[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                         COLORADO RIVER DROUGHT 
                        CONDITIONS AND RESPONSE 
                        MEASURES--PART 1 AND 2

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE

                                OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                   Friday, October 15, 2021 (Part 1)
                  Wednesday, October 20, 2021 (Part 2)

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-10

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC 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                    
45-892 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                      RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
                JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, IL, Vice Chair
   GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
                  BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Ranking Member

Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA                        Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Doug Lamborn, CO
    CNMI                             Robert J. Wittman, VA
Jared Huffman, CA                    Tom McClintock, CA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Paul A. Gosar, AZ
Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Garret Graves, LA
Joe Neguse, CO                       Jody B. Hice, GA
Mike Levin, CA                       Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Katie Porter, CA                     Daniel Webster, FL
Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM           Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Melanie A. Stansbury, NM             Russ Fulcher, ID
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Pete Stauber, MN
Diana DeGette, CO                    Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Julia Brownley, CA                   Jerry L. Carl, AL
Debbie Dingell, MI                   Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
A. Donald McEachin, VA               Blake D. Moore, UT
Darren Soto, FL                      Yvette Herrell, NM
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU        Lauren Boebert, CO
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL         Jay Obernolte, CA
Ed Case, HI                          Cliff Bentz, OR
Betty McCollum, MN
Steve Cohen, TN
Paul Tonko, NY
Rashida Tlaib, MI
Lori Trahan, MA

                     David Watkins, Staff Director
                        Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
               Vivian Moeglein, Republican Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                             
                             ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE

                        JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Chair
                    CLIFF BENTZ, OR, Ranking Member

Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Jerry L. Carl, AL
Jim Costa, CA                        Don Young, AK
Mike Levin, CA                       Robert J. Wittman, VA
Julia Brownley, CA                   Tom McClintock, CA
Debbie Dingell, MI                   Garret Graves, LA
Ed Case, HI                          Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Daniel Webster, FL
Steve Cohen, TN                      Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Darren Soto, FL                      Russ Fulcher, ID
Raul M. Grijalva, AZ                 Lauren Boebert, CO
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
Melanie A. Stansbury, NM

                               ------                                
                               
                              CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Friday, October 15, 2021 (Part 1)................     1

Statement of Members:

    Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon............................................     4
    Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................     5
    Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     2
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
    Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, Prepared statement of.............    84

Statement of Witnesses:

    Buschatzke, Tom, Director, Arizona Department of Water 
      Resources, Phoenix, Arizona................................    34
        Prepared statement of....................................    35
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    41
    D'Antonio, John, State Engineer, New Mexico, Albuquerque, New 
      Mexico.....................................................    73
        Prepared statement of....................................    75
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    76
    Entsminger, John, General Manager, Southern Nevada Water 
      Authority, Las Vegas, Nevada...............................    51
        Prepared statement of....................................    52
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    53
    Flores, Amelia, Chairwoman, Colorado River Indian Tribes, 
      Parker, Arizona............................................    17
        Prepared statement of....................................    19
    Mitchell, Rebecca, Director, Colorado Water Conservation 
      Board, Denver, Colorado....................................    54
        Prepared statement of....................................    56
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    57
    Nelson, Peter, Chairman, Colorado River Board of California, 
      Glendale, California.......................................    42
        Prepared statement of....................................    44
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    49
    Shawcroft, Gene, General Manager, Central Utah Water 
      Conservancy District, Orem, Utah...........................    59
        Prepared statement of....................................    60
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    63
    Trujillo, Tanya, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, 
      Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     8
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    12
    Tyrrell, Patrick, Wyoming Commissioner to the Upper Colorado 
      River Commission, State of Wyoming.........................    64
        Prepared statement of....................................    65
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    70
    Vigil, Daryl, Jicarilla Apache Water Administrator and Co-
      Facilitator, Water & Tribes Initiative in the Colorado 
      River Basin, Dulce, New Mexico.............................    13
        Prepared statement of....................................    15

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman

        Pacific Institute, Statement for the Record of Michael 
          Cohen..................................................    85
                                
                                
                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, October 20, 2021 (Part 2).............    89

Statement of Members:

    Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon............................................    92
    Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................    89
        Prepared statement of....................................    91

Statement of Witnesses:

    Castle, Anne, Senior Fellow, Getches-Wilkinson Center for 
      Natural Resources, Energy and the Environment, University 
      of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.............................   140
        Prepared statement of....................................   141
        Questions submitted for the record.......................   146
    Davis, Tom, President, Agribusiness & Water Council of 
      Arizona, Yuma, Arizona.....................................   133
        Prepared statement of....................................   134
        Questions submitted for the record.......................   139
    Hagekhalil, Adel, General Manager, Metropolitan Water 
      District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California...    94
        Prepared statement of....................................    95
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    99
    Hawes, Taylor, Colorado River Program Director, The Nature 
      Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado.............................   107
        Prepared statement of....................................   109
        Questions submitted for the record.......................   115
    Martinez, Enrique, General Manager, Imperial Irrigation 
      District, Imperial, California.............................   102
        Prepared statement of....................................   104
    O'Toole, Pat, President, Family Farm Alliance, Savery, 
      Wyoming....................................................   121
        Prepared statement of....................................   122
        Questions submitted for the record.......................   132

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar

        Gila River Indian Community, Letter of Support dated 
          October 20, 2021.......................................   159

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman

        Gila River Indian Community, Statement for the Record of 
          Stephen Roe Lewis, Governor............................   166
                                     
 
  OVERSIGHT HEARING ON COLORADO RIVER DROUGHT CONDITIONS AND RESPONSE 
                            MEASURES--PART 1

                              ----------                              


                        Friday, October 15, 2021

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., via 
Webex, Hon. Jared Huffman [Chairman of the Subcommittee] 
presiding.
    Present: Representatives Huffman, Costa, Soto, Grijalva, 
Stansbury; Bentz, and Gonzalez-Colon.
    Also present: Representatives Leger Fernandez, Susie Lee, 
and Titus.

    Mr. Huffman. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on 
Water, Oceans, and Wildlife will come to order. We are meeting 
today to examine Colorado River drought conditions and response 
measures for the first of two meetings on this important 
subject.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings will be limited to the Chairman and Ranking Minority 
Member. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner 
and help keep Members on their schedule.
    Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members' 
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they 
are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or the close of the 
hearing, whichever comes first.
    Hearing no objection, that is so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that Representative Teresa 
Leger Fernandez, Representative Susie Lee, and Representative 
Dina Titus join the hearing to ask questions of the witnesses.
    Hearing no objection, that is so ordered.
    Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess, 
subject to the call of the Chair.
    As described in the notice, statements, documents, or 
motions must be submitted to the electronic repository at the 
following email address: [email protected].
    Additionally, please note that, as with our in-person 
meetings, Members are responsible for their own microphones. 
Please mute when you're not speaking. Members will be muted by 
staff only to avoid inadvertent background noise.
    Finally, Members or witnesses who are experiencing any 
technical problems should inform Committee staff immediately.
    I will now recognize myself for a brief opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Huffman. Thanks again for joining us for the first of 
two meetings that we are having on Colorado River drought 
conditions and response measures.
    The Colorado River is often called the hardest working 
river in the West, and that is because it does so much for so 
many. The fact that we are meeting to hear testimony from more 
than 15 witnesses covering 2 separate days really speaks to 
this very fact.
    The Colorado River supplies water to communities across 
seven western states, serves 40 million people from Colorado to 
California, and along the way, this river and its tributaries 
flow through six national parks and monuments. It also supports 
a multitude of fish and wildlife, nearly 6 million acres of 
irrigated agriculture, and $1.4 trillion in economic activity 
every single year.
    Unfortunately, unprecedented drought conditions are now 
creating enormous challenges for this important river and for 
those who depend on it.
    In August, the Bureau of Reclamation made the first-ever 
shortage declaration in the Lower Colorado River Basin. And 
that, of course, is due to severe drought and low reservoir 
conditions, which have triggered reduced water releases from 
Lake Mead. These are actions that were recently taken in the 
Upper Basin, as well, to slow declining water levels at Lake 
Powell.
    Water levels at Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the Colorado 
River's two largest reservoirs, have declined to lows that 
haven't been seen since those reservoirs were first filled, 
which, understandably, has drawn a lot of national attention 
and concern.
    After more than two decades of drought with no end in 
sight, it is clear--to most of us, at least--that climate 
change is fundamentally altering the Colorado River. It is 
decreasing the amount of water available from this key river, 
which was already over-allocated.
    Climate scientists are telling us to expect hotter, drier 
conditions, and even less water being available in the upcoming 
years. In fact, some scientists describe what we are now seeing 
in the Southwest as a long-term shift in climate called 
aridification that portends a multi-decade mega-drought.
    This is deeply concerning for the tens of millions of 
people who depend on the Colorado River. It is particularly 
concerning for communities that already face water insecurity 
challenges, which have long affected tribal communities more 
than any other across the Colorado River Basin.
    And I should note that there are 30 Tribal Nations across 
the Colorado River Basin. Under the Winters Doctrine, which was 
first recognized by the Supreme Court in 1908, these tribes 
have significant legal rights to enough water from the Colorado 
River to secure and maintain viable homelands. Yet, tribes have 
been historically excluded from Colorado River management and 
decision making.
    It is essential, from both the practical and moral 
perspective, that, moving forward, tribes play a significant 
role in the management and decision-making process on the 
Colorado River, and I look forward to more discussion on that 
need today.
    I want to also note that, while we face significant 
challenges, we also have some effective tools in place to help 
deal with the worst effects of this drought. This includes the 
measures included in the Colorado River Drought Contingency 
Plan, which was authorized through legislation led by our 
Chairman, Raul Grijalva, in the last Congress. But still, more 
action is needed.
    So, we look forward to hearing from Federal, State, and 
Tribal government witnesses today on what more can be done to 
respond to these unprecedented climate challenges we are seeing 
across the Colorado River Basin. We will also discuss some of 
the initiatives being led by members of this Committee, which 
include investments in near-term drought response, investments 
in water rights settlements, Salton Sea improvement projects, 
and investments in drought-proof water recycling projects that 
are being led by water managers across the Colorado River 
Basin.
    I look forward to hearing more today and next week about 
the need for future Colorado River management plans to 
effectively incorporate climate science.
    We have a lot of ground to cover, so with that, I would 
like to now yield and recognize Ranking Member Bentz for his 
opening remarks.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, Chair, Subcommittee on 
                       Water, Oceans and Wildlife
    Thank you for joining us today for the first of two meetings on 
``Colorado River drought conditions and response measures.''
    The Colorado River is often called the hardest working river in the 
West because it is asked to do so much for so many. The fact that we're 
meeting to hear testimony from more than 15 witnesses over 2 days 
speaks to this very fact.
    The Colorado River supplies water to communities across seven 
western states, serving 40 million people from Colorado to California.
    Along the way, the river and its tributaries flow through six 
national parks and monuments. It also supports a multitude of fish and 
wildlife, nearly six million acres of irrigated agriculture, and $1.4 
trillion in economic activity each year.
    Unfortunately, unprecedented drought conditions are now creating 
enormous challenges for this important river and those who depend on 
it. In August, the Bureau of Reclamation made the first-ever 
``shortage'' declaration in the Lower Colorado River Basin due to 
severe drought and low reservoir conditions, triggering reduced water 
releases from Lake Mead. Actions were also recently taken in the Upper 
Basin to slow declining water levels at Lake Powell.
    Water levels at Lake Mead and Lake Powell--the Colorado River's two 
largest reservoirs--have declined to lows that haven't been seen in 
decades since the reservoirs were first filled, which has 
understandably drawn national attention and concern.
    After more than two decades of drought with no end in sight, it's 
clear that climate change is fundamentally altering the Colorado 
River--decreasing the amount of water available from this key river, 
which was already overallocated.
    Climate scientists are also telling us to expect hotter, drier 
conditions and even less available water in upcoming years. In fact, 
some scientists describe what we're seeing now in the Southwest as a 
long-term shift in climate called ``aridification'' that portends a 
multi-decade ``megadrought.''
    This is deeply concerning for the tens of millions who depend on 
the Colorado River. It's particularly concerning for communities that 
already face water insecurity challenges, which have long affected 
tribal communities more than any other across the Colorado River Basin.
    I should note that there are 30 Tribal Nations across the Colorado 
River Basin. Under the Winters doctrine--which was first recognized by 
the Supreme Court in 1908--these Tribes have significant legal rights 
to enough water from the Colorado River to secure and maintain viable 
homelands. And yet, Tribes have been historically excluded from 
Colorado River management and decision making.
    It's essential from both a practical and moral perspective that, 
moving forward, Tribes play a significant role in the management and 
decision-making process for the Colorado River. I look forward to more 
discussion on that need today.
    I also want to note that, while we face significant challenges, we 
also have some effective tools in place to help deal with the worst 
effects of this drought. This includes the measures included in the 
Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan, which was authorized through 
legislation led by Chair Grijalva last Congress. Still, more action is 
needed.
    We look forward to hearing from Federal, state and tribal 
government witnesses today on what more can be done to respond to the 
unprecedented climate challenges we're seeing across the Colorado River 
Basin. We'll also discuss some of the initiatives being led by members 
of this Committee, which include investments in near-term drought 
response, investments in water rights settlements, Salton Sea 
improvement projects, and investments in drought-proof water recycling 
projects that are being led by water managers across the Colorado River 
Basin.
    I also look forward to hearing more today and next week about the 
need for future Colorado River management plans to effectively 
incorporate climate science.

                                 ______
                                 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                    FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a welcomed 
Committee hearing on an issue that is of incredible importance, 
not only to the seven states involved with the Colorado, but 
all of the western United States.
    Of course, as you mentioned, this is the first of a two-
part hearing on the consequences of this two-decades-long 
drought. I am very happy that we are spending that kind of time 
on this issue. It is certainly that important.
    And, of course, as we know and as I mentioned, this drought 
isn't affecting just the Colorado, it is affecting all of 
Oregon, California, Washington, and all other western United 
States. And since our last meeting on drought, which was about 
5 months ago, about 5.8 million acres have burned up here in 
Oregon and California. And project water users in Oregon's 
Klamath region and large portions of the California Central 
Valley Project have been given zero allocations of water. And, 
of course, they are not the only ones.
    This absence of water has devastated communities throughout 
the western United States. Thousands of people are desperately 
worried right now that yet another year of drought will be the 
nail in the coffin for many, many, farming, ranching, and, 
actually, communities across the West.
    Meanwhile, in a time of massive supply chain problems 
throughout our entire economy, the last thing we need is to 
rely on foreign countries for our food because of more water 
shortages.
    I think, Mr. Chair, that today our discussion is really 
about choices between a lot of different uses of water. And I 
am going to be very interested in listening to folks talk about 
how in the world we are going to make those choices.
    So, a little about the history of the Colorado--and I know 
the folks testifying today know far more about it than I--but 
if there was ever an illustration on what, I would like to say 
a microcosm basis, but it is not really true because the 
Colorado is so big, this situation the Colorado is facing is so 
reflective of what we are going to be seeing all over the West.
    Whatever we come up with today, I think, is going to be a 
template of some sort for the type of issues we are facing here 
in Oregon, California, Washington, Nevada, and so forth.
    So, I suppose, one thing that is easy to pop over is the 
incredible value of the Colorado system. And the folks that put 
it together all those years ago are to be commended. I know 
there are many who find fault with how the Colorado was 
developed. I reference, of course, the book, ``Science Be 
Damned,'' by Eric Kuhn and John Fleck, an interesting book, one 
that I think Monday morning quarterbacks a lot of things, but, 
on the other hand, makes some good points about optimism, when 
it comes to building storage.
    On the other hand, without storage, can we imagine what 
would be happening now in California, Phoenix, and other places 
benefited by these systems?
    Of course, I am a water lawyer. I have spent, literally, 
hundreds, if not thousands, of hours involved in all types of 
water negotiation: water litigation, dam re-licensing, never-
ending negotiations over impossible circumstances of zero-sum 
games of allocating water, and also being involved in the 
Columbia River Treaty negotiations with Canada, and on and on 
and on.
    So, today's hearing is so important and so welcome in many 
ways. I just wish it wasn't coming before us in such a period 
of fear that we may not have more water to deal with and, in 
fact, we will probably have less. I don't anticipate 
breakthroughs today, but I do expect the continuation of the 
processes that were referenced, Mr. Chair, the DCPs, the 
Drought Contingency Plans, and other tools to try to address 
the impossibility of allocating water between everybody that 
needs it.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I want to thank all the folks that 
are going to testify today in advance of their testimony. I 
look forward to a productive conversation.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Ranking Member Bentz.
    I understand that the Chair of the Full Natural Resources 
Committee, Mr. Grijalva, who has been a great leader on these 
issues, is with us to provide an opening statement.
    So, Chairman Grijalva, please, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Grijalva. Just a quick comment to thank you, Chairman 
Huffman, for the hearings. Vital, vital discussion that your 
committee is not overlooking, and we all appreciate that. And 
all of us that represent that region, we appreciate that very 
much.
    And I want to just associate myself with your opening 
comments, Mr. Chairman. I think we need a comprehensive 
initiative, and that is where we are going to deal with the 
Colorado River and to deal with the mega-drought. And your 
point, I think, is really important.
    I mentioned the watershed around the Colorado River, so 
vital to its life, and that needs protection, as well, 
particularly around the Grand Canyon.
    I appreciate this hearing very much. And what we passed in 
Reconciliation, Mr. Chairman, dealt with additional significant 
resources to deal with the question at hand here, it dealt with 
significant resources to have settlements with Indian Nations 
regarding water, and to be able to have resources for 
infrastructure for Tribal Nations to begin to use, and be able 
to create viable communities themselves.
    So, that is where we are at, and I appreciate it, Mr. 
Chairman, and I yield back.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Chair Grijalva.
    We will now hear testimony, starting with today's first 
panel featuring Federal and Tribal government witnesses.
    Before introducing our witnesses today, I will remind non-
Administration witnesses that they are encouraged to 
participate in the Witness Diversity Survey created by the 
Congressional Office of Diversity and Inclusion. Witnesses may 
refer to their hearing invitation materials for further 
information on that.
    Under our Committee Rules, please limit your oral 
statements to 5 minutes. Your entire statement will appear in 
the hearing record, however.
    And when you begin speaking, the timer will start counting 
down. It will turn orange when you have 1 minute left. I do 
recommend that Members and witnesses who are joining remotely 
use the grid view in Webex here, so that you can lock the timer 
on your screen.
    After your testimony is complete, please do remember to 
mute yourself to avoid inadvertent background noise. And I will 
allow all of our witnesses to testify before we begin 
questioning.
    So, we will first hear testimony from Ms. Tanya Trujillo, 
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of 
the Interior. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Trujillo to testify 
for 5 minutes.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Huffman. Do we have Assistant Secretary Trujillo?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Huffman. Let me just ask our staff if we are having 
some kind of technical difficulty.
    Assistant Secretary Trujillo, I believe you are muted, 
which you will not be the first offender in that regard. We 
have all done it. But if you could unmute yourself, we would 
love to hear from you.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you for your patience, folks, while we 
figure out why we don't have audio for the Assistant Secretary.
    I will tell you what. While we try to work the----
    Ms. Trujillo. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Huffman. Yes, do we have her now?
    Ms. Trujillo. Mr. Chairman, can you hear me?
    Mr. Huffman. Yes, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Take it 
away.
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you for your patience.

STATEMENT OF TANYA TRUJILLO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND 
      SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Trujillo. Good afternoon. I am Tanya Trujillo, the 
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of 
the Interior. I am honored to be part of the panel today with 
some of our tribal partners regarding the ongoing drought 
conditions in the Colorado River Basin.
    And as you noted, it is also significant that the 
governors' representatives from all seven Basin states will be 
here today to testify, as well.
    The Colorado River binds us together. We have a proven 
track record over the recent decades of being able to find ways 
to adapt to the changing conditions we are facing. It will be 
essential for us to continue to work together to develop 
additional innovative agreements to address the ongoing 
challenges.
    Climate change is real, and we are seeing the effects of 
climate change in the Colorado River Basin every day. The 
effects include the extended drought, extreme temperatures, 
extensive wildfires, and, in some places, flooding and 
landslides that are affecting our communities and our 
environment. Now is the time to take innovative actions to 
respond to them.
    The Department of the Interior is committed to addressing 
the challenges of climate change in the Colorado River Basin by 
utilizing science-based, innovative strategies, and working 
cooperatively with the diverse communities that rely on the 
river. We are working at Interior with our sister agencies, and 
with states, tribes, and local entities to respond to the 
drought throughout the West and in the Basin.
    Since January, we have been providing funding to over 220 
different projects around the West, and we were able to 
recently reprogram $100 million to be able to be responsive to 
the drought conditions we are seeing through various programs 
that we have available. They include improvements to 
infrastructure and continued drought contingency planning 
efforts.
    We also received additional funding through the disaster 
relief bill. We are working to be able to get that funding out 
to the local and tribal communities as soon as possible. We 
appreciate Congress' continued support for these important 
issues.
    October 1 marked the first year, the beginning of the new 
water year across the West, and we are grateful for reports of 
initial snow in some of the states, in some of the areas, but 
we know that we are going to be starting out with a deficit. We 
are starting out with challenging water supply conditions in 
many of the basins and facing situations that are significantly 
below average. In the Colorado River Basin, Lake Powell and 
Lake Mead are currently at historically low levels.
    As you noted, on August 16, we announced the operating 
conditions for next year, and we announced the first-tier 
shortage in the Lower Basin. We have worked collaboratively in 
this basin to plan ahead for these conditions, but we know we 
need to be continuing to do more.
    Interior will work to utilize the best available science 
and technical expertise, and work collaboratively to help 
inform our decisions and work with our partners on our 
collective decision making in the Basin. We will continue to 
support additional investments and improvements to water 
infrastructure that include investments in new technology, and 
always emphasizing the need for continued collaboration on how 
we can best be able to meet the needs of the communities and 
allow them to utilize the Federal resources that we have 
available.
    The testimony we will hear today will highlight the 
challenges that we face in many of our areas around the 
Colorado River Basin. To address the challenges, we know we 
will urgently need to build upon the existing tools that we 
have and to expand upon the work that we have done. That work 
helps us conserve water, protect the environment, preserve our 
hydropower resources, and operate our infrastructure 
efficiently.
    The progress that we have made has been accomplished 
through the strong partnerships that we have with the states, 
with the tribes, with the water users, and communities 
throughout the Basin. We look forward to that continued 
coordination into the future.
    Thank you all for recognizing the importance of this issue 
and for holding the hearing today. I would be happy to answer 
any questions as a followup. Thank you very much.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Trujillo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tanya Trujillo, Assistant Secretary for Water and 
                Science, U.S. Department of the Interior
    Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify about the drought situation in the western 
United States. I am Tanya Trujillo, Assistant Secretary for Water and 
Science at the Department of the Interior (Department). My statement 
today provides a status update of our responses to the severe drought 
conditions in the Colorado River Basin.

     First, I will review current reservoir and water storage 
            conditions in key settings across the West.

     I will then describe the coordination taking place within 
            the Federal Government and with our non-Federal partners to 
            respond to the challenging conditions we are facing.

    While I will present remarks today on the drought conditions facing 
the West, I want to reiterate something I and my colleagues across the 
Administration are focused on every day: climate change is real. We are 
seeing the impacts of climate change manifested in drought, wildfires, 
hurricanes, extreme heat, massive storm events and localized flooding. 
Climate change is impacting Americans across our nation.
             2021--overview of current reservoir conditions
    According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, even now in October, a large 
majority of the western United States is experiencing above average 
temperatures and severe or extreme drought conditions. In California 
and in the Colorado River Basin, certain reservoirs have reached 30-
year storage lows. Lake Powell and Lake Mead--the two largest 
reservoirs in the United States--are currently at historically low 
levels. Although the Rio Grande and Pecos basins and parts of Arizona 
received some monsoonal rainfall this summer, the temporary relief has 
not reversed the more than two-decade drought impacting the region. 
Collectively, a very challenging water supply situation exists in much 
of the West.
    In the Colorado River Basin, the period from 2000 through 2021 has 
been the driest 22-year period recorded in more than 100 years of 
record-keeping. The reservoir system was 95 percent full in 2000, but 
as of September 28th, Colorado River system reservoirs sit at just 39 
percent, the lowest levels since they began to fill. Over the 22-year 
drought period in the Colorado Basin, combined hydropower generation 
has declined 13 percent to an annual average of 10.5 million MWh. 
Declining storage levels due to ongoing drought have resulted in 
reduced hydropower generation efficiency and concerns about approaching 
minimum power pool at Glen Canyon Dam, below which no power can be 
produced.
    On August 16th, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) issued the 
August 24 month study: given ongoing historic drought and low runoff 
conditions in the Colorado River Basin, downstream releases from Glen 
Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam will be reduced in 2022 due to declining 
reservoir levels. In the Lower Basin the reductions represent the first 
``shortage'' declaration--demonstrating the severity of the drought and 
low reservoir conditions. At the same time, under an operational 
agreement with Mexico, Mexico will incur reduced delivery on the 
Colorado River in 2022. Again, these recent declarations demonstrate 
the severity of the drought and the need to continue to work actively 
with states, Tribes, and stakeholders, and to continue to work in a 
cooperative fashion with our neighbors and partners in Mexico.
    Recent projections by Reclamation and the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have provided further reason to 
continue our drought relief efforts. In late September, Reclamation 
released updated 5-year projections for the Colorado River, showing a 
continued elevated risk of Lake Powell and Lake Mead declining to 
critically low elevations, including the potential of Lake Powell 
falling below minimum power pool as early as July 2022. Adding 
additional concerns, NOAA's Climate Prediction Center recently 
forecasted an increased likelihood of a La Nina Winter this year and 
the continuation of high temperatures and below-average precipitation 
reaching into December 2022.
    Many of Reclamation's projects will begin the 2022 water year with 
below-average carryover water storage. We have had to make difficult 
choices this year, and together we will have to make more difficult 
decisions if it continues to remain dry next year.
                        interagency coordination
    The Department participates in several points of coordination being 
established among federal agencies working to optimize federal drought 
response--including the National Climate Task Force, the Interagency 
Drought Relief Working Group, the National Drought Resilience 
Partnership, the Water Subcabinet, and works directly with federal 
entities including the Western Area Power Administration. Each of these 
groups provide important avenues for coordination, and collaboration, 
and encompass both immediate drought relief as well as long-term 
drought resilience efforts geared at responding to ongoing climate 
threats.
    Through these collaborative agencies, we can marshal existing 
resources and work in partnership with state, local, and Tribal 
governments to address the needs of communities suffering from drought-
related impacts; identify and disburse immediate financial and 
technical assistance, and develop longer-term measures to respond to 
climate change, including building more resilient communities and 
protecting the natural environment. On September 15th, the Climate Task 
Force Director sent a letter outlining federal drought relief efforts 
in response to an August 15th inquiry from 10 western governors.
                  drought--selected responsive actions
    Across the West, Reclamation has continued working on using the 
best available science to improve water supply forecasting and 
operations planning and modeling to help inform decision-making and 
meet competing demands.
Investments in Drought Response Actions

    During 2021, the Department has completed a steady stream of 
drought-related or water conservation-related funding awards across the 
West as part of existing programs to help make local communities more 
resilient or diversify local water supplies, selecting 227 projects to 
be funded with $73.2 million in WaterSMART funding across the western 
states. We want to take this opportunity to highlight a few important 
examples:

     February 2021: Drought Resiliency Projects selected, $15.4 
            million for 18 projects in 7 western states.

     March 2021: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants selected, 
            $42.4 million for 55 projects in 13 western states.

     March 2021: Cooperative Watershed Management Program--
            Phase II Grants selected, $2.1 million for 11 projects in 7 
            western states.

     April 2021: Drought Response Program--Drought Contingency 
            Planning Grants selected, $809,000 for 5 contingency plans 
            in 3 western states.

     June 2021: Basin Study Program--Water Management Options 
            Pilots selected, $219,496 for 2 projects in central Oregon.

     June 2021: Cooperative Watershed Management Program--Phase 
            I Grants selected, $2.6 million for 27 projects in 12 
            western states.

     July 2021: Water Marketing Strategy Grants selected, $1.14 
            million for 7 projects in 4 western states.

     August 2021: Small Scale Water Efficiency Grants selected, 
            $5.5 million to 82 water improvement projects in 16 western 
            states.

     September 2021: Applied Science Grants selected, $3.1 
            million for 20 projects in 11 western states.

     September 2021: FY 2022 Science and Technology Program 
            investments selected, $4.92 in 46 new research projects and 
            $3.4 million to 134 research projects.

    In addition to the above-mentioned awards, on August 5th, 
Reclamation announced three WaterSMART grant opportunities--Drought 
Resiliency Projects, which closed last week on October 5th, Water and 
Energy Efficiency Grants and the new Environmental Water Resources 
Projects, as part of an overall plan to implement amendments to the 
SECURE Water Act. These programs will help communities throughout the 
West by increasing water supply sustainability and drought resiliency. 
Applications for the Water and Energy Efficiency Grants and the new 
Environmental Water Resources Projects are due November and December, 
respectively.

    Over the course of this past summer, the Department and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) made several investments to help 
mitigate effects of the west-wide drought on the ground. Examples 
include:

     On July 15th, Reclamation executed a cooperative agreement 
            for $15 million in immediate aid to the Klamath Project 
            through the Klamath Project Drought Response Agency 
            (KPDRA), with an additional $3 million in technical 
            assistance to Tribes for ecosystem activities, and funding 
            for groundwater monitoring in the basin. These efforts 
            supplement additional funding provided by Reclamation and 
            other Department bureaus in 2021. On October 4th, an 
            additional $5 million was provided for drought relief to 
            Klamath Project contractors as part of the Department's 
            reprogramming, for a total of $20 million for KPDRA to 
            distribute.

     On July 23rd, the Department provided to Congress notice 
            of its intent to reprogram $100 million into drought-
            related programs and projects. Reclamation is in the 
            process of allocating that funding to various actions 
            around the West. The purpose of the reprogramming is for 
            both rapid emergency response to address current conditions 
            and drought resilience actions that will result in drought 
            preparedness beyond 2021. This request includes funding for 
            Rapid Response Mitigation ($32,000,000), for Drought 
            Resiliency (over $42,000,000), and more than $25,000,000 
            for other activities including Wildland Fire Mitigation and 
            Prevention, Native American Affairs, and water recycling 
            projects.

     On August 2nd, USDA announced its investment of $15 
            million for a new drought pilot to assist agricultural 
            producers impacted by worsening drought conditions to 
            provide relief to impacted California and Oregon producers 
            in the Klamath River Basin. The announcement comes as the 
            Secretary of Agriculture will travel to the State for 
            events focused on drought and wildfire resiliency on 
            Tuesday.

     On September 29th, USDA announced the availability of $500 
            million to support drought recovery and encourage the 
            adoption of water-smart management practices. From rising 
            temperatures and heat waves, to early snow melt and low 
            rainfall, record-breaking drought has affected producers 
            across the country. This assistance will target these 
            challenges and enable USDA's Farm Production and 
            Conservation agencies to deliver much needed relief and 
            design drought resilience efforts responsive to the 
            magnitude of this crisis.

Responding to Drought in California

    Throughout this difficult water year, Reclamation has worked 
closely with the California Department of Water Resources to 
accommodate the voluntary transfer of non-project water. These 
transfers provide important flexibility, particularly in dry years, to 
allow irrigation districts to adjust to changing conditions. In 2021, 
Reclamation has responded to a record-high number of requests for the 
transfer of nearly 350,000 acre-feet of transfers through state and 
Federal facilities.
    Demonstrating its ability to be flexible, Reclamation adjusted 
spring-time operations at Shasta Dam to benefit endangered winter-run 
Chinook salmon. The adjustment involved the bypass of Shasta Dam's 
powerplant and temperature control device in favor of releasing water 
from higher, warmer layers of Shasta reservoir through river outlets. 
The power bypass began on April 18, 2021, and concluded on May 24, 
preserving approximately 300,000 acre-feet of colder water for later in 
the summer with no increase in overall release volume.

    In California, Reclamation has:

     Deployed facility features to preserve cold water for fish 
            and enhance hatchery capabilities.

     Deployed monitoring programs to collect data, including 
            the Enhanced Delta Smelt Monitoring Program and the 
            Enhanced Acoustic Tagging of Salmon.

     Implemented an emergency pulse flow on Clear Creek to 
            benefit spring-run Chinook salmon.

     Released stored water from New Melones Reservoir for Delta 
            outflow requirements.

     Facilitated groundwater pumping programs in the Upper 
            Sacramento River Valley to meet irrigation demands and 
            preserve storage in the Shasta reservoir.

    Building on its long history of working closely with federal, 
state, and local partners in California, the U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS) conducts monitoring, modeling, and assessments that its partners 
need to address drought challenges. USGS operates a stream gage network 
of over 500 gages, a ``superstation'' monitoring network in the Bay-
Delta that provides real-time data for Federal and State water 
projects, and a statewide groundwater well network. USGS also conducts 
extensive monitoring of land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley. USGS 
has developed integrated surface-water/groundwater models to evaluate 
drought impacts on water availability, use, and quality throughout the 
State.
    This year, USGS is working with the State Climatologist to apply 
novel modeling tools and a USGS-developed drought metric to quantify 
impacts of the ``disappearing snowpack.'' USGS is also conducting 
assessments of ecological drought impacts and of wildfire effects on 
water resources and aquatic ecosystems in California. These severe 
impacts of drought clearly affect our wildlands and communities, 
including vegetation mortality and increased risk of large, high 
severity wildfire.
Responding to Drought in the Colorado River Basin

    Historic drought and low-runoff conditions have impacted the 
Colorado River Basin since 2000. Most of the flow of the Colorado River 
originates in the upper portions of the Colorado River Basin in the 
Rocky Mountains. The Upper Basin experienced an exceptionally dry 
spring in 2021, with April to July runoff into Lake Powell totaling 
just 26 percent of average despite near-average snowfall last winter. 
The water year 2021 unregulated inflow into Lake Powell--the amount 
that would have flowed to Lake Mead without the benefit of storage 
behind Glen Canyon Dam--was 33 percent of average. Total Colorado River 
system storage as of just last week (Sept. 28, 2021) is only 39 percent 
of capacity, down from 49 percent at this time last year.
    Hydropower production efficiency continues to be impacted at both 
the Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam powerplants as poor hydrology 
persists throughout the Colorado River Basin. If the reservoirs at Glen 
Canyon or Hoover Dams (Lake Powell and Lake Mead, respectively) on the 
Colorado River, drop below the level where power can be generated, it 
will result in the loss of millions of dollars in revenue that 
currently are used to fund multiple federal programs, such as 
endangered species and salinity control programs. One recent response 
action was taken under the Drought Response Operations Agreement 
(DROA), an important element of the 2019 Colorado River Drought 
Contingency Plan Authorization Act. After consultation with--and 
acknowledgement from--all seven Basin States and other partners, under 
the emergency provisions of DROA, Reclamation started supplemental 
water deliveries in July 2021 to Lake Powell from the upper reservoirs 
of Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa, and Navajo. Those supplemental deliveries 
will provide up to an additional 181 thousand acre-feet of water to 
Lake Powell by the end of the 2021 in order to protect hydropower 
production and reduce the risk and duration of Lake Powell falling 
below the target elevation of 3,525 feet.
    Recent projections of risk that Lake Powell could decline below 
this target elevation in 2022 are the subject of ongoing analyses by 
Reclamation and the Upper Basin States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, 
and Wyoming, and Reclamation is actively working to ensure that Tribes 
and other partners are informed and engaged as further drought response 
releases are considered for implementation. Important decisions on the 
potential need for additional releases will be required in the months 
ahead. As Reclamation and its partners continue to assess drought 
response actions, we will continue to use the best available scientific 
information and continue to coordinate closely with our federal, state, 
tribal and non-governmental partners, and stakeholders in the Basin.
    In 2020, consistent with the Colorado River Drought Contingency 
Plan Authorization Act, Reclamation conducted outreach meetings with 
its partners and stakeholders, including the Lower Basin states, water 
agencies, Tribes, non-governmental organizations, and the U.S. Section 
of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC), to provide 
an update on Reclamation's efforts to create or conserve 100,000 acre-
feet or more of system water annually under the Drought Contingency 
Plan (DCP). Reclamation's strategy is focused on projects that will 
generate water savings annually over a longer period. We recognize, 
however, that these longer-term projects will take some time to develop 
and become operational. Shorter-term projects and agreements that 
generate system water over the term of the DCP are being explored to 
help bridge this gap.
    In addition, Reclamation has entered into agreements for with the 
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation to create system conservation water in 
2020, 2021, and 2022, with the Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage 
District to create system conservation water in 2020 and 2021, with the 
option for a third year in 2022, with the Gila River Indian Community 
to create system conservation water in 2021, and a funding agreement 
with Metropolitan Water District, the Central Arizona Water 
Conservation District, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority for the 
creation of system conservation water at the Palo Verde Irrigation 
District from August 2021 through July 2024. The 242 Wellfield 
Expansion Project and agreements listed above will generate 
approximately 60,000 to 80,000 acre-feet of system water each year in 
2021, 2022, and 2023 toward Reclamation's efforts. Potential future 
projects or agreements to create or conserve additional system water 
are being developed, subject to applicable law including availability 
of appropriations, in coordination with our partners and stakeholders.
    The USGS is modernizing its observational capabilities by 
implementing the Next Generation Water Observing System, or NGWOS. When 
fully implemented, the NGWOS will provide high-resolution data on 
streamflow, evapotranspiration, snowpack, soil moisture, water quality, 
groundwater/surface-water connections, stream velocity distribution, 
sediment transport, and water use. These data are intended to be 
coupled with advanced modeling to provide flood and drought forecasts 
with greater certainty and address a variety of other water-resource 
questions in each region. Thus far, the USGS has selected three 
Integrated Water Science basins and NGWOS implementation is ongoing in 
all three. One of those basins is the Upper Colorado River Basin, where 
drought is a primary focus.
                               conclusion
    The only way to address these challenges and climate change is to 
utilize the best available science to develop innovative solutions and 
to work cooperatively across the landscapes and communities that rely 
on our western rivers. This Administration is working every day to 
collaborate with states, Tribes, farmers, and communities impacted by 
drought and climate change to build and enhance regional resilience by 
being proactive and fully using the tools we have available. We 
appreciate Congress' attention to the severity of drought and welcome 
your input on new tools and approaches to help the communities we all 
serve. I look forward to our continued work together and to answering 
your questions.

                                 ______
                                 

    Questions Submitted for the Record to Tanya Trujillo, Assistant 
      Secretary for Water and Science, Department of the Interior
              Questions Submitted by Representative Levin
    Question 1. Assistant Secretary Trujillo, as I'm sure you are aware 
the shutdown of the Paradox Valley Unit has caused salinity concerns 
for water districts in California that receive Colorado River water. 
What is the Bureau doing to address this salinity issue?

    Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has been working to 
address salinity concerns within the Colorado River Basin through its 
participation with many partners in the Colorado River Basin Salinity 
Control Program. According to Reclamation's 2019 Quality of Water 
Report, as of 2017 Reclamation removes approximately 480,000 tons of 
salt annually from the Colorado River, not including Paradox Valley. We 
are also exploring options to expand investment in the Basin-wide 
program for further salinity control in the Basin.
    In regard to the Paradox Valley Unit, on March 4, 2019, operations 
at the Paradox injection well were suspended to analyze the largest 
earthquake to date and assess the risk of continued operations. Because 
the earthquake was near the threshold for causing damage to the 
surrounding community, Reclamation management decided to evaluate risks 
before continuing operations. Reclamation is performing analyses to 
quantitatively evaluate seismic risks associated with continued 
operation of the Paradox Valley Unit. These analyses will take an in-
depth look at the seismic hazard potential and the potential for 
resulting damage. As the analyses are ongoing however, Reclamation is 
evaluating the operation of the Paradox Injection Well at a reduced 
operating capacity. Reclamation is also exploring other options for 
salinity control within the Paradox Valley.

    Question 2. Under what timeline will you be carrying out the 
actions you highlighted?

    Answer. Expanded investment in the Basin-wide salinity control 
program will continue during fiscal year 2022. The seismic and risk 
analyses should be completed in 2023. A possible Paradox Injection Well 
test run is being evaluated for 2022.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Assistant Secretary Trujillo. I 
will now call upon Congresswoman Teresa Leger Fernandez to 
introduce our next witness.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Chair Huffman, for 
giving me this opportunity to participate in this important 
hearing, and to introduce the next witness.
    I am really excited that two constituents from my 
beautifully diverse 3rd District in New Mexico are testifying 
today: Tanya Trujillo--thank you very much for your testimony--
and Mr. Daryl Vigil.
    I have known Daryl Vigil going back decades, from when I 
served as General Counsel for the Jicarilla Apache Nation. At 
present, he is the Water Administrator for the Nation. And 
among many roles, he is also the co-facilitator for the Water 
and Tribes Initiative in the Colorado River Basin. He is also 
Chairman of Water is Life Partnership. He is truly a leader for 
communities seeking long-term water sustainability and equity.
    Thank you so much for being here today, Mr. Vigil, we look 
forward to your testimony.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Vigil, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.

STATEMENT OF DARYL VIGIL, JICARILLA APACHE WATER ADMINISTRATOR 
 AND CO-FACILITATOR, WATER & TRIBES INITIATIVE IN THE COLORADO 
                 RIVER BASIN, DULCE, NEW MEXICO

    Mr. Vigil. Thank you, Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member 
Bentz, and other members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify about the drought situation in the 
western United States. And I can't go on any further without 
acknowledging, of course, my Representative, Teresa Leger, a 
decades-long friend of the Jicarilla and, of course, my friend, 
Representative Melanie Stansbury, and also my friend and fellow 
New Mexican, Assistant Secretary Trujillo. Thank you so much 
for the opportunity today. And it is so nice to hear you, and 
thank you, Teresa, for that acknowledgment. I really appreciate 
it. And thank you, Chairman Grijalva, for the opening 
statements, as well.
    I am here presenting this to you from lovely Durango, 
Colorado, at Fort Lewis College, where, as you may or may not 
know, has an enrollment of over 30 percent of Native American 
students, so a pretty special place to be at to be able to 
provide this to you.
    I am going to kind of paraphrase my testimony, since I know 
that it takes 7 minutes to read the whole thing.
    But as has been mentioned before, my name is Daryl Vigil, 
and I am an enrolled member of the Jicarilla Apache Nation. I 
am also of Jemez and Zia Pueblo descent. My reservation is in 
north central New Mexico, and extends from the New Mexico-
Colorado border, 70 miles south.
    My tribe has significant water rights in the Colorado River 
Basin, and as has been mentioned, I have had the honor of being 
my water administrator, and thank my President, Edward Velarde, 
and my Legislative Council for continuing to trust and empower 
me to be able to speak on behalf of this Nation, in terms of 
something that is of absolute importance to my tribe, which is 
our water rights and the spiritual value of our water rights.
    And, again, we say this all with the backdrop of 
understanding that this conversation is absolutely vital and 
important and considering where we are at in this moment in 
time, not only with the situation with climate, but the 
geopolitical kind of conversations that are going on. So, this 
is not only important to the tribes, but as has been mentioned 
before, it is important to the entire Basin, the 30 sovereigns 
in the Basin, and this country as a whole.
    I am going to talk a little bit about the past, present, 
and future role of tribes in the Colorado River Basin, as we 
understand. My key message is that sovereigns in the Basin--
tribes, along with Federal and State governments--need to be at 
the decision-making table. Tribes have senior water rights to 
at least 25 percent of the current natural flow of the Colorado 
River, and have historically been excluded from decision 
making, or consulted only after decisions have been made. It is 
my sincere hope that the attention and the action of this 
Committee represents the beginning of a new chapter in the 
management of the Colorado River, a chapter in which tribes are 
treated with the same dignity and respect and responsibility as 
other sovereigns in the Basin.
    And I think it is really important to understand that 
tribes have lived sustainably in the Basin for a millennium, 
and continue to do so today despite Mother Nature's challenges, 
colonization, systemic strategies to terminate, exterminate, 
and assimilate the Indigenous people of this country. And we 
have experience, not only hundreds, but thousands of years of 
sustainable and adaptive living. We understand the importance 
of honoring the very things that keep us alive, that feed us 
and quench our thirst.
    And it is important to provide just a little bit of 
context, because as has been stated, we are at a pivotal moment 
in time. Next year will be the 100th anniversary of the 
Colorado River Compact, the foundational law of the river. And 
at that time, it is just important to understand the context of 
where my tribe was at that time.
    In 1887, our reservation was established, after our own 
kind of trail of tears, and we survived on government rations 
outside our traditional homeland. And although we were 
historically nomadic, government tried to make us farmers and 
ranchers on lands that didn't really support those activities. 
We didn't establish a governance structure on my reservation 
until the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, couldn't vote in 
elections until 1948, and did not have plumbing in the town of 
Dulce until the 1960s.
    And it is important to note that my Nation settled its 
water rights claims nearly 100 years after the Colorado River 
Compact in 1992, during the early years of tribal settlements.
    So, as has been mentioned before, there is a lot of 
conversation about how do we get inclusive of tribes? How do we 
make tribes part of this process? The current structures do not 
allow for any of that to happen. Inside my testimony, I 
definitely line out a way of creating something where we don't 
have to recreate the wheel, in terms of a model that was 
created in the Columbia River Basin, that was mentioned a 
little bit earlier, that looks a lot similar in terms of the 
components of what could be built in the future.
    But given the amount of tribal water rights that the tribes 
have and the commitment and the number of thousands of years 
that we have lived here, the current structure doesn't account 
for that. Absolutely, something new needs to be built, where 
not only those tribal voices are heard or included in the 
conversation, but that other voices that haven't been 
traditionally heard are integrated into that, so we build a 
future together in the Basin that would be really, really 
unique, in terms of transforming the Federal-Tribal sovereign 
relationship.
    I really appreciate the time and please, I ask you to take 
a look at my testimony, because I go into the specifics not 
only about what the division is that my Nation has, in terms of 
how we can participate, but also it has links to the work that 
we have done in the Basin to really build on that collaborative 
effort so that----
    Mr. Huffman. We appreciate that, Mr. Vigil. Thank you so 
much for sharing that.
    Mr. Vigil. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Vigil follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daryl Vigil, Water Administrator of the Jicarilla 
   Apache Nation and Co-facilitator of the Water & Tribes Initiative
    Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and other members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about the 
drought situation in the western United States.
    My name is Daryl Vigil. I am an enrolled member of the Jicarilla 
Apache Nation; I am also of Jemez and Zia Pueblo descent. My 
reservation is in north central New Mexico and extends from the New 
Mexico/Colorado border 70 miles south. My Tribe has significant water 
rights in the Colorado River Basin. I have had the honor of being my 
Tribe's Water Administrator for the last 11 years, and I am grateful 
that the leadership of the Nation--President Edward Velarde and my 
Legislative Council--has trusted and empowered me to speak on behalf of 
the Nation and to co-facilitate a broader tribal/basin dialogue through 
the Water & Tribes Initiative.
    Thank you for your leadership on convening this hearing to address 
the ongoing drought in the Colorado River basin and how we, 
collectively, are responding. This is an issue of extreme urgency and 
vital importance not only to the tribes in the basin, but to the entire 
basin and this country as a whole.
    My remarks speak to the past, present, and future role of tribes in 
Colorado River governance. My key message is that as sovereigns in the 
basin, tribes--along with federal and state governments--need to be at 
the decision-making table. Tribes have senior water rights to at least 
25% of the current natural flow of the Colorado River but have 
historically been excluded from decision-making or ``consulted'' only 
after decisions have been made. It is my sincere hope that the 
attention and action of this Committee represents the beginning of a 
new chapter in the management of the Colorado River--a chapter in which 
tribes are treated with the same dignity, respect, and responsibility 
as the other sovereigns in the basin.
Past

    Tribes have been living sustainably in the Colorado River Basin for 
a millennium and continue to do so today, despite mother nature's 
challenges, colonization, and systematic strategies to terminate, 
exterminate, and assimilate the indigenous people of this country. We 
have experience and knowledge developed over many hundreds of years of 
sustainable and adaptive living. We understand the importance of 
honoring the very things that keep us alive, that feed us and quench 
our thirst.
    The foundational law of the river, the Colorado River Compact was 
developed in 1922 without tribal participation. At that time, my tribe 
(reservation established 1887, after our own trail of tears) was 
surviving on government rations outside our traditional homelands. 
Although we were historically nomadic (hunter, gatherers) the U.S. 
Government tried to make us farmers and ranchers on lands that did not 
support those activities (Chama Valley-White Clan, taken first by the 
Spanish, Tierra Amarilla Land Grant). We didn't establish a governance 
structure until 1934 (IRA), couldn't vote until 1948, and did not have 
plumbing in the town of Dulce until the early 1960s. My Nation settled 
its water rights claims in 1992 during the early years of tribal water 
settlements.
Present

    Fast forward to today, nearly a hundred years since development of 
the Colorado River Compact. Tribes continue to be largely left out of 
the problem-solving and decision-making processes. Tribes were not 
consulted in developing the 2007 Interim Guidelines, which create the 
current management framework for the river. They were not consulted in 
the 2012 Basin Supply Demand Study, nor were they consulted--except 
after the fact--on the decision to initiate Drought Response Operations 
this summer. All of these decisions directly impact tribal water 
rights, tribal communities, and Native people throughout the basin.
    Over the past 10 years, individual tribes, along with the Ten 
Tribes Partnership and the Water & Tribes Initiative, have sought to 
raise awareness and understanding of the role of tribes in the basin, 
have forged partnerships with federal and state governments, and have 
worked with conservation groups and other water users to emphasize how 
the current structures for management have not honored the spirit of 
settlement agreements, have not provided access to basic infrastructure 
for clean drinking water, and have not acknowledged thousands of years 
of environmental, cultural, traditional, ceremonial, and spiritual 
tribal values.
Future

    As you know, the 2007 Interim Guidelines, the Drought Contingency 
Plans, and other governing arrangements will expire at the end of 2025. 
The Biden Administration is expected to launch the formal process to 
develop a new management framework for the river sometime in the coming 
months--a framework that must and will directly address the ongoing 
drought and a much drier future with a lot less water . . . all in the 
context of the ongoing pandemic.
    This is a pivotal moment in history given the current realities of 
drought and aridification, the opportunity to create a new management 
framework for the river, and the 100th anniversary of the Colorado 
River Compact in 2022. It is time to create a new paradigm for 
governing the use of the Colorado River--one that integrates best 
available science and indigenous knowledge of the basin. And one that 
involves tribes as active partners in problem-solving, decision-making, 
and governance. This new paradigm has been emerging organically over 
the past decade in the form of many collaborations and partnerships 
among tribes, states, the federal government, stakeholders, and water 
users.
    Building on this collaborative culture, we need to create something 
like a Sovereign Governance Team that includes tribes in a process of 
shared decision-making with the other sovereigns in the basin--state 
and federal governments. This approach was used successfully in the 
Columbia River Basin (which encompasses portions of Montana, Idaho, 
Oregon, and Washington) to prepare for the renegotiation of the 
Columbia River Treaty between the United States and Canada.
    In a report based on over 100 interviews with tribal and other 
leaders in the Colorado River Basin, many people expressed a belief 
that a Sovereign Governance Team creates a level playing field among 
sovereigns. Tribes are treated as co-equals with states and the federal 
government, rather than as other ``interest groups'' or 
``stakeholders,'' as in past processes. A Sovereign Governance Team 
integrates tribes in a meaningful way into planning and problem-solving 
before decisions are made; and it provides an opportunity for all 
stakeholders, experts, and the public to be more meaningfully involved 
in an inclusive, open, and transparent process.
    Chairman Huffman and members of the Committee, you can make this 
happen. We need this type of governance structure to respond to the 
issues facing the basin. Your leadership to move in this direction 
would also be a significant expression of fulfilling the federal 
government's trust responsibility to the 30 tribes in the basin. 
Without this type of structure, tribes will continue to bear the 
impacts of the unrealistic expectation that federal and state 
sovereigns will effectively and responsibly represent tribal water 
interests along with their own. Tribes themselves, not state and 
federal officials, are in the best position to advocate for and protect 
their own tribal interests.
    While my tribe is actively working on addressing the impacts of 
drought, we do so knowing the uncertainty surrounding our participation 
in the broader planning for the basin. We ask that you formalize a 
process for tribal participation in a new era policy and partnership, 
where tribal sovereignty is acknowledged and respected, and where 
tribes can be effective sovereign partners to create solutions to 
address the tremendous challenges before us now and in years to come.

    Thank you.

