscellaneous revenues to the
    district to enable repayment of loans from the Colorado Water
    Conservation Board (CWCB). While the Administration supports
    the goals of assisting non-federal sponsors with access to non-
    federal capital for the construction of projects, we want to
    continue to work with the sponsors and local communities on how
    we will move forward with construction. Our budget is under
    great pressure, and we are encouraged by the efforts of Bill
    Long and the Conservancy District to reach out to the state to
    make possible a loan to begin funding.
        S. 2902 by Senator Flake is another multi-part bill with
    several provisions, some of which are drought-related and
    others which are more indirect relationship to drought. As
    stated in my written testimony, many of the provisions of S.
    2902 have been testified on separately by the Department at
    prior hearings. On balance, the bill contains some elements we
    support and others we do not, and we are glad to explore that
    further with the Subcommittee.
        Lastly, S. 2907 by Senator Reid would enable continuation
    of System Conservation Pilot Program underway on the Colorado
    River that aims to address the prolonged drought on the basis
    of facilitating greater storage in Lakes Mead and Powell. We
    support this program in our budget request and appreciate
    Senator Reid's support as well as that of the stakeholders here
    today who have committed their own resources to the program as
    well.
        This concludes my statement. I am pleased to answer
    questions at the appropriate time, and I appreciate the
    Subcommittee's consideration for my travel commitment later
    this afternoon.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lopez follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lee. Thank you, Commissioner.
        Deputy Chief Weldon.

       STATEMENT OF LESLIE WELDON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
                 SYSTEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        Ms. Weldon. Thank you, Chairman Lee, and members of the
    Subcommittee, for the opportunity to provide the views of the
    U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding S. 2902, the Western
    Water Supply and Planning Enhancement Act, and S. 2524, the
    Bolts Ditch Access and Use Act.
        Accept my apology for some of the generalness of my
    remarks. We would like to have additional time to fully analyze
    the effects of the bill. That said, we appreciate and share the
    strong interest in ensuring resilient, sustainable flows of
    water and restoring health to forested watersheds.
        As we have asserted at previous hearings on similar
    matters, I emphasize that all the efforts of the Forest Service
    regarding the stewardship of water resources are conducted to
    help ensure that abundant clean water is available for the
    public's use and enjoyment. Whether it is to make snow for
    downhill skiing, provide for world-class fishing experiences,
    sustain wildlife or domestic animals, or to maintain community
    and agricultural water supplies, everything is done for the
    public value.
        Watersheds have long been used and recognized as basic
    building blocks of sound resource management. Beginning in 1897
    through the Organic Administration Act, Congress directed the
    Forest Service to manage the National Forest System lands to
    secure favorable flows of water conditions for multiple public
    uses and benefits that sustain economies and maintain
    communities across the nation today.
        Since then, Congress has provided additional legislative
    direction to the Forest Service regarding our role to sustain
    water, watersheds, and the management of those resources,
    direction that is even more critical today as we face ongoing
    drought, a longer fire season, and other consequences of a
    changing climate.
        We recognize the fundamental role of states in education,
    adjudication of water rights according to state laws, and
    assert no intention to exceed statutory authorities granted to
    us in this or any other aspect of our mission. USDA believes
    that the existing framework of state and federal statutes
    adequately provide for the protection of privately-held water
    rights in balance with public service and natural resources
    conservation work of the Forest Service and that no additional
    legislation to ensure this balance is needed.
        As an example of our success in working within this
    framework, we point to our response to concerns from the ski
    industry, states, and others regarding our initial draft of a
    watershed clause for ski area special use permits. By working
    closely and collaboratively with those most concerned, we were
    able to craft a final water clause for ski area permits that
    recognizes and protects the value of privately held water
    rights as assets and also ensures the availability of
    sufficient water for current and future ski area operations.
        Another example is our response to concerns regarding
    groundwater. After listening to those concerns following the
    publication of a proposed directive in 2014, the Forest Service
    acknowledged the concerns in our approach, stopped all work on
    that directive, and will not move forward with that original
    proposal. Rather, we have committed to engaging with states,
    tribes, and citizens, to understand and collaboratively address
    their concerns.
        Should we choose to move forward with a new directive in
    the future, it would only be after fully engaging with those
    interested and affected in an open and transparent manner to
    ensure that we get it correct.
        We also agree with the need to protect critical water
    supply watersheds. This type of work is fundamental to our
    conservation and resource stewardship mission, and will become
    even more important into the future.
        Again, while we cannot comment on specifics of S. 2902 as
    of yet, as a general matter, we appreciate efforts to provide
    planning tools that incentivize collaboration and improve
    efficiency as long as they have strong protections to ensure
    adherence to important and fundamental environmental laws. We
    ask to continue to work with the Committee on these aspects.
        Finally, on S. 2524, we understand this bill seeks to
    resolve issues associated with the use and maintenance of the
    Bolts Ditch near the town of Minturn, Colorado. We acknowledge
    that this bill has the support of Eagle County, the Colorado
    River District, and local and national wilderness advocacy
    organizations, and USDA does not oppose 2524.
        I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and look
    forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Weldon follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Flake [presiding]. Thank you.
        Dr. Quinn.

    STATEMENT OF DR. TIMOTHY QUINN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION
                      OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES

        Dr. Quinn. Thank you, Senator Flake, members of the
    Subcommittee.
        My name is Tim Quinn. I am the Executive Director of the
    Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA). I am going to
    forgo my credentials or those of my association and get right
    to the main point.
        Like Senator Feinstein, ACWA, by its very nature,
    represents a statewide constituency. I represent 440 member
    agencies that cover the entire State of California--ag, urban,
    North, South, et cetera.
        I can tell you in one sentence why that diverse coalition
    so strongly supports S. 2533: because we believe that
    legislation moves the Federal Government into closer alignment
    with key California policies both in the near-term as we are
    dealing with the current drought and in the long-term as we
    strive to be drought-resilient for future droughts.
        I have been actively involved in California water
    management for 35 years. Over that period, we have evolved a
    couple simple themes that we believe work. One of those themes
    we call co-equal goals. What that means in simple terms is both
    water supply reliability and the environment matter in
    California water policy, and we try to operate in ways that
    benefit both of those.
        The second major theme is to use comprehensive solutions.
    If you limit the number of tools that are available to you, you
    will have to play off the environment against the water supply
    or vice versa. So we operate under something called the
    California Water Action Plan, which calls for a very
    comprehensive set of tools.
        To accomplish either of those objectives, coequal goals or
    comprehensive solutions, we need a partnership with the Federal
    Government that, quite frankly, we do not think we enjoy today.
    Too often, federal agencies are approaching us from the
    Endangered Species Act, looking at single species, single
    tools. We wind up with major negative impacts on our water
    supply that we do not think is doing any good for the
    environment.
        Things need to change. We think the Senator's S. 2533 moves
    in the right direction.
