[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 4419, ``BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS WATER
PROJECT STREAMLINING ACT''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, November 30, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-723 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Chairman Emeritus Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Louie Gohmert, TX Jim Costa, CA
Vice Chairman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Doug Lamborn, CO CNMI
Robert J. Wittman, VA Niki Tsongas, MA
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Stevan Pearce, NM Vice Ranking Member
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Norma J. Torres, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Ruben Gallego, AZ
Doug LaMalfa, CA Colleen Hanabusa, HI
Jeff Denham, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Paul Cook, CA Darren Soto, FL
Bruce Westerman, AR A. Donald McEachin, VA
Garret Graves, LA Anthony G. Brown, MD
Jody B. Hice, GA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Jimmy Gomez, CA
Darin LaHood, IL
Daniel Webster, FL
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Mike Johnson, LA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Greg Gianforte, MT
Cody Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Democratic Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Jim Costa, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Garret Graves, LA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jody B. Hice, GA CNMI
Daniel Webster, FL Jimmy Gomez, CA
Vice Chairman Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Mike Johnson, LA
Greg Gianforte, MT
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, November 30, 2017...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Eberhart, Urban, Manager, Kittitas Reclamation District,
Ellensburg, Washington..................................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Gudes, Scott, Vice President, Government Affairs, American
Sportfishing Association, Alexandria, Virginia............. 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Questions submitted for the record....................... 25
Mikkelsen, Alan, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Washington, DC............................................. 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Questions submitted for the record....................... 14
Newhouse, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
O'Toole, Patrick, President, Family Farm Alliance, Savery,
Wyoming.................................................... 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Questions submitted for the record....................... 31
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 43
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4419, TO FACILITATE AND STREAMLINE THE
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS PROCESSES FOR
CREATING OR EXPANDING CERTAIN WATER PROJECTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
``BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS WATER PROJECT
STREAMLINING ACT''
----------
Thursday, November 30, 2017
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:28 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lamborn, McClintock, LaMalfa,
Hice, Gianforte; Huffman, Beyer, and Sablan.
Also present: Representatives Tipton and Newhouse.
Mr. Lamborn. The Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
will come to order. The Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee
meets today to hear testimony on H.R. 4419, sponsored by
Representative Dan Newhouse of Washington State.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
and the Vice Chair. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all
other Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing
record if they are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00
p.m. today.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I would also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
Colorado, Mr. Tipton, be allowed to join the Subcommittee at
the dais and participate in the remainder of the hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
And I would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
Washington, Mr. Newhouse, be allowed to join the Subcommittee
at the dais and participate in the remainder of the hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
We will begin with opening statements, and I will start
with myself for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Lamborn. Today, we will consider H.R. 4419, the Bureau
of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs Water Project
Streamlining Act, sponsored by our colleague from Washington
State, Dan Newhouse. This bill further advances this
Subcommittee's agenda of an ``all-of-the-above'' water supply
strategy.
Since its inception more than 100 years ago, the Bureau of
Reclamation has built more than 600 dams and reservoirs. These
facilities have allowed the arid West to flourish, because a
prior generation had the vision and willpower to store water
when it is available and deliver it during dry times. These
multi-purpose facilities provide Coloradoans and the West with
numerous benefits, including recreation, flood control,
hydropower, and a reliable water supply.
In addition, these facilities provide cold water for ESA-
listed fish species, as well as other environmental benefits.
Similarly, BIA Indian irrigation projects are comprised of the
water infrastructure needed to ensure that tribes have access
to reliable water supplies for both human consumption and
irrigation.
For generations, water users and tribes throughout the West
have depended on these projects, and they will continue to do
so for many decades to come. The problem, however, lies in the
fact that many of these facilities are aging, and it is getting
increasingly more difficult to build new projects. With few
exceptions, Reclamation has not built any new large, multi-
purpose dams and reservoirs over the last generation. Coupled
with rapid population growth and the region's susceptibility to
droughts and water shortages, as our friends in California know
very well, our current infrastructure is inadequate to meet a
growing demand for a finite supply of water.
For years, this Subcommittee has heard from witnesses how
regulatory hurdles in the form of never-ending feasibility
studies and environmental reviews have stifled the development
of new water projects like the Sites Reservoir in California,
which at one point had 52 potential reservoir locations being
considered.
This bill by Representative Newhouse represents a common-
sense approach to reform and streamline the feasibility study
process for future water projects to tackle the seemingly
endless ``paralysis-by-analysis'' status quo. This bill
requires the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs to become more transparent and accountable in how they
evaluate future water projects.
This bill aims to not only promote the development of new
surface storage, but also paves the way for rural water, Title
XVI, Indian irrigation, and other Federal water projects, so
they can get built in a predictable and timely manner.
Furthermore, it creates a new process that will allow these
agencies to identify and transmit potential projects to
Congress to review and authorize. It is based on the precedent
included in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act,
which gave the Army Corps of Engineers this process, and which
passed the House in 2014 with a vote of 412 to 4.
We must give Reclamation and the BIA similar tools to get
projects built, and that is exactly what this bill does.
Before I conclude, I want to make it crystal clear that
nothing in this bill undercuts public input, NEPA, or any other
environmental requirements. To the contrary, it allows the
environmental benefits associated with these projects to be
developed and put into action more expeditiously. It simply
requires Federal agencies to work together to adhere to
reasonable timelines with ample opportunities for extensions,
so long as they can justify why it is needed.
This bill provides water users in my state and throughout
the West with the certainty needed to pursue and invest in
these projects by breaking down the barriers that have stifled
new water project development in America.
We need to get serious about our water future, and this
bill is a step in the right direction. Let's ensure that future
generations have access to the same benefits and resources that
past generations gave to us.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and I
look forward to hearing from each one of you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Doug Lamborn, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Water, Power and Oceans
Today, we will consider H.R. 4419, the ``Bureau of Reclamation and
Bureau of Indian Affairs Water Project Streamlining Act'' sponsored by
our colleague from Washington State, Dan Newhouse. This bill further
advances this Subcommittee's agenda of an ``all-of-the-above'' water
supply strategy.
Since its inception more than 100 years ago, the Bureau of
Reclamation has built more than 600 dams and reservoirs. These
facilities have allowed the arid West to flourish, because a prior
generation had the vision and willpower to store water when it is
available and deliver it during dry times. These multi-purpose
facilities provide Coloradoans and the West with numerous benefits
including recreation, flood control, hydropower, and a reliable water
supply. In addition, these facilities provide cold water for ESA-listed
fish species and other environmental benefits. Similarly, BIA Indian
irrigation projects are comprised of the water infrastructure needed to
ensure that tribes have access to reliable water supplies for both
human consumption and irrigation.
For generations, water users and tribes throughout the West have
depended on these projects, and they will continue to do so for decades
to come. The problem, however, lies in the fact that many of these
facilities are aging and it is getting increasingly more difficult to
build new projects. With few exceptions, Reclamation has not built any
new large, multi-purpose dams and reservoirs over the last generation.
Coupled with rapid population growth and the region's susceptibility to
droughts and water shortages, our current infrastructure is inadequate
to meet a growing demand for a finite supply of water.
For years, this Subcommittee has heard from witnesses how
regulatory hurdles in the form of never-ending feasibility studies and
environmental reviews has stifled the development of new water projects
like the Sites Reservoir in California which--at one point--had 52
potential Reservoir locations being considered.
Mr. Newhouse's bill, H.R. 4419, represents a common-sense approach
to reform and streamline the feasibility study process for future water
projects in order to tackle the seemingly endless ``paralysis-by-
analysis'' status quo. This bill requires the Bureau of Reclamation and
Bureau of Indian Affairs to become more transparent and accountable in
how they evaluate future water projects.
This bill aims to not only promote the development of new surface
storage, but also pave the way for rural water, Title XVI, Indian
irrigation and other Federal water projects to get built in a
predictable and timely manner. Furthermore, it creates a new process
that will allow these agencies to identify and transmit potential
projects to Congress to review and authorize. It is based on the
precedent included in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act,
which gave the Army Corps of Engineers this process, and passed the
House with a vote of 412 to 4 in 2014. We must give Reclamation and the
BIA similar tools to get projects built, and that is exactly what this
bill does.
Before I conclude, I want to make it crystal clear that nothing in
this bill undercuts public input, the National Environmental Policy
Act, or any other environmental requirements. To the contrary, it
actually allows the environmental benefits associated with these
projects to be developed and put into action more expeditiously. It
simply requires Federal agencies to work together, adhere to reasonable
timelines with ample opportunities for extensions as long as they can
justify why it is needed.
This bill provides water users with the certainty needed to pursue
and invest in these projects by breaking down the barriers that have
stifled new water project development in America. We need to get
serious about our water future, and this bill is a step in the right
direction. Let's ensure that future generations have access to the same
benefits and resources that past generations gave to us.
I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to
hearing from each of you.
______
Mr. Lamborn. I would now like to recognize the Ranking
Member, Mr. Huffman, for 5 minutes for his statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are back today
with a familiar debate about a bill that threatens our Nation's
fishing industry and attempts to undermine our Nation's bedrock
environmental laws.
Folks watching the debate today can be forgiven if they
have a sense of deja vu, because in 2014, we debated the
previous version of this bill, H.R. 5412, at length. The bill
was resoundingly opposed by Democratic members of this
Committee and by the Obama administration.
The very next year we saw this bill on the House Floor as
part of H.R. 2898, once again jammed through the House over the
strong objection of House Democrats and the Obama
administration.
Most recently, we debated provisions of this bill on the
House Floor in July during Floor debate on H.R. 23, which
includes a version of this bill. That bill, once again, was
resoundingly opposed by Democrats and even some Republicans.
Yet, House Republican leadership stubbornly continues to
push this bill. Some things, I guess, never change. Another
thing that is not changing is the reality that this bill is
dead on arrival in the Senate, and will not become law. This is
true, despite the fact that House Republican leadership is now
proposing to combine it with a provision to authorize the
latest phase of the Yakima Basin Water Enhancement Project,
which some Democratic Members have been working to advance in
some form.
This political stunt is obviously doomed to fail. It is
like a reverse poison pill, adding a spoonful of sugar in the
hopes that we will ignore the toxic effects of the rest of the
bill. The only thing that this will accomplish is to waste
everyone's time.
I hope we can move past these political games soon, so that
people watching today will not have to watch over and over
again.
Moving on, I do want to address the claim from supporters
of this bill that environmental laws like NEPA block new dam
construction somehow. This claim is false. But you don't have
to take my word for it. Recently, President Trump was fact
checked on the claim that projects like Hoover Dam were built
in 5 years because they did not have to go through years of
permitting and regulations that current infrastructure projects
require.
The Washington Post, which fact checks President Trump
quite a lot, fact checked that claim and gave it three
Pinocchios, which stands for significant factual error and/or
obvious contradictions. They noted that, according to the U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 95 percent of public
infrastructure projects are excluded from environmental reviews
under current law. They further pointed out that it took 35
years of planning, permitting, negotiating, and preparation to
build Hoover Dam. And, as has been pointed out by many over the
years, there is a reality that complicated projects just simply
take time to plan and finance.
Also, in 2012, the Congressional Research Service took a
look at this issue, found that the most likely causes of delay
for major infrastructure projects are lack of funding and local
and state permitting issues, not environmental laws, certainly
not Federal environmental laws.
Despite these facts, my Republican colleagues continue to
peddle the fiction that we need to gut our Nation's
environmental laws to build new dams and other infrastructure.
I really hope we can move on from this phony debate and get to
work on real problems.
One real problem we could address together is the poor
health of our Nation's fisheries. Most of our Nation's iconic
fisheries, many at least, are on the brink of extinction,
causing untold harm to thousands of Americans whose livelihoods
depend on healthy fish runs, including many of the communities
I represent.
Another problem Republicans and Democrats should work on
together is ending the push to slash the budgets of agencies
who are charged with doing environmental reviews. These budget
cuts just make it harder for Federal agencies to expedite
projects, especially in the small percentage of projects that
require a full environmental impact statement under NEPA.
Last, before closing, I want to highlight that H.R. 4419
actually includes a new and troubling deauthorization
provision. It directs Interior to deauthorize hundreds of
millions of dollars' worth of Reclamation projects. The catch
is that this provision exempts large dam projects from
deauthorization. This means that a boondoggle project like
Auburn Dam, which will never be built, will not be
deauthorized. Instead, water recycling projects that water
managers around the West actually would like to build will be
deauthorized.
Keeping the myth alive that terribly conceived projects
like Auburn can somehow be built if we just clear away the
environmental reviews and other obstacles so that you can score
political points is a bad idea, and it keeps us from talking
about real solutions that we could be working on together.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, we're back to debate a familiar
bill that threatens our Nation's fishing industry and attempts to
undermine our Nation's bedrock environmental laws. Folks watching
today's hearing can be forgiven if they get deja vu.
In 2014, we debated the previous version of this bill, H.R. 5412,
at length. That bill was resoundingly opposed by the Democratic members
of this Committee and the Obama administration.
The next year, we saw this bill on the House Floor as part of H.R.
2898, which once again, was jammed through the House over the strong
objections of House Democrats and the Obama administration.
Most recently, we debated provisions of this bill on the House
Floor in July during Floor debate on H.R. 23, which includes a version
of this bill. That bill, once again, was resoundingly opposed by
Democrats and some Republicans.
Yet, House Republican leadership continues to push this bill. Some
things never change, I guess. Another thing that isn't changing, is the
reality that this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate and will never
become law.
This is true despite the fact that House Republican leadership is
now proposing to combine this bill with a provision to authorize the
latest phase of the Yakima Basin Water Enhancement Project, which some
Democratic Members have been working to advance in some form. This
cheap political stunt is obviously doomed to fail. It's like a reverse
``poison pill'': adding a spoonful of sugar in the hopes that we will
ignore the toxic effects of the rest of the bill. The only thing it
will accomplish is wasting everyone's time. I hope we can move past
these petty political games soon, which people watching today are
rightfully sick of.
Moving on, I do want to address the claim from supporters of this
bill that environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act
block new dam construction. This claim, simply put, is false. But you
don't have to take my word for it.
Recently, President Trump was fact checked when he claimed that
projects like the Hoover Dam were ``built in 5 years'' because they
didn't have to go through the years of permitting and regulations that
current infrastructure projects require. When independent fact checkers
at The Washington Post evaluated this claim, they awarded the
President's claim three Pinocchios, which is the rating for statements
that include ``significant factual error and/or obvious
contradictions.''
The fact checkers noted that, according to the U.S. Government
Accountability Office, 95 percent of public infrastructure projects are
excluded from environmental reviews under current law. They further
pointed out that it took 35 years of planning, permitting, negotiation
and preparation to ensure that the Hoover Dam was financially feasible
and had public support. This project took many years despite the
absence of modern environmental laws because big, complicated projects
take time to plan and finance.
Also, a 2012 Congressional Research Service report found the most
likely causes of delay for major infrastructure projects are lack of
funding and local and state permitting issues, not environmental laws.
Despite these facts, my Republican colleagues continue to peddle
the fiction that we need to gut our Nation's environmental laws to
build new dams and other infrastructure. I hope we can move on from
this phony debate and get to work addressing the real problems on the
ground.