More detailed information regarding water-related issues of importance 
to tribes in the Colorado River Basin can be found at the following 
locations:

http://www.naturalresourcespolicy.org/projects/water-tribes-colorado-
river-basin/

http://naturalresourcespolicy.org/projects/water-tribes-colorado-river-
basin/3.20-wti-report-executive-summary-final.pdf

https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/tws/finalreport.html

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Finally, we will hear from Chairwoman Amelia 
Flores of the Colorado River Indian Tribes next.
    Chairwoman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF AMELIA FLORES, CHAIRWOMAN, COLORADO RIVER INDIAN 
                    TRIBES, PARKER, ARIZONA

    Ms. Flores. Good afternoon, Chairman Huffman and Ranking 
Member Bentz. My name is Amelia Flores. I am the Chairwoman of 
the Colorado River Indian Tribes. I appreciate the invitation 
to testify today on behalf of my people about the drought and 
its impacts on the Colorado River. That is the namesake of our 
sovereign government.
    I also want to thank Chairman Grijalva for his work to get 
our La Paz lands returned, and his support for not only CRIT, 
but all Native people and tribal governments.
    The Colorado River Indian Reservation is separated by more 
than 70 miles of the Colorado River running through our lands, 
located in both California and Arizona. We have the right to 
divert 719,000 acre-feet, and are currently using over 300,000 
acre-feet, the same amount used by the state of Nevada.
    Since time immemorial, the river has sustained us. I am 
here today to tell you that we are committed to helping to 
support the river that has provided for us, and we have water 
to offer for this effort.
    The Colorado River is suffering not only from drought, but 
climate change that is forcing all of us to change our 
relationship with its water. We must use its water more 
efficiently and ensure that each drop provides maximum benefits 
so that others are not cut off entirely. This will require new 
and improved water delivery infrastructure, especially on 
tribal reservations, including ours.
    We have received funding from the WaterSMART program and 
USDA programs to make improvements to the Federal irrigation 
project and our farmlands. But the needs greatly exceed the 
capacity of these programs and our ability to provide the 
required 50 percent matching funds. By joining with the state, 
local, and private sector, with creative partnerships, we have 
started to make up for the lack of Federal investment in the 
BIA irrigation project. The Committee's inclusion of $150 
million in the Reconciliation proposal to assist tribal 
governments addressing the drought will greatly help us and 
other tribes.
    We hold the senior water right for the Lower Basin and are 
the largest single user of the water from the Colorado River in 
Arizona. Our water right was quantified by the U.S. Supreme 
Court in the Arizona versus California decision, with the 
priority date of 1865, and is not likely to be shortened.
    Despite the challenges our tribe faces, we are providing 
help to the rest of the Lower Basin through the Drought 
Contingency Plan, which was authorized by legislation approved 
by this Committee.
    The Colorado River Indian Tribes are creating more than 
150,000 acre-feet of water for Lake Mead as system 
conservation. This water and our ICS contributions since 2016 
have raised the water levels in the lake by more than 3 feet.
    In addition, we have been working with the state of 
Arizona, environmental leaders, and the water users to develop 
a legislative proposal that will authorize us to lease our 
water to other users in the state. This is the same right that 
Congress has authorized for other tribal governments in Arizona 
and across the West.
    Because our water rights were adjudicated by the Supreme 
Court, Congress has not acted on them, and we lack the 
authority to lease water because of the prohibitions in the 
300-year-old Indian Trade and Intercourse Act. Without the 
right to lease our water, we can do little to directly assist 
communities in Arizona or our neighbors on the river, who may 
face drastic water shortages in the coming years.
    We have worked with stakeholders and the state of Arizona 
for over 5 years to develop the proposed legislation that will 
provide us the same sovereign rights over our water that other 
tribal governments have. Our proposed legislation will help 
make Arizona more water resilient, and will provide our tribe 
with the financial resources to fund improvements to the 
irrigation project, so that our water use may become efficient.
    Greater efficiency on our reservation means we can do more 
to help the river. The Colorado River Indian Tribes are 
committed to working with the United States to support on-river 
habitat, including providing more water and land for endangered 
species protection.
    Our legislative proposal will also permit us to lease 
secure water supplies to third parties, including 
municipalities on the river, and those served by the CAP that 
are facing shortages. This may reduce the demand for 
groundwater pumping that is not sustainable in Arizona. Our 
first priority water right can be diverted directly from the 
Colorado River with little to no risk of reduction during 
shortages, and will limit the need for new or additional water 
delivery infrastructure.
    Leasing our water for off-reservation use does include a 
cost for us. If you visit our reservation, you will see more 
than 10,000 acres of our farmland sitting fallow, a reminder 
that our people have chosen to protect the health of the river.
    Our legislative proposal will only allow leasing of water 
we have consumptively used on the reservation for at least 4 of 
5 recent years. This will keep the river and all other water 
users whole.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Chairwoman----
    Ms. Flores. We are simply requesting the right to decide 
for ourselves how to best use our water, because we do not have 
this right today.
    It has been an honor to be here today, and I thank you for 
inviting me. I will submit written testimony and am pleased to 
answer any questions you might have.
    Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Flores follows:]
Prepared Statement of Amelia Flores, Chairwoman, Colorado River Indian 
                                 Tribes
    Good afternoon Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz. My name is 
Amelia Flores. I am the chairwoman of the Colorado River Indian Tribes. 
I appreciate the invitation to testify today about the drought and its 
impact on the Colorado River that is the namesake of our sovereign 
government.
    Our reservation is separated by more than 70 miles of the Colorado 
River running through our lands located in both California and Arizona.
    Since time immemorial, the River has sustained us. I am here today 
to tell you that we are committed to helping to support the River that 
has provided for us.
    The Colorado River is suffering not only from drought but climate 
change that is forcing all of us to change our relationship with its 
water. We must use its water more efficiently, and ensure that each 
drop provides maximum benefits so that others are not cut off entirely.
    This will require new and improved water delivery infrastructure, 
especially on tribal reservations including ours. We have received 
funding from the WaterSMART program and USDA programs to make 
improvements to the federal irrigation project and our farmlands, but 
the needs greatly exceed the capacity of these programs and our ability 
to provide the required fifty percent matching funds.
    By joining with the state, local, and private sector with creative 
partnerships we have started to make up for the lack of federal 
investment in the BIA irrigation project.
    The Committee's inclusion of $150 million in the reconciliation 
proposal to assist Tribal governments addressing the drought will 
greatly help us and other tribes.
    We hold the senior water right for the Lower Basin and are the 
largest single user of water from the Colorado river in Arizona. Our 
water right was quantified by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Arizona 
versus California decision with a priority date of 1865 and is not 
likely to be shorted.
    But we are not able to use our full water right. Most of our water 
is delivered through the Colorado River Irrigation Project, a run-down 
federal irrigation system maintained and operated by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs. We lose more than 100 thousand acre-feet of water per 
year to poor maintenance and poor operations. The Project has not 
diverted as much as 80 thousand additional acre-feet in a year because 
of poor water accounting. We know how to prevent this and to put our 
full water right to productive use for our people and the funding that 
we need.
    Despite the challenges our Tribe faces, we are providing help to 
the rest of the Lower Basin. through the Drought Contingency Plan, 
authorized by legislation approved by this committee. The Colorado 
River Indian Tribes are creating more than 150 thousand acre-feet of 
water for Lake Mead as system conservation. This water and our ICS 
contributions since 2016 have raised the water levels in the Lake by 
more than 3 feet.
    In addition, we have been working with the State of Arizona, 
environmental leaders, and water users to develop a legislative 
proposal that will authorize us to lease our water to other users in 
the state. This is the same right that Congress has authorized for 
other tribal governments in Arizona and across the west.
    Because our water rights were adjudicated by the Supreme Court, 
Congress has not acted on them and we lack the authority to lease water 
because of the 300 year old Indian Trade and Intercourse Act. Without 
the right to lease our water, we can do little to directly assist 
communities in Arizona who face drastic water shortages in the coming 
years.
    We have worked with stakeholders and the state of Arizona for over 
five years to develop the proposed legislation that will provide us the 
same sovereign rights over our water that other tribal governments 
have. Our proposed legislation will help make Arizona more water-
resilient and will provide our tribe with the financial resources to 
fund improvements to the irrigation project so that our water use may 
become efficient. Greater efficiency on our reservation means we can do 
more to help the river. The Colorado River Indian Tribes are committed 
to working with the United States to support on-river habitat, 
including providing more water and land for endangered species 
protection.
    Our legislative proposal will also permit us to lease secure water 
supplies to third parties, including municipalities that are facing 
shortages. This may reduce the demand for unsustainable groundwater 
pumping and our first priority water right can be diverted directly 
from the Colorado River with little to no risk of reduction during 
shortages limiting the recipients need for new or additional water 
delivery infrastructure.
    Leasing our water for off reservation use includes a cost for us. 
If you visit our reservation, you will see more than 10 thousand acres 
of our farmland sitting fallow, a reminder that our people have chosen 
to protect the health of the river.
    Without the additional revenue water leasing may provide, the large 
volumes of system conservation water we are now providing will become 
an economic burden we may not be able to afford.
    Our legislative proposal will only allow leasing of water we have 
consumptively used on the reservation for at least four of five recent 
years. This will keep the river and all other water users whole.
    Finally, we are simply requesting the right, to decide for 
ourselves how best to use our water because we do not have this right 
today.
    Our Tribal Council is committed to maintaining and improving the 
health of the river and to developing a sustainable tribal economy. 
Water leasing as we propose can achieve both goals. Our water can also 
help build a bridge for the basin to get to a future that has the 
advanced technology for water desalination and reuse.
    Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I will submit written 
testimony and am pleased to answer any questions you might have.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that, Chairwoman Flores. Let me 
remind members of the Committee that Rule 3(d) imposes a 5-
minute limit on questions. We will now turn to Member 
questions, and I will recognize Members, starting with myself.
    And Chair Flores, I would like to begin with you, please. 
Thanks again for joining us. I appreciated the conversation 
about how your tribe is committed to providing the Colorado 
River the same support it has provided us, in your words, for 
so long.
    And then you continued by talking about how your tribe will 
support water uses through leases that strengthen the health of 
the Colorado River. So, I have no doubt about your commitment 
here, and I appreciate your comments. But I do want to follow 
up on that subject, and just ask about NEPA, the National 
Environmental Policy Act, one of our important environmental 
protections in Federal law, which spotlights the environmental 
impacts of any proposed actions and develops alternatives that 
can be chosen to avoid or limit harmful environmental impacts 
and unintended consequences.
    So, I just want to ask, as you develop and refine your 
legislation on water leasing, will you support the preservation 
of the NEPA process and other environmental protections in a 
manner similar to what I understand has been done with other 
tribal water leases in Arizona and elsewhere?
    Ms. Flores. Thank you for your question, Chairman Huffman. 
Yes, we will follow all the requirements that other tribes have 
been imposed with.
    Mr. Huffman. OK, thank you for that. And I want to also ask 
you about the math problem that we have on the Colorado River.
    As you know, we have legal entitlements that add up to 17.5 
million acre-feet of water every year. And with global warming 
and a more realistic, more modern assessment of the hydrology 
of the Basin, we may only be able to deliver something much 
less than that. I am hearing maybe 12.3 million acre-feet.
    So, given our math problem, I want to ask how you view the 
idea of prioritizing system conservation and future water 
leases and prioritizing other actions that can help us reduce 
overall consumption and address this systemic shortage.
    Ms. Flores. Would you repeat that question again?
    Mr. Huffman. Sure.
    Ms. Flores. It was a long question.
    Mr. Huffman. I won't repeat the whole thing. You know that 
we have an imbalance, in terms of the entitlements that far 
exceed what we now understand the hydrology of the Basin will 
provide. So, I just want to ask how you view the idea of 
prioritizing conservation in future water leases and also 
actions that can help us reduce overall consumption.
    Ms. Flores. OK. Thank you for the question. Our proposed 
legislation only permits us to lease water that we have been 
using already on our reservation. So, we are required to reduce 
consumptive use to make water available in a lease.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. In the time I have left, I just 
have a couple of quick questions for Assistant Secretary 
Trujillo and Mr. Vigil.
    I want to start with large-scale water recycling. We are 
seeing some, I think, very promising collaboration in that 
regard. This is drought-proof water supply, of course, that we 
have historically done on a smaller scale. But with these 
larger-scale projects, we can actually provide supply for 
millions of people. So, I want to ask you where that fits into 
our planning and our future on the Colorado River Basin.
    Ms. Trujillo. OK, thank you. We have a system for unmuting.
    Mr. Huffman. Yes, we are making progress.
    Ms. Trujillo. Water recycling is a very important component 
of our portfolio, and the new authorization proposed in the 
infrastructure package will be very helpful. I think it does 
represent a good opportunity to continue that collaboration 
that we have seen among the states, to continue the partnering 
between the Federal Government and the local entities who are 
doing so much on the ground. And we are going to have to do 
conservation in every state, going forward, to help continue to 
address the conditions that we see.
    Thank you for thinking proactively about that issue.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. And in the limited time I have 
left, could you just speak quickly about Salton Sea 
restoration? Why is this important, not just in California, but 
for other Basin states?
    Ms. Trujillo. Yes, thank you for recognizing the importance 
of the Salton Sea. I formerly lived and worked in California 
and dealt with issues at the Sea firsthand. I met as recently 
as yesterday with representatives from the Imperial Irrigation 
District, and stability at the Salton Sea helps create 
stability with respect to the interactions within California, 
which also helps create stability with the other states and 
with our government.
    It was great to see support from the Representatives in 
Arizona recently for additional Salton Sea funding and support, 
and I know the Upper Basin states have similarly, in the past, 
reached out and supported those efforts, as well. So, I think 
there is a recognition of the importance in a very broad 
context.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much.
    Ranking Member Bentz, I see you back on the screen. Are you 
ready to go?
    Mr. Bentz. I am ready to go.
    Mr. Huffman. Excellent, you are recognized.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Madam Assistant Secretary, the situation--I know you are 
familiar with it--in the Klamath has led this year to a choice 
between in-stream interests, on the one hand, and farmers on 
the other. And the farmers lost.
    Here on the Colorado, we can see the same situation 
approaching, and I think it has only been through incredible 
amounts of hard work by the folks in that Basin to avoid such a 
stark choice.
    But let's assume the worst, and I hate to do so, but let's 
assume the worst. And when it comes to the future of--there are 
endangered species on the Colorado. Tell us, if you will, what 
you think the outcome would be if it came down to the four 
endangered species on the Colorado, on the one hand, and the 
outer stream water users, on the other?
    Tell me, will the same thing happen on the Colorado that 
has happened on the Klamath?
    Ms. Trujillo. It can be--thank you for that question. And, 
as you noted, we have had tremendous challenges in the Klamath 
Basin. I know we have been in close coordination with your 
office, and I know how important the issues are to you. And I 
think you know we have been working very, very hard to try to 
balance several competing demands for insufficient water 
supplies. We saw the worst drought ever this past year, and it 
was a horrible situation to be in.
    The Colorado River Basin can be a good model for continued 
coordination, including with respect to these kinds of 
endangered species challenges that exist. There are three 
different recovery programs in the Basin that have a wide range 
of support from the water users, from the environmental 
communities, from the tribes, from our Federal team, as well. 
So, we have a strong record to be building from in the Basin. 
And I think it is a good model that we can use in other 
contexts, as well.
    I appreciate being part of these conversations.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and I just want to 
say thank you for the work that the Bureau has done in trying 
to help in an extraordinarily difficult situation.
    What I am really trying to call out, though, is the very 
high probability that we are going to see this happen again and 
again as we look into this very, very water-short future. So, 
what I am hoping that we will be able to do is address the 
Endangered Species Act in a way--I think you kind of alluded to 
it when you said people are working together to try to figure 
out how to make these things work.
    The kind of all-or-nothing zero-sum game that we see in the 
Klamath, though, when it comes to water, I don't think is the 
proper future. I think the proper future is one where we figure 
out a way of trying to make sure everybody gets something in 
these situations, as opposed to cutting everybody off, as did 
happen in the Klamath.
    And the reason I bring this up is because people are 
suffering so greatly from this. I mean, the damage, even 
notwithstanding your excellent efforts in trying to help people 
out. So, I am just saying that is why I welcome this 
conversation today, because I see the same thing coming on the 
Colorado that we had to deal with in the Klamath this year. And 
I am just so wishing that we don't have to deal with it again. 
Forgive me for going on like this, but it is such an important 
thing to the people in my area, and not only my area, but the 
Central Valley Project of California.
    So, having said that, I am going to shift it over to 
Chairwoman Flores for a second.
    You mentioned, Chairwoman, that the Colorado River Indian 
Tribes have worked with stakeholders and the state of Arizona 
for over 5 years to develop the proposed legislation, your 
testimony highlights. What, in your opinion, are the major 
barriers to actually having the content of that bill happen?
    Ms. Flores. The major barriers for our legislation bill is 
just to get everybody on the same page, and we have done that. 
We have been, over the past 5 years, having meetings, and 
having a voice. And not having a voice was one of the barriers.
    So, now we do have a voice, and stakeholders and other 
entities are recognizing us, and they see our water and our 
first priority water rights, and they see that we have been 
participating in the pilot programs of fallowing our lands, and 
we have been committed and have held our end of the bargain by 
keeping the water in Lake Mead with a pilot program, and also 
with the DCP.
    We were welcomed to join in and be a part of the solution, 
and not a hindrance in saving the river. And, again, the river 
has always taken care of us. We need to take care of this 
river. And I think that there are many other barriers, but that 
was one of the main barriers that we recognized, our water 
allocations were not recognized in seeing all the shortages.
    So, we have something to offer. Thank you.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you for that.
    And Mr. Chair, sadly, I didn't have my clock on. Do I have 
time left for another question?
    Mr. Huffman. Well, you are a minute 18 into the red, so----
    Mr. Bentz. So, the answer is no.
    Mr. Huffman. Unfortunately, I have to say no, but we can 
come back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Ranking Member Bentz, for your 
comments, and thanks for bringing up the dire conditions in the 
Klamath Basin, which we both represent.
    I know that the gentleman is aware that everyone in the 
Basin, and every interest has been suffering, and the 
downstream communities I represent and the species that you 
alluded to are also getting hammered. There are no big winners 
in this drought condition, so I did want to make that point.
    And the Chair will now recognize Mr. Costa for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 
this important hearing, and not only today, but next week.
    As you know, I have historically been involved in this from 
my days in the State Legislature, as Chairman of the Ag and 
Water Committee. And I think that water, the precious water 
resource that we all depend upon, is going to be one of the 
most pressing challenges we face in the 21st century with 
climate change, not only for western states, but for our entire 
country and the world. It ultimately will determine whether or 
not we are amicably able to live and support an increased 
population, not only in our country, but around the world.
    Let me remind, and I think most of you know, that part of 
the challenge here as it relates to the Colorado River, a river 
that was litigated for decades when the final allocation was 
resolved with the law of the river, it allocated 7.5 million 
acre-feet of water to Upper Basin states, and 7.5 million acre-
feet to Lower Basin states. It includes Arizona, California, 
and Nevada. In addition, 1.5 million acre-feet to Mexico.
    It was determined back then, in the 1960s, in historical 
data, that the average yield was about 16.4 million acre-feet 
per year. But the fact of the matter is that that was over-
allocated. We know that today. It is estimated that water flows 
over the last two decades have continued to decline, averaging 
12.4 million acre-feet. So, we have oversubscribed the river, 
and that is part of the challenge here.
    And the Native Americans and the Nation states that are 
represented here clearly have an important requirement that 
they be afforded their water rights, as well. And we have folks 
that have determined that they have rights to the river that 
have yet to be resolved, and that is on top of what has already 
been determined to be allocated.
    So, we have more demand. And guess what? Since the 1960s, 
all the Southwestern states, Upper Basin states, the Lower 
Basin states, they are growing, and more demands on that water, 
whether we are talking about New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, 
California, Colorado. So, how we deal with this conundrum with 
climate change is, really, the issue at hand.
    I have long sought--and I want to ask my questions toward 
Ms. Trujillo--we have to use all the water tools in our water 
toolbox.
    In California, we get water from a number of different 
sources. But one of the primary sources is the Colorado River 
Basin. Ms. Trujillo, how does Federal investment in our water 
infrastructure, including improving conveyance, help California 
and the entire western states become more resilient to climate 
change impacts on our water supplies?
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Congressman. The muting comes from 
your guys, so we have figured it out. Thank you.
    Mr. Costa. As long as the Chairman gives me the 10 seconds 
that you were muted.
    Ms. Trujillo. That is a deal.
    Mr. Huffman. We have been pretty generous today, Jim.
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Representative Costa, for your 
leadership on these issues. From the Federal perspective, the 
investments absolutely make a difference, with respect to the 
water supplies. But there is a strong connection between the 
stability that we are seeking to achieve in the Colorado River 
Basin and the other sources of supply for California. That is a 
clear recognition that exists.
    Our infrastructure proposals include investments in 
modernizing the aging infrastructure that we have, and 
developing more water recycling and more innovative 
technologies to more efficiently use water, and in basic 
investments in conservation throughout the Basin.
    Mr. Costa. And I am a big supporter of that. I only have 
about 45 seconds left. I know you have your Interagency Drought 
Relief Working Group and your National Drought Resilience 
Partnership as part of the water subcabinet meeting.
    And, we in California, with our multiple sources, are 
looking at ways, and are working with the Chairman to better 
reinforce our own conveyance of facilities and provide ability 
to reduce the amount of evaporation through the use of solar 
power and other means. Because, to the degree we can use these 
conservation tools, not only to improve our species, but 
improve water for our farms and our farm communities with these 
extreme drought conditions.
    We will talk more about the money, but I think in the next 
hearing I would like to know how you are going to, through this 
various water subcabinet effort, allocate these funds, and how 
we can work with you so all of the different states that are 
impacted by the Colorado River, including California, can 
participate in the allocation of these funds, because they are 
desperately needed during the extreme droughts.
    And I want to thank the Full Committee Chairman and the 
Subcommittee Chairman. During the Reconciliation period we were 
able to add another $500 million for drought relief purposes, 
and this is all important as we kind of work through this.
    Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentleman, and I am now told that 
Representative Gonzalez-Colon will go next.
    Representative Gonzalez-Colon, you are recognized.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Chairman, for allowing me. 
I have been hearing the witnesses.
    And first of all, I want to say thank you to all of them 
for bringing this issue. And even when I am part of the eastern 
part of the Caribbean, knowing what is happening in other parts 
of the states is important. I mean, all of us have our 
problems, and I think the witnesses have illustrated things 
that can be achieved by working together. So, in that sense I 
want to say thank you.
    But I want to yield my time to Ranking Member Bentz.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you so much, Representative Gonzalez-
Colon, for that yield, and I will make sure that I only utilize 
2\1/2\ minutes, so I give my overage back to the Chair. But a 
question back to Secretary Trujillo for just a moment.
    Many of the Basin states noted the need for continued 
improvements to system modeling tools. What is Reclamation 
doing in that regard? Are you working on design of better tools 
to try to tell us what we can anticipate, and what we are going 
to do, should further shortfalls occur?
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Representative Bentz. We 
absolutely are continuing to work to develop the best available 
information that we can utilize for our own decision making, 
but also to have available for the communities and the water 
managers around the West, including in the Colorado River 
Basin.
    We work closely with our other Federal agencies at NOAA, 
the Weather Service, and the forecast center to be able to have 
alignment in the information we are providing. We have 
excellent technical staff at Reclamation, who strive to 
communicate very effectively with the affected folks that are 
working on these issues.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you for that. And with that, Mr. Chair, I 
am going to yield back. And I hope now we are even, and I will 
stick within my 5 minutes the next time around. And thanks 
again to Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon for the yield.
    Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentleman. Order is restored, and 
that is much appreciated.
    I believe Mr. Soto is next on our side, so the gentleman 
from Florida is recognized.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, coming to you 
from Florida, what is generally rich in water country, although 
our aquifer definitely has some stresses on it. We are very 
proud of the $8.3 billion that is in the Build Back Better Act 
to help with Western water issues.
    And Chairman, I noticed that you needed a little extra 
time, so I wanted to yield to you, if you would so want it, the 
remainder of my time.
    Mr. Huffman. I wish you would yield some of your water to 
California. But----
    Mr. Soto. Whenever you want to fund that cross-nation 
pipeline of water from the East to West Coast, we have more 
than enough, more than we want. But that is for another day.
    Mr. Huffman. Mr. Soto, there are people who still talk 
about that kind of thing. I don't think it is ever going to be 
feasible, but I appreciate the thought.
    No, I do not have further questions in this round, so I 
appreciate----
    Mr. Soto. Then I yield to Mr. Costa the remainder of my 
time, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Huffman. Mr. Costa, you are recognized.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Representative Soto, for 
that opportunity, and Mr. Chairman, as well.
    Ms. Trujillo, I would like to get back to the area we were 
discussing earlier. In the fiscal appropriations for 2022, we 
have water-related resources at $1.7 billion plus, and that not 
only deals with the President's request, but additional funding 
from Fiscal Year 2021. The total, I guess, comes to $1.95 
billion, when you add the numbers up.
    And then the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill would add to 
that another $5.35 billion, $1.1 for water storage, $3.2 for an 
aging infrastructure account, which I hope we can use some of 
those funds to deal with the challenges we have in California, 
and repair projects that are identified under Reclamation's 
Assessment Management Report.
    And then for local communities, I mean, we have so many 
communities, whether they are Native American communities or 
small rural communities, whose drinking water doesn't meet with 
state or federal standards.
    How quickly do you think we are going to get that money 
out?
    And, of course, that doesn't mention the Reconciliation 
monies that I spoke of earlier, and I don't know how much that 
is going to be, depending upon what happens with 
Reconciliation, obviously. But what is the strategy that the 
Bureau has for dealing with getting these monies out as quickly 
as possible, where it is most needed?
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you very much for the support from 
Congress for these important issues.
    The short answer is that they are building upon our 
existing programs, so we have a very efficient way of getting 
the additional funding out to the communities. We are building 
upon the programs that we have. We have backlogs. We have 
additional requests for funding that we can easily cycle into, 
and I think that was working in coordination by design for how 
some of this came together on purpose.
    Mr. Costa. Well, part of that--and the Bureau, obviously, 
has its challenges, to be sure--but when we worked on the 
settlement agreement on the San Joaquin River, as an example, 
we allowed under that legislation that was signed into law the 
ability for the Bureau to work with local water districts under 
the thought that they might be able to facilitate the 
implementation of funding in a more expedited fashion, and the 
Bureau could, given the more cumbersome process you deal with.
    Have you looked at different ways in which you can deal 
with local agencies to facilitate expediting these funds?
    Ms. Trujillo. We are always looking for that, for ways to 
be more efficient. I think, since January, we have already 
figured out how to allocate funding to over 220 different 
districts throughout the West.
    Mr. Costa. And I think that Native American groups, as 
well, right?
    Ms. Trujillo. Yes. Absolutely, absolutely. We have expanded 
our tribal technical support programs and have prioritized the 
ability to efficiently work with them, in coordination with our 
other partners here at Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
the Fish and Wildlife Service. Yes, we are trying to be as 
efficient as possible with these programs.
    Mr. Costa. Well, my time has almost expired. I don't know 
if we can do it in next week's hearing or not, but I think it 
would be helpful for the Subcommittee and the Full Committee, 
frankly, to get an idea of what is realistic to be expected, in 
terms of what has already been allocated in the next fiscal 
year that can be actually moved out, and in the next several 
years. So, that would be helpful, I think, for all of us.
    Ms. Trujillo. Absolutely.
    Mr. Huffman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you.
    Mr. Huffman. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Stansbury from 
New Mexico for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
convening today's important hearing, and thank you to all of 
our witnesses for joining us today.
    I am especially proud to see so many New Mexicans here. As 
I often say, New Mexico's top exports are green chile and our 
water experts, of which we have many here today. So, it is so 
great to have you all here today.
    As we know in New Mexico, el agua es la vida, and it is 
part and parcel of our cultures and ways of life, our economy, 
and the future of our state.
    Assistant Secretary Trujillo, we are so proud to have you 
serving in this role and representing New Mexico.
    And, Mr. Vigil, we are so grateful for your leadership at 
Jicarilla and on the Ten Tribes Partnership. And, of course, we 
are joined by our state engineer, who is here today, Mr. 
D'Antonio.
    As a fellow New Mexico water nerd, I am excited to have you 
all here today to talk about the Colorado River and our other 
crucial watersheds in the West.
    As we all know, our rivers and communities have been 
gripped across the West by a drought this year. But our 
communities are no strangers to water scarcity, as our tribes 
and pueblos have lived on these lands since time immemorial, 
and our acequia and land grant communities have shared waters 
across many, many generations.
    But it is clear that what we are seeing today is part of a 
much larger trend of a changing climate. As temperatures are 
getting hotter, our snowpack is declining, and we are seeing 
fundamental changes in our hydrologic systems. And nowhere is 
this more visible than in New Mexico, where our communities 
have faced historic drought conditions this year, at the same 
time that our state has had the largest number of disaster 
declarations due to flooding and wildfires this year. So, it is 
clear, climate change is here, and it is threatening the 
ability of our communities to bring water to our fields, to 
meet the needs of our tribes and pueblos, our acequias, our 
farmers and ranchers, and our rivers, which depend on these 
life-giving waters.
    While the Colorado River is being strained by these 
changes, we also are seeing historic partnerships in the Basin, 
led by many of the panelists who are joining us here today, 
that are helping to bring transformational change to the 
management of this system. And these partnerships are crucial, 
not only to the communities in the Colorado River, but to the 
Rio Grande Basin that flows through my district, which depends 
on water transfers from the Colorado to meet the needs of our 
communities and our endangered species.
    As we look to the future and managing these river systems 
in a time of climate change, we need to continue to leverage 
these collaborative partnerships to invest in the best 
monitoring science and technology that we can, to invest in 
modernizing our infrastructure and operational requirements, 
and ensure that our communities have a seat at the table, and 
are helping to direct the decisions that are made about those 
water systems.
    And I believe our job, as lawmakers, is to make sure that 
we are putting into place all of the changes that are necessary 
to empower our communities by passing transformational water 
policies; working to protect our tribes and pueblos' trust and 
treaty responsibilities and water rights; investing in our 
water management agencies; investing in resilient 
infrastructure, as we are doing in the Build Back Better Act 
and Bipartisan Infrastructure Act; investing in our water 
science and data and technology; and protecting those rivers. 
That is our charge, as public servants and caretakers of these 
sacred waters.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to use a little bit 
of my remaining time to ask Assistant Secretary Trujillo.
    You have worked across the West, and the Colorado, the Rio 
Grande, and many of our rivers for many, many years. Can you 
please share with us what you think Congress can do to help 
lift up the best of these collaborative watershed efforts, and 
what we can do to best support your work?
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Representative Stansbury. And it 
makes me homesick to see you and Representative Fernandez 
there, in Santa Fe, or in New Mexico.
    I think the work that Congress is doing through the 
bipartisan infrastructure package is a great example of how 
that helps us do exactly what you mentioned in your remarks, 
where it allows us to improve our infrastructure, it allows us 
to do more recycling, to do more water planning, and drought 
contingency planning efforts, and support the existing programs 
that we have.
    And I think the underlying emphasis on sound science is 
exactly the way that we want to continue to be doing business 
in the Colorado River Basin and in the West by context, as 
well.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you so much.
    And I see, Mr. Chairman, I am out of time. But if you will 
indulge me, I just want to say I am really grateful also that 
we have Mr. Vigil here today, who is such an incredible 
resource on how we bring and make sure that our tribes have a 
seat at the table, as we are directing and protecting our water 
rights for our tribes and our communities moving forward.
    So, we are grateful to have you here today, as well. Thanks 
very much.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Representative Stansbury. We are 
going to continue this New Mexico thread by recognizing 
Congresswoman Leger Fernandez for the next 5 minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Chairman Huffman. Are you 
getting an echo, or am I all right?
    Mr. Huffman. I love the sound of your voice, but we are 
hearing it twice.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Let me try to fix that.
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. OK, is this better?
    Mr. Huffman. Yes, the audio sounds pretty clear. Go ahead.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. OK, great. Sorry about that.
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Agua es vida, water is life. Earlier 
this year I did an Ague es Vida Tour in my beautiful district, 
where I heard from the Rio Chama Acequia Association, local 
farmers, the Carson National Forest, Taos Pueblo, and many 
more. And at each stop, local leaders told me about the impact 
that declining water supplies and the climate crisis has on 
their communities.
    And something that resonated, as Mr. Vigil pointed out, the 
importance of people, of tribes being talked to before things 
happen. The acequia users immediately below the dam, which 
receives water from the Colorado, noted that they were never 
consulted when the dam was being planned and constructed. They 
noted how the dam's operation negatively impacts their 
irrigation canals and structures, but they just weren't part of 
the conversation.
    Mr. Vigil, in your testimony you talked about an idea. You 
named it the sovereign governance team, and that you thought it 
was very important that this be created when crafting future 
Colorado River agreements. Can you give us a really short 
synopsis of what a sovereign government's governance team looks 
like?
    What should it look like, this consultation?
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Did I go mute again?
    Mr. Vigil. It wasn't you, Representative, it was me, I am 
sorry. Thank you so much for the question, and thank you for 
the acknowledgment.
    And yes, it is really important to understand, 
Representative, that right now there is no formal 
institutionalized inclusion of the 30 tribal sovereigns into 
the policy-making process, as it exists. So, we have to rely on 
either our State sovereign or the Federal sovereign to 
represent our tribal water interests.
    And we have really built the foundation of understanding, I 
think, particularly in the Colorado River Basin, in terms of 
the absolute need for tribes to be at that sovereign table with 
the Federal Government and the State sovereign to make policy 
for the future of the Colorado River, because the current 
policy isn't inclusive of that formally. And no matter how much 
you want to engage in the conversation of inclusion, the 
structure doesn't allow for that right now.
    So, when we are talking about drought and drought response, 
yes, we can be a part of that conversation, and it is in our 
DNA about how to live sustainably and how to practice adaptive 
management in and through our culture. But for us to be able to 
participate meaningfully, as we should, there needs to be a 
structure for engagement, and there is not one that exists now.
    So, why not use the template of something that was already 
created and seems to have worked, to a large extent, in terms 
of creating a table for sovereigns to engage? And this will do 
a whole number of things, in terms of forwarding policy in the 
Colorado River, where we need to start thinking about a culture 
and behaviors of dealing with less of a resource, and how we 
are going to equitably apportion that resource, as has already 
been stated.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so very much. I wanted to 
get two quick questions in for our other Nuevo Mexicana.
    As you know, the Navajo Gallup Water Supply Project runs 
through my congressional district. It helps the Jicarilla 
Apache Nation, Navajo City, Gallup, and other surrounding 
communities. And I am going to put this together with also 
other pipelines, because what we have is, those pipelines, 
finishing them has been delayed and we don't have the 
authorized spending level that is needed. We no longer have 
enough money.
    So, I wanted to ask you if you and the Bureau would be 
committed to work with me and the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the 
Navajo Nation, and Gallup on amendments to the Project's 
authorization, so we can take advantage--not take advantage, 
but we can make sure that we recognize the true costs.
    And, also, we are going to have to make sure there are 
additional groundwater wells to supply communities until the 
project is complete. So, I am hoping you will be open to 
working with us on getting that done.
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Representative Fernandez. That 
project is near and dear to my heart, and I have been working 
on it very closely for over 15 years, and will be very happy to 
make sure your staff and yourself are aware of all of the 
progress we have been making.
    And we have been working very closely with folks there in 
the region, at the Navajo Nation, and in the local communities 
to think creatively about how to make sure we can complete the 
effective components of the program. And we will be happy to 
work on technical support with your office and with others to 
make sure that we can make any adjustments that may be needed.
    But I was happy to participate in the groundbreaking 
ceremony for the Cutter Lateral, and then I am looking forward 
to being able to participate in the blessing ceremony, because 
that portion of the pipeline has been completed. The managers 
did a great job of that construction, and it is currently 
providing water to the communities who did not have it 
available, previously. And it is a great example of the 
commitment from the Bureau of Reclamation and Department of the 
Interior of meeting the tribal needs in our various communities 
and in our home state of New Mexico.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Ms. Trujillo. The gentlelady's time 
has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the Full 
Committee, Representative Grijalva from Arizona.
    Mr. Grijalva. First of all, I thank Chair Flores for her 
comments and her kind remarks. They are very much appreciated. 
And as the Chairwoman knows, all of us are very much aware in 
Arizona of the significant contribution the tribe made to 
accomplish that portion of the Drought Contingency Plan. So, 
many thank yous.
    Let me follow up on something that Chairman Huffman was 
asking. The comments you hear about, if you throw out NEPA, you 
throw out endangered species, you throw out other environmental 
protections, air quality, water quality, that the drought will 
be resolved. That is not true. That is not even a false choice. 
It is just not true. I ask this because I think it is very 
important about utilization and usage, going forward.
    And as you and the council put together the leasing 
proposal, is the lease going to prioritize water releases that 
help deal with the deficit that we have in the Colorado River? 
Is that the primary focus of it, if I may ask?
    It is your prerogative to put in there what you want, Madam 
Chair, and I acknowledge that and respect that. But my question 
is, is that something that is a consideration?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Huffman. Do we have the Chairwoman?
    Ms. Flores. Thank you for the question, Chairman Grijalva.
    We want our sovereignty protected to use our water as we 
decide. Right now we don't have that authority to use the 
water, and we are seeking to lease our water. We can only use 
our water on our lands, our farmlands.
    But our tribal members decided in a referendum that they do 
not want to make multi-generational commitments of our water 
for new development. We are finally free from the long-term BIA 
land leases and do not want our water to be committed in the 
same way.
    We are committed to saving the river and helping our 
neighbors and overall environment. So, we want the authority to 
decide again for ourselves how to use our water, which is the 
same authority other tribes in Arizona have, and we have water 
to do so.
    Mr. Grijalva. And I respect that, trust me, I respect that. 
But in this process, this legislative process, I am asking a 
question that I think is inevitable, and I think that is 
further discussions that Chairman Huffman and I can have with 
your leadership and yourself, Madam Chair. Again, thank you for 
what you are doing for Arizona, and thank you very much for 
your kind comments. I appreciate it.
    Ms. Flores. Thank you.
    Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Vigil, 12 tribes in the Colorado River 
Basin still have unresolved water rights claims. And we need 
that resolution to quantify the water rights for the tribes, 
not only for themselves, but, I think, for the whole Basin. 
Talk about that. That is more of a statement than a question, 
but what I mean is, that is pretty obvious. Those have to be 
closed.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Vigil?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Huffman. Mr. Vigil, you are muted.
    Mr. Vigil. I am very sorry. Yes. Incredibly good question, 
in terms of the tribes in the Basin who don't have quantified, 
or haven't settled their water rights yet.
    In terms of the structural deficit that is going on, the 
supply demand imbalance, and it becomes a real part of the 
conversation, because where is that water going to come from in 
that particular climate? Because that tribe absolutely has a 
right to that water, and it has a right to water for domestic 
uses, even paramount to just a settlement.
    So, it becomes really important that for certainty in the 
Basin, we start to recognize not only those tribal rights that 
are quantified, but those that are unquantified, because those 
have to be included into the conversation.
    Mr. Grijalva. Right. Thank you. Certainty, I think, is the 
key word that you used, and this is critical to that certainty 
for the Basin.
    If I may, Mr. Huffman, one question for Mr. Vigil.
    We have heard from the Tribal Nations today about being at 
the table, and it is absolutely correct. With 25 percent of the 
resource, they have to be at the table, not only 
proportionally, but with equity. But in the past the table has 
been dominated by users whose interests are more on the 
business/commercial side.
    And not only the integration of tribes, but how we create a 
balance in the future drought management plans after 2026, how 
are we going to create that balance?
    Mr. Vigil. Yes. First you have to acknowledge----
    Mr. Grijalva. This is for Ms. Trujillo, Mr. Vigil.
    Mr. Vigil. Oh, I am sorry.
    Mr. Huffman. Ms. Trujillo?
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vigil, as 
well.
    Mr. Chairman, we at Interior recognize the importance of 
involvement of our tribes, and have been working very closely 
and through several forums, some of them that Mr. Vigil is 
involved with, like the Water and Tribes Initiative and the Ten 
Tribes Partnership.
    We also have a technical discussion going on with regular 
conversations throughout the Basin with our tribes. And then, 
in Arizona, the intertribal forum allows us multiple 
opportunities for interactions.
    And we think, going forward, we are going to have to be as 
inclusive as possible in all of the seven states, with respect 
to the State Representatives, the local communities, the non-
profit organizations, the very, very broad group of interested 
people who are depending on the Colorado River and will need to 
be part of our discussions, going forward.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. When this was created, the 
interests of the West were different. This is a different West, 
and there are many different constituencies and voices that 
need to be heard in the development of those plans.
    Thank you, Mr. Huffman, thanks to----
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Grijalva. I yield back.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. And I know that, as Mr. Vigil was 
attempting to chime in, he was going to remind us that he had 
suggested the Columbia River Basin as a potential model as an 
answer, I am sure, to your question. I appreciate his testimony 
and everyone in our panel of Federal and tribal witnesses.
    We are going to move on now to a second panel. I would like 
to remind the second panel witnesses to please mute yourself 
when you are not speaking. Of course, the flip side of that is 
please unmute yourself when we need you to speak. We are 
continually reminded of that side of it, as well.
    But I will allow the witnesses to all finish their 
testimony before we bring it back to Members for questions.
    I will now introduce our second panel. Today, we have the 
governors representing all of the seven states of the Colorado 
River Basin with us to present testimony--or the governors' 
representatives, rather. We won't have all seven governors 
themselves, but we will have representatives from all seven of 
those governors.
    And we will hear first from Mr. Thomas Buschatzke, Director 
of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Buschatzke for 5 minutes.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Huffman. And you are muted, Mr. Buschatzke.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Huffman. OK, we are going to try to fix the audio. 
Let's give this just a moment.
    We could have Mr. Peter Nelson from the Colorado River 
Board of California ready on deck, if we can't get the audio 
fixed for Mr. Buschatzke.
    Mr. Buschatzke. Chairman Huffman, can you hear me now?
    Mr. Huffman. There you go. We have you loud and clear.

 STATEMENT OF TOM BUSCHATZKE, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF 
               WATER RESOURCES, PHOENIX, ARIZONA

    Mr. Buschatzke. Thank you for providing me an opportunity 
to testify today on behalf of the state of Arizona. I have also 
submitted written testimony.
    A 20-year drought and climate change have had devastating 
impacts on the Colorado River. In 2022, Arizona will lose 18 
percent of its total Colorado River entitlement. Impacts to 
agriculture, tribes, and municipal water users will result. But 
Arizonans have come together to provide financial resources and 
wet water to partially mitigate those impacts.
    The likelihood of future deeper cuts is high, and in 2023, 
Arizona may lose an additional 80,000 acre-feet. And mitigation 
for those reductions is unlikely. In August, projections of 
Lake Mead levels triggered a consultation provision in the 
Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan. The robust actions we 
have taken to date are not enough. Arizona, Nevada, and 
California have been meeting, and are looking to do more.
    Additional actions to protect Lake Mead fall into two 
categories: mandatory cuts or additional conservation. 
Arizona's goal is conservation, and not greater cuts. Tribal 
and non-tribal partnerships will achieve that goal.
    Over the last two decades we have learned valuable lessons 
for managing the Colorado River, and they include:
    (1) be vigilant in monitoring the hydrology of projected 
reservoir elevations. We must have data and modeling products 
produced by the Bureau of Reclamation, who possess the best 
available science.
    (2) achieve outcomes to equitably share the benefits and 
risks attendant to the Colorado River system.
    (3) adhere to an ethic of collaboration among the states, 
Mexico, the United States, tribes, and other stakeholders.
    (4) recognize that we are connected, from Wyoming to the 
Sea of Cortez.
    (5) incentivize actions that conserve water in Lake Mead.
    (6) resources from the United States and its agencies must 
be tools in the toolbox.
    And (7) continue state participation in formal discussions 
with Mexico.

    As I mentioned, Arizona tribes are key stakeholders in 
Colorado River management. A healthy river is critical to 
tribal water rights settlements. Arizona has 11 of its 22 
tribes with rights yet to be determined in whole or in part.
    Uncertainty attached to climate change impacts on the flow 
of the river, and to the post-2026 operating criteria, further 
complicates the completion of settlements. But it is important 
to the state that those tribal claims be settled.
    In conclusion, drought and climate change are presenting 
challenges that are likely to increase over time. Proper 
planning, management, robust conservation, and collaboration 
across political jurisdictions and among stakeholders create 
the greatest likelihood for success today and in the future.
    I thank you again, and I stand ready to answer questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Buschatzke follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Thomas Buschatzke, Director, Arizona Department 
                           of Water Resources

                              INTRODUCTION

    My name is Tom Buschatzke and I am the Director of the Arizona 
Department of Water Resources. Thank you for providing me an 
opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the State of Arizona as 
the subcommittee examines the status and management of drought in the 
Colorado River Basin.

                               BACKGROUND

    In 1980, Arizona took a major step forward in water management when 
it adopted the Groundwater Management Act, a groundbreaking set of laws 
to manage our finite groundwater supplies and incentivize conjunctive 
use of surface water and groundwater. The Act was a hard-fought 
compromise between agriculture, industry, mining interests and 
municipalities. The Act imposes stringent water management regulations 
in the areas of the state designated as Active Management Areas, or 
``AMAs.'' Within AMAs, municipal, industrial, and agricultural 
groundwater users are subject to mandatory water conservation 
requirements. Agricultural acreage is capped, with no new agricultural 
land allowed to be put into production after 1980. Turf acreage is 
limited on new golf courses and so is the amount of water they can use. 
New housing developments are required to show that they have a 100-year 
renewable water supply before they can be built. Outside of AMAs, 
community water systems, i.e., municipal providers, are required to 
have conservation and drought management plans in place and 
agricultural acreage is capped in areas designated as Irrigation Non-
Expansion Areas.
    The overarching policy goal of the Act is to reduce reliance on 
finite groundwater supplies and preserve those supplies for use when 
drought has reduced the availability of surface water supplies. These 
aggressive water management actions have resulted in a reduction in 
Arizona's water use over the same time period that the State's 
population and economic output have increased. One example of the Act's 
success is that Arizona's dependence on groundwater has decreased from 
53% in 1980 to 41% as of 2019.
Building Upon the Original Groundwater Management Act
    The 1980 Groundwater Management Act has been improved over time as 
new programs and tools were identified. In 1986, the Arizona 
Legislature established the Underground Water Storage and Recovery 
program to allow persons with surplus supplies of water to store that 
water underground and recover it for use at a later time. In 1994, the 
Legislature enacted the Underground Water Storage, Savings, and 
Replenishment Act, which further refined the underground storage 
program.
    There are several mechanisms used to accomplish the storage 
requirements and certify the creation of ``long-term storage credits'' 
that can be accessed in the future. One way to earn long-term storage 
credits is to put Colorado River water or reclaimed water into 
facilities constructed for the purpose of allowing the water to 
infiltrate into the underlying aquifer. Long-term storage credits can 
also be earned by supplying a substitute surface or reclaimed water 
supply to a farmer who would otherwise pump groundwater for irrigation. 
The groundwater left in the ground by that farmer creates long-term 
storage credits that can be recovered later by the entity supplying the 
surface or reclaimed water supply to the farmer. This method for 
creating long-term storage credits leverages existing infrastructure: 
the canals, laterals and wells already being used by the farmer.
    Another commonly used method to create long-term storage credits is 
to utilize existing dry streambeds. Water is delivered into those 
streambeds and infiltrates into the groundwater aquifer. Infiltration 
rates can be enhanced by the construction of basins or berms. A less 
frequently used fourth mechanism is to put surface water or effluent 
directly into the aquifer through injection wells.
    Protections are in place to ensure that the addition of water to 
the aquifer through this program does not harm the aquifer's water 
quality and that rising water levels do not damage existing structures 
extending below land surface.
    The underground storage program serves multiple objectives by 
integrating sustainable water supply management and drought protection. 
Water users in Arizona have taken advantage of this program to store 
water underground to protect against reductions in surface water 
supplies due to drought. Long-term storage credits can be used to 
demonstrate renewable water supplies to meet the 100-year requirement 
for residential growth. Long-term storage credits are fungible and can 
be sold from one water user to another, thus creating a market 
mechanism to help manage water supplies in Arizona.
    The State recognized the value of the underground storage program 
when it created the Arizona Water Banking Authority in 1996. This state 
agency is charged with storing water underground to backfill shortages 
of Colorado River water for municipal, industrial and tribal entities 
that have their water delivered to them through the Central Arizona 
Project and for certain municipal and industrial Colorado River water 
users who have contracts directly with the Secretary of the Interior. 
To date the Water Banking Authority has stored about 4.3 million acre-
feet for these purposes. The Water Banking Authority is also authorized 
to engage in interstate banking of Colorado River water with California 
and Nevada. To date, the Water Banking Authority has stored 601,000 
acre-feet for Nevada. Arizona previously stored water for California, 
but California has since recovered that water.
Current Issues of Concern: Drought and Climate Change
    Arizona has been under an emergency drought declaration since 1999. 
The Governor of Arizona makes that declaration annually pursuant to a 
recommendation from the Governor's Drought Interagency Coordinating 
Group. The declaration relates to local conditions ``on the ground'' in 
Arizona as well as drought impacts to water supplies.
    The past two decades of on-going drought in the western United 
States, and in particular the Colorado River Basin, is challenging the 
seven Colorado River Basin States of Arizona, California, Colorado, 
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as the Republic of 
Mexico, to meet the needs of the 40 million people and millions of 
acres of farmland that rely on the River.
    The volume of water in Lake Mead has been declining since the Lake 
was last full in 2000. The cause of the decline is over-allocation of 
the River and drought-induced reductions in the annual average flow of 
the River. More importantly, many scientists believe that it is climate 
change, not drought, that is the root cause of declining flows in the 
Colorado River system. To illustrate that point, we have seen several 
years in which runoff is significantly lower than snowpack. For 
example, in water year 2021, snowpack in the Colorado River Basin 
peaked at 89% of normal, while runoff was only 33% of normal. This 
phenomenon is likely the result of the hotter and drier conditions 
caused by climate change. This trend is one that water managers must 
take into account as we plan for the future of the Colorado River.
    Natural flows in the Colorado River have decreased from the long-
term average of 14.8 million acre-feet per year to an average of 13.3 
million acre-feet per year over the last 30 years. Future flows of the 
Colorado River are predicted to be even less.
Actions and Creative tools to manage the Colorado River
    Water managers in the Colorado River Basin have been cognizant of 
the risks to the water supplies provided by the River for decades and 
have taken numerous actions to address these risks. In 2007, the 
Secretary of the Interior adopted the Colorado River Interim Guidelines 
for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake 
Powell and Lake Mead, commonly referred to as ``the Guidelines.'' The 
Guidelines require reductions in Colorado River water use by Nevada and 
Arizona triggered at specified elevations in Lake Mead. Those 
reductions were intended to slow projected declines in Lake Mead 
elevations and to reduce the probability of the Lake falling below 
critical elevations to single digits. The Guidelines also work to 
balance the contents of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, thus protecting key 
elevations in both reservoirs. New tools to incentivize conservation in 
Lake Mead were also developed in those Guidelines. One important tool 
is ``Intentionally Created Surplus'' or ``ICS,'' which allows a water 
user to conserve water that has been historically used and effectively 
store it in Lake Mead for use at a later date. That tool has been very 
successful in bolstering water levels at Lake Mead.
    After the Guidelines took effect, water managers representing the 
Basin States began working with the Department of the Interior and the 
International Boundary and Water Commission (``IBWC'') to develop a 
framework for cooperative efforts between the United States and Mexico 
in managing the Colorado River. Recognizing the need to include the 
Basin States in binational discussions regarding the Colorado River, 
the IBWC adopted Minute No. 317 to the 1944 Mexican Water Treaty to 
allow for participation by the Basin States. In 2012, in coordination 
with the Department of the Interior and the Basin States, through the 
adoption of Minute No. 319 to the 1944 Mexican Water Treaty, Mexico 
signed on both to the benefits inherent in the Guidelines, such as 
conserving water for later use, and to voluntary reductions equitable 
to those mandated by the Guidelines.
    In 2013, the Colorado River Basin States concluded that the 
Guidelines were not robust enough to protect Lake Mead and the Colorado 
River System. The States embarked on a process to identify and 
prescribe additional actions to protect the River. Those discussions 
culminated in the Secretary of the Interior adopting the Upper Basin 
and Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plans (``DCP'') in May 2019.
    The Lower Basin DCP requires additional contributions to Lake Mead 
by Nevada, Arizona and California at targeted elevations. Through 
Minute No. 323 to the 1944 Mexican Water Treaty, Mexico also agreed to 
participate in the actions contained in the Lower Basin DCP. The 
Guidelines and the DCP agreements are in place through 2026. Table 1 
shows the volumes of reductions and contributions by participant at 
each elevation under the combined requirements of the Guidelines and 
the Lower Basin DCP.

 Table 1. 2007 Interim Guidelines Shortage Reductions and Incremental 
                           DCP Contributions

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Two other key components of the Lower Basin DCP are expanding 
ICS flexibility as an incentive to conserve water in Lake Mead and 
establishing an adaptive management provision if projections show a 
continued decline in the Lake Mead levels.
    While the DCP was under negotiation, in light of the need for 
immediate action, water managers developed another mechanism to protect 
Lake Mead, beyond the creation of ICS. Water users can reduce their 
historical use and leave that water in Lake Mead as part of the 
contents of the River system. Unlike ICS, the conserved water is not 
recoverable by the entity that created it. That water is referred to as 
``system conservation.'' The Bureau of Reclamation has played a crucial 
role in agreements to compensate those who create system conservation 
by verifying the reduction in consumptive use.

    Table 2 illustrates the efforts of water users in the Lower Basin 
States and Mexico to preserve the elevation of Lake Mead through ICS 
and system conservation. The Bureau of Reclamation has shown that since 
2014, the collective conservation efforts in the Lower Basin have 
increased the elevation of Lake Mead by approximately 50 feet. When the 
Central Arizona Water Conservation District's (``CAWCD'') voluntary 
forbearance of excess Central Arizona Project (``CAP'') water and the 
additional contributions agreed to in the DCP are included, Arizona's 
contributions by themselves have increased the elevation of Lake Mead 
by approximately 23 feet, two-thirds of which was for overall system 
benefit and not for ICS.