        In the near-term, S. 2533 requires the federal agencies to
    put a higher weight on water supply, as they are going through
    applying their discretion. They do have a lot of discretion.
    Currently, we do not think water supply gets nearly enough
    weight in their considerations. So that provision alone is
    important to us in California, moving the Federal Government in
    a direction where they are thinking more in terms of coequal
    goals than just the most vulnerable species under the
    Endangered Species Act.
        To accomplish those near-term objectives, the Senator's
    bill uses various tools to get more efficiency out of the
    system. She mentioned opportunistic pumping. When the winter
    storms hit, be ready and have a place to put that water.
    Similarly, the bill calls for real-time operation of the
    system.
        I would be glad to answer any questions. It is much more
    efficient than the static rules we have now where pumping is
    determined regardless of actual conditions in the system. Real-
    time operation is an order of magnitude better way to operate
    the system.
        Lastly, and I will use this as an example of water supply
    benefits in the near-term, S. 2533 tries to open up the water
    market in California between sellers in Northern California and
    buyers in Southern California. Water marketing is an important
    tool in our state, but most of the suppliers are above our
    Delta and most of our buyers are below the Delta.
        This year, because of what we regard to be artificial
    restrictions on the ability to move water from willing sellers
    to willing buyers, I can tell you exactly how much water will
    be moved from above the Delta to below the Delta in California
    this year. The answer is zero, not a single drop, because the
    Endangered Species Act and the need to meet contract demands
    have closed all the windows that used to be open for moving
    water in the California market.
        I am an economist by training. I understand the power of
    market forces, and I believe when you combine that with real-
    time operations and opportunistic pumping of water flows, there
    are hundreds of thousands acre-feet of water available under
    the short-term provisions of Senator Feinstein's bill, which
    tells you why we are so anxious to see it move forward.
        In the long-term, the bill makes the Federal Government our
    partner in California's comprehensive Water Action Plan. In
    particular, we support provisions that would promote
    desalinization projects; funding WaterSMART to promote
    conservation; funding and improvements in Title XVI, a dollar
    allocation that will significantly promote water use;
    authorizations for new storage projects; new financing
    approaches like RIFIA, which is a low-cost buying approach that
    some of our project proponents think would be enormously
    valuable. We are also very supportive of some of the
    streamlining provisions in the Senator's bill and for
    provisions that would provide assistance to disadvantaged
    communities.
        If you add all of this up, just the desalinization and the
    recycling provisions of S. 2533 could result in 1.4 million
    acre-feet of new water in California in combination with, we
    believe, hundreds of thousands acre-feet for more flexibility
    in the near-term provisions.
        This is a good down payment on California's drought
    resiliency in the future, so ACWA would urge the Subcommittee
    to move this bill forward so we can go and deal with the
    authors of 2898 and come up with a combined approach that we
    can send to the White House and get signed.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Quinn follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Senator Flake. Thank you.
        Mr. Keppen.

             STATEMENT OF DAN KEPPEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                          FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE

        Mr. Keppen. Good afternoon, Chairman Flake, Senator
    Gardner.
        My name is Dan Keppen. On behalf of the Family Farm
    Alliance, I thank you for this opportunity to present this
    testimony on
    S. 2533, Senator Feinstein's California and West-wide drought
    bill.
        The negative impacts of today's droughts and water
    shortages have reached staggering levels for our farmers and
    ranchers, their families, and the irrigated agriculture
    community. Unfortunately, these impacts are driven in part by
    current regulations triggered by fixed calendar dates or
    singular operational thresholds, as Mr. Quinn talked about.
        Important species distribution or other relevant
    environmental factors are often not considered. Such approaches
    are inflexible, inefficient, and ineffective. They stem in part
    from the fact that Congress has not explicitly directed
    agencies to be flexible and innovative, so the agencies default
    to the actions that are least likely to get them sued. Thus,
    the status quo persists. California Bay Delta (CBD) operations
    in 2016 provide an excellent example of this, and I have
    included some figures with my written testimony that
    demonstrate this.
        Because of El Nino storms this winter, inflow in the
    Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta was almost three times greater
    than it was this time this last year, yet the water pumped to
    supply millions of acres of world-class farmland and more than
    20 million Californians living south of the Delta has barely
    increased as compared to last year because of regulatory
    restrictions. Again, one of my figures in the written testimony
    clearly shows that.
        S. 2533 provides for more flexible, efficient, multipurpose
    management of the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the
    Delta. This is also true of the House-passed H.R. 2898, the
    Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015, which the
    full Committee considered during a drought hearing held last
    October that I participated in.
        That hearing also examined Senator Feinstein's earlier
    drought legislation, S. 1894. I testified at the hearing
    expressing our support for both bills which, while similar in
    intent, differed on some important aspects regarding the Delta.
        Certain provisions in H.R. 2898, if enacted, would better
    assist producers in the CBD in dealing with ESA restrictions on
    water deliveries. The House bill does this through improved
    management of species, water flows, and habitat in the Delta.
        H.R. 2898 also would facilitate future water development
    projects through its water supply permitting and Reclamation
    projects streamlining provisions.
        S. 2533 also includes California-specific provisions. These
    are intended to provide additional flexibility and tools to
    address water conveyance and flows in relation to fish
    populations on a real-time basis. We back the bill's provisions
    that seek to address other stressors in the Delta environment,
    especially non-native fish that prey on ESA-listed species like
    Delta smelt and Chinook salmon. S. 2533 also includes specific
    federal authorities and actions that would aid fish passage in
    the Delta, increase hatchery production, and improve spawning
    and rearing habitat of listed species.
    S. 2533 generally directs the Federal Government to maximize
    water supplies to federal and state water users by approving
    projects and operations that provide additional water supplies.
        The bill includes temporary operational flexibility
    provisions that would allow for the diversion and capture of
    peak winter storm flows in the Delta. It streamlines National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitting on water
    infrastructure projects and directs agencies to complete
    certain ongoing feasibility studies for California surface
    water storage projects. Some of these were originally
    authorized nearly 20 years ago. Tim and I were involved with
    this 20 years ago, and they have languished ever since.
        In addition to its California Bay Delta focus, S. 2533
    contains a number of additional provisions that would apply
    throughout the West and which we have previously supported. The
    bill would provide up to $600 million in budget authority for
    the Secretary of Interior to request funding for the federal
    share of new water storage projects in the Western United
    States. S. 2533 also includes innovative financing provisions
    for expanded water infrastructure, which we support.
        We back provisions in S. 2533 directing the Corps of
    Engineers to identify and study flood control rule curves at
    corps-regulated reservoirs where additional water supplies
    could be stored and used in dry years. However, this provision
    has been superseded by an improved version included in the
    Senate-passed S. 2012 energy bill recently, and it should be
    updated accordingly, in our view.