One real problem we could address together is the poor health of
our Nation's fisheries. Many of our Nation's iconic fisheries are on
the brink of extinction, causing untold harm to thousands of Americans
across our country whose livelihoods depend on healthy fish runs. In my
own district, some members of the Yurok Tribe have even been driven to
the brink of suicide, partly because of the demise of salmon
populations that have formed the backbone of their tradition and
economy for generations. This is truly heartbreaking.
Another problem Republicans and Democrats should work on is ending
the push to slash the budgets of agencies in charge of environmental
reviews. These budget cuts only make it harder for Federal agencies to
expedite project reviews, especially in the small percentage of
projects that appropriately require a full Environmental Impact
Statement under NEPA.
Before closing, I want to highlight that H.R. 4419 includes a new
deauthorization provision that directs Interior to deauthorize hundreds
of millions of dollars' worth of Reclamation projects. The catch is
that this provision exempts large dam projects from deauthorization.
This means that the boondoggle Auburn Dam, which will never be built,
will not be deauthorized. Instead, water recycling projects that water
managers actually want will. Keeping the myth alive that terribly
conceived projects like Auburn can someday be built may score political
points in some quarters, but the fact is that projects like Auburn
don't pencil out now and never will.
In closing, I share the frustration of many watching today's
hearing. I too am sick of the political games and endless debates about
the same poison pill bill that has been rejected time and time again. I
urge my colleagues across the aisle to move on from this so that we can
work together on real solutions that actually have a chance of becoming
law.
Thank you, I yield back.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right. We now move to our first witness
panel to hear testimony from Mr. Newhouse on the bill.
As a reminder, you are limited to 5 minutes, but your
written statement will appear in full in the hearing record.
Mr. Newhouse, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN NEWHOUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn and Ranking
Member Huffman, as well as members of the Subcommittee, for
inviting me to testify before you today on H.R. 4419, the
Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs Water
Project Streamlining Act.
This legislation exhibits years of hard work,
determination, and certainly collaboration. I would like to
begin by extending my sincere thanks to Chairman Bishop, his
staff, as well as Speaker Ryan and his staff, for working with
me to help move this legislation forward.
I would also like to thank my colleague, Congressman
Reichert, for his continued partnership on these efforts. This
legislation is not only critical for our respective districts
in Washington State, but also for districts across the Nation,
particularly those in the West.
Water is vital for the livelihoods and the prosperity of
our communities in the western United States. These
communities, including my constituents in central Washington,
know all too well the detrimental impacts of facing severe
droughts and water shortages. In states where the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) hold
jurisdiction for the development of water projects, communities
are left waiting, due to the lack of a streamlined process.
H.R. 4419 would apply the same streamlined water project
development process used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
that was established under the Water Resources Reform
Development Act of 2014, or WRRDA, to BOR's and BIA's processes
for surface water, storage, infrastructure, and recycling
project developments.
The WRRDA legislation passed through both chambers of
Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. My hope is, with
this legislation, to achieve the same streamlined process for
BOR and BIA that was developed for the Corps.
This legislation also authorizes several key water
development projects across the West, including projects in
California, Kansas, Montana, and in my home state of
Washington. One of these is the third phase of a vital effort
in central Washington, the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement
Project (YRBWEP).
The Yakima River Basin, as you well know, is one of the
leading agricultural regions in Washington State, as well as
throughout the country. However, the demand for water in the
region currently exceeds the resources available, especially
during times of drought, which have hit the state especially
hard in these past few years.
Through years of tough and complex but continued
negotiations, the Yakima River Basin Plan is a model of
collaboration that offers a solution to give water users more
certainty, while also recognizing the concerns of
conservationists and the various stakeholders in the Yakima
Basin.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the
collaborative group of stakeholders at the core of this vital
effort. The YRBWEP Workgroup and its Implementation Committee
are made up of local irrigation districts, environmental
advocates, local elected officials, tribal leaders, state
agency officials, conservation organizations, and water storage
advocates. The fact that this diverse of a group can agree on
much, let alone negotiate and collaborate on years of
integrated water project development efforts is nothing short
of ground-breaking.
I look forward to hearing the testimony from one of the
Implementation Committee's own, Mr. Urban Eberhart, and I thank
the Subcommittee for providing the opportunity for the
Workgroup to share their model of success with the Nation. It
is something that I can tell you I am very, very proud of.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4419, the Bureau of Reclamation and
Bureau of Indian Affairs Water Project Streamlining Act, is a
common-sense bill that reforms the current cumbersome and
lengthy processes for water development efforts, and provides a
mechanism to build new water and infrastructure projects in
central Washington, as well as across the West. This
legislation will provide the next major step to addressing our
water crisis in the West.
I thank the Subcommittee for allowing me to testify today,
and I certainly look forward to working with you to get this
bill signed into law.
With that, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Newhouse follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Dan Newhouse, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Washington
Thank you, Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of
the Subcommittee for inviting me to testify before you today on H.R.
4419, the ``Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs Water
Project Streamlining Act.''
This legislation exhibits years of hard work and determination--and
certainly collaboration--and I'd like to begin by extending my sincere
thanks to Chairman Bishop and his staff, as well as Speaker Ryan and
his staff, for working with me to move this legislation forward. I'd
also like to thank my colleague, Congressman Reichert, for his
continued partnership on these efforts. This legislation is not only
critical for our respective districts in Washington State, but for
districts across the Nation, particularly those in the West.
Water is vital for the livelihoods and prosperity of communities in
the western United States. These communities, including my constituents
in central Washington, know all too well the detrimental impacts of
facing severe droughts and water shortages. In states where the Bureau
of Reclamation (BOR) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) hold
jurisdiction for the development of water projects, communities are
left waiting due to the lack of a streamlined process. H.R. 4419 would
apply the same streamlined water project development process used by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, established under the ``Water
Resources Reform Development Act of 2014,'' or WRRDA, to BOR's and
BIA's processes for surface water, storage, infrastructure, and
recycling project developments. The WRRDA legislation passed through
both Chambers of Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. My hope
with this legislation is to achieve the same streamlined process for
BOR and BIA that was developed for the Corps.
This legislation also authorizes several key water development
projects across the West, including projects in California, Kansas,
Montana, and in my home state of Washington. One of these is the third
phase of a vital effort in central Washington, the Yakima River Basin
Water Enhancement Project, or YRBWEP. The Yakima River Basin is one of
the leading agricultural regions in Washington State and throughout the
country. However, the demand for water in the region currently exceeds
the resources available, especially during times of drought, which have
hit the state especially hard in the past few years. Through years of
tough and complex, but continued negotiations, the Yakima River Basin
Plan is a model of collaboration that offers a solution to give water
users more certainty, while also recognizing the concerns of
conservationists and the various stakeholders in the Yakima Basin.
I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the collaborative group
of stakeholders at the core of this vital effort. The YRBWEP Workgroup
and its Implementation Committee are made up of local irrigation
districts, environmental advocates, local elected officials, tribal
leaders, state agency officials, conservation organizations, and water
storage advocates. The fact that this diverse of a group can agree on
much, let alone negotiate and collaborate on years of integrated water
project development efforts, is nothing short of ground-breaking. I
look forward to hearing testimony from one of the Implementation
Committee's own, Mr. Urban Eberhart, and I thank the Subcommittee for
providing the opportunity for the Workgroup to share their model of
success with the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4419, the ``Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of
Indian Affairs Water Project Streamlining Act'' is a common-sense bill
that reforms the current cumbersome and lengthy processes for water
development efforts and provides a mechanism to build new water and
infrastructure projects in central Washington and across the West. This
legislation will provide the next major step to addressing our water
crisis in the West. I thank the Subcommittee for allowing me to testify
today, and look forward to working with you to get this bill signed
into law.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you for your testimony. You are welcome
to join us for the remainder of the hearing, but if you need to
be excused for other obligations, we will understand.
Mr. Newhouse. I will stay for at least the testimony.
Mr. Lamborn. Excellent. Now I would ask the second panel of
witnesses, consisting of four individuals, to come forward. And
as they are coming forward, I will introduce them.
Our first witness is Mr. Alan Mikkelsen, Deputy
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation from Washington, DC;
our second witness is Mr. Urban Eberhart, Manager of the
Kittitas Reclamation District from Ellensburg, Washington; our
third witness is Mr. Scott Gudes, Vice President of Government
Affairs for the American Sportfishing Association from
Alexandria, Virginia; and our final witness is Mr. Patrick
O'Toole, President of the Family Farm Alliance from Savery,
Wyoming.
I thank each of you for taking the time to be here. Your
written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record, so
I ask that you keep your oral statement to 5 minutes, as
outlined in our invitation letter to you and under Committee
Rule 4(a).
I will also explain how the timing lights work. When you
are recognized, press the talk button to activate your
microphone. Once you begin your testimony, the Clerk will start
the timer and a green light will appear. After 4 minutes, a
yellow light comes on. At that time, you should begin to wrap
up. When the red light comes on after 5 minutes, we ask that
you would conclude at that time.
Mr. Mikkelsen, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ALAN MIKKELSEN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Mikkelsen. Good afternoon, Chairman Lamborn, Ranking
Member Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is
Alan Mikkelsen, and I am the Acting Commissioner of the Bureau
of Reclamation.
The Department of the Interior supports the goals of H.R.
4419. Let me summarize the Department's efforts to streamline
the implementation of NEPA. The Department offers our views in
consideration of the points of common interest between H.R.
4419 and Secretarial Order 3355 and Executive Order 13807.
The Department supports efforts to streamline and expedite
environmental reviews and approvals for all infrastructure
projects. Surface water storage projects are an important
component of our Nation's infrastructure that creates multiple
benefits, including reliable water supplies, flood control,
hydropower, and water quality improvements.
President Trump signed Executive Order 13807, aimed at
identifying and addressing inefficiencies in the environmental
review and permitting process for infrastructure projects to
curtail construction delays, increase costs, and expedite
infrastructure benefits to our Nation's economy, society, and
environment.
Following the release of the President's order, Secretary
Zinke released Secretarial Order 3355 to streamline the
environmental review process within Interior. Secretary Zinke's
order requires bureaus to limit environmental impact statements
to 150 pages, or 300 pages for unusually complex projects, and
suggests a target of 1 year for agencies to complete an EIS
after issuing a NEPA notice of intent.
The order directs the Deputy Secretary to identify
impediments to efficient and effective NEPA reviews, best
practices, and evaluate whether the Department should establish
additional categorical exclusions or revise current ones.
The order also requires assistant secretaries to identify
the potential impediments to reviews for infrastructure, and
develop action plans to address impediments.
By focusing on the factors that we can control, reforming
and streamlining in the environmental review process, we can
have a positive impact on the speed by which these projects are
completed.
Some of the requirements in H.R. 4419 are already
established in routine practice or agency regulations. We look
forward to working with the sponsor to develop technical
amendments to this bill, clarifying duplicative and varying
standards between current practice and some of the changes
being implemented pursuant to Secretarial Order 3355.
Section 8 of the bill would authorize four specific water
projects. In Phase III of the Yakima Basin Integrated Resource
Management Plan, the Department remains an ongoing Federal
participant in this initiative, and continues to seek solutions
to the long-term imbalance between water supply and demand, and
provide ecosystem restoration in the Yakima Basin.
With the Equus Beds Project, the Department reiterates its
support for the city of Wichita's goals of conserving and
improving water supplies. With the Musselshell-Judith rural
water system in Montana, the Department reiterates its support
for the goals of encouraging a vibrant rural economy, and
ensuring safe and reliable sources of drinking water.
With respect to the Shasta Lake water resources
investigation, surface water storage projects are an important
component of our Nation's infrastructure that create multiple
benefits, including reliable water supplies, flood control,
hydropower, and water quality improvements. In California,
surface water storage is a crucial component to addressing the
growing demands on water supplies. Reclamation continues to
look for stakeholder partners to engage with us in advancing
this project. If such partners are identified and Congress
authorizes the project, we are prepared to advance this
project.
Finally, Section 9 provides a mechanism for inactive
projects to be deauthorized with a need for congressional
action on a project-by-project basis. We recognize the
sponsor's interest in deauthorizing inactive Reclamation
projects, and believe Congress plays an important role in
providing the Department direction as to whether to deauthorize
projects Congress determines no longer remain viable.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Department looks forward
to working with this Subcommittee and our sister agencies to
achieve the goals of this legislation. We applaud any
consideration of streamlining, and hope that we can work in
unison to identify other ways to reduce unnecessary and time-
consuming analysis and associated legislation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mikkelsen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan Mikkelsen, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Alan Mikkelsen, and I am the Deputy
Commissioner at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) at the
Department of the Interior (Department or Interior). Thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the Department regarding
H.R. 4419, the Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs Water
Project Streamlining Act, which aims to streamline the process of
studying, planning, designing and constructing water projects in the
arid West. While H.R. 4419 includes Bureau of Indian Affairs' projects
in the streamlining provisions, I intend to focus on the Bureau of
Reclamation's views on the bill. As the Bureau of Reclamation is
committed to sound, efficient, and streamlined environmental review
processes in order to avoid unnecessary construction delays and
increased costs of water projects, the Department supports the goals of
H.R. 4419.
ongoing streamlining efforts
Before I discuss specific provisions of H.R. 4419, I would like to
briefly summarize the Department's ongoing efforts to streamline the
implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) under
Secretarial Order 3355 and Executive Order 13807. The Department's
streamlining process was considered as we prepared the Department's
statement on the bill before the Subcommittee today, and the Department
offers its views in consideration of the points of common interest
between H.R. 4419 and Secretarial Order 3355 and Executive Order 13807.
The Department supports efforts to streamline and expedite, in a
manner consistent with law, environmental reviews, and approvals for
all infrastructure projects. Water projects in particular are an
important component of our Nation's infrastructure that can create
multiple benefits, including reliable water supplies, flood control,
hydropower, and water quality improvements.
On August 15, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13807
aimed at identifying and addressing inefficiencies in the environmental
review and permitting process for infrastructure projects, in order to
curtail construction delays and increased costs, and expedite
infrastructure benefits to our Nation's economy, society and
environment. The Executive Order directs the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) to undertake a number of actions, including developing a
list of actions it can take to enhance and modernize the Federal
environmental review and authorization process. On September 14, 2017,
CEQ published a notice in the Federal Register announcing an initial
list of actions it will take to enhance and modernize the Federal
environmental review and authorization process for infrastructure
projects. These include actions to develop a ``One Federal Decision''
framework for infrastructure project approval, improving the process
for preparing efficient and timely environmental reviews under NEPA,
and convening an inter-agency working group to review NEPA implementing
regulations.
Following the release of Executive Order 13807, the Department
released Secretarial Order 3355 to immediately take steps to streamline
the environmental review process within the Department's offices and
bureaus and implement Executive Order 13807. Secretarial Order 3355
requires bureaus within Interior to limit environmental impact
statements (EIS) to 150 pages, or 300 pages for ``unusually complex
projects.'' The order suggests a ``target'' of 1 year for agencies to
complete an EIS after issuing a notice of intent under the NEPA. The
order directs the Deputy Secretary to identify impediments to efficient
and effective NEPA reviews, best practices, and evaluate whether the
Department should establish additional categorical exclusions or revise
current ones. The order also requires Assistant Secretaries to identify
potential impediments to efficient and effective reviews for
infrastructure and develop actions plans to address impediments. In
implementing Secretarial Order 3355, the Department aims to eliminate
unnecessary detail and paperwork, and replace it with sound decision
making on an informed understanding of environmental consequences.