          Table 2. Water Conservation in Lake Mead since 2014

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Impacts of Colorado River reductions to Arizona and mitigation 
        efforts

    In 2022, Tier 1 of the Guidelines will be in effect, requiring 
additional DCP reductions. Nevada will leave 21,000 acre-feet in Lake 
Mead; Mexico will leave 80,000 acre-feet in Lake Mead; and Arizona will 
leave 512,000 acre-feet in Lake Mead. These are significant reductions 
for our water users.
    Arizona has a 2.8 million acre-foot per year apportionment of Lower 
Basin Colorado River water. When full supplies are available, about 1.5 
to 1.6 million acre-feet of this water is used by Tribes, agriculture, 
cities, water companies and industries in central and southern Arizona 
through the CAP. The remainder of Arizona's apportionment is used by 
Tribes, agriculture, cities, water companies and industries along the 
mainstem of the Colorado River in western Arizona.
    Pursuant to established priorities, virtually all the reductions to 
Arizona in 2022 will be applied to CAP supplies. Water deliveries to 
the Arizona Water Banking Authority for water banking (underground 
storage for future recovery), agricultural users, two tribal 
communities, 12 cities and towns, two private water companies, a 
community facilities district, the Central Arizona Groundwater 
Replenishment District and a handful of industrial users within the CAP 
system will be reduced.
    To address these cuts, Arizona has a DCP implementation plan to 
partially mitigate the impacts. The reductions to tribal communities 
and municipal and industrial users will be fully mitigated with 
substitute water supplies or financial compensation. The reductions to 
agricultural users will be partially mitigated with substitute water 
supplies and money for infrastructure and efficiency improvements. 
Water banking will not be mitigated.
    The Arizona DCP Implementation Plan is a monument to collaboration 
and creativity. Funding sources came from the State, CAWCD and non-
governmental organizations. A DCP Steering Committee composed of 
bipartisan State legislative leaders and representatives of the State 
executive branch, tribes, water users, interest groups, agricultural 
districts, counties, and the Bureau of Reclamation hammered out the 
plan over an 8-month time frame. A package of state legislation was 
passed on January 31, 2019 to effectuate the implementation plan and to 
authorize the Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources to 
sign the Basin States' DCP Agreements. A total of 22 separate 
agreements were negotiated and executed to deliver the DCP and the 
Arizona Implementation Plan.
    The Seven Basin States' DCP Agreements and the Arizona 
Implementation Plan continue a long-standing philosophy regarding 
drought preparedness and water management: continuously develop and 
improve the legal framework, policy prescriptions, institutions and 
infrastructure needed to create certainty so that reliable and secure 
water resources are the pillar upon which the State builds its economy, 
grows its population and maintains a superior quality of life for its 
citizens. That philosophy includes partnering with the federal 
government, neighboring states and Mexico. At the same time, Arizona 
has always maintained an ethos of taking actions within the State to 
better manage its water supplies and to be prepared for and to address 
the impacts of drought-induced water supply reductions.
    Flexibility in managing water supplies and adaptation to drought 
conditions are part of Arizona's history and will continue to be a key 
management strategy now and in the future.
Additional Actions and Next Steps on the Colorado River
    In August 2021, Bureau of Reclamation projections activated the 
Lower Basin DCP adaptive management provision, commonly referred to as 
the elevation 1030' consultation provision. This provision requires 
Arizona, California, Nevada and the Department of the Interior to 
``consult and determine what additional measures will be taken to 
protect against the potential for Lake Mead to decline below elevation 
1,020 feet.'' \1\ The three states have been meeting to discuss 
additional actions to meet that requirement and to identify and resolve 
the many issues that may attach to those actions. Additional actions 
could fall into two categories: (1) additional mandatory reductions in 
use, or (2) additional voluntary conservation of water in Lake Mead 
through ICS or system conservation. At this time, the states are 
focusing on the latter category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Lower Basin Drought Contingency Operations, Section V.B.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 1030' consultation process allows the affected states and their 
water users to determine how best to manage Lake Mead and the Colorado 
River system. In the alternative, the Secretary of the Interior or a 
court could impose actions upon us. The latter is an outcome that 
potentially dictates winners and losers and is not the preferred path 
of Arizona.
    The expiration of the Guidelines and the DCP in 2026 also points to 
the need to address the operating parameters after 2026. While those 
parameters are expected to be developed through an administrative 
process, including environmental compliance under the National 
Environmental Policy Act and concluding in a record of decision, the 
Basin States agreed in 2007 to consult on the post-2026 water 
management framework. The States have embarked on that path and reached 
out to tribal communities and Non-Governmental Organizations as part of 
that process earlier this year. That process will likely continue in 
parallel with the 1030' consultation. From Arizona's perspective, the 
near-term 1030' consultation is more pressing and a higher priority.

                     CREATING RESILIENCY TO DROUGHT

Reuse of Reclaimed Water
    Arizona's history also includes a strong commitment to recycling 
and reuse of reclaimed water. Arizona was reusing substantial volumes 
of reclaimed water long before reuse became a common practice. The 
poster child for reuse in Arizona is the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 
Station in the Phoenix metropolitan area, the only nuclear power plant 
in the world to use reclaimed wastewater for cooling. Since 1973, the 
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station has held a contract for reclaimed 
water. Palo Verde currently contracts for 80,000 acre-feet per year and 
uses 72,000 acre-feet per year of treated municipal wastewater from the 
91st Ave Wastewater Treatment Plant, which also serves five cities in 
the region. Palo Verde produces up to 4,200 megawatts of power and 
serves about four million people in four western states. Technological 
advances and improved management practices have increased water use 
efficiency by the cooling towers and substantially reduced water use 
since the startup of the plant in 1986.
    Most of Arizona's municipal wastewater is reclaimed and put to 
beneficial uses, including indirect potable reuse, agricultural and 
landscape irrigation, riparian restoration and other environmental 
uses.
Augmenting Arizona Water Supplies
    In 2021, the Arizona Legislature created a Drought Mitigation Fund 
and a board to administer it. The fund is designed to explore 
opportunities to augment Arizona's water supplies with new water from 
outside the State.
    One potential project is being explored as part of the 
implementation of Minute No. 323 to the 1944 Mexico Water Treaty: 
binational desalination opportunities in the Sea of Cortez. Those 
discussions are on-going.
    Through the Governor's Water Augmentation, Innovation and 
Conservation Council, in-state desalination opportunities, additional 
reuse of recycled water, enhanced artificial recharge and other 
opportunities are also being explored.
Maximizing the use of existing infrastructure
    Arizona is leveraging existing infrastructure to develop and deploy 
additional water resources. The Central Arizona Project canal runs from 
the Colorado River through central Arizona and into southern Arizona in 
the Tucson area, a total of about 336 miles. The canal is used to 
deliver approximately 1.5 million acre-feet of water from the Colorado 
River each year. There is capacity in the canal to move other types of 
water as well. For example, certain groundwater aquifers outside of 
central Arizona have been statutorily designated to allow transfer of 
the groundwater to central Arizona. The CAP canal can be used to 
transport that water pursuant to the February 2017 System Use Agreement 
between the CAWCD (the operator of the canal) and the Bureau of 
Reclamation. The System Use Agreement ensures that the legal framework 
governing the use of the canal is honored, while taking advantage of 
the flexibility to move water inherent in the canal's design and 
operation.
    The System Use Agreement also allows the canal to be used for the 
transportation of long-term storage credits, i.e., water stored 
underground. That water will be recovered to backfill Colorado River 
shortage reductions for both non-tribal and tribal entities. The canal 
can also be used to effectuate the marketing of long-term storage 
credits.
    The System Use Agreement also enables new water management tools. 
The Cities of Tucson and Phoenix entered into a landmark exchange 
agreement in 2014. Phoenix is sending some of its Colorado River water 
through the CAP canal to Tucson where it is stored underground. When 
Phoenix needs the water, Tucson's CAP water will be delivered to 
Phoenix through the CAP canal, and Tucson will use its wells to recover 
Phoenix's stored water. That exchange leverages the use of the CAP 
canal and Tucson's wells, creating cost savings, flexibility and 
drought resiliency for both cities. Completion of that agreement was a 
major accomplishment for Arizona.
Forest and Watershed Health
    Unhealthy and overgrown forests on National Forest Service lands 
are fuel for large catastrophic wildfires that affect the health of the 
Salt River, Verde River and East Clear Creek watersheds in Arizona. 
Large-scale, high-severity wildfires make average precipitation events 
extremely destructive; accelerating flood flows and toxic runoff, 
eroding soils, depositing sediment into water storage reservoirs, and 
ultimately causing hundreds of millions of dollars in increased 
treatment costs and reduced water storage capacity. Reservoirs filling 
up with sediment and ash is a significant concern considering that the 
Greater Phoenix area is a desert environment that relies on long-term 
water storage to provide water to millions of people.

    Re-establishing healthy forests, through forest restoration, is 
critical to maintaining and protecting the health of Arizona's water 
supply. Restoring Arizona forests to a more natural condition through 
thinning provides a multitude of benefits including:

     Protecting communities, property and lives from wildfires.

     Preventing large-scale, high-severity fires that emit air 
            pollutants and carbon.

     Protecting sustainable and reliable water supplies, water 
            infrastructure, long-term water storage, and preventing 
            against degraded water quality.

     Increasing forest resiliency to natural wildfire, insects, 
            disease, and the effects of climate change.

     Sequestering additional carbon.

     Protecting endangered and threatened species and their 
            habitat.

     Protecting recreation, tourism, and economic 
            opportunities.

    On average, approximately 12,000-15,000 acres of thinning occurs 
every year. The goal is to thin to 50,000 acres per year over the next 
20 years. The State of Arizona has increased its efforts in forest 
restoration through the Healthy Forest Initiative and partnerships. 
There is a significant need to increase the pace and scale of 
restoration to protect Arizona's water supplies.

                               CONCLUSION

    Arizona and the other western states face serious challenges as we 
grapple with drought and the anticipated hotter and drier future 
attendant to climate change. Meeting those challenges requires 
vigilance in monitoring the hydrologic conditions, watershed health and 
reservoir contents to create programs and implement actions that not 
only respond to those conditions but reduce the likelihood that more 
onerous water supply reductions will occur.
    Arizona has a history of meeting challenges both on its own and in 
concert with other water users in the Colorado River Basin and Mexico. 
Arizona recognizes that it cannot be successful solely on its own, 
particularly given the challenges we face today. Collaboration with the 
Basin States and Mexico is the only realistic pathway to achieve 
success. Likewise, the water users, Tribes and other stakeholders 
throughout the Basin must be engaged and provide input into actions to 
protect the Colorado River System. Arizona has embraced that philosophy 
in the creation of the DCP, the 1030' consultation and post-2026 
discussions.
    Partnering with the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of 
Reclamation is also a crucial factor in managing the current conditions 
of the Colorado River and will be key in managing our future. 
Reclamation's data and modeling capabilities represent the best 
available science in providing a baseline for hydrologic conditions and 
projections to inform decision-making for future actions. Interior and 
Reclamation have other key resources that can deployed to enhance the 
sustainability of the Colorado River System.
    Moving forward, transparency and inclusiveness are imperative. 
Arizona benefited by following those tenets in the creation of its DCP 
Implementation Plan that set the stage for approval of the Seven Basin 
States' DCP Agreements. Arizona is following those tenets as it 
continues its internal discussion and as it works with the Basin 
States, Mexico, the United States and stakeholders on the Colorado 
River.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Thomas Buschatzke, Director, 
                 Arizona Department of Water Resources

    Thank you, and the members of the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, 
and Wildlife, for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee, 
as well as the Subcommittee's efforts to explore solutions to the 
continuing hydrologic decline on the Colorado River. It is only through 
sharing information and collaborating on innovative ideas that we can 
develop long-term certainty for this crucial water supply in the West.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
    Question 1. The ``Law of the River'' and the quantification of the 
Upper and Lower Basin states amounted to around 17 million acre-feet of 
water, which was determined was the annual flow at the time. However, 
we know in the previous two decades it has been more like 12.4 million 
acre-feet. And this does not even account for other Native American 
tribes with water right claims that have yet to be resolved. There is a 
tremendous amount of demand, and with climate change we know the yield 
is only going to decline. Let's say the annual yield over the next 30 
years is 10 million acre-feet, maybe with climate change it's more or 
less. How do we take into account how we got to the original 
allocation, with the Upper and Lower Basin States and the Native 
American tribes, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?

    Answer. We remain committed to resolving the outstanding claims to 
water of Native American tribes. However, reaching settlement of Tribal 
reserved water rights is a complex, years-long process that involves 
numerous parties and may include settlement of both Colorado River and 
non-Colorado River water supplies. While any settlement or other 
resolution of claims to Colorado River water must take into account the 
River's operating rules and available supply, those claims should be 
resolved in a process separate from the development of the overall 
River operations.
    The 1922 Colorado River Compact apportions 16 million acre-feet per 
year of water between the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins. At the 
time, Compact negotiators believed as much as 20 million acre-feet 
could be available throughout the entire Colorado River System each 
year, and over 17 million acre-feet per year in the River's mainstream. 
Even so, they recognized that the highly variable river would not yield 
a reliable supply every year. At the time annual river flows sometimes 
fell below 10 million acre-feet. As such, the negotiators anticipated 
and provided for years of drought and low river flows. The Compact gave 
the certainty needed to construct Hoover Dam and other storage 
reservoirs, providing both flood control protection and water supply 
security for over 85 years. That water security has enabled the 
economic prosperity envisioned by the Compact negotiators a century 
ago.
    The Law of the River (court decisions and decrees, a Treaty, 
compacts, regulations, federal statutes, and numerous agreements that 
govern Colorado River operations) following the 1922 Compact reflects 
an understanding that the Colorado River provides less water than was 
thought to be available in 1922. Apportionments to individual Upper 
Basin States made in 1948 are by percentages of available water, not 
set volumes. In the U.S. Supreme Court's 1964 decree in Arizona v. 
California (376 U.S. 340), the Court anticipated shortages to the Lower 
Basin States' mainstream apportionments. Additions to the Law of the 
River made in this century also reflect a keen understanding that 
collaboration and flexibility are crucial to ensure that the Colorado 
River can continue to serve the existing and growing demands on this 
critical water supply.
    Although the 1922 Compact negotiators anticipated drought, and 
those who followed recognized a smaller supply, they could hardly 
anticipate what we are experiencing now. Even so, the Compact provides 
the foundation for all that has followed and must remain. We must also 
take into account every resulting right, obligation, and benefit which 
finds its source in that bargain. Ultimately, we must develop tools to 
use less water within that framework, either through voluntary or 
mandatory conservation.
    Our challenge now is not reallocating water. Our challenge is to 
collaborate to address the increasing hydrologic risks by developing 
additional innovative, and proactive measures, including either 
voluntary or mandatory conservation, that fit within the existing 
structure to address the challenges we face today and going forward, 
including when there is insufficient water to fully satisfy the 
existing apportionments of the Colorado River System.
    In the past two decades, the United States, Mexico, the seven 
Colorado River Basin States, Native American tribes, water users, non-
governmental organizations and other stakeholders have demonstrated the 
ability to collaborate to create and implement such innovative and 
proactive solutions, incorporating the ability to adapt to changing 
conditions, and to do so within the framework of the Law of the River 
as it exists today.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Buschatzke.
    We will now go to Peter Nelson, he is the California 
Chairman of the Colorado River Board.

 STATEMENT OF PETER NELSON, CHAIRMAN, COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF 
                CALIFORNIA, GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Nelson. Good afternoon. My name is Peter Nelson, and I 
am the Chairman of the Colorado River Board of California and 
California's Colorado River Commissioner.
    I would like to thank the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, 
and Wildlife, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, Chairman 
Grijalva, and the other members of the Committee for holding 
this hearing at a time of historic drought.
    Regardless of why the climate has changed, the record is 
clear: less than average precipitation is resulting in 
measurable runoff, aridification, causing lake levels to 
plummet, putting 40 million Americans at risk, environmental 
havoc, and food production peril.
    The Colorado River Board of California represents the 
collective interest of Colorado River water users in our state. 
We protect the rights and interests of California's water and 
hydropower resources. We provide peer-to-peer relationships in 
collaborative, interstate discussions with the other six Basin 
states, the Federal Government, tribes, and Mexico.
    California is also experiencing drought with equal, if not 
greater, severity. Allocations for the State Water Project 
contractors in 2021 are just 5 percent. The Department of Water 
Resources is signaling contractors to expect an initial zero 
percent allocation, needing a snowpack of 140 percent just to 
get a normal runoff. For the first time ever, Orville Dam is 
now unable to produce power, due to low reservoir levels. Pre-
1914 water rights holders were issued orders to stop 
diversions.
    On the brighter side, California has stepped up in 2003 
with the Quantification Settlement Agreement to reduce Colorado 
River uses by 800,000 acre-feet annually, and included 
mitigation measures for the Salton Sea. We achieved and 
exceeded conservation through the 2007 shortage criteria and 
2019 Drought Contingency Plan. So, Metropolitan has 1.3 million 
acre-feet of storage in Lake Mead, adding 14 feet of elevation.
    Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water 
District, and Palos Verdes have a successful fallowing program, 
with partners in Arizona, Nevada, and the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
    Additionally, Metropolitan Nevada, Arizona, and Reclamation 
are currently collaborating on a large-scale recycling project 
in the Los Angeles Basin. This has the potential to create 
150,000 acre-foot annually of water for the region, reducing 
demand on the Colorado River.
    Naturally, with the largest share of California's river 
use, a target will be the Imperial Irrigation District. 
Imperial has already participated in the largest ag-to-urban 
transfer in the country through the Quantification Settlement 
Agreement. Any additional water conservation programs will need 
to, of course, have their concurrence, and need to address the 
Salton Sea mitigation.
    California is collaborating with our sister states in the 
Basin, Native American tribes who need access to clean and 
reliable water and to be part of the process, Federal agencies, 
and colleagues in Mexico in developing the next set of Colorado 
River System operating guidelines to be put in place in 2026. 
We are responding with all hands on deck to the reconsultation 
requirements under the DCP 1030 elevation trigger, in 
collaboration with these partners.
    We urge the Committee to support and provide funding for 
partnerships involving large-scale regional recycling projects, 
system conservation programs, Salton Sea mitigation, and water 
quality improvements, including addressing salt reductions from 
the Paradox Valley unit. It will only be through collaboration 
and cooperation among all of us stakeholders in the Basin that 
we will have any chance of meeting these challenges, and we 
will need the United States to be involved in these efforts.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement, 
and I look forward to addressing any questions you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Peter Nelson, Chairman, Colorado River Board of 
                               California

                              INTRODUCTION

    My name is Peter Nelson, and I am the Chairman of the Colorado 
River Board of California (Board). The Board is the California state 
agency established in 1937 by the Legislature and is charged with 
safeguarding and protecting the rights and interests of the State, its 
agencies, and citizens in the water and hydropower resources of the 
seven-state Colorado River System. The Board is comprised of ten-
members, including representatives from the Coachella Valley Water 
District, Imperial Irrigation District, Los Angeles Department of Water 
and Power, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Palo 
Verde Irrigation District, San Diego County Water Authority, 
representatives from the California Departments of Fish and Wildlife 
and Water Resources, and two at-large public members. In my role as 
Chairman of the Board, I serve as California's Colorado River 
Commissioner in discussions with my counterparts in the other six 
Colorado River Basin States and representatives of the Federal 
Government. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to provide 
this testimony regarding the impacts and challenges of the ongoing 
drought in the Colorado River Basin to the Subcommittee.

              THE CHALLENGES OF THE ``MILLENNIUM DROUGHT''

    The Colorado River Basin is experiencing its worst drought in over 
100 years of record-keeping, and one of the worst droughts in the past 
1,200 years. The period from 2000 through 2021, characterized as the 
``Millennium Drought'', is projected to be the driest 22-year period on 
record with an average annual natural flow at Lee Ferry of 12.4 million 
acre-feet (MAF), which is 84% of the long-term average of 14.7 MAF 
based on the historical period 1906-2021.
    Provisional indications are that Water-Year (WY) 2021 resulted in a 
winter snowpack of about 89% of average but yielded a runoff and inflow 
into Lake Powell of about 30% of average. This disparity between 
snowpack and runoff is directly attributed to hotter than normal 
temperatures in the Basin and extremely dry soil moisture conditions. 
Currently, the observed unregulated inflow into Lake Powell was 3.52 
MAF, or about 33% of average (10.8 MAF over the period 1981-2010). WY-
2021 will end up being the third driest year on record (WY-2002 was the 
driest, followed by 1977). Finally, Water Years 2020 and 2021 are the 
driest two consecutive years in the historical record (1906-2020).
    As of October 7, 2021, Lake Powell has just under 7.3 MAF in 
storage, or about 30% of capacity. Lake Mead storage is just over 9.0 
MAF, or just under 34% of capacity at an elevation of about 1,068 feet. 
Total System reservoir storage is about 23 MAF (38% of capacity) but 
has lost nearly 6.5 MAF since this same time last year.
    The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) August 2021 24-Month 
Study Report projections for Basinwide water supply conditions was 
released on August 16th and was used to define operations at both Lakes 
Powell and Mead for development of the 2022 Annual Operating Plan (AOP) 
for the Colorado River Reservoir System. Based upon the August 2021 24-
Month Study Report, and pursuant to the tier determination criteria in 
the 2007 Interim Guidelines, it is projected that the annual release 
from Lake Powell through Glen Canyon Dam in WY-2022 will be reduced to 
7.48 MAF (only the second time since 2007 that there will have been a 
7.48 MAF release from GCD), and the current projection is that the 
annual release in WY-2023 could be as low as 7.0 MAF.
    The calendar year (CY) 2022 Lake Mead operations are projected to 
be conducted under a ``Level 1 shortage condition'', as the August 2021 
projection is that Lake Mead will be below elevation 1,075 feet on 
January 1, 2022. This will be the first time that a formal ``shortage 
condition'' has been declared by the Secretary of the Interior; and 
pursuant to the 2007 Interim Guidelines, 2017 U.S./MX Minute 323, and 
the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan (DCP), this first-tier shortage 
condition results in a combined total 0.613 MAF of reductions to 
Arizona, Nevada, and Mexico during CY-2022. Due to its senior water 
rights, California does not take any reductions under the Interim 
Guidelines and does not begin to make DCP contributions to Lake Mead 
storage until Mead reaches or goes below elevation 1,045 feet.
    The August 2021 24-Month Study Report also contains a ``minimum 
probable'' (10th%ile) projection that Lake Mead's elevation could reach 
or decline below elevation 1,030 feet in July 2023. Pursuant to Section 
V.B.2. of Exhibit 1 to the 2019 Lower Basin DCP, this projection 
requires a consultation among the Lower Basin States and the Secretary 
of the Interior to determine if ``additional measures'' are warranted 
to bolster storage in Lake Mead and protect the reservoir from reaching 
or declining below 1,020 feet a critical elevation for water supply 
(i.e., about 5.5 MAF of live capacity). The Lower Basin States have 
initiated a technical analysis and evaluation process to identify 
potential measures that could be developed and implemented to protect 
Mead elevation 1,020 feet.
    Over the past several decades, the Basin has experienced a 
noticeable shift to hotter, drier conditions, which are straining an 
already overallocated system. For instance, when comparing 2011-2020 to 
1971-1980: (1) precipitation decreased by 0.3%; (2) temperature 
increased by 2.4 degrees F (1.3 degrees C); (3) natural flow decreased 
by 8.5%, or 1.2 MAFY; (4) run-off efficiency decreased by 8.4%; and (5) 
Lower Basin intervening side-inflows decreased by 21.7%, from an 
average of 0.914 MAFY to 0.716 MAFY. While direct causality of 
increasing temperatures and reduced water supply in the Basin may not 
always be clear, the implications of the available climate-change 
science and data can no longer be ignored.
    Within the State of California, WY-2021 has ended up being the 
second-driest year (1977 being the driest) and follows WY-2020 which 
was the fifth-driest year on record. The dry conditions in California 
resulted in a drawdown of reservoir storage to 60% of average at the 
end of WY-2021. Allocations to California's State Water Project (SWP) 
contractors in 2020 were 20% of Table A allocations; and declined to 5% 
in 2021; and the Department of Water Resources has indicated that the 
initial allocation will be 0% for 2022 and will not increase until 
sufficient precipitation falls in the Northern Sierra Nevada. Finally, 
as of mid-summer 2021, 50 of California's 58 counties were under a 
drought emergency proclamation and following the Governor's call to 
reduce statewide water use by 15%, MWD issued a water supply alert 
urging its service area to meet the Governor's water reduction target.
    As this Subcommittee is aware, the wildfires of 2020 were 
catastrophic for California. Over 4.2 million acres were burned in the 
worst year ever. The impacts on watersheds in California will likely be 
felt for years to come. The 2021 summer/fall wildfire season in 
California is shaping up to be nearly as severe. For the first time in 
the state's history, two large fires have burned from the west side of 
the Sierras to the east side. As bad as the recent impacts of the 
drought have been in the Colorado River Basin, they have been equally 
bad in California.
    Finally, in July 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce's National 
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction 
Center reported a ``La Nina Watch''. The tropical Pacific Ocean is 
currently in a neutral climate state, but NOAA experts see the 
potential for La Nina conditions to emerge this fall and winter, with a 
70-80% chance of La Nina conditions from November 2021 through January 
2022. La Nina conditions across southern California tend to be drier 
than average, but exhibit a less clear signal for northern California.

          COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING AND WATER CONSERVATION

    California was one of the first states in the Basin to begin 
extensively developing the use of Colorado River water supplies in the 
1870s in the Palo Verde Valley, and by 1920 there were nearly 500,000 
acres being cultivated in the Imperial Valley. California was the 
primary advocate for the federal development of the Lower Colorado 
River system to provide reservoir storage for flood control and water 
supply reliability purposes and for a canal that would convey water to 
the Imperial Valley. These needs were met by the Congress with the 
passage of the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act (45 Stat. 1057) which 
authorized the construction of what became known as Hoover Dam, Lake 
Mead, and the Imperial Dam and All-American Canal.
    By the late-1980s and into the early-2000s, California's lawful use 
of mainstream Colorado River water supplies was averaging about 5.2 
million acre-feet per year (MAFY). Beginning in early-1990s, 
California's Colorado River water users began taking meaningful steps 
to reduce its annual demands to its basic mainstream apportionment of 
4.4 MAFY and diversify the available water supply portfolio pursuant to 
``California's Colorado River Water Use Plan'' developed by the 
Colorado River Board and its member agencies. These activities resulted 
in the 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), the Nation's 
largest ag-to-urban water conservation and transfer program, and 
initiated mitigation efforts for impacts to the Salton Sea.
    With the 2003 QSA in place, the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) 
typically conserves about 0.500 MAFY and has cumulatively conserved 
about 6.2 MAF since 2003. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) 
has banked over 4.0 MAF in its groundwater basins since the 1970s. The 
San Diego County Water Authority has invested heavily in the conserved 
water transfer agreement with IID, the cornerstone of the QSA, as well 
as the lining of the All-American and Coachella Canals and made other 
investments that have increased storage and expanded local supplies 
including the nation's largest desalination plant and $1.5 billion 
Emergency & Carryover Storage Project. The Metropolitan Water District 
of Southern California (MWD) has developed over 6.0 MAF of storage 
capacity since the 1980s, a 15-fold increase in storage capacity. Two-
thirds of this storage is outside of MWD's service area, and contained 
in the Colorado River Basin, Central Valley, and with other State Water 
Project (SWP) contractors. MWD also maintains a long-term cooperative 
water conservation program with the Palo Verde Irrigation District. As 
of January 1, 2020, MWD had 3.5 MAF stored (some on behalf of IID and 
Nevada), its largest amount to date.
    The 2001 Interim Surplus Guidelines were intended to help 
California ratchet down its average annual mainstream water use from 
5.2 MAFY to its basic apportionment of 4.4 MAFY, but the onset of the 
Millennium Drought in 2000 essentially resulted in an immediate cutback 
to California's basic mainstream apportionment of 4.4 MAFY.
    Following the implementation of the 2007 Colorado River Interim 
Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for 
Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2007 interim guidelines), over the period 
2008-2020, California has created and stored approximately 2.0 MAF of 
``Intentionally Created Surplus'' (ICS) supplies in Lake Mead. 
Collective efforts between the Lower Basin States and Mexico have 
resulted in about 4.0 MAF of conserved water supplies (equivalent to 
about 51 feet of elevation) being retained in Lake Mead.
    California utilized the LB DCP's provisions for increased storage 
opportunities and MWD and IID stored approximately 0.340 MAF total in 
Lake Mead in 2020. By the end of CY-2021, California is projected to 
have nearly 1.3 MAF of ICS stored in Lake Mead (equivalent to about 14 
feet of elevation in Mead). This could not have occurred without the 
additional ICS exhibits approved in the Lower Basin DCP and 
California's aggressive use of its collaborative water conservation 
programs among its Colorado River water users.
    For CY-2021, with the 5% State Water Project 2021 Allocation, MWD 
projected a water supply/demand gap of just under 0.650 MAF. Water 
supplies to meet the shortfall were withdrawn from MWD's dry-year 
storage reserves and the purchase of ``north of Delta'' water 
transfers. Initially, MWD had planned to meet some of that supply gap 
from water stored in Lake Mead, but as its service area demands dropped 
it altered operations so that California will not withdraw and stored 
water from Lake Mead this year.
    California Governor Newsom's Administration has prioritized water 
management as crucial to the State's economic, ecological, and social 
well-being. In July 2019, the Newsom Administration finalized a Water 
Resilience Portfolio that charts state actions to equip California to 
cope with more extreme droughts and floods and rising temperatures 
while addressing declining fish populations, overreliance on 
groundwater supplies, and a lack of safe drinking water in many 
communities, as well as other challenges. The actions of the Resilience 
Portfolio are intended to maintain and diversify water supplies, 
protect, and enhance natural systems, build connections within and 
across watersheds, and bolster preparedness for natural disasters. 
Water resilience is also prioritized in the State's budget, and over 
the next three years the budget will invest nearly $5 billion in 
projects, personnel, and local financial assistance to help the State's 
diverse regions safeguard clean, reliable water supplies even in the 
face of average warmer temperatures that can exacerbate drought and 
flooding.
    Collaboration and cooperation have been the primary tools utilized 
by the Basin states--especially the Lower Basin states--and Mexico over 
the past two decades, beginning with the interim surplus guidelines in 
2001, followed by the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation 
Program in 2005, the 2007 interim shortage guidelines, and a series of 
important binational agreements between the U.S. and Mexico, 
culminating in Mexico's Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan in 
Minute No. 323 executed in 2017. This Mexican contingency plan was 
intended to be both comparable and complimentary to the domestic DCP 
agreements executed by the Upper and Lower Basin states in 2019.
    Under the authorizations provided by the federal SECURE Water Act 
of 2009 (P.L. 111-11), Reclamation, the seven Basin states, and 
numerous stakeholders across the Basin participated in the development 
of the Colorado River Basin Study report which was finalized in 2012. 
This important science-based report evaluated various scenarios 
associated with water uses and water supply conditions in the Basin 
through 2060. The report identified a range of water supply/demand 
imbalances going forward; and defined a ``vulnerable condition'' as the 
long-term average annual natural flow at Lee Ferry of 13.8 MAFY, and an 
8-year period of flows less than 11.2 MAFY. In a related vein, 
Reclamation initiated a similar study effort focusing on the long-term 
Colorado River water resource needs among Native American Tribes in the 
Basin. The 2018 Basinwide Tribal Water Study report identified between 
2.8-3.4 MAFY of quantified/unquantified consumptive use and diversion 
water rights among the 29 federally recognized Native American Tribes 
in the Basin. Finally, hydrologic and water supply information provided 
in both the 2012 Colorado River Basin Study and 2018 Tribal Water Study 
Reports was supplemented with significant climate-change related 
scientific data and analyses in the 2020 Colorado River Basin ``State-
of-the-Science'' report.
    In the context of Colorado River management, the value of adaptive 
management cannot be overstated. With the initiation of the Millennium 
Drought in the early 2000s, the surplus guidelines morphed into the 
2007 interim shortage guidelines which, along with and additional 
conservation actions implemented by the Lower Basin States, stabilized 
the reservoir system at about 50% of capacity for more than a decade. 
However, new information available from climate scientists demonstrated 
that future droughts could be more severe than was previously 
understood, resulting in an increased risk of reaching critical 
reservation elevations. This new information resulted in the Basin 
states, Reclamation, and Mexico initiating efforts that resulted in 
both the 2017 binational Lake Mead protection plan with Mexico in 
Minute No. 323 and the 2019 Basin States DCPs both of which were 
intended to further protect critical elevations in both Lakes Powell 
and Mead while continuing to meet the water supply needs in the states 
and in Mexico. The back-to-back poor hydrologic conditions of 2020 and 
2021 demonstrated that increased risk and have significantly reduced 
levels in both Lakes Powell and Mead resulting in implementation of 
further DCP actions and evaluation of potential additional measures to 
protect critical elevations in both reservoirs.

   FEDERAL SUPPORT NEEDED TO HELP ADDRESS HISTORICALLY LOW RESERVOIR 
                       SYSTEM STORAGE CONDITIONS

    California believes that going forward it will be imperative to 
continue to closely coordinate and collaborate with not only the other 
six Basin states, water users in the Basin, Mexico, but most 
importantly with the federal agencies with management authorities and 
responsibilities in the Colorado River Basin. As the next set of long-
term operational guidelines are developed for implementation beginning 
in 2026 (post-2026 guidelines), the following are some of the 
challenges that must be addressed:

  1.  Continued Incentivization of Water Conservation, System 
            Augmentation, and Water Supply Storage Opportunities--There 
            must be an emphasis on continuing to incentivize the 
            conservation and storage of water supplies in both the 
            Upper and Lower Basins and Mexico. The federal/non-federal 
            partnership should continue to diligently identify 
            realistic and feasible System augmentation opportunities 
            (e.g., weather modification and desalination, etc.), both 
            within the United States and in collaboration with Mexico. 
            Under decreasing water supply conditions, the Lower Basin 
            states and Mexico will require increased water supply 
            management flexibility, and operational and water supply 
            reliability and certainty.

  2.  Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Enhancements--With the 
            continued decline of water supply storage in the reservoir 
            system and reduced flows in the mainstream and tributaries, 
            it will become critically important to ensure the long-term 
            viability of the water quality improvements provided by the 
            Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program authorized in 
            the 1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (P.L. 
            93-320, as amended), including developing a long-term 
            solution associated with the Paradox Valley Salinity 
            Control Unit. Going forward, it will also be important to 
            address aspects of Title I of the Act in the context of 
            maintaining adequate water quality associated with the 
            annual delivery of Colorado River water to Mexico pursuant 
            to the 1944 U.S./Mexico Water Treaty. The collaborative and 
            cooperative partnership with Mexico regarding conservation, 
            storage, salinity management, and management of 
            environmental resources will be important to these efforts.

  3.  Native American Tribal Collaboration and Partnership 
            Opportunities--The 2018 Basinwide Tribal Water Study 
            identified between 2.8-3.4 MAFY of consumptive use and/or 
            diversion rights collectively among the Tribes in the 
            Basin, and a need for reliable safe drinking water supplies 
            on some reservations highlights the need for close 
            coordination and collaboration among the U.S., Tribes, and 
            the Basin states. The Arizona DCP process provides a 
            potential template for identifying opportunities, value, 
            and benefits for Tribal participation in water conservation 
            and storage programs and should be an important element as 
            the seven States begin development of the post-2026 
            guidelines framework.

  4.  Maintenance of Colorado River Basin Environmental Compliance 
            Programs--Given the severity of the Millennium Drought and 
            System operational complexities, meeting new environmental 
            compliance obligations associated with the post-2026 
            guidelines may prove challenging and may require additional 
            analysis and evaluation pursuant to the National 
            Environmental Policy Act, as well as permits under the 
            Endangered Species Act. The Basin States will be seeking to 
            collaborate with the various federal agencies in evaluating 
            the need for bolstering existing environmental compliance 
            programs like the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 
            Program, Salton Sea management, and the Lower Colorado 
            River Multi-Species Conservation Program.

  5.  Partnership & Collaboration in Large-Scale, Longer-Term Efforts--
            With more than 20+ years of managing the Colorado River 
            System under severe and sustained drought conditions, it 
            has become abundantly clear that collaboration and 
            cooperation among the seven Basin states, water users, 
            scientists, non-governmental organizations, Native American 
            Tribes, Mexico, and agencies of the U.S. Federal Government 
            will be necessary if we are to successfully meet long-term 
            water supply needs for 40 million residents and over five 
            million acres of irrigated agriculture. California believes 
            that it will be very important for the Federal Government 
            to commit not only fiscal resources but to also direct the 
            inter-departmental and inter-agency coordination that will 
            be needed to begin to address the increasing impacts of 
            climate change in the Basin, as well as the rest of the 
            Nation. This federal/non-federal partnership must be 
            swiftly developed and dedicated to landscape-level forest 
            and rangeland management and watershed rehabilitation which 
            can provide benefits leading to improved water supply 
            conditions and improved environmental conditions for 
            species and habitats.

  6.  Utilization of Adaptive Management--To the extent possible, the 
            post-2026 guidelines must address significant variability 
            and uncertainty in basinwide water supply and hydrologic 
            conditions going forward (i.e., both extremely dry and wet 
            periods). It is anticipated that the identification and 
            consideration of inflection points for critical resources 
            (i.e., ``sign-posting'') that can trigger adaptive 
            decision-making and management will be important.

  7.  Collection, Management, and Utilization of ``Best Available 
            Science''--It will be important to evaluate updated water 
            use data, new scientific data, new research, utilize 
            hindcasting, review actual operating experiences (e.g., 
            Reclamation's final 7.D. Review Report, etc.), and continue 
            to improve precipitation and water supply forecasting 
            techniques. Fully consider future climate projections and 
            identify potential future hydrologies in evaluating 
            potential alternative management/operational strategies.

                              CONCLUSIONS

    California, its sister-states in the Colorado River Basin, and the 
Republic of Mexico, continue to face significant challenges in 
addressing the impacts of the Millennium Drought and the increasing 
effects of warming brought on by climate change. This will require 
stepped-up coordination and cooperation among the water users and all 
relevant state and federal agencies in the context of monitoring, 
forecasting, planning, decision-making and adaptive management, and 
implementation of operations, programs, and activities that can provide 
the states and water users with some measure of certainty and 
reliability associated with meeting critical water supply needs.
    California has a long history of meeting challenges associated with 
management of the state's water resources portfolio; and since the mid-
1990s in the Colorado River Basin, this has been accomplished through 
collaborative and innovative partnerships within and among its Colorado 
River water users as well among the other six Basin states and Mexico. 
Continuing this collaborative partnership among stakeholders across the 
Basin and in conjunction with the federal agencies will become 
increasingly more important as the Basin's water supply conditions are 
further impacted by the Millennium Drought and the inherent 
uncertainties associated with climate change.
    In closing, California believes that the Congress, this 
Administration, as well as future administrations will be essential in 
providing not only direction and fiscal resources in support of drought 
mitigation relief and water conservation programs, but also in 
committing the significant agency expertise that resides with the 
departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce, as well as the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to working closely with the seven 
Basin States. Going forward, California remains committed to its 
continued collaboration and cooperation with all of the Basin's water 
users, tribes, federal agencies, and Mexico in meeting the challenges 
and immediate needs during the ongoing drought as well as working 
together to identify and implement science-based sustainable water 
resources management activities and programs and develop an adaptable 
operational paradigm for the post-2026 Colorado River System 
guidelines.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Peter Nelson, Colorado River 
                   Commissioner, State of California
              Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
    Question 1. The ``Law of the River'' and the quantification of the 
Upper and Lower Basin states amounted to around 17 million acre-feet of 
water, which was determined was the annual flow at the time. However, 
we know in the previous two decades it has been more like 12.4 million 
acre-feet. And this does not even account for other Native American 
tribes with water right claims that have yet to be resolved. There is a 
tremendous amount of demand, and with climate change we know the yield 
is only going to decline. Let's say the annual yield over the next 30 
years is 10 million acre-feet, maybe with climate change it's more or 
less. How do we take into account how we got to the original 
allocation, with the Upper and Lower Basin States and the Native 
American tribes, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?

    Answer. While the 1922 Colorado River Compact may have laid out a 
scheme for the apportionment and beneficial consumptive use of up to 
17.5 million acre-feet of water supplies from the Colorado River System 
annually, the hydrologic and water supply conditions over the past 20+ 
years indicate that that volume of annual water supply likely can no 
longer be considered certain and/or reliable. Furthermore, the great 
uncertainty associated with the future impacts of warming and climate 
change that scientists have linked to anthropogenic greenhouse gas 
emissions require the seven Colorado River Basin States and all of the 
stakeholders reliant upon these important water supplies to incorporate 
best science and adaptive management in developing and implementing the 
next set of Colorado River System operational guidelines and 
implementing the full range of water management, facility operations, 
and conservation tools available.
    Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation across all of the 
stakeholders in the Colorado River Basin in the United States and 
Mexico continue to be the most important and effective tools in the 
toolbox. The Basin States and stakeholders have significant expertise 
in meeting challenges using collaborative and consensus-based 
processes. Relatively recent examples of collaborative problem-solving 
in the Colorado River Basin includes development of California's 
Colorado River Water Use Plan that resulted in the 2003 Quantification 
Settlement Agreement, the 2001 Interim Surplus Guidelines, the 2005 
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, the 2007 
Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated 
Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, Mexico's 2017 Binational 
Water Scarcity Contingency Plan in Minute No. 323, and the 2019 Drought 
Continency Plans for the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins.
    Planning for shortfalls in water supply, whether due to variable 
annual hydrology or climate-change induced, are now a primary element 
in responsible water supply management planning and decision-making and 
will continue to be going forward. With respect to tribal allocations, 
several of the Native American tribes in the Lower Colorado River Basin 
have settled and quantified water rights through the 2006 Consolidated 
Decree in Arizona v. California (547 U.S. 150). Other tribes in the 
Basin have water rights specified in settlement agreements, and others 
are in ongoing water rights settlement negotiations with the Department 
of the Interior and individual states.
    In conclusion, water managers across the Colorado River Basin in 
the United States and Mexico must continue to act in coordination and 
collaboration in developing effective strategies and programs for 
managing these important water supplies, taking into account recent 
climate science, reducing risks, and providing water users across the 
Basin with appropriate measures of certainty and reliability. The 
primary challenge that the Basin's stakeholders face today is to 
collaborate to address increasing hydrologic and water supply condition 
risks due to climate change. These risks can be reduced by developing 
additional innovative and proactive measures that can address the water 
supply challenges we face today and going forward, including when there 
are insufficient water supplies to fully satisfy the existing 
apportionments made under the 1922 Compact and other elements of the 
Law of the River.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Levin
    Question 1. Mr. Nelson, I've heard from constituent water agencies 
who are concerned by the salinity issues caused by the shutdown of the 
Paradox Valley Unit. Have you heard similar concerns among your 
members? How do you see this issue impacting the water quality in the 
system?

    Answer. The Colorado River Board of California (Board) and its 
member agencies are very familiar with concerns expressed by California 
users of Colorado River water supplies regarding the continued seismic-
safety shutdown of the Paradox Valley Unit (PVU), and I share these 
concerns. The PVU is the largest project of the Colorado River Basin 
Salinity Control Program. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) 
estimates that when fully operational, the PVU prevents nearly 100,000 
tons of salt from entering the Colorado River annually. According to 
Reclamation, a fully operational PVU represents 7% of the salinity 
control in the Colorado River when measured at the Imperial Dam 
diversion structure located about 26 river miles upstream from Morelos 
Dam, which serves as the primary Mexican diversion point at Northerly 
International Boundary.
    The shutdown of the PVU has direct water quality, water supply, and 
economic impacts to water users in the Lower Basin. Reclamation 
estimates that the loss of PVU salinity control could result in a 
nearly 10 mg/L increase in salinity at Imperial Dam with an associated 
economic impact of approximately $25 million annually. Today, the 
Colorado River is experiencing critically dry conditions that short-
term forecasts suggest will increase salinity in Lake Mead due to lower 
inflows of fresh water. Increasing salinity in the water supply for 
California impacts the effectiveness of water recycling plants and 
requires farmers to apply additional water to fields to leach salts 
from soils. It could take over a decade to regain the level of salt 
control (i.e., 100,000 tons of annual control) afforded by the PVU due 
to the time needed to ramp up replacement control projects if PVU is to 
remain inoperative over the long-term. All of these factors are 
magnified given the current critically dry conditions and further 
highlight the need to implement additional drought response activities 
in the Colorado River Basin, such as those currently being proposed by 
California, Arizona, and Nevada.
    The State of California, through the Board and its member agencies, 
continues to collaborate closely with the other six Basin States and 
Reclamation through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum to 
identify options to restart or replace annual salinity control lost 
with the current shutdown of the PVU. Additionally, pursuant to Section 
303(c)(1) of the 1972 Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500) and the 1974 
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (P.L. 93-320), the seven 
Basin States and Reclamation are responsible for continuing effective 
salinity control measures in the Colorado River Basin to meet water 
quality standards and ensure that water supplies of sufficient quality 
continue to be available for use in the United States and Mexico. The 
Board and its member agencies appreciate your attention to the 
challenge of continuing to improve the water quality of the Colorado in 
the face of the potential loss of the Paradox Valley Salinity Control 
Unit.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Nelson.
    The Committee will now hear from Mr. John Entsminger, the 
General Manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
    Mr. Entsminger, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JOHN ENTSMINGER, GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN NEVADA 
               WATER AUTHORITY, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

    Mr. Entsminger. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member 
Bentz, Representative Napolitano, and members of the 
Subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation today. My name is 
John Entsminger, and I serve as General Manager of the Southern 
Nevada Water Authority.
    It is not news to this Subcommittee that the unprecedented 
hydrologic conditions on the Colorado River have left both 
Lakes Powell and Mead at critically low elevations. The math 
problem we face is simple. If we rely upon the promises of the 
1920s and the 1940s, there are legal entitlements to 17.5 
million acre-feet of water each year. Annual use today is 
approximately 14 million acre-feet. And over the last 20 years, 
the river has given us an average of 12.3 million acre-feet.
    Despite fervent warnings from the scientific community that 
in the face of climate change we must plan for a future with 
even less than 12.3 million acre-feet, there is not yet 
anything approaching consensus within the river community as to 
how dry of a future we should plan for. And while this panel 
was asked to talk about drought, there is more and more 
evidence on the ground that what the Colorado River is actually 
facing is not drought, but aridification and a permanent 
transition to a drier future.
    If we are to build upon the river's many successes over the 
last 25 years, we must confront the magnitude of the challenge 
in front of us and quickly reach agreement on what future 
scenarios we are willing to plan for.
    But defining the problem is only the first step. We must 
develop additional supplies, pursue aggressive conservation, 
and make investments in technologies and tools that show 
promise in helping us achieve both. The agricultural and 
municipal sectors must work together. And to that end, research 
is underway to test the effectiveness of drip irrigated alfalfa 
projects in Arizona. But the learning is slow, and the pace of 
engagement between urban and agricultural water users must be 
accelerated.
    As we work on our long-term goals, we must also recognize 
that the only near-term management strategy for protecting 
critical Lake Mead elevations is reducing use. Southern Nevada 
has invested billions of dollars in water conservation and 
infrastructure. But Nevada represents a mere 1.8 percent of the 
river's allocated flows. Continued efficiency must become a 
commonplace philosophy throughout the Basin.
    We must also develop additional supplies. Metropolitan's 
Regional Reuse Project represents a long-term supply option for 
the Lower Basin, and we continue to urge the passage of the 
Large Scale Water Recycling Project Investment Act. Cooperative 
regional projects of this kind represent the best hope for 
adding new supplies into the Lower Basin.
    Our progress toward sustainable solutions depends on 
partnership and well-coordinated action. But the river 
community is at a crossroads. We have a simple, but difficult 
decision to make: Do we double down on the promises of the last 
century, and fight about water that simply isn't there, or do 
we roll up our sleeves and deal with the climate realities of 
this century?
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy 
to answer any questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Entsminger follows:]
  Prepared Statement of John J. Entsminger, General Manager, Southern 
                         Nevada Water Authority
    Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, Representative Napolitano 
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to speak 
today about Colorado River drought conditions. My name is John 
Entsminger and I serve as General Manager of the Southern Nevada Water 
Authority and as the lead representative for the state of Nevada 
regarding Colorado River issues.
    The Seven Basin States and the Federal Government enacted the 
Interim Guidelines in the early 2000s as Colorado River drought 
conditions began to materialize. As conditions worsened, we worked to 
identify and implement additional actions. From new policies and 
collaborative agreements to joint investments in new technology, we 
continue to maintain a singular goal: to keep more water in the system 
and avoid the potential for water and power supply disruptions.
    Nevada and Arizona made our first Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) 
water contributions in 2020. The Lower Basin states will make 
additional contributions in 2021. And, next year--with Lake Mead water 
levels projected to decline below elevation 1,075--we will take our 
first ever shortage reductions. These and other actions have helped to 
reduce Lake Mead water level declines by more than 50 feet. Gratefully, 
Congress has appropriated federal funding for DCP-related project 
activities. In addition, there is $300 million for DCP activities 
included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which is 
currently under consideration by Congress.
    Despite these efforts, Lake Mead water levels continue to decline. 
Preliminary observed unregulated inflow to Lake Powell was 33 percent 
of normal last year, the second worst year on record. Day-by-day and 
year-by-year we inch closer to critical elevations. According to the 
Bureau's latest modeling, we could be sitting in a third-tier shortage 
by 2025. This means the Lower Basin will be taking its deepest defined 
cuts under existing agreements, totaling 1.1 million acre-feet of water 
per year from U.S. users and an additional 0.275 acre-feet from Mexico. 
Barring multiple successive years of normal or near normal hydrology, 
which is unlikely, conditions will continue to deteriorate. Like you, 
we have come to recognize that currently required reductions are not a 
long-term solution--they are simply one of many steps needed to avert 
risk for a few more years.
    The math problem we face is quite simple. If we rely on the 
promises of the 1920s and 1940s, there are legal entitlements to use 
17.5 million acre-feet of water each year. Today, use is approximately 
14.0 million acre-feet per year. Over the last 20 years, the river has 
given us an average of 12.3 million acre-feet per year. Despite the 
fervent warnings from internationally renowned scientists like Jonathan 
Overpeck and Brad Udall that urge us to plan for a future with even 
less than 12.3 million acre-feet, the river community is far from 
consensus about how dry of a future to plan for. And, while this panel 
was asked to talk about drought, on-the-ground evidence suggests the 
Colorado River basin is not experiencing drought but aridification--a 
permanent transition to a drier future. If we are to build upon the 
river's many successes over the last 25 years, we must confront the 
magnitude of the challenge in front of us and quickly reach agreement 
on what future scenario we're willing to plan for.
    Defining the problem is only the first step. We must develop 
additional supplies, pursue aggressive conservation, and make 
investments in technologies and tools that show promise helping us do 
both. It is well known that agriculture uses approximately 80 percent 
of the river's flow. The remaining goes to municipal users. As we have 
learned from supply chain disruptions over the last 18 months, 
agricultural and urban sectors must work together to reduce water use 
while also ensuring both food security and the health and safety of our 
urban populations. To this end, several municipalities embarked on a 
new collaboration just this fall to research irrigation technology that 
can decrease consumptives uses while maintaining crop productivity. In 
Arizona, drip irrigated alfalfa projects are currently being tested. 
But the learning is slow and calculated, and the pace of engagement 
between urban and agricultural water users must be accelerated if we 
are to tackle the daunting challenge of updating the guidelines and 
agreements for future river operations.
    As we work on our long-term goals, we must also recognize that 
additional water use reductions over and above the 2007 shortage and 
DCP contributions are necessary. The drought contingency plans 
envisioned taking additional actions to protect a Lake Mead elevation 
of 1,030 feet, an elevation that Reclamation projects could be reached 
before the end of 2023. As that likelihood becomes ever more probable, 
the only near-term management strategy is reducing use. As I've 
previously shared, we have invested billions of dollars in water 
conservation and infrastructure. And, each week, we review analysis of 
additional programs and water savings opportunities. But Nevada 
represents a mere 1.8 percent of the water allocated on the river. You 
could evacuate Las Vegas tomorrow and the river's math problem would 
not be improved in any meaningful way. Our best hope is that continual 
water efficiency becomes a commonplace philosophy throughout the west.
    As you know, Southern Nevada is unique when it comes to reuse and 
recycling. We collect and treat nearly every drop of Colorado River 
water used indoors and return that water to Lake Mead for return-flow 
credits. This extends the availability of our overall supplies by more 
than 75 percent.
    At least locally, there is little more we can do to extend our 
reuse potential. That is why we began working with the Metropolitan 
Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) to explore 
participation in their Regional Recycled Water Advanced Purification 
Center project. The project represents a long-term supply option for 
our community. To this end, we continue to urge passage of the Large 
Scale Water Recycling Project Investment Act, which authorizes a new 
grant program for projects that provide substantial water supply and 
other benefits to drought-stricken regions. The Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act includes this important bill and provides $450 
million for a large scale water recycling and reuse program. The House 
Natural Resources Committee proposed an additional $100 million for 
large scale water recycling projects as part of the Build Back Better 
Act. This funding is critically needed to help project stakeholders 
offset the costs to their communities for critical water infrastructure 
and help ensure the project can be completed when needed--which, 
frankly, is soon.
    Our progress toward sustainable solutions depends on partnership 
and well-coordinated action by all. This necessitates using realistic 
views of future hydrologic risk and meaningful participation by a 
broader suite of water users. This river community is at a crossroads 
and has a simple but difficult decision to make: do we double down on 
the promises of last century and fight about water that simply isn't 
there or do we roll up our sleeves and deal with the climate realities 
of this century?