        We support Senator Feinstein's proposed expansion of Water-
    SMART grants and availability of Reclamation Title XVI water
    recycling and reuse grants.
        To conclude, we are encouraged by this Committee's
    consideration of both the House-passed H.R. 2898 and S. 2533.
    We urge you to keep at it. That is because two separate bills
    are of absolutely no value to a parched West. This has been
    twice emphasized in letters to this Committee and signed off by
    over 100 Western agriculture and water organizations in the
    past eight months.
        What is needed is a single bill that can be enacted by
    Congress and signed into law by the President. We must all work
    together to ensure that Western water users have every tool
    available to survive and recover from the current drought in
    the hard dry years that the future may hold.
        Thank you, and I would stand for any questions you may
    have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Keppen follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Gardner [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Keppen.
        I apologize, again, to the witnesses who are here, as we
    have three votes that everybody is dashing in and out for.
    Thank you very much for your time and testimony today.
        It is my privilege and honor to hear the next witness, Mr.
    Bill Long, who I will speak a little bit more about in the
    questioning period.
        Mr. Long from Colorado, welcome.

        STATEMENT OF BILL LONG, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
            SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

        Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Senator Gardner.
        My name is Bill Long. I am President of the Board of
    Directors of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy
    District. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you
    today in support of
    S. 2616, which was introduced by you, Senator Gardner, and is
    cosponsored by Senator Bennett. Your favorable and expeditious
    consideration of the bill will be greatly appreciated by the
    people of the Lower Arkansas Valley.
        The Arkansas Valley Conduit, an authorized feature of the
    Bureau of Reclamation's Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, will convey
    treated drinking water from the project's Pueblo reservoir east
    to 40 communities in the Lower Valley. These small, rural towns
    currently use groundwater wells to supply some or all of their
    drinking water.
        Twenty-one towns have water supplies containing naturally
    occurring, cancer-causing radioactive elements at levels which
    exceed or nearly exceed federally-mandated standards. The
    Colorado Department of Health and Environment has notified
    these providers that they must treat the water supplies to
    remove the contaminants or find a better water quality source.
        In addition, the median salt concentration in the current
    supply is nearly seven times greater than the secondary
    drinking water standard.
        Our communities have a critical need for safe drinking
    water supplies. In its 2014 Record of Decision, Reclamation
    concluded that individual community water systems diverting and
    treating water from the Arkansas River would not provide a
    reliable, long-term, safe water supply.
        Instead, an efficient regional solution, the Arkansas
    Valley Conduit, was selected. It takes advantage of the City of
    Pueblo's existing water treatment facilities and will benefit
    from the economies of scale. This regional project will be less
    costly than any of the alternatives examined by Reclamation
    under NEPA.
        Because this regional project is without question the most
    efficient and effective way to deliver quality drinking water
    to the affected communities, the district has been discussing
    with Reclamation and the Department of the Interior ways to
    provide non-federal financing for construction of the conduit.
        The concept is that approximately $100 million would be
    provided by the district from non-federal sources, thus
    reducing significantly the appropriated dollars needed for the
    project.
        The Fry-Ark Project generates revenue from local water
    providers who pay Reclamation for the storage and conveyance of
    their nonproject water. S. 2616 would expand the ability to use
    these revenues not only to repay the 35 percent plus interest
    required in legislation passed in 2009. The bill would allow
    use of the miscellaneous revenue sooner and to greater savings
    to the Federal Government during project construction.
        S. 2616 would further allow the use of miscellaneous
    revenues to repay the $100 million non-federal contribution
    mentioned earlier. The district anticipates obtaining the non-
    federal financing through a loan from the Colorado Water
    Conservation Board, our state water policy agency and a strong
    supporter of the project. In fact, $60 million has already been
    approved by the State of Colorado.
        I ask that the Colorado Water Conservation Board written
    statement in support of S. 2616 be included in the official
    record, along with the written statement, which I have
    submitted, and have the CWCB statement with me.
        Senator Gardner. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Long. At this time, there is no statutory requirement
    for non-federal financing of the project; however, the district
    is mindful of the budgetary constraints Congress faces. S. 2616
    is offered by our Senators with the intent of substantially
    reducing appropriations needed for the conduit. By maximizing
    in three ways the use of project-generated revenues, the
    federal outlay needed for construction will be reduced by more
    than $150 million. As miscellaneous revenues continue to be
    generated by the Fry-Ark Project, after repayment of this CWCB
    loan and the district's 35 percent share of the federal
    investment, those revenues can continue to repay the remaining
    65 percent of the conduit's cost. S. 2616 will clearly achieve
    the goal of reducing federal outlays through appropriation.
        Of greater importance to the people of the Lower Arkansas
    Valley is having a reliable, safe drinking water supply, not a
    tainted supply which brings a significant threat to public
    health, and enforcement costs from regulators.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
    testify. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may
    have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Long follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Long.
        For the sake of Senators Roberts and Moran, I will clarify
    something that you said. It is the ``Arkansas River,'' not the
    ``Ar-Kansas River.''
        So thank you very much, Mr. Long, for your testimony today.
        Mr. Buschatzke, Director of the Arizona Department of Water
    Resources, thank you. Please proceed.

    STATEMENT OF THOMAS BUSCHATZKE, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
                            WATER RESOURCES

        Mr. Buschatzke. Thank you, Chairman Gardner.
        I am Tom Buschatzke, Director of the Arizona Department of
    Water Resources. Thank you for providing me an opportunity to
    present testimony on behalf of the State of Arizona regarding
    S. 2902, the Western Water Supply and Planning Enhancement Act.
        The ongoing drought in the Western United States
    demonstrates the need for congressional action that empowers
    states to better plan for and manage their existing water
    resources, to re-operate existing reservoirs to generate more
    water, to reestablish healthy forests to increase their water
    yield and protect the quality of water they produce. If
    enacted, S. 2902 will provide new tools to help achieve those
    goals.
        My statement today will focus on four sections of the bill
    that reflect a consensus position of a broad group of Arizona
    water users.
        Section 101 directs the reevaluation of flood control
    operations at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or U.S. Bureau of
    Reclamation dams to enhance water storage. In Arizona, an
    opportunity exists to create temporary storage in flood control
    space at modified Roosevelt Dam, but past efforts have been
    stymied by a cumbersome Corps of Engineers process. With a
    successful process, an average of about 70,000 acre-feet per
    year, an increase of 10 percent to the water supplies of the
    Salt River Project in the Phoenix metropolitan area, can be
    achieved. Section 101 provides clarity and potentially
    streamlines the process for creating temporary storage at
    modified Roosevelt Dam.
        Section 103 seeks to have the National Academy of Sciences
    complete a study on the effectiveness of controlling tamarisk
    to increase water supplies and improve riparian habitats, and
    for the Bureau of Reclamation to create a feasible plan that
    builds upon the 2012 Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand
    Study recommendations to implement tamarisk control. Arizona
    supports cost-effective methods to control tamarisk to create
    additional flow in the Colorado River System and to improve
    riparian habitat.