Existing review processes are more than adequate to identify
projects that are not feasible. However, far too often the
environmental review process, and concomitant litigation, is used to
unnecessarily obstruct, delay, and increase the costs of well-
justified, highly merited projects. Executive Order 13807 and
Secretarial Order 3355 are intended to cut through this red tape and
help advance these worthy projects. By focusing on factors we can
control--reform and streamlining in the environmental review process--
we can have a positive impact on the speed by which these projects are
completed.
The Department notes that there are numerous factors that can slow
down the progress of projects. These include identifying local cost-
share partners and markets for water, risks associated with project
geology, downstream impacts, and litigation over environmental review.
Secretarial Order 3355 aims to move the Department away from a
regulatory regime that too often results in the cost of preparing
environmental review documentation surpassing the costs of a proposed
project. Years and years of litigation and numerous rewrites of
environmental review documentation does not benefit interested parties,
and moves us away from a coordinated, predictable, and transparent
approval process. H.R. 4419 in conjunction with the ongoing
streamlining efforts by the Administration has the potential to
minimize the role of litigation in infrastructure and natural resources
decisions.
h.r. 4419 (sections 2-7)
H.R. 4419 sets forth provisions governing feasibility studies for
water projects initiated under Reclamation law, with an aim toward
accelerating the approval of major infrastructure projects. A project
study initiated after enactment of the bill must: (1) result in the
completion of a final feasibility report within 3 years; (2) have a
maximum Federal cost of $3 million; and (3) ensure that personnel from
the local project area, region, and headquarters levels of the Bureau
of Reclamation concurrently conduct the required review. The bill sets
forth factors for extending timelines for complex projects.
The bill contains several other provisions of note, which require
the Department to:
annually prepare a list of all studies that do not have
adequate funding for study completion;
develop and implement a coordinated environmental review
process for the development of such studies;
identify early all Federal, state, and local government
agencies and Indian tribes that may have jurisdiction and
that may be required to act, which the Federal lead agency
shall invite to become participating or cooperating
agencies;
issue guidance regarding the use of programmatic
approaches to carry out the environmental review process;
and
establish an electronic database and issue reporting
requirements to make publicly available the status and
progress with respect to compliance with applicable NEPA
requirements and other action required for a project study.
The bill sets forth responsibilities in the environmental review
process, including a plan for coordinating public and agency
participation; working with cooperating agencies to resolve issues that
could delay process completion or result in the denial of any approval;
and establishing, upon request, memoranda of agreement with the project
sponsor, Indian tribes, and state and local governments to carry out
the early coordination activities. Further, the bill requires a Federal
lead agency to serve in that capacity for the entirety of all non-
Federal projects that will be integrated into a larger system owned,
operated, or administered by Reclamation. It directs Interior, upon
determining that a project can be expedited by a non-Federal sponsor
and that there is a demonstrable Federal interest in expediting the
project, to advance it as a non-Federal project; requires a Federal
jurisdictional agency to complete any required approval or decision for
the environmental review process on an expeditious basis; and, as
referenced below, provides for a reduction of funds for agencies that
fail to render decisions by a specified deadline.
Under Sections 3 and 6 of the bill, Interior must develop and
submit reports to Congress on topics such as the status of
implementation and the costs and benefits of proposed project studies.
The Department would also be required to report on any project study
that was expedited under this bill. The Department would like to work
with the Committee and bill sponsor to ensure Section 5(i)(5)(B)(i)(II)
does not unintentionally impact other activities in Reclamation's
budget, foster litigation, or cause unforeseen delays by requiring
financial penalties on Federal agencies found out of compliance with
the decision deadlines in H.R. 4419.
Some of the requirements in H.R. 4419 are already established in
routine practice or agency regulations, and CEQ has developed guidance
on use of programmatic reviews. To avoid duplication between current
practice and desired goals, or inconsistencies with definitions, the
Department looks forward to working with the Subcommittee to develop
technical amendments to this bill to clarify duplicative and varying
standards between current practice, and some of the changes being
implemented pursuant to Secretarial Order 3355.
project authorizations
Section 8 of H.R. 4419 would authorize four Reclamation projects to
be carried out in accordance with the feasibility reports listed in the
chart. The legislation authorizes construction of Phase III of the
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, Equus Beds Division of
the Wichita Project, Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System, and the
Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation. My statement will speak to
each of those projects separately.
In regards to the authorization of Phase IIII of the Yakima Basin
Integrated Resource Management Plan (Integrated Plan), the Department
remains an ongoing Federal participant in this initiative, and
continues to support the ongoing coordination with our state partners
and all Basin interests to find solutions to the long-term imbalance
between water supply and demand and provide ecosystem restoration in
the Yakima Basin.
With regards to the Equus Beds Project, the Department reiterates
its support for the city of Wichita's goals of conserving and improving
water supplies. Specifically, the Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and
Recovery Project would provide a safe and reliable water source to
Wichita and the surrounding area, while protecting the water quality of
the Equus Beds aquifer. Reclamation signed a Record of Decision on
January 19, 2010, selecting the project as the preferred alternative.
In regards to the Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System, the
Department reiterates its support for the goals of encouraging a
vibrant rural economy and ensuring safe, reliable sources of drinking
water in Montana and North Dakota. As we testified on June 14, 2017,
the Department found the proposed project to be feasible, and met the
broad criteria of the program.
With respect to the Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation,
surface water storage projects are an important component of our
Nation's infrastructure that can create multiple benefits, including
reliable water supplies, flood control, hydropower, and water quality
improvements. In California, cost-effective surface water storage is a
crucial component to addressing the growing demands on California water
supplies. The Shasta Enlargement Final Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was transmitted to Congress in
July 2015. The EIS identified a preferred alternative (Comprehensive
Plan 4A). Reclamation continues to look for stakeholder partners to
engage with us in cost-sharing and advancing this project. If such
partners are identified, certain state and local issues are resolved,
and Congress authorizes the project, then Reclamation is willing to
work with those partners to advance the project.
deauthorization of inactive reclamation project and programs (section
9)
Section 9 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to compile a
list of congressionally-authorized inactive Reclamation programs or
projects that are no longer under active consideration for construction
due to cost, lack of local support, feasibility, or other reasons.
Second, this provision provides a mechanism for inactive projects to be
deauthorized without the need for congressional action on project-by-
project basis. The language mirrors provisions enacted in Section 6001
of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014 (P.L.
113-121).
Reclamation recognizes the sponsors' interest in deauthorizing
inactive Reclamation projects when projects lack local support and
available funding, or are otherwise determined to be inactive or
irrelevant. Reclamation believes Congress plays an important role in
establishing appropriate guidance for the Department on matters under
its jurisdiction. This includes congressional direction as to whether
or not to deauthorize projects Congress determines no longer remain
viable.
conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Department of the Interior looks
forward to working with this Subcommittee and our sister agencies to
achieve the goals of this legislation. We applaud any consideration of
streamlining and hope we can work in unison to identify other ways to
reduce unnecessary and time-consuming analysis and its concomitant
litigation.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Jody Hice to Alan Mikkelsen,
Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Question 1. Mr. Mikkelsen, I am concerned when I hear from my
colleagues out West that shovel-ready projects are stalled by seemingly
endless studies. As you testified, Mr. O'Toole, ``. . . sometimes [the
existing] process is used as a barrier to the planning, design and
construction of new water storage projects.'' We've seen in Georgia,
how delays in construction can increase project costs exponentially.
Are the provisions in the bill that streamline the feasibility study
process necessary, or is the ability simply to authorize new projects
sufficient?
Answer. Before a project can become shovel-ready, it is necessary
under the Federal Water Resources Planning process to complete a
feasibility study. This is required to ensure that from a design,
technical and engineering perspective the project is feasible and will,
when constructed, meet the expected water and power supply needs of the
benefiting community. It is also important to ensure that the
identified economic benefits are accurate, will be realized by the
design of the project, and will exceed the project's costs. In
addition, it is important that the local community and the taxpayers of
the United States are able to bear the construction and operational
costs' of the project. This process, which is similar across many
Federal agencies, is important to protect the long-term interest of the
project beneficiaries and the taxpayers. H.R. 4419 would provide
streamlining to the feasibility study process by requiring studies to
be completed in a more timely and efficient manner. Finally, once
feasibility studies or project construction is authorized by Congress,
Reclamation depends upon the relevant non-Federal cost share and
congressional appropriations to undertake and complete these activities
in a timely manner.
Question 2. Mr. Mikkelsen, H.R. 4419 would certainly increase water
supply for human needs as we can begin fixing our degrading water
infrastructure. Do you also see broader environmental benefits to this
increased water supply?
Answer. Reclamation projects are generally authorized by Congress
for multiple purposes including irrigation, municipal and industrial
uses as well as to provide recreational and fish and wildlife benefits.
It is our expectation that the streamlined process envisioned by H.R.
4419 intends to accelerate the pace of completing the feasibility
studies and project completion--which would include any and all of the
authorized benefits that are associated with the project.
Question 3. Mr. Mikkelsen, From what we've heard today, the current
challenges associated with modernizing existing and constructing new
water storage projects must be a nightmare for strategic planning. How
do the provisions of H.R. 4419 help the Bureau engage in long-term
planning?
Answer. Expediting the feasibility study process will permit the
Bureau's planning resources to address additional water storage
projects simply by spending less time on the analysis of each. Having a
defined period for completion of a feasibility analysis makes managing
the overall planning portfolio more efficient. H.R. 4419 will do little
to address issues with prioritizing the planning portfolio, but will
add parameters on feasibility study period length which should help
with overall long-term planning.
Question 4. Mr. Mikkelsen, How will coordinating environmental
reviews and streamlining the feasibility study process help the Bureau
better serve water users?
Answer. Water users would be better served through increased
coordination and establishment of environmental reviews and feasibility
study processes that could result in timelier project implementation.
Improvements to front-end coordination and established processes for
the over-all effort would likely result in: common understanding of the
process, requirements, and expectations of entities involved;
development of more robust schedules providing key decision points and
deliverables; clear identification of data needs and necessary studies;
greater certainty of timing for engagement of users; reduced
environmental review and feasibility study costs; and increased
transparency. The structured process improves the certainty in project
timing so water users can more easily plan their financial and resource
commitments associated with project implementation.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Mr. Eberhart, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF URBAN EBERHART, MANAGER, KITTITAS RECLAMATION
DISTRICT, ELLENSBURG, WASHINGTON
Mr. Eberhart. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member
Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 4419, the Bureau of Reclamation
and Bureau of Indian Affairs Water Streamlining Act.
My name is Urban Eberhart, and I am the Secretary-Manager
of the Kittitas Reclamation District, an irrigation district
serving 60,000 acres of prime farmland in the Yakima River
Basin in the vicinity of Ellensburg, Washington. I am also a
farmer in the Yakima River Basin. I was raised on our family
farm near Ellensburg, and am still growing apples, pears, and
hay in the Badger Pocket area of the Kittitas Valley.
I am here today on behalf of the Yakima Basin Working Group
in support of this Subcommittee's efforts to congressionally
authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to continue to partner with
the state of Washington and the working group in implementing
the initial development phase of the Yakima Basin Integrated
Plan Phase III of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement
Project at Reclamation.
Over the last 9 years, this unique and diverse
collaboration has emerged in the Yakima Basin and is focused on
developing a collective vision for the future of water in the
watershed, a future where there is water for farming, water for
fish, and water for families, even when we have years of less-
than-adequate water supplies. Congressionally authorizing this
initial development phase of the integrated plan is the next
vital step forward in making that future possible.
The Yakima Basin Working Group supports the concepts
provided by H.R. 4419 to authorize the initial development
phase of the integrated plan. The working group is tremendously
grateful to Representative Dan Newhouse and Representative Dave
Reichert for their tireless work in supporting the Yakima Basin
Integrated Plan, and for introducing this legislation. They
understood how important the integrated plan is in the Yakima
River Basin, the state of Washington, and the Yakima Nation.
Through the efforts of the working group, we have seen
substantial progress in meeting the plan's goals through
partnerships and cooperation, when in the past we were in
conflict. We are encouraged by the fact that both Democratic
and Republican administrations have supported this
collaboration and have looked to the integrated plan and our
diverse coalition as a potential model for future water
management in the West.
The Yakima River Basin is one of the most productive,
concentrated, irrigated agriculture areas in the Nation,
producing more than $4.5 billion in crops and food processing
sales, and supporting more than 44,000 jobs annually.
The Yakima River Basin is also home to significant fish and
wildlife resources, including anadromous steelhead and salmon
runs. These fish runs are part of the important recreational
and tribal resources in our basin. The Yakima Nation has relied
on these fish and wildlife resources for generations. These
ancient fish runs have been in decline during the mid-20th
centuries, and were a focus of contention over water supplies
and water management in the basin for many years.
Recent efforts to improve fish habitat through significant
investments in water conservation, improved water management,
water marketing, habitat restoration, and fish passage have
seen some success. In fact, Reclamation estimates that, on
average, approximately 130,000 acre-feet per year has been
conserved since the 1990s. But additional new investments in
water conservation, water storage, and fish passage are still
needed, which the integrated plan supports.
Frequent droughts over the past several decades have
demonstrated the vulnerability of the Yakima Basin's water
supply. Since 1992, there have been six low-water years, where
proratable irrigation districts, those subject to curtailment
in dry years, received far less than their full allocation of
water. During these droughts, the proratable irrigation
districts served by Reclamation only received between 37 and 47
percent of their usual water supply.
The integrated plan will add an additional 170,000 acre-
feet of water conservation savings through Federal, state, and
local partnerships. The proratable irrigation districts in the
Yakima Basin are planning to finance, build, and operate the
first major water supply project in the integrated plan
themselves, estimated to cost about $200 million. The state of
Washington has approved bipartisan legislation to provide up to
50 percent of the cost to implement the integrated plan. The
state has made major investments in the integrated plan,
totaling $173.3 million since 2013.
As you can see, the integrated plan leverages Federal,
state, and local partnerships and funding to accomplish what
one single stakeholder could not.
In summary, the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan is a balanced
approach, agreed upon by an incredibly diverse coalition of
farmers, environmental, and outdoor groups, local, state, and
Federal governments, and the Yakima Nation. It is designed to
sustainably meet the needs of water users in abundant salmon
and steelhead runs, improve habitat for fish and wildlife, and
allow our communities to grow.
We look forward to continuing to work with you and
Representatives Newhouse and Reichert on this legislation. We
believe it is essential that we come together and craft an
approach that can pass Congress and be enacted into law.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eberhart follows:]
Prepared Statement of Urban Eberhart, Secretary/Manager, Kittitas
Reclamation District and Farmer from Ellensburg, Washington on Behalf
of The Yakima Basin Working Group
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify
on H.R. 4419, the Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs
Water Project Streamlining Act. I am here today on behalf of the Yakima
Basin Working Group in support of this Subcommittee's efforts to
congressionally authorize the Federal Government to continue to be our
partner in the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan, and especially those
Federal portions which are known as Yakima River Basin Water
Enhancement Project Phase III (YRBWEP Phase III).