    I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to John J. Entsminger, General 
                Manager, Southern Nevada Water Authority
              Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
    Question 1. The ``Law of the River'' and the quantification of the 
Upper and Lower Basin states amounted to around 17 million acre-feet of 
water, which was determined was the annual flow at the time. However, 
we know in the previous two decades it has been more like 12.4 million 
acre-feet. And this does not even account for other Native American 
tribes with water right claims that have yet to be resolved. There is a 
tremendous amount of demand, and with climate change we know the yield 
is only going to decline. Let's say the annual yield over the next 30 
years is 10 million acre-feet, maybe with climate change it's more or 
less. How do we take into account how we got to the original 
allocation, with the Upper and Lower Basin States and the Native 
American tribes, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?

    Answer. Within the borders of the State of Nevada there are no 
outstanding Native American tribal claims to Colorado River water. 
However, we support the resolution of outstanding claims in other 
states.
    The math is not complex. We draw water every day from a system 
where uses exceed inflows despite the fact that a majority of states in 
both the Upper and Lower Basins are currently using less than their 
full legal entitlements. Therefore, any process to bring the system 
into balance must include agreement on how to match uses with available 
supply.
    Any new or expanded use of Colorado River will add to the overall 
supply and demand imbalance unless accompanied by a commensurate 
reduction of an existing use within the basin.
    The only way we can capitalize on the successes of past river 
cooperation is to confront the realities of climate change with 
transparency and candor. My sincere hope is that in doing so we can 
continue to demonstrate that the flexibility and management solutions 
for the water supply of 40 million people can be found within our 
existing laws and compacts--through collaboration and not litigation.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Entsminger. Up next is Ms. 
Rebecca Mitchell, the Director of the Colorado Water 
Conservation Board.
    Ms. Mitchell, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF REBECCA MITCHELL, DIRECTOR, COLORADO WATER 
              CONSERVATION BOARD, DENVER, COLORADO

    Ms. Mitchell. Thank you, Chairman Huffman and members of 
the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 
today. I am Becky Mitchell, Director of the Colorado Water 
Conservation Board. As Director of our state's water policy 
agency and Colorado's negotiator on the Colorado River, I want 
to share my insights on the impacts of drought in Colorado, an 
Upper Basin state, and the factors that impact our relative 
water supply security, from an interstate perspective.
    The entire Colorado Basin has been impacted by drought, but 
those impacts have been felt differently in the Upper Basin and 
Lower Basin because of where Lakes Mead and Powell sit. Both of 
these large reservoirs are above Lower Basin water uses and 
below Upper Basin uses. Having these large reservoirs above 
them has meant the Lower Basin has had some certainty in their 
water deliveries. In fact, the Lower Basin states have never 
faced shortages to their deliveries from Lake Mead, and will 
not until 2022.
    In contrast, in the Upper Basin we have taken shortages 
nearly every year for over 20 years. Without that large 
reservoir upstream, we are reliant on current runoff from 
snowpack. It is for this reason that the Upper Basin uses are 
variable. When snowpack is abundant, water is available for 
use. But when the snow is thin, water is not there, and our 
water users go without: a perfect example of the impacts of 
climate change.
    Colorado has suffered from consecutive years of low stream 
flows. Perpetual dry soil conditions have increased absorption 
of snowmelt and reduced spring runoff. This year has been 
especially difficult: 90 percent of the state is currently 
experiencing drought.
    An example of the difficult situations that Coloradans are 
dealing with: a major storage project in southwestern Colorado 
received only one-tenth of its water allocation this year, and 
due to the compounding years of shortages, people across the 
state are considering heartbreaking decisions like selling 
multi-generational family farms. These decisions have 
significant psychological, sociological, and economic impacts 
to the communities.
    The water shortages facing southwest Colorado the last 2 
years fell heavily on the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, whose economy 
and communities depend on revenue generated from crop 
production.
    On top of these impacts of drought, releases made from Blue 
Mesa Reservoir recently also impacted the local recreational 
economy. These releases were made by the Bureau of Reclamation, 
pursuant to the imminent need provision of the Drought Response 
Operations Agreement, part of the 2019 Drought Contingency 
Plan. There were also releases from New Mexico and Wyoming.
    The dry soil conditions and warmer temperatures have also 
left our forests more vulnerable to fire. The summer of 2020 
brought record-breaking fires, including three of the largest 
wildfires in Colorado's history. In total, over 650,000 acres 
were burned, and hundreds of homes were destroyed. We are still 
dealing with the aftermath of those fires, including 
catastrophic mudslides. With little vegetation to hold the soil 
in place and prevent erosion, heavy rainstorms brought roughly 
65,000 tons of mud and debris down the slopes, closing 
Interstate 70 for 17 straight days.
    It is important for me, as Commissioner of the Headwaters 
State, to make sure everyone whose work impacts the Colorado 
River understands the challenges that Coloradans face, 
particularly as we implement the 2019 Drought Contingency Plans 
and consider the negotiation of the post-2026 operations of the 
major reservoirs.
    As we look forward to those negotiations, one critical 
element will be meaningful engagement with the Tribal Nations 
in the Colorado Basin. Speaking as Colorado's Commissioner, I 
talk to the representatives of the Southern Ute and the Ute 
Mountain Ute Tribes regularly, sovereign to sovereign. I am 
proud to say Colorado has water rights settlements with both of 
those tribes, but we must understand that each tribe is 
different, with different needs, values, histories, and 
relationships. Negotiators in each state should take the time 
to sit down with each tribe in their state to understand their 
unique positions and needs.
    It will also be important to recognize that since not 
everything can be addressed through these operational 
guidelines, we must also support initiatives that recognize the 
urgent need to ensure tribes have access to clean drinking 
water.
    In addition to supporting initiatives providing funding for 
infrastructure to access clean drinking water for tribes, 
Colorado also supports ongoing efforts to fully fund 
implementation of the Drought Contingency Plan, investments in 
agricultural sustainability and efficiency, and recovery 
programs in the Upper Basin, including through House Resolution 
5001.
    My discussions with folks across the state of Colorado, 
including tribal representatives, stakeholders, NGOs, and all 
types of water users, have helped me develop some principles 
that will remain in the forefront of my mind through the 
upcoming negotiations. I believe all of those here today can 
stand behind two of those goals.
    First, we must continue the spirit of interstate 
collaboration and cooperation that has defined the work in the 
Basin for 100 years.
    Second, we must provide water supply security and certainty 
for all in the Lower Basin, the Upper Basin, and the 40 million 
people who rely on this critical resource.
    We are committed to being a part of the solution that works 
for all of the Colorado River Basin. Thank you, and I will be 
available for questions.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Mitchell follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Rebecca Mitchell, Director,
     Colorado Water Conservation Board, and Colorado Commissioner,
                    Upper Colorado River Commission
    For the last 100 years, the Colorado River Basin States have relied 
on the certainty provided by the Colorado River Compact to develop 
water supplies for 40 million people, 5.5 million acres of farmland, 
and water for our national public lands, all of which drives a $1.4 
trillion economy annually. Colorado remains fully committed to working 
with the Basin States and Department of the Interior to address the 
challenges in the Colorado River Basin in a collaborative and adaptive 
manner, while also remaining committed to the principles outlined in 
the 1922 Colorado River Compact.
    The Basin States negotiated the 1922 Colorado River Compact to: (a) 
provide for greater certainty and security for all states who rely on 
the water; (b) eliminate pressures to race to develop uses; (c) allow 
Upper Basin States to develop supplies at their own pace and safeguard 
water for future uses; (d) allow the states to determine how the water 
would be divided and apportioned amongst themselves in perpetuity; (e) 
maintain state autonomy; and (f) promote interstate comity and remove 
causes of present and future controversies.
    In addition to the 1922 Compact, other agreements, decrees, 
treaties, and other legal documents govern the allocation and use of 
Colorado River water. These agreements have largely been intended to 
provide security for the basin's water users through changing 
conditions brought on by climate change and extended drought. Two such 
agreements are the 2007 Guidelines and the 2019 Drought Contingency 
Plan. Both of these agreements are interim in nature and expire in 
2026. The Basin States now have opportunities to learn from how the 
Guidelines and DCPs have operated in practice, particularly through 
very dry hydrology. This information will help inform what comes next.
    Currently, there are significant ongoing planning and 
implementation efforts underway, all taking place against a backdrop of 
critically low reservoir elevations, a 21-year millennium drought that 
is ongoing, and the challenges of a warming climate that will further 
stress the basin. In this context, it is important to understand the 
significant differences between the operations and systems in the Lower 
Basin States (Arizona, California, and Nevada) and the Upper Basin 
States (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming).
    Lakes Mead and Powell both sit above all Lower Basin water uses and 
below the Upper Basin uses. Having these large reservoirs above them 
has meant that the Lower Basin States have had certainty and security 
in their water deliveries. In fact, the Lower Basin States have never 
had to face shortages to their deliveries from Lake Mead, and will not 
until 2022. Importantly, Lake Powell and Lake Mead operations are 
linked by the 2007 Guidelines. The amount of water taken out of Lake 
Mead directly impacts the amount of water that is released from Lake 
Powell.
    In contrast, water users in the Upper Basin States have taken 
shortages nearly every year for over 20 years. Without a large 
reservoir upstream, Upper Basin water users are reliant upon current 
runoff from snowpack and water users are only able to use water from 
that snowpack in that particular year. This means Upper Basin water 
users frequently do not received the full amount of water to which they 
are legally entitled. It is for this reason that Upper Basin uses are 
variable. When snowpack is abundant, water is available and water users 
put it to beneficial use. When the snow is thin, water is not there and 
they have to go without.
    Colorado has suffered from consecutive years of low stream flows. 
Perpetual dry soil conditions have increased absorption of snowmelt and 
reduced spring runoff. This year has been especially difficult: 90% of 
the state is currently experiencing drought.
    Multiple years of shortages have resulted in many Coloradans facing 
heartbreaking decisions. A major storage project in southwestern 
Colorado received only one-tenth of its water allocation this year. 
Agricultural producers across the state are considering selling 
generations-old family farms. These types of decisions have significant 
economic, sociologic, and psychological impacts across the entire 
state. The water shortages facing the Southwest part of Colorado the 
last two years fell heavily on the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, whose 
economy and communities depend largely on revenue generated from 
successful crop production.
    On top of the impacts due to drought, Coloradans have also been 
impacted by releases recently made from Blue Mesa Reservoir. These 
releases were made as part of a larger effort by the Bureau of 
Reclamation pursuant to the imminent need provision of the Drought 
Response Operations Agreement, part of the 2019 Drought Contingency 
Plan. With the goal of protecting critical elevations at Lake Powell, 
Reclamation is in the process of releasing a total of 181,000 acre-feet 
from reservoirs in Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The releases 
forced the marina and other businesses near Blue Mesa reservoir to 
close six weeks earlier than planned, resulting in lost jobs and a 25% 
loss in annual revenue. As the states work with Reclamation to develop 
a plan for potential future reservoir releases, creating a plan for 
recovery of this water will be important.
    The dry soil conditions and warmer temperatures have also left our 
forests more vulnerable to fire. The summer of 2020 brought record 
breaking fires to Colorado, including three of the largest wildfires in 
Colorado's history. In total, over 650,000 acres were burned and 
hundreds of homes were destroyed. We are grateful that the 2021 fire 
season has not been as severe, but we are continuing to deal with the 
aftermath of last year's fires, including catastrophic mudslides along 
Interstate 70 through Glenwood Canyon. The mudslides were a result of 
the Grizzly Creek Fire in 2020 that left a 32,000 acre burn scar on 
steep canyon walls. With little vegetation to hold the soil in place 
and prevent erosion, heavy rainstorms brought roughly 65,000 tons of 
mud and debris down the slopes closing the highway for 17 straight 
days.
    It is important for me, as Commissioner of the headwaters state, to 
make sure that everyone whose work impacts the Colorado River 
understand the challenges Coloradans face, particularly as the 2019 
Drought Contingency Plans are being implemented and the Basin States 
look forward to the negotiation of the post-2026 operations of the 
major reservoirs.
    As we look forward to those negotiations, one critical element will 
be meaningful engagement with the Tribal Nations in the Colorado River 
Basin. As Colorado's Commissioner, I talk to representatives of the 
Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes regularly on a sovereign-to-
sovereign basis. Colorado has water rights settlements with both of 
these tribes. But it is imperative to understand that each tribe is 
different--with different needs, histories, and relationships. It will 
be important that the negotiators in each state take the time to sit 
down with each tribe in their state to fully understand their unique 
positions and needs. It will also be important to recognize that since 
not everything can be addressed through the operational guidelines, we 
must also support initiatives that address the urgent need to ensure 
tribes have access to clean drinking water.
    In addition to initiatives that provide funding for infrastructure 
that is critical to access to clean drinking water for Tribal Nations, 
Colorado also supports ongoing efforts to fully fund the recovery 
programs in the Upper Basin, Drought Contingency Plan implementation, 
and more general investments in agricultural viability and 
sustainability.
    As we look forward to the next chapter of Colorado River 
management, it is imperative that the Basin States continue in the 
spirit of collaboration and cooperation that has defined the work in 
this basin for 100 years. We must also provide water supply security 
and certainty for all--the Lower Basin, the Upper Basin, and for all of 
the 40 million people who rely on this critical resource.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to Rebecca Mitchell, Director, 
  Colorado Water Conservation Board and Colorado Commissioner, Upper 
                       Colorado River Commission
              Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
    Question 1. The ``Law of the River'' and the quantification of the 
Upper and Lower Basin states amounted to around 17 million acre-feet of 
water, which was determined was the annual flow at the time. However, 
we know in the previous two decades it has been more like 12.4 million 
acre-feet. And this does not even account for other Native American 
tribes with water right claims that have yet to be resolved. There is a 
tremendous amount of demand, and with climate change we know the yield 
is only going to decline. Let's say the annual yield over the next 30 
years is 10 million acre-feet, maybe with climate change it's more or 
less. How do we take into account how we got to the original 
allocation, with the Upper and Lower Basin States and the Native 
American tribes, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?

    Answer. For almost a century, the Colorado River Basin States have 
relied on the certainty provided by the Colorado River Compact to 
develop water supplies for 40 million people, 5.5 million acres of 
farmland, and water for our national public lands.
    The 1922 Colorado River Compact is the first interstate water 
compact negotiated in the United States and it has served as the 
foundation for the management of the Colorado River for the last 100 
years. In 1922, the Upper Basin (Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New 
Mexico) became very concerned about the rapid growth in the Lower Basin 
(California, Nevada, Arizona) and mounting pressure from the federal 
government that was claiming all the undeveloped and excess waters in 
the Western States.
    To balance these competing interests, the States negotiated the 
Compact to: (a) provide for greater certainty and security for all 
states who rely on the water; (b) eliminate pressures to race to 
develop uses; (c) allow Upper Basin States to develop supplies at their 
own pace and safeguard water for future uses; (d) allow the states to 
determine how the water would be divided and apportioned amongst 
themselves in perpetuity (e) maintain state autonomy as opposed to 
federal control; and (f) promote interstate comity and remove causes of 
present and future controversies.
    The Colorado River Compact apportions the Colorado River with the 
Upper and Lower Basins each allocated the exclusive beneficial 
consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet per year. The Lower Basin also 
received the right to develop an additional 1 million acre-feet to 
account for its tributaries, for an aggregate of 16 million acre feet 
of water between the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins. The Upper 
Basin States are obligated to not cause the flow of water at Lee Ferry 
to be depleted below an aggregate of 75 million-acre feet for any 
period of 10 consecutive years. It also recognized an allocation to 
Mexico which, under the 1944 Treaty, was set at 1.5 million acre-feet 
per year to be satisfied first from waters that are surplus over and 
above the aggregate. The Colorado River Compact is the basis for a 
second compact, and the federal laws, court decrees and agreements 
authorized since, and the culture of collaboration it forged remains a 
unique and critical asset in the region.
    The 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact accommodates variable 
water supplies in the Upper Basin by apportioning water to each state 
by percentages of available water apportioned under the Colorado River 
Compact, instead of fixed amounts. Arizona v. California (376 U.S. 
340), addressed expected shortages to the Lower Basin States' 
apportionments and for Tribal reserved water rights to be included in 
the apportionment of the states where reservations are located. 
Colorado has a settlement in place with the Southern Ute and Ute 
Mountain Ute Tribes and the Tribes' water uses are included as part of 
Colorado's allocation.
    Our use of water in Colorado, and the other Upper Basin States, is 
naturally limited by hydrology. Our biggest reservoir is the snowpack. 
We cannot control its operation and on account of a changing climate, 
we have less natural snowpack today than 20 years ago. This year has 
been particularly difficult.
    For example, over the course of this summer, conditions across 
western Colorado deteriorated significantly. The Ute Mountain Ute Farm 
and Ranch Enterprise, owned by the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, one of the 
area's largest water users, wasn't able to produce crops without their 
water allotment and had to lay off 50 percent of their staff, who are 
mostly members of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. The farm used only 8 of 
their 110 fields.
    Because of our increasingly limited supply over the last 20 years, 
the Upper Basin consumes much less water than it is apportioned under 
the Compact--notably, about 3 million acre-feet less every year. This 
does not mean that the Upper Basin does not need or cannot use more 
water. When it is available, it is diverted and used.
    Lower Basin water users get their water supplies from releases of 
water from Lakes Powell and Mead. In contrast to the Upper Basin's 
variable supply from natural snowpack, these reservoirs provide a 
secure and reliable source of supply. Due to how the system operates, 
the Lower Basin has benefited from above normal releases. This has 
directly contributed to the declining levels in Lakes Mead and Powell.
    In considering how to best manage the Colorado River in the face of 
a warmer and drier future, our task now is not to reapportion the 
water, but to work together to find flexibilities within the existing 
framework to equitably share shortages between the Upper and Lower 
Basins.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Ms. Mitchell. We will now hear from 
Mr. John D'Antonio, the State Engineer for the state of New 
Mexico.
    Mr. D'Antonio, you are recognized.
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Mr. Huffman. We are not getting audio from you, 
unfortunately, Mr. D'Antonio. And I don't think you are muted. 
Let's try again.
    Mr. D'Antonio. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Huffman. It is pretty faint. Can you try to give us a 
little test here?
    Mr. D'Antonio. Can you hear me now?
    Mr. Huffman. Let's keep working on that. Can we come back 
to you, Mr. D'Antonio?
    I think, if we can, we should jump ahead to Mr. Gene 
Shawcroft, General Manager of the Central Utah Water 
Conservancy District, and then we will come back to Mr. 
D'Antonio when we can get a little better volume level for him.
    So, Mr. Shawcroft, if you are with us, you are recognized.

  STATEMENT OF GENE SHAWCROFT, GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL UTAH 
             WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, OREM, UTAH

    Mr. Shawcroft. Good afternoon to all. Thank you for 
conducting this hearing. Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member 
Bentz, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Gene 
Shawcroft, and I serve as Utah's Upper Colorado River 
Commissioner and General Manager for the Central Utah Water 
Conservancy District. The district is the state sponsor of the 
Central Utah Project and is also the largest diverter of 
Colorado River Water in Utah.
    The Colorado River provides over one-third of Utah's water 
supply and is fundamental to its prosperity. With such reliance 
on the river, the unprecedented drought in mainstem reservoir 
storage and river flows is alarming.
    On March 17, Governor Cox declared a state of emergency, 
due to drought conditions, and urged all Utahns to use less 
water. The effectiveness of Utah's statewide drought response 
is promising. Over this time last year, we have reached 
reductions as high as 32 percent.
    As General Manager, I have also overseen the implementation 
of the largest water conservation program of Colorado River 
water in Utah. Section 207 of the Central Utah Project 
Completion Act statutorily requires us to conserve up to 80,000 
acre-feet annually by 2033. We are conserving nearly 140,000 
acre-feet, 50 percent more than our statutory requirement.
    Additional work must be done. Nowhere is this more 
important than in the Colorado River Basin. We know that 
extreme conditions like this year will become more frequent, 
further straining a river system that is reaching a breaking 
point.
    The Upper Basin Drought Contingency Plan includes a 
commitment by the Upper Division states to evaluate the 
feasibility of a temporary, voluntary, and compensated demand 
management program to reduce consumptive use.
    In addition, the Drought Response Operating Agreement is 
also being actively implemented in the Upper Basin. This 
agreement governs the release of storage water upstream of Lake 
Powell, once operational adjustments have been considered at 
Lake Powell. Releases from these upper reservoirs are underway 
as we speak, as has been mentioned.
    Also, as Ms. Mitchell mentioned, the Upper Basin has 
routinely taken shortages, which are measured by the 
significant reductions in water that is available for use by 
our system. Like others, we face challenges in supplying water 
to a state with explosive growth, even as the supply 
diminishes. Overcoming these challenges is a tall order we must 
tackle together, with the inclusion of all Colorado River 
stakeholders.
    Utah is committed to the development and use of new 
technology to aid in forecasting and measurement of diversions, 
use, and depletions.
    One particularly important platform using remote sensing 
for measurement of depletions is OpenET. Continued 
congressional support of such work, especially as it shifts 
from the research to application arena, is necessary. Further 
use of such tools will allow for consistent determination of 
depletions across all Colorado River Basin states. 
Congressional support for rural water infrastructure 
investment, conservation programs, outreach, education, and 
additional research is also critical.
    I grew up on a small farm in Colorado. As a boy, my 
favorite day was the day the snowmelt began, and water was 
turned into the canals. Watering the canals meant we could eat, 
buy things, and live comfortably. I learned early on that water 
is finite, shared, and a common resource.
    When it comes to the Colorado River, the most effective 
solutions for the future must be collaborative. Each of the 
Basin states is bound together by a common goal, which is to 
utilize this precious water resource in a responsible way that 
honors governing law, and allows us to meet the needs and 
priorities of our communities.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to share this 
information, and I would be happy to answer questions. Thank 
you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shawcroft follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Gene Shawcroft, Utah Commissioner,
      Upper Colorado River Commission (UCRC) and General Manager,
                Central Utah Water Conservancy District
    Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today. 
My name is Gene Shawcroft. In January 2021, Governor Spencer Cox 
appointed me as Utah's Upper Colorado River Commissioner and Basin 
State Representative. I also serve as the Chair of Utah's newly formed 
Colorado River Authority of Utah. This new Authority was formed by 
Utah's State Legislature in response to the need we saw to expand and 
focus additional resources on improved Colorado River water management 
in Utah. Governor Cox appointed me to this position, in part because 
since 2010, I have served as the General Manager of the Central Utah 
Water Conservancy District. The District is the state sponsor of the 
Central Utah Project (CUP) which oversees the construction, operation, 
maintenance, and management of the project facilities. The District is 
also the largest single diverter of Colorado River water in Utah. Our 
project delivers water for agriculture, municipal and industrial water 
users in eight counties from the border of Colorado stretching west to 
the two largest counties along the Wasatch Front which includes the 
Salt Lake City metropolitan area.
    The Colorado River provides over one third of Utah's water supply 
and is fundamental to its economy, growth, and prosperity. With such 
reliance on the river, the precipitous, and unprecedented drop in 
mainstem reservoir storage and river flows that has occurred since 
2000, and particularly over the last year, is alarming. On March 17, 
2021, Governor Spencer Cox declared a state of emergency due to drought 
conditions and urged all Utahns to save water. In response, Utah 
increased efforts with a long existing statewide ``Slow-the-Flow'' 
campaign that includes significant increases in incentive programs for 
water efficiency programs and projects. Utah is committed to use 
funding from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, including nearly 
$100 million, toward improving water management to reduce consumption.
    The effectiveness of Utah's state-wide drought response is 
promising, including significant reductions by districts, 
municipalities and other water purveyors reaching as high as a 32% 
reduction of use over this time last year. While gains have been made 
additional work must be done. Nowhere is this more important than in 
the Colorado River Basin where temperature and precipitation trends 
corroborate the message that we have heard for years: extreme 
conditions, like we experienced this year, will become more frequent 
further straining a system that is nearing a breaking point. Urgent 
action is needed now to avoid catastrophic failures in the system.
    In anticipation of such a situation, the State of Utah, along with 
our sister states, signed onto the 2019 Drought Contingency Plans 
(DCP). The Upper Basin plan includes a commitment by the Upper Division 
States to evaluate the feasibility of a temporary, voluntary, and 
compensated demand management program to reduce consumptive water use 
within the Colorado River basin. Utah has begun to evaluate the 
feasibility of such a program within our state by investigating the 
applicability of demand management on a measurable scale within Utah. 
The western water law doctrine of prior appropriation coupled with 
State laws governing water rights complicates our ability to protect 
conserved water in the Upper Basin for system benefits. Further, we 
need to develop better tools to monitor variable hydrologic conditions 
and improve our current water use measurement infrastructure.
    The second element of the Upper Basin DCP--the Drought Response 
Operating Agreement (DROA) is also being actively implemented in the 
Upper Basin. The DROA provides for actions by the Federal Government, 
in conjunction with Upper Basin States, when Lake Powell elevation 
projections reach a certain threshold. This agreement governs the 
release of storage water from Colorado River Storage Project Act 
Initial Units upstream of Lake Powell, once operational adjustments at 
Lake Powell have been considered. Since early 2021, we began holding 
routine monitoring meetings, and by late spring, conditions had 
deteriorated such that the second trigger had been actuated requiring 
an action plan be developed and implemented. Utah has been an active 
participant throughout the process, and remains committed to working 
with our sister states, and the Bureau of Reclamation in completing the 
Drought Response Operating Plan by the end of 2021, for implementation 
thereafter. However, the process of developing the Drought Response 
Operating Plan has made it clear that its use as a drought response 
tool is extremely limited, and may only be effective under unique, 
short-term circumstances. We need a more comprehensive, long-term 
response if we are going to get through this difficult challenge.
    Utah and the other Upper Division States have watched our available 
water supplies dwindle as the prolonged drought has continued. North 
facing mountains used to store snow through late summer keeping our 
mountain streams flowing year-round. Today the mountains are bare and 
many streams flow at a trickle. Like the Lower Basin in 2022, the Upper 
Basin has routinely taken shortages, however these ``cuts'' in water 
supply are not measured by reducing diversions from reservoirs. Rather, 
Upper Basin shortages are measured by the significant reductions in 
water that is available for use by the system.
    As General Manager of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District 
(District), I have overseen the implementation of the largest water 
conservation program of Colorado River water in the state. Section 207 
of the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA--Public Law 102-575), 
required statutory ``Water Management Improvements'' to conserve up to 
80,100 acre-feet annually by 2033. The District has aggressively 
pursued dozens of water efficiency projects and today we conserve 
nearly 140,000 acre-feet per year, 50% more than our statutory 
requirement. This has been achieved at a combined local and federal 
cost of nearly $230 million in both agricultural and municipal 
projects. This 140,000 acre feet of conserved water annually is 30,000 
acre-feet more than the District's total trans-basin diversion from the 
Colorado River of 101,900 acre-feet per year. Without this conservation 
effort over the past 30 years, Utah would be severely handicapped. The 
District has pivoted its attention to development of a 100 percent 
locally funded water efficiency measured including low water use 
landscapes, turf removal, flip your strip, and other water conservation 
incentive programs.
    We recognize that moving forward in the Colorado River basin 
progress will only be achieved by working together with the other basin 
states, Federal Government, Colorado River Tribes, and other 
stakeholders. Not unlike others in the basin, we face challenges in 
supplying water to a state with explosive growth, even as the supply 
diminishes. Overcoming these challenges is a tall order we must tackle 
together. Utah needs to work with all water users and stakeholders, 
including tribes to find new and innovative ways to conserve water. Not 
unlike California and Arizona, a significant amount of Utah's Colorado 
river water is used in agriculture. We can learn from our Lower Basin 
colleagues to find ways to improve efficiencies within the important 
agriculture industry without undermining our agricultural heritage 
through buy-and-dry scenarios. There are no simple solutions to these 
challenges, but we live in a time when technological advancements in 
modeling, measurement and water application make it possible to 
optimize the use of our shared water resources. Three considerations 
important to drought mitigation planning in the Colorado River Basin 
include:


  1.   Continued improvements to system modeling tools used to inform 
            operations and planning, and consensus in application of 
            these tools by basin states and the Federal Government. The 
            Bureau of Reclamation has developed modeling tools that are 
            fundamental to Colorado River management. These tools have 
            served the basin well, but as aridification stresses the 
            system, more is being asked of them. Increased investment 
            by the Federal Government including staffing will be 
            necessary to support, improve, and modify these tools to 
            meet a new set of demands, including accounting for 
            shortages in the Upper Basin, Drought Response Operations 
            under the Drought Contingency Plans, drought mitigation 
            measures through reductions in consumptive use, and the 
            evaluation of curtailment implementation in the Upper 
            Basin.

  2.  Acquisition and implementation of new technology. Effective 
            management of water resources has its roots in measurement 
            throughout the life cycle of a drop of water. Utah supports 
            and is committed to the development and use of new 
            technology to aid in forecasting and measurement of 
            diversions, use, and depletions. One particularly important 
            platform using remote sensing for measurement of depletions 
            is OpenET. This will allow for evaluation of water use as 
            frequently as satellite imagery is available and will be a 
            valuable tool for water managers and water end users in 
            managing water resources. I appreciate Chairman Huffman (D-
            Calf), Congresswoman Susie Lee (D-NV) and Congressman Chris 
            Stewart (R-Utah) for their leadership by introducing the 
            Open Access Evapotranspiration Data Act in the House of 
            Representatives. This bill establishes a program under the 
            Department of the Interior (DOI) that uses publicly 
            available data from satellites and weather stations to 
            provide estimates of evapotranspiration (ET), a critical 
            measure of the water that is consumed and removed from a 
            water system. This allows water managers, farmers, 
            ranchers, and other decision makers to be able to access 
            consistent and accurate data as we make decisions about 
            water resource management. Continued support of such work, 
            especially as it shifts from the research to application 
            arena is necessary. Further, use of such tools will allow 
            for consistent determination of depletions across all the 
            Colorado River Basin States, which is necessary where 
            management of the river is a function of the measurement of 
            consumptive uses.

  3.   Increased investment in Agricultural Water Efficiency programs 
            for Upper Colorado River Basin states for drought 
            mitigation. Recognizing roughly 80 percent of Utah's water 
            is applied to agricultural uses, the state legislature 
            created Utah's Agricultural Water Optimization Task Force 
            in 2018. It has identified further opportunities for making 
            Agricultural water use more efficient, and apply to 
            Agricultural water use broadly, including varying methods 
            of application and quantity, testing crops of varying 
            drought tolerance, and evaluating the impacts of fallowing. 
            Implementation of these optimization measures at a 
            meaningful scale will require additional research and 
            Federal funding. Congressional support for rural water 
            infrastructure investment, conservation programs, outreach, 
            education, and research is critical.

    Utah is rapidly updating its statewide Colorado River Drought 
Mitigation Plan and is already investing in new drought mitigation 
measures. We hope to apply lessons learned from our successes and 
failures as we move forward. These measures are critical to our future 
success as we build on a history of significant water efficiency 
efforts within the state of Utah.
    I grew up on a farm in South Central Colorado. As a boy, when other 
kids my age would describe the most exciting day of the year as 
Christmas, I would say my favorite day was the day the snowmelt began, 
and water was turned into the canals. Water in the canals meant we 
could eat, buy things, and live comfortably. It also meant we had to 
work hard to achieve these things. I learned early on that water is a 
finite, shared and common resource. When it comes to the Colorado 
River, we can be encouraged by the bridges that have been built to 
deliver us to where we are today. The most effective solutions for the 
future must be collaborative. As we work to enhance the tools to 
understand the long-term hydrology and conserve the availability of 
Colorado River water, each of the Basin States are bound together by a 
common goal, which is to utilize this precious water resource in a 
responsible way that honors governing law and allows us to meet the 
needs and priorities of our communities.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Gene Shawcroft, PE, Utah Basin 
    States Representative and Utah Upper Colorado River Commissioner
              Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
    Question 1. The ``Law of the River'' and the quantification of the 
Upper and Lower Basin states amounted to around 17 million acre-feet of 
water, which was determined was the annual flow at the time. However, 
we know in the previous two decades it has been more like 12.4 million 
acre-feet. And this does not even account for other Native American 
tribes with water right claims that have yet to be resolved. There is a 
tremendous amount of demand, and with climate change we know the yield 
is only going to decline. Let's say the annual yield over the next 30 
years is 10 million acre-feet, maybe with climate change it's more or 
less. How do we take into account how we got to the original 
allocation, with the Upper and Lower Basin States and the Native 
American tribes, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?

    Answer. On behalf of the state of Utah, I appreciate the 
opportunity to respond to Representative Jim Costa's question following 
the October 15, 2021, Subcommittee Oversight Hearing on ``Colorado 
River Drought Conditions and Response Measures--Day One.'' 
Representative Costa has requested a response to the following 
question, in relevant part: ``How do we take into account how we got to 
the original allocation, with the Upper and Lower Basin States and the 
Native American tribes, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?''
    The 1922 Colorado River Compact and the 1948 Upper Colorado River 
Basin Compact, the two seminal components of the Law of the River, are 
designed to function under varying hydrologic conditions--in times of 
high and low flows. Under the 1922 Compact, the Upper Division States' 
non-depletion obligation is based upon a rolling average of 75 million 
acre-feet of water over a consecutive 10-year period, an acknowledgment 
that in any given decade some years may yield more flows and other 
years less. Similarly, the 1948 Compact makes allocations to the Upper 
Division based on percentage shares of available supply, rather than on 
an absolute quantity of water.
    The Colorado River Basin States, together with our federal 
partners, are committed to finding collaborative solutions in 
consultation with key stakeholders on the river, including Tribes, to 
address the rapidly declining hydrology both in the near term and as we 
approach 2026, when the current operational criteria governing the 
river expire. Like the Law of the River itself, our goal is to develop 
new criteria that will allow the States and water users to adapt to 
wider fluctuations in hydrology going forward.
    Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify at the hearing 
and to provide the foregoing response.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Shawcroft. Let's go back to Mr. 
D'Antonio, and see if we can hear him now.
    Mr. D'Antonio. Can you hear me, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Huffman. Mr. D'Antonio, I don't know what to say. We 
are just not able to hear you.
    So, unfortunately, while we can keep trying to work on 
that, we are going to have to have your written testimony 
suffice for the time being. And if we can troubleshoot the 
audio, I am sure we would like to include you in the 
questioning.
    But given that problem, we will now hear from Mr. Pat 
Tyrrell from Wyoming, Commissioner to the Upper Colorado River 
Commission.

STATEMENT OF PATRICK TYRRELL, WYOMING COMMISSIONER TO THE UPPER 
          COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION, STATE OF WYOMING

    Mr. Tyrrell. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member 
Bentz, and members of the Subcommittee. Am I being heard?
    Mr. Huffman. Yes, you sound great. Thanks for checking.
    Mr. Tyrrell. Thank you, with Mr. D'Antonio's problem, I 
thought I would check.
    I am Patrick Tyrrell, Wyoming's Commissioner to the Upper 
Colorado River Commission, and Wyoming's Governor's 
representative on the Colorado River. Thank you for providing 
the opportunity to present testimony today on behalf of the 
state of Wyoming.
    You have heard much already today about conditions at Lake 
Mead and Lake Powell. The drought impacts are not limited to 
the major system reservoirs. Water users in Wyoming, like other 
Upper Basin states, continue to experience significant water 
shortages, due to the extremely dry conditions.
    We, in Wyoming, as in other places, rely on snowmelt and 
whatever runoff is available on the rivers and streets. When 
the water supply is not sufficient to supply all water rights, 
only the earliest and most senior water rights get satisfied.
    Therefore, like our other Upper Basin states, our users 
have routinely also suffered shortages, even though Wyoming has 
developed less than two-thirds of its compact apportionment 
under a full supply.
    During drought years, Wyoming water use is reduced by more 
than 20 percent, compared to years when water is more 
plentiful. These shortages get little attention, and require no 
Federal declaration, but they happen nevertheless, and carry 
with them attendant economic impacts.
    Collaboration will continue to be the key in responding to 
drought. Since before 2000, the Basin states, Reclamation, 
Mexico, Basin tribal leaders, NGOs, water users, and others 
have collaborated to implement unprecedented, innovative, and 
proactive measures. As the challenges increase, that 
collaboration must not only continue, but improve.
    We intend to continue that coordination as we develop post-
2026 reservoir operating rules. However, post-2026 guidelines 
cannot address all of the numerous issues and impacts caused by 
this drought. Many can only be addressed by other response 
measures.
    The Upper Basin will continue to implement the 2019 Drought 
Contingency Plan, the principal goal of which was to assure 
continued compliance with the 1922 Compact.
    Further, releasing storage from upstream Federal 
reservoirs, as you just heard about from Mr. Shawcroft, is only 
a first line of defense to protect critical elevations at Lake 
Powell. Existing storage is finite and cannot protect that lake 
under many of the dry scenarios now being projected. If such a 
program is even feasible in addition, any Upper Basin demand 
management program still faces difficult challenges to be 
resolved before it can be developed and implemented.
    More is needed to help ensure the Basin drought resilience. 
The most immediate needs include ensuring the Federal 
commitments under the DCP can be met, securing access to clean 
water for tribal communities, and securing authorization and 
long-term funding for species recovery programs.
    There is a real need to focus on a broad range of 
investments and opportunities, including water storage 
infrastructure, advancing large scale augmentation, 
facilitating system conservation, promoting watershed health, 
promoting forest restoration and management, improving Ag 
operations, incentivizing municipal conservation, and improving 
water supply forecast.
    The effects of this historic drought extend from the 
headwaters in Colorado and Wyoming through each Upper and Lower 
Basin state and into Mexico. Drought response measures must 
equally stretch across the entirety of the Basin. Success will 
require development and implementation across Federal agencies, 
in cooperation and partnership with the Basin states, the 
tribes, other water users, NGOs, and other stakeholders.
    Wyoming is ready and willing to engage in that 
collaborative effort necessary to build and sustain water 
resiliency throughout the Basin, and to provide more 
information on the types of investments and opportunities most 
likely to help ensure the Colorado River Basin continues to 
support a thriving economy and a healthy environment.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. I will 
remain and be happy to answer any questions you or the 
Committee may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tyrrell follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Patrick Tyrrell, P.E.,
     Wyoming's Commissioner to the Upper Colorado River Commission
     and Wyoming's Governor's Representative to the Colorado River

    Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, my name is Patrick Tyrrell. I am Wyoming's Commissioner 
to the Upper Colorado River Commission and Wyoming's Governor's 
representative regarding the Colorado River. Thank you for providing me 
the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the State of Wyoming 
about Colorado River Drought Conditions and Response Measures.

                   Colorado River Drought Conditions

    The ongoing drought in the Colorado River Basin is well known and 
well documented. The Basin is experiencing its worst drought in over 
100 years of record-keeping, and one of the worst in the past 1,200 
years. The period from 2000 through 2021 is the driest 22-year period 
on record with natural flow in the Upper Colorado River Basin at 84% of 
the long-term average of 14.68 million acre-feet (MAF) based on the 
period from 1906 to 2021. Water Year 2021 was the second driest in the 
historical record, with the unregulated inflow into Lake Powell being 
about 33% of average.
    Lake Mead is experiencing historically low storage. On August 16th, 
the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) issued its August 24 month 
study. Due in part to ongoing historic drought and low runoff 
conditions in the Colorado River Basin, releases from Lake Mead will be 
reduced in 2022 representing the first ``shortage'' declaration in the 
Lower Basin. The declaration will require the following water 
reductions and contributions: Nevada will leave 21,000 acre-feet in 
Lake Mead (7% of the state's annual apportionment); Arizona will leave 
512,000 acre-feet in Lake Mead (18% of the state's annual 
apportionment); and Mexico will leave 80,000 acre-feet in Lake Mead (5% 
of the country's annual allotment). Despite robust conservation 
activities in the Lower Basin since 2014 which have increased the 
elevation of Lake Mead by an estimated 50 feet, recent projections 
predict an almost certainty that shortages in the Lower Basin will 
continue over the next several years, and it's likely that even greater 
water reductions and contributions will occur by 2024.
    At Lake Powell, Reclamation's projections indicate the potential of 
falling below the minimum power pool elevation as early as July 2022 
should extremely dry hydrology continue into next year. Beyond 2022, 
the chance Lake Powell could fall below minimum power pool ranges from 
about 25% to 35%. There is an almost 90% chance Lake Powell will fall 
below elevation 3,525 feet next year, an elevation the Upper Basin is 
trying to protect. That target elevation provides a 35 vertical-foot 
buffer designed to minimize the risk of dropping below the minimum 
power pool elevation of 3,490 feet and balances the need to protect the 
infrastructure at Glen Canyon Dam and meet operational obligations to 
the Lower Basin States of Arizona, California and Nevada.
    The effects of these historic drought conditions are not limited to 
an isolated region, and they are not limited to the major basin 
reservoirs. Rather, they extend from the headwaters in Colorado and 
Wyoming, through each Upper and Lower Basin State, and into Mexico. 
Further, projections and various modeling analyses suggest the 
prospects of improved water supply cannot be relied upon for future 
planning and decisions. We need to plan for continuing bad hydrology, 
and, like the drought, response measures need to extend to the entire 
basin rather than isolated regions.

         Wyoming's Colorado River Basin and Drought Conditions

    Water users in Wyoming continue to experience significant water 
shortages due to the extremely dry conditions. Currently, all of 
Wyoming's Colorado River Basin is suffering from either severe or 
extreme drought. The extended and current drought conditions have and 
will continue to impact Wyoming water users in significant ways. 
Impacts to irrigated agriculture from the exceptionally low flows in 
water year 2021 are just the latest example.
    Unlike most water users in the Lower Colorado River Basin, Wyoming 
water users do not have large upstream reservoirs like Lakes Powell and 
Mead in which to save supplies for use in water short years. Instead, 
Wyoming users rely on snowmelt and are subject to whatever water is 
available in the rivers and streams. When the water supply is not 
sufficient to supply all water rights, the earliest, most senior water 
rights get satisfied first, and the junior water rights get turned off 
by Wyoming water officials. When there is not enough water available, 
they simply get no water.
    The conditions in the northern portion of Wyoming's Green River 
Basin during 2021 illustrate this situation. Many streams in this basin 
do not have supplemental storage water for late season supply. Due to 
low stream flows and early runoff, regulation of those streams--the 
turning off of junior water rights--began in mid-June and continued 
throughout the remainder of the water year. They were regulated to 
priority dates dating from the 1880s and 1890s. This means water rights 
with priority dates of about 1900 and later were regulated before mid-
way through Wyoming's short growing season. Instead of receiving their 
full supply of water for 5 months, they received that water for only 
about 2 months. Approximately 68,000 acres with valid water rights from 
these streams were subject to regulation.
    The southern portion of Wyoming's Green River Basin and the Little 
Snake River Basin experienced similar drought conditions in 2021. Due 
to low stream flow conditions, the southern Green River Basin 
tributaries experienced regulation beginning in early May and 
continuing throughout the remainder of the water year. Water rights 
with priority dates later than 1890 in some instances did not receive 
natural flow supplies for most of the year. However, unlike most of the 
northern Green River Basin tributaries, there are some smaller storage 
facilities in the southern Green River Basin which helped supply 
supplemental storage water to some of those rights which were otherwise 
prevented from diverting natural flow. Those smaller reservoirs are 
currently between 6% and 27% full. Similarly, many irrigation rights in 
the Little Snake River Basin were forced to start relying on storage 
water instead of natural flow beginning in about mid-July. The primary 
reservoir in that basin is now only 27% full. While the existing 
storage in these basins certainly aids in providing a late season 
supply to Wyoming water users, it only aids those who have a right to 
the storage. Many water users are simply at the mercy of whatever flow 
the streams provide.
    Over the course of the last 22 years of drought in the Colorado 
River Basin, Wyoming water users have routinely suffered shortages. 
Some years are worse, some are better. These routine shortages occur 
even though Wyoming has developed less than 2/3 of its Compact 
apportionment under a full supply. During the drought years, Wyoming 
water use reduced more than 20% compared to years when water was more 
plentiful. These shortages get little attention and require no federal 
declaration, but they happen nevertheless and carry with them attendant 
economic impacts. Response measures intended to address the drought in 
the Colorado River Basin should not only focus on main stem storage and 
uses, but also uses at the top of the Basin like those in Wyoming.
    In response to the continuing drought in Wyoming's Colorado River 
Basin, on July 16th Governor Mark Gordon convened a Wyoming Colorado 
River Working Group to meet regularly to discuss Colorado River issues 
and monitor potential impacts to Wyoming. The group is made up of 
representatives of key water use sectors of Wyoming's Green and Little 
Snake River Basins, including agricultural, municipal, industrial and 
environmental interests. It will discuss and share Colorado River 
information with interested stakeholders in Wyoming's Green and Little 
Snake River Basins. The Working Group is a continuation of a 
coordinated and proactive outreach effort that has been underway in 
Wyoming since 2019.

                       Drought Response Measures

Continued Collaboration in the Colorado River Basin

    Collaboration will continue to be key in responding to drought. In 
response to the last two decades of historically dry hydrologic 
conditions and higher than normal temperatures, the Basin States, 
Reclamation, and Mexico have collaborated to implement unprecedented, 
innovative, and proactive measures, including the 2007 Interim Shortage 
Guidelines; binational Minutes 318, 319, and 323; the 2019 Drought 
Contingency Plans (DCPs); and other important water conservation, 
storage, and augmentation efforts.
    Despite the severe hydrologic and water supply challenges, these 
measures have allowed the Basin States to continue to satisfy water 
needs, meet Treaty and Compact obligations, and fulfill environmental 
commitments, all while ensuring no one is left behind and no one 
unfairly bears the brunt of these necessary efforts. Wyoming is 
committed to continue to approach challenges with the same focus on 
collaboration and equity as the Basin faces worsening hydrology.
    As the Basin States and Reclamation begin working on longer-term 
solutions to the shared risks and vulnerabilities we face in the 
Colorado River system, we will also be preparing for the development of 
the post-2026 Colorado River operating rules. Generally, the 
development of the post-2026 guidelines is expected to be focused on 
the management and operations of the Colorado River reservoir system. 
While each of the Basin States may have guiding principles or specific 
goals and objectives associated with developing the post-2026 
guidelines, Wyoming is resolutely committed to working together to make 
the system work for all.
    In addition to individual state efforts like those in Wyoming, the 
Basin States intend to coordinate and communicate with the Department 
of the Interior leadership, Basin Tribal leaders, NGO and environmental 
representatives, water users, and other stakeholders. The Basin States 
also expect that, in conjunction with the two sections of the 
International Boundary and Water Commission and the Department of the 
Interior, similar outreach and discussions will be held with Mexico in 
the near-term. Outreach efforts will require that multiple, parallel 
discussions occur alongside the formal NEPA process led by the 
Department of the Interior. While it will not be possible for everyone 
to be involved in every discussion, it will be important for the States 
to coordinate the various parallel discussions. Collaboration will 
continue to be key in responding to drought.
Upper Basin Drought Contingency Plan

    Both the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin continue to implement the 
2019 DCPs. The Upper Division States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and 
Wyoming, along with Reclamation, are implementing the Upper Basin DCP. 
The principal goal of the Upper Basin DCP is to help assure continued 
compliance with the 1922 Compact. It does so by helping protect 
critical elevations at Lake Powell. Protecting those elevations reduces 
the risk that the Upper Basin will fail to meet its compact 
obligations. The Upper Basin DCP as approved by Congress in 2019 
consists of two agreements: \1\ The Drought Response Operations 
Agreement (DROA) and the Demand Management Storage Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Although not part of the DCP package approved by Congress in 
2019, the Upper Basin DCP also includes a weather modification program 
within the Upper Division states to help boost snow accumulation and 
system water in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Several Lower Basin 
water utilities and entities participate and help fund the ongoing 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The DROA applies to the 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act 
(CRSPA) Initial Units. The CRSPA Initial Units are Glen Canyon Dam, 
Flaming Gorge Dam, Curecanti (the ``Aspinall Unit''), and Navajo Dam. 
The Agreement relies on available water supplies as needed to reduce 
the risk of Lake Powell dropping below the target elevation 3,525'. 
This target elevation appropriately balances the need to protect 
infrastructure, compact obligations, and operations at Glen Canyon Dam 
as storage approaches minimum power pool, with the Upper Division 
States' rights to put Colorado River System water to beneficial use.
    In July 2021, Reclamation exercised the imminent need provisions of 
the DROA and began making releases from the upstream Initial Units to 
Lake Powell. Those DROA releases were designed to deliver an additional 
181 thousand-acre feet of water to Lake Powell by the end of December 
2021. The additional delivery was expected to raise Lake Powell's 
elevation by approximately three feet. Reclamation and the Upper 
Division States are now working together to develop and finalize, if 
necessary, a DROA plan in 2022. They expect to have a draft plan to 
provide for stakeholder outreach and feedback by the end of 2021.
    Drought response operations are a first line of defense to protect 
critical elevations at Lake Powell. But that existing storage is not 
infinite and cannot protect Lake Powell under many of the dry scenarios 
now being projected. If dry conditions persist or worsen as many 
project, existing storage will diminish or be inadequate, and the Upper 
Basin may ultimately need to reduce its uses to comply with the 1922 
Compact.
    The Demand Management Storage Agreement authorizes the Secretary of 
the Interior to make unfilled storage capacity at the CRSPA Initial 
Units available for use by the Upper Division States, through the Upper 
Colorado River Commission (UCRC), at no charge. Such storage capacity 
is available provided that the UCRC requests use of the storage 
capacity for the purpose of storing water conserved as part of an Upper 
Basin demand management program. Once the Upper Division States secured 
this storage authorization in 2019, they, along with the UCRC, began 
investigating the feasibility of an Upper Basin demand management 
program.
    The purpose of an Upper Basin demand management program will be to 
temporarily reduce consumptive uses in the Upper Basin or augment 
supplies with imported water, if needed in times of drought, to help 
assure continued compliance with Article III of the 1922 Compact and 
without impairing the right to exercise existing Upper Basin water 
rights in the future. Any demand management program will be a state-
based effort implemented under state law. The Upper Basin has learned 
that no demand management program is likely to conserve enough water in 
any single year to achieve its goals. Therefore, an Upper Basin demand 
management program will require the ability to store conserved water 
over multiple years.
    There are many outstanding issues that must still be investigated 
before an Upper Basin demand management program can be established. 
Those issues include, among other things, determining transit losses 
that will occur by moving conserved water downstream to Lake Powell, 
securing sufficient demand management water volumes, measuring 
conserved consumptive use volumes, evaluating local impacts from non-
use, ensuring delivery of conserved consumptive use volumes to the 
CRSPA Initial Units without diminishment by downstream diverters, 
deterring water right speculation at the expense of agricultural 
communities, and developing the expertise and resources necessary to 
administer such a program. These issues, as well as others, are 
complicated by the fact that a demand management program must work in 
all four Upper Division States where differing water laws apply. 
Funding is another significant issue. Considerable funding will be 
necessary to compensate water users for their voluntary participation 
in the program for conserving consumptive uses.
    Each of the Upper Division States, and the UCRC, continue to 
investigate the feasibility of a potential demand management program. 
But as described above, both the DROA and the Demand Management Storage 
Agreement are primarily intended to help assure continued compliance 
with the 1922 Compact. They do not address drought impacts in the Upper 
Basin but are instead designed to maintain downstream obligations to 
the Lower Basin.
Additional Drought Response Measures

    There are numerous additional drought response measures which can 
be effective at helping water managers at all levels address the 
uncertainties threatening the Basin. Wyoming, alongside the other Basin 
States, recently expressed to the House Natural Resource Committee its 
general support for many investments and opportunities designed to 
respond to drought.\2\ Wyoming continues to support securing 
authorizations and appropriations within proposed federal legislative 
initiatives related to those investments and opportunities. I would 
like to reference just a few of those investments and opportunities 
here:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Colorado River Basin States Representatives of Arizona, 
California, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming in Support of 
Nevada Responses to Questions for the Record, letter to The Honorable 
Raul M. Grijalva, Chairman, House of Representatives Natural Resources 
Committee, dated June 28, 2021.

     Storage Water Infrastructure: We must continue to invest 
            in the aging water infrastructure necessary to meet current 
            and future demands for water. Existing water infrastructure 
            in the west is getting older and is in desperate need of 
            expensive rehabilitation and improvement. Additionally, we 
            must invest in additional storage in response to more 
            variable hydrology and earlier runoff (earlier runoff 
            results in less ability maintain existing uses). Small, 
            watershed level storage can help address the types of 
            shortages faced by Wyoming's agricultural water users in 
            the Green and Little Snake River Basins. Further, storage 
            provides additional water management flexibility to better 
            meet downstream municipal and industrial water needs, 
            improve flood control, generate clean hydropower, provide 
            recreation opportunities, and create additional late season 
            flows that can benefit downstream aquatic and terrestrial 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            species.

     Funding for DCPs: Existing arrangements under the Lower 
            Basin DCP and related Treaty Minute 323 with Mexico commit 
            the Federal Government to create or conserve 100,000 acre-
            feet of Colorado River system water in the Lower Basin and 
            to share in funding with Mexico for management and 
            monitoring projects. Making the necessary investments to 
            honor these commitments remains vital to ongoing drought 
            response and stability in the Basin. Additionally, funding 
            for the Upper Basin DCP can help assure those tools are 
            implemented as intended, aid in more accurately 
            representing Upper Basin uses and circumstances in existing 
            and future planning tools, and enhance the potential that 
            the existing DCP measures continue as future operating 
            options.

     Species Protection Programs: The continued authorization 
            (H.R. 5001) and reliable funding of threatened and 
            endangered species programs remains vital to maintaining 
            fish and wildlife protections in and around the Colorado 
            River Basin. Reliable funding will become even more 
            critical as power revenues decrease due to shrinking 
            reservoir elevations. These programs are important not only 
            for the benefit of the various species, but also to ensure 
            water uses can develop and continue. Examples of important 
            programs include the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish 
            Recovery Program, the San Juan River Recovery 
            Implementation Program, the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 
            Management Program, Multi-Species Conservation Program, and 
            the Salton Sea Restoration Program.