        Section 104 provides authority for the Secretary of the
    Interior to fund or participate in projects to conserve water
    for the benefit of the Colorado River System. Provisions of
    this section build upon collaborative efforts of the Colorado
    River Basin states and the Department of the Interior to
    proactively manage the Colorado River to improve its health.
    The creation of system conservation water is a critical
    component of efforts to protect Lake Mead flows. From 2014 to
    the end of 2016, Arizona will have created a total of about
    165,000 acre-feet of system conservation water. This is a
    significant contribution to Lake Mead elevations that benefit
    all the Basin states. Absolute certainty that the system water
    will stay in Lake Mead is a necessity for Arizona to continue
    its efforts to create these protection volumes because we have
    the ability to use water solely for the benefit of Arizona
    through its water banking program, which stores water in
    aquifers within Arizona for its own future use. Some water
    users in Arizona prefer the water banking option over the
    system conservation option. Arizona appreciates that the
    Secretary of the Interior has chosen not to release any of the
    system water created to date but supports the provisions in the
    bill that achieve the outcome of creating absolute certainty
    that system water will remain as system water. Furthermore,
    Section 104 provides an incentive for all water users in the
    Lower Basin to continue to incrementally add to the system
    conservation measures with the knowledge that the conserved
    water will provide the benefit that was intended.
        Lastly, Sections 111 through 114 of the legislation create
    a streamlined permitting process for forests and wildland
    restoration activities in critical water supply watersheds. The
    woeful health of our forests is well-known and the number of
    acres burned has grown dramatically over the last three-plus
    decades. Fire impacts reduce reservoir capacity and yield
    because of the increased sedimentation and also degrade water
    quality. There is an immediate need to take action to reduce
    the risk of catastrophic fire in our watersheds. Expediting
    permitting is necessary to restore forests to a healthy
    condition in a timely manner, and this legislation can help
    achieve that outcome.
        In summary, the State of Arizona supports Sections 101,
    103, and 111 through 114 of S. 2902. Collectively, these
    provisions further the efforts of the state to develop, manage,
    and protect the quantity and quality of its water supplies and
    improve the health of its forests.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Buschatzke follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Flake [presiding]. Thank you.
        Ms. Ziemer.

      STATEMENT OF LAURA ZIEMER, SENIOR COUNSEL AND WATER POLICY
                        ADVISOR, TROUT UNLIMITED

        Ms. Ziemer. Good afternoon, Chairman Flake. Thank you for
    the invitation to testify today on behalf of Trout Unlimited.
        I live and work in Montana and have experienced firsthand
    the devastation of prolonged drought. That is why I have spent
    most of the last 20 years finding collaborative solutions to
    water scarcity. I have pioneered new ways to make water go
    further with Montana ranches. I created a voluntary drought
    response plan in the Blackfoot River Basin, built on the idea
    that if everyone gives a little, no one loses out.
        My experience has been one of diverse partners coming
    together to find innovative solutions to water scarcity at a
    variety of scales, by rethinking water infrastructure and
    repairing natural systems.
        I have learned a couple things during a decade of walking
    irrigation ditches that I would like to share today. I would
    like to tell four stories of collaborative efforts with
    partners like the Family Farm Alliance and Reclamation that
    each help chart a path forward. Each of these stories anchor
    Trout Unlimited support or opposition to the bills before the
    Subcommittee today.
        In Eastern Washington's Yakima River Basin, Trout Unlimited
    sat down with irrigators, other sportsmen, local, state, and
    federal agency staff and tribal members to develop a mosaic of
    the drought resilience approaches from water infrastructure
    improvements to restoring fish passage to temporary water right
    transfers. The State of Washington believes strongly enough in
    the Yakima plan that it has already provided $161 million
    toward its implementation. Collaborators of the Yakima plan
    achieve more for their own interests standing together than
    they would on their own. Senator Cantwell's white paper on
    drought and water security is an expression of the Yakima
    success. It calls for federal support of collaborative
    watershed-scale solutions based on a portfolio of projects with
    innovative financing to get projects over the finish line.
        My second story is my own work on Montana's Sun River,
    where we found a way to benefit irrigation water supply while
    restoring flows to the chronically dewatered Sun River. Two
    thousand feet of lined canal, 2,300 feet of PVC pipe, and a new
    bypass canal put more water in the Sun River, more than
    doubling the wild trout population over the last three years.
        In S. 2533, Section 101 reflects my Sun River experience.
    Section 101 prioritizes WaterSMART projects that provide
    benefits across the three legs of the drought-resilient stool,
    creating benefits to fisheries alongside benefits to
    agricultural and urban water users. The kind of work we
    accomplish in the Sun River Basin would also benefit from
    Section 508, which supports an open water data system.
        My third story comes out of Wyoming, where a decade of
    restoration projects with ranchers meant that partnerships were
    in place when, last year, Reclamation and municipalities
    announced a system conservation pilot program. This effort to
    develop water transfer tools addresses long-term drought in the
    Colorado River Basin.
        For the upcoming irrigation season, Trout Unlimited and
    Wyoming ranchers have worked together to offer more than 10,000
    acre-feet of water conservation in the upper Green River,
    primarily through split season water leases. The Reid-Heller
    amendment to the energy and water appropriations bill continues
    this pilot program.
        My last story is Trout Unlimited's long-term commitment to
    the Klamath. It shows that ground-up, collaborative solutions
    can emerge even in a river basin deeply divided over water
    conflicts. Years of discussion and listening to real needs
    produced these three hard-won agreements among diverse
    stakeholders.
        The lesson from the Klamath River relevant to today's
    hearing is that carefully crafted solutions of mutual benefit
    produce bipartisan support. The Klamath initiative led by
    Senators Wyden and Merkley brought investment in irrigation
    infrastructure and water supplies to support one of the most
    productive salmon and steelhead fisheries on the Pacific coast.
    This experience contrasts with S. 2533 in two important ways.
        First, Title III legislates some sets of water users as
    higher priorities than others, which seems likely to fuel more
    litigation and conflict rather than moving toward lasting
    solutions based on mutual benefit.
        Second, Section 112 grants West-wide authority to construct
    new storage. Our experience is that new storage should be
    evaluated and carried out in a multi-stakeholder, basin-wide
    process, and Section 112 could undermine such collaborative
    processes.
        Finally, Trout Unlimited opposes S. 2902 because it
    undercuts collaborative watershed-based efforts and key
    provisions.
        I hope my testimony today has been helpful in charting a
    path forward toward water security in the West. I would be
    happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Ziemer follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Flake. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony.
    I am sorry for the confusion here, as one has to go and vote
    and another comes back. We have one more vote, which I will
    need to go take in a few minutes. But hopefully, Senator
    Gardner will come back and we can continue with questions.
