[Senate Hearing 114-142] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 114-142 S. 1694, TO AMEND PUBLIC LAW 103-434 TO AUTHORIZE PHASE III OF THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPROVING WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 1694 TO AMEND PUBLIC LAW 103-434 TO AUTHORIZE PHASE III OF THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPROVING WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES ---------- TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2015 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources -------------- U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 95-296 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016 _________________________________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming RON WYDEN, Oregon JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan JEFF FLAKE, Arizona AL FRANKEN, Minnesota STEVE DAINES, Montana JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico CORY GARDNER, Colorado MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii ROB PORTMAN, Ohio ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ------ KAREN K. BILLUPS, 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 Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator from Alaska... 1 Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member, and a U.S. Senator from Washington..................................................... 2 Witnesses Iseman, Tom, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, U.S. Department of the Interior................................ 4 Sandison, Derek, Director, Washington State Department of Agriculture,................................................... 12 Eberhart, Urban, General Manager, Kittitas Reclamation District and Farmer..................................................... 19 Garrity, Michael, Director, Rivers of Puget Sound and the Columbia Basin, and American Rivers............................ 26 Rigdon, Phil, Superintendent, Department of Natural Resources, Yakama Nation.................................................. 38 Alphabetical Listing and Appendix Material Submitted Aigner, Rob and Tina Statement for the Record..................................... 94 Aiken, Michael Statement for the Record..................................... 95 Aiken, Michael and Madeline Statement for the Record..................................... 96 Aiken, Shannon Statement for the Record..................................... 97 Albulet, Lucretia and Mihai Statement for the Record..................................... 98 Alpine Lakes Protection Society, et al. Statement for the Record..................................... 99 Andrew, David Statement for the Record..................................... 105 Angrisano, Robert Statement for the Record..................................... 106 Aresu, Anthony (Diana, Avery, Kendall) Statement for the Record..................................... 107 Bailey, Hailly Statement for the Record..................................... 109 Blacker, Margot Statement for the Record..................................... 111 Bocek, Thomas Statement for the Record..................................... 112 Burke, Mark Statement for the Record..................................... 113 Burt, Craig Statement for the Record..................................... 114 Campbell, William Statement for the Record..................................... 115 Cantwell, Hon. Maria Opening Statement............................................ 2 Chapman, Murray Statement for the Record..................................... 116 Cranton, Timothy Statement for the Record..................................... 117 Curtis, Robert and Melissa Statement for the Record..................................... 118 Cyzner, Eric Statement for the Record..................................... 119 Delarosa-Fountain, Nikki Statement for the Record..................................... 120 Duncanson, Kay Statement for the Record..................................... 121 Eberhart, Urban Opening Statement............................................ 19 Written Testimony............................................ 21 Fisette, Erica Statement for the Record..................................... 123 Foster, Avery Statement for the Record..................................... 124 Foster, Kelsey Statement for the Record..................................... 125 Foster, Roger Statement for the Record..................................... 126 Fountain, Tim and Jean Statement for the Record..................................... 127 Friends of Bumping Lake Statement for the Record..................................... 128 Friends of Lake Kachess Statement for the Record..................................... 129 Frye, Carll and Robyn Statement for the Record..................................... 137 Garrity, Michael Opening Statement............................................ 26 Written Testimony............................................ 28 Hazard, Albert Statement for the Record..................................... 138 Heart of America Northwest Statement for the Record..................................... 139 Hurley, Ann Statement for the Record..................................... 140 Iseman, Tom Opening Statement............................................ 4 Written Testimony............................................ 7 Jones, Traci Statement for the Record..................................... 141 Judd, Nancy Statement for the Record..................................... 142 June, Christa Statement for the Record..................................... 143 Jung, Charles and Carol Statement for the Record..................................... 144 Kachess Community Association Statement for the Record..................................... 145 Kachess Ridge Maintenance Association Statement for the Record..................................... 159 Kachess Ridge Maintenance Association, et al. Statement for the Record..................................... 176 Karaus, Matthew Statement for the Record..................................... 191 Kearny, Katherine Statement for the Record..................................... 192 Kearny, Ryan Statement for the Record..................................... 193 Kitchell, MD, Robert Statement for the Record..................................... 195 Kitchell, Virginia Rives Statement for the Record..................................... 196 Koch, Melvin Statement for the Record..................................... 197 Lewis, Ann Statement for the Record..................................... 198 Lund, Ron and Amanda Statement for the Record..................................... 208 Lynch, Raymie Statement for the Record..................................... 209 Martin, Joel and LeaAnn Statement for the Record..................................... 210 Maykut, Naydene Statement for the Record..................................... 211 McPhee, Miles and Saundra Statement for the Record..................................... 212 Murkowski, Hon. Lisa Opening Statement............................................ 1 Oslund, Steve Statement for the Record..................................... 213 Owens, Clifford Statement for the Record..................................... 214 Owens, Joann Statement for the Record..................................... 215 Owens, Rachel Statement for the Record..................................... 216 Owens, Stephanie Statement for the Record..................................... 217 Parry, Jeff Statement for the Record..................................... 218 Rigdon, Phil Opening Statement............................................ 38 Written Testimony............................................ 40 Rosen, Ross Statement for the Record..................................... 219 Rotondo, Mary and Eric Statement for the Record..................................... 220 S. 1694, the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Phase III Act of 2015................................................ 57 Sandison, Derek Opening Statement............................................ 12 Written Testimony............................................ 14 Schwartz, James Letter dated June 15 for the Record.......................... 221 Schwartz, James Statement for the Record..................................... 244 Seguin, Kerry Statement for the Record..................................... 502 Sheldon, Jeanne Statement for the Record..................................... 503 Siddoway, Robert and Pauline Statement for the Record..................................... 504 Sierra Club, Washington State Chapter Statement for the Record..................................... 505 State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Statement for the Record..................................... 517 Storch, John Statement for the Record..................................... 520 Stratton, Kathie Statement for the Record..................................... 521 Stratton, Vern Statement for the Record..................................... 