     Improve Water Monitoring, Measurement and Weather 
            Forecasting: Accurate data and information is critical for 
            planning decisions regarding reservoir storage and 
            releases, and improving the ability to readily adapt to 
            extreme weather events and shifts in climate. Improved 
            water measurement, such as funding for streamgages that are 
            identified as Federal priority streamgages, will be 
            critical to not only inform planning decisions, but also to 
            implement existing tools such as the Upper Basin DCP. 
            Accurate water measurement will also be necessary to 
            properly implement elements of the Law of the River. The 
            USGS should coordinate with the Upper Basin States to site 
            streamgages within the Basin where they can be the most 
            effective for these purposes.

       More must be done to accurately measure existing consumptive 
            uses throughout the Basin, but especially in the Upper 
            Basin. 80% of the total consumptive use in Wyoming's 
            Colorado River Basin consists of the evapotranspiration 
            (ET) of water through the irrigation of crops. 
            Unfortunately, ET is the component of water use that is 
            technically the most difficult to accurately estimate, 
            which makes it difficult for water managers to plan and 
            make decisions. While accurate satellite-based methods at 
            the field scale are available, they are expensive and labor 
            intensive, and therefore not easily accessible to those 
            that would benefit from them most including water managers 
            and the water users themselves. OpenET would help fill this 
            data gap. The new software platform would provide cost 
            effective and rapid online access to this key water use 
            variable. It would also allow the means by which all users 
            across the Basin States can better understand consumptive 
            use. It can also help farmers and ranchers use water more 
            efficiently and help water managers monitor historic and 
            current water use, all using open and transparent data. 
            Wyoming strongly encourages Congress, through legislation 
            such as H.R. 4832, to provide OpenET funding and a ``home'' 
            within an agency in the Department of the Interior (either 
            Reclamation or USGS) so that OpenET can continue to be 
            developed to fill this critical data gap.

     Incentivize Municipal Conservation and Infrastructure: In 
            coordination with Colorado River Basin partners, programs 
            should be continued and improved to incentivize 
            implementation of municipal conservation technologies, 
            including indoor and outdoor programs for potable use. 
            These programs should be broad enough to not only include 
            some of the largest municipalities in the Basin, but also 
            smaller municipal providers like those in Wyoming.

    More is needed to help ensure the Basin's resilience to higher 
temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and pronounced storage 
fluctuations going forward. As previously described by the Basin 
States, the most immediate needs include ensuring that federal 
commitments under the Drought Contingency Plans can be met, securing 
access to clean water for tribal communities, and securing 
authorization and long-term funding for species recovery programs. In 
the long-term, there is a need to focus on a broad range of investments 
and opportunities, including: Large-scale augmentation, facilitating 
system conservation within existing authorities, promote watershed 
health, promote forest restoration and management including wildfire 
mitigation and protection, improvement of agricultural operations and 
infrastructure, incentivize municipal conservation (including large 
scale re-use projects), and improve water supply forecasting, 
measurement as well as monitoring to project future Basin conditions 
and inform decisions.

                               Conclusion

    The Colorado River Basin is currently experiencing some of the 
worst drought conditions in recorded history. The effects of these 
conditions are not limited to an isolated region but extend across the 
entirety of the Basin. Drought response measures must equally stretch 
across the entirety of the Basin. It is also imperative to recognize 
that not all the actions can be implemented uniformly across the Basin. 
Success will require development and implementation across federal 
agencies in cooperation and partnership with the Basin States, Tribes, 
water users, and other stakeholders. Wyoming is ready and willing to 
engage in the collaborative efforts necessary to build and sustain 
water resiliency throughout the Basin, and to provide more information 
on the types of investments and opportunities most likely to help 
ensure the Colorado River Basin continues to support a thriving economy 
and a durable environment.

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. I am happy to 
answer any questions you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Pat Tyrrell, Wyoming Commissioner 
                 to the Upper Colorado River Commission
              Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
    Question 1. The ``Law of the River'' and the quantification of the 
Upper and Lower Basin states amounted to around 17 million acre-feet of 
water, which was determined was the annual flow at the time. However, 
we know in the previous two decades it has been more like 12.4 million 
acre-feet. And this does not even account for other Native American 
tribes with water right claims that have yet to be resolved. There is a 
tremendous amount of demand, and with climate change we know the yield 
is only going to decline. Let's say the annual yield over the next 30 
years is 10 million acre-feet, maybe with climate change it's more or 
less. How do we take into account how we got to the original 
allocation, with the Upper and Lower Basin States and the Native 
American tribes, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?

    Answer. The 1922 Colorado River Compact apportions 16 million acre-
feet of beneficial use of water between the Upper and Lower Colorado 
River Basins. At the time, Compact negotiators believed there was much 
more available, up to 20 million acre-feet in the entire Colorado River 
system, and over 17 million acre-feet in the river's main stream. Even 
so, they recognized that the highly variable river would not provide a 
reliable supply in every year. Even before 1922 annual river flows 
sometimes fell below 10 million acre-feet. As such, the negotiators 
anticipated and provided for years of drought and low river flows. They 
also provided for the Basins to share in any deficiency to Mexico 
should such a deficiency ever be recognized. The 1922 Compact provided 
the certainty needed to construct Hoover Dam which has provided both 
flood control protection to California and Arizona as well as water 
supply security to the Lower Basin for over 85 years. That water 
security has enabled the Lower Basin development and economic 
prosperity envisioned by the Compact negotiators a century ago.
    Since the 1922 Compact, the Law of the River affecting the 
interstate and international use, management, and allocation of 
Colorado River system water reflects an understanding that the Colorado 
River provides less water than the negotiators believed was available 
in 1922. Apportionments to individual Upper Basin States made in 1948 
are by percentages of available water, not set volumes. In the U.S. 
Supreme Court's 1964 decree in Arizona v. California (376 U.S. 340), 
the Court anticipated shortages to the Lower Basin States' mainstream 
apportionments. We further know that the water rights of Native 
American tribes, whether currently quantified or not, must be satisfied 
from the individual state apportionments in which the tribal 
reservations are located. Additions to the Law of the River made in 
this century also reflect a keen understanding that the river's 
available supply cannot meet existing and growing demand without 
collaboration and flexibility to implement unprecedented, innovative, 
and proactive measures.
    Although the 1922 Compact negotiators anticipated drought, and 
those who followed recognized a smaller supply, they hardly could have 
anticipated what we are experiencing now. Nevertheless, the original 
equitable division made in 1922 provides the foundation for all that 
has followed and must remain. We must take into account that original 
equitable division as well as every resulting right, obligation, and 
benefit which finds its source in that bargain.
    Our challenge now is not reallocating water. Our challenge is to 
collaborate to address the increasing hydrologic risks. We do that by 
developing additional innovative and proactive solutions that fit 
within the existing structure to address the challenges we face today 
and going forward, including when there is insufficient water to fully 
satisfy the existing apportionments. In the past two decades, the 
United States, Mexico, the seven Colorado River Basin States, Native 
American tribes, water users, non-governmental organizations and other 
stakeholders have demonstrated the ability to collaborate to create and 
implement such innovative and proactive solutions, incorporating the 
ability to adapt to changing conditions, and to do so within the Law of 
the River framework as it exists today.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Mr. Tyrrell, thanks very much. We are going to 
move on to questions of the Members right now. If we can figure 
out the problem with Mr. D'Antonio's microphone, we will take 
him out of order and come back to him. But in the meantime, I 
am going to recognize myself for the first set of questions, 
and I would like to begin with Mr. Nelson from California.
    Mr. Nelson, we spoke in the previous panel a little bit 
about the Salton Sea restoration. This, of course, is a 
partnership that is being led by the state of California, but 
it includes tribes and local partners, environmental 
stakeholders, and Federal agencies. Could you please just 
expand on why Federal support of those partnerships and their 
restoration work is so important, not just for those living 
near the Salton Sea, but, really, for the larger Colorado River 
Basin community?
    Mr. Nelson. Sure. Thank you, Congressman Huffman, for the 
question. It is a great question.
    The Salton Sea is, historically, a delta part of the 
Colorado River, and it is important to the region of Southern 
California.
    First, the work that is being done now at the Salton Sea is 
associated with a continued implementation of the 2003 
Quantification Settlement Agreement, which resulted in nearly 
500,000 acre-feet of conserved water supply that are then 
transferred to the coastal plain. And that is an important 
aspect of water management in California.
    Secondly, the Sea is a critical element of the Pacific 
Flyway. We have the Sonny Bono Refuge there. It houses, as 
other areas, resident and migratory bird species, which are 
important for ecological values there.
    Thirdly, as the inflows to the Sea have decreased since 
2003, mitigated by the QSA, and as well as increased irrigation 
efficiencies within the Imperial Irrigation District, the 
exposed playa continues to expand, and it is resulting in a 
significant public health threat associated with blowing dust. 
It is my understanding that the Imperial Valley contains some 
of the highest childhood asthma rates and other pulmonary 
health issues. This air quality impact is a social and 
environmental issue that is critical to the region, not only to 
the Imperial Valley, but across the Mexicali Valley, into the 
southwestern Arizona and eastern Riverside County.
    And, finally, I would say it is worth acknowledging that 
the commitments for collaboration and partnerships contained in 
the August 2016 MOU between the Obama administration and the 
state of California. That MOU committed the state and the 
Federal Government for long-term coordination and a series of 
tests that would be accomplished, including an initial outlay 
of $20 million for habitat restoration and dust suppression, 
and $10 million for state-managed monitoring at the Sea.
    California suggests that this MOU should be considered, 
basically, as a foundation for our collaboration in the area. 
We have the Salton Sea mitigation plan that the state is 
working through, and actually making some good progress on now.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Nelson.
    Mr. Entsminger, in the time I have left I would like to 
talk about this large-scale water recycling potential, the 
vision for bringing a new drought-proof source of water to this 
vexing shortage challenge we face in the Colorado Basin. Could 
you speak a little bit about why adding something like that to 
the region's water supply portfolio would be so critically 
important, and also the state of play in terms of Federal 
support for these large-scale water recycling projects?
    Are we doing enough? Should we be doing more? You have the 
rest of my time.
    Mr. Entsminger. Thank you very much, Chairman Huffman.
    First, just the water impact. The Metropolitan Project 
could add as much as 160,000 acre-feet of water to the system, 
and Met has been very gracious in agreeing to partner with 
southern Nevada and central Arizona to make that into a 
regional project with regional benefits.
    I do think more projects like that are available, and as we 
move into the future, we really have to look at all water 
within this Basin as water that is precious and available for 
use, be those storm waters or the wastewater that Southern 
California is currently discharging into the Pacific Ocean. All 
of that water can be utilized to solve the daunting problems in 
front of us.
    In terms of the Federal Government, there is, I believe, 
$450 million contained in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, 
which would be very good to get that across the finish line, 
and additional funds within the Reconciliation bill that would 
also be not just for water reclamation, but also for Federal 
compliance with their obligations. Thank you.
    Mr. Huffman. All right, I appreciate that very much.
    Ranking Member Bentz is next up for questions, but I am 
told that we may have finally achieved an audio connection with 
Mr. D'Antonio. We want to give all seven Basin states equal 
time, and I promised I would bring him in out of order.
    So, Mr. D'Antonio, let's see if we can hear you. And if Mr. 
Bentz is willing to just stand down for a few minutes, we will 
come right back to him after you.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Huffman. So, Mr. D'Antonio?
    Mr. D'Antonio. I am on my cell phone.
    Mr. Huffman. And we can hear you. Fantastic.
    Mr. D'Antonio. OK, great.

  STATEMENT OF JOHN D'ANTONIO, STATE ENGINEER FOR NEW MEXICO, 
                    ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

    Mr. D'Antonio. Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, 
Representative Leger Fernandez, Representative Stansbury from 
New Mexico, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, my 
name is John D'Antonio. I am the State Engineer for New Mexico 
and Governor Lujan Grisham's representative on the Colorado 
River Compact. I very much appreciate your patience today, and 
the opportunity to appear before you to provide comments and 
updates on behalf of the state of New Mexico regarding the 
current issues and priorities related to the Colorado River 
Basin.
    First, the Upper Basin shortages: In the 1922 Colorado 
River Compact, the seven Colorado River Basin states agreed to 
share the Colorado River with each Basin apportioned the 
exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet 
of water per year. New Mexico's apportionment is 11.25 percent 
of that amount.
    Since 2000, the Colorado River Basin has entered a period 
of continued drought. The Upper Division states have been 
taking shortages based on limited supply for the past two 
decades. In New Mexico, water shortages occur annually in the 
San Juan River Basin, including the Animas and La Plata 
tributaries. The San Juan-Chama Project, a major trans-basin 
diversion project authorized by Congress in 1962 to deliver San 
Juan water to New Mexico's municipalities and pueblos along the 
Rio Grande, has experienced significant variability in water 
supply, particularly during the last decade. As an example, in 
2021 we experienced a shortage of 40 percent.
    One key component of the Upper Basin Drought Contingency 
Plan is the Drought Response Operation Agreement, known as 
DROA. In June 2021, Reclamation projected that Lake Powell may 
fall below the critical elevation of 3,525 feet in less than 6 
months. And under the emergency provision of the DROA, 
Reclamation, in coordination with the Upper Division states, 
started releasing 181,000 acre-feet this year from three main 
reservoirs in the Upper Basin to help boost the elevation of 
Lake Powell.
    Reclamation and the Upper Division states are currently 
working on a planned framework that will fully address the 
states' key issues and concerns prior to any future drill 
operations.
    Authorized projects in the Basin states: One of the 
original intents of the 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act 
was to allow the Upper Division states to fully develop their 
apportionment. To date, the Upper Basin states have not. New 
Mexico's Upper Basin water use is currently about half of its 
apportionment. Most of New Mexico's future development plans in 
the Upper Basin are for tribal water development, pursuant to 
the Indian water rights settlements that have already been 
authorized by Congress, such as the 2009 Navajo-Gallup Water 
Supply Project, which is vital in providing sustainable 
residential water to the rural communities within and around 
the Navajo Nation, the Jicarilla Apache Nation, and the City of 
Gallup. Those communities have been hit particularly hard by 
the drought and the COVID-19 pandemic.
    When using or analyzing the existing climate trends, both 
prolonged dry periods and punctuated wet periods should be 
taken into consideration. The system will need to be addressed 
not only for worse droughts than we have experienced today, but 
also for short and wet periods from an infrastructure and 
public health and safety standpoint. It will be important to 
address the existing short- and long-term challenges with a 
long-term equitable approach, while retaining the flexibility 
for the states to develop their authorized amounts, 
particularly during the good years. Striking such a desired 
balance, however, is no easy task.
    The 2007 Interim Guidelines will expire in 2026 and affect 
over 40 million people in seven states. The Upper and Lower 
Colorado Regional Offices of the Bureau of Reclamation have 
staff with relevant modeling expertise who can assist the Basin 
states with responding to our short-term priorities, i.e. 
modeling refinements and needs related to the DCP's 
implementation, and long-term priority, which is the post-2026 
operations of Lakes Powell and Mead. We would request 
additional financial resources for Reclamation to support the 
Basin states in the next 1 to 5 years.
    New Mexico supports the Build Back Better Act and the 
Reclamation Settlement Fund for Indian water rights 
settlements, which is really an investment in our future, as 
well as H.R. 5001, which is the Upper Colorado and San Juan 
River Basin's Recovery Act.
    In conclusion, in 1922, the seven Basin states agreed to 
the terms of the Compact on the basis that it represented a 
fair apportionment for the resource and that it protected 
rights for each of the signatories. For almost a century, the 
states have worked cooperatively with each other and the 
Federal Government and the Republic of Mexico and other 
partners and stakeholders to manage the systems and implement 
necessary adaptive management actions within the confines of 
the law of the river.
    Future decision-making process should consider science, 
legal, and policy aspects concurrently. I am confident that all 
seven Basin states will strive to employ a fact-based approach 
that considers the holistic vision. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. D'Antonio follows:]
 Prepared Statement of John R. D'Antonio Jr., New Mexico State Engineer
    Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, Distinguished Members of 
the Subcommittee: My name is John D'Antonio. I am the State Engineer 
for New Mexico and Governor Lujan Grisham's representative on the 
Colorado River Compacts. I very much appreciate the opportunity to 
appear before you today and provide comments and updates on behalf of 
the State of New Mexico regarding the current issues and priorities 
related to the Colorado River Basin.
Upper Basin Shortages:
    In the 1922 Colorado River Compact, the seven Colorado River Basin 
States agreed to ``share'' the Colorado River, with each Basin 
apportioned the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 million 
acre-feet of water per year. New Mexico's apportionment is 11.25 
percent of that amount, based on the 1948 Upper Colorado River Compact.
    Since 2000, the Colorado River Basin has entered a period of 
continued drought. The Upper Division States have been taking shortages 
based on limited supply for the past two decades. In New Mexico, water 
shortages occur annually in the San Juan River Basin, including the 
Animas and La Plata tributaries. The San Juan-Chama Project, a major 
trans-basin diversion project authorized by Congress in 1962 to deliver 
San Juan water to New Mexico's municipalities and Pueblos along the Rio 
Grande, has experienced significant variability in water supply 
availability, particularly during the past decade. As an example, the 
2021 shortage amount for this project was approximately 40 percent.
Lake Powell Levels:
    In response to the drought conditions, the Federal Government and 
the Basin States have worked together to establish measures to address 
the coordinated operations and levels of the two largest reservoirs in 
the nation, i.e. Lake Powell behind the Glen Canyon Dam, and Lake Mead 
behind the Hoover Dam. The elevation of Lake Powell is important to New 
Mexico and other Basin States, their citizens and water users, to 
continue to satisfy obligations under the two compacts, and to benefit 
from the power generated at Lake Powell and from its direct revenues. 
Those measures include the 2007 Colorado River Interim Guidelines and 
the 2019 Drought Contingency Plans (DCPs).
    One key component of the Upper Basin DCP is the Drought Response 
Operations Agreement (DROA). In June 2021, Reclamation projected that 
Lake Powell may fall below the critical elevation of 3,525' in less 
than six months. Reclamation then informed the Upper Division States 
that it intended to act under the emergency provision of the DROA, 
which gives the Secretary discretion to act in case of an ``imminent 
need.'' Reclamation, in coordination with the Upper Division States and 
after consultation with the Lower Division States pursuant to DROA, 
started releasing 181,000 acre feet in calendar year 2021 from three 
main reservoirs in the Upper Basin, to help boost the elevation at Lake 
Powell to the extent practicable. Reclamation and the Upper Division 
States are currently working on a plan framework that will fully 
address the States' key issues and concerns prior to any future DROA 
operations.
Authorized Projects in The Basin States:
    One of the original intents of the 1956 Colorado River Storage 
Project Act was to allow the Upper Division States to fully develop 
their apportionment. To date, however, the Upper Division States have 
not fully developed their apportionment due, in part, to the fact that 
water users in the Upper Basin seldom have sufficient water to fully 
use their water rights in any given year.
    New Mexico's Upper Basin water use is currently about half of its 
apportionment. Most of New Mexico's future development plans in the 
Upper Basin are for tribal water development pursuant to Indian water 
rights settlements that have already been authorized by Congress, such 
as the 2009 Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, which is vital in 
providing sustainable residential water to the rural communities within 
and around the Navajo Nation, the Jicarilla Apache Nation, and the City 
of Gallup. Those communities have been hit particularly hard by the 
drought and COVID-19 pandemic.
    When using or analyzing the existing climate trends, both prolonged 
dry periods and punctuated wet periods should be taken into 
consideration. The system will need to be assessed not only for a worse 
drought than we have experienced today, but also for short wet periods 
from an infrastructure and public health and safety standpoint. It will 
be important to address the existing short- and long-term challenges 
with a long-term, equitable approach, while retaining the flexibility 
for the States to develop their authorized amounts, particularly during 
the good years. Striking such a desired balance, however, will be no 
easy task.
Funding For Reclamation to Assist the Basin States:
    The 2007 Interim Guidelines will expire in 2026. The Interim 
Guidelines, and any new operational rules that come after them, affect 
over 40 million people, in seven States. The Upper and Lower Colorado 
Regional Offices of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have staff with 
relevant modeling expertise who can assist the Basin States with 
responding to our short-term priorities, i.e. modeling refinements and 
needs related to the DCPs implementation, as well as addressing the 
States' long-term priority, which is the post-2026 operations of Lakes 
Powell and Mead. These tasks will be extremely time consuming.
    In the spirit of harmonizing our working relationship with the 
Department of Interior and Reclamation, we would request additional 
financial resources for Reclamation to support the Basin States in the 
next one to five years.
Conclusion:
    In 1922, the seven Basin States agreed to the terms of the compact 
on the basis that it represented a fair apportionment of the resource, 
and that it protected rights for each of the signatories. For almost a 
century, the States have worked cooperatively with each other and with 
the Federal Government, the Republic of Mexico, and other partners and 
stakeholders to manage the system and implement necessary adaptive 
management actions within the confines of the Law of the River. Any 
future decision-making process should consider science, legal and 
policy aspects concurrently. I am confident that all seven Basin States 
will strive to employ a fact-based approach that considers that 
holistic vision.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views on this 
matter.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to John R. D'Antonio, New Mexico 
                          Compact Commissioner
              Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
    Question 1. The ``Law of the River'' and the quantification of the 
Upper and Lower Basin states amounted to around 17 million acre-feet of 
water, which was determined was the annual flow at the time. However, 
we know in the previous two decades it has been more like 12.4 million 
acre-feet. And this does not even account for other Native American 
tribes with water right claims that have yet to be resolved. There is a 
tremendous amount of demand, and with climate change we know the yield 
is only going to decline. Let's say the annual yield over the next 30 
years is 10 million acre-feet, maybe with climate change it's more or 
less. How do we take into account how we got to the original 
allocation, with the Upper and Lower Basin States and the Native 
American tribes, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?

    Answer. In the 1922 Colorado River Compact (1922 Compact), the 
seven Colorado River Basin States agreed to allocate the water in the 
Colorado River to provide more certainty and security that could help 
promote development. Both the Upper and Lower Basins were apportioned 
the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet of 
water per year, and an amount of water was set aside in case a treaty 
was ever signed with Mexico regarding Colorado River water. Further, in 
1948 the Upper Basin states entered into the 1948 Upper Colorado River 
Basin Compact (1948 Compact). New Mexico's apportionment under the 1948 
Compact is 11.25 percent of the Upper Basin's share. All states have 
developed water in accordance with the respective Compacts and have 
plans for continued development. Reallocation of the Colorado River is 
not a recommendation New Mexico would support. It should continue to be 
up to each state to manage demand within its boundaries based on 
available supply within each state.
    The 1922 and 1948 Compacts, and the body of laws, regulations, 
treaties, compacts and other documents that are collectively known as 
the Law of the River, have allowed the seven Colorado River Basin 
states, through cooperation and coordination, to manage the supply in 
the Colorado River up until now. The most recent addition to that body 
is the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan. The Lower Division 
states (Arizona, California, Nevada) and Upper Division states 
(Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) are actively coordinating on 
additional Upper and Lower Basin actions under the Drought Contingency 
Plans. At the same time, all seven states have begun coordination with 
the Department of the Interior to replace the 2007 ``Colorado River 
Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated 
Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead'' which expire at the end of 
2025. The states are committed to working closely with the federal 
government and other partners in the Basin to negotiate a new agreement 
to replace the Guidelines.
    New Mexico has entered into water rights settlements with its two 
Colorado River Basin tribes: the Navajo Nation and the Jicarilla Apache 
Nation; and consequently, does not have unresolved Indian water right 
claims in the Colorado River Basin. Those settled claims are part of 
New Mexico's 11.25 percent share of Colorado River water. New Mexico is 
actively engaged with both tribes to implement projects to put their 
water to beneficial use within New Mexico. In fact, these tribal 
projects are the major remaining water development projects for New 
Mexico within its 1948 Compact allocation.
    As was the case for New Mexico, it is up to the individual states 
to address the tribal claims in their respective states, and within 
their respective apportionments, as identified in the 1922 and 1948 
Compacts.
    The existing precedents set by New Mexico for resolving Indian 
water rights claims could be used as a roadmap on how to address the 
tribal water and supply shortage issues in the entire Basin. In 
addition to fitting within an individual state's compact share, the 
settlement agreements include shortage sharing provisions. That means, 
for New Mexico, that supply shortages will be shared in accordance with 
the shortage-sharing provisions included in its tribal settlements.
    Moreover, the Upper Division states have been taking water 
shortages for at least the past two decades. In New Mexico, water 
shortages occur annually in the San Juan River Basin, including on the 
Animas and La Plata tributaries. In addition, the San Juan-Chama 
Project, New Mexico's major trans-basin diversion project authorized by 
Congress in 1962, has experienced shortage in its water supply of 
between 10 and 15 percent, particularly during the past decade. The 
shortage experienced by this project in 2021 was approximately 40 
percent of a full supply. New Mexico and its water users have learned 
how to manage through such water shortages according to the Law of the 
River and through Indian water rights settlements.
    We all know more about the Colorado River system today than we did 
in 1922, and we are all concerned about additional aridification due to 
climate change. That knowledge, the collective operating experience of 
the federal government and the states, and the spirit of cooperation 
that is the hallmark of the Colorado River Basin will be useful tools 
to address the challenges we will face in the future.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Mr. D'Antonio, thank you for your technical 
perseverance.
    And Ranking Member Bentz, thank you for your forbearance. 
You are up. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start with Mr. 
Tyrrell from Wyoming.
    You mentioned, Mr. Tyrrell, watersheds and forest 
restoration as something, of things that need to happen. Here 
in Oregon, we agree with you completely that watersheds are an 
absolutely essential part of our water systems, and that forest 
restoration is an absolutely essential activity.
    But, sadly, we can't seem to get into the forest. And there 
is a prohibition almost upon cutting down a tree, or trying to 
remove junipers or other things that would actually help 
dramatically in improving the watershed and our water supply. 
It is the craziest thing, when we all know that good things can 
happen if we can get into the forest, but we can't seem to get 
there.
    So, my question to you, is the same thing happening in 
Wyoming? And if so, what are you doing about it?
    Mr. Tyrrell. Thank you for the question, Representative 
Bentz. I don't know that I can speak greatly to Wyoming's 
forests right now, other than in access to them. We have also 
been not quite like Oregon this year, but the victim of fires 
in recent years. The Mullen fire last year, west of Laramie, 
was horrible.
    And in my view, if we are interested in hydrologic health 
of forests and rivers, that points backward to a healthy 
forest. Whether it is removing fuels or just having healthy 
growth, forests are valuable for the water they can hold in the 
winter, in terms of snow, and in maintaining many riparian and 
stream flow areas for both the environment and for people who 
rely on the water. So, it would seem to me that looking at 
forest health can do nothing but help our conditions on the 
river.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. And shifting to Ms. Mitchell from 
Colorado, there is a lot of talk and a lot of reference to 
collaboration and conservation, and words like that. Pretty 
general.
    What I would be interested in knowing is if a study has 
been done in your state to determine, first of all, what sort 
of conservation might actually be available. And if 
implemented, how much water you could actually save. And this 
question I could ask of any one of the seven states before us, 
so I don't want to pick on you particularly, but I think you 
did mention collaboration, certainty, and other words like 
that. So, that is why I am asking you the question.
    Can you give us some idea of how much water is available, 
if you were able to implement conservation across the board in 
your state?
    Ms. Mitchell. Yes, and thank you for that question, 
Congressman Bentz.
    As part of our work through our Colorado water plan, 
conservation has been one of the pillars that has stood up in 
how we move forward to a long-range future of water for 
Colorado. And conservation being highlighted in that is just 
one of the solutions. There is quantification in that to some 
level, along with goals, but that is not just in the Colorado 
River Basin, it is across the entire state.
    There is a goal of over 400,000 acre-feet of conservation 
measures to take place. But that is across the state. I would 
have to get back to you on exacts of what would potentially be 
possible, not all of our state is in the Colorado River Basin.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you for that. I would love to see those 
numbers. And if they exist somewhere, please share them.
    Mr. Shawcroft of Utah, there is an unfortunate focus on 
agriculture as the source of water in situations like this. And 
the result, of course, is that agriculture gets cut off, 
because there are a lot more people in cities than there are on 
farms.
    My question to you is, what should the farmers be doing, 
given this focus that they find themselves squarely within?
    Mr. Shawcroft. Thank you for the question. You are exactly 
right. A large majority of the water in Utah, and I believe the 
other states, as well, is used for agriculture. And I agree 
with you that many times agriculture gets a bad name for using 
water, or wasting water, when in reality a farmer uses water, 
what he diverts, part of that is used by the production of the 
crop. Part of that returns to the river, which turns out to be 
the next appropriator's water supply.
    So, it is not as simple as some people think, simply 
diminishing use for agriculture automatically produces water 
for culinary purposes. In my mind, it has to be a market-based 
situation, where there is an advantage for those who are using 
water that has historically been used for agriculture to move 
it to municipal. And that is typically how it has been done in 
Utah, and it happens quite comfortably, if those conditions are 
set: willing buyer, willing seller.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Bentz. We are glad to be joined 
by two Members of the Nevada Delegation for the next set of 
questions, so we will now recognize Representative Dina Titus 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving us 
an opportunity to sit in on this very informative panel.
    I represent the heart of the Las Vegas Valley. We have over 
2 million people there and 40 million tourists coming every 
year, so the water in the Colorado River that goes to supply us 
is a very important issue. I would like to address our 
representative, Mr. Entsminger.
    There are three factors happening here, all at the same 
time.
    One, southern Nevada is one of the fastest growing areas in 
the country and increased by 18 percent over the last decade. 
But this has been going on for much longer than that. We went 
from 1.3 million folks to 2.3 million between 2002 and today. 
There was a time when you had to build an elementary school a 
month to keep up with the growth. So, growth is one factor.
    Second, we are the fastest warming community in the 
country. I think you called it aridification. So, that is the 
second factor.
    Third, we have the smallest amount of water in the 
allocation from the river to start with. Yet, I think we are 
one of the best stewards of the amount that we do get.
    I was really glad that you mentioned in your comments the 
Large Scale Water Recycling Project Investment Act, which I am 
a co-sponsor of, and pointed out that money that will go toward 
water projects in the bills that are being considered for 
infrastructure.
    All this time these three factors are going on, though, we 
have reduced our consumption of water. It is pretty amazing how 
we have been able to do that. Could you talk about how we can 
sustain growth or continue growth, while also reducing our 
consumption of water from the river?
    Mr. Entsminger. Absolutely, Representative Titus. And as 
you said, it is good to see a couple of friendly Nevada faces 
on the call, after being outnumbered by the New Mexicans for 
most of the hearing.
    As you say, since 2002, we have reduced our depletions off 
of the Colorado River by 23 percent, while at the same time 
adding over 800,000 new residents. And we did that largely by 
taking out turf. But we have arrived at a place where, in order 
to continue to accommodate the type of growth we are seeing, we 
need to continue on that conservation journey. And that is why 
the Nevada legislature adopted this year Assembly Bill 356, 
which prohibits the use of Colorado River water for non-
functional turf in the Las Vegas Valley by 2026, and that will 
save about 10 percent of our Colorado River allocation, just by 
getting grass out of street medians and places where nobody's 
kids or grandkids are using it.
    So, the key to our journey is continuing to control our 
demands because, as you say, climate change isn't doing us any 
favors, either. We estimate that our gallons per capita per day 
will go up by 9 gallons between today and 2035, just because of 
increased warming.
    Ms. Titus. Well, I know you had that great project, where 
you could convert your yard to desert landscaping, and I think 
that was a big success. Could you just share with us a little 
about how that worked?
    Mr. Entsminger. Absolutely. We refer to that as our Waters 
Smart Landscape Program. Right now, we pay $3 a square foot to 
incentivize people to take out grass. And the results have been 
pretty staggering. Again, since the turn of the century we 
spent about $250 million of local funds to fund that program. 
And as a result of that, you could actually lay an 18-inch wide 
piece of sod around the circumference of the Earth at the 
equator with all the grass that we have removed from the 
Valley.
    Ms. Titus. Wow. People think about Las Vegas and golf 
courses, and big resorts, and fountains, and things that--but 
in reality, they use only a small percentage of the water that 
is consumed here in the Valley. Is that right?
    Mr. Entsminger. That is correct. Well, actually, Clark 
County, which is home to 76 percent of the state's population, 
uses less than 5 percent of the water that is available within 
the state of Nevada. And if you look at that resort industry, 
that, as you said, brings in 45-ish million visitors a year, 
they use less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the water that is 
available within the state of Nevada.
    Ms. Titus. Are you working with DRI on any water 
conservation projects?
    Mr. Entsminger. Yes, I am fortunate enough to sit on the 
board of trustees for the Desert Research Institute, and we 
coordinate with them regularly, both on conservation 
initiatives, water quality issues in Lake Mead, and any number 
of other scientific endeavors.
    Ms. Titus. Are you involved at all with the St. George 
Water Project just north of here?
    Mr. Entsminger. I am not, but Mr. Shawcroft is here, if you 
would like to ask him about that.
    Ms. Titus. I will save that for next time.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Representative Titus. And we are 
going to go to your Nevada neighbor.
    Congresswoman Susie Lee, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Chair Huffman, and thank you, Ranking 
Member Bentz, for hosting this really important meeting, and to 
all of our witnesses for their excellent testimony.
    As Congresswoman Titus said, southern Nevada and the entire 
Southwest is facing unprecedented drought. As we know, in my 
district, Lake Mead, which supplies water for over 25 million 
people across Nevada, Arizona, and California, is at its lowest 
level since construction in the thirties.
    And to help address this crisis, so much more must be done 
to accurately measure consumptive use, which includes programs 
like OpenET. And I want to thank Mr. Tyrrell and Mr. Shawcroft 
for recognizing the importance of this program in their 
testimony, which, Congresswoman Titus, was developed through 
Desert Research Institute.
    Here in the House I have introduced the Open Access 
Evapotranspiration Data Act--that is a long word--OpenET, with 
fellow colleagues of this Committee to establish a program 
under the Department of the Interior that uses publicly 
available data from satellites and weather stations to provide 
measurements and estimates of evapotranspiration and help water 
managers, farmers, and ranchers make decisions about their 
water use.
    And I have also been working to secure Federal funding for 
the large scale water recycling projects. In fact, my 
colleagues on this Committee--along with them, the Large Scale 
Water Recycling Investment Act was included in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Bill.
    Mr. Entsminger, as you mentioned in your testimony, the 
Southern Nevada Water Authority is partnering with Metropolitan 
Water District of Southern California on a multi-billion-dollar 
regional water recycling project. Can you speak to how this 
proposed project will provide tangible benefits to Nevada, 
California, and other communities along the Colorado River 
Basin?
    Mr. Entsminger. Absolutely. So, in its simplest 
explanation, what the Met project will do is take wastewater 
that is currently being discharged into the Pacific Ocean--and 
thereby can't be utilized--treat that, either inject it into 
aquifers in Southern California, or perhaps even take it to 
direct potable reuse, thereby extending the use of that water 
in Southern California.
    And, in concept, what we have discussed with Met is that 
Southern Nevada Water Authority would invest $750 million 
toward the capital needs of that project. And in return for 
that, Metropolitan would leave a small amount of their Colorado 
River entitlement in Lake Mead for our use over the period of 
the project.
    And I believe the Central Arizona Water Conservancy 
District has now also signed on to participate in that project. 
So, in a very real way, with the funding that is in the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, this is a regional project with 
large amounts of funding from local agencies, but also 
partnership with our Federal partners.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you. And how would you rank this in our 
fight against the worsening drought, in all of the tools in 
your toolbox?
    Mr. Entsminger. Well, I think what I would say is, of all 
the testimony we have heard today, that is the only project 
that is actually adding new water into the fight against the 
problem. We have talked a lot about how to use less, and how 
many more needs there are, but in terms of introducing real, 
wet water that is not currently available, that is the project 
and the model for the future.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you. I am actually looking out on my 
backyard, which does have artificial turf as part of the Water 
Smart project, so we have been fighting to combat drought, as a 
member of Appropriations, with such activities.
    So, in addition to supporting regional recycled water 
partnerships, are there any other specific types of investments 
in water-related climate resilience in the Colorado River Basin 
that need Federal assistance?
    Mr. Entsminger. Well, I think the most obvious one is there 
is a Federal obligation contained in the DCP to contribute 
100,000 acre-feet a year to the protection of Lake Mead 
elevations. And while Reclamation has done a good job trying to 
meet that obligation, they haven't quite gotten all 100,000 
acre-feet a year. So, I think, providing Reclamation with 
additional funding so that they can meet that goal, but also 
expand the programs that Mr. Buschatzke talked about in his 
testimony in terms of agreements with some of the tribes in 
Arizona and expanding system conservation efforts, would be a 
good use of Federal funds.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield.
    Mr. Huffman. I thank our colleagues from Nevada for closing 
us out on, I think, a more hopeful note, talking about some 
projects and strategies that can really make a difference in 
addressing these challenges.
    I want to thank the witnesses for their----
    Mr. Costa. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Huffman. Yes, sir?
    Mr. Costa. Was I going to get a chance to ask questions?
    Mr. Huffman. Mr. Costa, of course. Of course, we want to 
include you. I didn't have that in my notes, that you wanted to 
jump in, but you are recognized.
    Mr. Costa. I have been listening tentatively to all the 
debate and appreciate it very much from both panels. Thank you.
    Let me make two statements, and then ask what my father 
would say is the $64,000 question. But, based upon the value of 
water per acre-foot these days, I suspect it is a lot more than 
$64,000.
    The first statement is that I subscribe to some of the 
comments that you made earlier, that our water allocation for 
the production of food is a national security issue. It really 
is. Less than 5 percent of our Nation's population is engaged 
in agriculture production. But a majority of Americans, maybe 
as a result of the pandemic, with schools and restaurants 
closed, began to understand that food doesn't come from your 
restaurant, or your favorite store, but it comes from people 
and farm workers and farmers throughout the country, who put it 
on America's dinner table every night.
    The second point I want to make has been part of the 
witnesses' statements here that we have heard this afternoon, 
and it is not new, and it is something I think we all subscribe 
to, and that is using all the water tools in our water toolbox.
    And I would be interested--Ms. Mitchell talked about 
quantification and the pillar of conservation, and I strongly 
subscribe to that notion, because we have done a lot in 
conservation. But I think, for all of the witnesses, it would 
be nice if we could quantify how much more we can build upon, 
in terms of conservation as a part of one of the water tools in 
our water toolbox.
    But let me get back to the point I made in my opening 
statement, which was that the law of the river and the 
quantification of the Upper and the Lower Basin states amounted 
to some 17 million acre-feet of water, that it was determined 
at that time was the annual flow of the Colorado River. And we 
know that in the last two decades it has been more like 12.4 
million acre-feet, and that doesn't account for other Native 
American tribes that have reserved water rights claims that 
have yet to be resolved. So, there is just a tremendous amount 
of demand. And with climate change, we know the yield is only 
going to decline.
    So, this is the question I would like to submit to all of 
you. And if you want to provide a written statement for your 
answer, I think we would appreciate that. Let's say the annual 
yield over the next 30 years is 10 million acre-feet. I don't 
know, with climate change, maybe it is plus or minus. How do we 
take into account how we got to the original allocation with 
the Upper and Lower Basin states and the tribes, the sovereign 
nations, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?
    That is the $64,000 question, but it is also a lot more 
than that because, frankly, of the value and the importance of 
water security to everybody, everybody.
    It was so difficult to agree upon 17 million acre-feet, 
which we know now is not there. How do we agree among the Upper 
and Lower Basin states, and the Native tribes on a reduced 
amount, knowing that we are all going to use all the water 
tools in our water toolbox, and we are going to conserve, and 
we are going to do all that stuff, OK? So, that is the $64,000 
question.
    Mr. Huffman. In a minute and 34 seconds, do any of the 
witnesses want to answer Mr. Costa's Hunger Game scenario of 
how we get through that kind of shortfall?
    Mr. Nelson. Congressman Costa, I will take a first crack at 
it.
    The law of the river is a series of agreements, court 
adjudications all down the line, the DCP being the most recent 
one. I have been on several panels that the question is, is the 
DCP enough?
    Mr. Costa. I know, and I was involved in the Quantification 
Agreement a number of years ago, and that was a success of 
sorts.
    Mr. Nelson. Very much a success to reduce water use in 
California.
    So, when you look at that progression, it is an incremental 
change. And currently we are in the process of meeting quite 
frequently with the Lower Basin and the Upper Basin and the 
seven Basin states, in trying to quantify additional measures 
of conservation that we can do in the interim, but also working 
on the 2026 guidelines. So, it is really a series of 
collaborative work together that tries to (1) quantify, and (2) 
develop the areas in which we are going to make those 
conservation investments.
    Mr. Costa. Would it be too easy to digest that we use all 
the water tools in the water toolbox, and we measure what that 
adds up to, and then we take the percentage of water that was 
allocated, and the difficult law of the river contract and, on 
a percentage basis, reduce it by that factor to 10 million 
acre-feet, or whatever we determine the yield to be?
    Mr. Nelson. Yes, one of the challenges with that is the 
long-term water rights that folks have----
    Mr. Costa. I know, I know.
    Mr. Nelson. So, that is the challenge. And it is a 
collaborative process to get through that.
    And I will say one thing--I notice that you, and no 
disrespect, I notice a number of folks had lunch during the 
panel today. And I take your comments to heart, and the food 
that we eat actually comes from water. And food security is an 
important issue. And food equals water, and we all are a part 
of that process, and the food production cycle is very 
important.
    Mr. Costa. Well, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
and I look forward to continuing to work on this.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. It is a great question you ended 
with, and I am sure that, if any witness wants to provide any 
written supplemental answers to that or any other questions, we 
would all be happy to see it.
    Let me just check to see if there are any other colleagues 
that were hoping to jump in with questions. I don't want to 
overlook anyone. But I don't think there are.
    So, I think, at this point, we are going to bring this 
first day of our Colorado River Basin hearing to a close.
    Again, thanks to the witnesses on this second panel, and to 
all the Members for their great questions.
    Members of the Committee may have some additional questions 
for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in 
writing. Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee 
must submit those witness questions within 3 business days 
after the hearing, and the record will be held open for 10 
business days to allow for responses.
    If there is no further business, and seeing none, then, 
without objection, the Committee stands adjourned. Thanks.

    [Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Prepared Statement of the Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in 
                 Congress from the State of California
    I want to thank Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member Bentz for 
holding two days of hearings on the dire drought conditions in the 
Colorado River Basin. This is such an important topic and one that I 
have been invested in well before I came to Congress.
    I also want to thank and welcome Metropolitan Water District's new 
GM, Adel Hagekhalil, for being here, and to the Subcommittee and the 
Chair for inviting him to testify.
    I can't think of a better witness than Metropolitan to be here 
today due to their vast history and knowledge with this river system. 
The Colorado River Aqueduct, built and operated by MWD, provides about 
25% of the water used in their service area. For the past two decades, 
MWD has been committed to increasing the sustainability of the Colorado 
River by building partnerships inside and outside California based on 
conservation, storage, and reuse.
    An example of one of these partnerships is the proposed partnership 
between Metropolitan, the LA County Sanitation District, the Southern 
Nevada Water Authority, Central Arizona Water Conservation District, 
and the Arizona Department of Water Resources, to develop the largest 
wastewater purification facility in the US, known as the Regional 
Recycled Water Project. This multi-billion-dollar project would produce 
168,000 acre-feet of water annually, enough for more than 500,000 
households.
    This innovative recycling project represents an opportunity for 
three states in the Basin to improve their water supply reliability 
through a single project. It could transform how water is managed in 
the Basin and become a model for future interstate partnerships.
    Due to the high price tag of this project, there currently aren't 
any meaningful existing grant programs in the federal government to 
adequately support it which is why I introduced H.R. 4099, which would 
create a new grant program within the Bureau to support large-scale 
recycling projects with an estimated cost of at least $500 million.
    With the help of MWD and other local water agencies, Southern 
California has continued to be a leader in modernizing water 
infrastructure and working to reduce our reliance on imported water. LA 
currently recycles more than 100 million gallons of water per day for 
use in irrigation, industrial purposes, and groundwater recharge. But 
as LA continues to grow, climate change becomes more severe, and 
droughts only getting longer and harsher, now more than ever the 
federal government should be stepping in to make adequate, long-term 
financial investments into drought resilience and conservation 
projects.
    I again want to thank the Chairman and this Subcommittee for 
holding this hearing. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and 
continuing to work with the Bureau, Basin States, Tribes, environmental 
organizations, water agencies, and all other stakeholders on the 
Colorado River for a path forward to a more drought resilient West.

                                 ______
                                 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Huffman

                        Statement for the Record
                             Michael Cohen
                  Senior Associate, Pacific Institute

    Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and members of the 
Subcommittee:

    Thank you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to 
submit this written testimony. In the following I offer brief comments 
on:

  1.  The drying of the West

  2.  The exemplary efforts of many Colorado River water users to adapt 
            to these conditions

  3.  The compelling need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because 
            adaptation will not be sufficient.

    The Pacific Institute, a California-based non-profit, has 
investigated and proposed solutions to Colorado River challenges for 
thirty years. In 1993, Institute researchers produced Colorado river 
basin and climatic change. The sensitivity of streamflow and water 
supply to variations in temperature and precipitation for the U.S. EPA 
(EPA230-R-93-009). We also participated in the development of Colorado 
River surplus and shortage criteria and in the 2012 Basin Study.
The Drying of the West
    Colorado River flows have decreased significantly over the past 100 
years, from the 1922 Compact assumption that the river yielded more 
than 16.5 million acre-feet (MAF) per year, to the 20th century annual 
average of 15.2 MAF, to the Millennium drought average of less than 
12.4 MAF. Yet we should not assume that runoff has now stabilized at 
this dangerously low rate. Rather, in the face of continuing 
anthropogenic climate change, we can expect to see Colorado River 
runoff continue to decline, rapidly exhausting system storage and 
imposing harsh and inequitable impacts on the people, environment, and 
economies of the West.
    The rate of the river's decline has exceeded climate scientists' 
disturbing runoff projections. More than forty years ago, Stockton and 
Boggess \1\ projected that a 2+C temperature increase and a 10% 
decrease in precipitation could reduce annual upper basin runoff by a 
third, to 9.75 MAF. In fact, this estimate is slightly higher than the 
average annual natural Colorado River flow for the years 2000-2004 and 
the estimated runoff in 2020 and 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ CW Stockton and WR Boggess, 1979, Geohydrological implications 
of climate change on water resource development, Fort Belvoir, VA: US 
Army Coastal Engineering Research Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To its credit, the Bureau of Reclamation has recognized this 
alarming trend and has updated and improved its modeling assumptions to 
reflect the more recent dry period. Reclamation now projects that both 
Lake Powell and Lake Mead could fall to critically low elevations in 
the next several years--well before the current Interim Shortage 
Guidelines expire.
    The challenges confronting the Colorado River Basin extend 
throughout the West. California just suffered its driest water year in 
a century. In July, the Great Salt Lake fell to its lowest level in 60 
years, likely reducing lake-effect snowfall on the ski resorts along 
the Wasatch Front. The Salton Sea is now 43 square miles smaller than 
it was when the Quantification Settlement Agreement was signed in 2003, 
and 10.5 feet lower. Devastating forest fires have burned millions of 
acres, sterilizing soils and generating smoke that impairs air quality 
across the nation. Farms and ranches that have been in families for 
generations have folded in the absence of water. River rafters and fly 
fishers have seen their seasons curtailed due to insufficient instream 
flows. Hydropower generation has declined with falling reservoir 
elevations. The West is drying.
Collaboration and Adaptation
    Colorado River water users have taken dramatic and exemplary steps 
to adapt to the drying West. Major cities have successfully decoupled 
their water use from economic and population growth: Albuquerque and 
Denver and Las Vegas and Los Angeles and Phoenix have added hundreds of 
thousands of people and seen significant economic expansion yet use 
less water than they did twenty and even thirty years ago. In 2020, the 
Imperial Irrigation District--the largest single user of Colorado River 
water--consumed 20% less water than it did in 2002 while still 
irrigating 98% of the land, using 0.66 MAF less water overall. This 
conservation and efficiency helps to maintain agricultural productivity 
while providing resilience for southern California cities during the 
state's punishing drought and reduces demand on the river.
    In the most recent five-year period (2016-2020), annual Colorado 
River consumptive use by the lower basin states averaged 6.89 MAF, well 
below their annual 7.5 MAF compact entitlement. Lower Basin consumptive 
use of Colorado River water declined by more than 1.6 MAF from its high 
point in 2002 to 2020. Lower Basin users and the Republic of Mexico 
have ``stored'' some 4 MAF of water in Lake Mead, delaying the shortage 
declaration until this year and enabling users to better prepare for a 
drier future. Water agencies in the U.S. are now investing in water 
conservation and efficiency projects in Mexico--in a foreign country!--
and agencies in Arizona and Nevada are in discussions to invest in a 
water recycling project in California. One of the basin's four 
endangered fish species--the humpback chub (Gila cypha)--was just 
downlisted to threatened earlier this week, and another may be 
downlisted in the near future, reflecting the success of upper basin 
fish recovery programs. California has invested hundreds of millions of 
dollars in Salton Sea projects and, with additional federal financial 
and technical support, can begin to make real progress to protect 
ecological and human health and ensure the long-term viability of the 
nation's largest agriculture-to-urban water transfer.
    An amazing level of cooperation, trust, financial investments, and 
measurable actions by stakeholders have generated these remarkable 
achievements. The basin is a model, studied internationally, for its 
ability to set aside the traditional tools of litigation in favor of 
collaborative investments in conservation and efficiency. Credible 
science and modeling have supported these efforts, improving water 
users' understanding of the river system and the potential impacts of 
proposed actions. A network of bold and innovative thinkers from a 
variety of sectors, a willingness to (slowly) enlarge the negotiating 
table, and many, many years of discussions and outreach and hard work 
made this progress possible.
Adaptation is not sufficient
    The basin's extraordinary collaboration and cooperation and 
dramatic reductions in total consumptive water use over the past twenty 
years postponed the declaration of a shortage for the Lower Basin by 
several years, building a bridge toward water supply security and 
certainty. But the climate change-generated chasm separating us from 
that security and certainty grows ever wider. Simply put, if we fail to 
address the root cause of the worsening crisis in the West and slow the 
rate of climate change, we will never complete that bridge.
    Climate change is occurring faster than projected. Its impacts have 
been more severe. In the Colorado River basin, the rate at which runoff 
has declined has exceeded even the extraordinary efforts by water users 
to conserve. The elevation of Lake Mead could fall another forty-four 
feet in two years.
    Water touches all of the West. Ranchers, farmers, tribes, fishing 
and whitewater enthusiasts all depend on it. It supports growing cities 
that have held their water demands flat (or have actually seen them 
decline). We need to sustain the western way of life and take 
aggressive actions to diminish the rate at which western water supplies 
are crashing.
    Adaptation measures are not enough. Emergency drought responses are 
not enough. Alleviating the symptoms is not enough. It's time to 
confront the clear cause of the long-term and intensifying drying of 
the American West. Privileging and protecting a narrow set of 
extractive industries at the expense of the western way of life should 
no longer be tolerated.
    Congress needs to enact aggressive climate mitigation legislation 
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while continuing to support the 
impressive and innovative adaptation efforts that have enabled many in 
the West to postpone the worst impacts of the accelerating crisis.

                                 # # #

  OVERSIGHT HEARING ON COLORADO RIVER DROUGHT CONDITIONS AND RESPONSE 
                            MEASURES--PART 2

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, October 20, 2021

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., via 
Webex, Hon. Jared Huffman [Chairman of the Subcommittee] 
presiding.
    Present: Representatives Huffman, Costa, Grijalva, Levin, 
Lowenthal, Soto; Bentz, Boebert, Fulcher, Gonzalez-Colon, and 
Westerman.
    Also present: Representatives Gosar and Susie Lee.

    Mr. Huffman. Good afternoon, everyone. The Subcommittee on 
Water, Oceans, and Wildlife will come to order. Good morning, 
rather, I should say.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today, this is Day 2 of our 
hearing on Colorado River drought conditions and response 
measures. Obviously, a very important subject.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
this hearing are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Member. 
This allows us to hear from our witnesses sooner, and allows 
Members to better keep their schedules.
    In addition, please note that, as with our in-person 
meetings, Members are responsible for their own microphones. 
So, please remember that you can be muted by staff only to 
avoid inadvertent background noises.
    Finally, Members or witnesses who experience technical 
problems should inform Committee staff immediately.
    I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes to make an 
opening statement.

 THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 
                      STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Huffman. Thanks again, everyone, for joining us for the 
second of our two meetings on Colorado River drought conditions 
and response measures.
    As we heard during our first meeting on this very important 
subject last week, the Colorado River, which serves 40 million 
people and fuels $1.4 trillion in economic activity every 
single year, is currently experiencing a 21-year drought that 
is greatly exacerbated by climate change.
    Last week, we heard testimony from the Interior Department 
about the unprecedented drought conditions that we are seeing. 
In August, the Department made its first-ever shortage 
declaration in the Lower Colorado River Basin, and 
unprecedented actions were taken in the Upper Basin, as well, 
to slow the declining water levels at key reservoirs--levels 
that haven't been seen in decades.
    We will hear about some of the creative problem solving 
today in testimony from the Metropolitan Water District of 
Southern California. That is an important part of this 
conversation, and I will note that Met is the largest treated 
drinking water provider in the United States, serving 19 
million people. Met is also collaborating with water managers 
in Nevada and Arizona to advance a large-scale water recycling 
project that, once it is built, can deliver enough drought-
proof water supplies for half-a-million households. As we heard 
in testimony last week from California, Nevada, and Arizona, 
innovative projects like what you will hear about from 
Metropolitan are going to be needed to respond to changing 
climate conditions.
    Last week, we also heard from two witnesses representing 
Tribal Nations. We will continue that discussion today on the 
need to account for tribal water needs across the Colorado 
River Basin, and there are 30 Tribal Nations in the Basin. We 
noted that last week, under the Winters Doctrine, which was 
first recognized by the Supreme Court in 1908, these tribes 
have significant legal rights to enough water from the Colorado 
River to secure and maintain viable homelands. But these tribal 
communities still face significant water access barriers with 
devastating consequences.
    For example, according to the Center for Disease Control, 
American Indians and Alaska Natives are more likely than any 
other ethnic or racial group to be hospitalized or die from 
COVID-19. The data shows that one of the main factors 
contributing to this elevated hospitalization and death rate is 
limited access to running water. These and other consequences 
of limited running water access simply have to be addressed.
    We will also hear more today about environmental water 
needs in the Basin, as declining water flows and high 
temperatures severely impact fish and wildlife. Low water 
levels are also accelerating the spread of invasive, non-native 
species, reducing critical habitat, and contributing to an 
ecological and human health crisis at the Salton Sea.
    As the Salton Sea shrinks, due to reduced inflows and other 
factors, important Pacific Flyway habitat is lost, and exposed 
lakebed is causing harmful air quality challenges for many 
communities. Addressing these environmental challenges must be 
a major focus, as well, as we move forward.
    While we face a lot of major challenges in the Colorado 
River Basin, I must note we also have some effective tools in 
place to help respond to our current drought conditions. This 
includes the measures that we included in the Colorado River 
Drought Contingency Plan, which was authorized through 
legislation led by Chairman Grijalva in the last Congress.
    And many other initiatives are being led by members of this 
Committee to help address challenges that we will hear more 
about today. That includes measures for near-term drought 
response, investments in water rights settlements, water data 
and technology developments, resources for the Salton Sea 
improvement projects, and investments in drought-proof water 
recycling projects.
    I look forward to hearing from our panel of expert 
witnesses today on these and other response measures.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, Chair, Subcommittee on 
                       Water, Oceans and Wildlife
    Thank you for joining us today for the second of two meetings on 
``Colorado River drought conditions and response measures.''
    As we heard during our first meeting on this important subject last 
week, the Colorado River--which serves 40 million people and fuels $1.4 
trillion in economic activity each year--is currently experiencing a 
21-year drought that is greatly exacerbated by climate change.
    Last week, we heard testimony from the Interior Department about 
the unprecedented drought conditions we're now seeing. In August, the 
Department made the first-ever ``shortage'' declaration in the Lower 
Colorado River Basin, and unprecedented actions were taken in the Upper 
Basin as well to slow declining water levels at key reservoirs that 
haven't been seen in decades.
    Last week, we also heard testimony from the representatives of 
seven states who described how they're working to share water supplies 
from a river that's greatly overallocated. We'll hear more about that 
today.
    There are legal entitlements to the use of 17.5 million acre-feet 
of water each year from the Colorado River. In the 21st century, the 
river's natural flow has averaged just 12.4 million acre-feet. 
Meanwhile, climate scientists are urging us to prepare for even less 
due to climate shifts that are bringing about even drier conditions 
across the Southwest.
    Adjusting to these new, drier conditions will be one of the biggest 
climate challenges we face. Fortunately, parties across the Colorado 
River Basin have a long history of collaboration and creative problem 
solving. Those skills will be needed in the period ahead.
    We'll hear about some of that creative problem solving today in 
testimony from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--
the largest treated drinking water provider in the United States, which 
serves 19 million people. Metropolitan is collaborating with water 
managers in Nevada and Arizona to advance a large-scale water recycling 
project that, once built, can deliver enough drought-proof water 
supplies for half a million households. As we heard in testimony last 
week from California, Nevada, and Arizona, innovative projects like 
this will be needed to respond to changing climate conditions.
    Last week, we also heard from two witnesses representing Tribal 
Nations. We'll continue the discussion today on the need to account for 
tribal water needs across the Colorado River Basin.
    There are 30 Tribal Nations in the Colorado River Basin. Under the 
Winters doctrine--which was first recognized by the Supreme Court in 
1908--these Tribes have significant legal rights to enough water from 
the Colorado River to secure and maintain viable homelands. And yet 
tribal communities still face significant water access barriers with 
devastating consequences.
    For example, according to the Centers for Disease Control, American 
Indians and Alaska Natives are more likely than any other ethnic or 
racial group to be hospitalized or die from COVID-19. The data show 
that one of the main factors contributing to this elevated 
hospitalization and death rate is limited access to running water. 
These and other consequences of limited running water access must be 
addressed.
    We'll also hear more today about environmental water needs in the 
Basin as declining water flows and high temperatures severely impact 
fish and wildlife.
    Low water levels are also accelerating the spread of invasive non-
native species, reducing critical habitat, and contributing to an 
ecological and human health crisis at the Salton Sea. As the Salton Sea 
shrinks due to reduced inflows and other factors, important Pacific 
Flyway habitat is lost and exposed lakebed is causing harmful air 
quality challenges for many communities. Addressing these environmental 
challenges must be a major focus as well moving forward.
    While we face major challenges in the Colorado River Basin, I must 
note that we also have some effective tools in place to help respond to 
our current drought conditions. This includes the measures included in 
the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan, which was authorized 
through legislation led by Chair Grijalva last Congress.
    Many other initiatives are being led by members of this Committee 
to help address challenges that we'll hear more about today, including 
measures for near-term drought response, investments in water rights 
settlements, water data and technology development, resources for 
Salton Sea improvement projects, and investments in drought-proof water 
recycling projects.
    I look forward to hearing from our panel of expert witnesses today 
on these and other response measures.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. And with that, I would like to recognize 
Ranking Member Bentz for any remarks that he may wish to give.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                    FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today marks the second 
hearing on the important topic of drought in the seven-state 
Colorado River Basin. We heard last week from federal, tribal, 
and state witnesses, whereas today we hear from water managers, 
farmers, ranchers, and others who are experiencing the 
firsthand impacts of drought.
    Some of the witnesses here today are, literally, on the 
front lines of the devastating drought. In the cases of water 
managers, they answer to their ratepayers and their boards, and 
in the cases of farmers and ranchers, they have to put food on 
their own table, while providing agricultural commodities for 
the rest of America. And as we heard last week, and as we will 
hear today, they and most everyone else are extremely concerned 
that another year of this drought will make matters extremely 
worse.
    The issues facing the Colorado River Basin are identical to 
what communities throughout much of the West are experiencing. 
As I indicated last week, the development of the Colorado River 
has helped create the vast cities of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt 
Lake City, and Denver. And its hydropower, historically, has 
been a cheaper renewable alternative to fossil energy for over 
4 million electricity consumers in the Basin.
    The river also irrigates nearly 5.5 million acres of 
farmland, providing an assortment of crops that have created a 
massive regional agricultural economy. As we have heard from 
nearly everyone last week, and what we will hear today, is that 
the math is no longer adding up because of the 20-year-long 
drought. The question, then, is over what to do about it, both 
short-term and long-term.
    From a historical perspective, the states and 
constituencies in the Federal Government have managed to find 
agreement on the Colorado River matters, even on endangered 
species programs. In fact, they are now living under their 
agreed-upon Drought Contingency Plans that were enacted in the 
last Congress, and mentioned earlier by the Chair. While the 
Drought Contingency Plans and other matters expire in 2026, the 
states and other stakeholders are beginning the process to find 
resolution beyond that time frame, and we heard general words 
such as the ``need for collaboration and cooperation and 
conservation.''
    But to what end? Have studies been done to determine how 
much water will be saved, how much found, how much reused? I 
hope today's witnesses will touch on these matters.
    Certainly, one message that a drought should send loud and 
clear to everyone is we need to manage our forests better. A 
healthy forest means a healthy working watershed and more water 
for other uses. Mr. Pat O'Toole, who is, literally, on the 
ground, living this on a daily basis on his working ranch in 
Wyoming and Colorado, will tell us firsthand that forests and 
rangeland restoration can provide some water supply solutions.
    Mr. O'Toole, Mr. Tom Davis, and others will also address 
what is called demand management, which could end up being 
water reallocated from agriculture to other purposes. As we 
heard last week, this could have a negative impact on rural 
communities and could end up harming those downstream who rely 
on agricultural return flows.
    The fact is, and we all know it, there are no easy, simple 
solutions. It will take everyone in the region, once again, to 
roll up their sleeves. Today's debate is another excellent 
start.
    I appreciate everyone's participation in today's hearing 
and I look forward to the testimony.
    Mr. Chair, I thank you for holding a hearing on this 
important issue, and I yield back.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Ranking Member Bentz. I am told 
that the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Westerman, 
may wish to make some opening remarks.
    Mr. Westerman, are you with us?
    Mr. Bentz. He is not here yet, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Huffman. OK, well, very good. We will go ahead and 
proceed then to hear from the witnesses.
    Before introducing our witnesses today, I want to remind 
everyone the witnesses are encouraged to participate in our 
Witness Diversity Survey created by the Congressional Office of 
Diversity and Inclusion. Witnesses may refer to the hearing 
invitation materials for further information about that.
    Under our Committee Rules, witnesses must limit oral 
statements to 5 minutes, but your entire written statement will 
appear in the Committee record.

    When you begin speaking, the timer will start counting 
down, and it turns orange when you have 1 minute remaining. I 
want to recommend that Members and witnesses use the grid view 
in Webex, so that you can lock the timer on your screen. That 
just makes everything much easier.

    After your testimony is complete, please remember to mute 
yourself to avoid any inadvertent background noise. The flip 
side of that is, when I recognize you, please unmute yourself, 
so we can hear from you right away without delay.

    I will allow all the witnesses to finish their testimony 
before we begin questions from Members.

    We will begin testimony from Mr. Adel Hagekhalil, General 
Manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 
California.

    And I am sorry, I think I mispronounced your name, sir--I 
believe it is Hagekhalil. So, welcome, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.

  STATEMENT OF ADEL HAGEKHALIL, GENERAL MANAGER, METROPOLITAN 
 WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Hagekhalil. Good morning and thank you, Chairman 
Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and members of the Subcommittee. 
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I 
have submitted formal written testimony for your consideration. 
In my time today, I wanted to share a few points of how 
Metropolitan is approaching the challenge of the Colorado 
River, a challenge that we must all solve together.
    We are facing a new normal: hotter and drier days, and 
shrinking runoff from our snowpacks. My recent testimony 
itemizes the building blocks of success and collaboration we 
have had in the past. We will need many, many more building 
blocks, moving forward.
    The enormity of this challenge, frankly, speaks for itself. 
Leadership from the Federal Government and investments in new 
projects and programs will be key to addressing the challenges 
ahead. I wanted to go over three basic actions that I think 
will compromise the building blocks of success.
    The first thing for Southern California and our region is 
to transform our water strategy. The new approach that I call 
`One Water' is essential for us to move forward. One Water is 
putting all of the pieces of water policy, of economic policy, 
and community policy together into a single, unified regional 
approach. One Water means lowering demand and making Southern 
California one of the most efficient water societies in the 
Nation.
    Since 1990, we have invested $800 million in conservation 
programs that reduced per capita water consumption by 40 
percent.
    One Water means converting wastewater and capturing 
stormwater that now heads into the ocean into a resilient, 
drought-proof supply. Through 100 local water supply projects, 
470,000 acre-feet per year were created, enough for 1.5 million 
households.
    One Water means planning for climate change and variations 
in our imported supplies from the Colorado and Northern 
California.
    One Water means building a new conveyance and new storage 
to make this transformed system work better and more 
resiliently for all of us. We started the year with 3.2 million 
acre-feet of storage, with 1.3 million acre-feet in Lake Mead.
    One Water means uniting Southern California's diverse 
communities of all walks of life into a common purpose that 
addresses the challenges, and does not leave our disadvantaged 
communities behind. We will be focused on addressing leaky 
pipes and direct installs for conservation measures in our 
underserved communities.
    The second set of actions is forging new interstate and 
international partnerships and projects. Our partnership with 
Southern Nevada Water Authority in Arizona to develop the 
Nation's largest recycled water project, augmenting supplies 
for both Southern California and the Colorado River, is a 
perfect example of big and bold new actions we can take 
together. This project will add 150 million gallons a day of 
new local water supply, enough for 500,000 households.
    Federal investments in projects like this will help build 
resilience to future challenges in the Colorado Basin. My 
agency shares a border with the country of Mexico, the Republic 
of Mexico. We must make sure that there are no institutional 
barriers to prevent progress, whether it is partnering to 
improve agricultural efficiency, banking water behind Lake 
Mead, or providing environmental flows. Breaking down barriers 
is key to success. We have been able to realize 100,000 acre-
feet per year of water conservation with Mexico.
    Lastly is to expand our partnership with our agricultural 
partners. The Colorado River is not an urban challenge, it is 
not an agricultural challenge, it is a shared resource, and a 
shared challenge for all of us. Metropolitan works with the 
farming community in California to find ways to use water more 
efficiently and preserve and protect the underlying farming 
economy. Our partnership with the Bard Water District is a very 
promising example, how a farmer with seasonal crops can 
maximize the value of their water when a crop in the winter 
commands the best market price, and can sell water for storage 
in the summer, when a summer crop requires significant water, 
yet with less attractive market return.
    While using the same partnership with our Watsonville 
Indian Tribes as the example of partnership we need with tribal 
communities.
    In the Palo Verde Valley, Metropolitan continues to look 
for innovative ways to make farming more water efficient, so 
that fallowing is limited and the underlying farm economy 
remains strong. We must show commitment to these communities. 
Federal investments can help. With more than $20 million in 
conservation investments, we are able to save 500,000 acre-feet 
that we are able to leave in the river.
    In the Imperial Valley, we must support ongoing and new 
efforts to address and restore the shrinking Salton Sea, 
because with that more conservation will be possible, and we 
can leave more Colorado water in Lake Mead.
    In closing, I would say this year has been a wake-up call 
for all of us, for Southern California and the entire 
Southwest. Climate change is converting modest snowpacks into 
meager amounts of runoff. The year of abundance in the river is 
over, and the era of shortage is upon us. Reversing the decline 
of Lake Mead will not be easy, but I am sure we are able to do 
it together, and be up to the challenge.
    Through conservation, recycling, reuse, and collaboration, 
One Water is the future vision for Southern California and the 
river. Confronting the Colorado River challenge as One Water is 
the solution for us all. Federal leadership and funding can 
help us make this happen.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hagekhalil follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Adel Hagekhalil, General Manager and Chief
          Executive Office of The Metropolitan Water District
                         of Southern California
    Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, Representative Napolitano, 
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
discuss Metropolitan's work on the Colorado River. The Metropolitan 
Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) is the largest 
treated drinking water provider in the United States. We are comprised 
of 26-member public agencies, including 14 cities, 11 municipal water 
districts, and one county water authority, that collectively serve 
drinking water to approximately 19 million people and businesses in 
more than 300 cities and numerous unincorporated communities in 
Southern California.
    Metropolitan was created by the California Legislature in 1928 for 
the express purpose of building an aqueduct to provide Colorado River 
water to Southern California. Delivery of Colorado River water to 
Southern California began in 1941 and today, 80 years later, the 
Colorado River remains a cornerstone of Southern California's water 
supply portfolio.
    As you are aware, the Colorado River is under strain and our 
reliance is being challenged by climate change and unprecedented 
drought. The Colorado River Basin has experienced historic drought 
conditions since 2000. Over the last two decades, the average annual 
flow of the Colorado River has declined by around one million acre-feet 
(AF). In addition to less snowpack and other precipitation, hotter 
temperatures have changed how the system behaves as well. In 2020, 
precipitation in the basin measured 84% of normal, but the runoff 
reaching the river and the reservoirs was only 33% of average. The 
higher temperatures resulted in drier soil that absorbed more water, 
plants bloomed earlier increasing evapotranspiration, and there were 
higher evaporation rates from the snowpack and reservoirs.
    As was discussed at the October 15 hearing, the Bureau 
Reclamation's recently published forecasts show that Lake Powell may 
get so low that it could result in loss of power production at Glen 
Canyon Dam. Recently, the Secretary of the Interior declared the first 
ever water shortage in the lower basin, resulting in cuts in water 
deliveries to Arizona and Nevada as mandated under the 2007 Colorado 
River Interim Guidelines.
    While California is not subject to water curtailments under the 
Interim Guidelines, we recognize that all of us across the West are 
`one' when it comes to water. We must work together through a `One 
Water' integrated approach to address water shortages. Metropolitan is 
committed to working cooperatively within California, and with the 
other basin states, the federal government, Mexico, tribes and other 
stakeholders to find the necessary solutions to minimize the impacts of 
reduced water supply reliability to all users.
Metropolitan's Approaches to Drought and Climate Change in the Colorado 
        River Basin
    Metropolitan imports about half of Southern California's water 
supply from the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct and 
Northern California via the State Water Project. We have significantly 
reduced our reliance on imported water through investments in local 
supply development and conservation. Starting in the early 1980s, we 
turned our focus toward helping our member agencies develop their own 
local supplies within the region to augment our imported supplies. We 
don't own any of these local projects, but we help finance them with 
programs designed to defray the costs once the projects are operating. 
For Metropolitan, these incentives have been a way to help our member 
agencies develop more than 100 local supply projects yielding over 
470,000 AF of water per year. We have also worked to make water 
conservation a way of life in Southern California. Since 1990, 
Metropolitan has invested over $800 million in conservation programs 
providing rebates for toilets, turf removal, sprinklers and smart 
irrigation controllers, and custom efficiency projects for businesses 
and industries in our service area. These changes have helped cut the 
average per capita potable water use from about 205 gallons per day in 
1990 to 120 gallons per day now. With both of our imported water 
supplies facing unprecedented drought, these investments are more 
important than ever.
    Storage is also an important tool to help us adapt to changing 
water supply conditions and ensure reliability. In collaboration with 
our member agencies and others we have significantly expanded our 
region's storage capacity in recent decades. The cornerstone of this 
investment is Diamond Valley Lake, a $2 billion reservoir located in 
Riverside County that can hold 810,000 AF. We have also increased the 
amount of water stored in Lake Mead through the Intentionally Created 
Surplus program provided for in the 2007 Colorado River Interim 
Guidelines and 2019 Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan. Thanks to 
these agreements in the wet water years of 2017 and 2019, we were able 
to conserve a significant amount of Colorado River water to build up 
its storage account in Lake Mead. Today we have nearly 1.3 MAF stored 
in Lake Mead, accounting for almost 17 feet of greater elevation.
    As Peter Nelson, Chairman of the California Colorado River Board, 
discussed at the October 15 hearing, water year 2021 was the second 
driest on record in California. As the water year unfolded, and we had 
only a 5% state water project allocation, we began operating the 
Colorado River Aqueduct at its full eight pump flow capacity. We 
thought we would even need to withdraw some of our reserve in Lake Mead 
to meet demands in our service area. Then something unexpected 
happened, thanks to conservation in our region, demands for water did 
not materialize as we thought they would. Instead, we were able to 
store a modest amount of water in Lake Mead during this very dry year. 
As the drought worsens across the West, we will need to work together 
to conserve water and develop local supplies to create a resilient 
water portfolio for the entire Colorado River basin.
Collaboration and Partnerships on the River
    The ongoing drought has placed the Basin States in new and ominous 
territory. Augmenting supplies, reducing demands, and forging new 
partnerships is the only way to bring supplies and demands into balance 
on the River. Luckily the groundwork for the path forward is already in 
the place. The lower basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada 
have taken many steps to lower their overall demands on the Colorado 
River. The year 2019 saw the Lower Basin States divert the least amount 
of Colorado River water in over 50 years. Mexico has contributed to 
meeting the challenge by leaving water in Lake Mead as well.
    As the junior water rights holder in California, Metropolitan has 
long recognized the benefits of collaboration and partnerships. The 
Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) in 2003 helped reduce 
California's lawful uses of Colorado River water down from 5.3 MAF to 
California's basic apportionment of 4.4 MAF. For Metropolitan, this 
meant reducing its historical use of Colorado River water from 1.25 MAF 
per year to 550 TAF per year, plus any water management programs we 
develop. Metropolitan has spent the last two decades fostering unique 
and innovative partnerships in order to augment its basic apportionment 
and to help fill its Colorado River Aqueduct, when needed. These 
programs include storage/exchange programs with other Colorado River 
users in California, including Coachella Valley Water District, Desert 
Water Agency, and Imperial Irrigation District (IID).
    We have also recently entered into a settlement agreement with IID 
over the implementation of the Drought Contingency Plan. Under the 
settlement agreement, IID can store additional amounts of conserved 
water in Metropolitan's Lake Mead account. If Lake Mead continues 
dropping to a level requiring California to make a contribution under 
the Drought Contingency Plan, IID will help make that contribution. The 
agreement allows Metropolitan and IID to resume negotiating new 
solutions to address the imbalance on the Colorado River. We will work 
together to explore ways to improve Lake Mead's drought resilience and 
secure state and federal funding for the Salton Sea.
a. Agricultural Partnerships

    Metropolitan has a long history of collaborating with farmers and 
agricultural districts. These win-win partnerships provide flexible and 
affordable water supplies for cities across Southern California. At the 
same time, the programs support the local agricultural economies by 
providing a stable source of income for farmers and funding system 
improvements for participating irrigation districts.
    In 2005, we entered into a long-standing partnership with the Palo 
Verde Irrigation District. As part of this landmark land fallowing 
program, farmers are paid to refrain from irrigating between 7 and 28 
percent of the valley's land at Metropolitan's call. This water is then 
made available to communities in our service area. As part of the 
program, Metropolitan invested $6 million in a fund administered by 
local authorities to provide benefits to the Palo Verde Valley 
community. To date, the money has been spent on activities including 
small business grants and keeping the local swimming pool open during 
local budget shortfalls. This 35-year agreement is a critical component 
of our commitment to finding innovative ways to expand our water 
resource portfolio.
    We also have a partnership with Bard Water District. Bard is 
located within the Yuma Project in Southeast California and receives 
water from the Colorado River via the All-American Canal. Metropolitan 
and Bard Water District developed a seasonal fallowing program to 
augment water supplies for our service area and support Bard's 
agricultural economy. Under a 7-year agreement through 2026, 
participating farmers avoid planting lower-value, higher water-
intensive crops during the spring and summer in exchange for financial 
incentives. In the winter and fall the farmers continue to plant 
higher-value crops, such as vegetables and lettuce varieties, which use 
less water. The conserved water is made available to Metropolitan for 
use in its service area, or to store in Lake Mead for future use. As 
part of the agreement, 25 percent of Metropolitan's payments fund 
improvements to Bard's water infrastructure.
    Also located within the Yuma Project, Metropolitan developed a 
forbearance program with the Quechan Indian Tribe of the Fort Yuma 
Indian Reservation (Quechan Tribe). Under the terms of the agreement, 
Metropolitan provides incentive payments to the Quechan Tribe to limit 
its share of Colorado River water used on the reservation.
b. Interstate Partnerships

    Over the past decade, Metropolitan has teamed up with Southern 
Nevada Water Authority, Central Arizona Water Conservation District and 
the Bureau of Reclamation to fund projects that conserve water for the 
benefit of the Colorado River. The system conservation effort, which 
adds water to Lakes Powell and Mead, was expanded to include Denver 
Water to fund projects in the Upper Basin states. These system 
conservation projects exceeded more than $20 million in investments and 
resulted in more than 500,000 AF left in the Colorado River system.
    Dedicated funding is needed to help create or conserve even more 
water for the benefit of the system. Section 3b of the Lower Basin 
Drought Contingency Plan Agreement commits the Department of Interior 
to creating or conserving 100,000 AF of water per year or more. The 
conserved water will remain in storage in the Lower Colorado River to 
help reduce the likelihood of higher tier shortage reductions and stem 
the decline of Lake Mead toward critical low levels. We appreciate that 
funding for this work is included in House and Senate Fiscal Year 2022 
appropriation bills and H.R. 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act. The Bureau of Reclamation needs this funding to meet its 
obligations under the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan.
c. Partnerships with the Republic of Mexico

    Metropolitan along with the Imperial Irrigation District, Southern 
Nevada Water Authority and Central Arizona Water Conservation District 
are funding conservation projects in the Republic of Mexico as part of 
Minutes 319 and 323 of the 1944 international treaty between Mexico and 
the United States referred to as the Mexican Water Treaty. Pursuant to 
that treaty, Mexico is allocated 1.5 million AF of available Colorado 
River flows. As part of Minute 319, we have collectively funded the 
conservation of nearly 100,000 AF of water in Mexico. Metropolitan 
looks forward to working with the Mexico to continue its successful 
binational partnership.
Innovation and Opportunities
    More frequent and deeper droughts caused by climate change require 
new ways of thinking about stretching our limited supplies. An example 
of innovative thinking is the proposed partnership between 
Metropolitan, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, the Southern 
Nevada Water Authority, Central Arizona Water Conservation District, 
and the Arizona Department of Water Resources to develop the largest 
wastewater purification facility in the United States. As discussed by 
Mr. Deven Upadhyay, Metropolitan's Assistant General Manager and 
Executive Officer, at a June Subcommittee hearing the Regional Recycled 
Water Project (RRWP) represents an opportunity for three states to 
improve their water supply reliability through a single project. It 
could transform how water is managed in the Colorado River basin and 
become a model for future interstate partnerships to address the 
impacts of climate change.
    Metropolitan thanks Congresswoman Napolitano, Chairman Huffman, 
Congresswoman Susie Lee, and other members of the Committee for their 
leadership in the development of a new program to fund large-scale 
water recycling projects like the RRWP and appreciates their steadfast 
support for Reclamation's Title XVI water recycling program to fund 
local projects. Metropolitan supports H.R. 4099, the Large-Scale Water 
Recycling Project Investment Act, H.R. 1015, the Water Recycling 
Investment and Improvements Act, and H.R. 3684, the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act. Metropolitan appreciates these and other 
important federal investments that will help us build resilience to 
future challenges on the Colorado River.
    One of the significant barriers that could impact the costs and 
recycling opportunities is the salinity levels of the Colorado River. 
The Colorado River Salinity Control Program has been effective at 
reducing the salinity of the Colorado River by more than 100 milligrams 
per liter or mg/L at Lake Havasu, but the Program is facing challenges. 
The largest single salinity control project, an injection well in the 
Paradox Valley, has been idle for 2 years, resulting in 110,000 tons of 
salt that had previously been controlled now entering the Colorado 
River. Metropolitan urges Reclamation to consider operating the 
existing well at a safe level while it finds a long-term solution to 
control the salt in the Paradox Valley.
    We want to partner with the Bureau of Reclamation and other 
stakeholders to help build a climate change resilient water supply and 
help identify and manage the various remediation efforts throughout the 
Colorado River Basin that will enable us to provide additional 
flexibility to federal, state, and local water managers.
    Another innovative tool to help manage Colorado River supplies is 
the OpenET platform. OpenET utilizes satellite-driven 
evapotranspiration models to map consumptive water use within 
agricultural fields, ecosystems, and urban green areas. Metropolitan 
supports H.R. 4832, the Open Access Evapotranspiration Data Act, and 
proudly contributes to this work. Once completed, OpenET will provide a 
tool for credible, transparent, automated, and easily accessible data 
on consumptive water use across the western United States. Metropolitan 
thanks Representatives Lee, Stewart, and Huffman for introducing this 
bill.
a. Improving Water Reliability while Protecting the Environment

    Supplying water reliably for the 40 million people that depend on 
the Colorado River means that infrastructure investments must bring 
both supply reliability and environmental benefits that carry far into 
the future. Historic dry conditions and the resulting decline of water 
supply throughout the Basin has contributed and will likely continue to 
contribute to significant economic, environmental and other impacts in 
the Colorado River Basin.
    Metropolitan set a precedent with public/private partnerships that 
focus on environmental protection of entire ecosystems rather than 
individual species. The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation 
Program (LCR MSCP) was created for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species and their habitats. The program involves state and 
federal agencies, and stakeholders from Arizona, Nevada, and California 
representing water and power utilities, municipalities, Native American 
tribes, and conservation organizations. We are the largest non-federal 
contributor to the program. The LCR MSCP will result in the creation of 
over 8,100 acres of habitat and the stocking of 1.2 million native fish 
to augment existing populations. The program area extends over 400 
miles of the lower Colorado River from Lake Mead to the border with 
Mexico, and includes lakes Mead, Mohave, and Havasu, as well as the 
historic 100-year floodplain along the main stem of the lower Colorado 
River. The 50 year program was executed in 2005 and is currently ahead 
of schedule. As of 2020, 80% of the habitat has been created and 40% of 
the native fish have been stocked in the mainstream.
    The Salton Sea is California's largest inland lake and due to 
drought and unintended consequences of conservation, water levels have 
declined and caused an ecological and human health crisis. As the Sea 
has subsided, it has exposed 1,000s of acres of playa, that can create 
harmful dust during strong wind events. Nearby communities have been 
impacted by dust that exceeds clear air act standards. Metropolitan 
supports federal investments from this Committee and others for dust 
mitigation and ecosystem management projects on the Salton Sea. This 
will help local communities and have long-lasting economic and 
ecological benefits in the basin.
b. Additional Federal Support Needed

    The Colorado River is the lifeline of the American Southwest. 
Preparing for the challenges of the River's supply and demand 
imbalances will not be easy or inexpensive. Additional investments to 
help mitigate the impacts of climate change, improve supply 
reliability, and provide necessary infrastructure improvements and 
ecosystem benefits will be crucial. Strong federal leadership and 
significant federal funding is essential to ensuring success in meeting 
this challenge.
    Metropolitan is prepared to work with the Bureau of Reclamation, 
the Basin States, the Republic of Mexico, Indian Tribes, environmental 
organizations, and all the other stakeholders on the Colorado River to 
find a path forward. The time to act is now.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Adel Hagekhalil, General 
      Manager, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
            Questions Submitted by Representative Napolitano
    Question 1. Water recycling is a critical tool in the West, where 
drought is becoming more common and severe. I have bills to increase 
federal support for water recycling, including a bill that will help 
support large-scale water recycling projects like the one the 
Metropolitan Water District is advancing with partners in Arizona and 
Nevada.

    (a) Can you describe some of the benefits of large-scale water 
recycling projects for communities in the Colorado River Basin and 
across the West facing severe drought conditions?

    Answer. Currently, much of Southern California's wastewater is 
discharged to the Pacific Ocean. This is a legacy of when urban 
communities and regulatory agencies considered sewage a waste rather 
than a precious resource central to the water portfolio. Our region has 
implemented dozens of innovative local water recycling programs, 
including the world-renown Groundwater Replenishment System in Orange 
County. Large scale water recycling projects, like our Regional 
Recycled Water Project (RRWP), will bolster this legacy and maintain 
the region as the nation's leader in recycling water for potable 
consumption. At full build out the RRWP could produce 168,000 acre-feet 
of water per year providing a new sustainable source of drinking water 
for roughly half a million families in Southern California. This 
program is being pursued through a significant partnership within our 
region between the Metropolitan Water District and the Los Angeles 
County Sanitation Districts.
    Southern Nevada Water Authority, Central Arizona Water Conservation 
District, and the Arizona Department of Water Resources are partnering 
with us to develop this project that could benefit all three states. If 
they eventually invest in a portion of our recycling program, 
Metropolitan can leave that amount of its own Colorado supply in Lake 
Mead behind Hoover Dam for our partners to use. Through existing and 
new agreements on the Colorado River, the Lower Basin states can 
improve their reliability through a single project. And this will help 
the entire Colorado River Basin.

    (b) Do you believe that large-scale water recycling projects, like 
the one you and your partners in the Lower Colorado River Basin are 
pursuing, can be an important part of the response to climate change 
and drought for the entire Basin?

    Answer. Yes. Until now Metropolitan has never advanced a proposal 
to build our own recycled supply that we would own and operate. The 
Regional Recycled Water Project will be our first foray into producing 
local supply at scale that makes sense for a regional agency. At full 
buildout, the RRWP would be the largest wastewater purification 
facility in the United States and could help transform the reliability 
of supplies in the Colorado River basin. This shift in approach 
acknowledges the steep new challenges facing our water industry. 
Climate change, water quality degradation, increasing salinity, and 
regulatory impacts all threaten our supply reliability. In the face of 
these challenges, we now know that the treatment technologies exist to 
be able to purify wastewater for largescale potable use. The scale of 
this endeavor matches the regional capabilities of Metropolitan and 
would leverage the infrastructure we already have in place to develop a 
reliable drought proof water supply for the Lower Basin states.

    (c) Do you believe that Federal investments can accelerate large-
scale water recycling projects so we can respond and prepare for 
rapidly changing climate conditions as quickly as possible?

    Answer. Yes. With our imported water supplies from the Colorado 
River and the State Water Project facing unprecedented drought and 
future threats from climate change, we need new federal financing tools 
to help advance visionary multi-benefit projects like the RRWP. 
Metropolitan supports H.R. 4099, the Large-Scale Water Recycling 
Project Investment Act, and appreciates the inclusion of this bill in 
H.R. 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The creation of 
a new Bureau of Reclamation program to support large regional recycling 
projects in the arid west will help the entire Colorado River Basin 
prepare for the future.
    Additionally, robust Title XVI funding for smaller recycled water 
projects is needed to accelerate the development of local water supply 
projects. Metropolitan supports H.R. 1015, the Water Recycling 
Investment and Improvement Act, and H.R. 3404, the FUTURE Western Water 
Infrastructure and Drought Resiliency Act and appreciates all the 
funding provided for water recycling projects in H.R. 3684, the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
    Question 1. In the hearing, I asked about how repairing conveyance 
infrastructure in other basins outside of the Colorado River could 
benefit management of the Colorado River but also the State Water 
Project and Central Valley Project. Since we had limited time in the 
hearing, I would like to give you the opportunity to provide written 
responses to this question: Could you explain how improving or 
repairing conveyance infrastructure in basins outside of the Colorado 
River could help with regards to managing the Colorado River's demands?

    Answer. Metropolitan's infrastructure connects two of the West's 
critical watersheds: the Colorado and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-
Delta. Metropolitan's system is truly integrated, if we have a more 
reliable California Aqueduct when water is more available in the 
Northern Sierras, we can decrease our demand on the Colorado River 
system and leave water in Lake Mead storage. Conversely, if State Water 
Project supplies are limited due to subsidence or other infrastructure 
issues, demands on the Colorado River system will increase and we will 
likely draw from Lake Mead. In addition, a reliable State Water Project 
supply provides enhanced water quality for blending with the region's 
other water supply sources, including the Colorado River Aqueduct 
supply. This blending capability enhances water management for recycled 
water and groundwater storage within Metropolitan's service area. 
Programs like the Regional Recycled Water Project benefit from the 
State Water Project supply by further bolstering the ability to shift 
water resources within the service area from the two watersheds--
particularly during multi-year droughts as we are experiencing on the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin River watershed.
    Infrastructure reliability is key to ensure we can continue to 
supply water to our communities. The California Aqueduct is in need of 
critical repairs. It is a 60-year-old system that has lost up to 20% 
capacity in some reaches. Climate scientists predict that increasing 
variability in precipitation this century will seriously challenge 
existing water storage, conveyance and flood control infrastructure. If 
California's conveyance system is not repaired, it will limit 
opportunities to shift water resources within the Metropolitan service 
area, from these two watersheds. Metropolitan supports H.R. 2552, the 
Canal Conveyance Capacity Restoration Act, to provide federal funding 
to help repair California's conveyance system.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Levin
    Question 1. Mr. Hagekhalil, in your testimony you describe the 
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, which has helped reduce 
salinity for years. However, as you acknowledge, that Program is facing 
challenges associated with continued operations of its largest 
individual salinity control project, the Paradox Valley Unit. I've also 
heard from constituent water agencies who are concerned about increased 
salinity in Colorado River water. Can you describe the costs of 
increased salinity levels and some policy options we should consider to 
address salinity challenges?

    Answer. The Salinity Control Program has been a success on the 
Colorado River, reducing salinity levels by more than 100 mg/l at our 
intake. However, the Program is facing implementation challenges. The 
Colorado River Salinity Control Forum's 2020 Triennial review estimated 
that economic impacts from elevated salinity levels in the Colorado 
River will grow from $353 million per year to $670 million per year 
without further investments.
    Higher salinity in water supplies affects many sectors, from 
reduced crop yields in agriculture, to increased cooling costs in the 
commercial and industrial sectors, and to homeowners from the reduced 
useful life of water heaters, clothes washers, and plumbing fixtures. 
Of particular concern, rising salt levels impair water recycling 
operations and reduce the ability to recharge the groundwater with 
lower-salinity supplies. Water recycling and groundwater replenishment 
are two cornerstones of Southern California's One Water approach to 
reliability.
    Metropolitan encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to resume 
operation of the brine injection well at Paradox Valley, Colorado at a 
safe level while working on a long-term solution. Additionally, 
Reclamation should implement long-term solutions for other hyper-saline 
springs such as Pah Tempe in southwestern Utah. In the near term 
increased federal funding for the Colorado River Salinity Control Forum 
programmatic efforts is also needed. Long term, local funding for 
salinity control on the Colorado River is threatened by reduced power 
generation at Lake Mead. The parties involved are working on 
negotiating a solution. Congressional authorization will be needed to 
amend the funding agreement and sustain the current level of salinity 
control efforts. Additionally, salinity control and brine management 
research are also needed to help manage salts on the Colorado River. 
Metropolitan supports reauthorization of the Water Desalination Act of 
1996.
    Question 2. Why is it preferable to address salinity issues before 
that water reaches us down in California?

    Answer. Salinity entering the Colorado River basin comes about 
equally from naturally occurring and human-caused sources. Metropolitan 
has studied desalting our Colorado River supplies in the past and found 
it is expensive and energy intensive. It is more cost effective to 
manage salinity through blending supplies with our other imported water 
from Northern California and investing in the Colorado River Salinity 
Control Forum. For example, salinity control efforts for alternatives 
at Paradox Valley range from $60 to $90 per ton of salt removed whereas 
costs for removing salinity in recycled water ranges can be an order of 
magnitude higher.

    Question 3. Mr. Hagekhalil, in your testimony, you point to water 
conservation and the development of local supplies as being critical to 
the water portfolio of the Colorado River Basin as a whole. Why should 
drought-prone communities that rely heavily on imported water be taking 
steps to enhance local supplies, not only through water recycling 
projects like the ones you describe in your testimony, but also 
desalination projects where appropriate?

    Answer. Though the region's economy will continue to rely on 
imported supplies for the foreseeable future, a One Water approach to 
the water reliability challenges we face in the Southwest fosters 
unique solutions. Imported supplies, recycled water, stormwater 
capture, groundwater recovery, and desalination--these are all part of 
the same system. The One Water approach calls for local resources to be 
selected by individual communities according to their unique needs and 
opportunities. Because local supplies such as recycling and seawater 
desalination are largely disconnected from the normal swings of 
hydrology and drought, they provide a level of certainty each year that 
snowpack-derived supplies cannot always deliver. However, these 
alternatives also come at a cost that is higher than our traditional 
supplies, which is why the funding programs we have discussed are so 
important.

    Question 4. How can investments in the development of local water 
supply sources promote resilience at the Basin-wide scale?

    Answer. About 25 percent of all drinking water in Southern 
California comes from the Colorado River, so it's an extremely 
important source. Between climate change and severe drought, the 
Colorado River looks likely to be remain in shortage for years to come. 
Diversifying the resource mix of individual communities in Southern 
California and across the basin benefits all the committees and tribal 
entities that rely on the Colorado River.
    In 2007, Metropolitan and other Colorado River partners entered 
into an Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) agreement with the U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation to create, store, and later deliver conserved 
water in Lake Mead. This agreement allows Metropolitan and local 
agencies to incentivize local resource development such as water 
recycling, groundwater desalination, and groundwater recovery and store 
that water in Lake Mead. All basin states benefit from California's ICS 
program because it provides a powerful common incentive to keep this 
conserved water in Lake Mead when possible. As an example, with about 
1.3 million acre-feet of ICS water stored behind Hoover Dam, Lake Mead 
is now 18 feet higher and much more resilient because of Metropolitan's 
local resource projects and conservation.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Hagekhalil. The Committee will 
now hear testimony from Mr. Enrique Martinez, General Manager 
of the Imperial Irrigation District.
    Mr. Martinez, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

    ENRIQUE MARTINEZ, GENERAL MANAGER, IMPERIAL IRRIGATION 
                 DISTRICT, IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Martinez. Thank you very much, Chairman Huffman and 
Ranking Member Bentz. My name is Enrique Martinez. I am the 
General Manager of the Imperial Irrigation District. Thank you 
for the opportunity to speak in front of this Committee.
    IID was established in 1911 and is delivering Colorado 
River water to approximately a half-million acre-feet of highly 
productive farmland, other commercial users, and seven 
municipalities in the Imperial Valley, which is located near 
the United States and Mexico border in the Southern California 
area. To continue delivery of Colorado River water, our 
community's only water supply, it is vital to the Imperial 
Valley to sustain its agrarian economy and rural existence.
    Since 2003, IID's water management programs have generated 
nearly 6.8 million acre-feet of conserved water from both on-
farm and system efficiency programs to meet its water transfer 
obligations and storage objectives. IID and its water user's 
exemplary commitment to conservation, with program yields now 
averaging nearly a half-million acre-feet annually, will ensure 
the long-term viability of the Qualification Settlement 
Agreement, or QSA, the Nation's largest agriculture-to-urban 
water transfer, providing water supply resiliency to California 
and other Lower Basin.
    As the largest single contractor of Colorado River water, 
it is in IID's interest to serve as a responsible steward of 
this precious natural resource. IID is actually monitoring the 
ongoing drought conditions and forecasted reservoir elevations, 
and supports a collaborative approach to river management, 
including renewed efforts of the Basin states to protect the 
long-term reliability of the system.
    IID will continue to work with its growers and water 
conservation partners to promote the efficient management of 
all Colorado River supplies. It looks forward to additional 
consultations with Federal and Basin state representatives to 
identify further opportunities that can serve to protect 
critical system elevations, as the next set of long-term 
operational guidelines are developed and implementation 
beginning in 2026.
    In the spirit of agency cooperation and collaboration, I 
want to share that last month, on September 16, IID and the 
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California settled a 2-
year legal dispute regarding the water storage and 
environmental concerns that will result in a number of benefits 
to the Colorado River system and, in particular, to declining 
Lake Mead Reservoir elevations.
    The reached agreement expands the benefits of IID's 
successful on-farm efficiency conservation program, supports 
efforts to ensure the state of California supports the Salton 
Sea's restoration commitments, and commits our agencies to 
explore additional opportunities to utilize the extraordinary 
conservation to support the Colorado River system.
    The Salton Sea, California's largest lake, finds itself in 
a decline, causing impacts to the environment, wildlife, and 
air quality in neighboring regions in Southern California, 
Arizona, and Mexico. The Salton Sea is one of the most 
important links of the Pacific Flyway, supporting over 400 
species of birds, including several listed endangered species.
    In addition, as the QSA water transfer continues, the 
farmers implement conservation measures, becoming more 
efficient in the use of irrigation water, and as drought 
conditions have continued to become a new normal, Salton Sea 
inflows have decreased significantly, along with reduced flows 
from Mexico.
    Other factors, such as evaporation, farming practices, 
local weather conditions, and urban conservation all contribute 
to current projections that indicate the Salton Sea will see an 
exposure of up to 70,000 acre-feet of previously inundated 
lakebed, or playa, over the next 10 years. This exposed playa 
will be a source of particulate matter when it becomes airborne 
during windy conditions if aggressive dust control measures are 
not implemented, and further deteriorate the already 
compromised air quality.
    Furthermore, the current salinity levels are now twice that 
of the Pacific Ocean, and a drop in surface water elevation can 
expose an additional more than 25,000 thousand acres of barren, 
salt-covered playa. Much of the land is owned by the Federal 
Department of the Interior, whose total land holdings at the 
Sea exceeds 110,000 acres.
    The linkage between the Colorado River and the Salton Sea 
is irrefutable. Transfers or other mechanisms that reallocate 
water away from the Salton Sea to address these shortages will 
hasten its demise. For this reason, protection of the Salton 
Sea will be necessary for any basin-wide Colorado River 
solutions.
    Federal investments are required to help prevent or reduce 
the impacts of future droughts. IID thanks the Committee for 
including $250 million for Salton Sea projects in the Budget 
Reconciliation Bill passed by the House Natural Resources 
Committee in September.
    Without a reliable water supply, every sector of the 
economy will suffer, from agriculture, to manufacturing, to 
high tech. This could also impact an emerging industry in the 
Imperial Valley.
    The recovery of battery-grade lithium or geothermal--from 
the geothermal brines--this domestic supply of lithium would 
help secure reliable minerals essential for the development of 
batteries and other energy storage technologies that are 
important to achieving state and Federal climate goals.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Enrique Martinez, General Manager, Imperial 
                          Irrigation District
    Chair Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and members of the 
Subcommittee: My name is Enrique Martinez and I am the General Manager 
of the Imperial Irrigation District. Thank you for this opportunity to 
share our comments on the drought conditions that continue to affect 
the Colorado River Basin as well as the challenges facing the Salton 
Sea, California's largest lake.

Collaboration is Key for Sustainability of the Colorado River

    The Colorado River is a shrinking resource and yet the lifeline 
that serves over 40 million people in the Western United States. 
Unfortunately, warmer temperatures and drier soils are exacerbating the 
impacts of the now decades-long drought, and the River's declining 
hydrology is hard pressed to meet historical allocations and the many 
competing demands of its multitude of users. With similar challenges 
affecting most other watersheds within California and the western 
United States, reservoirs are reaching historically low levels, 
including Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
    Established in 1911, the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) 
delivers Colorado River water to approximately half-million acres of 
highly productive farmland, other commercial users and seven 
municipalities in the Imperial Valley which is located near the United 
States and Mexico border in Southern California. The continued delivery 
of Colorado River water, our community's only water supply, is vital to 
the Imperial Valley to sustain its agrarian economy and rural 
existence.
    Since 2003, IID's water management programs have generated nearly 
6.8 million acre-feet of verifiable conserved water from both on-farm 
and system efficiency programs to meet its water transfer obligations 
and storage objectives. IID and its water user's exemplary commitment 
to conservation, with program yields now averaging nearly a half 
million acre-feet annually, will ensure the long-term viability of the 
nation's largest agriculture-to-urban water transfer, providing water 
supply resiliency for California and the Lower Basin.
    As the largest single contractor of Colorado River water, it is in 
IID's interest to serve as a responsible steward of this precious 
natural resource. IID is actively monitoring the ongoing drought 
conditions and forecasted reservoir elevations, and supports a 
collaborative approach to river management including renewed efforts of 
the Basin States to protect the long-term reliability of the Colorado 
River system. IID will continue to work with its growers and southern 
California water conservation partners to promote the efficient 
management of all Colorado River supplies, and looks forward to 
additional consultations with federal and Basin State representatives 
to identify further opportunities that can serve to protect critical 
system elevations.
    In the spirit of agency collaboration, I wanted to share that last 
month, on September 16, IID and the Metropolitan Water District of 
Southern California (Metropolitan) settled a two-year legal dispute 
regarding water storage and environmental concerns that will result in 
a number of benefits to the Colorado River system, and in particular to 
declining Lake Mead reservoir elevations. The reached agreement, in 
this spirit of collaboration, provides increased storage capacity for 
IID through Metropolitan's Lake Mead Intentionally Created Surplus 
account. This will contribute to elevation building efforts in the 
Lower Basin while expanding the benefits of IID's successful On-Farm 
Efficiency Conservation Program, which has generated nearly a million 
acre-feet of conserved water since its 2014 rollout. Metropolitan in 
turn has committed to supporting efforts to ensure the State of 
California upholds its Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) Salton 
Sea restoration commitments and the utilization of federal partnerships 
to supplement and expand California's Salton Sea Management Program, 
and commits our agencies to exploring additional mechanisms to utilize 
extraordinary conservation to support the Colorado River system.
    The only way to ensure the long-term viability of the Colorado 
River system is for water agencies, the states, tribes, Mexico and 
other stakeholders that rely on the river to commit anew to working 
alongside one another to identify new partnerships and solutions to 
address the imbalance on the Colorado River. As such, IID supports 
continued coordination and collaboration with federal agencies and 
Colorado River Basin partners in the upcoming consultation process and 
as the next set of long-term operational guidelines are developed for 
implementation beginning in 2026.
The Salton Sea and the Colorado River

    The Salton Sea finds itself in rapid decline, causing impacts to 
the environment, wildlife and the people who call this part of the 
state their home, not to mention the air quality effects to the 
neighboring regions in Southern California, Arizona and Mexico. With an 
estimated surface area of approximately 350 square miles, the Salton 
Sea is the largest lake in California. The Salton Sea is one of the 
most important links on the Pacific Flyway, supporting over 400 species 
of birds and a myriad of invertebrates, including several federally or 
state listed endangered species, such as the Ridgway's rail, the desert 
pupfish and the California black rail. The importance of the Salton Sea 
as an aviary and wildlife preserve was officially recognized by the 
federal government with the establishment in 1930 of the wildlife 
refuge now known as the Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge.
    In the 1980s and 1990s inflows to the Salton Sea were approximately 
1.2 to 1.3 million acre-feet per year, with the majority of the inflows 
from agricultural return flows. As farmers became more efficient with 
the use of irrigation water, and as drought conditions have become the 
new normal, Salton Sea inflows have decreased significantly along with 
reduced runoff from Mexico. Other factors such as evaporation, changing 
agricultural markets, local weather conditions and urban conservation 
and reuse all contribute to current projections that indicate the 
Salton Sea will see an exposure of up to 70,000 acres of previously 
inundated lakebed, or playa, over the next 10 years. This newly exposed 
playa will be a source of particulate matter when it becomes airborne 
during windy conditions if aggressive dust control measures are not 
implemented, and further deteriorate the already compromised air 
quality in the Imperial, Coachella and Mexicali valleys.
    Flow reductions to the Salton Sea have already resulted in 
increased salinity levels that are now twice that of the Pacific Ocean, 
and caused a drop in surface water elevation that has exposed more than 
25,000 acres of barren salt-covered playa. Much of this land is owned 
by the Department of the Interior (Interior), whose total land holdings 
at the Sea exceed 110,000 acres. This impending environmental crisis 
has nearly destroyed the fishery and wetland beneficial uses of the 
Salton Sea, however the consequential effects on the nearby human 
populations will be even more devastating. The region is comprised 
largely of disadvantaged rural communities that are already failing 
federal air quality standards, saddling them with the state's highest 
rates of childhood asthma, and can ill-afford yet another environmental 
and social injustice.
    The linkage between the Colorado River and the Salton Sea is 
irrefutable and the challenges facing it are ones both the upper and 
lower basins must recognize as a community of aligned interests. The 
Salton Sea is, as you also know, the linchpin and proving grounds of 
the nation's largest agricultural-to-urban conserved water transfer 
program, the QSA. The viability of these water transfers depends, as it 
always has, on a sustainable path forward at the Salton Sea and the 
urgency that all of us assign to it. The best way to protect the QSA 
and ensure there will be water resiliency in Southern California and 
throughout the Colorado River basin in the future, is to afford that 
same kind of resiliency, commitment, and dignity to the Salton Sea.
    All of the Basin States are acutely aware of the impending water 
shortages on the Colorado River. Recent modeling suggests that the 
shortages may be even more severe than previously anticipated. As the 
Committee is aware, transfers or other mechanisms that reallocate water 
away from the Salton Sea to address these shortages will hasten its 
demise. For this reason, protection of the Salton Sea while working 
with others to increase efficiency of water use will be necessary for 
any basin-wide Colorado River solutions.
Renewable Energy at the Salton Sea

    While the challenges at the Salton Sea are vast, there are also 
opportunities. The Salton Sea Known Geothermal Resource Area is the 
largest potential supply of this renewable baseload in the world. As 
the Salton Sea's shoreline recedes, it exposes playa that can provide 
access to this resource and numerous critical minerals, including 
battery-grade lithium, an essential component for electric vehicles and 
energy storage. Geothermal development and lithium recovery from its 
brine represents a significant opportunity for our community and the 
nation. It can provide clean energy while helping to spur economic 
development in one of the state's most impoverished areas, and 
simultaneously help secure a reliable source of a mineral essential to 
the development of electric vehicle batteries and other energy storage 
technologies that are important to achieving state and federal climate 
goals.
    The federal government listed lithium in its critical minerals list 
and the California Energy Commission has conducted activities to help 
develop lithium extraction technologies. In addition, geothermal energy 
can help to address grid reliability concerns given it provides 
critical ancillary services required to maintain a reliable energy 
grid. The over 1,700 megawatts of identified geothermal resources 
located in the Imperial Valley already provide significant value in 
meeting current and future energy, climate and economic development 
goals.
Federal Investments and Support
    Federal investments in improving and building new water supply 
infrastructure can help prevent or reduce the impacts of future 
droughts. Without a reliable water supply, every sector of our economy 
would suffer--from agriculture, to manufacturing, to high-tech. 
Critical water infrastructure must be maintained and modernized to 
ensure the delivery and safety of water today and for future 
generations.
    Congress has been supportive of additional funding and legislation 
that helps finance improvements and rehabilitation of aging federal 
water infrastructure, broadening WaterSMART grants, authorizing a new 
collaborative program for snowpack monitoring and runoff forecasting 
and improving the efficiency of authorities for the use of federally 
owned facilities for aquifer recharge. These are only a few samples of 
the much-needed investments in water infrastructure and management but 
they are critical.
    Similarly, Congress has repeatedly affirmed its strong federal 
interest in the Salton Sea, requiring Interior to develop management 
plans in 1992, 1998, and 2007. Interior is also the largest single 
landowner, owning roughly 40 percent, of total lands under or adjacent 
to the Salton Sea. In 2016, Interior and the California Natural 
Resources Agency signed a memorandum of understanding that focused on 
coordination, funding, overall prioritization of Salton Sea projects 
and recognition of the need for federal involvement as the landowner of 
the largest amount of acreage at the Salton Sea. Now more than ever, 
progress toward these unfulfilled commitments to protect the Salton Sea 
is an essential first step toward longer-term collaboration.
    IID continues to advocate for protection of the Salton Sea and, 
with our partners, will continue to support state and federal funding 
to construct much-needed restoration projects there. IID thanks the 
Committee for including $250 million for Salton Sea projects in the 
budget reconciliation bill passed by the House Natural Resources 
Committee in September.
Collaboration Over Conflict: The Law of the River

    While the recent history of the Colorado River is built on a 
foundation of collaboration, its early foundation was established by a 
series of laws, compacts and agreements rooted in conflict and court 
cases that at times took decades to resolve. Representative Costa posed 
a question at the October 15th hearing suggesting a future of 
significantly reduced hydrology and queried participants as to how to 
offset the supply demand imbalance moving forward. IID agrees that 
River planning exercises should follow the science, and acknowledge it 
is unlikely that the system's hydrology will return to historically 
forecasted values. But IID also knows that the River's collaborative 
success have always respected the Law of the River and the water rights 
priority system, and must continue to do so or the legal battles likely 
to ensue would be even more dire than Congressman Costa's hydrologic 
forecast.
    IID is confident that the Basin States, Mexico and tribal water 
contractors will develop a path forward with the Bureau of Reclamation 
and other stakeholders, and forge additional partnerships and alliances 
that build upon past collaborations. The often-competing interests of 
agricultural, urban, environmental, tribal and recreational water users 
still overlap on certain commonalities, the first and foremost of which 
requires maintaining the long-term viability of the system. These 
efforts are too critical to fail, as our food supplies, communities and 
ecosystems depend on it. IID has a continued interest in solutions that 
build upon partnerships, particularly those that respect agriculture 
and rural communities and not those that come at their expense.
    We look forward to working on these shared interests and the 
supporting efforts of the Committee and Congress to ensure the long-
term viability of the Colorado River as well as investments in the 
rapidly declining Salton Sea. We stand ready to assist in any manner 
possible.