        I have a letter here from the Western Governors'
    Association signed by Governor Mead of Wyoming, Governor
    Bullock of Montana, the association's chair and vice chair,
    respectively. The Western Governors' Association believes that
    a comprehensive West-wide response to drought and water
    security is needed and asks the Committee to develop such
    legislation.
        So I ask unanimous consent that the letter be included in
    the record, without objection, I guess.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Flake. It is good to be king.
        [Laughter.]
        Before I move to some questions, I want to convey my thanks
    to Commissioner Lopez for his leadership with the Bureau of
    Reclamation, the ongoing work in implementing the system
    conservation plan, and for developing the Colorado River
    Drought Contingency Plan. I expressed this thanks to Secretary
    Jewell when she was in front of this Committee earlier this
    year, but I wanted to convey my gratitude to you personally.
    Thank you.
        It is great to have Tom Buschatzke here. I appreciate you
    making the trip. Thank you for your work in putting together
    priorities for Arizona and for working so hard on water issues
    there.
        S. 2902 and S. 2907 both expand on one of the voluntary
    programs to conserve water in Lake Mead that you talked about.
    It seems clear that the Colorado River Water Conservation
    Program has been successful and ought to be extended in
    whatever drought legislation emerges from this Committee.
        I ask that you please explain the different programs that
    already exist, and those that are in the works, to create this
    so-called system water in Lake Mead. Who participates in them?
    Who funds them? How do they differ?
        Mr. Buschatzke. Yes, Senator Flake. There are a couple of
    programs that I want to highlight.
        The first is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was
    entered into between the Metropolitan Water District of
    Southern California, the Central Arizona Project, the Southern
    Nevada Water Authority, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the
    states of Arizona, California, and Nevada. Volumes of water in
    the amount of 740,000 acre-feet are the goal of the MOU. It is
    a best-efforts program. Each one of the states through their
    water users has a piece of that 740,000 acre-feet for them to
    try to achieve. That 740,000 acre-feet has been shown through
    modeling to severely reduce the risk of having Lake Mead fall
    to unhealthy elevations.
        Within Arizona, there have been reductions through that
    program of 165,000 acre-feet of water dedicated to the system,
    water that is system conservation water by the end of 2016 and
    another 215,000 acre-feet by the end of 2016 for intentionally
    created surplus water that is labeled in the name of the
    creator for later recovery out of the lake. The total cost of
    those two programs for Arizona through the Central Arizona
    Project was about $8 million.
        The other program, you mentioned it already, is the Pilot
    System Conservation Program. That again was funded by
    Metropolitan, CAP, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Denver
    Water, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, originally for an
    $11 million fund. Recently, the Central Arizona Project put
    another $1 million into that fund. That attempts to achieve
    system conservation savings in the Lower Basin using about two-
    thirds of that money, and in the Upper Basin using about one-
    third of that money. In the Lower Basin, we expect to achieve
    savings of 60,000 acre-feet, and in the Upper Basin, about
    10,000 acre-feet.
        Many of those programs have had contracts entered into, and
    those contracts are being implemented, and the savings will
    occur over some number of years.
        Senator Flake. Thank you. You mentioned in your testimony
    that some of the water users would rather water bank rather
    than leave it behind the dam. What assurances do they need
    before they feel comfortable leaving it behind the dam?
        Mr. Buschatzke. Senator Flake, under the MOU and under the
    Pilot System Conservation agreements, we do have provisions
    that are kind of gentlemen's agreements to leave that water in
    the lake. As I mentioned in my statement, the Secretary of
    Interior has chosen to do that.
        But I think to quell the debate in Arizona about whether to
    leave that water in the lake or put it in our aquifers under
    our control, we need more certainty that the water will stay
    there. We need the provisions of S. 2902 that do that. We need
    to make sure that those provisions are enforceable, so that we
    have the comfort we need to make sure that we are getting the
    benefit of the bargain for that water.
        Senator Flake. All right, thank you.
        Commissioner Lopez, I was encouraged to hear the Bureau of
    Reclamation committed an additional $5 million to the Colorado
    River System Conservation Pilot Project in 2016. Based on the
    previous year's experience, how much additional Lake Mead
    protection volume do you anticipate that this year's funding
    will help to create?
        Mr. Lopez. Senator, thank you for the question.
        You are correct. We have allocated $5 million for system
    conservation projects and of that $3.5 million to the Lower
    Basin and $1.5 million to the Upper Basin.
        Perhaps the best way to answer your question is to consider
    what was saved from the last phase, where, as Director
    Buschatzke just mentioned, combined funding was something on
    the order of $11 million. We were able to acquire about 63,000
    acre-feet in the Lower Basin using about $8 million, and in the
    Upper Basin, we conserved something on the order of about 3,300
    acre-feet using the remainder, about $2.75 million. So that
    gives you some sense of what we have been able to accomplish so
    far.
        With the $5 million that we have put up for this year, we
    hope to get additional non-federal contributions to match that.
    As Director Buschatzke has mentioned, the CAP has already put
    up some money, as I think California has as well. But we are
    hopeful that others will match that as well.
        Senator Flake. All right, thank you.
        Ms. Weldon, the Subcommittee received testimony on S. 982,
    the Water Rights Protection Act, last June. The language
    included in S. 2902 reflects a number of changes that were made
    based on testimony from that hearing.
        I understand that your testimony states that, ``USDA has
    not had time to fully analyze the effect of this bill,'' and
    that the USDA's concern is with the prohibitions that would
    regulate uses of National Forest System lands. I believe the
    modified language incorporated in S. 2902 addresses these
    concerns and only limits a state water right, leaving land
    management decisions untouched.
        The question is, will you please commit to work with my
    office and highlight for us particular areas of concern in the
    legislation that might prohibit the regulation of Forest
    Service land use, what concerns you about it?
        Ms. Weldon. Thank you, Senator Flake.
        We would be very happy to work with you and your staff to
    look at the changes that have been made. The overall concern
    would be if there were any provisions in the bill that would
    somehow reduce the ability for the Secretary and for the Forest
    Service to ensure that, as land use authorizations are
    occurring, they are being done in a way that protects water
    rights, but also ensures availability of water for a diversity
    of uses. So we would be happy to continue working with you and
    your staff on the language and the changes with this bill.
        Senator Flake. Thank you.
        Mr. Buschatzke, I have heard from a number of communities
    up and down the Gila River about the tamarisk problem that you
    mentioned. Can you talk a little more from what you did in your
    testimony about the challenges that the state faces from this
    invasive plant?
        Mr. Buschatzke. Yes, Senator Flake.
        I think, as we heard from Senator McCain, there is great
    potential for water savings from salvage of removing tamarisk
    and replanting with riparian vegetation. I think the basin
    study, the Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand Study, uses a
    number of about 0.54 acre-feet per acre doing that salvage. I
    think additional study needs to be done to solidify that
    number.