Over the last 7 years, a unique and diverse collaboration has
emerged in the Yakima Basin focused on developing a collective vision
for the future of water in the Yakima Basin; a future where there is
water for farming, water for anadromous fish, and water for families
even when we have years of less than adequate water supplies.
Congressionally authorizing the Initial Development Phase of the
Integrated Plan is the next vital step forward in making that future
possible.
We are tremendously grateful to Representative Dan Newhouse and
Representative Dave Reichert for their tireless work in supporting the
Yakima Basin Integrated Plan and for introducing this legislation. They
understand how important the Integrated Plan is to the Yakima River
Basin, the state of Washington, and the Yakama Nation, and have been
looking for ways to move the authorization for the Integrated Plan
forward through the House and Senate, then on to the President's desk.
H.R. 4419 would accomplish many things, including authorizing parts
of the Integrated Plan that need additional Federal authorities. The
Yakima Basin Working Group supports the concepts provided by H.R. 4419
to authorize the Initial Development Phase of the Integrated Plan, and
we look forward to working with this Committee and Representatives
Newhouse and Reichert to ensure that the Yakima portions of the bill
accomplish the goals and phasing set out by the Yakima Basin Working
Group and the Bureau of Reclamation, including the authorization of the
Initial Development Phase of the Plan. By working together, we have
seen amazing progress on meeting the Plan's goals through partnerships
and cooperation, when in the past we were in conflict. We are buoyed by
the fact that both Democratic and Republican administrations have
lauded this collaboration and have looked to the Integrated Plan and
the diverse coalition that developed and is supporting the Plan as a
potential model for future water management in the West.
My name is Urban Eberhart and I am the Secretary/Manager of the
Kittitas Reclamation District (KRD), an irrigation district serving
60,000 acres of prime farmland in the Yakima River Basin in the
vicinity of Ellensburg, Washington. I am also a farmer in the Yakima
River Basin. I was raised on our family farm near Ellensburg and am
still growing apples, pears, and hay in the Badger Pocket area of the
Kittitas Valley.
I have been following and working on the Yakima River Basin Water
Enhancement Project (YRBWEP) ever since I went to my first Yakima water
enhancement meeting with my father back in 1979, the year Congress
authorized a feasibility study to address the water resource needs of
the Yakima River Basin; the Act of December 12, 1979 (93 Stat. 1241,
Public Law 96-162). An outgrowth of this study was the implementation
of Phase I (fish ladders and fish screens) and Phase II (water
conservation and other measures) of the YRBWEP.
I was an active participant in the development of the 1994 YRBWEP
Phase II legislation. I have also been intimately involved in the
development of the Yakima River Basin Integrated Plan, a forward
looking holistic approach to dealing with the expected problems in the
Basin to help meet all water demands over the next several decades. I
support the enactment of legislation authorizing Phase III of the
YRBWEP and beginning the first 10 years implementation (known as the
Initial Development Phase) of the Integrated Plan.
When most people think of Washington State, they visualize a place
with dark green forests, high mountains and constant rain. While that
perception is at least partially accurate, the rain forests on our
Olympic Peninsula receive on average about 140 inches of rainfall a
year, much of the eastern half of the state lays in the rain shadow of
the Cascade Mountains, and has a semi-arid climate. The total annual
precipitation in some portions of eastern Washington is measured in
single digits.
However, Washington State, like many other parts of the West, has
suffered from extreme drought conditions for extended periods of time,
especially in the past several years. These conditions create great
challenges for our farmers, for our fisheries, and for the families of
Washington State. But throughout our Basin a number of efforts are
underway to prepare for and improve the response to these new and, what
we expect to be, more common conditions.
The Yakima Basin is an approximately 6,000 square mile watershed in
south central Washington State. It supports a population of about
360,000 people and is home to the approximately 10,000 member Yakama
Nation. The Yakima Basin contributes $4.5 billion annually and 44,300
jobs to the agricultural economy of the state of Washington.
Recreation, much water dependent, adds 14,200 jobs and $1.2 billion to
the economy. All told, Yakima's water dependent economy adds $13.1
billion to the economy and 96,000 jobs.
The Federal Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Yakima Irrigation
Project (Project) in the Yakima River Basin includes seven divisions:
Storage, Kittitas, Tieton, Sunnyside, Roza, Kennewick, and Wapato
serving irrigable lands totaling approximately 464,000 acres. The
Wapato Division is operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but
receives most of its water supply from the Yakima Project for
irrigation of 136,000 acres of land. Over 45,000 acres not included in
the seven divisions are irrigated by private interests under water
supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. The six water storage
dams and reservoirs on the Project are Bumping Lake, Clear Creek,
Tieton, Cle Elum, Kachess, and Keechelus. Other Project features
include five diversion dams, canals, laterals, pumping plants, drains,
three hydropower plants, and transmission lines.
The Yakima River Basin is one of the most productive concentrated
agricultural areas in the Nation. Yakima County ranks first among all
counties of the United States in the production of apples, mint, and
hops. Principal crops grown in the Yakima Basin include fruit,
vegetables, forage, hops, grapes, and mint, with many highly productive
dairies, fruit packaging plants, wineries, and other related businesses
and industries tied to our Basin's bountiful harvests. As previously
stated, these industries in the Basin alone annually produce more than
$4.5 billion in crops and food processing sales while supporting more
than 44,300 jobs and exporting over $1.3 billion through the Ports of
Seattle and Tacoma every year. A reliable Yakima Basin water supply is
a critical requirement for these industries.
The Yakima River Basin is also home to significant fish and
wildlife resources, including an anadromous fish population of
steelhead as well as bull trout that are both protected under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), and salmon runs. These fish runs are part
of the important recreational and tribal resources in our basin.
Historically, it is important to recognize that the Yakima Basin was
the second largest producer of salmon and steelhead runs in the entire
Columbia River system. Those runs numbered close to 800,000 salmon and
steelhead each year. The Yakama Nation has relied on these fish and
wildlife resources for generations. These ancient fish runs declined
precipitously during the mid-20th century, and were a focus of
contention over water supplies and water management in the basin for
many years. Recent efforts to improve these fish runs through
investments in water conservation, improved water management, habitat
restoration, and fish passage have seen some marked success. But
additional investments are still needed, which the Integrated Plan
supports.
Since 1905, when the state granted rights for all unappropriated
surface water in the Yakima Basin to Reclamation, surface water flows
in the Yakima Basin have been managed by Reclamation. Reclamation
operates reservoirs with a total capacity of about 1,100,000 acre-feet,
which is about one-third of the average annual runoff in the Yakima
Basin. The Yakima Basin is heavily dependent on east-slope Cascade
Range snowpack to supply water to the semi-arid lower basin during the
summer months.
Water law in Washington State is based on the doctrine of prior
appropriation, the basic premise of which is water use priority is
determined based on ``first in time, first in right.'' Water users in
the Yakima Basin are a combination of the pre-1905 senior surface water
right holders, direct customers of Reclamation served water under
Reclamation's 1905 state water right, a small number of post-1905
junior surface water right holders, and groundwater right holders,
mostly with post-1905 priority dates. Of course, all of this must be
overlaid with the Yakama Nation's treaty right to water for fisheries,
irrigation and other purposes and their seniority which would obviously
pre-date 1905.
Management of water in the Yakima Basin has historically been
highly contentious and marked by protracted legal battles. The surface
water resources of the Yakima Basin are over-appropriated, and a state
court adjudication of those water rights has been ongoing since 1977.
The state closed the Yakima Basin to additional groundwater rights in
the 1990s. Recently, the U.S. Geological Survey concluded that the
Yakima Basin's groundwater aquifers are in continuity with surface
waters. Based on that conclusion, it is likely that most of the post-
1905 ground water rights, upon which most of the Yakima Basin's
municipalities depend, will be determined to be junior to Reclamation's
1905 water right and, therefore, subject to curtailment in water short
years.
Frequent droughts over the past several decades have demonstrated
the vulnerability of the Yakima Basin's water supplies. Since 1992,
there have been six low water availability years (1992, 1993, 1994,
2001, 2005, and 2015) where ``proratable'' irrigation districts
(subject to curtailment in dry years) in the Yakima Basin received far
less than their full allocation of water. During droughts in 1994,
2001, 2005, and 2015, these ``proratable'' irrigation districts served
by Reclamation received only between 37 and 47 percent of their usual
water supply.
Instream flows and aquatic resources of the Yakima Basin have also
continued to suffer. A combination of out-of-basin and in-basin
factors, including diminished stream flows and lack of fish passage at
existing reservoirs, have combined to drastically reduce the numbers of
salmon and steelhead. Runs of salmon and steelhead that, as previously
noted, once numbered at least 800,000 fish declined to about 9,000 fish
by the 1990s. Sockeye, Coho, and summer Chinook salmon stocks have all
been extirpated; although efforts are underway, led by the Yakama
Nation, to reintroduce and restore stocks of those species. The Yakima
Basin's steelhead and bull trout are Endangered Species Act listed
threatened species.
Since 2009, the state of Washington's Department of Ecology--Office
of Columbia River and the Bureau of Reclamation have been collaborating
with the Yakama Nation and Yakima Basin stakeholders to formulate a
comprehensive strategy to address critical resource needs. That
collaboration focused on expanding the work of the 1979 Federal Yakima
River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP) and the 1994
Congressional Amendments that created Phase II of YRBWEP. That strategy
took shape in mid-2011 when consensus was reached on the Yakima Basin
Integrated Plan.
The Federal parts of this Integrated Plan are being proposed as
Phase III of YRBWEP. Development of the Integrated Plan was facilitated
by additional Federal support resulting from the Yakima Basin being
selected as the recipient of one of Reclamation's first Basin Study
grants under their WaterSMART Program.
The Integrated Plan proposes major ecological restoration of the
Yakima Basin through a number of bold measures. The Integrated Plan
provides for construction of fish passage at all major in-basin
reservoirs to open high basin spawning and rearing areas that have been
blocked for a century. It will provide substantial mainstem and
tributary habitat enhancements. Substantial portions of the upper
watershed will be restored as habitat for both terrestrial and aquatic
species. In addition, the plan provides for operational modifications
to improve operational efficiency and flexibility.
The Integrated Plan also calls for substantial improvements in
water supply for both instream and out-of-stream uses. About one-half
of eastern Washington's out-of-stream water needs and one-third of our
unmet instream flow needs are in the Yakima Basin. Water supply
improvements will come in several different forms. Efficiency of
existing use of water will be improved through reducing barriers to the
transfer of water between willing buyers and willing sellers. Municipal
and agricultural conservation efforts will be enhanced. For example,
the 1994 YRBWEP Phase II efforts called for 160,000 acre-feet of
conservation, of which 126,000 acre-feet has been completed or is in
process. The Integrated Plan adds an additional 170,000 acre-feet of
water conservation savings much of which will be in the upper basin and
tributaries where conservation was not supported by YRBWEP Phase II.
Studies are also underway to better understand the potential role of
aquifer storage in providing passive recharge to the mainstem and
tributaries of the Yakima River in targeted locations.
However, the objectives of the Integrated Plan cannot be met
without significant improvements in surface water storage. The Office
of Columbia River and Reclamation have determined, based on an analysis
of water supply needs, that supplementing the Yakima Basin's existing
1,100,000 acre-feet of water storage capacity with an additional
450,000 acre-feet of capacity in the form of modified and new surface
storage facilities will be needed to provide:
Drought relief and resiliency to existing irrigators in
the Yakima Basin;
Secure water supplies for our municipalities with junior
water rights and to meet their future needs, and
Adequate water for fish out-migration and pulse flows in
all years.
It is a testimonial to how hard all sides worked and compromised in
negotiating the Integrated Plan that we have environmentalists, fishery
advocates, and Yakama Nation support for a plan that includes new water
storage. Even casual observers of western water wars will know how
unusual that is.
The importance of expanding water storage capacity is underscored
by hydrologic modeling conducted by the University of Washington and
the Federal River Management Joint Operating Committee that predicts
substantial reductions in snow pack depth and duration as we move
toward mid-century. The most recent 2015 drought in the Yakima Basin,
had near normal precipitation but little snow accumulation, resulting
in 47 percent supply for the 1905 water rights, and a loss of
agricultural production of $118.5 million in just three of the
irrigation districts most reliant on Reclamation supplies This
``snowpack drought''--near normal precipitation but little snowpack
water storage--reflects expected future conditions. The Integrated Plan
recognizes that the only effective means of offsetting snowpack
reductions in the Yakima Basin are improving floodplain aquifer storage
potential and increasing surface storage capacity. Sensitivity analysis
modeling of the Integrated Plan indicate that, at full Integrated Plan
build-out, about 500,000 acre-feet more water would be available under
mid-century drought conditions than was available in the most recent
drought.
In the past, Reclamation has born the cost of constructing water
supply facilities in the Yakima Basin, with the Project repaying these
costs back to the Federal Government over time. Today, that financing
model is not what the Yakima Basin stakeholders are relying on. The
proratable irrigation districts in the Yakima Basin are planning to
finance, build and operate the first major water supply project in the
Integrated Plan, estimated to cost about $200 million. They will make
this large non-Federal investment to build new drought emergency water
supply infrastructure as well as new water conservation improvements in
coordination with Reclamation and Washington State under the Integrated
Plan.
Conservation is often suggested as a substitute for water storage;
however, there are severe limitations to the role of conservation as a
source of additional water supply. As noted previously, the Integrated
Plan proposes to accomplish an additional 170,000 acre-feet of
irrigation conservation savings beyond that authorized by YRBWEP Phase
II. Further, there are other conservation efforts by irrigation
districts, on-farm investments, and municipal conservation programs
that all result in more efficient water application and saved water.
The result of investments in conservation at all levels is a steady
decrease in the amount of water Reclamation is called upon to deliver.
Reclamation now in normal years delivers, on average, approximately
130,000 acre-feet per year less than it did prior to the 1990s.
Those savings have provided valuable flow improvements in targeted
stream reaches resulting in improved conditions for fish. However, it
must be remembered that most conservation efforts focus on reducing the
amount of water that leaks or spills from conveyance systems (for
example, canals or ditches) or from irrigation practices that result in
more water being applied than is needed by the crops being grown. The
leaked water returns through runoff or through groundwater to the river
at a point downstream of where it was diverted. We refer to this as
``return flow.'' Along the Yakima River mainstem, return flows rejoin
the river within days or a few weeks after diversion and contribute to
downstream river flows.
If through conservation measures, the leakage or over-application
of water is reduced or eliminated, the amount of water diverted can be
reduced accordingly. As part of the YRBWEP, irrigation districts agree
to leave a portion of their conserved water ``instream'' for additional
flow. Those diversion savings add more flow to the river, but only
between the point of diversion and the point at which return flows
previously rejoined the river. Below the return flow point, the only
residual changes to the river are the timing of these flows and some
water quality improvement. If the conserved water described in the
preceding example was used for some other out-of-stream purpose, flow
below the return flow point would be permanently diminished. The surest
way to dry up the river would be to employ such a practice on a
widespread basis.