522 Swart, Alex Statement for the Record..................................... 523 Swart, Heidi Statement for the Record..................................... 524 Thomas, Joel Statement for the Record..................................... 525 Thomas, Kelli Statement for the Record..................................... 526 Thomas, Lynne Statement for the Record..................................... 527 Trout Unlimited Statement for the Record..................................... 528 Walker, Scott Statement for the Record..................................... 531 Watts, Jerry Statement for the Record..................................... 532 Webster, Callie Statement for the Record..................................... 533 Western Lands Project Statement for the Record..................................... 534 Western Watersheds Project Statement for the Record..................................... 535 WISE Use Movement Statement for the Record..................................... 536 S. 1694, TO AMEND PUBLIC LAW 103-434 TO AUTHORIZE PHASE III OF THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPROVING WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES ---------- TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2015 U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m. in room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA The Chairman. Good morning, the Committee will come to order. We are meeting today to discuss Senate Bill 1694, which is the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Phase III Act of 2015, sponsored by Senator Cantwell. As we have discussed in this Committee and as we were just having a conversation about, drought conditions prevailing in the West, including the State of Washington, are significant. For those of us from the Pacific Northwest or the North it is quite unusual to be experiencing any level of drought. My hometown of Ketchikan in the Tongass Rainforest is short on water. People are buying water all the way down to Washington State. Certainly we have had many discussions in this Committee about the situation down in California, but it is not just limited to the Pacific Northwest or to the coastal areas. It is clearly west-wide. The legislation that we are going to discuss today presents an opportunity to build on the success of a significant example where water users, Federal and state officials and others, are working to ensure the delivery of water where it is needed. S. 1694 authorizes the first of three phases of the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resources Plan, and its goal is to ensure sufficient legal authority to achieve an integrated approach to water management for the Basin. I will ask Senator Cantwell to describe her bill more fully, but before I turn to her, there are a couple things that I would like us to keep in mind as we consider this legislation. First, in this bill and in any legislation we consider we need to evaluate and fully understand the financial commitment expected of our Federal agencies. The Federal Government can play a role in addressing water supply needs, but we also need to know, up front, what each bill would have us contribute. Secondly, it is critical that we have a good understanding of local support and any concerns that may exist as well as to ensure that state and private involvement is maximized both financially and in terms of decision making. As I look at those who have come east today to speak to us, it looks like a cross-section of interests are represented. I appreciate that. I think that will bode well for the discussion that we will have this morning. Senator Cantwell, thank you for your work on this piece of legislation, and I look forward to working with you on it. STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for holding this very important hearing and for being here this morning. As you mentioned, both of our states are feeling the impact of drought and climate impacts. I know that this legislation is an example of how some of the best and brightest are working hard on solutions at a local level, so thank you for having a hearing on S. 1694. Before I start, besides thanking the witnesses that are here from Washington, obviously representatives of the state and the tribe, the agricultural community and the fishing interests of our state, we are also joined by Yakima County Commissioner, Michael Leita, and Yakima Nation Council Member, Joe Lewis. I thank you both for being here as well. S. 1694, the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Act of 2015 is critical for the State of Washington. It ushers in a new era of water management for the State, and I believe, it is a management model for the entire West. This legislation is a major accomplishment for people who have been working on this issue for decades. Drought in Washington and across the West has caused billions of dollars in impacts this year alone, and it is predicted to cost billions more in the coming years. In a report released last July, the White House concluded that confronting climate catastrophes requires taking prudent steps now to prevent more severe consequences later. I could not agree more. As the Yakima Basin faces continued drought and climate impacts, the Federal Government has a responsibility to act now to prevent future impacts and costs in meeting its legal responsibilities in the Basin which include managing extensive Bureau of Reclamation projects, treaty and trust responsibilities with the Yakama Nation and Federal responsibilities in managing lands and endangered species. Failure to act now, I think, as mentioned, could have catastrophic economic impacts in moving forward. In contrast, an ounce of prevention could go a long way. Some of the issues here affect some of the most impacted agriculture lands and productive agriculture lands in our country as well as some of the most important sockeye salmon runs in the United States. S. 1694 authorizes the initial phase of a long term water resources plan for the Yakima Basin and recognizes the responsibilities and the imperative to act now. The bill would dramatically enhance the sustainability and resilience of the Basin, from snow-fed streams in the Cascade Mountains to the farms of the Yakima Valley, which are famous for apples, cherries, hops and vineyards. The Yakima Integrated Plan is designed to provide a balanced approach to long-term water supply and environmental issues in the Basin. It will provide more dependable water supplies to meet agricultural and municipal needs and significantly restore the fisheries and ecosystems of the Yakima River and its tributaries. The plan was developed through an extraordinary collaboration between local stakeholders who are represented by the witnesses here today. This work group includes state, local, tribal officials, agricultural interests, and environmental groups. And I have to say, it is amazing to see how much progress they have made working together. They have really created a bond which I think is exemplary in keeping the task at hand. Working together they have developed an integrated approach to managing water that could not be accomplished without cooperation. The result is what is before us today, a holistic approach. Without this plan the Yakima Basin will face continued water shortages and economic impacts, estimated by the state this year to reach $1.2 billion in crop loss due to drought. This summer the Basin is facing unprecedented drought. In some cases irrigation districts are delivering only 25 percent of normal water supplies. Low stream flows and warm water throughout the Basin are also threatening fish, such as steelhead and sockeye salmon. Protection of these species is critical to our community and particularly important to the Yakama Nation. Science tells us that drought conditions are likely to persist in the Basin in coming years. Low snowpack and heat are predicted to intensify with climate change and are likely to become the new normal. As such, we must do everything to avoid catostrophic impacts later. The Yakima Integrated Plan puts in place the necessary steps for the future sustainability and resilience of the Yakima Basin. The State of Washington is already investing in the Yakima Integrated Plan. Just last week the state appropriated $30 million for the plan after approving $137 million in the last budget. In spite of severe budget constraints, the state recognizes that investing now will avoid more economic loss in the future. The Bureau of Reclamation's statutory mandate to manage the Basin's dams, hydropower facilities, and irrigation infrastructure, and legal requirements to manage stream flow for tribal and other needs means that the Federal Government is part of the solution. Without an integrated approach in the Basin, the Federal Government will face significant challenges including litigation costs in meeting responsibilities. So it is good to see Mr. Iseman here today and that in his testimony he supports an integrated approach, as you say in your testimony, which includes water