        Some of the challenges of removing that tamarisk along with
    the Gila River are there are at least three species of birds--
    the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo,
    and the Yuma Clapper Rail--that are in danger that live in the
    tamarisk along the Gila River. Some of that tamarisk is also
    designated as critical habitat for that and other species, so
    removing it creates issues under the Endangered Species Act. We
    have Corps of Engineers 404 permitting issues as well. Then
    generally, in Arizona, with as much federal land as we have,
    the feds have an obligation to protect species, but often do
    not have the funding to really do some of the things that would
    help those species out. So lastly, we know that the tamarisk
    chokes our channels and creates additional flooding. It also
    limits the ability to use the channel to move water around
    Arizona. Under Arizona law, you can use a riverbed to transport
    water and keep your name on that water, so to speak.
        So we have lots of challenges, but a study that is in S.
    2902 might help create some methods moving forward to deal with
    some of these issues. I think there is some great potential
    there for Arizona to increase its water supplies through
    tamarisk control.
        Senator Flake. All right, thank you. I toured around
    Safford and Thatcher a while ago, and it is unbelievable how
    thick tamarisk is in the Gila there. It just makes it
    completely impassable, so it is a lot of work that needs to be
    done there.
        Mr. Lopez, as Tom Buschatzke said, one of Arizona's
    planning successes has been the ability to store water,
    millions of acre-feet, underground. Last month, I toured a
    facility around Tucson storing Colorado River water. With the
    threat of storage declaration looming and the ability to
    recover and transport this stored groundwater that is critical,
    obviously, to Arizona's water future, I wanted to thank the
    Bureau for your ongoing work with CAP and the system use
    agreement that allows the kind of wheeling to happen.
        Can you give an update on the status of finalizing the
    system use agreement, including tribal consultation?
        Mr. Lopez. Senator Flake, I am not certain of the exact
    status of that. I know that there is a lot of work going on
    with it, including the consultation that you are talking about.
    Our regional staff is meeting with tribes and with CAP and
    working on those things, but I can try to find the exact status
    of it and submit it for the record, if you would like.
        Senator Flake. That would be helpful.
        Mr. Lopez. Senator Flake, I am assuming that you are
    referring to the wheeling agreements, correct?
        Senator Flake. Yes, I am.
        Mr. Lopez. Okay.
        Senator Flake. Thank you.
        Mr. Keppen, your testimony makes some comparisons between
    the various approaches taken in the different Colorado drought
    bills and their relative effectiveness in getting additional
    water to farmers.
        Can you explain the relative effectiveness of S. 1894 and
    S. 2533 and H.R. 2898, particularly with regard to the guidance
    and flexibility that are provided to the agencies in each of
    these bills?
        Mr. Keppen. Sure. Again, I think H.R. 2898, the House bill,
    probably would better assist our producers in the Central
    Valley Project in dealing with ESA restrictions on water
    deliveries. But again, the challenge is getting language that
    deals with the ESA through the Senate. So that is the challenge
    that I think remains here for us to reach agreement.
        Senator Flake. Thank you.
        Senator Gardner will take over while I vote. Thanks again.
        Senator Gardner [presiding]. I yield to Senator Daines for
    five minutes for questions.
        Senator Daines. Thank you. Thanks to all of you for
    appearing before the Committee, particularly Ms. Ziemer. It is
    always good to have Montanans here in Washington, DC. Welcome.
        As we all know, water is a basic need of life. Despite this
    reality, there are still rural and tribal communities
    throughout Montana that face significant barriers to accessing
    clean and reliable sources of water. That is why I am proud to
    help introduce the Western Water Supply and Planning
    Enhancement Act that includes my provisions to authorize two
    critical rural water projects in Montana, the Dry-Redwater and
    the Musselshell-Judith Basin Projects, which would treat and
    deliver water to over 30,000 residents of central and eastern
    Montana and parts of North Dakota.
        This bill also includes other important provisions,
    including the IRRIGATE Act which would help facilitate
    irrigation projects throughout Indian country and the Water
    Rights Protection Act which would prevent Federal agencies from
    requiring businesses or landowners to transfer their water
    rights in exchange for renewing a permit or lease to utilize
    public lands.
        It is time the Federal Government fulfill its obligations
    and promises to Montana's rural communities and provide needed
    funding to ensure our rural water projects are completed and
    our water rights are protected.
        A question for Ms. Weldon. Ms. Weldon, I understand you
    spent time in Missoula, Montana, where you served as the
    Regional Forester for the Forest Service Northern Region, so I
    am sure you know the issues regarding forest management and
    water quality in Montana communities.
        The Forest Service has classified 134 watersheds in Montana
    as impaired, which is the most severe condition. We need to
    restore these watersheds. It is why I strongly support the
    provision in Senator Flake's legislation that provides new
    tools to swiftly implement watershed projects developed through
    a collaborative process. In fact, I urge the Administration to
    support these new tools.
        I am further told by the Forest Service that there are
    currently five projects in Montana that are designed primarily
    to restore watersheds. Two of these projects have faced
    litigation. There are an additional four active lawsuits
    against projects that would enhance watersheds as a byproduct
    of the projects' integrated management. All of these projects
    were developed through a collaborative process.
        I would like to highlight one that is literally in my
    backyard. It is the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project. I went
    to Bozeman from kindergarten all the way through college. This
    project was conceived in 2005, more than a decade ago, by the
    Forest Service and collaborative stakeholders working together,
    but it has been tied up in litigation now for years and was
    enjoined since 2013.
        Ms. Weldon, when a project is enjoined, that means work on
    the ground must stop. Is that right?
        Ms. Weldon. That is correct.
        Senator Daines. What impacts can a delay in implementing a
    project have on the condition of an impaired watershed?
        Ms. Weldon. Thank you for your question, Senator Daines.
        I was actually able to walk the ground where this project
    is, the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project, and understand the
    conditions that are faced there, the need for us to reduce the
    risk of losing portions of that watershed to wildfire and
    subsequent effects downstream for water quality and quantity.
        So when a project gets enjoined and must be stopped, what
    happens is that the good, collaborative agreement around the
    need and value for this restoration work to be done to protect
    water is delayed. Each summer, each season, we face the risk of
    increasing insect and disease infestation, and the continuing
    decline of condition and, of course, the threat of wildfire.
    One wildfire in an area where we have made the investment and
    have a good public support for doing this work can nullify that
    and increase the impacts to citizens to get clean water and the
    work that needs to be done to put those landscapes back
    together to have clean water again in the future. So the delays
    are a significant problem when we know that the work we would
    invest in would make a difference.
        Senator Daines. We have had some fires recently that had it
    not been for maybe a wind change and so forth, we could have
    come through that watershed. In fact, we are the fastest
    growing county in Montana, Montana State University has 14,000
    students in addition to 35,000 residents of Bozeman.
