    [Senate Hearing 114-381]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-381

                      WESTERN AND ALASKA WATER LEGISLATION

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

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

          H.R. 2898                          S. 1936

          S. 1583                            S. 2046

          S. 1894                            S. 2083

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 8, 2015

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

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

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    98-941 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2017

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia
                        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.....................................................     3
    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from California...........     5
    Boxer, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Senator from California..............   108
    Valadao, Hon. David, a U.S. Representative from California.......   110

                                   WITNESSES

    Connor, Hon. Michael, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the
      Interior.......................................................   112
    Kightlinger, Jeffrey, General Manager, Metropolitan Water
      District of Southern California................................   134
    Woolf, Sarah, President, Water Wise, and Partner, Clark Brothers
      Farming........................................................   167
    Keppen, Dan, Executive Director, Family Farm Alliance............   173
    Frank, Richard, Professor of Environmental Practice & Director,
      California Environmental Law & Policy Center, University of
      California, Davis School of Law................................   209
    Oglesby, Adrian, Director, University of New Mexico Utton
      Transboundary Resources Center, and Vice-Chair, Middle Rio
      Grande Conservancy District....................................   219

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    American Council of Engineering Companies:
        Email for the Record.........................................   289
    American Public Power Association and the National Rural Electric
      Cooperative Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   290
    American Rivers:
        Letter for the Record........................................   292
    American Rivers, et al.:
        Letter for the Record dated 7/22/15..........................   295
        Letter for the Record dated 10/5/15..........................   297
        Letter for the Record regarding H.R. 2898....................   300
    American Sportfishing Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   302
    Arquero, Hon. J. Leroy:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   304
    Association of California Water Agencies:
        Press Release for the Record.................................    78
    Association of Northwest Steelheaders:
        Letter for the Record........................................   309
    Audubon California:
        Letter for the Record........................................   310
    Bay, Hon. Norman:
        Letter for the Record........................................   312
    Bay Area Council:
        Letter for the Record........................................    18
    Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, Marin, San Mateo and
      Contra Costa Counties:
        Letter for the Record........................................   315
    Boxer, Hon. Barbara:
        Opening Statement............................................   108
    California Allied Grower Group:
        Letter for the Record........................................   317
    California Coastkeeper Alliance, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   321
    California Farm Bureau Federation:
        Letter for the Record........................................    15
    California Legislature:
        Letter for the Record........................................   323
    California Natural Resources Agency:
        Letter for the Record dated 2/15/12..........................   325
        Letter for the Record dated 2/28/12..........................   327
        Press Release for the Record.................................    80
    California Waterfowl Association:
        Letter for the Record dated 7/8/15...........................   328
        Letter for the Record dated 8/12/15..........................    84
        Letter for the Record dated 10/16/15.........................   331
    Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
        Opening Statement............................................     3
    Carlsbad Municipal Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    27
    CBS San Francisco Editorial Staff:
        Editorial for the Record.....................................    92
    City Council of the City of Morro Bay:
        Resolution No. 60-15 for the Record..........................    45
    City of Camarillo:
        Letter for the Record........................................    74
    City of Oceanside Water Utilities Department:
        Letter for the Record........................................    35
    City of Pismo Beach:
        Letter for the Record from Benjamin Fine.....................    52
        Letter for the Record from the Hon. James Lewis..............    53
        Letter for the Record from the Hon. Shelly Higginbotham......    54
    City of Sacramento:
        Letter for the Record........................................   333
    City of San Diego:
        Letter for the Record........................................    71
    Congress of the United States:
        Letter for the Record........................................   335
    Connor, Hon. Michael:
        Opening Statement............................................   112
        Written Testimony............................................   115
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   241
    Defenders of Wildlife, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   340
    Ducks Unlimited:
        Letter for the Record........................................    20
        Press Release for the Record.................................    81
    East Bay Municipal Utility District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    58
    El Dorado Irrigation District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    59
    Fallbrook Public Utility District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    44
    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
        Written Testimony............................................   102
    Frank, Richard:
        Opening Statement............................................   209
        Written Testimony............................................   212
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   279
    (The) Fresno Bee Editorial Board:
        Editorial for the Record.....................................    86
    Fresno Council of Governments:
        Letter for the Record........................................    55
    Friant Water Authority:
        Letter for the Record........................................    47
    Friends of the River, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   343
    Garamendi, Hon. John:
        Letter for the Record dated 8/6/15...........................    11
        Letter for the Record dated 10/2/15..........................    12
    Gibson, Hon. Bruce:
        Letter for the Record........................................    51
    Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   351
    Golden Gate Salmon Association and Pacific Coast Federation of
      Fishermen's Associations:
        Letter for the Record........................................   355
    Grassland Water District:
        Letter for the Record dated 8/6/15...........................    34
        Letter for the Record dated 10/7/15..........................   359
    Harris, Hon. Kamala:
        Letter for the Record........................................   361
    Hoopa Valley Tribe:
        Letter for the Record........................................   364
    Keppen, Dan:
        Opening Statement............................................   173
        Written Testimony............................................   175
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   266
    Kightlinger, Jeffrey:
        Opening Statement............................................   134
        Written Testimony............................................   136
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   255
    Kodiak Electric Association, Inc.:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   419
        Map of Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project Proposed Upper
          Hidden Basin Diversion dated 5/18/15.......................   421
    Lopez, Hon. Victor:
        Letter for the Record........................................    39
    Los Angeles Times Editorial Board:
        Editorial for the Record.....................................    94
    Mahoney Lake Partnership:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   422
    Metropolitan Water District of Southern California:
        Letter for the Record to Chairman Murkowski..................     9
        Letter for the Record to Ranking Member Cantwell.............    10
        9/22/15 Board Meeting........................................    61
    (The) Modesto Bee Editorial Board:
        Editorial for the Record.....................................    89
    Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency:
        Letter for the Record........................................    25
    Municipal Water District of Orange County:
        Letter for the Record........................................    57
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    (The) National Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy:
        Letter for the Record........................................   424
    (The) Nature Conservancy:
        Letter for the Record........................................    13
    (The) Northern California Water Association:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   426
    Oglesby, Adrian:
        Opening Statement............................................   219
        Written Testimony............................................   222
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   285
    Olivenhain Municipal Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    41
    Orange County Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    30
    Oregon Salmon Commission:
        Letter for the Record........................................   429
    Pacific Fishery Management Council:
        Letter for the Record........................................   430
    Placer County Water Agency:
        Letter for the Record........................................   432
    Rainbow Municipal Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    28
    Reclamation District 108:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   436
    Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    32
    (The) Sacramento Bee Editorial Board:
        Editorial for the Record.....................................    98
    San Diego County Water Authority:
        Letter for the Record........................................    68
    San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce:
        Letter for the Record........................................    22
    San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board:
        Editorial for the Record.....................................    91
    San Francisco Chronicle:
        Editorial for the Record.....................................    95
    San Jose Mercury News:
        Editorial for the Record.....................................    96
    Santa Clara Valley Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    66
    Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District:
        Letter for the Record dated 8/11/15..........................    40
        Letter for the Record dated 10/5/15..........................   439
    Santa Fe Irrigation District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    23
    Sites Project Joint Powers Authority:
        Letter for the Record........................................   441
    Sonoma County Water Agency:
        Letter for the Record........................................   443
    South Coast Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    43
    Thompson, Hon. Mike:
        Letter for the Record........................................   444
    Trout Unlimited:
        Letter for the Record........................................   445
    United Fresh Produce Association:
        Press Release for the Record.................................    77
    Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................   451
    Valadao, Hon. David:
        Opening Statement............................................   110
    Vallecitos Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    36
    Valley Center Municipal Water District:
        Letter for the Record........................................    38
    Water Infrastructure Network:
        Letter for the Record........................................    49
    Water Quality Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    70
    WateReuse Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   452
    West Basin Municipal Water District, et al.:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   457
    Western Growers Association:
        Press Release for the Record.................................    79
    Western Recycled Water Coalition:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   468
    Western States Water Council:
        Letter for the Record........................................   475
    Westlands Water District:
        Press Release for the Record.................................    76
    Westlands Water District, et al.:
        Joint Press Release for the Record...........................    82
    Wilkesboro Hydropower, LLC:
        Letter for the Record........................................   477
    Woolf, Sarah:
        Opening Statement............................................   167
        Written Testimony............................................   169
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   263
    Wyden, Hon. Ron:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   479

                                    ----------
    The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can
    be found on the committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/
    public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=65220E15-0479-492E-
    8423-CA1A381C1078.

                      WESTERN AND ALASKA WATER LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2015

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:39 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 have a full house speaking about an issue this morning
    that I think is fair to say if you are from the West, you get
    up every morning thinking about what is happening with water,
    with our drought situation, and what can be done to address
    some of the issues that have been long-standing in California
    and the concern that it continues to grow and be an evolving
    threat.
        Our focus this morning is on legislation, which is good to
    have this discussion before the Energy Committee. There has
    been much thought, there has been much oversight and many, many
    reviews.
        I myself have been out to California a couple of times
    meeting with farmers, meeting with interests that are very,
    very concerned about how we move forward. But until you have
    some legislation in front of you that defines what some of the
    proposals are, it makes it more difficult for us as a
    committee.
        Today we are focusing on legislation. We have a Senate bill
    that my colleague and friend, Senator Feinstein, has been
    working on for some time now, the California Emergency Drought
    Relief Act. We have the House bill that Congressman Valadao has
    been working on, the Western Water and American Food Security
    Act. Their sponsors are here, along with Senator Boxer who has
    been equally engaged on this issue on behalf of her
    constituents. So we will hear brief comments from them this
    morning before we go to our panel of witnesses.
        Everyone, I think, in this room is aware that we have a
    serious, long-lasting, and consequential drought. California
    has imposed mandatory reductions on water use by its residents
    and its businesses. Many California farmers continue to face
    unprecedented reductions in water delivery, and some
    communities no longer have running water. Some of the stories
    we have heard just really make you heartsick. This is something
    that must be addressed.
        But this is not just about what we are seeing in
    California. It is a Westwide drought. It is being felt across
    the Colorado River Basin, up in the Pacific Northwest. Interior
    Alaska even was abnormally dry this summer. Dry conditions also
    contributed to a terrible wildfire season this year. So when we
    think about the impacts of drought, it is more than just the
    water itself. It is also the impacts.
        The question we are here to discuss is what do we do about
    it? What do we do about the drought? Our choices largely boil
    down to the measures before us today.
        The House and Senate bills both seek to maximize water
    delivery to where it is most needed in California. Both reflect
    some common approaches. For example, requiring agencies to use
    real-time monitoring to address environmental concerns
    associated with increased water flows through the Bay Delta.
    But I think it is important to note that the bills diverge in
    some important ways.
        The Senate bill seeks to provide guidance to Federal
    agencies to increase flows through the delta, while also giving
    agencies flexibility to make decisions on flow levels. Its
    sponsors have proposed substantial increases in funding for a
    variety of activities, including greater storage. As we review
    that approach, we need to consider the criticisms of that
    Senate bill: that its guidance to the agencies is perhaps
    insufficient, that current flexibility is not being utilized,
    and that it lacks necessary funding offsets.
        We also need to consider the approach that has been taken
    by our House colleagues. Their bill gives more direction, less
    flexibility to the agencies. It includes funding for storage
    and other activities but is fully paid for. These decisions
    have led some to claim that the House bill is overly
    prescriptive, is too rigid, and does not provide sufficient
    funding for some key programs.
        We could talk about Goldilocks here and which one is too
    big, too small, and which one is just right, but I think it is
    important to acknowledge that these are very complicated, some
    very complex issues, and we need to reach a unified legislative
    response.
        Also before us today is a bill from Senators Heinrich and
    Udall that includes some interesting provisions on water
    transfers and exchanges.
        Finally, we are receiving written testimony on three
    hydropower bills, including my measure to authorize the
    expansion of an existing hydro project at Terror Lake in
    Alaska. Right now, the area around Terror Lake is powered
    solely, solely by clean, renewable hydropower and a small wind
    turbine. We are in kind of an interesting situation. If we
    cannot allow for the expansion, what we do then is we turn back
    to expensive diesel fuel instead.
        The news across the country, and it was highlighted when
    President Obama was up in the state, was that we are making
    some remarkable headway with our microgrid systems. Kodiak is
    always pointed out as the second-largest island in the United
    States of America getting to the point where they can be 100
    percent on renewables, but we are going to have to go back to
    diesel if we cannot get an expansion around Terror Lake.
        It is a beautiful place out there surrounded by a lot of
    bears, and if anybody is not thinking kindly about it, maybe
    they should go take a trip out there and take a look. I will
    invite you to visit our bears.
        But what I think we want to focus specifically on here this
    morning is the extent of the drought that we are facing in the
    West, and I appreciate a great, great deal the work the
    sponsors of these various bills have put into where we are
    today.
        I have asked for indulgence of my colleagues that are here
    to testify. We are trying to get through, again, a pretty
    aggressive panel with hopefully lots of questions, but I am
    pleased that you have joined us this morning. We will look
    forward to your comments after Senator Cantwell has provided
    hers, and then we will move to this very important issue.
        Senator Cantwell.

     STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank
    you for holding this important hearing. And welcome to the
    Californians. That is something that my Washington doesn't
    always say. [Laughter.]
        But I certainly appreciate Mr. Valadao. We just met this
    morning, but I just want everyone to know there are no more
    tenacious Members in the U.S. Senate than the two women sitting
    next to you. I know that they have worked very hard on this
    legislation over a long period of time, and they are certainly
    trying to have the best interests of everybody at hand. I look
    forward to hearing all of your comments this morning as we try
    to deal with this very tough issue.
        As the Chair said, communities across the West are seeing
    the impacts of this, not just Californians. Towns and wells
    have run dry, farmers have seen billions of dollars of losses,
    and the ecosystem has suffered.
        So we know this, there are no easy solutions. However, one
    thing is clear: we cannot address the long-term impacts of this
    issue by fostering short-term solutions that don't help us
    manage the ecosystem. The worst thing to do, obviously, is to
    pass legislation that ends up in the courts and allows us not
    to move forward on anything.
        Drought will likely continue for the coming years, and
    short-term solutions that divide communities, threaten the
    environment, and create greater uncertainty only make the
    challenge harder because we know that this situation is not
    going away. There is no question that we are seeing some of the
    most severe droughts in history, and California is experiencing
    the worst drought in 500 years.
        In the State of Washington, we have had record-breaking
    temperatures, low snowpack, catastrophic wildfires that I also
    know my colleagues here before us today care greatly about,
    farmers are facing $1.2 billion in crop losses this year alone,
    and nearly a quarter million sockeye salmon died in the
    Columbia River this summer trying to reach their spawning
    grounds.
        Over the last several months, the committee has heard a lot
    of ideas about how to deal with drought, so today we are
    hearing about these pieces of legislation before us that you
    have sponsored.
        The Yakima Basin hearing we had earlier this year, Madam
    Chairman, on drought was kind of eye-opening, I think, for a
    lot of people here because it included the innovation where
    projects are balanced, integrated with a holistic response and
    where tribe, fishermen, farmers, and foresters all sat before
    us in an agreement about how to move forward. I like this
    approach. I like this approach because it allows you to solve
    problems, stay out of the courts, and keep moving forward.
        I want to make sure that we are developing long-term,
    resilient plans and we are doing that as we continue to focus
    on water-sustainable communities. I also want to make sure that
    we are not pitting one community against another.
        I should just say that I chaired the San Joaquin hearing
    several years ago and so sat through the 18 years of litigation
    on that case and, finally, solutions of people coming together.
    So I know well some of the challenges that California has tried
    to push through in the past. My point is just this: that
    lengthy court battles resolve nothing.
        Instead, what we need are solutions that take an
    integrated, basin-scale approach, take into account all the
    needs in the watershed, and make sure that there are locally-
    driven solutions that are collaborative, yes, and consensus-
    based.
        We need to make sure that we are doing everything we can to
    make sure we are protecting our environment--clean water,
    healthy ecosystems--and that we are not managing the water or
    the ecosystem to the brink of collapse. I say this because we
    are reminded every day about the iconic salmon population in
    our state and how trading one for the other does not work for
    us. It does not work for fishermen.
        I want to make sure that we are not overriding
    considerations of the National Environmental Protection Act.
    Drought and management solutions should work with nature to
    seek and increase the best benefits for both humans and the
    environment.
        Lastly, I want to make sure that we are responding to
    drought and how we manage water, not how we make it more
    complicated. So I do believe in modernizing our Federal
    approaches. I want to make sure that we are not creating
    uncertainty, but we are--utilizing locally-based solutions that
    incentivize people to work together and get the best science
    available, leveraging the power of innovation to help us solve
    this problem.
        I know there are a lot of things that we are going to talk
    about today, Madam Chair, on this issue, but I hope that as we
    talk to the witnesses, we will keep these priorities in mind to
    make sure that we are improving our existing infrastructure and
    making sure that we have nature-based solutions and addressing
    all of those issues so that fish, farmers, forests--are all
    working together on these solutions.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        I am pleased to be able to welcome our colleagues to the
    committee. Congressman, we appreciate you taking time from your
    morning to join us with this very important issue, but further
    to the point, for all that you have been doing really for years
    in this arena. We look forward to working with you as we
    advance these measures.
        With that, Senator Feinstein, if you would like to lead off
    this morning with your comments, welcome.

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

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and
    Ranking Member Cantwell and members of both parties. I am very
    pleased to have this opportunity.
        I make this statement on behalf of my colleague on the
    left, Senator Boxer. We are joined at the hip on this, and I
    hope after you hear our testimony you will join us in that.
        I would also like to thank Jeff Kightlinger for testifying
    today. Jeff is the General Manager and CEO for the Metropolitan
    Water District in Southern California. This is the largest
    municipal water provider in the nation. It is a water district
    that supplies drinking water to 26 cities and water districts,
    and it serves nearly 19 million people. Jeff is a professional.
    He has been at this for a long time, and hopefully, his words
    will mean something to this committee.
        Let me begin with a general statement. This drought is
    worse than anything I have seen in my lifetime, and I am very
    worried about what it means for the State of California.
    Reports say that the Sierra Nevada snowpack, which is our major
    source of water, hasn't been this low in 500 years. And there
    is a strong belief that droughts will become chronic and,
    therefore, real problems.
        Rural and disadvantaged communities are especially hard
    hit. We have subsidence of huge areas, some as the ground is
    empty for as much as 60 feet, and this can become catastrophic
    in the event of an earthquake.
        As of this month, 2,400 wells are dry or soon will be, and
    this puts 12,000 people in jeopardy of being without water.
    Just this month, in the Washington Post, I read about a family
    from Porterville reduced to bathing with donated supplies and
    living off bottled water. And this isn't the only one.
        UC Davis reported that the California economy will lose an
    estimated $2.7 billion in 2015 along with 18,600 jobs. That is
    on top of the $2.2 billion last year and another 17,000 jobs we
    lost.
        Over the past two years, Senator Boxer's staff and my staff
    have spent countless hours working out a drought bill in
    consultation with farmers and fishermen, cities and rural
    areas, and environmentalists and businesses up and down the
    state. There is a truism, ``Whiskey is for drinking, and water
    is for fighting.'' I appreciate Senator Cantwell's comments,
    but there is a long history. It is very difficult in California
    to get a consensus on anything that is going to be meaningful.
        We have a bill that we believe has widespread support. The
    Nature Conservancy and the California Farm Bureau support the
    bill, as do 29 water districts and cities. I put together a
    packet of those letters of support that I would like to provide
    this committee, if I may, Madam Chairman.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Feinstein. Senator Boxer's and my bill has two
    goals, short-term emergency relief and long-term investments.
    In the short-term, this means being able to move water
    consistent with environmental laws to help California for the
    duration of the Governor's drought declaration of emergency. It
    does this in a number of ways.
        It maximizes water supplies, consistent with environmental
    law. The bill requires daily monitoring when fish are near
    pumps so more water can be pumped when fish are not nearby. It
    promotes water transfers between willing sellers and buyers so
    we can move water to drought-stricken communities that have
    been the hardest hit. It allows the Delta Cross Channel gates
    to open to the maximum extent feasible, and it manages delta
    turbidity to maximize water supplies while protecting fish.
        We also have long-term solutions. We believe droughts in
    the West are likely to be chronic and more severe with
    population growth and climate change. California voters already
    provided a roadmap for how to fund these projects when they
    overwhelmingly approved a $7.5 billion water bond last year.
    That bond includes $2.7 billion for storage and another $725
    million for recycling and advanced treatment.
        Recognizing the limits of the Federal budget, this bill
    reduces the Federal role in water supply projects to one for
    support for state and local projects. The bill provides
    authorizations for the following: $600 million for storage
    projects to capture water during the wet years to put to good
    use during the dry years and another $50 million in support of
    research to lower the cost of desalination and reduce its
    environmental impacts. The bill also identifies 105 local water
    recycling projects capable of producing 850,000 acre-feet of
    water and another 26 desalination projects capable of producing
    almost 330,000 acre-feet.
        To get these projects off the ground, the bill authorizes
    $500 million in grants, loans, and loan guarantees, and the
    bill creates a program to shift rural and disadvantaged
    families from wells to more resilient systems like recycling.
        This bill is not going to please everybody. There is no way
    to do it. But not to do anything is to run the risk of really
    losing the entire economic engine of California. We cannot
    function without water. People cannot live without water. So we
    are now in a different climate, in a different set of
    circumstances, and we need to take action.
        I want to thank you, Madam Chairman, for working with us on
    our emergency bill before, and I hope you will see the projects
    of desalination and recycling as worthy of some Federal
    support.
        I want you to know that we are searching for offsets. We
    understand the financial situation, and we very much hope to
    come up with some.
        So thank you very much, everybody, for your attention and
    concern.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Know that we
    certainly will be working with you and the members of the----
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Feinstein follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman.--California delegation.
        Senator Boxer, welcome to the Committee.

     STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

        Senator Boxer. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Cantwell, I
    am so glad you two are sitting up there because I honestly--I
    really do trust your judgment on a lot of these issues, and I
    hope you will work with us very closely because when you talk
    about water, you are talking about the third rail of politics
    in our state. It is really true.
        Now I served in the House for ten years and I absolutely
    love the House, ten years, a great experience. But in the
    House, I fought for my district, 500,000. Now it is probably
    about 600,000 or so, and I understand that.
        I want to point out to you that Senator Feinstein and I
    represent almost 40 million people, and we hear from all of
    them. They are all the stakeholders that care about every word
    that we say about this subject. So it is the farmers, yes. It
    is the fishing industry, yes. It is the tourist industry, yes.
    It is the urban users, the suburban users, the rural users.
    They all want to have a seat at the table.
        What we have tried to do in our bill is just that. We do
    not want to reignite the water wars because, Senator Cantwell,
    you are right. They lead to the courthouse door. They have led
    to the courthouse door, and what that means is nothing gets
    done and people suffer on all sides.
        So we have to do something courageous here. We have to say
    to all the stakeholders let us hear you out and let us have a
    bill that is fair to everyone.
        And my guiding light on all these water bills has been
    that. I will not reignite the water wars. I will not turn one
    stakeholder against the other, environmentalists against the
    farmers. That is not what I want to do. Farmers against
    fishermen, that is what has happened. We have to get past it.
    That is why I am so proud of our bill, because I think we
    really did make huge progress.
        We are in a fifth year of a devastating drought. My
    colleague has laid it out. I won't go over it again because we
    know how horrible it is out there. It is hurting everyone. All
    the stakeholders are bleeding. They are hurting--the farmers,
    the fishermen, the urban, suburban users. And yes, some people
    are actually cutoff from water supplies.
        The wildfires, it is extraordinary. It is frightening. Our
    first responders just put their life on the line because the
    conditions on the ground are such.
        Now we can't get into an argument here about climate
    change. It is a loser. But all we want to say is we are dealing
    with climate change now, and if people choose not to address
    it, it is your option. But today, we are trying to look at
    water. So I hope we can do this in the face of this
    unprecedented drought.
        I want to give a shout-out to our Governor. He has really
    led the way by building bipartisan support. He passed a
    landmark water bond. Everyone came together. It promotes
    recycling, conservation, storage, desal.
        Communities are leading the way, and I am proud to tell you
    Californians have risen to this occasion. They have reduced
    their water use by nearly 27 percent in August, exceeding the
    state's mandate for the third straight month.
        So now it is time for Congress to act, and that is why I am
    so proud that you are having this hearing today. And I am very
    encouraged by your opening statements because we need to move
    forward.
        I want to echo what my colleague said. I have never really
    seen such a broad array of support for a bill. And I think,
    Madam Chairman and Ranking Member Cantwell, you ought to look
    at that. I mean, to have support from the California Farm
    Bureau Federation and local water districts and the Bay Area
    Council and the Nature Conservancy, and in that book you will
    see the very strong support that we have.
        That doesn't mean it is a perfect bill. There is no such
    thing. It is an imperfect bill, but it is a good bill. What we
    have done is taken the best of bills that passed the House and
    Senate, of some of Senator Feinstein's former bills, my bills,
    as other House Members have the best of their bills in this
    bill, and it does complement the water bond that we passed. So,
    yes, we will need to have some funding, but there is funding
    back home as well.
        This bill benefits all the stakeholders. It helps farmers
    without undermining fundamental environmental protections. It
    helps hard-hit communities. It takes an all-of-the-above
    approach, which we always say we love. We always say we love an
    all-of-the-above approach. That is what we do here. We invest
    in conservation, water storage, recycling, desal, all the
    things that we know we can do. The bill is a compromise.
        Madam Chair, if I could just let you know this. I have
    compromised on this bill. You know, if I could write it all on
    my own and not talk to anyone else, it would look different. We
    did compromise on this.
        It has the elements, as I said, of a number of proposals
    that I have put forward in the past, Senator Feinstein, and
    Members of the House. It is critical that we pass legislation
    that doesn't undermine Federal and State environmental
    protections because, as Senator Cantwell noted, that would only
    threaten fragile ecosystems. It would also put thousands of
    jobs at risk in our home state in recreation, in tourism, in
    fishing.
        We need a bipartisan, comprehensive drought bill. We have a
    chance to do this right. We can pass a bill that has broad
    support, that unites all of our water users, that has the
    support of the Administration and the State of California that
    will move our water policy into the 21st Century. That is what
    I am urging you to do from the bottom of my heart because this
    is serious.
        Bring us all together. This bill does it. This is a unique
    moment in history where we have found a bill that has this kind
    of broad support.
        So we will work with you. We want to alleviate the pain not
    only in our state, but across much of the West. The solutions
    in here are for the whole country, and I thank you so much for
    this opportunity.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Boxer. I appreciate your
    leadership in these issues, long-standing.
        Senator Feinstein. Madam Chairman, may we be excused?
        The Chairman. Yes. Thank you for being here this morning
    and again for your good work.
        We will now turn to Congressman Valadao. Welcome to the
    Senate side.

       STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VALADAO, U.S. REPRESENATIVE FROM
                               CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Valadao. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Good morning, and thank you for your
    leadership on this issue.
        Mr. Valadao. Good morning, Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking
    Member Cantwell, and members of the committee.
        I appreciate the invitation to testify before you today on
    my legislation, H.R. 2898, the Western Water and American Food
    Security Act of 2015, which passed the House of Representatives
    this past June.
        Before we get into the details of the bill, I wanted to
    share a little bit about the area I represent. California's
    21st congressional District is unique. Located in the southern
    half of the Central Valley, my district spans about 160 miles
    from the Fresno County line to just south of Bakersfield, an
    agriculture powerhouse. The Central Valley produces the
    majority of the fruits, vegetables, and nuts for the entire
    nation.
        Minority populations make up over 80 percent of my
    constituency, and our communities face many unique challenges
    due to our rural setting, such as a lack of healthcare and
    education. With another manmade drought evolving, the San
    Joaquin Valley is in danger of becoming a dustbowl unless
    immediate action is taken to change the policies that puts the
    needs of fish above the livelihood of people.
        As a lifelong resident of the Central Valley and as a dairy
    farmer in Hanford, I have witnessed firsthand the challenges
    faced by many residents when the water resources become scarce.
    Today, parts of my district are suffering from unemployment
    rates as high as 50 percent.
        As farmers are forced to fallow thousands of acres, the
    ripple effects are felt throughout the community. Workers are
    laid off, families are unable to provide for their children,
    and while food lines continue to grow, we must import food from
    other countries just to meet the demand. I have seen families
    out of options, living in shacks along the road.
        It is difficult to watch my friends and neighbors, people I
    grew up with, suffer because of the laws passed by Congress and
    the method in which the Federal agencies have chosen to
    implement these laws. The San Joaquin Valley is facing a dire
    situation, and the simple fact of the matter is that we, as
    Members of Congress, need to add a little bit of common sense
    into the law.
        In an effort to throw a lifeline to California and all of
    the Western States enduring years of drought, I worked with my
    colleagues to act decisively. My legislation, H.R. 2898, the
    Western Water and American Food Security Act, would streamline
    the regulatory process, provide flexibility, and improve
    scientific efforts to restore some water supplies, in turn
    providing more economic certainty to farmers and communities in
    the Central Valley.
        Although a lack of precipitation contributes to the
    valley's water supply situation, problems are exacerbated by
    Federal regulations and decisions of the Federal and State
    water managers. The dedication of vast quantities of water for
    the protection of endangered fish is done at a great cost to
    the communities in central and southern California.
        Despite this, there is no scientific indication that the
    condition of the very fish they are trying to protect has
    actually improved. Furthermore, there may be alternative
    methods to protect fish from predatory species that could allow
    for additional water supplies to be made available to those
    areas most in need.
        My legislation would ensure that the Federal Government's
    decisions to protect listed species are effective and based on
    up-to-date science. H.R. 2898 also requires agencies to use the
    most accurate survey methods and to determine how water
    projects can operate to maximize water utilization and
    deliveries.
        We all know that the Government cannot make it rain;
    however, Congress does have the ability to expand water storage
    in wet times so that we can get through the inevitable dry
    years. With more reservoirs, we can expand our water
    infrastructure and storage to ensure reliable water supply for
    the future.
        Dam feasibility studies that began over a decade ago are
    still incomplete today costing taxpayers millions of dollars.
    H.R. 2898 improves the process to build storage on a West-wide
    basis through provisions modeled after the Water Resources
    Reform and Development Act. It makes common sense changes to
    the Safety and Dams Act, reducing such red tape that could
    prevent additional years of inaction.
        This legislation is extremely measured, given the carnage
    caused by the Federal Government. The language regarding
    California that passed the House of Representatives is very
    similar to the language negotiated with the Senate just last
    year. I believe it is reasonable to continue our dialog from
    where our conversation ended rather than where it began.
        I have experienced the challenges the West faces because of
    this epic drought. I have seen the harm it has done to the
    people and jobs and its ever-growing impact on the environment.
    I remain hopeful that Congress can find a solution to provide
    relief to all those suffering not just in California, but for
    the entire West, as well as those Americans who rely on us to
    put food on their table.
        On behalf of the House of Representatives, we stand ready
    to work with the committee to achieve this goal.
        Thank you again for your time, Senator.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate you
    being here and really on the House side continuing to work
    these issues that have been so key.
        I have visited with many Members over there. I think it is
    testimony to where we are here today discussing this particular
    bill that has moved through. We need to be working with our
    counterparts on the other side, so thank you for your
    leadership with this.
        Mr. Valadao. Well, and thank you. I appreciate you taking
    so much time to especially come out to the valley. And I would
    like to actually invite any one of the members of the committee
    and even the two Senators that spoke here alongside of me to
    come visit the valley.
        Come see some of these areas that you hear about in the
    news when you hear about people having water bottles delivered
    to their house so they can take care of their families or bathe
    their children or the shacks that they have been putting up
    along some of these roads. This is having a real human impact
    here, and it is something that I think people need to see for
    themselves to truly understand.
        So I appreciate the time that you have taken out personally
    for this and look forward to continuing to work with you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        With that, we will now turn to our panel of witnesses. We
    have a full slate this morning. So I would ask that Mr. Connor,
    Mr. Kightlinger, Ms. Woolf, Mr. Keppen, Mr. Frank, and Mr.
    Oglesby, please come forward, and we will do introductions and
    move to your testimony.
        Good morning, and welcome to all of you. Thank you for
    agreeing to join us here this morning to speak to the pending
    legislation before us and to receive further testimony on the
    Western-wide drought issues and the legislation that we have.
        We will begin this morning's panel with the Honorable
    Michael Connor, who is the Deputy Secretary for the U.S.
    Department of Interior.
        After his comments, he will be followed by Mr. Jeff
    Kightlinger. Jeff is the General Manager for the Metropolitan
    Water District of Southern California. Welcome to the committee
    again.
        We have Ms. Sarah Woolf, who is the president of Water Wise
    and a partner in Clark Brothers Farming.
        Mr. Dan Keppen is the Executive Director of the Family Farm
    Alliance. Thank you for joining us.
        We have Mr. Richard Frank, who is the Director of the
    California Environmental Law and Policy Center at the
    University of California, Davis. Thank you.
        Wrapping up the panel is Mr. Adrian Oglesby, who is the
    Executive Director of the Utton Transboundary Resources Center
    at the University of New Mexico. He is also Vice-Chair of the
    Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District.
        Again, thank you all for the testimony that you will
    provide for us. We would ask that you limit your comments this
    morning to about five minutes. Your full testimony will be
    included as part of the record. Once each of you have concluded
    your remarks, we will have opportunities for members of the
    committee to ask questions to you.
        With that, Mr. Connor, if you would begin the panel this
    morning. Welcome.

       STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL CONNOR, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Connor. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member
    Cantwell, Senator Franken. I appreciate the opportunity to
    appear again before the committee to continue our discussion on
    drought response measures.
        As I expressed in June, the Administration is acutely aware
    of the drought-related challenges confronting families,
    farmers, tribes, businesses, cities, rural communities, and the
    environment throughout the West. And we are committed to doing
    all we can to meet those challenges.
        As detailed in my written testimony, we are taking a
    multifaceted approach in marshaling every resource at our
    disposal to assist Western communities impacted by the drought.
    These actions include maximizing water supplies for health and
    safety purposes, as well as farming and other economic
    activities, maintaining critical environmental protections for
    fish and wildlife, and conserving stored water in the event of
    continued drought. It is with this backdrop that I have
    submitted testimony on the three drought bills before the
    committee that, by and large, take vastly different approaches
    to this problem.
        Two of these bills in particular, H.R. 2898 and S. 1894,
    stand in vivid contrast to each other. They are not just
    illustrative of diverse and competing concerns that have
    historically driven water conflicts throughout the West, they
    are representative of the challenges we face today and our
    common goal to maximize water supplies, build long-term
    resiliency, and promote collaborative efforts that avoid
    pitting water users against each other.
        To quickly summarize, as set forth in a July statement of
    Administration policy in my written testimony, the
    Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2898. There are many
    specific provisions which are objectionable, but in general,
    the bill would impede drought response efforts through measures
    that slow decision-making, increase the likelihood of divisive
    litigation, mandate infeasible outcomes, and limit the real-
    time operational flexibility that is critical to maximizing
    water delivery.
        With respect to S. 1894, there are numerous provisions in
    the bill that we do support, while others cause concern or need
    additional clarification or technical edits. We are grateful
    for the many months of dedicated work on the part of Senator
    Feinstein and her staff to craft and refine S. 1894. In
    general, we do remain concerned about provisions that could be
    the basis for new litigation regarding operational decisions
    intended to maximize water supply.
        At the same time, we appreciate the comprehensive approach
    in S. 1894 that is intended to address the need for
    conservation, habitat improvements, new water supplies, and
    create financing mechanisms to support all those approaches. S.
    1894 most closely tracks with the Administration's ongoing
    efforts to address the short-term crisis of drought, as well as
    developing the broad array of tools needed to build resiliency
    in the face of climate change.
        With respect to the third water bill, I would note that
    until this year, drought has been affecting New Mexico almost
    to the extent similar to California. This year has provided
    some relief, but water supplies, particularly in the Rio Grande
    basin, are still well below normal. The Department supports the
    goals in many provisions of the New Mexico Drought Preparedness
    Act. We do, however, have some concerns about some of the
    introduced language in the bill that are detailed in my written
    statement.
        In closing, I want to stress that the ongoing drought,
    particularly in California, has greatly limited water supply.
    By some metrics like snowpack, soil moisture, groundwater depth
    in some areas, this may be the worst drought in at least 500
    years. No legislation is going to greatly increase water supply
    in the short term, and to the extent it could provide some
    modest increase, the additional supply to one user is likely to
    come at the expense of some other water user or an already
    overstressed environment.
        Nonetheless, the Administration's extensive administrative
    and operational actions are proving that significant progress
    on drought can be made within the law. This is true if those
    actions are carried out in close collaboration with the state,
    affected water users, and other interested parties. We have
    been impressed with the level of cooperation and agreements
    that have been reached this year, even in the stress of the
    worst drought in recent times.
        Looking ahead, it is imperative that the Federal
    Government, State, tribes, and local communities think beyond
    the scope and scale of the current drought and plan for the
    needs of the future in a changing climate.
        Several of the provisions of the bill before the committee
    today will help us do just that. We are ready to work with the
    committee to find common ground on legislation that can
    complement the Administration's efforts to assist communities
    affected by drought both now and in the future.
        I stand ready to answer questions at the appropriate time.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Connor.
        Mr. Kightlinger, welcome.

    STATEMENT OF JEFFREY KIGHTLINGER, GENERAL MANAGER, METROPOLITAN
                 WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Kightlinger. Thank you much, Chair Murkowski, Ranking
    Member Cantwell, members.
        As noted, Jeffrey Kightlinger, Metropolitan Water District
    of Southern California. We are the largest municipal water
    agency in the U.S. We supply water to one in every two
    Californians, 19 million people across southern California.
    That works out to about two million acre-feet of water a year,
    two billion gallons of water every single day on average. That
    results in about 50 percent of all of southern California's
    water. We get that water from two main sources, the Colorado
    River and Northern California, through long aqueducts that
    supply that water to Southern California.
        As noted by many of the speakers, it is not just California
    that is in drought. We are in the midst of a cataclysmic
    drought in California. The last four years, driest period in
    500 or 1,200 years, depending on which tree rings you are
    looking at. But the seven of the last eight years have been
    drought in California; four of the last six years have been
    declared by our Governors to be emergency droughts over the
    last six years.
        So an incredible drought in California, but it is a West-
    wide drought. Colorado River basin has been in drought since
    2000. So we are very concerned about the future of this area,
    and we are--and we do greatly appreciate this committee taking
    the time to look at the issue, and we certainly appreciate the
    efforts of Senators Feinstein and Boxer to introduce
    legislation.
        What we particularly like about both bills, both the
    Senator's bill and the Congressman's bill, is that it focuses
    on two things: both short-term flexibility as well as some
    long-term improvements. Short-term flexibility is critical.
    Metropolitan keyed a whole group of--a whole suite of
    scientific efforts to focus on real-time monitoring, the use of
    turbidity as a measure in which to substitute for smelt-
    tracking.
        We believed in this process. We had a number of scientists
    work on it. We engaged with the fishery agencies and the
    regulatory agencies to do that. We did not do a good job in
    2013 and 2014, and we probably lost 800,000 acre-feet by storms
    that we didn't--weren't able to move that water. That resulted
    in taking a bleak year into a cataclysmic drought year.
        To their credit, the regulatory agencies didn't want to
    repeat what we experienced in '13-'14. They have worked hard to
    come up with how to use this real-time monitoring and adaptive
    science, and we used it as well as we possibly could 2014-2015.
    I believe we wrung as much water that could be possibly wrung
    out of the system this past year and kept a bleak year to being
    a bleak year. So that was as good as we could do, and the
    agencies worked hand-in-hand with us, the water providers, to
    make sure we did that.
        That is what a lot of the provisions in both the
    Congressman Valadao's and the Senator Feinstein-Boxer bill
    really are looking at how do we even go further, better, faster
    with that real-time monitoring, the adaptive science, and we
    think there is a real pathway there to do what we can to--in
    the short-term to increase our chances of providing more water
    supply.
        We also appreciate that the bills talk about fast-tracking
    and moving on storage. Metropolitan built a $2 billion
    reservoir in 2000. We have our own storage in southern
    California. But for that, we would have been in dramatic
    rationing these past four years. But because we have had
    storage, we have been able to manage through that and work
    through this drought. The state needs more storage. We need
    more storage throughout California, and we appreciate how both
    of those bills are looking at that.
        Finally, Senator Feinstein's bill really takes a focus on
    recycling, reclamation, other projects. We would applaud that
    effort. Obviously, we know money is tight, but we think those
    are real critical measures that we can do.
        So our board has supported the Feinstein-Boxer bill. Our
    board has not taken a position on the Valadao bill, but we want
    to work with both offices and try and come up with a compromise
    solution that works for all of California.
        So thank you for your time. Thank you for your attention to
    this incredible issue, and I stand prepared to answer any
    questions that you have.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kightlinger follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Mr. Kightlinger, thank you very much. we
    appreciate it.
        Ms. Woolf.

     STATEMENT OF SARAH WOOLF, PRESIDENT, WATER WISE, AND PARTNER,
                         CLARK BROTHERS FARMING

        Ms. Woolf. Good morning, Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking
    Member Cantwell, and Senators of the committee. I was honored
    to be invited to testify today before the committee, and I am
    hopeful that my remarks can help facilitate progress on
    critical legislation you have before you because entire
    communities are depending upon you to find a resolution.
        I am a second-generation farmer. My two brothers and I grow
    tomatoes, garlic, and onions in Fresno County. My husband, who
    is here with me today, is also a farmer in his family business,
    and we both farm in the Westlands Water District.
        While our farms rely on some seasonal employees, many of
    our employees are long-term and have been with us for many,
    many years.
        I know that in June you received testimony from another
    fellow farmer, Cannon Michael, who explained the impacts of the
    water crisis facing California agriculture. At that time, he
    discussed many of the key facts associated with the water
    challenges facing California farmers, and he explained that 44
    percent of California's 9.6 million acres of irrigated farmland
    are receiving zero surface water. I am one of those farmers.
    Almost 75 percent of the state's irrigated farmland, nearly
    seven million acres, will receive 20 percent or less of this
    normal water supply and 692,000 acres of farmland were fallowed
    in 2014.
        There are very significant facts for you to consider.
    However, I also want to bring to your attention the impacts
    felt by individuals who live and work in the cities and
    communities without water, people without jobs and business
    owners recognizing they potentially have no future. The fear
    and despair in people's eyes today is real, and it is heart-
    wrenching. And Senator Murkowski, you referenced it. I know
    this because I spend a lot of time working in these
    communities.
        These people are Californians, and they are working hard to
    produce the basic necessities for our country and our world
    and, of course, for themselves. They work the land while trying
    to improve our schools and our communities. Many of them have
    come to our country recently and others from many generations
    before, but all with the hope of improving the lives of their
    families. They want the opportunities that all Americans want:
    an education and an opportunity for a better life.
        If our elected representatives are responsible for
    anything, it should be to provide the most basic of needs:
    water, access to schools, and most importantly, the ability to
    work. Without these basic needs, residents of our communities
    are forced to live in tents made of pallets behind minimarts
    and on the sides of railroad tracks and stand in food lines on
    a weekly basis to fulfill those basic needs. We cannot be the
    land of opportunity while communities lack water and residents
    are actually showering in church parking lots.
        What makes our water situation so disturbing is that many
    of these negative effects have been imposed on our community
    not by Mother Nature but as a direct result of conscious policy
    decisions.
        Before you today, you are hearing H.R. 2898, the Western
    Water and American Food Security Act, and Senate bill 1894. I
    believe that both of these bills address our issues very well,
    but we have to go further. We have to have some legislation
    because we are running out of time. So to that end, I want to
    provide some constructive suggestions.
        Last year, a broad cross-section of local community
    leaders, such as the Mayor of Fresno and growers from all over
    the Central Valley, came together to provide a unified set of
    concepts that we believe would be helpful for bridging the
    differences between last year's bills and this year's bills.
    And to that extent, the same group of growers has put together
    a letter that I believe you received yesterday, but I brought
    copies again for you today, asking for five critical points.
        Provide congressional discretion concerning the operation
    of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project to
    ensure sufficient operational flexibility to restore water
    supply and water supply--excuse me--water supply reliability.
    The operations of these projects must be able to capture water
    from the delta during periods of higher flows and move water
    from north to south in a rational way.
        Extend the provision of any legislation for a period of
    time that will allow communities to establish sound long-term
    water supplies for their future.
        Establish a process that could lead to increased storage in
    a reasonable timeframe.
        Ensure the additional burdens are not placed on the State
    Water Project as a result of congressional action.
        And finally, recognize the reasonableness and efficacy of
    the San Joaquin River Restoration Program must be reevaluated
    in light of changing conditions.
        Both bills address most of these issues, but I believe the
    House proposal gives better direction to the agency on how they
    should operate the projects and is a bill that, unlike the
    Senate bill, offers permanent solutions. Nevertheless, we think
    the differences are surmountable and will--and are interested
    in finding a resolution.
        Again, thank you all for your invitation today to testify,
    and I am prepared to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Woolf follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Woolf. I appreciate your
    attention to the human aspect in very clear terms. Thank you.
        Mr. Keppen, welcome.