storage, water conservation, stream flow management, fish passage, and habitat improvements to provide the best opportunities for moving forward. S. 1694 does just that. It includes provisions for improved infrastructure for water storage and conservation, ecosystem restoration and construction of permanent fish passage. Nearly every part of this plan will help both farmers and fish in the Yakima Basin. Projects will provide water to support the region's $3.2 billion agricultural economy while also restoring salmon runs that have been blocked for more than 100 years. This includes helping to restore one of the largest sockeye salmon runs in the lower 48. Because of local interests and their willingness to sit down to make a plan, I hope this does become a model for integrated water management plans and holistic approaches. I think it is a new paradigm in water management that could be replicated in other parts of the country. Here in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee we hear of divisive water conflicts in other parts of the West leading to gridlock which is ultimately destructive to the economy and environment. I think this approach points us down a different path. I look forward to hearing the witnesses today, and again, I thank all of the local individuals who have worked so hard on this project at moving it forward to where we are today in this legislation of S. 1694. I also want to thank my colleague, Senator Murray, for being an original co-sponsor on this legislation. Thank you. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. Let us go to our queue of witnesses. I would ask that you each limit your comments to no more than five minutes, and your full statement will be included as part of the record. Once each of you have given your statements, we will have a few questions for you. We will begin with Mr. Tom Iseman, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior. Next is Mr. Derek Sandison, who is the Director for the Department of Agriculture with the State of Washington. Mr. Urban Eberhart is a farmer and manager of the Kittitas Reclamation District. Mr. Michael Garrity is the Director of Rivers of Puget Sound and the Columbia Basin for American Rivers. Rounding out the panel is Mr. Phil Rigdon, who is Superintendent for the Department of Natural Resources with the Yakama Nation. Gentlemen, welcome to the Committee this morning. Thank you for traveling as far as you have. We will lead off with you, Mr. Iseman. Welcome. STATEMENT OF TOM ISEMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. Iseman. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Cantwell. I am Tom Iseman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior. I thank you for the opportunity alongside our partners to provide the views of the Department on S. 1694, legislation to implement Phase III of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project or YRBEP. I'm joined by Wendy Christensen of Reclamation's Area Office in Yakima, who can assist with any technical questions that come up, and my written statement has been submitted for the record. YRBEP, Phase III, results from decades of congressionally- sanctioned work in the Yakima River Basin and the collaboration of the Bureau of Reclamation, Washington State Department of Ecology, the Yakama Nation, irrigation districts, local governments, nongovernmental organizations and several other state and Federal agencies. Along with the project's previous two phases, Phase III as authorized in S. 1694, aims to further the goals of protecting, mitigating and enhancing fish and wildlife habitat, increasing operational flexibility to manage in stream flows to meet ecological objectives and improving the reliability of the water supply for irrigation, municipal and domestic uses in the Yakima Basin. This legislation will facilitate construction of fish passage at Chelan Dam and at least one other Yakima Basin reservoir. Restoration of fish passage in the Yakima Basin is extremely important and culturally significant to the Yakama Nation and highly valued by Federal and state fish agencies. S. 1694 also allows for the irrigation districts to construct a facility to access a significant amount of water stored in the inactive pool of the Kachess Reservoir providing junior irrigation districts the additional water needed to increase their supply in drought years from possibly as low as 20 to 30 percent to up to 70 percent of their supplies. Further, this bill allows additional funds for water conservation on the Yakama Reservation, the largest irrigator in the Basin. And in addition to a host of further benefits to water users in the Basin, S. 1694 enables the Secretary of the Interior to accept cost share for many of the authorized projects allowing their completion at a significant savings to the Federal budget. This kind of fiscal collaboration is particularly noteworthy as the Government strives under tight budgetary constraints to address the challenges posed by drought in a changing climate. S. 1694 has been introduced after many years of collaboration among a diverse group of stakeholders, who have traditionally held opposing views, but are now cooperatively working together to achieve real, tangible results to address these challenges. The Department appreciates the efforts of Senator Cantwell and the Committee staff to address concerns identified in earlier legislative drafts. As stated in my written statement we would like to continue to refine some specific provisions in the bill to clarify the Department's authorities and address potential problems with interpretation. We appreciate you and your staff's willingness to engage with us on those issues. In closing, we recognize that this bill takes into account the affects of multiple projects and activities working in unison over the long term to improve the health and vitality of the Yakima River Basin, to the benefit of communities, agriculture and the environment. I want to thank the working group, the partners who are here today and commend them for their work, their collaboration over time to bring this plan to fruition and the efforts, their continuing efforts, to move these projects forward. And I also want to thank you, Senator Cantwell, for your leadership on this bill. With that, Madam Chairman, the Administration is pleased to support the integrated plan and the goals of S. 1694, and I'm happy to answer your questions at the appropriate time. [The prepared statement of Mr. Iseman follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] STATEMENT OF DEREK SANDISON, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Mr. Sandison. Thank you. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Senate Bill 1694. While I am currently the Director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture, until recently I served as the Director of the Washington State Department of Ecology's Office of Columbia River where I led the state's involvement in the collaborative effort that is addressed in S. 1694. The Washingtonians recognize that there's a dry side of our state, Eastern Washington, and a wet side of our state, Western Washington. But this year both Eastern and Western Washington, like many other parts of the West, are suffering from drought. These conditions are creating great challenges for our farmers, our fisheries and for our communities. However, throughout Washington a number of efforts are underway to respond to those challenges. For example, the unique collaboration that has emerged in the Yakima Basin focused on developing a vision for a future where there is water for farming, water for fish, water for our communities, even in drought years. S. 1694 is a vital step in making that possible. The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sandison. Welcome. Mr. Sandison. By way of background the Yakima Basin is an approximately 6,000 square mile drainage basin in South Central Washington. It's a source of population for about 360,000 people, and it's home to the Yakama Nation. The Yakima Basin contributes over $3 billion annually to the agricultural economy of the State of Washington and to the nation and exports many of its farm products to the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. It is also important to recognize that historically the Yakima Basin was the second largest producer of salmon and steelhead runs in the entire Columbia River system. Since 1905 the Bureau of Reclamation has managed surface water flows in the Yakima Basin. Reclamation operates five reservoirs with a total capacity of about a million acre feet which is about a third of the annual runoff, on average, in the Yakima Basin. The Yakima Basin is heavily dependent on the Cascade Range snow pack to supply water to the semi-arid lower basin during the summer months. In other words, the snowpack is our sixth reservoir. Management of water in the Yakima Basin has historically been contentious. The surface water resource of the Yakima Basin are over-appropriated and have been undergoing court adjudications