        As I have noted these watershed-impacted lawsuits are made
    in Montana. They are working against made-in-Montana
    collaborative projects. I am a champion of collaboration, but I
    think you recognize it has not been a cure-all. The
    collaborative process has not been a cure-all to avoiding
    litigation in Montana, and we need to strengthen them.
        Ms. Weldon. Yes, I would say that collaboration does not
    prevent lawsuits but it changes the playing field.
        As our witness from Trout Unlimited said, the value of
    bringing people together around what is important and around
    the value of watersheds and forests is making a difference. And
    we are finding that, even as we have challenges, we have been
    better able to resolve them, working through collaboratives,
    than without having them.
        Senator Daines. I am a big supporter of incentivizing col-
    laboratives. We are seeing it is absolutely a step in the right
    direction. It just has been insufficient at times. It is not
    the absolute cure-all. We need to continue to work here on
    stopping some of this litigation that stops good, made-in-
    Montana collaborative projects.
        Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Ms. Weldon. Thank you.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Daines. Again, thank
    you to all of you for being here today.
        Mr. Long, thank you very much for coming all the way from
    Colorado to serve on the panel today and for your testimony.
    Bill has worked with the Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy
    District for over a decade and serves as the President for the
    Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District, a County
    Commissioner from Bent County, and a business owner in Bent
    County. I appreciate the work you have done with Fort Lyon to
    facilitate opportunities for treatment to our veterans and a
    number of the other policies and issues that you have taken up
    in southeastern Colorado, and particularly the Arkansas Valley
    Conduit, which you are going to discuss today and have
    discussed today.
        For the information of the members of the Committee and
    those here, the Arkansas Valley Conduit, as Mr. Long eloquently
    stated, is a water project that will allow for the delivery of
    clean, abundant, affordable water to southeastern Colorado's
    rural communities. It is the final major component of the
    Fryingpan-Arkansas Project which was first authorized under
    John F. Kennedy in the 1960s.
        In fiscal year 2016, $2.5 million was appropriated for the
    project. In fiscal year 2017, the Senate Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations legislation contained an additional
    $3 million for the project.
        You have outlined a number of concerns with the drinking
    water in Southeast Colorado today. You mentioned water quality
    concerns, and you discussed the current status of the Arkansas
    Valley Conduit. Could you talk a little bit about the timeline
    moving forward, perhaps if this legislation passes and perhaps
    if it does not?
        Mr. Long. Regardless of this legislation, final feasibility
    will be complete September of this calendar year, 2016. Should
    this bill be approved and future funding come online as
    anticipated, final design and engineering will be complete in
    2018 and construction could begin as early as fiscal year 2019.
        Senator Gardner. Very good. How would the passage of this
    legislation and continued federal investment in the project
    impact the timeline?
        Mr. Long. Senator Gardner, without this legislation, the
    miscellaneous revenues and the ability to partner with the
    State of Colorado, it will be very difficult for this very low-
    income area of Colorado to construct the project to meet
    federally-mandated water quality standards.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Long.
        The federal interest in the project, if you could address
    that and why it is important for Congress and the Bureau of
    Reclamation to continue to invest in the conduit? I think you
    laid it out very clearly in your testimony.
        Mr. Long. We believe Congress has recognized the need for
    communities to meet federally-mandated water quality standards
    that protect public health, and we agree. The project will
    ensure that federal standards are met and safe water is
    provided to our residents.
        It also will ensure that our wastewater streams that we are
    very challenged with right now are met as well, so it really
    takes care of a couple issues that are extremely challenging to
    virtually every community in the Lower Arkansas Valley.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you.
        Again, I think this is part of the project authorized in
    the early 1960s under John F. Kennedy, and it is time we move
    forward on this bill.
        I know that we have been working very closely with the
    Bureau of Reclamation. Deputy Secretary Mike Connor was here
    February 23rd and answered questions where he committed
    continued support of the Arkansas Valley Conduit. He also
    specifically stated that the concept laid out in the
    legislation that we are talking about today was a very good
    plan when it comes to the financing of the project.
        So my question to Mr. Lopez, when the Bureau of Reclamation
    issued the record of decision on this project in 2014, did they
    find that this project was sound and should move forward?
        Mr. Lopez. Senator, yes. We think this is a worthy project.
    Obviously, it is taking care of a water quality problem that is
    affecting a large number of communities, so I think it is an
    important project that we continue to support.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you very much, sir.
        If enacted, do you believe legislation under consideration
    will assist in getting the Arkansas Valley Conduit constructed
    as expeditiously as possible?
        Mr. Lopez. I do. Given the constrained budgets that we are
    working with, there are not many avenues other than something
    like the legislation that you have introduced for us to get
    something built timely.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Lopez.
        Mr. Long, thank you for being here today.
        It is just absolutely critically important. We are talking
    about water quality for the thousands of families that live
    along the Arkansas River. We are talking about economic
    opportunity for people who live along the river. When we talk
    about the need for this area and the economy and what drives
    this economy, clean, abundant water is the building block of
    revitalizing all of Colorado, but particularly southeastern
    Colorado, so thank you for your passionate testimony today.
        Ms. Weldon, when Congress designated the Holy Cross
    Wilderness Area in 1980, the Bolts Ditch headgate and
    approximately 450 feet of the Bolts Ditch were inadvertently
    included within the boundary. The headgate and ditch have been
    used by the community of Minturn to fill Bolts Lake, which is
    outside the wilderness area.
        Passing the Bolts Ditch Access and Use Act is important to
    provide clarity to the town of Minturn, to ensure that they can
    utilize their existing water rights and can access the ditch
    and headgate within the wilderness area for the purpose of
    maintenance and repair.
        In your testimony, you state that you do not oppose the
    legislation, that USDA does not oppose the legislation. Could
    you elaborate on why the legislation is necessary in this case
    to allow for Minturn to assert their long-held water rights?
        Ms. Weldon. Yes, and we appreciate the language here in the
    bill that is reaching in to resolve one of the stipulations of
    the global settlement decree around resolving this issue. This
    bill will help to get a solution that is really clearly
    supported by Eagle County, Colorado River District, as well as
    the river advocacy groups, to allow us to move forward with
    continuing with this operation under a special use permit and
    to ensure that we are doing that work in the context of the
    requirements of the Wilderness Act.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you very much, Ms. Weldon.
        Dr. Quinn, I had a question for you, but we are out of
    time. As an economist, I was hoping you would explain to this
    Committee how water can flow uphill to money, but we are out of
    time, so thanks very much for the opportunity.
        Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much.
        I also would like to thank Senator Flake for introducing S.
    2902, the Western Water Supply and Planning Enhancement Act of
    2016. He has done it with me and my Western colleagues,
    Senators Daines, Risch, Heller, and McCain. This bill is a
    collaboration of months of work between our offices, most of
    whom are members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
    Committee.