       STATEMENT OF DAN KEPPEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FAMILY FARM
                                ALLIANCE

        Mr. Keppen. Good morning, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
    Cantwell, and members of the committee.
        My name is Dan Keppen, and on behalf of the Family Farm
    Alliance, I thank you for this opportunity to present this
    testimony today.
        Our organization has a long history of collaboration with
    constructive partners in all levels of government, with
    conservation and energy organizations, and with Native American
    interests who seek real solutions to water resources challenges
    in the 17 Western states.
        Policymakers and problem-solvers work with our members
    because they deal with realities of the arid West at the ground
    level every day. They are the men and women who run farms,
    ranches, and irrigation districts. They are people for whom
    scarcity is a fact of life and cooperation and innovation are
    tools of survival.
        Last summer, California farmer Cannon Michael represented
    the Alliance at this hearing and testified before this
    committee--actually, before this committee on the Western
    drought. He emphasized the drought challenges faced by him and
    his neighbors like Sarah in California's Central Valley. Since
    Mr. Michael testified in June, things have continued to worsen;
    however, the recommendations he provided are still relevant
    today.
        In order to respond to current and future water shortages,
    we believe Congress should provide Federal agencies with more
    flexibility under existing environmental laws and regulations
    to encourage a cooperative approach toward achieving multiple
    goals. And where such flexibility currently exists in law,
    Congress should demand that agencies use it promptly and with a
    minimum of bureaucratic nonsense. Time is of the essence when
    making water management decisions during a drought.
        Western drought legislation should shift the regulation of
    water resources away from the current adversarial structure and
    toward an approach that produces better results through
    cooperation and innovation. This includes promoting the use of
    new technology and water management. Real-time monitoring and
    data collection can be used to align water supply operations to
    actual fishery and environmental needs.
        Agencies need to address non-flow stressors in the Bay
    Delta environment, especially non-native fish that prey on fish
    species protected by the Endangered Species Act.
        Finally, we must invest and reinvest in the Western water
    infrastructure necessary to meet current and future demands.
    Our existing water infrastructure is aging and in need of
    rehabilitation. We need new water storage in order to adapt to
    changing hydrology and develop usable and sustainable supplies
    to meet growing demands for water.
        Streamlining regulations and permitting processes can help.
    The Federal Government can continue to be a partner in solving
    these water problems in the West by using financial mechanisms
    that have very low Federal cost and make water resources
    investment more attractive and affordable for non-Federal
    entities.
        Taken together, the bills before the committee today
    incorporate nearly all of these elements, and the Alliance
    commends the authors for their hard work and foresight. H.R.
    2898 provides for more flexible, multipurpose drought water
    management in California's Central Valley. It offers a path for
    water users in California and other Western states toward
    streamlining regulatory hurdles and encouraging the development
    of crucial new water storage projects, and it upholds and
    protects state-based water rights.
        In addition to its California Delta-focused sections, H.R.
    2898 contains a number of provisions that would apply
    throughout the West. The bill would streamline permit decisions
    and authorize expedited procedures to make final decisions on
    operations in water projects that can maximize water supplies.
    H.R. 2898 provides new authority for agencies to approve
    projects that normally would require congressional
    authorization. It also directs the development of a Drought
    Operations Plan.
        The Family Farm Alliance has always taken the position that
    the Western system of prior appropriation still fundamentally
    works. We are pleased that the drought legislation before the
    committee today includes specific provisions intended to
    protect water rights holders.
        H.R. 2898 is a large, detailed bill that aggressively and
    constructively attempts to tackle the drought challenges of
    California's Central Valley and also provides solutions that
    will assist other Western states. We support the intent and
    vast majority of the bill's provisions.
        The Congress and the Federal Government certainly cannot
    change the hydrology of the West, but there is a role it can
    play to support family farmers and ranchers. As the committee
    continues its efforts to address the current drought and
    develop policies to improve water management in the long-term,
    we ask that you consider the observations and principles that
    are outlined and further detailed in our written testimony.
        The House has passed H.R. 2898 to address this crisis, and
    California Senators have introduced S. 1894; however, two
    separate bills are of absolutely no value to a parched West.
    What is needed is a single bill that can be enacted by Congress
    and signed into law by the President, and unfortunately, time
    is not on our side. We must all work together to ensure that
    Western water users have every tool available to survive and
    recover from the current drought and the hard, dry years that
    the future may hold.
        Thank you, and I would stand for any questions you may
    have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Keppen follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Keppen.
        Mr. Frank, welcome.

    STATEMENT OF RICHARD FRANK, PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICE
       & DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER,
             UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW

        Mr. Frank. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Senator Cantwell,
    members of the committee.
        With the beginning of a new water year on October 1st,
    California has now officially entered into its fifth year of
    drought, which is, as has been mentioned by other speakers, the
    most pronounced and protracted and severe in the state's
    recorded history.
        The good news is that the State of California, its
    political leaders, water managers from the Federal, State,
    regional, and local levels, and 39 million Californians have
    done a pretty darn good job in responding to the challenges of
    that drought.
        The--perhaps counterintuitively, the economy of the State
    of California has surged and has a remarkable recovery over the
    same period when we have been experiencing this five-year
    drought. Urban water districts are managing and handling the
    drought especially well, due to the visionary leadership and
    foresight of folks like my friend and colleague, Jeff
    Kightlinger.
        California agriculture overall has done pretty well in the
    face of these drought challenges as well. Senator Feinstein
    mentioned a study that had just been released by my faculty and
    research colleagues at the University of California at Davis,
    which concludes that California's $46 billion per year
    agricultural industry remains robust. That is really due to
    three factors: an increase in the number of water transfers
    among the agricultural community; a transition to higher-value
    crops in the Central Valley, primarily almonds, walnuts, and
    grapes; and third, and perhaps most important, an increased
    reliance on groundwater pumping and groundwater, which has
    replaced and offset approximately 70 percent of the reductions
    in surface water supplies from the Center Valley Project and
    the State Water Project.
        That is not to say that there are no losers in this
    drought. As has been mentioned, some small rural communities in
    the Central Valley have been hit especially hard, some
    tragedies there. The biggest loser, in my view, has been the
    environment--the water birds that depend on the Pacific supply
    way and the water refuges of the Great Central Valley that are
    currently parched; our native fish species in California, which
    are in devastating crisis right now; and an unprecedented
    number of tinder-dry forests that are erupting into wildfires,
    a problem which, of course, is not limited to California but is
    being experienced this year throughout the American West.
        I want to spend--turn my attention and spend the rest of my
    time talking about some common virtues of the two bills,
    several concerns I have with House bill 2898 and why I believe
    the Senate bill is a preferable option. In terms of the common
    virtues, both bills require the preparation and completion in
    the very near term of feasibility studies of surface water
    projects and other efforts. Those projects have been discussed
    in the abstract for a long time, but getting down to basics and
    seeing if they pencil out economically and make environmental
    sense is welcome.
        Both bills address the particular problems of invasive and
    predatory species, which has had a devastating economic and
    ecosystem effect, particularly in California's delta. Some, but
    not all, of the proposed steps in the bill is to expedite
    environmental review of proposed drought--emergency drought
    response efforts similarly make sense.
        Let me turn to some concerns I have identified with respect
    to House bill 2898. At the end of the day, the bill is a
    straightforward reallocation of finite surface water supplies
    from environmental programs to agricultural purposes. And I
    would submit there are three thematic deficiencies with that
    approach.
        A better approach, it seems to me, is to expand the pie to
    work to create additional water supplies through recycling,
    reuse, desalination, and conservation projects.
        Second, what all water users want and need--agricultural
    users, urban, conservationists--is greater certainty. And I am
    concerned that several of the proposals in the House bill would
    undermine that certainty and create additional litigation and
    uncertainty.
        Third and finally, and as you have heard from both Federal
    and State water managers, in the face of this drought, day-to-
    day, real-time coordination and operation by Federal and State
    water managers is critical. I am concerned that some of the
    provisions of the House bill will undermine those collaborative
    and successful efforts by Federal and State water managers.
        Some specific concerns about the bill: legislative
    amendments to the biological opinions for delta smelt and
    salmon seem quite troublesome and set a disturbing and
    unfortunate precedent, as do a number of the bill's proposed
    amendments to the Endangered Species Act specific to
    California; some significant undercutting of the Central Valley
    Project Improvement Act of 1992, one of the most significant
    environmental pieces of legislation, at least to Californians,
    in the last quarter-century; and finally, the repeal of Federal
    participation in implementing the San Joaquin River settlement.
    I share Senator Cantwell's concerns that if that is passed, the
    parties will return to their litigation foxholes, and we will
    have more costly, expensive, perhaps unending litigation.
        By contrast, the Senate bill doesn't contain any of the
    specific infirmities I have identified. It does expand the
    water supply pie, including not just new surface storage
    projects but also raising the height of the existing dams and
    reservoirs, critically important looking at groundwater storage
    as an additional alterative, which in many cases is going to be
    more cost-effective and can be undertaken more quickly than new
    surface storage projects, stormwater recapture, desalination,
    and the like; the Federal support for integrated regional water
    management strategies; and additional welcomed support for
    Federal and State water managers in California.
        And last and finally, and again addressing what the Senator
    has mentioned before, the--some of the--Senator Feinstein, that
    is--addressing the drought-stricken rural communities that have
    paid a particular burden and are deprived of regular water
    sources in the drought. Those folks need immediate help, and
    the Senate bill does that.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. I would
    be glad to answer any questions the committee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Frank follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Frank.
        Mr. Oglesby, your comments, please. Welcome.

    STATEMENT OF ADRIAN OGLESBY, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO
     UTTON TRANSBOUNDARY RESOURCES CENTER, AND VICE-CHAIR, MIDDLE
                    RIO GRANDE CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