Water marketing has a long and positive history in the Yakima
Basin, and has been particularly active in drought years. Under the
Integrated Plan, the Department of Ecology, the irrigation districts,
fishery managers and others are working on ways to overcome impediments
to water transfers while still respecting ecological concerns, state
law and district concerns.
The goal of the Integrated Plan is not to expand irrigated
agriculture in the Yakima Basin, with the exception of the tribal
Wapato Irrigation Project, where some irrigable reservation land is not
yet served with water supplies. Instead the goal is to firm up and make
more reliable water supplies for fish, farms and the people of the
Basin.
With bipartisan support, the state of Washington approved
legislation in 2013 that authorized the Department of Ecology to
provide up to 50 percent of the cost to implement the Integrated Plan
in conjunction with Reclamation and in collaboration with the Yakama
Nation, other state and Federal agencies, local governments, and basin
stakeholders. In addition to establishing the policy framework at the
state level for implementation of the Integrated Plan, the Governor and
the Legislature have approved significant capital investments, totaling
$173.3 million from 2013 through mid-2017, in on-the-ground projects
that meet the multiple goals of the Integrated Plan. We look forward to
working with this Committee, the Congress, and the Administration to
continue the ongoing Federal/state/local partnership in this special
and powerful collaborative effort by leveraging Federal, state and
local funding in implementing the Integrated Plan.
In summary, the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan is a balanced approach
agreed upon by an incredibly diverse coalition of irrigators, farmers,
environmental and outdoor enthusiast groups, local, state and Federal
governments, and the Yakama Nation. It is designed to address the need
for economic and environmental sustainability, meeting the needs of
water users, while restoring abundant salmon and steelhead runs and
improving habitat for fish and wildlife. To that end, we look forward
to working through some additional suggestions with Committee staff and
our congressional delegation. We believe it is essential that we come
together and craft an approach that can make it through both Chambers
of Congress with support both in the Yakima Basin and beyond.
We appreciate the Committee's consideration of this legislation and
look forward to working with you as you consider it merits.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Mr. Gudes, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT GUDES, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,
AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
Mr. Gudes. Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and
members of the Subcommittee, at the very outset I would like to
thank this Committee, the Subcommittee and its members, and
your outstanding professional staff for the work that you do on
a number of pieces of legislation that have to do with the
sportsmen community, and we truly thank you.
The American Sportfishing Association is the U.S.
sportfishing industry's trade association. We are made up of
over 800 companies that manufacture and sell fishing tackle and
related apparel and gear, and I could go on about all the
things we do.
Our members include a number of businesses and conservation
groups that are in Pacific Coast states that depend on the
healthy runs of salmon. These are small businesses. Many are
family owned, salt-of-the-earth entrepreneurs. Salmon fishing
is key to the success and continuation of their businesses,
companies like Pro-Troll, which is based in the Bay Area,
Lamiglas Rods on the Columbia River, Yakima Baits in Granger,
Washington, and companies far outside the West Coast that
depend on the fishing. For example, St. Croix Rods in northern
Wisconsin, Wright-McGill Eagle Claw near your district, they
are based in Denver, right off the highway there.
Today's hearing is an issue in which recreational and
commercial fishermen and businesses share a common ground. You
probably don't hear that as much here, but this is one where we
have the same perspectives. The perspectives I provide you
today are shared by the Golden Gate Salmon Association and the
commercial group, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations.
The Committee has my written testimony; I just want to
highlight a few points.
One, the construction and operation of Federal dams on
western rivers, such as the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and
Columbia, has actually had severe impacts over time on salmon
runs, and consequently, recreational and commercial fishing
jobs and the communities that rely on them.
California's Central Valley experts tell us that dam
construction has resulted in the loss of more than 90 percent
of historic spawning habitat. Water projects, exacerbated by
the drought, have had a severe impact. During the past 10
years, the average annual catch by the sportfishing charter
community was over 150,000 fish. In 2016, this charter catch
declined to 36,000 fish.
For the commercial fishing industry in California, the 10-
year annual catch was 350,000 or more fish. In 2016, the catch
declined to 55,000 fish. During our previous drought in 2008
and 2009, salmon fishing was actually illegal, it was shut down
completely. Before the 2008 closure, in California alone, the
salmon fishery supported an economy worth $1.5 billion
annually, and 23,000 jobs.
Salmon are special. They are different than many of the
species of fish that this Committee deals with. They are
anadromous, they spend their early lives in fresh water, they
live most of their lives out in the ocean, and then they return
to spawn. Unlike a lot of the stocks that you deal with, we
actually have a very good handle on how many fish are coming in
and how many have been harvested. It is kind of a different
issue than you often discuss here.
But the key to restoring a thriving California West Coast
salmon fishery is that first part of their life, the ability to
get out, to get out to the bay, to get outside the Golden Gate.
A hundred percent of the fish that don't do that, don't make
it, don't become part of the stock that comes back.
As my testimony notes, it is probably not surprising to
some of you, our groups do not support the expansion of large
dams. We are very concerned that the shortening or dictating of
the review process will not be in our interest, the salmon
fishing interest, or the fishing industry's interest.
I also note that responsibility for salmon is shared by
various Federal agencies, including NOAA, which plays a very
key role. Their science is very important, and they actually
have an office in Sacramento that deals with Central Valley
salmon and does the supporting science.
Pacific salmon represent one of the most iconic, historic,
recreational, and commercial fisheries in the Nation. In my
written statement, I made a comparison to wild Atlantic salmon.
California is the southern part of the range of Pacific salmon.
New York and Connecticut were the southern end of the range of
Atlantic salmon. They no longer exist. They have vanished from
southern New England.
I was wrong in my testimony that I said they have vanished
entirely. They have not. They still exist in Maine. They are
listed under the Endangered Species Act. I was wrong in that
there are actually up to 1,000 fish, total, that come back into
Maine.
So, we want to make sure that what has happened on the East
Coast with Atlantic salmon--and the closest thing to a salmon
is a salmon, it is the same issues about water, about access to
habitat--we want to make sure that that is not repeated, and
that California becomes, if you will, the West Coast example of
that.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. Again, we
really appreciate the role in this, and what this Committee
does.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gudes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Gudes, Vice President for Government
Affairs, American Sportfishing Association
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you
today. My name is Scott Gudes. I serve as the Vice President for
Government Affairs for the American Sportfishing Association (ASA). ASA
is the U.S. sportfishing industry's trade association. The association
is made up of over 800 companies that manufacture and sell fishing
tackle (rods, reels, terminal tackle, electronics, etc.), and related
apparel and gear, as well as sportsmen and conservation groups, state
fishery representatives, and the sportfishing media. Our membership
includes a number of businesses, and conservation groups in Pacific
Coast states that depend on healthy runs of Pacific salmon.
The perspectives I provide to you today are shared by Golden Gate
Salmon Association (GGSA) and the Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA). PCFFA is composed of West Coast
commercial fishing interests, while GGSA consists of California
recreational and commercial fishing interests, as well as other members
of the salmon fishing industry. My testimony today will focus on issues
related to salmon runs, as well as the recreational and commercial
fisheries, jobs and communities that depend on these remarkable fish.
This is an issue on which recreational and commercial fishermen and
businesses share common ground.
background
The construction and operation of Federal dams on western rivers,
such as the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Columbia and many others, have
resulted in severe impacts to salmon runs, and consequently
recreational and commercial fishing, fishing jobs, and the communities
that rely on these salmon runs. In California's Central Valley--a
watershed that I will return to in my testimony--dam construction has
resulted in the loss of more than 90 percent of historical spawning
habitat. In addition, the resulting alteration in water flow has
contributed to the elimination of 98 percent of Central Valley riparian
and floodplain habitat.\1\ This loss of spawning and rearing habitat,
and needed flows, have played a dramatic role in the decline of salmon,
including the Endangered Species Act listing of Central Valley winter
and spring run Chinook salmon and have resulted in a great deal of harm
to commercial and recreational fishing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/
recovery_planning/salmon_steelhead/domains/california_central_valley/
cv_chin_stlhd_r_plan_fs_071614.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, because of the impacts of water projects, in
combination with a drought, California's salmon fishing industry was
entirely shut down from 2008 to 2009. Simply put, for these 2 years, it
was illegal to catch salmon in California. Because the Sacramento River
is the most important salmon run south of the Columbia River, this
decline led to dramatic impacts in dozens of California ports, and
additional impacts in Oregon, and Washington, where significant numbers
of Sacramento River fish are caught.
In addition to leading to restrictions on an historic fishery that
is highly valued by the public, the decline of salmon represents an
economic tragedy. Before the 2008-2009 closure, in California alone,
the salmon fishery supported an economy worth $1.5 billion annually and
23,000 jobs. If California salmon runs were restored to historic
levels, estimates are that these numbers would rise to $5.7 billion
annually and 94,000 jobs.
Unfortunately, in the past several years, because of water
management impacts and exacerbated by a long drought, salmon numbers
have declined again with significant impacts on fishing seasons and
harvest for the commercial and recreational and commercial fishing
industries.
The recreational and commercial ocean fishery is highly regulated,
to ensure that an adequate number of adult salmon return to spawn every
year. Salmon are anadromous, and spend their early lives in fresh water
and then much of their life span in the ocean. As a result, the key to
restoring a thriving California and West Coast salmon fishery is how we
manage and restore California's Central Valley rivers.
Pacific salmon represent one of the most iconic and historic
recreational and commercial fisheries in the Nation. Their wild
Atlantic salmon cousins have largely vanished in the United States due
to river obstructions, pollution and habitat degradation. To ensure
that Pacific salmon stocks remain viable and don't follow the history
of Atlantic salmon, great care should be taken to restore salmon
habitat and ensure that water management actions in the Central
Valley--and elsewhere--do not worsen conditions.
concerns regarding h.r. 4419
While we appreciate the bill's intentions to increase water
availability, ASA and our partners in the region have several concerns
regarding H.R. 4419.
First, Section 8 would authorize a proposed raise of Shasta Dam on
California's Sacramento River. This proposed project was analyzed in a
draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report dated November 24,
2014. This document states that the preferred alternative ``will result
in additional losses of salmonid rearing and riparian habitat.'' It
then analyzes several serious impacts on salmon that could result from
the proposed dam raise, including: reduced juvenile rearing capacity,
reduce access to juvenile habitat in floodplains and flood bypasses,
degraded riparian habitat, degraded habitat in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta, and decreased flushing flows that allow juvenile salmon
to pass safely downstream, through the Delta and to the ocean. The
Service concluded that it ``is unable to support the adoption of any of
the proposed action alternatives.''
In addition, California law prohibits the issuance of any state
permits for a Shasta Dam raise. This, from our perspective, is
appropriate, given the potential impacts on salmon. As a result, ASA,
GGSA and PCFFA do not support a Federal authorization to raise Shasta
Dam. Indeed, the final feasibility report for the proposed Shasta Raise
concluded that the Secretary of the Interior could not provide a
recommendation to proceed with the proposed Shasta Dam raise.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.usbr.gov/mp/slwri/ (Page 9-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to note that one of the objectives of the proposed
Shasta raise is to increase the survival of anadromous fish. Clearly,
this project would fail to achieve that objective. However, without
thorough analysis of this project, the potential impacts identified by
the Fish and Wildlife Service might have been overlooked. This brings
me to our next concern.
Second, the bill would limit the analysis and review of new
proposed surface storage projects. Future environmental reviews and
feasibility studies would be limited by a schedule, such as a 3-year
deadline and a $3 million cap on Federal cost for feasibility studies.
Surface storage projects can cost billions of dollars and can
result in many complex impacts. Salmon fishermen experience these
impacts every year. We believe that, in many cases, such deadlines and
a cap on costs may well result in inadequate and incomplete analyses--
and further harm to salmon and the fishing industry.
Third, Section 5(g) would give the Secretary of the Interior the
authority to issue a list of all data needed to carry out the
environmental review process for new surface storage projects. As a
result, this provision would give the Secretary of the Interior the
authority to limit the data used by another Department or agency in
evaluating a proposed storage project. In the case of salmon, much of
the Federal expertise lies in the National Marine Fisheries Service,
commonly referred to as ``NOAA Fisheries.'' NOAA plays the lead or a
key role in the management of harvest, habitat restoration, review of
hydro projects, and salmon hatcheries. It is the agency that provides
much of the government's science, including ocean conditions and
trends, in support of salmon management. NOAA, through congressional
appropriations, provides funding to support Fishery Management Council
science and staffing.
We believe that NOAA Fisheries also should be allowed to determine
the data that are most appropriate for inclusion in its review of
proposed projects that could determine the survival and health of
Pacific salmon.
conclusion
The health and sustainability of Pacific salmon are extremely
important to both the West Coast recreational and commercial fishing
industries, and the local communities and people that depend on them.
The availability of adequate flows of cold fresh water, especially at
key points in the salmonid life cycle--is critically important. It is
certainly true that the construction of large dams has slowed
significantly in recent decades. However, ASA, GGSA and PCFFA believe
that the reason for this trend is not the environmental review process.
Rather, we believe that it results from many factors including: the
number of existing dams; the lack of available additional water; the
shortage of promising new dam sites; the high cost of proposed surface
storage projects; the difficulty of raising local cost share
contributions; and the rise of alternative water management strategies,
ranging from groundwater storage and floodplain restoration to water
use efficiency and water recycling. We hope the Subcommittee will focus
attention on these win-win strategies that can benefit salmon, generate
new water supplies and reduce flood risk.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify today.
______
Question Submitted for the Record by Rep. Huffman to Mr. Scott Gudes,
American Sportfishing Association
Question 1. Can the Klamath River's Iron Gate Hatchery continue
operating if Iron Gate Dam is removed?
Answer. Thank you for your question.
Congressman Huffman, in a previous answer during my testimony, I
noted that the production and survival of hatchery salmon is extremely
important to both the sport and commercial fishing industries in
California and the Northwest. Hatcheries are one way to help provide
some mitigation or relief from the impacts of dams. The Iron Gate
hatchery has been helpful to salmon runs on the Klamath River watershed
in Northern California and Oregon. As you know, the Iron Gate Dam is
scheduled to be removed as part of the Klamath River hydroelectric
settlement agreement, which will restore water and access to habitat
for salmon.
The short answer to your question is ``yes.'' My understanding is
that this settlement agreement provides for the continued operation of
the hatchery. PacificCorp agreed to fund 100 percent of hatchery
operations and maintenance necessary to fulfill annual mitigation
objectives developed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
in consultation with NOAA Fisheries. This includes funding the Iron
Gate Hatchery facility.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Mr. O'Toole, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK O'TOOLE, PRESIDENT, FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE,
SAVERY, WYOMING
Mr. O'Toole. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member
Huffman. I can't tell you how much I appreciate the ability to
visit with you all. If you would allow me, I would like to
introduce my grandson, Seamus. Would you stand up?
Seamus is the sixth generation on our ranch that was
established before there was a Colorado-Wyoming line in 1881.
Our river, the Little Snake River, goes across the state line
12 times, so we are integrated at the headwaters of the
Colorado River with the state of Colorado and the state of
Wyoming.