    Thank you for this opportunity to submit this testimony.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Martinez. We will have to 
follow up on the remainder in the question portion, but we very 
much appreciate your testimony.
    We will now hear from Ms. Taylor Hawes, Colorado River 
Program Director for the Nature Conservancy.
    Ms. Hawes, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF TAYLOR HAWES, COLORADO RIVER PROGRAM DIRECTOR, THE 
             NATURE CONSERVANCY, BOULDER, COLORADO

    Ms. Hawes. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member 
Bentz, and members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me to 
testify today about collaborative solutions for the Colorado 
River.
    My name is Taylor Hawes, and I am the Colorado River 
Program Director for the Nature Conservancy, and I have worked 
on Colorado River issues for 25 years.
    The Conservancy is a global environmental non-profit 
working to create a world where both people and nature can 
thrive. We work in more than 70 countries, and our Colorado 
River work spans all seven Basin states and into Mexico.
    The story of climate change is being written in water: too 
much or too little water at the wrong time or the wrong place. 
Today, we are witnessing the uptick of climate disasters, such 
as deadly flooding in the East and devastating drought and 
wildfires in the West.
    While drought is a part of the West's normal cycle, climate 
change has intensified the impacts experienced in every corner 
of the Basin. After two decades of ongoing drought, we must 
recognize this is likely our new normal.
    As you have heard from other panelists, the Colorado River 
system is in the middle of one of the most severe droughts in 
recorded history, with the last 2 years hitting particularly 
hard. You might not, however, have heard about the impacts to 
our rivers, wildlife, and tourism that depend on them. In 
Colorado this year, the Dolores River ran completely dry, 
resulting in significant fish kills. The Yampa River was closed 
to fishing and recreation for more than 3 months, due to low 
flows and high temperatures.
    Low water levels can accelerate the spread of invasive 
species, which reduces critical habitat for endangered fish in 
the Grand Canyon, and for migratory birds along the Pacific 
Flyway.
    As we face this deepening crisis together, we no longer 
have the luxury of time. The longer we wait, the fewer options 
we will have. We must develop a suite of tools to adapt to this 
new reality, or we risk increasingly difficult challenges for 
our communities, our agricultural producers, the $1.4 trillion 
economy of the region, and the iconic wildlife and landscapes 
of the West.
    Despite the dire situation, there is also hope. This Basin 
has a track record of developing collaborative solutions. Some 
of our successes include effective recovery programs for 
endangered fish, agreements between Mexico and the United 
States to share in shortages, while also providing water for 
the environment and the river's Delta, the 2019 Drought 
Contingency Plan that defined measures to slow the reservoir 
system's decline, and many more local solutions to address our 
dwindling water supply.
    More is needed, however, and there is increasing urgency to 
accelerate these and other types of efforts to prepare for an 
uncertain future.
    Programs and opportunities that this Committee should 
consider that will help this region adapt include the 
following: solutions that reduce consumptive water use in the 
Basin across all sectors; resilience strategies, such as forest 
management, that can improve snowpack retention while restoring 
forest health and minimizing catastrophic wildfires; 
agricultural programs to improve soil health, restore wet 
meadows, modernize our infrastructure, and test regenerative 
agricultural practices; decision-making processes that are 
transparent, inclusive, and promote buy-in--this includes 
voices that have historically been under-represented in the 
Basin's management decisions, such as sovereign Tribal Nations 
and environmental stakeholders; support ongoing recovery 
program efforts, such as passing Representative Neguse's H.R. 
5001, which will allow the two Upper Basin recovery programs to 
continue to operate through Fiscal Year 2023; expand and 
improve existing programs, such as WaterSMART, to allow more 
flexible management of water resources through multi-benefit 
projects that decrease water consumption; invest in scientific 
tools that will help us adapt more quickly, as conditions 
continue to change--this includes planning for a range of 
scenarios to ensure we are ready for a future with declining 
river flows, not just the river we have today.
    In other words, things could get even worse than what we 
are experiencing today.
    To wrap up, the future will not look like the past. This 
Basin can be a model of sustainability and adaptation, but 
Federal and state investments are needed now to give us the 
chance for a thriving future.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. I will 
be available to answer any questions you might have.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Hawes follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Taylor E.C. Hawes, Colorado River Program 
                    Director, The Nature Conservancy
    Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and members of 
the Subcommittee for inviting me to testify. I am honored to speak with 
the subcommittee to explore collaborative solutions for the Colorado 
River.
    My name is Taylor Hawes, and I am the Colorado River Program 
Director for The Nature Conservancy (``the Conservancy'' or ``TNC''). I 
have worked on Colorado River issues for almost 25 years in a variety 
of roles, including working as a water attorney for the Colorado River 
Water Conservation District, a regional water agency, and Northwest 
Colorado Council of Governments, a coalition of local governments. The 
Conservancy is a global environmental nonprofit working to create a 
world where both people and nature can thrive. We work in all 50 U.S. 
states and more than 70 countries across six continents. Our Colorado 
River work spans all seven Basin states and into Mexico.

                 I. URGENCY IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN

    The Colorado River is at a crossroad. For the last two decades, we 
have witnessed the Basin's major reservoirs trending downward even as 
consumptive uses declined. The Basin states and stakeholders engaged in 
the management of the River have tried to stabilize the system. 
Agreements such as the 2007 Interim Guidelines,\1\ Minutes 319 \2\ and 
323,\3\ and the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan \4\ did slow the decline, 
but as we are seeing now, those agreements are inadequate relative to 
the impacts and changes we are experiencing in the Basin. The change in 
hydrology is outpacing the change in management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/
RecordofDecision.pdf.
    \2\ https://www.ibwc.gov/Files/Minutes/Min319_Env_Fact_Sheet.pdf.
    \3\ https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/4200Rpts/DecreeRpt/2018/
43.pdf.
    \4\ https://www.usbr.gov/dcp/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We have an opportunity to be a model of sustainability. It will not 
be easy, and it will require a Basin-wide ethic of conservation. It 
will require trade-offs and it will be expensive, but it is necessary, 
as the stakes are high for 40 million people, agriculture, 30 federally 
recognized tribal nations, industry, and nature.
    The Conservancy believes the future of people and nature are 
inextricably intertwined. My testimony focuses on opportunities that 
benefit both people and nature. Having worked in this Basin for almost 
two and a half decades, I am optimistic we can expand and accelerate 
our work across sectors and borders to choose a future that is one of 
sustainability and collaboration, not conflict.
A. IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE-DRIVEN DROUGHT

    The story of climate change is being written in water--too much or 
too little water or at the wrong time or place. We are currently 
witnessing the uptick of climate disasters, such as deadly flooding in 
the East and devastating drought and catastrophic wildfires in the 
West. While droughts are part of the West's normal cycle, climate 
change has intensified the impacts experienced in every corner of the 
Colorado River Basin. After two decades of intensifying drought, we 
must all recognize and prepare for the reality that this is likely the 
Basin's new ``normal.''
    The average annual flows in the Colorado River have declined by 20% 
since 2000. More than half of that decline has been attributed to 
warming temperatures. Scientists predict that this trend will continue, 
as we expect to lose an additional 3-5% of annual flows with every 
degree of temperature increase. We are also becoming more aware of the 
role soil moisture plays in our water supply. For example, this year, 
we received about 90% of normal snowpack but less than 35% of normal 
runoff reached our rivers and major reservoirs due to dry soils soaking 
up the snowmelt. This scenario is becoming more common, which is the 
reason we are promoting investment in resilience strategies.
    The recent headlines related to the Colorado River have focused on 
record-setting temperatures, declining reservoir storage, impacts to 
agriculture where ranchers are left with few options as streams run dry 
in the headwaters, declining hydropower generation at Lake Powell, and 
cities and farms in Nevada and Arizona facing the first ever Tier 1 
shortages from Lake Mead. What you might not hear about as much are the 
impacts to our rivers, and the wildlife and tourism that depend on 
them.
    Declining flows severely impact the health of the Colorado River 
and its tributaries, because there are often no alternatives to 
mitigate effects. Fish and wildlife cannot survive without water. Yet, 
this summer in Colorado, the Dolores River ran completely dry, 
resulting in significant fish kills. The Yampa River was closed to 
fishing and recreation for more than three months due to low flows and 
high temperatures. Both of these rivers provide important habitat to 
endangered and sensitive fish species. Many states in the Basin broke 
records this summer for low precipitation and temperatures, which 
impact wildlife and fish particularly hard. Low water levels can 
accelerate the spread of invasive non-native species and have reduced 
critical habitat for endemic and endangered fish species within the 
Grand Canyon and for migratory birds along the Pacific flyway.\5\ 
Moreover, opportunities to reconnect the Colorado River to its natural 
Delta are further complicated as claims to limited water supplies 
increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.pressreader.com/usa/yuma-sun/20210816/
281492164388290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. URGENCY AND A CALL FOR ACTION

    If we hope to sustain the Colorado River Basin going forward, we 
must recognize that we no longer have the luxury of time. The longer we 
wait, the fewer options we will have to adapt to this new reality. We 
must develop and utilize a suite of tools that fit the varying needs of 
the Basin to build resilience, or we risk increasingly difficult 
challenges for our communities, our agricultural producers, the $1.4 
trillion economy of the region, and the iconic landscapes of the West.
    This urgent need for action is coupled with the equally important 
need to work together. What happens in the Upper Basin impacts the 
Lower Basin and vice versa. Our agricultural, tribal, recreational and 
urban economies are intertwined. We all benefit from a healthy river 
system and a resilient watershed. We must not sacrifice one sector or 
interest for the sake of the others and no interest group, sector, 
region or state can solve this alone. We are fundamentally tied 
together by the very nature of this river system. The federal 
government, acting through its agencies and Congress, has a vital role 
in fostering collaboration, funding multi-benefit solutions and 
ensuring transparent and inclusive decision-making processes.
C. HOPE FOR THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN

    Despite the dire situation, there is also hope for the Colorado 
River Basin. This Basin has a track record of developing collaborative 
solutions. Our greatest success stories resulted from collaborations of 
``unusual bedfellows'', such as collaboration between agricultural and 
conservation interests. These successes include effective Recovery 
Programs for endangered fish, multiple agreements between Mexico and 
the United States that provide for shortage sharing caused by climate 
change driven drought while also providing water for the environment in 
the Colorado River Delta, pilot programs to explore the utility of 
system conservation activities, and the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan 
that included measures to slow the reservoir system's decline between 
2019 and 2026. The federal government played an important role in all 
of these successes whether through funding, diplomacy, science or just 
``getting everyone in a room to work it out''. Most of these examples 
had the potential to be extremely controversial but instead resulted in 
better solutions through collaboration and inclusion. More is needed 
and there is increasing urgency to accelerate these and other types of 
efforts to prepare for our new reality.

         II. NEEDED ACTIONS FOR THE BASIN AND THE FEDERAL ROLE

    In addition to work at the local, state and regional level, there 
are actions the federal government can take to facilitate adaptation in 
the region. In addition to serving as a convener, Congress and federal 
agencies can (1) allocate needed funding to programs and activities 
that support reducing water use and promote water resilience and 
adaptation in the Colorado River Basin; (2) work with stakeholders to 
improve and expand legislation and policies to support resilience and 
adaptation; and (3) support efficient and effective implementation of 
new policies and funding to ensure mitigation and adaptation measures 
are put into place as quickly as possible.
    Congress is considering major initiatives to address the root 
causes of climate change, build a clean energy future, enhance 
community resilience, utilize our natural infrastructure, and improve 
forest health. Federal investments in the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act (IIJA) and Build Back Better Act are the best chance we have 
to respond at the scale needed to address climate change and move the 
country toward a more resilient, prosperous future. They also include 
investments responding directly to the crisis we are experiencing in 
the Colorado River Basin. TNC urges Congress to support these pieces of 
legislation.
    The IIJA and Build Back Better Act include billions of dollars to 
help the West manage the current drought crisis while investing in 
long-term water supply solutions to help us prepare for droughts in the 
future and conserve healthy rivers and the fish and wildlife that 
depend on them. Specifically, the legislation supports needed upgrades 
to existing water infrastructure, new surface and groundwater storage 
projects, water recycling, reuse, and desalination, water conservation, 
ecosystem restoration, tribal water rights settlements and water supply 
needs, science and data monitoring to support decision making, and 
emergency drought response. In particular, I want to commend Congress 
for its attention to nature-based solutions throughout the legislation. 
Nature-based solutions provide multiple benefits across water use 
sectors, including for the environment.
A. SUPPORT TOOLS AND PROGRAMS TO REDUCE WATER DEMANDS

    We cannot ignore the reality that there will be less water in the 
Colorado River than in the past. Unfortunately, this means we must 
reduce our water use throughout Basin. This will not be easy, and it 
will include difficult conversations about how we make reductions. 
There are, however, water sectors and stakeholders who are actively 
exploring ways to reduce water use.
Support Municipal Water Conservation and Re-use

    Many cities in the Basin are leaders in implementing conservation 
and re-use programs. Investments in the IIJA and Build Back Better 
Act--both in traditional water recycling and reuse (such as the Bureau 
of Reclamation's Title XVI program) and new large-scale water 
recycling--are prime examples of innovative and forward-looking 
solutions to municipal water supply challenges that will support 
locally led efforts. However, more can be done in cities and towns that 
might not have the resources to reduce their water use or to develop 
and implement meaningful conservation programs. The WaterNOW Alliance, 
for example, has provided Reclamation with a set of detailed 
recommendations for making its WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency 
Grant (WEEG) program easier to access for small and mid-sized towns and 
cities. We support these recommendations to facilitate access to 
WaterSMART funds.
Support Agricultural Producers

    More than 70% of water supplies in the Basin are used for 
agriculture. Along with providing an important food supply, agriculture 
is an essential part of the West's economy and culture. While cities 
may have more resources to implement conservation programs, farmers and 
ranchers often lack the resources to try new conservation measures. The 
federal government can support agricultural producers in finding ways 
to reduce water use and adapt to our new reality in a way that supports 
agricultural production and the long-term viability of the West's 
agricultural economy. Agriculture is not uniform in the Basin, and we 
will need financial resources and technical support to create locally 
adapted solutions as different opportunities will be available in 
different parts of the Basin. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
has done a good job increasing the flow of funds to the Basin; however, 
we strongly encourage increased coordination between Reclamation and 
USDA to ensure funds are spent efficiently and at the appropriate 
scales. For example, coordination between the two agencies can help 
individual producers and entire irrigation districts at the same time.
    In the Lower Basin, where there are large irrigation districts and 
longer growing seasons, programs could be created to reduce summer 
water use when crops use the greatest amounts of water. Supporting 
``system conservation'' programs with willing producers can help 
stabilize the system in the short term. In the Upper Basin, we can 
invest in modernizing infrastructure, improving measurement of water 
use and continuing to explore ways to reduce water use, such as split-
season fallowing and reducing irrigation on less productive lands.
    Across the Basin, we can do a better job of focusing federal 
investments on building long-term resilience. Over WaterSMART's 12 
years, for example, among irrigation modernization projects within the 
Colorado River basin, over half of the water ``conserved'' (58.7%) and 
of the project dollars awarded (58.4%), went to projects that actually 
increased consumptive water use. Changes could be made to Reclamation's 
Drought Response Program under the WaterSMART umbrella to better 
encourage real reductions in water use. The criteria for selecting 
projects to fund under the Drought Response Program could be changed to 
prioritize those projects that will reduce water consumption on 
irrigated lands. Prioritizing support for voluntary, innovative 
demonstration projects of split-season fallowing, rotational fallowing, 
conversion of marginal lands to wildlife habitat, and changes to less 
water-intensive crops are all examples of ways to incorporate a 
reduction in water consumption while supporting irrigated agriculture.
    Because of our work on the ground, the Conservancy believes the 
farmers and ranchers are the best judge of what is possible. We have 
invested in partnerships with agricultural producers to test innovative 
ways to reduce water use, while following their lead to ensure it will 
work for their operations. Several of these efforts have been made 
possible through federal funding, including Farm Bill conservation 
programs, Reclamation's WaterSMART program, and the federal 
contributions to the System Conservation Pilot Program. Others have 
been assisted by federal agency input on how to achieve water 
management flexibility. In the Upper Basin, this has included pilot and 
demonstration projects in the Grand Valley, Uncompahgre Valley, the 
headwaters of the Colorado River near Kremmling, the Gunnison River, 
and the rivers in the Southwest corner of Colorado; the Virgin and the 
Price rivers in Utah; and the Upper Green River in Wyoming. We have 
supported scientific research to evaluate how crops are affected by 
different management strategies, and economic work to understand what 
it means for the producer's bottom line. We have also provided legal 
support to ensure that water rights are protected, that farmers and 
ranchers get answers to their legal questions, and to assure that their 
most valuable asset--their water right--is not diminished. In the Lower 
Basin, we have worked in the Verde River to test new crop types, such 
as barley, that use less water and are irrigated in the winter, when 
the river is less stressed. Our projects in the Verde River also 
included supply chain investments, like the creation of a malt house to 
process the barley to ensure the farmers had a market for their new 
crop. Funding to support these kinds of projects--both through 
environmental non-profits and farmers directly--can help farmers adapt 
while also benefiting river health.
B. INVEST IN RESILIENCE STRATEGIES

    The scale and pace of climate-related changes in the Colorado River 
Basin pose an increasing risk to the reliability of water supplies that 
support humans and nature. Water conservation efforts have often 
focused on addressing the ``water budget'' problem (i.e., balancing 
supply and demand). While these efforts are necessary and important, 
they are not enough to deal with the risks our communities face from 
changing climate dynamics. New approaches are needed to help our 
communities adapt and respond to the compounding and extreme risks of 
climate change to economies, communities, landscapes, and the water 
resources that support them.

    A new report called the Ten Strategies for Climate Resilience in 
the Colorado River Basin \6\ (developed by a coalition of conservation 
organizations, including TNC) highlights potential strategies that 
could help the region adapt to climate change-driven drought and 
aridification while reducing pressure on existing water supplies. 
Currently, the Conservancy is testing some of these strategies through 
on-the-ground projects and research. Examples include forest management 
to improve water retention, agricultural practices to enhance soil 
health, natural infrastructure to enhance water retention and 
groundwater recharge, and exploring opportunities with energy companies 
to help communities transition in a way that also considers water 
security. Funding scientific research and demonstration projects is 
essential in the short term to determine which strategies can best 
increase resilience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.tenstrategies.net.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.003
    

    Natural water retention and release projects are another 
example of projects that can foster resilience. These projects mimic 
beaver dams and can slow and spread water onto areas that previously 
supported riparian and wetland ecosystems by allowing water to soak 
into the landscape.\7\ Such projects aim to reduce extreme flood risk 
and mitigate drought.\8\ These projects help foster adaptive capacity 
in ecosystems and help ranching operations to cope with ongoing climate 
shifts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Pollock, M.M. et al. Using Beaver Dams to Restore Incised 
Stream Ecosystems. BioScience 64, (2014): 279-290; Pilliod, D.S. et al. 
Survey of Beaver-related Restoration Practices in Rangeland Streams of 
the Western USA. Environ. Manage 61, (2018): 58-68.
    \8\ Caroline S. Nash et al., ``Great Expectations: Deconstructing 
the Process Pathways Underlying Beaver-Related Restoration,'' 
Bioscience 71, (2021): 249-267.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    The Ten Strategies Report provides tangible examples of 
projects that can increase resilience in the Basin. Funding in the IIJA 
and Build Back Better Act will support these types of projects. For 
example, the IIJA includes $100 million for natural infrastructure 
projects through the WaterSMART program, $2.1 billion for forest 
ecosystem restoration and $100 million for multi-benefit watershed 
health projects. If this legislation is passed, the federal agencies 
need to be prepared to get funding to projects quickly and efficiently. 
To maximize the benefits for communities and the environment, agencies 
should involve local, state, tribal governments, and key stakeholders 
in decisions about how to allocate these and other funds.
C. SUPPORT INCLUSIVE ENGAGEMENT

    Two voices that have often been left out of Basin negotiations in 
the past are environmental non-profits and sovereign Tribal Nations. In 
the Colorado River Basin, we are fortunate that both parties have 
proven their willingness to provide constructive input and be part of 
developing solutions. While engagement has improved over the last ten 
years, we can do a better job including these voices and perspectives 
from the beginning, which will improve the outcomes and long-term 
solutions for water management and operations.
    The federal government can and should support broader engagement in 
the various processes and negotiations over management of the Colorado 
River. Inclusive and meaningful stakeholder engagement is not only 
critical to avoid conflict and litigation, but it will also increase 
buy-in and result in more durable solutions. Leadership by the federal 
government is important, as a convener, as a guardian of a process that 
is transparent and inclusive, as a science provider, and as a funder. 
Federal leadership, especially in carrying out its federal trust 
responsibility with tribes, must continue to emphasize inclusivity and 
promote collaboration.
    Specifically, consultations on the Upper Basin's Drought Response 
Operations Agreement (DROA), the Lower Basin Drought Operations Plans, 
and the Basin-wide 2026 Interim Guidelines have begun or are ramping 
up. We strongly encourage Congress and Reclamation to includes and 
environmental non-profits in these negotiations in a meaningful way.
D. PROTECT RIVER HEALTH AND WILDLIFE

    The Colorado River is one of the most iconic rivers in the world, 
and includes the Grand Canyon, which is one of the seven natural 
wonders of the world. The region is home to a renowned wildlife 
community, including moose, elk, bighorn and desert sheep, river 
otters, and iconic bird species, as well 30 native fish species found 
nowhere else in the world. Biologists have identified more than 150 
species that are risk from water management operations. These species 
are struggling now, and climate change and drought are expected to 
exacerbate the impacts to these wildlife communities. The health of our 
environment and the species that depend on the river serve as 
proverbial ``canaries in the coal mine.'' If the health of the river 
system crashes, we will very likely experience negative impacts to our 
communities as well.
    We have two important fish recovery programs in the Upper Colorado 
River Basin. These programs are working to recover four species of 
endangered Colorado River fish while still allowing water uses in our 
communities. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program 
and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (the 
``Programs'') take a balanced approach to recovering four endangered 
fish species in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico by implementing 
a range of basin-wide strategies, including improved management of 
federal dams and irrigation infrastructure, river and floodplain 
habitat improvement, fish stocking, and management of non-native fish 
species.
    The Nature Conservancy has been an active partner in the Upper 
Basin Recovery Program since the 1980s and a partner in the San Juan 
Recovery Program for more than a decade. Since 1988, the two Programs 
have provided Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 compliance without 
litigation for over 2,500 federal, tribal, state, and privately managed 
water projects across the Upper Colorado River basin. Together, these 
projects are able to divert more than 3.7 million acre-feet of water 
per year to benefit people while mitigating the impacts for the 
endangered fish species.
    Over the last 30 years, in addition to allowing for ESA compliance 
to water users, conservation actions have improved conditions in many 
areas of the Colorado River Basin that supported these species 
historically. As a result of these actions, the razorback sucker has 
been proposed for down-listing, and the humpback chub is being down-
listed this week. Both steps demonstrate the continued success and 
progress of these collaborative, partnership-informed approaches to 
conservation that benefit both people and native species. These two 
Programs will require reauthorization in 2023 and continuing federal 
support. The Conservancy strongly supports Representative Neguse's 
Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins Recovery Act (H.R. 5001), 
which allows the Recovery Programs to continue to operate through 
fiscal year 2023 and provides time for actions that were delayed due to 
the pandemic. We urge you to pass this legislation as soon as possible.
    In addition to these two Upper Basin Programs, the Virgin River 
Program, the Long Term Experimental and Management Plan focused on the 
Grand Canyon and the Lower Colorado River Multi-species Conservation 
Program are also focused on conserving and protecting species that 
depend on the river while allowing for water use by people. All of 
these programs are important to maintaining species and their habitat 
as conditions become drier, and they all rely on state and federal 
resources. We hope Congress will continue to support these programs.
E. INVEST IN SCIENTIFIC MODELS AND TOOLS

    The future will not look like the past. We need tools and models 
that will allow us to plan for this uncertainty. Reclamation's model 
for managing and forecasting conditions in the Colorado River, the 
Colorado River Simulation System or CRSS, needs to be upgraded to deal 
with the increasing hydrologic variability. Reclamation has a great 
team of scientific and technical staff working to update the CRSS, and 
the agency needs your support to complete this critical effort.
    Federal investment in monitoring and science will allow water 
managers to better forecast, model and track water availability 
throughout the Basin. For example, replacing and adding new stream 
gages is a high priority. OpenET is another priority program that can 
support water conservation and management efforts in the Basin. The 
main goal of OpenET is to provide reliable access to evapotranspiration 
data that is accurate, consistent, and scientifically valid. This 
innovative program is useful for many aspects of water management, 
whether for an individual agricultural field or an entire river basin. 
We support and appreciate the investments included in the Build Back 
Better Act for the U.S. Geological Survey's work in stream 
measurements, OpenET, forecasting and monitoring.

                            III. CONCLUSION

    The Colorado River Basin is in crisis and the urgency to act has 
never been greater. Failure to develop a sustainable path is not an 
option for the 1 in 8 Americans who depend on the Colorado River for 
their water supply. We need solutions now to support the region's $1.4 
trillion regional economy and the health of our rivers. The federal 
government can foster the political will and provide resources to help 
stakeholders in the Basin develop and implement effective measures to 
respond to climate change, build resilience and ensure water 
availability for our economy and the environment.
    As Congress prioritizes funding opportunities, the Conservancy 
supports partnership and collaboration between the federal government, 
Sovereign Nations, and stakeholders in the Basin. Federal funding and 
leadership by key federal agencies are critical pieces of the puzzle to 
address the challenges we face today and those that we expect in the 
future. We also support several pending bills before Congress that 
would provide the Basin's stakeholders with the resources we need to 
respond to the climate change-driven drought that touches every corner 
of the West.

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. I look forward 
to answering any questions you might have.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Taylor Hawes, Colorado River 
                Program Director, The Nature Conservancy
              Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
    Question 1. In the hearing you noted that TNC is working on 
multiple projects to address the groundwater issues in California. 
Please share a list of those projects.

    Answer. Groundwater reliance and over-pumping are a concern in 
California as well as across the West such as in Arizona, Nevada, and 
Utah. As surface water supplies decline, water users often turn to 
groundwater pumping. Many groundwater sources are non-renewable or 
recharge very slowly and pumping can outpace recharge rates. This can 
lead to subsidence, saltwater intrusion in coastal areas, and can 
negatively impact groundwater dependent ecosystems and springs that are 
critical to wildlife in the arid west. While you asked about projects 
in California, I have included projects in neighboring states to 
highlight a broad array of proven solutions to address groundwater 
sustainability.
CALIFORNIA GROUNDWATER PROJECTS

    California is at a critical stage of implementing groundwater 
reform, known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), 
enacted in 2014. Under SGMA, local groundwater sustainability agencies 
(GSAs) must develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs), with plans 
due in 2020 or 2022, depending on the status of basin overdraft. These 
plans must consider impacts of groundwater conditions and planned 
groundwater management on all beneficial users of water, including 
disadvantaged communities and groundwater dependent ecosystems.
    To assist GSAs in developing their plans to address impacts to 
nature and disadvantaged communities, TNC has partnered with a 
coalition of NGOs to provide technical assistance on how to meet the 
requirements to address beneficial users. TNC's efforts include 
developing tools and science, including mapping of groundwater 
dependent ecosystems, all of which are freely available at 
www.groundwaterresourcehub.org. With our partners, we are also 
reviewing and providing comments to local agencies on their draft 
plans,\1\ which are due to the state in 2022. The 2022 plan review 
builds on efforts by TNC individually, and as a member of a coalition, 
through which we provided comment letters on draft and final plans that 
were due in 2020, some of which can be found at https://
groundwaterresourcehub.org/sgma-tools/gsp-comments/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Letters on draft plans can be accessed from the Department of 
Water Resources (DWR) SGMA Portal/All Submitted GSP Initial 
Notifications--then click on the comment bubble on the far right under 
the ``Action'' column to view letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to SGMA planning, TNC is helping agencies implement 
sustainable groundwater management by addressing both groundwater 
supply enhancement and demand reduction, both through nature-based 
solutions.
    To increase groundwater supply, we are advancing multi-benefit 
recharge projects. This includes completing a pilot project with Colusa 
Groundwater Agency to demonstrate recharge that provides seasonal bird 
habitat, located within a disadvantaged community. In addition, we are 
advancing multi-benefit recharge in partnership with the Department of 
Water Resources (DWR's) Flood Managed Aquifer Recharge (FloodMAR) 
program, with a goal to develop projects that achieve recharge, bird 
habitat and flood risk reduction. Pilot projects are being planned in 
the Sacramento Valley.
    To address demand reduction, TNC is working with willing landowners 
to develop a program to strategically retire irrigated agricultural 
lands and restore them to arid upland habitat, with a goal to 
permanently reduce groundwater pumping while potentially helping to 
recover imperiled species. TNC developed a formal partnership with 
Lower Tule Irrigation District to plan and pilot the program. These 
efforts are timely, as the state has allocated $50 million for land 
repurposing, which includes retirement and restoration, in the recent 
Water and Drought Resilience package, which will be administered by the 
Department of Conservation.
    TNC is also addressing demand reduction by advancing groundwater 
markets to enable farmers to more efficiently manage limited supplies. 
With Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, Ventura County Farm 
Bureau and California Lutheran University, TNC helped develop and 
launch the first groundwater market under SGMA, designed to provide 
farmers flexibility as they reduce pumping by approximately 40%.
    Finally, in recognition that storage is a critical component of the 
achieving groundwater sustainability, TNC is supporting conjunctive use 
projects that strive to jointly manage groundwater and surface water 
supplies. Under the State's Water Storage Investment Program, which is 
funding storage projects with state bond funds, TNC is providing 
support for the Harvest Water Program by the Sacramento Regional County 
Sanitation District along the Cosumnes River and the Willow Springs 
Water Bank Conjunctive Use Project by the Southern California Water 
Bank Authority.

    For related questions, please contact:

Mark Kramer, California Federal Senior Policy Advisor, [email protected], 
415-515-8248

Sandi Matsumoto, California Water Program Director, [email protected], 
805-746-6664

ARIZONA GROUNDWATER PROJECTS

    The Nature Conservancy is a founding member of the Cochise 
Conservation and Recharge Network in southeastern Arizona 
(www.ccrnsanpedro.org), which is a collaborative effort to develop a 
regional network of groundwater management projects between TNC, the 
U.S. Army/Fort Huachuca, Cochise County, the Hereford Natural Resource 
Conservation District, and the cities of Sierra Vista and Bisbee. 
Together we have already recharged and/or conserved over 40,000-acre 
feet of groundwater for rural Arizona over the past five years, through 
eight projects, spanning over 6,000 acres, along 25 miles of the San 
Pedro River. The projects work together to sustain groundwater levels 
in the region and preserve flows and habitats of the San Pedro Riparian 
National Conservation Area, managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management. Three more recharge infrastructure projects are planned to 
convey treated effluent and stormwater runoff to the locations where 
recharge will benefit the aquifer the most, at an estimated cost of $20 
million. If funding for these three additional infrastructure projects 
can be secured, hydrologic models forecast that flows in the river, and 
aquifer levels, can be maintained for several decades to come, meeting 
the water needs of both local and federal interests.

NEVADA GROUNDWATER PROJECTS

    The Las Vegas area, Nevada's largest population base, is heavily 
reliant on Colorado River water, and uncertainties in future water 
supplies often lead to increased withdrawals and reliance on 
groundwater. Nevada is the driest state in the nation, so the scarce 
precipitation can take a long time to replenish groundwater supplies. 
TNC mapped indicators of groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs) in 
Nevada in 2019 (see https://arcg.is/qyj0v) and is using the maps along 
with available data to assess stressors and threats to GDEs in Nevada 
with expected completion in early 2022. These kinds of assessments can 
support better integrated management of groundwater and surface water 
while ensuring protection of GDEs.

    The Nevada Division of Water Resources (also called the State 
Engineer's Office) administers groundwater in Nevada in 256 
hydrographic areas across the state. The amount of groundwater 
available for use is determined according to the perennial yield that 
was estimated for most basins in the 1960s and 1970s using very basic 
methods. The Nevada Division of Water Resources will be updating these 
water budget estimations in all 256 hydrographic areas using the latest 
science and technology, which would provide more robust, science-based 
estimations of water availability, enabling better and more sustainable 
management of groundwater in Nevada.

    Groundwater does not adhere to state boundaries, and several 
groundwater basins in Nevada are shared with other states like 
California and Utah. In the Mojave Desert, the Amargosa River is a 
groundwater-fed river that originates in Nevada and flows into 
California, terminating in Death Valley. It is sustained by 
groundwater-fed springs throughout its length, and is an oasis in the 
desert for plants, wildlife and humans, with extremely high 
biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy has properties and easements in 
both California and Nevada to help protect this water resource and 
those that depend on it. We are concerned about a number of threats to 
groundwater sustainability in the region that may impact this sensitive 
ecosystem, including climate change, mining, solar infrastructure, 
highway infrastructure, and renewable energy transmission. We have 
several projects to restore and sustain habitat throughout the region 
and responsible groundwater management plays an essential role, but it 
is important recognize the threats to cross-boundary groundwater 
basins.

UTAH GROUNDWATER PROJECTS

    Utah is the second driest state in the United States. Some of 
Utah's largest population centers, such as Salt Lake City, Moab, and 
St. George, are dependent on water from the Colorado River and its 
tributaries as well as groundwater. Human populations are rapidly 
growing. In the St. George area, the population has doubled every 
decade for the past four decades--with that trend expected to continue 
in the future--and water resources are diminishing.

    TNC is working closely with a large group of stakeholders in Moab, 
Utah to better understand the limits of groundwater aquifers and the 
impacts to TNC Matheson Wetlands Preserve, streams and aquifers from 
current and additional withdrawals. The town of Moab located in 
southeastern Utah, is a gateway community to numerous national parks. 
Over 1.8 million visitors recreated in the national parks of Southeast 
Utah in 2020. With surface waters fully appropriated, water needs to 
support future development must be met with groundwater resources. A 
recent USGS study, partially funded by TNC, shows a groundwater outflow 
of 300 to 1,000 acre-feet per year from the watershed to the Colorado 
River, leaving little left for future growth or environmental needs. 
Stakeholders, including the City of Moab, Grand County, and Grand 
Valley Water and Sewer are interested in employing more flexible water 
marketing strategies to ensure the health of our wetlands, streams and 
the Colorado River. TNC is currently working with the Utah Division of 
Water Rights to refine the water budget calculations and better 
understand impacts to the environment.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Neguse
    Question 1. Your work on-the-ground to improve environmental 
conditions along the Colorado River and its tributaries has included 
partnerships with water users and agricultural producers to conserve 
water for the benefit of species and overall river health.

    How can increased Federal investments in drought relief lead to 
resiliency for ecosystems and agriculture alike?

    Answer. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) actively engages with water 
users and agricultural producers to find win-win-win projects that 
support our communities and agricultural producers while also 
benefiting nature and river health. Environmental non-governmental 
organizations (NGOs), like TNC, can play a critical role in 
facilitating projects on the ground, but these projects need funding 
for all project phases, from development through construction and 
implementation. Often NGOs serve as a liaison and fiscal agent to our 
partners who are not familiar with managing grants from the federal 
government. Before describing ways that federal investments can lead to 
resiliency in the region, it is worth highlighting that it is very 
important that NGOs are able to apply for and manage these federal 
funds that come from federal agencies. The Consolidated Appropriations 
Act of 2021 made changes to Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) grant 
programs to make NGOs eligible applicants for the first time. Going 
forward, Congress should ensure NGOs, like TNC, are eligible to the 
maximum extent practicable for federal drought relief and resilience 
funding.
    Turning to ways the federal government might invest in resilience, 
the new report Ten Strategies for Climate Resilience in the Colorado 
River Basin (developed by a coalition of conservation organizations, 
including TNC and available at www.tenstrategies.net) highlights a 
number of potential strategies that could help the region adapt to 
climate change-driven drought and aridification while reducing pressure 
on existing water supplies. Examples of the strategies outlined in the 
report include forest management to improve water retention, 
agricultural practices to enhance soil health, natural infrastructure 
to enhance water retention and groundwater recharge, and exploring 
opportunities with energy companies to help communities transition in a 
way that also considers water security. Funding scientific research and 
demonstration projects is essential in the short term to determine 
which strategies can best increase resilience.
    Continuing to support the recovery programs for endangered species 
throughout the Basin is another example of how federal investments can 
support species, river health and water users. In the Upper Colorado 
River, the recovery programs implement many measures to improve habitat 
or conditions for endangered and threatened fish species while also 
providing Endangered Species Act compliance for more than 2,500 water 
users in the region. These programs need support through annual 
appropriations as well as passage of your legislation H.R. 5001, the 
Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins Recovery Act.
    Finally, there is a critical need for investment in agricultural 
operations and infrastructure through both Reclamation and U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs. These programs can help 
agricultural producers adapt to a hotter and drier future, and if done 
in accordance with environmental considerations, there can be 
significant benefits to irrigators and river health. For example, 
investments from the Environmental Water Resources Program at 
Reclamation can stimulate multi-benefit projects. Reclamation's 
WaterSMART program can also fund improvements to irrigation 
infrastructure to better measure and manage water resources, 
collaborative watershed planning efforts to address drought resilience, 
and the exploration and creation of water marketing solutions to 
address limited water supplies. USDA programs like the Regional 
Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and PL-566 can also provide 
important funding for irrigation infrastructure and watershed scale 
activities. Federal investments like these need to minimize or prohibit 
increasing consumptive use of water using federal funds, because 
increasing consumptive use in over-allocated river basins like the 
Colorado River will exacerbate future drought impacts and water supply 
imbalances.
    Below are several examples where TNC and partners are successfully 
using federal investments to support agriculture and ecosystems.

     Through the Recovery Program, TNC has helped the Grand 
            Valley Water Users Association (GVWUA) make important 
            upgrades to their irrigation system, including the 
            installation of seven check structures in their main 
            irrigation canal that allow the GVWUA to maintain 
            agricultural water deliveries with less water in the canal, 
            saving tens of thousands of acre-feet in reduced diversions 
            annually. The saved water has been used to improve flows 
            for endangered fish in the 15-mile reach of the Colorado 
            River, which is considered Critical Habitat for the fish.

     Through WaterSMART and state funding, TNC worked with the 
            Maybell Irrigation District to line portions of an old 
            earthen canal to reduce seepage losses and install check 
            structures for improved operations, allowing Maybell to 
            meet the same irrigation demand with reduced diversions. 
            The project increases flows in the Yampa River for 
            endangered fish and recreation while benefiting local 
            producers.

     USDA and PL-566 funding are supporting work in the Price 
            River in Utah to rehabilitate Olsen Reservoir, which will 
            store and release water to meet environmental flow targets 
            in the Price River. The Carbon Canal Company plays a 
            critical role in managing water deliveries to the reservoir 
            and federal dollars have helped improve measurement and 
            water control in the canal to enable this.

     RCPP funding for the Virgin River in Washington County, 
            Utah is modernizing the irrigation system to reduce seepage 
            losses and helping agricultural producers convert from 
            flood to sprinkler irrigation to improve efficiency. The 
            project will benefit local producers and water managers and 
            improve flows and water temperatures in the Virgin River to 
            support fish and wildlife.

     In Arizona, TNC and other partners are using federal funds 
            to help protect critical habitat, agricultural production 
            and scenic open space through conservation agreements. TNC 
            is also working closely with agricultural water users to 
            help improve water use and restore stream flows on the 
            Verde River. The installation of efficient automated ditch 
            systems combined with financial incentives for conservation 
            have resulted in less water being diverted and increased 
            flows along 20 river miles in the Verde Valley and in the 
            Wild and Scenic reach between Camp Verde and Phoenix. The 
            project received a federal grant of $2.8 million from 
            NRCS's RCPP program.

    In addition to examples of projects, I have also included some more 
general considerations below for federal investment to support work 
that can benefit both people and nature.

     Federal funding from USGS for initiatives like OpenET and 
            supporting a robust stream gaging system is essential for 
            understanding how much water we are currently using. We 
            can't manage what we can't measure and if we want to be 
            resilient in the face of drought and declining supplies, we 
            need to know how much water we are using and where.

     Funding for the development of projects needs to include 
            all phases of project implementation, including initial 
            hydrologic modeling, design, and engineering, and not just 
            construction costs. Federal funding programs need to expand 
            to meet the full funding needs of innovative projects, that 
            in the long run, can benefit multiple water use sectors/
            stakeholders.

     Water management infrastructure projects that provide 
            multiple benefits, such as erosion control, sediment 
            reduction, water quality improvement, aquifer recharge to 
            increase groundwater supplies, and/or aquifer recharge to 
            sustain flowing rivers, should be prioritized for federal 
            funding over projects that only provide singular benefits.

     Funding for watershed health and forest management can 
            also provide many co-benefits to all water users while 
            supporting benefits to nature. Most stakeholders and the 
            public in the West support improved forest management to 
            avoid catastrophic wildfires, but there is sometimes 
            disagreement about the best approach to forest management. 
            While clear-cutting might help avoid catastrophic 
            wildfires, it might actually exacerbate the challenges to 
            our shrinking water supplies. TNC is currently researching 
            how forest management can provide ecological and river 
            benefits while also minimizing fire risk.

    Question 2. The Nature Conservancy has been actively involved in a 
decades-old program working to recover four endangered fish species in 
the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Upper Colorado River Endangered 
Fish Recovery Program and its counterpart for the San Juan River, a 
major tributary to the Colorado, brings together tribes, water 
providers, environmental groups, and state and Federal agencies for the 
benefit of recovering these species.

    Can you tell us more about these recovery programs and the impacts 
of drought on river ecosystems, and why continuing the programs is so 
important?

    Answer. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program 
and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (the 
``Programs'') take a balanced approach to recovering four endangered 
and threatened fish species in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico 
by implementing a range of basin-wide strategies, including improved 
management of federal dams and irrigation infrastructure, river and 
floodplain habitat improvement, fish stocking, and management of non-
native fish species. These programs are working to recover four species 
of endangered and threatened Colorado River fish while still allowing 
water uses to continue in our communities. Since 1988, the two Programs 
have provided Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 compliance without 
litigation for over 2,500 federal, tribal, state, and privately managed 
water projects across the Upper Colorado River basin, including 
projects that provide water to agriculture, industry, and 
municipalities such as Denver, Colorado Springs, and Salt Lake City.
    Over the last 30 years, in addition to allowing for ESA compliance 
to water users, conservation actions have improved conditions in many 
areas of the Colorado River Basin that supported these species 
historically. As a result of these actions, the razorback sucker has 
been proposed for down-listing, and the humpback chub is being down-
listed. Both steps demonstrate the continued success and progress of 
these collaborative, partnership-informed approaches to conservation 
that benefit both people and native species.
    While we have seen forward progress to recover the fishes, the 
challenges confronting the Upper Basin have increased. Since 2000, the 
average annual flows in the Colorado River have declined by 20%. More 
than half of that decline has been attributed to warming temperatures. 
Scientists predict that this trend will continue, as we expect to lose 
an additional 3-5% of annual flows with every degree of temperature 
increase. Low precipitation, reduced snowpack, and increasing 
temperatures severely impact the health of the Colorado River and its 
tributaries, because there are often no alternatives to mitigate 
effects. Fish and wildlife cannot survive without water. Low flows 
reduce, or in some cases eliminate, available habitat, limit the 
ability of fish to move up and down the river, increase predation on 
the fish, and increase temperatures, making it more and more difficult 
for the fish to get enough oxygen. Low water levels can also accelerate 
the spread of invasive non-native species, which is one of the most 
significant challenges the endangered and threatened fish species face. 
Finally, opportunities to augment low flow conditions are further 
complicated as claims to and demands on ever-more limited water 
supplies increase.
    TNC strongly supports your Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins 
Recovery Act (H.R. 5001), which allows the Recovery Programs to 
continue to operate through fiscal year 2023 and provides time for 
actions that were delayed due to the pandemic. We appreciate your 
leadership on this issue and urge Congress to pass this legislation as 
soon as possible.
    These two Programs will also require reauthorization in 2023 in 
order to continue the important work of recovering the fish as well as 
to continue ensuring compliance with the ESA and will require 
continuing federal support. Without full implementation of the Upper 
Colorado and San Juan recovery programs, the 2,500 federal and non-
federal, tribal and private water and power projects are likely to lose 
ESA compliance--which could halt ongoing water uses throughout the 
region. The legal and regulatory consequences would result in 
tremendous uncertainty regarding the ability of these projects to 
provide municipal, agricultural, and industrial water supplies in 
accordance with state water law and interstate compacts approved by 
Congress.
    The two programs must also continue, in order to ensure recovery 
actions can be responsive to the changes we are experiencing in the 
Basin. The programs use adaptive management, meaning that management 
adapts to incorporate new information as it becomes available. We are 
constantly learning about the fish and what they need--and what they 
need is changing along with the climate of the basin--so there is still 
important work for these programs to do. Bringing species back from the 
brink of extinction takes time--it doesn't happen overnight. Even 
though we have seen successes with two of the fish, we are still 
learning what it will take to fully recover all four species. We have 
to find solutions to existing and emerging challenges and then put 
those creative ideas into action. The partners are already talking 
about what the programs could look like after 2023.
    Both of these programs are important to maintaining the four 
endangered and threatened species, especially as their habitat 
conditions become drier, and both of these Programs rely on state and 
federal resources. We hope Congress will continue to support these 
programs as well as drought resilience programs that will allow us to 
meet the needs of people and nature in a more arid future.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Ms. Hawes. We will now 
hear from Mr. Pat O'Toole, President of the Family Farm 
Alliance. The Chair recognizes Mr. O'Toole for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF PAT O'TOOLE, PRESIDENT, FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE, 
                        SAVERY, WYOMING

    Mr. O'Toole. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member 
Bentz, and the members of the Committee. It is really an honor 
for me to be able to testify on such an important subject.
    I am a rancher and farmer on the headwaters of the Colorado 
River. Our irrigation starts 20 miles from the Continental 
Divide. We are the first irrigators of this part of the 
Colorado River, and this summer celebrated our 140th year at 
this ranch. So, we have seen good and bad, up and down. There 
is nothing to compare with what is happening right now, from a 
drought perspective and water supply perspective. And I have 
said that in my testimony, and my testimony is somewhat 
prodigious.
    I would like to thank Dan Keppen, our Executive Director, 
and my board, that goes from the Imperial Valley to here, on 
the Colorado River, for information.
    But we live this, and I am in a situation where our family 
is trying to figure out what are the next steps for us.
    I just spent 3 months in the national forest with our 
cattle and sheep. We are done with our use this year, and I 
spent my life riding horses through trees. You don't do that 
anymore. The forest is collapsing on itself because of the 
combination of pine beetle, aspen death, and a lack of activity 
to deal with those issues. It is so frustrating for us who have 
known, really, for years that things weren't right. And now we 
have established, whether it is the California fires or what we 
are learning here, that the relationship between the healthy 
forest and water are absolute.
    I was a legislator in Wyoming in the 1980s and 1990s, and 
our county is the headwaters of both the Platte and the 
Colorado River, and I was involved in negotiations and 
discussions between the states and the state of Wyoming on both 
rivers.
    At that time, we had a statistic that came that I have 
testified before is that 160,000 acre-feet of water is not 
going into the North Platte River, because the forest is not 
functioning correctly. The same thing is on this side, on the 
Colorado River. We don't have the numbers now in how a healthy 
forest would respond. Our number is based on the snowpack that 
we get. But the absolute relationship between a healthy forest 
and water management is so important for us to understand.
    I give speeches occasionally, and I talk about the hopefuls 
and the hatefuls--and the hopefuls are the people that I have 
worked with for 30 years in my community. We have a model 
community of working within RCS, with the Interior Department, 
with the Fish and Wildlife Service. And we have seen absolute 
correlation between the kind of work we do on the ground, and 
wildlife, and water quality and water quantity. To be in that 
kind of a model, with 30 years of success of river restoration, 
of trout passage on our whole river system, and to watch the 
forest be the state that it is in, it breaks your heart.
    My leader, who has been here 30----
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Mr. O'Toole [continuing]. Really, 20 percent, because they 
wouldn't let me in the forest. And that is because the hatefuls 
that I refer to are the----
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Mr. O'Toole [continuing]. The dead forests, we should have 
been acting, and we have not acted. We need to act, and I would 
just implore, on a bipartisan basis, as to realize if we are 
going to have the systems to produce food, that have wildlife, 
that have rural communities, we have to act.
    I have been on multiple boards nationally, and the food 
issue--50 percent more food is identified by everybody. 
Everybody in the world knows that we need to produce more food. 
We are producing less. We are losing farmers and ranchers. We 
are losing the ability to use our water in a way that allows us 
to produce food.
    I look at the demand management, for example, as a place 
that we are going to take water off the ground at a time we 
need to produce more food. It will have huge effects on 
wildlife.
    We need to think through these, how do we recharge an 
aquifer when we take water off the ground, for example.
    So, there are so many pieces to this puzzle that I am happy 
to be able to be a resource for the Committee. I would invite 
any Committee or your staff to come and look at a working 
watershed at the Upper Colorado River and see how it actually 
could happen.
    But I appreciate very much the opportunity to talk to you 
today. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Toole follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Patrick O'Toole, President, Family Farm Alliance
    Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and Members of the 
Subcommittee: On behalf of the Family Farm Alliance (Alliance), thank 
you for the opportunity to present this testimony today on the 
catastrophic drought conditions in the Colorado River Basin and related 
response measures. My name is Pat O'Toole, and I have served as 
President of the Board of Directors of the Alliance for over 16 years.

                     About the Family Farm Alliance

    The Family Farm Alliance (Alliance) is a grassroots organization of 
family farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts, and allied industries 
in 16 Western states. We are committed to the fundamental proposition 
that Western irrigated agriculture must be preserved and protected for 
a host of economic, sociological, environmental and national security 
reasons--many of which are often overlooked in the context of other 
national policy decisions. The American food consumer nationwide has 
access to fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains and beef throughout the year 
largely because of Western irrigated agriculture and the projects that 
provide water to these farmers and ranchers.

   Personal Background and Experience with Colorado River Challenges

    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 board of directors of Solutions from the Land and work 
closely with both the Intermountain Waterfowl Joint Venture and 
Partners for Conservation.
    My family has a strong background in irrigated agriculture and our 
140-year-old ranch (Ladder Ranch) is located near Savery, Wyoming. Our 
family raises cattle, sheep, horses, dogs and children. My family and 
Ladder Ranch were the recipients of the distinguished 2014 Wyoming 
Leopold Environmental Stewardship Award. Our ranch straddles the 
Wyoming-Colorado border at the headwaters of the Colorado River, which 
has long afforded me the opportunity to view some unique water issues 
first-hand. I have personally testified before congressional committees 
several times, and Alliance representatives have testified before 
Congress nearly 90 times since 2005. We've seen the ups and downs and 
the volatility of weather and the changing climate--now it's clear that 
the cycle of life has been disturbed.