        Mr. Oglesby. Good morning, Madam Chair, Senator Cantwell,
    members of the committee and staff.
        I would like to actually start by introducing the Chairman
    of my Board at the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District,
    Derrick Lente, and our new Chief Engineer and Chief Executive
    Officer, Mike Hamman.
        The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, we irrigate
    approximately 65,000 acres in the Middle Valley around the
    Albuquerque area. I will start with a little bit of good news.
    New Mexico has emerged this year from the worst drought in
    history. Half of the state is considered to be out of
    abnormally dry conditions, although half of the state still is
    in abnormally dry conditions.
        I am very pleased to be here talking about the New Mexico
    Drought Preparedness Act, and I am very grateful to Senator
    Heinrich and Senator Udall for sponsoring this bill. It has a
    lot of good ideas in it that we have been talking about for a
    long time.
        The first that I will touch upon is the Water Leasing
    Program. This is a voluntary program that we contemplate
    establishing in our district. And we have been talking about
    this for about 15 years in our valley, and to be quite frank,
    our Conservancy District has opposed a voluntary leasing
    program because we saw it as a capitulation to the
    environmental community. We now realize that we need to give
    our farmers every tool in the toolbox so that they can survive
    times of drought and, frankly, just times of hardship.
        If a farmer needs to take a year off to take care of his
    sick wife, a leasing program will give him an opportunity to
    make something come off of his water and return to farming
    rather than just sell out. And that is important to us, to keep
    these farms and production in the future after times of
    hardship.
        It is also a matter of recognizing that these are private
    property rights, and it is not our business to tell our farmers
    what to do with their water. We think that they are smart
    enough and we certainly respect them enough to open the door to
    this program.
        And we appreciate the help that this bill gives us in terms
    of technical assistance and in terms of financial assistance,
    although we have committed to taking the lead on this program.
    So we are not looking for a handout, we are just looking for a
    little guidance. Some examples from around the West could help
    us move this forward.
        The bill also touches upon water conservation, primarily
    focusing on metering. You cannot manage what you do not meter,
    and we could be doing a lot more metering in the Middle Rio
    Grande and all across New Mexico. And this bill does affect all
    of New Mexico. Forgive me if my testimony is a little Middle
    Rio Grande-centric.
        There are some other interesting aspects of it. We actually
    plan on realigning the Rio Grande itself, moving it out of its
    existing channel where it is awfully high and we are losing a
    lot of water to seepage. There are sections that we need to
    move to lower parts of the valley. This is dramatic, but it has
    been done before, and we need to do it again. And we also need
    to do this because we have an odd situation where we have a
    National Wildlife Refuge that often is irrigating when the
    river right next to the refuge is dry. By doing some
    infrastructure changes and moving the river, we think we can
    help to alleviate that strange situation.
        And again, the District is partnering closely with our
    Federal agencies on this, and in fact, we have committed
    $500,000 a year of our own money to doing metering and
    efficiency improvements. So we are walking hand-in-hand with
    the Federal Government on this one.
        An interesting portion of this bill is the peak flow
    restoration. We have heavily modified the Middle Rio Grande. At
    the top of our valley, we have Cochiti Dam, and Cochiti has
    stopped the spring flows from coming down. The Rio Grande is a
    snowmelt-driven river, and those high-pulse flows used to
    trigger the spawning of our endangered silvery minnow, and the
    overbank flows would reinvigorate our Bosque. That is what we
    call the riparian forest in New Mexico that several endangered
    birds rely upon. Without those peak flows, I believe we will
    not be able to recover the silvery minnow, and we will lose our
    riparian forest, or at least the wonderful riparian forest we
    have today.
        We need to operate pulse flows out of Cochiti. We have done
    this for the last few years. We have seen success from this,
    but we need the Corps of Engineers to have a reauthorization of
    Cochiti Reservoir. We have been doing this under deviations,
    and so we are asking for five years of deviations in the future
    and then a reauthorization of Cochiti. We do want to work very
    closely with Cochiti Pueblo and Santa Ana Pueblo, who are
    directly impacted by this, and so we are walking hand-in-hand
    with them as well.
        Again, our District is not just looking for a handout here.
    We have committed $150,000 a year of our own money to look at
    the science behind these aspects.
        The other very important--and if you will allow me just
    another moment, Madam Chair--a very important concept in this
    bill is the reservoir study. We have seven reservoirs in our
    Rio Grande system, each with independent authorizations and
    each with specific functions. So our hands are tied in how we
    can coordinate the management of those reservoirs.
        We would like to analyze how we can use all these
    reservoirs in a conjunctive way, how we can maximize and
    optimize the operations of these reservoirs. We think that
    there are opportunities that we are missing because of the
    Federal legal restrictions on how we operate these reservoirs.
        So I will just jump to the end and give you what I consider
    to be just a little bit more good news. We are working together
    in New Mexico, and that has not always been the case. And I
    will be honest. It is not always pretty, and it is not always
    fun, but we are working together.
        I think we are moving away from what has been 15 years of
    fish-versus-farmer and are realizing that now is the time when
    it is the fish and the farmer versus changes in precipitation,
    urbanization. And so we are very pleased to see that our
    Senators are seizing this opportunity, that we are taking
    advantage of the crisis of the drought so that we can survive
    this drought and that we can thrive through the next drought.
        So thank you very much, and I look forward to our
    discussion.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Oglesby follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Oglesby. It is always nice to
    end the panel on a little bit of good news, so I appreciate you
    sharing that with us.
        As I listen to the six of you and the comments on the
    various pieces of legislation that we have in front of us, I
    think it is very clear we do have a different approach that is
    reflected through the Senate bill and then the House bill.
    There are some areas of clear agreement, and I think it is
    always good to recognize that if we are going to build the
    legislation that is going to be necessary to address the
    challenges--and I believe very firmly that we must define this
    legislation and work to advance it--that we have got some
    things that we can be building on.
        Clearly there is a role for technology to play here. We
    have heard that from just about everyone. I have had an
    opportunity to see at least from the agriculture perspective
    and visiting with some of the farmers out there, to see what
    they have done to cut back on their water use. It is really
    quite dramatic and very, very impressive.
        When we think about the technologies, desalination I think
    we all recognize is going to allow for a game-changing approach
    to how we deal with water and water supply. Recycling, again,
    another area where our technologies will allow us to do more
    with, unfortunately, what we continue to see is much less
    coming from Mother Nature herself. So this is an area where I
    would hope that we can be working to enhance.
        The storage issue I think is, again, an area where we
    recognize that when we have the ability to provide for that
    storage, it allows us to make it through some of the highs and
    the lows and kind of softens some of the impact at a time of
    shortage. So how we can work to build out that is also key.
        I want to ask you, Mr. Connor, because clearly we have some
    real differences, and I appreciate that. I am pretty sure that
    I heard from each and every one of you that the way we are
    going to figure this out in terms of legislation is by working
    together, that it will require collaboration, and what you
    spoke to, Mr. Oglesby, about what you have seen in New Mexico
    can be something for us to look to.
        So I have cited a couple of areas where I think we have
    some room to work here. You have indicated that you are happy
    to be working with the bills' sponsors, with the committee on
    some of the concerns that have been raised with key aspects of
    both bills.
        Can you cite to some additional areas, Mr. Connor, where we
    can be working together on some of the common areas and how we
    can start from a good position of agreement rather than
    starting this off with arguing about what we do not like in it?
    Where else can we be building together?
        Mr. Connor. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        You mentioned a couple on the expanding water supply front,
    which I do think are very key areas, important tools that we
    can apply. So I just want to double-down on your indication
    that you thought you heard that those are areas you can work
    on. Desalination, a new approach to storage I think is
    appropriate to look at at this point in time, and so we do
    endorse those with respect to our testimony.
        Other areas: expanded reuse and conservation activities we
    are strongly supportive of within those bills. The provisions
    that would also reflect a need to restore habitat in
    conjunction with those programs, I think, are very supportable.
        I think where we have the most stark differences are
    legislatively how do you deal with water operations and how do
    you reconcile the environmental laws and our operational plans
    and deal with that in the context of drought?
        The Chairman. Do you think that that is reconcilable? I
    mean, you point out that it is hard. I agree it is hard.
        Mr. Connor. It is----
        The Chairman. Can we work through this?
        Mr. Connor. It is a tough area to deal with because we
    think--and I think you heard from Mr. Kightlinger here, and I
    very much agree--we have gone kind of through an evolution here
    over the last few years in our operations in the Bay Delta. In
    '09-'10 when we were in a drought situation, we were litigating
    about the biological opinions. We were not talking on a daily
    basis, a weekly basis about operations. We were operating, and
    we were preparing for depositions. It was not a good dynamic.
        In late '12-'13 when we started getting hit with this new
    drought situation, we had kind of been on the waning side of
    that litigation, and we had the situation that Jeff referenced,
    which was loss of pumping because of locations of smelt, and
    we, under biological opinions, ratcheted down.
        I think we did lose more water in that situation than we
    should have if we had been communicating and working and
    looking at the data closely. I think we have come a long way in
    '14 and '15 in increasing the science, the data that we make
    our decisions on, communicating better, and, as Jeff pointed
    out, wringing every drop out of the system while maintaining
    our compliance with the environmental laws.
        So my point is we don't want to go back to a situation
    where we are creating opportunities to litigate. We think the
    House bill does that. We have some concerns with the Senate
    bill, which I think can be worked through on that front.
        And we have got to try and memorialize this process because
    the biggest change has been the Federal Government and the
    State Government working hand-in-hand on a daily basis and then
    extending that with the water user community and other folks
    interested in the environmental issues. How can we make sure
    that process continues? I think that is what we need to look at
    from an operational standpoint.
        The Chairman. I am going to have more questions, but I will
    turn to colleagues.
        Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
        I think continuing on that same point because it is so
    good, Mr. Connor, to hear you talk about the things that we do
    agree on. And I want to thank all the witnesses because I know
    what a challenging situation this is for California and for the
    whole West in dealing with this.
        I think that expanding the pie and modernizating storage is
    one of the biggest opportunities. We are kind of stuck in a
    1960s concept of storage, and I think the innovation that can
    come in new methods of storage is very, very helpful.
    Definitely reuse and conservation, habitat, all of those things
    are important.
        But following up on this question because I do, like many
    of the aspects of 1894, have concerns that Mr. Frank mentioned
    and you mentioned about the House bill. It is my understanding
    that delivery has been curtailed due to the delta smelt
    biological opinion since 2013 and that water diversion for
    salmon only accounted for less than two percent of the water
    restrictions.
        So what I am trying to get at here is that I think some
    people would like to come here and promulgate this notion that
    this is all about the ESA when, in reality, it is about the
    fact that we are in a drought and what we are going to do about
    it, and the fact that we want to stay out of the litigation
    process because it might make everybody feel good to pass a
    bill like that, but the end result of litigation will just put
    us into the do-nothing category, which will put us further and
    further and further behind.
        So if you could comment on that, either Mr. Connor or Mr.
    Frank.
        Mr. Connor. Absolutely. I think the litigation is a path
    that is never-ending. I think even if--when it results in a
    decision, it results in a single decision on a single point
    that leaves the rest of the issues to be continually litigated.
    And so from that standpoint, I do agree 100 percent that we
    want to avoid that path in whatever situation, whether it is
    California, whether it is New Mexico. And we are seeing
    progress when we do that.
        With respect to the Endangered Species Act, I think the two
    percent figure you referenced was from me in past statements,
    and I think it represents a little bit of bad math, but it is
    four percent with respect to 2014. What we looked at was--and
    the Bureau of Reclamation is accounting for this now. The
    operational adjustments that we make during the course of a
    water year, what are due to general permits that we have to
    operate under, what are due under the biological opinions?
        In 2014, we reduced pumping in a manner that was about--
    amounted to about 62,000 acre-feet of water under the salmon
    biological opinion. Those were specific reductions that we made
    according to Bureau of Reclamation's calculations. That was the
    loss of pumping and supply to the Central Valley Project.
        We estimate that--the Central Valley Project I think in
    2014 pumped about half of what it normally does pump, and I
    think it was somewhere around--or less than half. It was a
    million acre-feet, where it pumps typically about 2.5 million
    acre-feet. Of that reduction in pumping that was lost because
    of hydrology because of the drought, it is about 1.5 million
    acre-feet. That 60,000 acre-feet represents about four percent.
        Senator Cantwell. And the smelt----
        Mr. Connor. So it is a very small----
        Senator Cantwell. And the smelt was----
        Mr. Connor. The smelt was not a factor for reduction of
    pumping in 2014. In 2013, the numbers were larger. It was a
    little over 300,000 acre-feet, and about half was due to the
    smelt biological opinion, about half was due to the salmon
    biological opinion.
        Senator Cantwell. Do you think that S. 1894 has the
    programs that, you know, we have implemented a lot at the state
    level in Washington with farmers and fishermen working
    together? Do you think there is a lot of flexibility in S. 1894
    for that kind of creativity?
        Mr. Connor. I do think it certainly leads us to more in the
    cooperative efforts that we have been doing over the last few
    years. It is trying to convene the parties through these
    processes to try to adaptively manage, trying to encourage us
    to make sure that our decisions are transparent and they are
    based on the best-available science, yes.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, I definitely, when it comes to
    Federal dollars, would rather put things on the table to get