As you all might know, the governor of Wyoming began a
process called ``Ten in Ten'' a few years ago, 10 reservoirs in
10 years. We are now at 13, and I can tell you from personal
experience our valley, the Little Snake River Valley, was part
of what was called the hit of dams in the West back in 1972.
Two reservoirs, one in Colorado and one in Wyoming, 100,000
acre-feet, were supposed to be built.
So, here we are, how many years later? We have built 25
percent of that 100,000 acres, and it was a spectacular benefit
to our community. Unfortunately, it took 14 years to permit.
I was on the select water committee in the state of Wyoming
at the time. I will tell you that I personally attended many of
the hearings and the process to go through, and it was a
double, multi-circle firing squad, where we went from agency to
agency to agency. And Seamus and I came out here because we
think this is about as important a thing for the West as could
possibly happen.
Storage in today's world--the last 2 years on our ranch we
had 125 percent snowpacks. At the end of the summer, we did not
have the flows that we should have had. We are seeing
incredible storms in some places. In California this year, if
we had had the Sites Reservoir, we could have gathered all that
water that came in those incredible storms.
What we need is a process so that we can begin to get these
things permitted under the Federal process.
On our ranch, Seamus' job--we have six grandkids, everybody
is taking on different responsibilities--he will begin this
summer to learn to be a fishing guide, because we think that is
going to be part of our future. But it is only going to happen
if we have storage. And what happened at the end of the 14
years that I participated in was we built half of the reservoir
that the demand existed for.
Not only do we have to have a facilitated system, we have
to have a system that plans for the future, because right now
the system is we will give you what is permitted on that day.
Well, we learn, if we are looking proactively and spending
state money particularly, like we are doing in Wyoming, you
have to plan for what is going to be there when the dam is
built.
So, we did 14 years of permitting, 2 years of construction,
and for the lower valley it was a tremendous benefit. We are
now looking at another higher reservoir in our valley.
I also serve on what is called the Yampa roundtable. In
Colorado, Governor Hickenlooper put together roundtables for
all the river basins. The Little Snake River that I live on
goes into the Yampa, the Yampa to the Green, the Green to the
Colorado. On the Yampa roundtable, I attended a meeting of the
consultants that had been hired to look at the Yampa Basin.
Every single drainage in the watershed is looking at a storage
project, because we all know what is coming.
So, part of it is, what you have done here is give some
opportunity and some optimism to people that were going to be
able to do storage. People were discouraged because of the
process that I went through. They didn't go forward, the states
didn't go forward with what they knew was the right thing to
do, so they will lose 30 years, maybe.
In California, I visited the San Luis Reservoir Bureau of
Rec office, where they had a 50-year plan for California. It
was not done. The population went from 19 million to almost 40
million in that 50-year period.
So, what we are looking at is how do we plan for the
future, and the genius of these attempts to make that process
work better. I can tell you that NEPA, the process of going
through it, is not going to be sidelined. I have done many,
many collaborative processes in my career. What you have is
what some people have always wanted, to have everybody a
participant. That is what is happening. You are not going to do
a process without every participant being involved in it. That
has been my experience, and that is exactly what happens.
As President of the Family Farm Alliance, I will tell you
that in talks I am giving we are dismantling one of the
greatest achievements of western civilization, and that is the
American agricultural system. We are slowly dismantling that
system because we are taking the water away, we are taking the
land away, and we are discouraging the next generation from
being farmers and ranchers.
This is one of the most optimistic opportunities I have
seen in a long time, and thank you for your participation in
it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Toole follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick O'Toole, President, Family Farm Alliance
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to
discuss H.R. 4419, the ``Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian
Affairs Water Project Streamlining Act.'' This legislation provides a
critical first step toward addressing current regulatory and
bureaucratic challenges that many times will delay or even halt the
development of new water supply enhancement projects in the western
United States. My name is Patrick O'Toole, and I serve as the President
of the Family Farm Alliance. The Alliance advocates for family farmers,
ranchers, irrigation districts, and allied industries in 17 western
states. The Alliance is focused on one mission--To ensure the
availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to
western farmers and ranchers.
The Family Farm Alliance supports ``The Bureau of Reclamation and
Bureau of Indian Affairs Water Project Streamlining Act'' and
encourages the Subcommittee to move the legislation forward to
enactment.
personal background and experience with water development
I have served on the Family Farm Alliance's Board of Directors
since 1998 and was named as the organization's president in 2005. I am
also a former member of Wyoming's House of Representatives. I presently
serve on the Advisory Committee for AGree, a national agricultural
policy group, and work closely with the Intermountain Waterfowl Joint
Venture and Partners for Conservation.
My family has a strong background in irrigated agriculture and our
125-year-old ranch--located near Savery, Wyoming--produces cattle,
sheep and hay. My family and Ladder Ranch were the recipients of the
distinguished 2014 Wyoming Leopold Environmental Stewardship Award.
Our ranch straddles the Wyoming-Colorado border and has long
afforded me the opportunity to view some unique water issues,
firsthand. I have testified before this Subcommittee several times, and
have previously highlighted the permitting challenges I have
encountered in building the Little Snake Supplemental Irrigation Supply
Project (High Savery Project) in Wyoming. That project was built in
less than 2 years, but took more than 14 years to permit. However, that
reservoir is now delivering water that benefits multiple uses.
importance of storage projects to western irrigated agriculture
The drought of the past few years, and the flooding earlier this
year in some areas of the West has illustrated the importance of
planning for the construction of new storage projects in water
management plans. A reasonable storage development regime would help
farmers and agriculture obtain necessary supplies and improve
management of the available resource. Agricultural water is seen by
some as a ``reservoir'' to eventually satisfy demands from other
competing uses, including municipal growth and the environment. In many
places in the West, agricultural water is not being protected for
future agricultural uses. It is essential to be producing more food,
not less, for a world population projected to be more than 10 billion
people by the year 2050. Increased food production will need more
certainty in future water supplies, not less.
Irrigated agriculture not only provides a $172 billion annual boost
to our economy, it also provides important habitat for western
waterfowl and other wildlife, and its open spaces are treasured by
citizens throughout the West. Family Farm Alliance members rely on the
traditional water and power infrastructure built over the last century
to deliver irrigation water supplies vital to their farming operations.
Our membership has been advocating for new investments in water storage
for over 20 years, and we have provided specific recommendations to
Congress and the White House on how to streamline restrictive Federal
regulations to help turn these projects into a reality. While water
conservation and water transfers are important tools for improving
management of increasingly scarce water resources, our members believe
these demand-management actions must be balanced with supply
enhancement measures that provide the proper mix of long-term solutions
for the varying specific circumstances in the West.
other important reasons for water supply enhancement
Regardless of cause, climate variability is one critical factor
that underscores the need to develop new water storage projects in the
western United States. There are several reports that suggest existing
reservoirs will not be capable of safely accepting the earlier, more
intense snowmelt that has been predicted for many western watersheds. A
report released in 2006 by the state of California predicted that
variable hydrologic cycles could result in a drastic drop in the
state's drinking and farm water supplies, as well as more frequent
winter flooding. The report suggested that the state may experience a
smaller snowpack and more wintertime runoff. This means more
floodwaters to manage in winter, followed by less springtime snowmelt
to provide crucial water supplies for cities, agriculture and the
environment. Water resources experts in other parts of the West also
realize that new surface water storage projects may be necessary to
capture more snowmelt or rainfall under such conditions.
Some western water managers believe there may likely be a ``rush''
to re-operate existing multi-purpose water storage projects to restore
some of the lost flood protection resulting from the changed hydrology.
These projects were designed to provide a certain level of flood
protection benefits that will be reduced because of more ``rain-induced
flood'' events. There will be a call to reduce carryover storage and to
operate the reservoirs with more flood control space and less storage
space. If this is done, it will even further reduce the availability
and reliability of agricultural and urban water supplies from existing
water supply infrastructure.
Further, many water users are located upstream of existing
reservoirs. These users must then rely on direct or natural flows that
typically have been primarily fueled by springtime snowmelt. In the
Rocky Mountain West, snowmelt traditionally occurs over several months
during the onset of the irrigation season (usually April through June),
and thus the snowpack is an important component of water storage. Since
irrigation water conveyance systems are never 100 percent efficient,
water is diverted, conveyed and spread on the land in excess of the net
irrigation demand. This surplus returns to the stream and recharges
groundwater aquifers, which augments water supplies for all users
located downstream from the original diversion. It also supports
valuable habitat used by migrating waterfowl. If more runoff were to
occur during winter before the onset of the irrigation season, this
would impact water supply availability to these producers by decreasing
the storage capacity usually provided by the tempered melting of the
snowpack. It would also impact the utility associated with the return
flows from their irrigation practices. As the snowpack is reduced by
early melting, this reduced storage capacity must be replaced by new
surface water storage just to stay on par with our currently available
water supplies.
There is growing recognition among policy makers that water supply
enhancement projects must be included in the tool box used to tackle
western water challenges. In addition to the water project bills that
are moving in this Congress, states like California and Wyoming are
dedicating millions of dollars to the development of new water storage
projects. My home state of Wyoming has at least 10 small water storage
facilities that the state wants to complete as soon as possible. These
projects are sponsored by local entities, support local beneficial
uses, and provide flexibility for future uses of stored water. The goal
of Wyoming's ``Ten in Ten'' initiative is the completion of a minimum
of 10 small (2,000 to 20,000 acre-feet) reservoirs in the next 10
years. All projects will move through the processes developed by the
Legislature, the Select Water Committee and Wyoming Water Development
Commission. This initiative provides executive support and agency
planning for all appropriate actions to accelerate the completion of
projects.
The call for more water storage only makes sense when one considers
the paradigm shift of more conservative water operations coupled with
the added water supplies necessary to meet demands for water that, in
many basins in the West, have simply outgrown the existing supply. In
2015, the Alliance released a report that provides detailed answers to
20 frequently asked questions about new water storage projects. I would
be happy to provide hard copies of this report to the Subcommittee, or,
a PDF version can be downloaded at www.familyfarmalliance.org.
challenges with developing new water projects
As you are all aware, actually developing new storage projects is
much easier said than done. For many reasons--political, economic and
social--the construction of traditional surface water storage projects
is undertaken on a much more limited basis than in decades past. Even
if Federal authorization and funding is secured for a new storage
project, the existing procedures for developing additional water
supplies can make project approval incredibly burdensome.
Clearly, the existing procedures for developing additional water
supplies need to be refined to make project approval less burdensome.
By the time project applicants approach Federal agencies for permits to
construct multi-million-dollar projects they have already invested
extensive financial resources toward analyzing project alternatives to
determine which project is best suited to their budgetary constraints.
However, current procedure dictates that Federal agencies formulate
another list of project alternatives which the applicant must assess,
comparing potential impacts with the preferred alternative. Some of
these alternatives may often conflict with state law or are simply not
implementable in the first place; yet valuable resources are required
to be expended to further study these additional alternatives in the
Federal permitting process. In fact, we believe sometimes this process
is used as a barrier to the planning, design and construction of new
water storage projects. We appreciate that this Subcommittee had
explored opportunities and introduced legislation to improve the
accountability of this process and reduce the costs to the project
applicant.
overview of h.r. 4419
Not long ago, some were predicting that no new surface water
storage would be built in this country. Those predictions now may not
come to pass. Senator John Barrasso and Representative Tom McClintock
have proposed bills to facilitate permitting of new water storage
projects, and now Representative Newhouse has offered up H.R. 4419, a
variation of H.R. 875; legislation which was introduced earlier in this
Congress, with Family Farm Alliance support.
The Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs Water
Project Streamlining Act requires the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to accelerate studies
and provide more accountability in the agency's process to study the
feasibility of new and or expanded surface water storage. The
legislation would provide the same streamlined water project
development process for Reclamation surface water storage projects that
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 gave to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. That latter law was passed in both the House
and Senate on a bipartisan basis and was signed into law by President
Obama. The goal of H.R. 4419 is to reform the current cumbersome,
lengthy process so that there is a mechanism to build new surface water
storage projects in the West. Major provisions of the bill:
Section 3 requires future feasibility studies for Reclamation or
BIA projects to be completed with 3 years after the date of initiation
and have a maximum Federal cost of $3 million. The Section provides for
a maximum 7-year extension of that time and cost if the Interior
Secretary provides a detailed justification to the non-Federal project
sponsor and the Congress.
Section 4 requires the Interior Secretary to expedite the
completion of any ongoing feasibility studies initiated before the date
of enactment. If the Secretary determines that the project is justified
in a completed report, he/she shall proceed to proceed to pre-
construction planning, engineering and design of the project.
Section 5 directs the Interior Secretary to develop and implement a
coordinated environmental review process with Reclamation and the non-
Federal project sponsor as lead agencies for expedited environmental
review of a project. The Section further directs the lead agencies to
establish a schedule for completion of a study and lays out financial
penalties to the Interior Secretary if timelines are not met.
Section 6 directs the Interior Secretary to develop and submit a
report to the relevant committees in Congress that identifies project
reports, proposed projects and proposed modifications to studies and
Federal and non-Federal cost estimates for all three.
Section 7 identifies various sections of the WIIN Act (P.L. 114-
322) that are excluded from the process established in this bill.
Section 8 contains a list of projects that the Secretary has
identified are authorized to be carried out in accordance with this
section. This is similar to the feasibility studies listed in Section
7002 of P.L. 113-121, which authorized construction of projects by
Congress. Two of these projects--the Yakima River Basin Enhancement
Project (WASHINGTON) and the Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation
(CALIFORNIA) have long been championed by our organization.
Section 9 establishes a process to offset the Federal costs of
projects listed in Section 8.
The Act would insert stronger accountability into Reclamation's
surface storage study process, enhance transparency associated with
interim and final storage project studies and engage local
stakeholders. All of these actions would improve the status quo, in our
view.
suggestions to improve the legislation
We do have some very minor, specific suggestions that we believe
would improve the current bill, as discussed in the following sections.
1. Additional Transparency
We have consistently advocated for provisions in bills of this sort
that require the Secretary of the Interior to submit to the appropriate
congressional committees an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the
Federal, non-Federal and total costs of proposed projects and a
recommendation of the level of funding required in each fiscal year to
complete the project on the most expedited basis. Anything that would
encourage Reclamation to address the cost issues would be very helpful
in moving these projects forward and determining Reclamation's capacity
to execute on favorable reports. It appears that Section 9 of the bill
provides a mechanism to ensure accountability and transparency.
However, we have questions about this section, and we'll continue to
talk to Reclamation and committee staff about our concerns, and urge
that those parties continue to work with each other on moving forward.
2. Ability to ``opt-out''
This bill should also provide an ``opt-out'' provision that would
allow local project sponsors to proceed on a project implementation
path that has historically provided successful outcomes with another
Federal agency in the lead role. Meeting the challenge of expanding and
modernizing the West's aging water infrastructure will require highly
qualified professionals serving in both the public and private sectors.
Very rarely are there ``one-size-fits-all'' templates that apply to
management of western water resources challenges.
