[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]