    people to work together than spend money defending lawsuits. I
    think it is a better use of everybody's money.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Flake.
        Senator Flake. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        While a lot of the media attention has been focused on
    specific worst-case scenarios related to the drought, I am
    pleased that the Chair is committed to move forward on a West-
    wide drought bill that addresses the water needs throughout the
    West.
        In preparation for this and with an eye toward the present
    problems and the coming realities of water in the West, I have
    sought over the last 18 months to put together a consensus of
    Federal water policy provisions that would be beneficial to
    Arizona. In Arizona, we have benefited over the past several
    decades from many forward-looking leaders who have planned well
    and have prepared the state well for the droughts that are here
    and certainly to come.
        Senator McCain and I have worked with the Governor's office
    and former Senator Kyl and other stakeholders in developing a
    series of ideas that I hope will be incorporated into bills
    that we are discussing today. Several of these ideas were built
    on portions of the drought bill that was passed in the Senate
    last year by unanimous consent, and others will expand concepts
    that are included in the California-focused bills that are
    currently before us.
        We will seek to address water-intensive invasive species
    that plague a number of rivers in Arizona and throughout the
    Southwest. In addition, there are several items that will allow
    for targeted forest restoration in critical watersheds. There
    is also a provision for a pilot project to allow more efficient
    use of current water storage in reservoirs.
        Now, fortunately, a wet May has made the shortage
    declaration in this year unlikely. I think we can all agree,
    however, that we could well see such a declaration in the near
    future. Arizona, along with the other basin states, is looking
    forward and looking for ways to avoid that shortage
    declaration.
        Thus far, the most promising efforts have included states
    voluntarily leaving some of their water--some of their state's
    water entitlement storage in the Colorado River. The number-one
    priority in Arizona is to make sure that when Arizona or any
    other state voluntarily contributes their water to the health
    of the Colorado system, the contributed water actually stays in
    the system and does not disappear along somebody else's canals.
        Now, without these assurances, obviously such preventive
    measures do not make sense. It would be like having a savings
    account and seeing your neighbor just being able to reach in
    and grab money from it.
        While not all the lower-basin states are affected by the
    shortage declaration in the same way, I am hopeful that we can
    agree on a way to ensure that these voluntary contributions
    actually do what they are intended to do.
        I appreciate the attention on this issue, the entire issue,
    of drought in the West, and I look forward to the process and
    looking for meaningful solutions.
        Just as a question to Deputy Secretary Connor, as I
    mentioned, the number-one priority I have heard from Arizona is
    to protect the legal status of water left in Lake Mead through
    these voluntary arrangements that I referenced and with the MOU
    that you referenced during your testimony here on June 2nd.
        There is, however, some concern that the Secretary has
    discretion to choose to reprioritize the so-called system water
    created under these arrangements or agreements. What assurances
    do the lower-basin states have that the Secretary would never
    agree to reprioritize system water for delivery in the same
    year instead of that water remaining in Lake Mead?
        Mr. Connor. Thank you, Senator Flake, for the question.
        I think the assurances are based on the practice that has
    come to be the custom in the Colorado River, and we have at the
    Department deferred in a number of situations going past--going
    back across Administrations in 2007 with the seven-state
    agreement that led to the Record of Decision on coordinated
    operations and shortage-sharing. We operate pursuant to that
    and have incorporated that into our decision-making guidelines.
        So the state's agreement has been the model for us to
    operate, and we have not since 2007--the Secretary has not
    exercised any discretion to unilaterally allocate any unused
    allocation since that time.
        So as we move forward and we very much appreciate the
    efforts of all the states, including Arizona, of looking at
    ways to create new water in Lake Mead for the benefit of the
    system, not any particular state, of how we lock in that by
    agreement amongst the states and the Federal Government and
    operating pursuant thereof, I think those discussions are going
    on right now.
        It is the standard mode of practice that we would adhere
    to, and we would try and ensure that, you know, it is always
    going to be--I can give you my word, but as of January 2017, it
    is not going to mean much in the basin. So it is how we lock it
    in through agreements that can sustain itself across
    administrations.
        Senator Flake. Right. You are right. That always has been
    the custom that has been followed to look at the agreements
    that are there, but is there a severe enough level of drought
    somewhere in the basin that would justify, in your view, the
    Secretary using that discretion to remove water that has been
    put there for storage?
        Mr. Connor. In any situation, absent an agreement, the
    Secretary is going to consult very closely with the seven basin
    states, particularly the lower-basin states in the use of any
    unused allocation. I think that is the practice even before
    2007. So I wouldn't speculate right now that there is a
    situation where I say--where I would say we would override that
    consultation process and move unilaterally.
        Senator Flake. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Oglesby, I want to touch on a couple of things. In New
    Mexico, as you know, we have often found that voluntary
    agreements and collaborative efforts are more effective at
    resolving these water conflicts than mandated management
    requirements. A great example is not in your basin but in the
    San Juan Basin. We have a very successful collaborative effort
    of Federal and State, tribal governments, utilities, water
    users, landowners, farmers, conservation groups, and others,
    and that collaborative group implements a recovery plan for
    four endangered fish in the Upper Colorado Basins.
        Can you just talk from your perspective in the Middle Rio
    Grande Valley a little bit about the value of voluntary
    collaborative efforts as a solution to some of these direct
    water conflicts?
        Mr. Oglesby. Certainly. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        I appreciate you using the San Juan recovery program as an
    example. I was pleased to serve on the executive committee
    there for a while.
        And we actually are trying to convert our endangered
    species program in the Middle Rio Grande Valley into a recovery
    implementation program based on the success they have up there.
    We are making progress on that. I suspect in the next few
    years, we will be able to get there.
        There are other great examples of collaboration, and as you
    know, we in New Mexico don't like being told what to do. We are
    a very independent people. And so I might raise the
    Collaborative Forest Restoration Program as an example. We are
    protecting our watersheds in cooperation with our traditional
    communities, with our land grants and our acequias and having
    good success at it.
        Parallel to that at the state level, we have a piece of
    legislation that came out of our legislature with unanimous
    support last year to greatly expand the amount of forest
    restoration that we are doing in New Mexico. Our Governor did
    veto it based on some administrative concerns, but I think we
    can overcome that easily with some modifications to that
    legislation.
        But, yes, you know, folks in New Mexico, we like to work
    together, we like to help our neighbors, but we like to do it
    on our own terms.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
        I want to turn to Deputy Secretary Connor real quickly, and
    obviously, we look forward to working with you on some of the
    technical concerns with the New Mexico bill, and very much
    appreciate your feedback on that.
        I want to switch real quickly to an issue of just how we
    best spend what are obviously very limited taxpayer dollars in
    resolving some of these shortage issues. Recently the Bureau of
    Reclamation conducted a value-planning study of the proposed
    diversion project on the Gila River in New Mexico. How much
    should we expect that the proposed diversion project would cost
    according to that study? What is the range that it found?
        Mr. Connor. Reclamation has looked at that at the appraisal
    level, which is a very, you know, preliminary level of
    analysis. But the range is somewhere in the neighborhood of, I
    believe, $600 million to over $1 billion for a new diversion
    project on the Gila River system.
        Senator Heinrich. At least in the initial report, it was, I
    believe, $685 million up to a billion and change. Now, of that,
    the available Federal funds under the settlement would be about
    $128 million. Is that correct?
        Mr. Connor. Yes. Under the Arizona Water Settlement Act
    passed in 2004, there would be the opportunity for up to $128
    million. That was dependent--that last $28 million was
    dependent upon return on investment in the Lower Basin
    Development Fund being at a certain level, which it has not
    been.
        Senator Heinrich. Right.
        Mr. Connor. So I think we are looking more at the
    eligibility being $100 million----
        Senator Heinrich. Okay.
        Mr. Connor.--as opposed to the 128 figure.
        Senator Heinrich. So if you take those figures, you take
    $685,000 up to a billion, you subtract out $100 million, and we
    are still talking about $500 million to almost $900 million in
    costs that are not covered. Where would the balance of that
    funding have to come from? Would it be from State and local
    contributions, or how would that----
        Mr. Connor. Yes----
        Senator Heinrich.--enormous delta be covered?
        Mr. Connor. I think given the Federal funds available
    already, that there is not a good expectation that there would
    be additional Federal funds available for this project. So,
    yes, it would be State and local funds that would be needed to
    finance that particular project. The balance, as you
    referenced----
        Senator Heinrich. And----
        Mr. Connor.--over $500,000.
        Senator Heinrich. If I remember right, last year
    Reclamation also looked at the cost-benefit analysis of that.
    Did that report find that the benefits outweighed the costs for
    any of the proposed diversion configurations?
        Mr. Connor. I believe that is correct. The preliminary work
    on feasibility did yield a questionable cost-benefit where the
    costs were--greatly exceeded the benefits. That work would be
    shored up in more detail in an EIS process that is being
    contemplated, but that was the preliminary analysis.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        I believe it was Senator Gardner that was next. I just want
    to make sure. Yes, Senator Gardner?
        Senator Gardner. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am
    happy to----
        The Chairman. Oh, wait----
        Senator Gardner. I was going to say, I am happy to yield to
    Senator Daines.
        The Chairman. Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Our witnesses today testified about the challenges
    associated with inadequate water management in the West, and
    being a Montanan, we, too, have seen the effects of drought
    this year. If you look at the maps, certainly what has gone on
    in California and the Central Valley, you know, is very, very
    severe. But that drought pattern continues up certainly the
    North in Oregon, Washington, and then it really takes about the
    third of our northwest part of our state included in this
    current drought.
        In June, this committee heard testimony on two bills, which
    I have cosponsored. One is Senate bill 1552, the Clean Water
    for Rural Communities Act; and Senate bill 15--or, excuse me,
    1365, the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act.
    Combined, these bills would facilitate water delivery to over
    23 million acres in Montana and millions more acres across the
    West for rural communities that do not have good access to
    quality water supply today.
        Now I do not have a question today but would just like to
    say that if we are going to address our droughts and water
    supply crisis West-wide, I believe these bills should be part
    of the solution. It solves the water challenges. It may also be
    part of forging a bipartisan coalition and package here to get
    something done.
        I understand some concerns from the Senators as well as the
    need for an offset. They do need to be addressed. But I would
    like to work with the committee and other colleagues on a path
    forward to these bills to ensure they remain part of the
    solution to our Western water challenges.
        I yield back my time, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Gardner.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to
    the witnesses for being here today.
        I just wanted to talk again about Colorado's situation. By
    2050, we are going to go to about 8.6 to 10 million people. Our
    population will double in the state by 2050.
        At the same time as our population is doubling, at least
    according to the 2015 Colorado Water Plan, construction of new
    storage capacity is the lowest it has been since the 1930's. So
    we know in Colorado population is going to double by 2050, yet
    water storage construction at the lowest it has been in several
    decades.
        Colorado is a state where all water flows out of Colorado,
    no water flows into Colorado, and I have a glass that is half
    full here. I would blame Kansas, but I do not want to impugn
    any of my fellow colleagues. But I think we have to do better
    when it comes to water storage to meet the need. We are looking
    at $12 billion to $15 billion worth of infrastructure costs in
    Colorado to meet the median needs of this 2050 demand.
        To give you a couple of examples, one project in Colorado
    that was started in 2003 for additional water storage completed
    their NEPA process 11 years later in 2014, and they still have
    Federal regulatory hurdles to clear.
        Northern Colorado Water District began the regulatory
    process for building two new reservoirs as part of the Northern
    Integrated Supply Project. This is a project that, if it is
    completed, will save tens of thousands of acres of farmland
    from buy-up and dry-up in Colorado. They started this process
    in 2004, and they are several years away from a final decision.
        Denver Water began the regulatory process for enlarging the
    existing Gross Reservoir in 2003, and they still do not have a
    decision.
        We had a hearing earlier this year with the Western
    Governors' Association. I asked about what we could be doing to
    help lessen these times. They confirmed we still need
    regulatory streamlining and flexibility at the Federal level to
    move forward.
        So to Mr. Connor, how can we improve and what can we be
    doing to stop talking about the need to streamline and actually
    start streamlining the regulatory process?
        Mr. Connor. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
        Two points that I would make: first of all, what we found
    even on the operations side--I was talking earlier about our
    operations in California--but it has transcended to the
    permitting side of things.
        The--you know, we have been siloed as a Federal Government
    for far too long where Reclamation would move forward with
    projects in our particular circumstances, then engage the Fish
    and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service
    or EPA in a--serial processes instead of a parallel process or
    a collaborative process. That definitely is a killer with
    respect to permitting times because issues crop up. They are
    not dealt with early, designs get made, and they have to be
    undone. It is a very inefficient process.
        What we have found where we have instituted new processes
    usually because of the magnitude of the issue where we have
    collaborated is that we can cut down on those issues, and we
    can cut down on permitting times.
        On September 22nd, the White House and OMB issued guidance
    on permitting large infrastructure projects, and it is really
    intended to institutionalize a collaborative process and have
    somebody running point on those large projects.
        Typically, we have a lot of examples, and I would even say