In many cases, local water agencies have long-time relationships
with local and regional Reclamation engineers and managers that have
led to successfully completed projects. Reclamation staff members from
regional and area offices can play a key role in helping to find the
right path to make multi-agency processes and projects work. There are
other models in the West where successful projects have been completed
with Reclamation functioning as the lead agency. In other cases, local
entities have developed close working relationships with other Federal
water agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers. In these cases,
local entities should be able to continue to work with the Federal
agency they successfully worked with in the past for projects of this
nature.
To cover this range of possibilities, including an ``opt-out''
amendment in the proposed bill provides flexibility for local project
sponsors to either (1) engage with Reclamation in the facilitated
permitting process articulated in this bill; or (2) opt-out, and
proceed on a project implementation path that has historically provided
successful outcomes with another Federal agency such as the Army Corps
in the lead role.
conclusion
The Family Farm Alliance supports H.R. 4419 and looks forward to
continuing to work with this Committee, the Congress and other
interested parties to build a consensus for improving the Federal
regulatory and permitting process for new water projects. A major
reason the Alliance continues to push for improved and expanded water
storage and conveyance infrastructure is not to support continued
expansion of agricultural water demand (which is not currently
happening in most places), but to help mitigate for the water that has
been reallocated away from agriculture toward growing urban, power,
environmental and recreational demands in recent decades. If we don't
find a way to restore water supply reliability for western irrigated
agriculture through a combination of new infrastructure, other supply
enhancement efforts and demand management--our country's ability to
feed and clothe itself and the world will be jeopardized.
This bill takes an important step toward addressing potential
barriers to allowing the Federal Government to again be a partner with
local and state entities in addressing these important water supply
issues.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee, and I stand ready to answer any questions you may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Jody Hice to Patrick
O'Toole, President, Family Farm Alliance
Mr. O'Toole did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Question 1. Mr. O'Toole, can you describe the economic and jobs
impacts out West if the Bureau of Reclamation is not endowed with a
similar process to bring aging water infrastructure into the 21st
century? (Loss of agriculture jobs, dam operators, any industry
depending on a reliable water supply . . .)
Question 2. Mr. O'Toole, I am concerned when I hear from my
colleagues out West that shovel-ready projects are stalled by seemingly
endless studies. As you testified, Mr. O'Toole, (. . . sometimes [the
existing] process is used as a barrier to the planning, design and
construction of new water storage projects.'' We've seen in Georgia,
how delays in construction can increase project costs exponentially.
Are the provisions in the bill that streamline the feasibility study
process necessary, or is the ability simply to authorize new projects
sufficient? (Streamlining provisions allow us to make feasible projects
a reality . . .)
Question 3. Mr. O'Toole, H.R. 4419 would certainly increase water
supply for human needs as we can begin fixing our degrading water
infrastructure. Do also you see broader environmental benefits to this
increased water supply? (Yes, more water is good for people and species
. . .)
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you for being here, both to you and to
your grandson. And thank you all for your testimony.
At this point, we will begin our questions for witnesses.
To allow all of our Members to participate, and to ensure that
we can hear from all of our witnesses today, under Committee
Rule 3(d), Members are limited to 5 minutes for their
questions.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. First, a statement,
and then I am going to ask something of Mr. O'Toole.
One of the things we hear over and over again in this
Subcommittee is that regulatory hurdles are negatively
impacting our Nation's infrastructure. In June, the House
passed H.R. 1873, sponsored by our member Mr. LaMalfa--with 300
votes in affirmative, I must add--in order to address delays
associated with Federal agency approvals for the removal of
dangerous trees on Federal lands that can and have fallen on
electricity transmission lines and cause wildfires and
blackouts.
We also hear stories about water users wishing to replace
eroding concrete from a canal, but cannot because the
concrete's age brings it under the scope of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
Today, we are talking about regulatory hurdles associated
with never-ending studies and environmental reviews that are
stifling the construction of new water projects.
Mr. O'Toole, what is the effect of the current feasibility
study process for potential future water projects?
Mr. O'Toole. Mr. Chairman, in my experience, it was that
process that became so untenable that kept people from going
forward, and it will continue to.
When you think of it from the state's perspective--and in
Wyoming we have this philosophy that came in the 1980s that
said non-renewables will fund renewables, so taxes on oil, gas,
coal, uranium funded the water development fund that we are
using. In Colorado, they have a different technique. But every
year that you don't do a project, you add 10 or 15 percent to
the cost of that project.
So, it is so important that we have an assurance that the
projects are going to go forward, and people will spend the
money to do them, because what we know is we are losing that
ability to regulate our greatest resource of water.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you.
Mr. Mikkelsen, in your testimony you identify a number of
steps that the Administration and your department are taking in
order to spur infrastructure development. Can you please
explain some of the steps your agency is taking to tackle some
of the inefficiencies in getting new water projects built, and
how this bill could help further those efforts?
Mr. Mikkelsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under Secretarial
Order 3355, as noted, we are in the process of limiting the
small projects to a 150 page document, and the larger projects
to 300 page documents with 1-year timelines. We are also in the
process of evaluating other options and opportunities that we
have within our internal processes to speed that up.
We are making sure that our notices of intent reflect the
Secretarial Order. And I would note, simply as an example of
personal past experience, where we engaged in an EIS for a
period of about 5 or 6 years, and to the tune of about 800 or
900 pages. Finally, the contractor came to us and said, ``We
really can't figure out how to continue to make this into an
EIS. It would be a lot better if we actually did an EA and
issued a FONSI.'' That took another year and a half, so I will
offer that up as an example.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Mr. Eberhart, those who oppose new surface storage projects
claim that storage will adversely affect the environment. Can
water storage be beneficial to the environment?
Mr. Eberhart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What we have found
in the Yakima Basin is that we are dependent on snowpack to
have a consistent supply of water for agriculture, fish, and
wildlife.
We had a year in 2015 when we had normal precipitation in
the winter, and it came as rain, it did not come as snow. What
we have found in our collaborative process in the Yakima is
that we are going to have to build new surface storage. Not
only does it provide the certainty for agriculture supplies,
municipal supplies, industrial supplies, but we are building
storage, surface storage, for fish and for wildlife.
In order to make up for that lack of snowpack, we have
found ways and places that we can build reservoirs that
actually provide the supply and make it available to do what
that snowpack would have been doing, historically, but is
becoming less frequent for us now.
So, yes, storage for fish, that is what we are building.
Mr. Lamborn. I appreciate that. I now recognize the
gentleman from California, Mr. Huffman, for his questions.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all the
witnesses.
Mr. O'Toole, I think your grandson is such a good-looking
young man, I am not going to ask you any hard questions. How is
that?
But you did hit upon the issue of collaboration, and that
does get me thinking a little bit. I do want to ask some of the
witnesses about that, because part of this bill on streamlining
for new surface storage projects is controversial and has been
conjoined with the Yakima bill that Senator Cantwell has worked
on for many, many years.
Mr. Mikkelsen, I would like to start with you. I know that
that is probably the kind of multi-stakeholder collaborative
problem-solving that you like to see. I know it did not include
everyone in the environmental and fishing community. There were
divisions, but it included some groups that came along, made
compromises, worked with tribes and water users and others. And
over a long period of time, through a very difficult process,
they came to a consensus that was then going to be taken to
Congress. Senator Cantwell has worked hard to introduce that
bill in the Senate.
And here we are. I assume that is the kind of collaboration
you like to see in the water world.
Mr. Mikkelsen. Yes, sir. That is the kind of collaboration
that I have tried to promote during my career.
Mr. Huffman. And Mr. Eberhart, I assume you too think that
is the way to go.
Mr. Eberhart. Yes, the collaborative process is how we are
going to successfully solve water problems, not only in the
Yakima, but in the Columbia River system and other places.
Mr. Huffman. We want more of that hard work. It is not
easy.
So, here is my question. When that difficult consensus has
come together over such a long period of time--and Senator
Cantwell has brought it along so carefully--and then it is
hijacked and conjoined with a very controversial bill that many
of those groups that were part of the collaboration are forced
to oppose, what does that do to collaboration on difficult
water projects?
Mr. Mikkelsen, do you think this is a good thing for those
who made those painful compromises, and for others who would
consider getting involved in these difficult collaborations? Do
you think this is the way to go?
Mr. Mikkelsen. I don't believe that this should in any way
lessen collaboration. I think it may actually encourage
collaboration going forward, in that the parties will
understand that there are time limits that they need to really
sit down and talk these things through.
Mr. Huffman. Watching their bill get conjoined with a bill
that--for example, I see fishing groups that supported the
Yakima deal, but are now forced to oppose this bill. Do you
think that watching their bill, Senator Cantwell's bill, get
hijacked to this other thing that they oppose, that that will
encourage collaboration? Seriously?
Mr. Mikkelsen. It has been my experience in conflict
resolution that a little bit of, frankly, deadline or pressure
can always help the parties.
Mr. Huffman. This was not a deadline that any of them could
control. The reason Senator Cantwell's bill has not passed has
nothing to do with their good collaboration. In fact, I guess I
would just close on this point.
Mr. Eberhart, wouldn't it be better if the Yakima bill were
before this Subcommittee as a stand-alone, so that that entire
consensus, all those stakeholders that worked through the
process, could be here together, shoulder to shoulder, telling
us what a good bill it is, instead of some of them opposing it?
Mr. Eberhart. Thank you, Mr. Huffman. Our committee
appreciates the fact that Congressman Newhouse and Congressman
Reichert have worked so hard to find a vehicle for us, for the
Yakima to be----
Mr. Huffman. Well, that is the best euphemism I have seen.
Mr. Eberhart. We look forward to working with the Committee
to get it acceptable.
Mr. Huffman. Very diplomatically stated. I applaud it. But
I suspect you would prefer this bill as a stand-alone, as well.
And, unfortunately, it is here in a very different form,
against the wishes of Senator Cantwell, who I have spoken to,
and who I know is disappointed to see it proceed down this
path.
Mr. Gudes, the groups you represent were divided to some
degree, I think, on the Yakima deal. Do you think this is a
good thing for collaborative problem solving, or a bad thing?
Mr. Gudes. In terms of the environmental streamlining, or--
--
Mr. Huffman. Taking a fragile consensus and conjoining it
with a bill that many of your groups oppose. Is that going to
promote more collaboration or less?
Mr. Gudes. I am sure it depends where our people sit on the
issue. But I do think it is congressional decision, it is the
Congress' decision about items. But I am sure that our members
up in Washington would prefer that it be a separate issue,
sure.
Mr. Huffman. I just have a few seconds. As we contemplate
lowering environmental standards for new dam projects, are
there lessons from the 20th century dams that were built
without any environmental review that should inform how we
approach this?
Mr. Gudes. Yes, I think that looking back at all the water
projects in the United States--and there have been a lot of
positive outcomes from them--one of the things that has not
been positive is the effect on fisheries. And had there been an
ability, a NEPA-type ability, long before 1970, there would
have been a better voice for those communities, whether for
Native Americans or for sport fishermen or commercial
fishermen.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
Mr. Lamborn. I now recognize Representative McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Gudes, what is your organization's position on salmon
hatcheries? Do you think we need more of them, or not?
Mr. Gudes. I would say most of our members are pretty
supportive of hatcheries in most locations I know of. In fact,
we recently thanked the Department of the Interior
appropriations bill for restoring funding for hatcheries, all
sorts of hatcheries.
Mr. McClintock. Good point. I know Mr. LaMalfa, since this
is now in his district, is going to be asking about the Klamath
Dams.
But the Iron Gate Dam supports the Iron Gate fish hatchery.
They want to tear it down because of a ``catastrophic decline''
in salmon in the river there. Interestingly, though, the Iron
Gate hatchery produces 5 million salmon smolts a year.
Seventeen thousand return annually as fully grown adults to
spawn. When that dam is removed, the fish hatchery ceases to
function and we have a catastrophic decline in salmon. Is that
a problem for your folks?
Mr. Gudes. I am, frankly, not familiar with the specifics
of it. It may not be appropriate for me to ask you a question,
but I don't know why the hatchery would have to disappear.
Mr. McClintock. Because of the cold water that the dam
retains.
Mr. Gudes. Well, our position probably would be that there
should be mitigation of additional hatchery fish put into other
hatcheries in California.
Mr. McClintock. Or maybe just leave the hatchery and the
dam that supports it alone.
Mr. Mikkelsen, how much do environmental studies add to the
cost of an average water project? Have you seen any studies on
that subject?
Mr. Mikkelsen. I am sorry, sir, could you repeat that
question?
Mr. McClintock. How much do environmental studies add to
the cost of an average water project?
Mr. Mikkelsen. That is totally dependent on the complexity
of the project. For instance, one of the examples, or the
example that I used just a few minutes ago, we spent maybe
somewhere between, it has been a while, but $3 and $5 million
to conduct an EIS that was ultimately turned into an EA.
Mr. McClintock. Right. I heard that testimony. The example
I use is in my district, it is the Sugar Pine Reservoir that
serves the little community of Foresthill, built with an 18-
foot spillway, but no spillway gate. They did not need the
extra water at the time; they do now.
A spillway gate is going to cost them $2 million. But then
they have to add at least $1 million of environmental studies,
at least $2 million for environmental mitigation, and God knows
how many years in studies. Is that typical of the hurdles that
water projects now have to go through?
Mr. Mikkelsen. I would say that it is not atypical, because
we have situations where the studies are actually costing more
than the project.
Mr. McClintock. What do you suspect the West is going to
look like in 20 years if no new water projects are built or
expanded?
Mr. Mikkelsen. I am sorry, but I am having a hard time
hearing you.
Mr. McClintock. What is the West going to look like in 20
years, if we don't start building new water storage facilities
again?
Mr. Mikkelsen. Thank you for that question, Congressman. I
would note, in spending a considerable amount of time in
California this year, that while we support conservation and
all kinds of conservation measures, conservation is not going
to get California, in particular, to 50 million people. We need
storage projects in California.
Mr. McClintock. And are we going to have them under the
current structure of law?
Mr. Mikkelsen. We are engaged in doing feasibility studies,
in particular at Sites, Temperance Flat, San Joaquin----
Mr. McClintock. Yes, well, how long has Sites been studied?
Mr. Mikkelsen. Oh, my goodness. We are probably going on 7
to 10 years right now.
Mr. McClintock. And how about Temperance Flat?
Mr. Mikkelsen. At least that long, and maybe 14 years, yes.
Mr. McClintock. And isn't that the whole point?
Mr. Mikkelsen. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. Isn't that because the laws that we passed
have now made the construction of new dams both cost-
prohibitive and endlessly time consuming?
Mr. Mikkelsen. Particularly endlessly time consuming.
Mr. McClintock. And isn't this bill specifically designed
to address these concerns?
Mr. Mikkelsen. I would say that it would go a long way
toward addressing that, along with the actions of the
Administration, both from the President and the Secretary.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Lamborn. Representative Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, all of you----
Mr. Lamborn. Excuse me, do I have that in the right order?
OK.
Mr. Beyer. OK, great. Thank you all for being with us.
Mr. O'Toole, thank you for bringing your grandson, thank
you for, what is it, 140 years or something on the family
ranch?
Mr. O'Toole. Pretty close.
Mr. Beyer. And I want to thank you, even though you are
here testifying for this legislation, for acknowledging that
climate change is at least a major part of why we have to be
concerned about water. I think this is implicit in Congressman
Newhouse's testimony and Mr. Eberhart's, also.