since 1977. The state closed the Yakima Basin to additional ground water rights in the 1990s. Frequent droughts over the last several decades have demonstrated the vulnerability of the Yakima Basin's water supplies. During droughts in 2001 and 2005 and now in 2015, the irrigation districts served by the Bureau of Reclamation received or are receiving only about 40 percent of their supply. Aquatic resources of the Yakima Basin have also continued to suffer. Salmon and steelhead runs that historically numbered around 800,000 fish declined to about 8,000 fish by the 1980s. Several stocks were extirpated and the Basin's steelhead and bull trout are currently listed as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. In 2009 the State of Washington and the Bureau of Reclamation began collaboration with the Yakama Nation and Basin stakeholders to formulate a comprehensive strategy to address the Basin's critical resource needs. That collaboration builds on the 1979 Federal Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Act, or YRBWEP, and the 1994 Phase II amendments to that act. The strategy took shape in mid-2011 when consensus was reached on the Integrated Plan. The Integrated Plan is being proposed as Phase III of the YRBWEP. The Integrated Plan proposes major ecological restoration of the Yakima Basin through measures such as construction of fish passage at all in-basin reservoirs and implementation of mainstem and tributary habitat enhancements. The Integrated Plan also calls for substantial improvements in water supply for both in-stream and out-of-stream uses. Efficiency of existing use will be improved through expanding water markets and investing in additional agricultural conservation. The objectives of the Integrated Plan cannot be met without significant improvements in water storage. Additional capacity in the form of modified and new storage facilities will be needed to provide drought relief for existing irrigators in the Yakima Basin, secure water supplies for municipal needs and adequate water for fish migration. The importance of expanding water storage capacity is underscored by climate modeling that predicts substantial reductions in snow pack depth and duration, in other words, exactly what we're seeing in 2015. In 2013 Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed legislation that authorized the Department of Ecology to implement the Integrated Plan in conjunction with Reclamation and in collaboration with the Yakama Nation and Basin stakeholders. To date, the Governor and the legislature have made over $160 million in capital investments to meet the multiple goals of the Integrated Plan, so we believe S. 1694 represents a similar commitment by our Federal partners to this special and powerful collaborative effort. We're deeply appreciative of your consideration of this legislation and very much appreciative of Senator Cantwell's leadership in this area. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Sandison follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sandison. Mr. Eberhart, welcome. STATEMENT OF URBAN EBERHART, GENERAL MANAGER, KITTITAS RECLAMATION DISTRICT, AND FARMER Mr. Eberhart. Thank you. Chairwoman Murkowski and Senator Cantwell, my name is Urban Eberhart, and I'm the manager of the Kittitas Reclamation District in the irrigation district serving 60,000 acres of prime farmland in the Yakima River Basin. I'm also a farmer. I was raised on our family farm near Ellensburg, and I'm still growing apples, pears and hay in Badger Pocket in the Kittitas Valley. I've been working on water issues in the Yakima Basin, have been following the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, ever since I went to my first Yakima Enhancement meeting with my father in 1979. I worked on the 1994 Yakima Basin Phase II legislation prior to its passage by Congress. It was intended to be an interim step to additional storage. In the Basin when we were asked to implement conservation measures authorized in the act we were told if we still could not meet the water supply needs of the Basin through conservation after they were implemented then we could come back and ask for additional storage. We've now created the Basin-wide Integrated Plan that is an example for other river basins throughout the country to look to. It is a template for others to follow on how diverse interests can come together to prepare a pathway for surviving drought and climate change and to impacts into the future. I support the enactment of S. 1694 authorizing Phase III of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project. The Yakima River Basin is one of the most productive agricultural areas in the nation. Principle crops grown in the Basin include fruit, vegetables, forage, hops and mint with many highly productive dairies, fruit packaging plants and other related businesses and industries tied to our Basin's bountiful harvests. These industries in the Basin alone produce more than $1.8 billion in crops and $1.4 billion in food processing sales. The KRD is a fully proratable irrigation district which means our district is one of several (like the Roza, Wapato and Kennewick districts). We are receiving 44 percent of our supply this year. The farmers in the Garrity will be out of water the first week of August instead of the middle of October. Our water will be cut off two and a half months earlier than normal. The Roza irrigation district was forced to shut down its entire water delivery system for three weeks during the prime growing season this year. A critically important and creative component of S. 1694 includes providing innovative authorities for our non-Federal, proratable districts to be able to design, construct and maintain water storage access facilities contemplated by the first phase of the Integrated Plan. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into long term agreements with the proratable irrigation entities in the Yakima Basin including KRD to plan, design, construct and maintain projects like the Kachess Drought Relief Pumping Plant on Federally-owned lands. I believe this effort could be the first of its kind and is innovative enough that other areas of the West could benefit from similar arrangements. Under S. 1694 the proratable districts in the Basin would enter into long term agreements with the Secretary and Reclamation to provide non-Federal ownership, management and financing in the construction of these facilities bringing emergency drought relief water supplies to the Basin quicker and with no burden on the Federal budget. We have some additional suggested improvements to the language of S. 1694 as introduced to further clarify the provisions in Section 1214, and we look forward to working with the Committee on improving this section. Another important provision in S. 1694 deals with restoring water flows in the tributaries in the Basin. We have found a way for farmers and fish to help each other. The pilot concept implemented in the Manastash Creek project converted 3.2 miles of the KRD canal to a pressurized pipeline conserving over 1,200 acre feet of water annually that is used to keep water flows in the creek during critical fish migration periods. The Manastash project resulted in multiple in-stream and out-of-stream benefits that conserved water, increased in- stream flow in the lower Manastash. Benefits in addition to flows for fishing include reduced seepage, improved local irrigation system reliability and increased on-farm efficiencies and water conservation through the use of pressurized sprinkler systems. Farmers are still farming and the creek is now flowing opening up habitat for salmon and steelhead species in the process. In closing, I believe we have a good start with S. 1694. And as the irrigation districts in need of additional dry water supplies, we are stepping up to the plate in financing and constructing new water supply infrastructure in innovative ways. The State of Washington has provided over $130 million over the past two years to assist in implementing the Integrated Plan. Our proratable irrigation districts are contemplating non-Federal investments to build new water supply infrastructure. We look forward to the enactment of S. 1694 to assist in implementing the Plan, improving habitat for fish and wildlife, and creating new emergency storage water supplies for the future of the Yakima River Basin. Thank you for the opportunity. [The prepared statement of Mr. Eberhart follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Eberhart. Mr. Garrity, welcome. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GARRITY, DIRECTOR, RIVERS OF PUGET SOUND AND THE COLUMBIA BASIN, AMERICAN RIVERS Mr. Garrity. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and share American Rivers' support for the bill before the Committee, S. 1694, the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Phase III Act of 2015. American Rivers protects wild rivers, restores damaged rivers and conserves clean water for people and nature. And since 1973 we have protected and restored more than 150,000 miles of rivers through advocacy efforts and on-the-ground projects. My name is Michael Garrity. I'm Director of Rivers of Puget Sound and the Columbia Basin for American Rivers, so I'm based out of Tacoma, Washington. I've worked on long standing issues of water supply reliability and fishery restoration in the Columbia and Yakima Basins for about 15 years. Just as for many Western river basins, controversy is no stranger to the Yakima, and American Rivers has been part of some of those controversies. Today is different. We join others in testifying in support of S. 1694. We're not asking you to choose sides. We're asking you to help us work together for an innovative, integrated plan to support the Yakima Basin's fish, farms, families and forests. The Yakima Plan, at its heart, is a set of pragmatic actions that address the Yakima Basin's major water supply and ecosystem challenges through seven integrated elements. The plan is envisioned to be completed over the next 30 years in a way that helps the Basin's major stakeholders. It authorizes the Initial Development Phase of the plan, the projects that make the most sense to do and are ready to do over the next ten years. We support the entire 30-year Yakima Plan. However, we note that some projects will be subject to environmental and economic review that may make them infeasible or uncover issues that could cause us to reconsider support. The Yakima Plan stitches together many elements, some previously authorized in Federal legislation and some undertaken by non-Federal actors. S. 1694 addresses the parts of the Initial Phase which require Federal authorization and it clarifies authority where that authority may be ambiguous. Some of the most important elements of the Initial Phase are construction of the Plan's first major water surface storage projects such as the Kachess Dry Relief Pumping Plant and the Keechelus to Kachess Conveyance Facility, construction of fish passage projects both upstream and downstream at Reclamation reservoirs, increasing storage at Cle Elum reservoir by three feet, continued water conservation and efficiency projects, continued and expanded habitat projects to benefit salmon, steelhead and bull trout and ground water recharge programs. Now I'll discuss American Rivers' perspective on the bill in more detail. We look for opportunities to advocate for new ways of doing business to promote healthy rivers in a variety of settings including water supply and water management. The Yakima Plan in S. 1694 fosters innovative and integrated water management and watershed restoration. Specifically the plan and the bill embrace integrated approaches including making better use of existing infrastructure before building new reservoirs, embracing water conservation, conjunctive use of ground and surface water, water markets and viewing problems and solutions from a watershed perspective. It also embeds fishery restoration into water management and makes fishery restoration a co-equal purpose with water supply reliability. It's also innovative. New approaches are needed in solving Western water problems. The art of fighting water issues to a science standstill must end given the present threats to ecosystems and water supplies. American Rivers and other conservation groups have long fought new Federal water projects, in part due to Federal subsidies that have provided artificial incentives for their construction. To their credit the Yakima Irrigation Districts have proposed and the bill authorizes private financing for water supply projects. We strongly support this approach, and we believe it addresses the criticisms that have been raised about some of the Plan in general from a Washington State University Economic Study because the irrigators are taking on the risk themselves rather than the taxpayers. The plan also innovatively links land conservation with management of Reclamation reservoirs, and it addresses not only drought but the impacts of climate change over the long term. As this year demonstrates with its low snow pack, actions taken for drought response will also help us as the climate warms. There are a number of details and bill elements that we hope will be refined through the legislative process. We hope to work with bill sponsors and this Committee to address lingering substantive issues and move S. 1694 forward. In conclusion we believe that the bill is a major step toward a workable 21st century framework for water management in the West and that it offers major environmental benefits for the Yakima River Basin. For these reasons we urge you to support S. 1694, strongly support it, and are looking forward to working with you to pass this legislation. Thanks. [The prepared statement of Mr. Garrity follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Garrity. Mr. Rigdon, welcome. STATEMENT OF PHIL RIGDON, SUPERINTENDENT, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, YAKAMA NATION Mr. Rigdon. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell. I'm Phil Rigdon. I oversee the Department of Natural Resources for the Yakama Nation, and I'm also a member of the tribe. Thank you for this opportunity to testify for the Yakima Basin Water Resource Management Plan and on Senate bill 1694. We greatly appreciate Senator Cantwell's leadership on this important issue and legislation. The Yakama people have lived in the Pacific Northwest since Time immemorial. When we entered into the Treaty of 1855 we ceded 12 million acres of land to the United States. Most of that land, that would now describe Central Washington, in that treaty the United States guaranteed our people right to have and harvest salmon and other natural resources both on the reservation and in off-reservation use on custom fishing grounds. Perhaps no one has ever more accurately described the importance of salmon to my people than the U.S. Supreme Court Justice and former Attorney General, Joseph McKenna, who--for an eight-one majority, the landmark decision of the U.S. versus Winans in 1905, stated that salmon were not much less necessary to the existence of Winans than the atmosphere they breathe. That decision established the reserved right doctrines of Indian Treaty law. At the time of the treaty there were often 12 to 15 million salmon returning to the Columbia River Basin. In some years that figure approached 30 million returning salmon. The Yakima Basin was second only to the Snake in the fish it contributed to the Columbia every year. Salmon are not only an integral part of the Indian people, but they have been and are a major part of the economy of the Columbia Basin and provide a livelihood and means of recreation for tens of thousands of non-Indians as well. As a result of the hydro dam, over fishing, destruction of habitat, including dewatering streams for the benefit of the irrigation by the early to mid-part of the 20th century, salmon runs that were in drastic decline with the returning numbers reduced from millions down to thousands while the Boldt decision and Belloni decisions of the 1960s and 70s confirmed our authority of self-regulating Treaty tribe with rights to half the fish in the Columbia River Basin and as co-managers of the resources half of nothing is nothing. Rather than waiting for our rights and resources to be restored, we have taken the active role in successfully rebuilding diminished runs and guaranteeing the existence of our Treaty fish. In the Yakima Basin, the state fisheries agencies that basically had given up at one point. The Yakama Nation took a different approach. We spoke for those species that cannot speak for themselves. The Yakama Nation took the lead in securing a sweeping series of amendments from the Northwest Power Act and to make fish and wildlife an equal priority. We developed a scientifically-based program needed to restore runs from modern fish screens and ladders. We have worked successfully with farmers and local conservation districts to remove passage barriers and restore habitat. We began supplementing runs with a scientifically-based hatchery program. Our goal was to restore historically present stocks of salmon and other species of interest to the Yakima Basin. This includes reintroduction of three species that were extirpated from the Yakima, the Coho, Summer Chinook and Sockeye Salmon. This has led to a number of returning fish increasing from several thousand total adults in the early 1980s to over 25,000 for each of the past six years and a modern record number of 50,000 adults returned in 2014. Our effort has led to restoration of salmon fishing seasons for Indians and non- Indians alike. After opposing each other in court for decades the tribes and the irrigators, environmental groups, the state and local, county governments rose up through cooperation and sitting down together and compromising we could save the salmon while simultaneously having a vibrant agricultural based economy. This successful history of cooperation has led us here today. In 2015, in the midst of the most serious drought in decades, we're able to supplement stream flows by working with the Kittitas Reclamation District to use their canal to deliver water to fish streams. The spirit of cooperation exemplified by the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan gives us hope going forward to see full restoration of salmon runs and other natural resources vital to the Yakama people's needs while providing the sustainability to the agricultural sector. Our work has shown some success, but the remaining challenges are great and require us to increase the scope of our efforts. Most of the best cold water habitat in the Yakima Basin remains blocked by impassable storage dams and many impassable irrigation diversions. The habitat is mostly publicly-owned and has relatively pristine habitat and stream flow conditions. As we face growing impact of climate change, restoration of salmon access to these higher elevation areas will be critical. I am pleased to say the state is now a full partner with the Yakama Nation developing and implementing a plan to restore salmon. The coalition you see before you today represents a remarkable collaboration among long-time adversaries who have come together to develop a package of solutions to the big problems facing the Yakima Basin. With the help of Congress we will succeed in this worthy endeavor. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Rigdon follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Rigdon. I appreciate the comments and the testimony from each of you this morning. It is not very often that we have a whole panel that is in unison about a bill that we have in front of us which begs the question who opposes this? It is not possible that we could be sitting here having a discussion about fish and water and not have some opposition out there. So I would like a little bit of perspective here. You have hit on it, Mr. Rigdon. There has been a history here, decades, where you have been working against one another and now we have come to this place where there is clearly a very collaborative effort going on. That is appreciated. We always like it when you come to us with solutions. But in terms of any pockets of resistance, there have been a couple of you that have mentioned that there needs to be some fine tuning to the bill. We need to work with some language here and some interpretation, some department authorities. But are there pockets of resistance that are out there? I think, Mr. Garrity, you mentioned in your testimony that expansion of the Bumping Reservoir could be controversial because it would impact homes that are occupied by local critics. What opposition will we encounter with this or is this truly one of those measures where, because of the years of work and the collaborative nature, we have eliminated most of the criticism here? Mr. Garrity. I think that the bill is designed to focus on the first ten years of the plan, the Initial Development Phase, and it authorizes those projects only. And those projects are relatively uncontroversial on the water storage side, mostly the water storage projects that are controversial within the plan. There's some opposition among some homeowners around Lake Kachess that exist. So it's not--not everyone likes the Initial Development Phase necessarily, but like I mentioned in my testimony, it includes the projects that are most ripe for implementation and the least controversial of the suite of projects. Another thing I mentioned in my testimony this morning is that there's been some criticism of the plan for--and the water storage projects in particular as potentially expensive for Federal and/or state taxpayers. And the way that Kachess and the Keechelus to Kachess Conveyance Project would be financed it basically renders that argument mute because the irrigators or other water users would pay for those projects and finance them themselves. The Chairman. Let me ask then on the cost side of that because I mentioned in my opening remarks that that is something that we are looking to is what will the expense be? I think it was you, Mr. Sandison, who mentioned the state had contributed about $160 million so far under the Integrated Plan. I think I heard somebody else say, maybe it was you, Mr. Eberhart, $130 million. So the state's participation is in that range. What do you estimate the state contribution towards the project proposed under the legislation will be and again, when we are talking about cost, recognizing that we have a series of phases here? What are we looking at realistically? Mr. Sandison. Chairman Murkowski, so I'll respond. The Initial Phase which is considered the first ten years of the Integrated Plan, this is a 30-year project. We've divided the project up into three 10-year phases. In the first phase the estimated cost for the entire project is about $900 million. The State of Washington in 2013, the state legislature in 2013, passed governor request legislation that committed the state to up to 50 percent of the total cost of the Integrated Plan over the 30-year period. The--if we go back to the first phase and that $900 million, the biggest, single chunk of that would be the Kachess, Lake Kachess projects, the water storage project and the Associated Conveyance System. And that's the project that the irrigators have indicated they're willing to step up and arrange financing for it and pay for it. So not quite half, but close to half, of the total cost of the first phase is represented by that commitment. The largest single project, other than the water supply project, is the fish passage project at Lake Cle Elum. The cost estimate, Bureau of Reclamation's estimates are at about $125 million. And again it's all anticipation that the state would manage half of that or the cost of that project. So the exact number that was used in looking and evaluating the current legislation but it was in that neighborhood of, I think, about $140 million on the Federal side, again, matched with state money and with irrigator finance projects. The Chairman. Mr. Iseman, is that your understanding in terms of how it would break down as well on the Federal side? Mr. Iseman. Yeah, those are roughly comparable to our numbers, about looking at $900 million to $1 billion in infrastructure investment in total. Infrastructure as well as habitat and restoration, acquisitions, conservation, we're looking at about $350 to $375 million, potentially, for the Federal side of that. One of the things, as we talked about in the testimony, that we find impressive or remarkable about this partnership, is the efforts to look at innovative ways of financing this including having the state step up as they have and also looking at other ways to bring private sector and other partners on board to finance parts of these projects. And so, you know, there's a significant investment looking forward. But we believe that through these partnering and innovative financing mechanisms that we can get some of this, some of these, activities accomplished. The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Cantwell. Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, Mr. Iseman, we have already had a line item for the Yakima Basin for several years now, correct? Mr. Iseman. Correct. Senator Cantwell. As the agency, how would you describe it best met the Federal obligations to try to mitigate the impacts and to manage the oversight of irrigation and conflict that is there? Mr. Iseman. Could you rephrase the question, Senator? Senator Cantwell. How would you characterize the line item and the---- Mr. Iseman. Right. Senator Cantwell. Responsibility we have to our partners? Mr. Iseman. Right. Right. So we do have a line item for the YRBEP activities, the Yakima Basin activities. A lot of it is for what we've done historically through the first phases of this partnership. We're also starting to invest more in the newer elements that are a part of this first phase of the Integrated Plan. The total amount is about $12.8 million right now, and we have made some increases over the last several budget requests. The way we're looking at it is that we need to continue to make the investments to keep these projects moving forward, and that's the way we're thinking about our budget request. Senator Cantwell. Would you say that your agency, the Department of the Interior, might worry most about those Federal responsibilities as it relates to the Bureau of Reclamation and on irrigation and hydro and things of that nature, in responsibilities, trust responsibilities, to the tribe that someone else in the Federal Government might be more concerned about the state or Mr. Eberhart's issues about economic damage and crop loss?You may not be the agency for that information. Mr. Iseman. Right. Senator Cantwell. Is that right? Mr. Iseman. But I think that's right that--and one of the things that we have tried to do is bring the entire Federal family together because we know multiple Federal agencies have an interest in elements of this Plan including the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other potential partners that can be contributing to activities under the Integrated Plan. And so, you're right. We focus on the elements that are most closely related to our water supply obligations and treaty responsibilities, and we're trying to bring in these other partners, including other Federal agencies that can make contributions towards the Plan. Senator Cantwell. So doing nothing is not free, I guess is the best way. Is that correct? Mr. Iseman. Doing nothing is not free? Senator Cantwell. Right. Mr. Iseman. That's right. Senator Cantwell. We will incur costs. Mr. Iseman. Oh, absolutely. I mean, that's one of the things that I think is most important about this Plan is that we're looking into the future, and we face tremendous risks due to drought, and we need to make investments now. This Plan is identifying the activities and how we're going to fund them in partnership to build resilience to drought, and there's a lot of risk if we do nothing, absolutely. Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Mr. Eberhart, you, I think, mentioned the $3.2 billion of economic activity associated with the Basin, related to agriculture. Is that Yakima County and---- Mr. Eberhart. It would be the Yakima Basin and it would be all the agricultural commodities that are produced directly at the farm gate and then all of the add-ons that are done to process them. Senator Cantwell. How many counties would you say? Mr. Eberhart. Oh, that is Yakima, Kittitas and Benton, three counties, yes. Senator Cantwell. So three counties produce $3.2 billion worth of economic activity from agriculture on an annual basis? Mr. Eberhart. And a lot of exports. Senator Cantwell. Yes, I know, it is pretty impressive. I definitely do not want to see the drought impacts, the lack of water, negatively impact that. Mr. Garrity spoke to the fish issue, but I guess one of the things that it is safe to say is that for part of this project you guys did not hang out together. Is that right? [Laughter.] Yet I feel like, while you didn't use duct tape, it is a little bit like Apollo 13, like you get this critical moment and you are like, we have to do something, right? We have to come up with a better plan. But what made that happen? What brought you all to come together on things that you may have been fighting each other on in the previous decades? Mr. Garrity. Thanks, Senator Cantwell. I think it was a confluence of events that came through a process. That, I think, sort of, came out of the original YRBEP legislation and then followed by a study of a large reservoir called Black Rock that concluded in 2008. And that project turned out to be infeasible because of expense and because of some issues in terms of its effect on contaminated ground water underneath the Hanford Nuclear reservation and as well as operating costs. And multiple stakeholders including, I think, all four of us on this, from the state, on this panel came together and had similar comments on where we should go forward with that. And Mr. Sandison, when he was Director of the Office of the Columbia River, came up with a supplemental component to the storage study that was underway at that time that included, that basically laid out the initial, sort of, a general skeleton of the plan that the bill would help carry out. I think that is just really a pragmatic recognition on the part of the Yakama Nation and the irrigation districts and American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, the Wilderness Society, National Wildlife Federation, that we needed a practical solution that addressed the urgent needs of the fisheries and river health in the Basin. Senator Cantwell. It seems to me that part of the issue here is that while it might have been great to have a solution, something that was, let us just say, simpler, I guess is one way to describe Black Rock and the concept about, here is an easy solution. Let's just add more storage. Where we have ended up today is something that is much more integrated and much more elaborate in trying to solve the problem which, I think, is something to be recognized on a national basis, not just because it is holistic, although I definitely believe in that. That is what you represent, each of your interests. But the fact that the Plan says there are some things you can do today, and we should do those. There are some things that we can use that are market driven forces we should try to implement. Then the whole plethora of everything from conservation to utilization to increasing storage capacity. So I don't know if you have a comment on that about that issue of the complexity of an Integrated Plan providing so much of the solution. Mr. Rigdon. Thank you. I think the whole context, what we're talking about, is the complexity of the Yakima Basin in its own right. We have the whole gamut. We have a tribe that's fighting for its Treaty rights and stream flow. You have the irrigators and the junior water right holders and the conservation and the needs aren't met. And we've gone through--the last 40 years realizing that the tribe and the irrigators aren't going to meet those things. We've come together as a community to say for us to succeed we've got to work together instead of--and take on these complicated challenges. And I think that's the real important part. Black Rock was an idea of pumping water from the Columbia that has its own series of issues that the tribe argues and fights on actually, but the idea let's look in house, let's find the solutions and let's work to get to these things. There was a real important part of that is that the tribe and Roza sat down and we actually sent a letter together which is--we've been adversaries for, you know, probably since Time immemorial in its own right. And we signed that letter saying we've got to change and these principles of what really needs to happen. And having Ecology and the Bureau of Reclamation willing to take on that challenge and be a part of that conversation was really an integral part of what happened. Senator Cantwell. Thank you. The Chairman. You have mentioned that this Integrated Plan and the approach, the collaborative approach, can be viewed as a model in other areas. The word template has been used, but we also recognize that it is pretty tough to take a one size fits all approach to pretty much anything around this country because our regions are different, our needs are different and it complicates it a little bit. How unique or what aspects of what you have put together with this Integrated Plan are unique to the Yakima Basin and thus would not be as easily replicated in other regions? For instance, look at the situation down there in California. They are clearly struggling for answers. How should they deal with fish and agriculture needs? We are trying to draft legislation that will be helpful to them. Can you identify either any areas that are particularly innovative that help you with the approach that you have taken or that are so unique to the Yakima Basin that that is one of the things that has allowed this to gel? Mr. Iseman, you look like you want to jump in here. Mr. Iseman. Well I had a few thoughts on that. There are some unique aspects to what we're seeing in the Yakima, and one of them that I'd appreciate comments from the rest of the partners is about how their relationship has developed over time. But clearly they've been working together for a long time, and I think that's been essential to getting them to the point where we are with the Integrated Plan and what we're talking about today. But a few of the other things that are important. One is looking at a watershed scale and thinking about multipurpose objectives. And as Senator Cantwell said, it's easy to think about a single solution but oftentimes that won't meet multiple objectives at a watershed scale. And so thinking at this scale, I think, is very important. Looking at the long term to how they build drought resilience. You know, even this plan maps out 30 years, let alone these investments will be paying dividends for decades beyond that. And so thinking that long term drought resilience, oftentimes, we see places that are caught by surprise and maybe more reactive. So that's an important element. And also the funding strategy is always a challenge in terms of how you fund things. And having the state step up as a partner, a lot of the local irrigators being willing to invest and other partners. Finding ways to bring the resources together to accomplish the objectives of the plan, those are some of the key lessons that I take from this. And Bureau of Reclamation does try to foster this kind of collaboration through Basin studies is one of the activities where we try to bring stakeholders together to think about long term challenges and ways to address them. But I would say that this partnership is really mature and unique in terms of their accomplishments. The Chairman. Does anyone else want to weigh in? Mr. Sandison? Mr. Sandison. Yes, I agree with Mr. Iseman's assessment that we looked at a watershed