    that the Arkansas Valley Conduit is one where we fairly----
        Senator Gardner. I was going to let you off the hook on
    that today.
        Mr. Connor. I thought I would beat you to the punch.
        The permitting process was fairly efficient in that one
    with respect to the NEPA and Record of Decision. We got hung up
    on feasibility for a while, and we went back and redid that.
        So my point is, on the positive side, we have more work to
    do in our way that we collaborate within the Federal Government
    and all our different regulatory roles to permit projects.
        The second point I would just quickly make is we have got
    to understand sometimes what causes a delay. On the Windy Gap
    Firming Project, Reclamation was responsible for the Record of
    Decision and the NEPA work, working with Northern Colorado. We
    moved that process forward. The issues that took the longest to
    resolve at the end of that process were Reclamation using that
    process to resolve issues with Grand County with respect to
    water quality issues and with the Colorado River District with
    respect to water rights issues.
        We could have permitted and moved forward. My sense is that
    there would have been a significant amount of state litigation
    under state law with respect to that process, as opposed to us
    using the Federal process to resolve all the issues. Now we
    have got a Record of Decision as of December last year.
    Northern can move forward with the project.
        Senator Gardner. Well, I would just ask for your commitment
    to work with me on finding ways to continue to work through the
    regulatory process, the permitting process, to make sure that
    we can streamline this, what is, I think, taking too long. I
    would love your commitment on that.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Connor. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Gardner. Again, the Arkansas Valley Conduit, we
    will work on that, but it was authorized back in the 1960s so
    we have got to continue to speed it up.
        I wanted to talk a little bit more about some drought
    issues on districts and utilities in Colorado that have told me
    that when they talk about steps they could take to transfer
    water through Federal reclamation facilities to store and
    deliver emergency water supplies, they have run into a little
    bit of a challenge. One of the things I think we need to do in
    times of drought is having more flexibility to move and store
    water where it is needed most on a timely basis.
        But if there is a need for water transfer using excess
    capacity in existing Federal facilities, that can take
    extensive regulatory review and a time-consuming contracting
    process. So by the time, oftentimes, the approval and the
    contracting is through, the situation has changed and the
    proposed water transfer is out of date.
        I just wanted to know what is the Bureau's current
    authority to authorize the storage and transmission of non-
    project water through existing reclamation facilities?
        Mr. Connor. We do have broad authority to facilitate the
    water transfers through reclamation facilities under the Warren
    Act, the 1939 reclamation projects. But typically, what we--it
    is the decisionmaking process under NEPA that we typically have
    to pay the most attention to. If the issues are minimal--which
    in a lot of cases they are, and we do a lot of water transfers
    every year--it is a four to six-week process.
        If--such as in California, where there is a need for large-
    scale transfers on an ongoing basis, we have looked and done
    programmatic environmental impact statements, which really
    establish the program itself, and then we can quickly, in the
    subsequent years, go through and process transfer requests a
    lot more efficiently, given the fact that we have done a
    programmatic NEPA. And we ought to be looking at that in places
    in Colorado, I assume.
        Senator Gardner. Okay, and thank you. I know I am out of
    time. I have got more questions. We will follow up through the
    record.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
        Mr. Connor, you mentioned that you have broad authority in
    certain areas. Do you think that the Department is maximizing
    the existing authority that you have in certain areas? Do you
    believe that additional authorities would be needed to address
    some of what we are talking about here this morning?
        Mr. Connor. We do have broad authority. I think that is one
    that I would like to think on and get back more--in more detail
    in the record. The issue Senator Gardner raised was
    particularly excess capacity----
        The Chairman. Right.
        Mr. Connor.--in our facilities and whether we are set up to
    really permit the use of that excess capacity in an efficient
    way. I think it bears a little bit more looking into.
        The Chairman. Well, I think it is something that we should
    be exploring because if we are really going to be looking
    beyond the current situation in California and, quite honestly,
    the current situation around the West, I think we want to be
    putting in place a policy that extends a lot longer than where
    we are in the here and now. If the existing authorities are not
    sufficient, I think we do need to look to that.
        But again, I would also challenge you to look to what you
    have currently and whether or not you are maximizing the use to
    the benefit of the users here. So it is something that I think
    as we are assessing legislation, we need to be looking at what
    we have on our books as well.
        You mentioned the issue of permitting and streamlining,
    reduced delays, but one of the things, again, that I have heard
    that we really need to be working to address is how can we
    provide some level of certainty to the users out there, whether
    they are family farms such as Ms. Woolf represents, whether it
    is the urban-suburban user. It is how we achieve this
    certainty.
        Mr. Kightlinger, let me ask, because when we talk about
    some of the ideas that are out there, some of the proposals, I
    think we recognize at the end of the day much of this is about
    competition for limited resources and we are sitting in a
    situation here where Federal Government has a tough budget
    right now.
        One of the prime differences between the House bill and the
    Senate bill is the funding in the Senate bill or the
    authorization for funding in the Senate bill, which is
    currently not paid for. I appreciated Senator Feinstein's
    willingness to explore offsets, but that is going to be a real
    consideration for us.
        So can you give me any suggestions herein in providing
    assistance to our drought-stricken areas, creative ways where
    we can be looking to partner with the Government within our
    local areas, between our states, how we can maximize these
    proposals without a big price tag? Because I think this is
    going to be one of the issues that we are going to be wrestling
    with here.
        Again, I think something that you could suggest or, in the
    alternative, are there things that we have in place that are
    barriers to being more effective than we are right now where we
    could remove them and it does not cost us money, which is a
    good thing, but it allows you to be more effective and more
    efficient?
        Mr. Kightlinger. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        A couple of suggestions, things to look at. Obviously, the
    money is tight, and it is always going to be a tremendous
    challenge, but there are some creative ideas in some of the
    legislative proposals out there building on what has been
    successful in the transportation industry, TIFIA. There is
    ideas to use that for reuse water, RIFIA, and there is also a
    WIFIA proposal out there. So these ideas are ways in which we
    can stretch dollars, use matching funds and not--and put burden
    on locals to come up with matching funds.
        Loan guarantee programs have also been very successful in
    the rail industry, and I think there is some look at perhaps a
    loan guarantee program for large-scale projects throughout the
    West, not a huge hit. It would be paid back. But the idea is
    that, you know, there is some interest money and things that
    would be used obviously for the local projects.
        Those are some creative ideas out there. I think all tools
    should be used. So to the extent RIFIA, WIFIA, these loan
    guarantee programs make sense and can be accepted, we think
    those are all valuable tools that can provide some help.
        In terms of what other things that aren't costing, you
    know, Deputy Secretary Connor talked a bit about trying to
    streamline. In California, we have been looking at a new
    conveyance program that is a $15 billion proposal that our
    Governor has put on that would be entirely funded by us, the
    ratepayers, the water users, and yet we are in year eight of
    environmental permitting. We spent $240 million to date in
    developing an environmental document, and we are still minimum
    six months away from Record of Decision, Notice of
    Determination. We have generated about 80,000 pages of analysis
    to date.
        The Chairman. Geez.
        Mr. Kightlinger. You know, this--it is a large, complicated
    project. We get it. But at some point, we are at paralysis by
    analysis, and we need to find more creative ways to speed up
    these processes.
        The Chairman. It makes me feel like Alaska. [Laughter.]
        Thank you. We will be exploring more creative ways to try
    to address some of the financial and funding issues.
        Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, that makes me think of Washington.
        I really don't have any more questions. On that last point,
    I think that is where we need to be. We just need to be on that
    level of creativity, and you get that when everybody comes to
    the table and is at the table together. That is when you get
    the creativity because what holds it up is the disagreement. So
    I just hope that we can look at S. 1894 and move it through the
    process and figure out ways to enhance whatever shortcomings
    there are.
        I do think, Madam Chair, there is a role for us to think
    about how we are going to modernize our programs because I
    really do think that some of these smaller storage programs can
    get underway immediately, and that helps. And I think when
    figuring out what we can do at the Federal level, I really do
    think we can help save ourselves dollars by working creatively.
    I know Senator Feinstein said she is going to look at what are
    those revenue opportunities.
        But clearly, this is an economic impact to the Federal
    economy, and we need to be smart about what we put in place so
    that we are minimizing that impact to us in the future.
    California's expenses will be our expenses as well, as will
    those of other Western drought situations.
        I appreciate all the witnesses today and look forward to
    working with you to try to get this resolved hopefully very,
    very soon.
        The Chairman. Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. I appreciate the concern over pay-fors,
    and you know, these are real challenges. I would only make the
    point that we are going to need real dollars to fix these
    issues.
        One of my concerns about the House bill is that the pay-
    fors referenced are really authorization pay-fors. They are not
    appropriations pay-fors. In my view, they are not real money,
    and we are going to need real money to fix these things.
        I am going to end with one last question for Mr. Oglesby. I
    wanted to touch on something that I think piqued the interest
    of the Chair and is a big part of our challenges on a--you
    know, an arid basin with seven different storage structures and
    different authorizations by Congress for each of those
    structures that are not coordinated in any reasonable way
    except through deviations. That is a huge challenge.
        So wearing your Conservancy District hat, can you talk a
    little bit more about what that means? For example, if you are
    dealing with a tight, dry summer and it is July and you release
    water as a Conservancy District from El Vado Reservoir, and
    then, suddenly, we get monsoon rains that negate the need to
    actually irrigate with the water that you have released into
    the river, can you capture that in Cochiti Reservoir downstream
    and hold it and use it for later irrigation or other uses, or
    do you have to just watch that water go by?
        Mr. Oglesby. Yeah, thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        We watch that water go by. It is a three-day transit time
    from the reservoir where we store our agricultural water. And
    as you say, if it rains in the interim when that water is
    moving down and our farmers don't need it and they don't take
    it, that water moves on down to Texas, and we lose the
    advantage of that water.
        Reauthorizing Cochiti, which is envisioned in Senate bill
    1936, is critical. It is going to be complicated. Of course,
    any reservoir operation is complicated, but if we could move
    that water from El Vado and hold it in Abiquiu, for example, or
    if we could hold it in Cochiti just for a little bit.
        And one other option that we are looking at within the
    conservancy district is can we do small-scale temporary storage
    within our own works? Can we capture these erratic, unexpected
    rainfalls that come in and perhaps hold them within our
    facilities just for a day or two and then wait for the farmers
    to need that water? We are looking at all of these options.
        So it is not just our seven reservoirs that we would like
    to operate in a coordinated fashion, but it is how we can
    integrate our existing systems with those coordinated reservoir
    operations.
        Senator Heinrich. Well, I just used that example just to
    show that I know all of this is relatively complicated, but we
    are managing the entire basin in a way that is uncoordinated.
    So when you have dramatically less input in terms of gross
    quantity of water and you have no flexibility to coordinate all
    of these structures, the seven reservoirs, your own works at
    the Conservancy District, we have seen very innovative things
    like Albuquerque doing storage underground in the aquifer.
        We are going to have to be more nimble in the future, and
    we certainly ought to be coordinating the Federal
    infrastructure in a way that could potentially be a benefit for
    all of the users, irrespective of what perspective they come
    from.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Heinrich, thank you.
        When you think about the situation in California, so much
    of the attention when we talk about the impact to the economy,
    we think about the agriculture sector and how that has been
    notably impacted.
        I was really struck by this article that somebody
    referenced, one of the Senators that was testifying, but it was
    an article in the Post back in May. But when you look to the
    various sectors that would take the brunt of job losses in
    continuing, ongoing drought, if the Colorado River ran dry for
    a year--please, let us hope that that does not happen--but the
    job losses one would initially think is going to be all about
    the agriculture sector. But it is in real estate, it is in
    finance, it is retail trade, the professional, the tech sector.
        But the sector that is impacted most dramatically is
    healthcare. I think it is a reminder to us all of the
    significance of available water supply and how it impacts
    everything that we do within our economies.
        Again, when I was in California meeting with the farmers, I
    sat down and had a conversation with the rice growers. I was
    thinking, okay, it is really all about rice. With those rice
    growers, it was all about water fowl. It was all about the
    impact to the habitat for the birds and the geese that were
    coming south and that were snacking on the rice leftover in the
    fields there.
        So it is a reminder to us that the impact here is so broad,
    it is so wide, that our failure to address it can have
    extraordinarily significant impact. I think you reminded us,
    Ms. Woolf, with your words. I think you said something about
    the weight being on all of us to come up with a solution.
        Know that I certainly feel that weight, I think our
    colleagues do as well, that we have an obligation to try to
    work with you all not only in California but across the West,
    better understanding our water, our water sources. It is the
    West right now, but it will have impact far beyond the West of
    the United States and I think we appreciate the responsibility.
        So I look forward to working with you all. I had asked Mr.
    Kightlinger for good out-of-the-box suggestions and would
    invite each of you to join us in that as well and submit what
    you can.
        This is the end of the hearing right now, but it is really
    the beginning of very constructive work and a lot of hard work.
    So thank you for your willingness to join us in this.
        And with this, the committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                       [all]