It is not up to you, but I plead with my friends on the
Republican side here that if we can all acknowledge that
climate change is real, perhaps we can work more closely
together to find what it is really going to mean, and how we
can best address it together, rather than pretending that it is
not real. Because, in fact, this morning we were pretending
that it was not real in this room. This afternoon we are trying
to find constructive ways to provide you with the water that
you need to ranch and to farm.
By the way, thanks also for running a family farm. We need
many more family farms in America. And we should all be
concerned about continuing to strengthen them in any way we
can.
Mr. Mikkelsen, one of the things you wrote that was
striking, and I am going to quote you. It says, ``The cost of
preparing environmental review documentation, surpassing the
cost of a proposed project.'' I am going to ask our staff to
formally request that you provide a written documentation for
that. If that is true, that is damning, that somebody could
actually spend more on our environmental document provision
than the cost of the dam itself. But it sounds perhaps like an
overstatement.
Mr. Gudes, what is wrong with the 3-year deadline and a $3
million cap? I know one of the things that frustrates everybody
in business is how long it can take for the Federal Government
to react for any given kind of project. Not just Federal
Government, state and local, too. But we are talking Federal
here.
So, why is 3 years too short, or why is $3 million too
little?
Mr. Gudes. I think it would have the specifics to do with
the project in question. If it is a large-scale project, it may
be too artificially short, in terms of committees, different
agencies, trying to bring in science or studies that go
forward.
The provision that I think has changed in this bill is
extending that short time frame to Bureau of Reclamation
projects. Our view would be that those are water projects that
affect fishing, and we don't know if every issue that our
community would have would be covered within that time frame,
or that cost cap.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Mikkelsen, you are in charge of this. Is
there any reason that you would take or should take more than 3
years, or more than $3 million to analyze a project?
Mr. Mikkelsen. With the Secretarial Order that was issued
by the Department of the Interior recently, by the Secretary,
we believe that the vast majority of projects should come in
actually under 3 years and under that dollar limit.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you.
Mr. O'Toole, you had written that current procedures
dictate that Federal agencies formulate another list of project
alternatives, which the applicant must assess, comparing
potential impacts with the preferred alternative. Some of these
may conflict with state law, or are not implementable in the
first place.
Did you have personal experience with this?
Mr. O'Toole. Yes, sir. That is exactly what happened in the
process.
Mr. Beyer. But can you tell us about it.
Mr. O'Toole. Well, let me tell you about the current one.
We are looking at a small reservoir higher in the system that
will help our entire system. In one agency, the Corps of
Engineers, they said, ``Oh, this is such an easy project, it
could be an EA.'' Another agency that will be commenting said,
``Shouldn't we be talking whether we have a dam or not?''
I mean that is the kind of inconsistency of approach from
the different agencies that very much is my personal
experience, and why this bill and this theory of going through
the whole process, but not going through it over and over
again, is so important.
Mr. Beyer. Interesting.
Mr. Gudes, clearly, different issues--salmon coming out of
the California rivers, and trying to provide necessary water in
Wyoming and Colorado. It has been pointed out a number of times
that we gave the Army Corps of Engineers this expedited process
a year or two ago, and now we are trying to extend it. What is
your objection to extending it, if it seems to be working for
the Army Corps?
Or did we vote wrong when we gave the Army Corps that
ability?
Mr. Gudes. That point I made before is on water projects,
as it affects salmon fisheries. It may be that within a
specific instance, that the 3 years works, or the cost cap
works. It may well be that it is not. These are much more
complex projects, so we would be concerned.
I was sitting here, thinking about it--it is sort of like
when somebody talks about tort reform. It sounds good, but if
you are the person who cannot come into court with your case,
it is not good.
Mr. Beyer. Very quickly, your reading was that the
Secretary of the Interior would be able to limit the kind of
data that could be used to make a determination?
Mr. Gudes. That is our people's reading, take the case of
NOAA science, which is well over half the science having to do
with salmon, that their science would not necessarily be
permitted to be brought in. That is correct. That is our
reading of it.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Lamborn. I recognize yet another Member from the great
state of California, Representative LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
panelists for being here today, and also to Mr. Newhouse for
sponsoring this legislation.
It will have great impact on future water storage projects,
especially in my home state of California, which we are still
in dire need of reliable surface storage for a growing
population. And, having suffered a 5-year drought until very
recently, we have seen what that looks like.
So, these projects would, obviously, give us stored water,
low cost, renewable hydro-electric power, as these mandates for
renewable power go up to 50 percent before too much longer, it
seems. Very needed flood control, recreation, and as well as
environmental water, which our friends in the fishing industry
would like to see available.
Again, we talked about Sites Reservoir quite a bit here
today. It is very feasible. A particular biologist I was out on
a trip with years ago said that if we cannot build it
environmentally here, we cannot build one anywhere. So, it may
have been studied for a few years recently, but it has been
kicked around for several decades, and the threat of
environmental law is what really impedes that. We have a bond
in California that was passed, and the dollars are ready to go.
We need to get the project rolling.
When we are talking about expediting the building of water
infrastructure--I want to come back to Mr. Mikkelsen. And when
we are talking about removing that infrastructure--again, a
very, very important thing to me and my district--when we are
talking about the Klamath Dams, Mr. Mikkelsen, I trust that you
and Secretary Zinke agree that dam removal policy is not the
policy of the Trump administration.
So, I would like to have--once again, you urged to withdraw
Interior as a signatory of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement
Agreement. The stated purpose of the agreement is dam removal,
which requires signatories, including Interior and, thusly, the
Federal Government to intervene on behalf of dam removal if the
project is sued, which is very likely to happen, under Section
2.1 and 2.3 in the KHSA. This requirement can create a
situation in which communities locally sued to protect water
supplies or the interest, and yet the Federal Government will
be required to fight against those communities.
So, I would like to ask. Has Interior considered leaving
the agreement to make it clear that this Administration does
not support dam removal as a policy. Mr. Mikkelsen?
Mr. Mikkelsen. Thank you, Congressman, for raising that
issue, and giving the complexity of the provisions of the bill
before the Subcommittee today. I did not come prepared to
provide a substantive response to other topics.
But for the record, the Department of the Interior has no
action or decision process being considered in the Klamath Dam
removal scenario. That action is being considered by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and I would refer you to
that agency, and also note that the 2016 amendments to the
Klamath Hydro Settlement Act passed by Congress removed
Department of the Interior from that dam removal process.
Mr. LaMalfa. You mentioned frequent visits to California.
And we have noted that you have visited the area very
frequently, in order to rally support for what has been termed
the inevitable removal by yours and some of your
representatives up there. And many of us think it is not
inevitable yet. The science does not back that up.
I will leave it at that for today, but I would like to have
that question answered, if you would get back to my office,
please. Has Interior indeed considered leaving this agreement
so that the Administration is not painted as being supportive
of removing dams at a time when we are talking--and you are
supporting, gladly so, I appreciate it--the expedition of
building water storage projects. I will leave it at that for
now, sir, and I would appreciate an answer back.
Mr. Gudes, when I look at what the benefits are of water
storage, Shasta Dam and Lake Oroville are both in my district,
and you have approximately 7.5 million acre-feet capable of
being stored in those two projects, which is a tremendous
amount, and California having suffered 5 years of drought, do
you not acknowledge that the benefits of those projects there
making water available, especially the third, fourth, and fifth
year, when a lot of fish, their life cycle is 3 years, that you
would have the luxury of being able to have cold water, where
you would not have that without that dam there? Aren't there
positive benefits to these storage projects that you----
Mr. Gudes. There clearly are positive storage benefits. The
issue is on balance. What has it been toward salmon life cycle
and the number of salmon? In total, I stand by what I said
before, that, in general, they have not been positive.
But you are right, cold water, especially at the right time
that the different runs of salmon need it, having cold water is
one thing. Having it put into rivers at the right time--for
example, with the winter chinook--is what makes all the
difference. That is correct.
If the dams were not there, would there be adequate water
in the rivers for those runs? Yes. The habitat would have been
better, there would be more salmon. But I agree there are other
aspects to it, you are right.
Mr. LaMalfa. Not during the drought. I will yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. I now recognize Delegate Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
afternoon, everyone.
Mr. Mikkelsen, since the Reclamation Act of 1902 was signed
into law, just between 1902 and 1907, that 5-year period,
Reclamation began about 30 projects in western states, and
subsequently projects like the Central Valley Project in
California, Colorado, Big Thompson project in Colorado and the
Columbian Basin project in Washington.
In those three projects, say one project, how much do you
think it costs to do the study in U.S. money? I mean, if NEPA
were to be presented.
[No response.]
Mr. Sablan. Or let me more directly ask you this. If a
project was being pursued, or was being developed, and if a
study was being done for a new water project, and say the 3
years comes up, and say the cost of $3 million is reached.
During the study, what happens? Is the project just approved,
even though the study is not complete?
Mr. Mikkelsen. In the Department of the Interior, under
Secretarial Order 3355, the assistant secretaries have
authority to waive requirements or issue waivers if they are
necessary.
Mr. Sablan. No, there is a requirement that all studies for
new projects be completed within 3 years at a cost of no more
than $3 million. So, if a study is taking 3 years and 2 months,
or if it costs $3.1 million, does it stop at $3 million, or 3
years, even though it is not completed?
Mr. Mikkelsen. I don't believe anybody's intention is to
stop a project 1 month before its completion, or $100,000
before its completion, sir.
Mr. Sablan. Yes, why do the study in the first place? It
doesn't make sense. It is just what I am trying to tell myself.
I am trying to make myself understand.
I yield my time to Mr. Huffman, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. I thank Mr. Sablan.
Mr. Mikkelsen, on the Klamath question, my California
colleague was inviting you to take a certain position on
Klamath Dam removal, which is another one of those multi-year,
multi-stakeholder collaborative success stories.
As you consider, and I am glad you did not take a position
today, but as you consider responding to my colleague, I will
remind you to also consider--and I am sure you know this--these
are not even Bureau of Reclamation dams. These are dams owned
by a private company that wants to get rid of them, that has
raised funds from its ratepayers to do so. These projects are
located in two states who have both gone on record supporting
the removal of these dams, and raised hundreds of millions of
dollars to move that process forward.
And taking a position, notwithstanding all those facts, and
notwithstanding your tribal trust responsibilities downstream,
which would also have to be part of the consideration, taking a
position in opposition to this somehow would certainly flout
any notion of states' rights, when both states want to do this,
and certainly flout any notion of private property rights, when
the owner of this private property wants to do that.
So, I am sure you will get to the right place on this
straightforward question, but I wanted to put that on the
record.
It has also been suggested, as it so often is, that Federal
environmental laws are the reasons that projects like Sites and
Temperance Flat have been studied forever, and yet have not yet
been built. There is a lot more to it than that.
In the case of Sites, this project has been re-imagined and
re-invested many times in recent years, in large part because
the state funding necessary to move it forward has not been
there. The recent passage of a state water bond requires public
benefits for any public dollars to go to a project like this.
And they still have not decided. Is this a fish project? Is
it a flood project? Is it a water project? As they continue to
re-imagine this in order to try to qualify for the funding, it
has not been the environmental studies holding it up, it has
been dollars.
The same could be said of Temperance Flat, which was
considered decades ago and rejected long before there was even
a NEPA, and continues to be rejected. It is the Rasputin of dam
projects. It has never made sense, it never will, and yet it
somehow stays alive, at least here in this Committee.
I yield back.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. I now recognize Representative Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have a
strong obligation to make sure that people's policy is
consistent on this Committee, and so I want to take advantage
here.
Mr. Gudes, I want to make sure I understand this. The
Federal Government has taken action that is causing a detriment
to ecological productivity and having an impact on access to
recreational fisheries. Is that correct?
Mr. Gudes. Over years, yes.
Mr. Graves. Sure. And----
Mr. Gudes. And other benefits that I think Congressman
LaMalfa put out. But relative to fisheries----
Mr. Graves. This is going--you see that? You see this is
going----
Mr. Gudes. Relative to fisheries----
Mr. Graves. And you are concerned in your testimony that
the Federal Government is trying to--excuse me, under the
legislation--that the bill limits the access to accurate
information to help inform appropriate decision. That is what
your testimony says. Is that accurate?
Mr. Gudes. Yes.
Mr. Graves. I mean, whether it is crabs and you have one
position, red snapper, another position, dams you have another
position, red snapper, another position, it is fascinating.
Look, I just want to be helpful to you, that is all. I am
trying----
Mr. Huffman. Will the gentleman entertain a----
Mr. Graves. I am trying to be helpful. And policy
consistency----
Mr. Huffman. I think, on that same note, if the gentleman--
--
Mr. Graves. I would be happy to yield, absolutely.
Mr. Huffman. It seems like we must have great consensus
between you and me on supporting Klamath Dam removal, then,
because it is strongly advocated by the states of California
and Oregon, and it is certainly in keeping with the gentleman's
position on red snapper.
Mr. Graves. Look, I want to be clear on this.
I am struggling, I have paddled the Klamath a number of
times, and I enjoy it. I had some great kayaking trips on the
Klamath. But I want to make sure I understand. On the one hand,
there have been efforts by this side to remove money for a
coastal restoration in Louisiana that has been caused by the
Federal Government. But in this case you want the Federal
Government to step in and remove structures and help restore
the environment.
I am trying to help out with policy consistency. That is my
biggest concern, sir. I just want to make sure that you are
consistent with policy.
Mr. Huffman. I think the gentleman is confused about
restoration dollars and our position on them. We support all
sorts of wetland restoration and mitigation. I bet we can work
together on all kinds of good things.
Mr. Graves. When people over here proposed amendments to
take our coastal restoration dollars away, you voted for it.
So, OK, I just want to----
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Gudes, you are collateral----
Mr. Graves. I just want to make sure I understand what is
going on. I am worried about policy consistency.
Mr. Gudes. I just want to point out we are consistent. We
are for the fish.
Mr. Graves. You are consistent.
Mr. Gudes. And relative----
Mr. Graves. You are consistent. That is right, Mr. Gudes,
thank you.
Mr. Gudes. And relative to coastal Louisiana, our members
not only support restoration, they actually fund it, as you
know, through the excise taxes.
Mr. Graves. I do. And you have been consistent in policy,
and I appreciate that very much. It has been great.
With that, I am actually going to yield back. I am done.
Mr. Lamborn. I want to thank the witnesses for their
valuable testimony. This has been an interesting, educational,
and important hearing. Thank you for coming.
Mr. LaMalfa. Do we have another round?
Mr. Graves. If I can yield my----
Mr. Lamborn. No, but I think if you can catch them, they
may be able to stay here individually.
Mr. LaMalfa. It is funnier on record.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lamborn. Members of the Subcommittee may have--in fact,
I think do have--additional questions for you, and I would ask
that if they give you those in writing, that you respond in
writing.
Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must
submit questions to the Clerk within 3 business days, and we
will hold the hearing record open for 10 days for those
responses.
If there is no further business, without objection the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Rep. Napolitano Submission
--Letter addressed to Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member
Huffman from Patricia Sinicropi, Executive
Director, WateReuse Association commenting on H.R.
4419, dated December 8, 2017.
[all]