scale. I think one of our biggest hurdles to overcome in the first place was getting fundamental agreement on what the problem was. In the past we'd looked at water supply, what has been mentioned of a water supply project that was considered early on, but this, sort of, just add water approach to solving the problems of the Basin wasn't going to work. That we needed to understand that you had a whole suite of issues, problems that needed to be solved in the Basin and recognizing how those are interconnected was important in terms of general recognition of what the scope of what needed to be done to correct the problems of the Basin. The other thing, and this speaks to the people that have been involved in the effort in Yakima was a willingness to, kind of, to set aside narrow, self interests and look to the broader good of the Basin and kind of, the recognition that-- because you're not going to get that. Any individual interest in the Integrated Plan is not going to get everything they want, but they're going to get a lot of what they want. And at the same time others will get a lot of what they need or want. And it was, sort of, this quest for a win/win sort of relationship in the Basin and achieving harmony rather than going to court and spending decades fighting in court. I think that was an important element of the success in putting this together. The Chairman. Good. Others? Mr. Garrity? Mr. Garrity. Well I'd add that I think the combination of state and Federal investment and readiness to help this process forward was really helpful. That the state has started the Office of Columbia River in 2006 which allowed some seed funding and room for creativity and collaboration on the state side. As Mr. Iseman mentioned, the Secure Water Act and the Basin study program was critical in basically matching some state investment early on that helped move the process forward. The Chairman. I do not have any further questions for the panel, but I know that Senator Cantwell wants to continue. So thank you. Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to that point, we obviously all, on a West-wide basis see those regions, California, Oregon, others, struggling with this. Do you think that our previous efforts on management within the region taught us a lot because obviously we have had many people here on other water settlements that have been through extensive legal battles? So is it the fact that we are able to take things off the table because we knew they did not work that brought people to the table or do you think there is something so unique about Washington? Which I am happy to believe. [Laughter.] We are very collaborative; I mean, the Klamath Basin comes to mind. Why isn't the Klamath Basin pursuing a similar approach? Mr. Sandison. Because we are unique in Washington. Senator Cantwell. Okay. [Laughter.] Mr. Sandison. Yeah. Again, I think this was, in many respects, just a matter of maturity that, as you indicated, that many previous attempts had failed in terms of trying to come up with support for individual projects. And it was the recognition that, again, it's a broader set of problems that we're trying to resolve than just simply adding water to the stream or to the river. That broader sense, but also the notion that the time was right, that decades had gone by, study after study and no substantive action. And that it really, we were at a point where the--in fact this was discussed in the first meeting when the workgroup was pulling together. There was a large mural or a poster with a stack or a picture of all the studies that have been done in the Yakima Basin prior to the workgroup being formed. It was a mountain of documents, yet no, again, very low substantive action. And I think that the folks in the room, the stakeholders, the Yakama Nation, the state, Bureau of Reclamation, others, just realized that we have to do something to change the status quo to make these improvements. And there was just this overall commitment to say, yeah, I'm willing to set aside my individual, specific interests right now and again, work for the greater good. So I guess it was a, no pun intended, it was a watershed moment, I think, back in 2009 when the group formed and came to this, sort of, realization that it was time to put something on the ground. Senator Cantwell. Well, I think having a seat at the table for everyone certainly conveyed that. I remember a meeting that we had with Secretary Salazar and Doc Hastings. Mr. Sandison. Exactly. Senator Cantwell. With the Bureau of Reclamation and I don't know how many, 30 people. Mr. Sandison. Yup. Senator Cantwell. On a Sunday morning. Mr. Sandison. Yes. Senator Cantwell. Because that is when the Secretary's schedule would allow. The fact that everybody was there meant that it was going to be a serious approach, that it was not going to be torpedoed later by somebody who was not at the table. Mr. Sandison. Right. Senator Cantwell. So I think the fact that it became a real process led people to then decide what are the most fundamentally important things to get done, as you have outlined in this phase of the project. Mr. Eberhart, I cannot remember, but somebody's testimony, municipal water issues were really at risk here, right? I mean, when you look at how this is going to be. If we did not come up with a plan, pretty soon some of the challenges were going to be right within the municipal system, right? Mr. Eberhart. Yes. And in the Integrated Plan, in this process, we have covered the supply that the municipalities will need to grow as we move forward. So we did improve that too. I think one of the other things that wasn't touched on in the whole discussion of how we got together or why we are where we are and one key point is pure survival. None of the interests will be able to, would have been able to survive if we would have continued on the same road that we were on. So it was time, as it's been mentioned by the other panel members, it was time to move forward and come up with a way that we could solve the problems and that we could do it. We knew we could do it cooperatively, together. We also knew that we couldn't do it individually. So it was just a realization that the things would be so bad if we didn't do this. Senator Cantwell. To that point, Mr. Iseman, we appreciate the Administration's support. You have outlined in your testimony how do we work together with other agencies that will be involved in this? You will be the point person for that? Mr. Iseman. Yeah. We'll actually have something called the DC Leadership team that includes all the Federal agencies that have an interest in the Yakima Integrated Plan. We're going to meet with this group and some of those agencies later today to talk more about these issues and how to move forward. We know that legislation provides a good road map for where we need to go, but there's going to be a lot of work between now and then in terms of how we execute it. So we will continue to work with the other agencies and the Administration as well as the local stakeholders to advance these projects. Senator Cantwell. Well, again I want to thank the region for being here today and the witnesses. I cannot say how impressed I am and excited by the Plan that you have put forth that is now incorporated in this legislation and how much I appreciate being able to represent those interests in the context of it's great to have such innovation and bring it back here to Washington. I hope that it does help us understand some of the challenges we do face with drought. Mr. Iseman, I doubt this will be the last time you will be before this Committee talking about what we are going to do about that in the future. What I like about this Plan is that you can get agreement on the lowest hanging fruit. Implementing those solutions right away can help us mitigate some of the huge economic impacts that we are going to see from drought. So, I think looking at this as, if nothing else, an example for how low hanging fruit can be something that we prioritize in our most stricken drought areas, I think, will be very, very helpful for us. Again, thank you, Madam Chair for holding this important hearing. And again, congratulations to everybody for their hard work on this. I know you didn't used to hang out, but thanks for hanging out---- [Laughter.] Senator Cantwell. Together today, and thanks for your--I know you guys have built friendships, so thank you. The Chairman. I want to join my colleague from Washington in thanking you, not only for this issue, but I do think that it gives others around the country in the West, a glimmer of hope that perhaps after decades of their own water wars they might be able to come to legislative solutions that will prevail for all stakeholders. So, thank you for not only being before the Committee today, but for your years of engagement on very important issues. We appreciate you being here. With that, the Committee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED ---------- [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]