        At a time when water issues have made the forefront of the
    headlines in places like California and Flint, Michigan, the
    water supply needs of the West as a whole can be forgotten by
    those who did not live where we live. The bill that we
    introduced addresses the need of an abundant, consistent and
    clean supply of water for all of our communities. Most of these
    communities in the West are rural and they are agricultural-
    based communities, as Pat O'Toole who is here from Wyoming
    clearly knows.
        Working families operate ranches and farms and depend on
    water for their livestock, to grow crops such as alfalfa and to
    feed herds of cattle. The water resources in the West have
    always been scarce and demands on the scarce supplies continue
    to increase.
        We have more people moving to the West to live, to work,
    and to raise their families. We have more regulations coming
    from Washington, putting restrictions on where water can go,
    sometimes in favor of species as opposed to working families.
        Weather events such as drought only make our water needs
    even greater.
        The proposals contained in S. 2902, the Western Water
    Supply and Planning Enhancement Act, seek to provide more water
    for our communities. The legislation includes bills that I have
    authored and introduced that will fix aging water
    infrastructure, such as: irrigation canals that serve our
    ranching communities; create efficiencies in federal permitting
    of new water storage through better coordination of federal
    agencies; compile the maintenance backlog of Bureau of
    Reclamation agency aging facilities, so Congress can actually
    begin to address them; and protect existing water rights from
    federal overreach for water users. There are many other
    provisions authored by my colleagues in the bill that are going
    to develop long-term water supplies and enhance the use of
    existing water supply infrastructure. I think it is important
    to note that the bill has $715 million in new authorization
    that is fully offset with $721 million in reduced mandatory
    spending. This is a very needed bill for the West and my home
    State of Wyoming, and I urge the Committee markup of this
    legislation occur soon, as quickly as possible.
        So I have a couple questions.
        One to Dan, if you could talk about how vital it is in
    terms of increasing water storage and maintaining aging federal
    irrigation structures for ranchers and farmers in the West and
    rural communities? And how does an economically strong,
    productive rural West benefit communities outside of the West?
        Mr. Keppen. I guess I will answer your last question first.
    The irrigated agriculture industry in the Western United
    States, which is comprised of growers and producers and
    implement dealers and food processors, is a $172 billion boost
    to our economy every year--and I mentioned this in testimony
    earlier today--because of that, in part, Americans spend less
    of their disposable income on food than anywhere on the planet.
    It is like 8 percent, compared to other countries that might be
    20 percent to 30 percent. As I understand it, I am not an
    economist, but I understand that consumer spending is a very
    important part of a healthy economy. So irrigated agriculture
    and the communities that they support in the West obviously are
    a big part of that.
        What we have seen in recent years, to get to your first
    question, Senator Barrasso, is we have expanding demand going
    on in other sectors. We have a growing population. We have
    different societal priorities placed on environmental needs.
    And when you look at the reality of how many dam projects that
    have been built or storage projects that have been built in the
    last 30 years, it has been almost nil. Metropolitan has done it
    in California. But if there is any kind of a federal nexus
    involved, it is very difficult because of the permitting
    issues.
        Unfortunately, what is happening is agricultural water is
    turning out to be the default reservoir to meet these other
    growing demands. That is a real concern.
        We have to feed the world. We have to continue to have a
    safe and secure food supply for our own country, and those
    things could be threatened at some point if we do not start
    creating storage to meet these other demands. Agriculture is
    not really the cause for expanding demands right now.
        Senator Barrasso. Commissioner Lopez, could you talk about
    how important it is that Congress address the maintenance
    backlog of Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs and the dams and
    other infrastructure in the West, to ensure that water supplies
    in the region are there in the decades to come?
        Mr. Lopez. Senator, thank you for that question.
        Reclamation has something like $100 billion worth of
    infrastructure that we operate and maintain. Quite a lot of
    that infrastructure is now over 50 years old, some of it is
    over 100 years old. So it is imperative that if we want to
    continue to maintain the benefits that we have gotten from this
    infrastructure, which have been vast, we have to continue to
    maintain it.
        Beyond that, it is the sort of infrastructure that, if it
    is not maintained, ultimately, it could create problems and
    safety hazards for our communities, so that is another reason.
        I thank you for your legislation and the Transparency Act
    that has really helped us focus our efforts on how we
    categorize infrastructure maintenance needs, and thank you for
    working with us on getting that. I think we are now on track so
    we can begin to develop that information.
        Senator Barrasso. Dan, one last question for you.
        In your written testimony, it says, ``There can be no doubt
    that these environmental laws have provided significant
    benefits to our society.'' You go on to say, ``But they also
    have been used as legal weapons to thwart new investments in
    Western water development, to reallocate existing water
    supplies away from traditional uses, and to destabilize water
    supply systems,'' and you go on to testify, ``often in pursuit
    of unattainable goals such as resurrecting past ecological
    conditions in a constantly changing environment.'' Can you give
    us an example or two of what you mean and what you have seen?
        Mr. Keppen. I will give you two.
        One briefly is Klamath where I live, Klamath Basin of
    Southern Oregon and Northern California.
        I guess I will elaborate more on the second example, which
    is really kind of the focus of what some of this legislation is
    all about, the Central Valley Project in California.
        We have seen essentially large amounts of water that were
    originally designed for irrigation purposes stored in the
    Central Valley Project facilities now being left to basically
    go out through the Golden Gate Bridge to benefit a couple of
    species protected under the Endangered Species Act, the Delta
    smelt and some salmon.
        Unfortunately, when you look at how those numbers are
    actually reacting, the population reacting to those actions,
    the numbers are actually declining. Really, the focus in Bay-
    Delta management has been kind of on these export pumps that
    divert water out of the Delta to meet Southern California needs
    and Central Valley irrigation needs. We are not really seeing
    the results.
        That is probably the frustrating thing that we are seeing
    right now. The focus is on these irrigation diversions. The
    fish species they are intending to protect are not showing any
    signs of recovery whatsoever, so there are other stressors out
    there that we have to deal with. I would say, again, that is a
    prime example, because a lot of those decisions that are moving
    the water from agriculture into the ocean system are driven by
    litigation involving the Endangered Species Act.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Flake. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
        Thank you all for your testimony today. Again, I apologize
    for the chaotic nature of some of these hearings when we have
    votes going on. I appreciate your indulgence.
        Obviously, drought and water issues are critical to the
    future of our states. I am hopeful that the Committee will
    build on the hearing today, as we build a West-wide drought
    bill that can pass not only this Committee, but the Senate
    floor as well. So thank you for your testimony. It will be very
    valuable for us.
        For the information of members, questions may be submitted
    for the record before the close of business on Thursday. The
    record will remain open for two weeks. We ask the witnesses to
    respond as promptly as possible to questions that are asked,
    and your responses will be made part of the record.
        Senator Flake. With the thanks of the Committee, this
    hearing stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]