                                Overview

    This testimony focuses on this year's drought--an unprecedented 
disaster for many farmers and ranchers, their families and rural 
communities across the West. The Colorado River Basin is in its 21st 
year of drought and its reservoirs will end up at their lowest levels 
since they were initially filled. Central Arizona farmers are bracing 
for water cuts resulting from the first ever shortage declaration, and 
the most recent modeling shows increasing risk of reaching additional 
critical levels at Lakes Powell and Mead. The drought impact on Western 
irrigated agriculture is not limited to the water, either. Reduced 
hydropower generation and the high cost of replacement power is 
threatening to cause double digit percentage power cost increases to 
many farmers and non-agricultural users. In the midst of the numerous 
challenges caused by the ongoing drought, efforts are underway to 
renegotiate new operating guidelines in advance of the expiration of 
the ``Interim Guidelines for the Lower Basin Shortages and the 
Coordinated Operation for Lake Power and Lake Mead (Interim 
Guidelines)'' in 2026.
    The Family Farm Alliance developed additional written testimony on 
impacts that are facing our water and power users in the Colorado River 
Basin, which was submitted for the record at your October 15, 2021 
hearing. I have been asked to testify on my involvement with forest and 
watershed health activities in the Upper Colorado River Basin, and to 
convey the position of Family Farm Alliance members throughout the West 
on the importance of actively managing to restore our critically 
important Western forested watersheds.

                      The State of Western Forests

    As the ``endless summer'' of 2021 came to an end, wildland 
firefighters continued to work toward containment of 63 large fires and 
complexes that have burned more than 3.1 million acres in the Western 
United States, according to the National Interagency Fire Center 
(NIFC). So far this year, over 46,000 fires in the West have charred 
more than 5.8 million acres, slightly lower than the 10-year average at 
this time of the year.
    The number of acres burned by wildfire in the U.S. last year--
2020--broke a modern record, according to data published by the NIFC, 
as extreme heat and dryness fueled major conflagrations across many 
populated areas in the West. Wildfire burned over 10.3 million acres in 
2020, breaking the calendar-year record of 10.1 million acres, set in 
2015. From August through October 2020, the most extreme conditions 
caused thousands of evacuations, homes and structures lost, and tragic 
fatalities of 11 people in Oregon and 34 people in California. Last 
year marks the third year that wildfire has burned more than 10 million 
acres in the U.S., according to fire center records going back to 1983. 
All three of those years have been since 2015.
    Increasingly fierce Western wildfire disasters are becoming an 
annual occurrence and underscore the importance of improving on-the-
ground vegetation management actions that can lead to improved forest 
health. Improving the condition of our nation's forested lands is of 
primary importance to water providers. National Forest lands are 
overwhelmingly the largest, single source of water in the U.S. and, in 
most regions of the West, contributing nearly all the water that 
supplies our farms and cities. In addition, our already fragile water 
infrastructure can be severely damaged or rendered useless by fire and 
post-fire flooding and debris flows. Burned areas hold no water at all, 
leading to floods, erosion, and mudslides. It also increases turbidity 
in the streams flowing through our watersheds. The unhealthy state of 
our national forests, which were initially reserved specifically to 
protect water resources, has led to catastrophic wildfires that 
threaten the reliability, volume, and quality of water for tens of 
millions of Americans, along with the wildlife, recreational, and 
multi-purpose values of these lands.
    Our great Western forests are damaged and diseased. This came about 
through a perfect storm of neglect, misguided litigation, lack of use 
of science, strained management budgets, and, of course, climate 
change. We can have no doubt that the West is warming, and some places 
are warming more rapidly than past modeling has predicted. Insect 
outbreaks have weakened and killed trees. Violent winds have brought 
these trees down providing an abundant source of fuel. Drought and 
forests cluttered with dead fall timber serve as a tinderbox for 
increasingly intense and devastating fires. Our National Forests in the 
Rocky Mountain Region are suffering from climate-driven lack of 
function. The inability to develop a logical management strategy has 
led to these consequences: catastrophic fires, lack of wildlife habitat 
and critical interruption of our water supply.

                               Challenges

    Today's wildfires are often larger and more catastrophic than in 
the past. Some of the blame can be attributed to climatic conditions, 
like reduced snowpack in alpine forests, prolonged droughts and longer 
fire seasons. Western population growth has also played a role, since 
we now have more homes within or adjacent to forests and grasslands. 
However, decades of fire suppression and inability to manage our 
forests through controlled burns, thinning, and pest/insect control 
probably play an even bigger role. Where California now has about 100 
trees per acre, it once had about 40 trees/acre.
    Much of the recent media coverage on the fires raging in Northern 
California has featured commentary from politicians, environmental 
activists and academics who point to climate change as the driving 
factor behind the fires that have forced tens of thousands of 
Westerners to flee their homes. Climate change concerns may certainly 
be shared by some rural Westerners who live in once-thriving timber 
dependent communities. However, there is also a growing frustration 
that forest management--or rather, the perceived lack of management by 
federal agencies, driven in part by environmental litigation--fails to 
get the attention it deserves in many media accounts of the current 
Western wildfire infernos.
    Some of us who live in rural Western communities who have watched 
the condition of federal forests deteriorate in recent decades have a 
different perspective. We have witnessed how federal forest management 
actions have been hampered in recent decades, in part due to 
environmental lawsuits initiated by certain activist groups. We 
encourage the Subcommittee to listen to the men and women on the ground 
regarding the urgency of implementing forest restoration and 
management.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Processes Associated with 
        Forest Health

    The U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) is not fully meeting 
agency expectations, nor the expectations of the public, partners, and 
stakeholders, to improve the health and resilience of forests and 
grasslands, create jobs, and provide economic and recreational 
benefits. The Forest Service spends considerable financial and 
personnel resources on NEPA analyses and documentation, as well as 
environmental litigation.
    In recent years--catalyzed by the ominous increase in Western 
wildfire activity--we have worked with other organizations, seeking 
ways to discourage litigation against the Forest Service relating to 
land management projects. We have supported efforts to develop a 
categorical exclusion (CE) under NEPA for covered vegetative management 
activities carried out to establish or improve habitat for economically 
and ecologically important Western species like elk, mule deer, and 
black bear. Thus, we have advocated for expediting and prioritizing 
forest management activities that achieve ecosystem restoration 
objectives.
    Reforming the Forest Service's NEPA procedures is needed at this 
time for a variety of reasons. An increasing percentage of the Forest 
Service's resources have been spent each year to provide for wildfire 
suppression, resulting in fewer resources available for other 
management activities, such as restoration. In 1995, wildland fire 
management funding made up 16 percent of the Forest Service's annual 
spending, compared to 57 percent in 2018. Along with a shift in 
funding, there has also been a corresponding shift in staff from non-
fire to fire programs, with a 39 percent reduction in all non-fire 
personnel since 1995.
    Additionally, the Forest Service in 2019 had a backlog of more than 
5,000 applications for new special use permits and renewals of existing 
special use permits that are awaiting environmental analysis and 
decision. On average, the Forest Service annually receives 3,000 
applications for new special use permits. Over 80 million acres of 
National Forest System land need restoration to reduce the risk of 
wildfire, insect epidemics, and forest diseases.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Federal Register Doc. 2019-12195 Filed 6-12-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Management Impacts on Upper Watershed Water Supplies

    It is hard to overstate the importance of snowmelt as a source of 
fresh water in parts of the Rocky Mountain West, and great attention is 
paid to ecosystem water cycles in this region. Some of the snow that 
falls in the mountains goes directly from crystalline snow to water 
vapor, bypassing the liquid water phase. This phenomenon--sublimation--
accounts for the loss of a large portion of the snowfall during the 
winter months in the Rocky Mountains. Snow intercepted by tree branches 
sublimates the fastest, often disappearing within a few days of a 
snowfall. Recently published work by the Rocky Mountain Research 
Station \2\ (RMRS) teases apart how the loss of spruce canopy affects 
the sublimation rates for snow both in the canopy and on the ground in 
these ecosystems. These findings have some important implications to 
snow interception and retention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Beetle Outbreaks in Subalpine Forests and What They Mean for 
Snowmelt, May 2021. Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Forest 
Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Two years ago, I testified before the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, where I referenced the Forest Service's figure 
that 160,000 acre-feet (AF) of water is not going into the Platte River 
system because of invasive species such as the pine beetle. The study I 
referenced relates to research \3\ conducted by the Forest Service on 
the Upper North Platte River in 2000 and 2003. It shows that management 
restricting timber harvest had already severely impacted the watershed 
and water yield to the tune of a minimum of 160,000 AF \4\ per year. 
The Forest Service uses Equivalent Clear-cut Acres modeling to predict 
water yield associated with vegetation disturbance, primarily 
associated with timber harvest and wildfire. The literature and 
research show that implementing a 100-year rotation on all eligible 
timber lands would sustain an increase of 50-55,000 AF of water per 
year--for just one part of one forest in the state of Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Estimating Additional Water Yield From Changes in Management of 
National Forests in the North Platte Basin, May 12, 2000, C.A. Troendle 
& J.M. Nankervis (Note: This is an independent report prepared for the 
Platte River EIS Office).
    \4\ 160,000 AF of water would cover all of Chicago, Illinois with 
over one foot water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In focusing on opportunities in Wyoming, it is important to provide 
context for what is happening in the West because lessons learned 
across the region has application in Wyoming. For example, across the 
West, federal laws, regulations and environmental litigators have 
greatly restricted our ability to thin forests and take other actions 
to aggressively combat invasive insects like the pine beetle. As a 
result, large swaths of national forest lands essentially remain ``un-
managed''. In some places, all you can see for miles is a sea of dead 
trees, victims of the pine and spruce beetles.
    Overgrown Western forests also means forests are using more water 
than they did historically. Because the moisture content of the trees 
and brush is so low, it makes them more vulnerable to fire and 
parasites, such as the bark beetle, which has ravaged millions of acres 
throughout the West. The Western wildfire disasters have underscored 
the importance of improving on-the-ground management that can lead to 
improved forest health. Thinning out trees can reduce water stress in 
forests and ease water shortages during droughts. By reducing the water 
used by plants, more rainfall flows into rivers and accumulates in 
groundwater. If we could calculate potential water yield impacts with 
even more confidence, we could determine how much water could be freed 
up by thinning forests and controlling pests and invasive insects like 
the pine and spruce beetle. Fortunately, we are seeing more recent, 
positive developments toward this end.

    Examples described below provide additional models for ways of 
quantifying the amount of water removed from Wyoming's water supply by 
dying forests and invasive species like the bark beetle.
    Scientists affiliated with the National Science Foundation (NSF) 
Southern Sierra Critical Zone Observatory (CZO) in 2018 conducted a 
study in the forests of California's Sierra Nevada mountains. The team 
of scientists from the University of California and the National Park 
Service combined sensors that measure evapotranspiration with satellite 
images of ``greenness'' on the landscape to estimate the additional 
freshwater runoff that could be created by thinning overgrown forests. 
Their research, published in 2018 in the journal Ecohydrology, shows 
that water loss from evapotranspiration has decreased significantly 
over the past three decades, due in large part to wildfire-driven 
forest thinning. Forest thinning has increased in recent decades to 
stave off disastrous wildfires fueled by dense forests. This study 
shows that restoring forests through mechanical thinning or prescribed 
burning can also save California billions of gallons of water each 
year. The total effect of wildfires over a 20-year period suggests that 
forest thinning could increase water flow from Sierra Nevada watersheds 
by as much as 10 percent.
    We have also heard numerous other anecdotal reports from around the 
West of water yield increases resulting from clearing pinon and juniper 
stands in northwestern Utah, arid communities in the high desert of 
Oregon and Northern California, the Pecos River watershed in New Mexico 
and the upper Purgatoire River in eastern Colorado. Pinon and juniper 
reduction in the Gallup, New Mexico area triggered the reappearance of 
flowing water in once dry arroyos that had not been there for decades. 
A 2016 study \5\ conducted on the San Carlos Apache Reservation showed 
that different vegetation types displayed various responses to water 
availability. This further highlights the need for individual 
management plans for forest and woodland, especially considering the 
projected drier conditions in the Western U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Vegetative response to water availability on the San Carlos 
Apache Reservation, Roy Petrakis, Zhuoting Wu, Jason McVay, Barry 
Middleton, Dennis Dyem, John Vogel. July 2016. U.S. Geological Survey, 
Western Geographic Science Center, 255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, 
AZ 86001, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Solutions

    Regardless of the causes behind the sad state of our forests, it is 
our job now to look for solutions. These solutions will be applied 
through specific and thoughtful management. The problem involves a 
natural landscape, so some of the solutions will be time-tested natural 
processes. Others will be driven by landowners and forest managers 
through proactive, aggressive actions. The neglect and deterioration of 
our forests cannot continue. We must act now to heal them. We offer 
below the recipe for success.
1. Actively Manage and Restore our Federal Forests
    Drought brings less snowfall in many areas. The snow that falls 
melts off up to 45 days earlier and runs off downstream on frozen 
ground. Therefore, the snowpack no longer functions as a reservoir 
delaying the release of water in a timely manner. However, the forest 
floor can be restored through thoughtful management. A responsible 
level of continuous fuels reduction includes a combination of robust 
mechanical thinning and prescribed fire. This can be employed to 
significantly reduce evapotranspiration, tree stress, disease, and pest 
infestation, preserve health forest conditions, and protect species and 
habitats.
    This is not only good stewardship--it is good economics.
    Failure to employ this approach will continue the downward, 
accelerating spiral of fuel accumulation, drought, disease, and 
invasive insects. This will lead, inevitably, to additional high-
intensity and costly fire events in the future.
    We believe active forest management can increase water yield, 
improve water quality, provide for jobs, and reduce the cost of 
firefighting, while increasing forest resiliency. This can be done, in 
part, by increasing the productivity of national forests and 
grasslands; employing grazing as an effective, affordable forest and 
grassland management tool; increasing access to national forest system 
lands; expediting environmental reviews to support active management; 
and designing West-wide studies to quantify water yield.
a. Use Controlled Fire and Grazing as Management Tools to Restore 
        Forests

    Wildlife habitat has suffered profoundly from the ``pick-up-
sticks'' of dead trees on the forest floor, from disruption in water 
function, and most dramatically, from widespread hot fires. These large 
catastrophic fires not only eliminate habitat, but kill millions of 
animals, birds and insects. Controlled fire is one of the tools that 
can be used to improve forest grounds. However, it is not the only 
tool. A recent article in the Sacramento Bee (`` `Self-serving 
garbage.' Wildfire experts escalate fight over saving California 
forests'') does a nice job explaining this. We are seeing a major shift 
happening; the people who love the forest are coming together.
    The Organic Administration Act of 1897 (Organic Act) addresses the 
role of the forests as part of a larger community--a larger and complex 
landscape. They do not exist in a vacuum. Forest grounds were intended 
to produce timber for Americans. We have seen the terrible effects of 
the near halting of the timber industry. Foresters know how to log in a 
responsible and sustainable manner. When done properly, it is one of 
the most effective tools to restore forest health. The alternatives are 
unregulated logging in other parts of the world and sky-high lumber 
prices. Sustainable timber management is a practice that must be 
encouraged and facilitated.
    Likewise, the forests are part of our food production system. The 
grasslands existing in forest lands sustain not only grazing wildlife 
like deer, elk, big horn sheep, and antelope, but also forage for 
domestic livestock like cattle and sheep. Proper grazing improves soil 
through hoof actions and fertilization from manure. Grazing returns 
carbon to the soils and is a tool, indeed almost the only tool, for 
improving and restoring soils. Again, it must be properly managed, but 
many graziers are experts in just those practices. Narrow policy 
proposals that disconnect the role of responsible grazing, or even seek 
to eliminate this practice, from grassland function will result in 
cascading impacts to habitat connectivity, soil health, wildlife 
habitat, and carbon sequestration. These actions will also create added 
strain on rural communities.
b. Secure Long-Term Conditions of Water Flows

    ``Securing long-term conditions of water flows'' is named as a top 
priority in the Organic Act, yet it is perhaps the most severely 
impacted by the deteriorated forests. The forests act as a sponge. 
Winter snowfall settles among the trees, and snowmelt and rainfall 
alike traditionally soak into the humus and healthy soils on the forest 
floor. Climate change and human mismanagement have disrupted this 
crucial cycle.
    In the Intermountain West, flood-irrigated wet meadows provided by 
ranchers as part of their agricultural operations comprise the bulk of 
the wetland habitat in snowpack-driven systems. These hay meadows and 
irrigated pastures provide important habitat for sandhill cranes, 
white-faced ibis, northern pintails, and other priority waterbirds, as 
well as an array of ecosystem benefits. Flood irrigation naturally 
maintains underlying groundwater that is less vulnerable to a warming 
climate and key to supporting seasonally flooded wetlands on the 
surface. Filling these ``sponges'' through flood irrigation is critical 
to slowing the movement of water through the system and thus increasing 
resiliency in the face of drought. Likewise, upland watershed and 
forest management activities can help increase water quality and 
quantity, as well as mitigating the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
    Restoration--utilizing what I refer to as ``AgroForestry''--is very 
doable. It will require planning, resources, commitment and will. All 
of these things exist.
c. Improve Watershed Yield Through Better Forest Management

    As previously discussed, there is a significant gain in water 
supply to streams because the consumptive use of water is reduced when 
the number of trees growing as forests are managed to avoid the 
conditions that result in catastrophic insect infestation or wildfires. 
We believe the North Platte River example noted above should be used as 
a solid starting point for a case study because of the abundance of 
available scientific literature, including the work already developed 
by the Forest Service. Improved water yields also have positive 
implications for downstream Platte River species protected by the 
Species Act. Congress could help initiate a pilot project that builds 
upon this work. In addition to underscoring the positive aspects of 
active forest management noted above, such a study could also 
underscore the importance of appropriately measuring any new water 
gained through this and other water enhancement approaches. Generating 
new water through landscape management practices should become a new 
priority in the Colorado River watershed and other parts of the 
American West.
d. Improve Invasive Species Management

    Addressing the harmful impacts of invasive species should also be a 
priority. Water users confront challenges associated with invasive 
species across the West, where salt cedar (Tamarix), quagga mussels, 
and cheatgrass--just to name a few--all proliferate. For example, 
Tamarix species along riparian corridors or around desert springs can 
seriously reduce underground water tables and surface water 
availability, drying up wetlands, and reducing flows. Tamarix species 
can increase flooding in riparian areas by narrowing channel width. In 
addition, the plants are flammable and can introduce fire into wetland 
and riparian communities that are not adapted to periodic burning. 
While millions of dollars have already been spent on efforts to reduce 
the impacts of these and other non-native pests, it hasn't been enough. 
And more invasive species will continue to arrive.
2. Engage the U.S. Forest Service
    Since the Forest Service is responsible for much of the forestland 
in the West, it's engagement will be critical. Bold action is required. 
Decision-makers must be empowered to act, rather than get bogged down 
in bureaucratic morass. Unfortunately, current bureaucratic practices 
are not equipped to fulfill the need. Upper-level policy makers and 
managers will need to create a plan and set an agenda that will lead to 
success. We must ``empower the competent'' to achieve scale. The areas 
in need of restoration encompass millions of acres; 100-acre solutions 
will not suffice. Legislation may be required.
    Experts from the Forest Service and various affected interests must 
be part of the planning process. These interests would necessarily 
include area and state foresters, private sector forest managers, 
watershed experts, wildlife scientists, grazers, and local community 
representatives.\6\ This group should be broad enough to cover areas of 
concern, but nimble enough to plan quickly and set the wheels in 
motion. The multi-level strategy includes solutions to sustainably 
manage our water, which largely originates on forest landscapes and 
watersheds. It must consider the habitat provided, or formerly 
provided, by the affected forest lands, and the needs of those species 
whose lives depend upon those lands. Likewise, traditional forest uses 
that have sustained local communities must be considered both as a tool 
to bring about needed change, and as a part of the holistic system 
which includes trees, wildlife, water and people. These tools include 
targeted logging, particularly of dead standing trees, and grazing to 
restore soils and reduce fire danger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ People have different interpretations of the terms 
``community'' and ``locally led conservation.'' As described in a 
letter the Alliance signed on with the Western Landowners Alliance in 
September 2021, addressed to the Secretaries of Agriculture and 
Interior, local governments, local populations, communities of 
practice, and various stakeholder groups can all be counted as some 
form of ``community.'' The collaborative and relationship-based 
structure of these groups also often leads to more durable conservation 
outcomes, which ultimately benefits the resource and the community and 
can lead to innovative multi-partner solutions. However, many of these 
community-based and locally led organizations lack human, technical, 
and financial capacity to grow and sustain these efforts over time. 
Leaders of collaboratives often wear multiple hats and run those 
efforts in addition to other full-time responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Healthy forests provide multiple recreation, agricultural, 
ecological and economic benefits, and indeed the legislation that 
created the Forest Service, mandates this. A successful plan must 
direct the effective transition from the forests' present non-
functioning state to a functioning state. This will take time, but a 
commitment to action is required to ensure long-term success.
3. Improve Federal Funding Programs and Delivery
    To increase stakeholder confidence and ensure effective funding 
delivery, federal agencies should invite outside guidance and clearly 
state to the maximum extent practical, the intended impact of funds, 
method of distribution, and other discretionary factors. We understand 
that these agencies have limited influence over specific legislative 
prescriptions and that further direction may be provided as the 
legislative process unfolds. We also believe that a certain amount of 
discretion based on agency expertise is necessary to ensure proper 
allocation of funds. However, we submit that our collective on-the-
ground experience can serve as a guide to ensure that such funds 
broadly dedicated to conservation and restoration are best utilized to 
the benefit of ecosystem function, local community vitality, and 
working lands health.
4. Remove Regulatory Barriers to Conservation
    From our decades of collective expertise, we are aware of numerous 
barriers that prevent interested landowners and other entities from 
participating in programs administered by federal agencies, and 
ultimately, prevent funding from reaching the ground in a meaningful 
way. Statutory limitations such as program payment caps can create 
misalignment between program eligibility and conservation objectives. 
Regulatory hurdles, for example presented through interpretation of 
NEPA, can prolong agency action.
a. NEPA Concerns

    The current implementation of the NEPA is reactive, cumbersome, 
time consuming and does not enable the Forest Service to implement 
forest management strategies in a timely manner. We have advocated for 
some key general recommendations to improve the Forest Service 
application of environmental laws: (1) Allow landscape-level land 
management plans to guide individual actions on the ground without 
duplicative administrative process under federal environmental laws; 
(2) Direct the creation and use of CEs already allowed under NEPA in 
preventing catastrophic wildfires and restoring forest habitat and 
ecosystems more effectively and on a timely basis; and (3) Use the NEPA 
process to consider how a robust vegetative management program could 
improve forest health, improve water quality and lead to increased 
available water supply by reducing demand from overly dense tree and 
vegetative cover.
    We do not seek changes that waive or ignore existing federal 
environmental laws. Instead, we call for improvements to make those 
laws work for the benefit of the nation as intended. By eliminating 
duplicative or unnecessary processes and using streamlining tools 
already allowed under the law--and promoting action instead of 
litigation--the status quo could be changed. The proposed changes could 
help government agencies to use their limited resources to 
expeditiously implement land management actions designed to prevent 
wildfires and improve habitat for priority, endangered and/or 
threatened species. Surely that would be a dramatic improvement over 
spending precious time and resources on bureaucratic process and 
litigation. These types of critically needed procedural changes to NEPA 
implementation will improve our Western landscapes and protect our 
valuable water supplies from the devastating effects of wildfires. They 
will also allow agencies to improve habitat, restore ecosystems for the 
benefit of federally important species and allow continued agricultural 
use of our public lands.
    The Forest Service two years ago proposed revisions to its NEPA 
procedures with the goal of increasing efficiency of environmental 
analysis while meeting NEPA's requirements. We supported these proposed 
changes to NEPA, many of which were based on adding or expanding 
existing CEs. At the time, it was estimated that on average, an 
environmental assessment took 687 days to complete. Average time to 
complete a CE was just 206 days. By using the new CEs in the proposed 
rule, the Forest Service could potentially complete NEPA analyses 
between 30 and 480 days earlier on applicable projects.
    One of the ways to protect agency credibility in the use of CE's is 
to include an explicit provision that the agency will reopen the CE 
decision if changed circumstances or new information militate such an 
action. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has had such a 
provision (called a ``reopener'' by FERC) for many years in its NEPA 
regulations and this has aided FERC in its administration of NEPA. Such 
a ``reopener'' provision is so attractive that the Bureau of 
Reclamation's similar provision prompted Congress to direct Reclamation 
to use its CE process in administering the 2013 Reclamation Small 
Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act, P.L. 113-24.
    Increasing the efficiency of environmental analysis would enable 
the Forest Service to do more to increase the health and productivity 
of our national forests and grasslands and be more responsive to 
requests for goods and services. The Forest Service's goal should be to 
complete project decision making in a timelier manner, improve or 
eliminate inefficient processes and steps, and, where appropriate, 
increase the scale of analysis and the number of activities in a single 
analysis and decision. Improving the efficiency of environmental 
analysis and decision making will ensure that lands and watersheds are 
sustainable, healthy, and productive; mitigate wildfire risk; and 
contribute to the economic health of rural communities through use and 
access opportunities.
b. Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances and Safe Harbor 
        Agreement

    Federal agency staff capacity and siloed communication structures 
also present very tangible hindrances to effective program 
implementation on the ground and further complicate already complex 
processes. For example, Candidate Conservation Agreements with 
Assurances and Safe Harbor Agreements can serve as useful tools to 
ensure that landowners' efforts to conserve and recover at-risk and 
listed species do not put them in jeopardy of further regulatory 
restrictions as a result of their conservation actions. However, these 
agreements are time consuming and sometimes costly to landowners to 
develop. Beyond agreement development though, the cost of ongoing 
implementation, monitoring and reporting is largely unaccounted for and 
often falls on landowners, the state or other agreement holders. There 
are certain funds that can provide cost-share assistance in developing 
these agreements, but ongoing support for implementation, monitoring, 
management and stewardship remains a gap and presents a hurdle to the 
long-term success of conservation objectives.
5. Action in Congress
    We are pleased that there appears to be growing recognition in 
Congress of the importance of active forest management. There are 
several bills that have been introduced this year, intended to 
facilitate responsible forest management.
    One of those is the Outdoor Restoration Partnership Act, sponsored 
by Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO), and supported by the Family Farm 
Alliance. To date, Congress has failed to invest in our Western lands, 
undermining our economy and way of life. As a result, local governments 
are often left to foot the bill for conservation, restoration, and 
wildfire mitigation. Senator Bennet's bill would establish an Outdoor 
Restoration Fund to increase support for local collaborative efforts to 
restore forests and watersheds, reduce wildfire risk, clean up public 
lands, enhance wildlife habitat, remove invasive species, and expand 
outdoor access. It would empower local leaders by making $20 billion 
directly available to state and local governments, tribes, special 
districts, and non-profits to support restoration, resilience, and 
mitigation projects across public, private, and tribal lands. The bill 
would invest another $40 billion in targeted projects to restore 
wildlife.
    Another bipartisan bill would provide carbon credits to companies 
and other non-federal partners in exchange for thinning trees on fire-
prone forests. America's Revegetation and Carbon Sequestration Act, co-
sponsored by Senators John Barrasso (R-WY) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) would 
encourage more intensive forest management--and reforestation--through 
a variety of initiatives. The carbon credit idea would allow non-
federal entities to be awarded carbon credits through voluntary markets 
in exchange for money they provide the Forest Service for projects that 
increase carbon sequestration.
    One more important piece of legislation is the Resilient Federal 
Forests Act, introduced by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR). This bill--
supported by 85 organizations, including the Family Farm Alliance--
would help address the environmental and economic threats of 
catastrophic wildfires.

    Each of these bills is important. We hope that efforts like these 
will build momentum toward larger forest management reforms in 
subsequent bipartisan legislation.

                 Colorado River Policy Recommendations

    Before I conclude this testimony, I would like to update the 
Subcommittee on some work the Family Farm Alliance is doing in other 
Colorado River forums. The Alliance and its membership respects and 
participates in several Colorado River forums and processes, from the 
headwaters in the Rocky Mountains to the Delta. We trust that the 
foundation laid in past negotiations and operations will succeed in 
responding to the tough challenges presented by the current situation.
    The Colorado River policy paper we developed in 2015 still 
resonates today.\7\ The Alliance has always advocated that the best 
solutions are locally driven, coming from the ground up. The success of 
the Alliance has been based on our ability to deliver the message of 
the local water user up to policy makers in Washington, DC. The 
``ground up'' approach we employ is foundational to our West-wide 
approach. In the Colorado River watershed, this approach originates at 
the project level with local waters and moves up the ``ladder'' up 
through decision-makers at the sub basin, state, and Lower/Upper Basins 
levels, before being addressed nationally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ ``Colorado River Basin Water Management: Principles & 
Recommendations'', Family Farm Alliance, July 2015. 19 pp.

    The Alliance is currently working with agricultural water users 
from my headwaters ranch all the way to the international border to 
develop a new treatise that builds on the 2015 policy and is intended 
to provide further guidance to help equip today's decision-makers. 
Agricultural water users in the Basin believe the eight policy 
principles from 2015 remain fundamental to the long-term health of the 
Colorado River and the farms and communities it supports, and they 
underpin the specific outcome expectations presented in that paper. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These principles include:

  1.  State water laws, compacts and decrees must be the foundation for 
            dealing with shortages.

  2.  Water use and related beneficial use data must be accurately 
            measured and portrayed.

  3.  Benefits of water use must reflect all economic/societal/
            environmental impacts.

  4.  True costs of transferring water away from irrigated farms in a 
            managed system like the Colorado River through land 
            fallowing must be accurately accounted for, including 
            unintended consequences and third-party impacts. 
            Understanding these costs will assist in determining the 
            fair value of any land fallowing proposal.

  5.  Agricultural water conservation can help stretch water supplies, 
            but has its limits.

  6.  Public sentiment supports water remaining with irrigated 
            agriculture, and developing strategic water storage 
            opportunities as insurance against shortages.

  7.  Technologies for water reuse and recycling are proven effective 
            in stretching existing supplies for urban, environmental 
            and other uses.

  8.  Urban growth should not be permitted in the future without 
            locking in sustainable and diverse water supplies, and 
            using irrigated agriculture as the reservoir of water for 
            municipal growth is not sustainable in the long run.

    The 2007 ``Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the 
Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead,'' are set to 
expire in 2026. We stand ready to roll up our sleeves to develop 
positive and sustainable outcomes in the current consultation of the 
Interim Guidelines, and intend to use our forthcoming paper as our 
first step in helping decision-makers in the Colorado River Basin deal 
with the harsh realities of current and future water shortages due to 
drought and over-allocation of water. To accomplish this, current 
Colorado Compact decision-makers must produce operating guidelines 
that:

  1.  Recognize that Western irrigated agriculture is a strategic and 
            irreplaceable national resource. It must be protected by 
            the federal government in the 21st century.

  2.  Provide certainty to all users and interests with equitable 
            apportionment decisions made from a foundation of state 
            water law, common sense and fairness. We all have to 
            remember that society's lawmaking efforts do not dictate 
            the reality of Colorado River hydrology. We must strive to 
            develop sound long term plans that avoid unintended 
            consequences.

  3.  Address critical data gaps to facilitate the trust needed to make 
            fair operational and legal decisions related to the next 
            set of Interim Guidelines. An agreed-upon, common data set 
            will build trust and enhance the ability of negotiators to 
            make needed difficult decisions.

  4.  Manage Lake Mead to provide the Lower Basin's share of the 
            Colorado River Compact water to Lower Basin users. Manage 
            Lake Powell to meet both the Colorado Compact obligations 
            to the Lower Basin and protect the Upper Colorado River 
            Compact obligations to the four Upper Basin states. Resolve 
            as many of the outstanding Compact issues as possible to 
            allow both basins to best adapt and adjust to projected 
            volatile hydrology and diminished water supplies. The 
            current and future water supply projections are much less 
            than those assumed from past negotiations.

  5.  Expand supply augmentation opportunities as options for meeting 
            growing water demands, at a time when Colorado River 
            supplies appear to be diminishing.

  6.  Emphasize that future urban growth cannot be encouraged without 
            locking in sustainable and diverse water supplies. Using 
            irrigated agriculture as the reservoir of water for that 
            growth--or for growing environmental demands--is not 
            sustainable in the long run.

    These expectations will be further detailed and justified in a 
white paper that we plan to release in early December.

    The focus of my testimony has been on forest and watershed health, 
which has direct bearing on the Alliance's higher-level Colorado River 
policy work. Colorado River policy makers are currently seriously 
considering augmenting Colorado River supply to meet current water 
supply shortages, even from adjacent river watersheds. Augmentation 
concepts include ideas like developing new high mountain reservoirs and 
innovative new small-scale groundwater and aquifer upper watershed 
storage projects in the Upper Basin. While much discussion has been 
dedicated to the demand management ideas associated with the Federal 
Drought Contingency Plan (DCP), there are other ways to develop 
augmentation water, including through both cloudseeding and non-native 
riparian vegetation removal operations. In addition to reinvigorating 
these two alternatives, the Family Farm Alliance supports 
quantification of water generated on the landscape through forest 
restoration as a viable augmentation option. The water supply developed 
from these augmentation sources could easily exceed any water developed 
by a demand management program.
    Generating new water through landscape management practices should 
become a new priority throughout the West, including the Colorado River 
Basin. Desalinization must continue to be part of potential solutions. 
We need to actively engage in injecting these options into the 
discussions to help provide a fair comparison to the negative impacts 
associated with reducing Colorado River agricultural water supplies.

                               Conclusion

    The revival of Colorado River watershed forests is crucial to 
combating the effects of climate change. By bringing together 
changemakers and working collaboratively, we can change the paradigm of 
forest management. Success will mean healthier forests, healthier 
wildlife populations, more prosperous and dynamic local communities, 
more recreation opportunities, greater economic benefits and much-
needed security in our water supplies.

    Balance in production and conservation is the answer to forest 
health.

    The epic drought we have been experiencing across the western 
United States, especially in the last two years, and other weather 
abnormalities are different than in the past. Our community has found 
that solutions are local. We find that solutions come from the land. 
Farmers, ranchers, foresters and fishers all across the West work in 
the extremes of elements and volatile weather, and we share a love of 
the land. We see the pressure on the land we manage and our water 
supplies. Sadly, strategies appear to be evolving to take water from 
Western farmers, from food production, and redirect it to other uses.
    I'm very lucky to live in a ranching and farming community in a 
watershed on the headwaters of the distressed Colorado River. We have 
worked for 30 years on building resilience, leading to some of the most 
significant watershed restoration and agricultural productivity 
projects in the country, as we work with federal and state partners to 
manage our land for multiple outcomes-protein production, fisheries, 
wildlife, healthy forests and vibrant rural economies.
    The key to our success has been local leadership and uncommon 
collaboration with diverse partners to address our unique challenges 
and capitalize on opportunities. Farmers must be at the center of all 
discussions and decision-making on the Colorado River and other Western 
watersheds. Significant input will be needed from a wide range of 
farmer and other producer organizations outside of typical policymaking 
structures. We all must become more adaptable and open to change. We 
must learn from those who have experience.
    We must become more effective in communicating to the world the 
value of farmers and ranchers. Our societies are confused. The basic 
principles of existence are under pressure. The steady rhythms of food 
production and ecosystem services are crucial to understanding our 
challenges and finding solutions.
    We will continue our efforts to ensure that irrigated agriculture 
continues to play a vital role in feeding our Nation, while keeping our 
rural communities and the environment healthy. At a time of 
unprecedented change, one certainty holds firm and true--our nation's 
most valuable natural resource must be preserved.
    The Family Farm Alliance believes that Colorado River Basin 
interests can and will successfully work through future droughts and 
water shortages in a collaborative and effective way. The future of 
millions of people and millions of acres of farms and ranches and the 
food and fiber they produce in the Basin rest on this belief. We also 
believe if the Basin uses the principles and recommendations advanced 
in this testimony, solutions can be found that do not pit one user 
against another in resolving differences and complex water problems.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this important 
issue. The Alliance looks forward to working with your Subcommittee and 
the many agricultural, urban, energy and environmental water users in 
finding these solutions so critical to the future of the Colorado River 
Basin.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to Patrick O'Toole, President, 
                          Family Farm Alliance
              Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
    Question 1. In the hearing, I asked about how repairing conveyance 
infrastructure in other basins outside of the Colorado River could 
benefit management of the Colorado River but also the State Water 
Project and Central Valley Project. Since we had limited time in the 
hearing, I would like to give you the opportunity to provide written 
responses to this question:

    Could you explain how improving or repairing conveyance 
infrastructure in basins outside of the Colorado River could help with 
regards to managing the Colorado River's demands?

    Answer. Thank you for this question, Rep. Costa. We appreciate your 
long-time support for irrigated agriculture in the Central Valley and 
throughout the West.
    Colorado River Basin management actions are interconnected with 
federal water management decisions made in both tributary and adjacent 
river basins. Millions of people in Southern California rely upon 
multiple sources for their water, including State Water Project (SWP) 
supplies from Northern California and surface water from the Colorado 
River. Restrictions on other non-connected water sources can limit 
opportunities to manage Colorado River water more effectively in a 
drought. The direct consequence of the lack of Northern California 
water to Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) will 
impact the demands and reliance on its Colorado River supplies and is 
the most prominent modern-day example of this larger-scale policy 
influence.
    Interestingly, while the linkage between California's Bay-Delta and 
much of the West should be obvious given daily headlines, many in 
California do not see the connection. To fix the larger problem facing 
the entire region, California has to resolve the Bay-Delta issues that 
impact Central Valley Project (CVP) deliveries to our agricultural 
water users, and SWP deliveries to customers like MWD, the largest 
supplier of treated water in the United States. That includes 
modernizing and repairing the conveyance facilities that carry SWP 
water to Southern California.
    CVP and SWP water conveyance facilities also provide management 
flexibility and allow water to be transferred efficiently around the 
Valley and to other parts of the state. Unfortunately, subsidence 
caused by increased groundwater pumping has significantly impacted the 
carrying capacity of those conveyance systems. That additional 
groundwater use is happening in large part because Bay-Delta management 
of CVP and SWP surface water has reallocated that once-reliable supply 
to other uses. As water supply reliability from the Bay-Delta becomes 
more uncertain, Southern California municipal and industrial users will 
increasingly focus on the Colorado River and their other supply sources 
to meet their demands.
    Fixing and modernizing those large CVP and SWP conveyance 
facilities in the San Joaquin Valley helps water users in Southern 
California, the Central Valley and the Colorado River Basin.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thanks very much, Mr. O'Toole. I want to next 
recognize Mr. Tom Davis, President of the Agribusiness and 
Water Council of Arizona.
    Mr. Davis, welcome to the Committee. You are recognized.

STATEMENT OF TOM DAVIS, PRESIDENT, AGRIBUSINESS & WATER COUNCIL 
                   OF ARIZONA, YUMA, ARIZONA

    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member 
Bentz, and members of the Committee. It is my pleasure to have 
the opportunity to testify before you today concerning the 
ongoing drought on the Colorado River.
    As you have stated, my name is Tom Davis. I am Manager of 
the Yuma County Water Users Association. I also serve as 
President of the Agribusiness & Water Council of Arizona, and 
also the Yuma County Agricultural Water Coalition.
    Arizona agriculture is on the front lines of the current 
21-year drought on the Colorado River. And we stand to be 
impacted the most from the management of this drought. As the 
result of the first-ever shortage declaration at Lake Mead, 
Arizona will face an 18 percent reduction in our annual 
divergence from the Colorado River in 2022. Arizona farmers who 
receive water from the Central Arizona Project will be hit the 
hardest. In places like Pinal County, irrigation districts will 
see a 70 percent reduction in their surface water supplies in 
2022, and a 100 percent reduction in these supplies in 2023.
    This will result in significant amounts of farmland being 
fallowed, and the trickle-down effect from reduced farm 
revenues, jobs, equipment, seed purchases, food production, et 
cetera.
    In addition to major water supply concerns we have, 
depleted reservoirs and reduced water releases will reduce 
power generation on the river, reducing electricity available 
for states like Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and California. This 
reduced power production, and the need to replace it from other 
sources, is expected to translate into double-digit increases 
in electricity rates and potential brownouts during heavy 
electricity use periods.
    Hydropower revenues are used on an annual basis to pay for 
numerous power costs associated with Federal endangered species 
programs that Taylor referenced, and other environmental 
requirements. However, covering these costs through power rates 
in future years will become a significant hardship, and we 
would like to work with the Subcommittee on resolving this 
issue.
    Long term, the Agribusiness Water Council and the Coalition 
are both focusing on working with other water users and the 
Bureau of Reclamation to ensure the renegotiation of the 2007 
Guidelines in managing the river, and set the stage for 
sustainable, predictable, equitable, and legal operations of 
the Colorado River system after 2026. As part of this effort, 
we are working with agriculture water users throughout the 
Upper and Lower Basin to present a unified set of outcomes we 
believe must be achieved by the Colorado River Compact decision 
makers.
    These outcomes will be the core principles that underpin 
our efforts. They are outlined in my written testimony and will 
be detailed further by a white paper we plan to release later 
in the year.
    Water from the Colorado River is the lifeblood for 
agriculture in Arizona and throughout the Basin. In Yuma 
County, water from the Colorado River fuels a $3.4 billion 
agriculture economy and provides for 90 percent of the U.S. 
production of leafy green vegetables in the winter months. The 
Colorado River, delivered through Central Arizona Project, is 
the reason Arizona is among the top national producers of 
vegetables, melons, milk, cattle, and other crops.
    In order to stretch our water resources even further, we 
continue to make significant improvements in irrigation system 
practices and equipment. This includes an outlining using 
sprinkler and drip irrigation, laser leveling fields, soil 
moisture monitoring, and efficient water delivery methods by 
using SCADA, just to name a few.
    Farmers are also changing cropping patterns, when 
economical, to save water.
    The national importance of Arizona farmers and ranchers, 
along with decades of improvement and use efficiencies, are 
important to understand as we work to address the drought in 
future water management. This is especially in recent media 
coverage of the drought that seems to be pushing the narrative 
that water should be reduced from agricultural use, and provide 
more water to growing cities and environmental purposes. This 
is the wrong approach and the wrong solution.
    We certainly don't want our food supply to be trapped in 
supply chain interruptions, as we are currently seeing in this 
country. We will be happy to work further with other water 
users in the Basin to develop long-term solutions.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to present testimony. I 
will stand for questions later. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Tom W. Davis, President, Agribusiness & Water 
     Council of Arizona and Yuma County Agriculture Water Coalition
    Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz and Members of the 
Subcommittee: Across the Western U.S., farms and communities are 
experiencing the impacts of severe drought conditions in 2021. For us 
in the Colorado River Basin (Basin), the extremely dry conditions this 
year are especially troubling as they come on the heels of over two 
decades of below average hydrology. As you know, the Colorado River 
supplies water and power to over 40 million people and 5.5 million 
acres of agricultural lands. We appreciate the Subcommittee holding 
this hearing today and for the opportunity to highlight the importance 
of the Colorado River in providing drinking water to homes and 
businesses across seven states and a major component of the secure food 
supply for our Nation as a whole. This hearing also serves to highlight 
the immediate steps and long-term principles that are needed to best 
manage our scarce water resources in the Basin.
    The Agribusiness & Water Council of Arizona (ABWC) represents the 
agricultural community from ``ditch bank to dinner plate,'' in Arizona. 
Its members include growers, agribusinesses, irrigation and electrical 
districts, universities and other entities associated with Arizona's 
agriculture economy.
    The Yuma County Agriculture Water Coalition (Coalition) \1\ 
represents irrigated agriculture in the County on policy and budget 
issues related to the Colorado River Basin and the impacts of those 
issues on County agriculture. These issues include water supply, aging 
federal water infrastructure, and other irrigation water related issues 
of concern with respect to actions and decisions of the federal 
government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Yuma County Agriculture Water Coalition includes the Yuma 
Irrigation District, Yuma County Water Users Association, Yuma Mesa 
Irrigation and Drainage District , North Gila Irrigation and Drainage 
District, Unit B Irrigation and Drainage District, and Wellton-Mohawk 
Irrigation and Drainage District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I also serve as a member of the Advisory Board for the Family Farm 
Alliance, which advocates for the protection and enhancement of 
irrigated agriculture in the 17 Western states.
    After 21 years of drought, including three of the driest years on 
record, nearly every storage reservoir in the Colorado River system is 
experiencing historically low water levels. In addition, Lake Mead 
levels have led to a shortage declaration for the first time in the 
Lower Colorado River Basin (Lower Basin), triggering reduced water 
deliveries to Central Arizona farmers.
    While the current drought and future hydrologic conditions--which 
are expected to be warmer, with more volatility and less snowpack--are 
daunting, thoughtful water management and infrastructure investments 
can result in a Colorado River system that works better for everyone 
and protects U.S. food security. This type of fact-based conversation 
is especially important now, as recent media coverage is pushing a 
narrative that seems to suggest Colorado River conditions warrant a 
reflexive reduction to agricultural water use in order to reserve more 
water for cities and the environment. That is the wrong approach and 
the wrong solution.
    The willingness by some to dismiss the importance of Western 
irrigated agriculture is especially troublesome at this moment, just as 
our country is seeing the vulnerability of our supply chains and facing 
shortages of goods they want or need. It is unimaginable to think about 
a time in the future where our food supply could also risk distribution 
from a pandemic, natural disaster, or at the whim on a foreign country. 
Yet removing water from farms in the Colorado River Basin and elsewhere 
in the West will be a step down that exact path. Instead, the urgent 
situation we currently face elevates the importance of water users 
coming together to get through the immediate crisis and reject the kind 
of zero-sum solutions that will come if we allow agriculture to be 
pitted against other water users over the longer-term.
Agriculture and Water Use in Yuma County and Central Arizona
    Arizona agriculture is important to our Nation, providing seasonal 
availability of produce and significant economic contributions. 
Additionally, farmers throughout the state continue to improve 
irrigation practices and equipment. Both these factors provide 
important context as water users in the Basin work together to manage 
drought, especially as some continue to rely on old and/or discredited 
data regarding agricultural water use as the basis to suggest water 
should be reallocated away from farms.
Yuma County

    Yuma County agriculture, made possible by irrigation water from the 
Colorado River, is important to Arizona's economy and the food supply 
of the United States. Agriculture contributes nearly $3.4 billion in 
annual economic activity to Yuma County, which is the third largest 
vegetable producing county in the nation.\2\ During the winter months--
from November through March--90% of the leafy vegetables produced in 
the United States is grown in the Yuma area. Nine processing facilities 
prepare two million pounds of lettuce per day for market during these 
peak seasons. In addition to lettuce and other leafy vegetables, the 
Yuma area produces over 175 different crops, and is blessed with the 
favorable conditions that make it a world class location for seed 
production and other specialty crops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.yumacountyaz.gov/government/county-administrator/
economic-development-plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even as agricultural production in Yuma County has increased, our 
farmers have also improved efficiency of their water use. In fact, the 
rate of water diverted to farms has decreased 15 percent since 1990 and 
nearly 18 percent since 1975. This increased efficiency has been 
accomplished through improved water management and infrastructure, and 
a deliberate shift from perennial and summer-centric crops to winter-
centric, multi-crop systems that reduce irrigation during the hottest 
summer months. For example, farmers and water managers have reduced 
water use by investing in construction of concrete lined irrigation 
ditches and high flow turnouts, shortening irrigation runs and 
installing sprinkler and drip irrigation systems. Additionally, most 
fields are laser leveled annually and growers utilize press wheels and 
other management operations to improve water flow across fields. 
Overall, Yuma growers' average irrigation application efficiencies in 
the 80-85 percent range.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.agwateryuma.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/
ACaseStudyInEfficiency.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Arizona

    Central Arizona has a long history of agricultural production, 
dating back to the 400's A.D. when the Hohokam civilization used 
hundreds of miles of irrigation canals to produce in the desert 
environment. Today, the region is among the top national producers of 
vegetables, melons, milk, cattle, and cotton, among others. It is also 
home to important nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod 
production.\4\,\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://economics.arizona.edu/file/1817/
download?token=Qw1qWZ6A.
    \5\ https://economics.arizona.edu/file/1821/
download?token=GCidVv9V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Just as when the Hohokam civilization farmed thousands of years 
ago, irrigation is essential to agriculture in Central Arizona. The 
need for a reliable water supply for farms and cities in Central 
Arizona led to the development of several large-scale water projects in 
the region. The Central Arizona Project (CAP) was built to deliver 
Arizona's entitlement of Colorado River water to the interior of the 
state, with the preservation of irrigated farms as one of the primary 
goals of the project.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://library.cap-az.com/documents/departments/finance/
Agriculture_2016-10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The use of irrigation technology continues to grow in this region. 
For example, the use of sprinkler and microirrigation in Pinal County 
increased by over 26,000 acres between 2010 and 2015.\7\ Additionally, 
some farmers are experimenting with a change cropping patterns to some 
less water intensive crops. Similar trends are present in other Central 
Arizona Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://economics.arizona.edu/file/1821/
download?token=GCidVv9V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status and Impacts of Ongoing Drought
    As mentioned above, the poor hydrology in the Basin and falling 
reservoir levels led the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to declare 
a shortage in the Lower Basin for the first time in history. Currently 
(as of September 30), water stored across the entire Colorado River 
system stood at 41% of total capacity. Reclamation modeling also shows 
an increasing likelihood that Lakes Powell and Mead will continue to 
drop, elevating the potential that they could reach critical levels 
within the next 5 years. This modeling includes a 66% chance that the 
Lower Basin could reach a Tier 2 shortage (Lake Mead elevation 1050) by 
2023 and a 41% chance of a tier 3 shortage by 2025. Tier 3 shortage is 
triggered when Lake Mead reaches elevation 1025, leaving less than one 
year of water supply allocation in storage and the point where control 
and management of the system is lost. Likewise, projections show Lake 
Powell having a 34% chance of falling to minimum power pool by 2023.
    While water cutbacks from the Tier 1 shortage will not hit Yuma 
County water users' senior rights in the Basin, they will result in the 
significant cutbacks for farmers in Central Arizona. Under the 2007 
Colorado River Interim Guidelines and the 1944 Water Treaty with 
Mexico, Lake Mead will operate under shortage status for the entirety 
of calendar year 2022. This includes required reductions and 
contributions for each individual state forming the lower basin. These 
requirements include about 18 percent of Arizona's annual 
apportionment, 7 percent of Nevada's annual apportionment and 5 percent 
of Mexico's annual apportionment. The cuts will be the largest to date 
on the River, and will hardest hit farmers who receive water from the 
Central Arizona Project (CAP), who are further preparing for their 
supplies to be entirely shut off in 2023.
    These reductions will hit growers in Pinal County especially hard. 
Pinal County irrigation districts will face up to 70% reductions in 
surface water supplies in 2022 and 100% reductions in 2023. Initially, 
excess water available in the CAP system was going to provide a 
lifeline until 2030, but the Tier 1 shortage declaration has 
accelerated the impacts which will now hit next year. The districts are 
intensely planning how best to deliver their remaining groundwater 
supplies but face challenges due to lack of adequate infrastructure and 
resistance from those who oppose increased groundwater pumping in the 
County. Significant amounts of farmland will need to be fallowed 
resulting in reduced farm revenues, jobs, equipment and seed purchases, 
and food and fiber production. This is the face of drought in the Lower 
Colorado River Basin.
    Beyond the curtailments in 2022, the troubling projections for Lake 
Mead levels may accelerate actions to protect lake levels. The ABWC and 
Coalition are open to constructive solutions designed to protect the 
Colorado River system and comply with the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan 
(DCP) requirement for elevation 1030 consultations that were triggered 
by this recent modeling. Instead of looking to irrigated agriculture in 
the Basin as a reservoir for future municipal, industrial and 
environmental water supplies, we must ensure long term equitable 
success in these discussions by including agricultural water users at 
the negotiating table from the beginning.
Drought Related Power Impacts
    In addition to significant water supply concerns, decreased 
hydropower generation and the resulting increased replacement 
electricity costs are compounding the impact of the ongoing and 
historic drought in the Basin. Depleted storage and reduced water 
releases continue to reduce the amount of hydropower produced at the 
Hoover Dam, Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), and Parker-Davis 
projects, along with the revenue available to support significant non-
power costs assigned to power users.
    The impact of this reduced generation to our members is two-fold 
and will translate into sudden, double-digit percentage electricity 
rate increases. First, because federal hydropower customers are 
responsible for paying all capital and operational costs associated 
with generation and transmission of energy at these facilities, along 
with environmental and non-power expenses that have been assigned by 
federal statute, decreased generation means those costs are spread over 
fewer megawatt hours resulting in higher rates per kilowatt hour. 
Second, replacement power must be secured to make up for reduced 
hydropower generation, an impact compounded by the current high price 
of electricity on the open market driven by persistent heat waves, the 
loss of generation facilities in the region, and other factors.
    The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) has communicated that 
Hoover, CRSP and Parker-Davis customers should expect the cost of 
replacement power alone to exceed over $130 million in 2022. Colorado 
River project customers now will face unprecedented volatility and 
uncertainty that erodes the benefits of recently signed long-term power 
contracts (40-50 year) and threatens the economic viability of these 
projects.
    One option to mitigate drought related hydro impacts is to 
temporarily provide drought relief appropriations or other funds to be 
used in lieu of hydropower revenues to cover non-power costs on a non-
reimbursable basis. Over many years, Hoover, Parker-Davis, and CRSP 
hydropower ratepayers have contributed significant revenues to the 
Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund and Upper Colorado River 
Basin Fund to cover important non-power Reclamation programs and costs. 
The programs funded by these revenues are fundamentally federal 
responsibilities and requirements, and include aid to irrigation, 
environmental and endangered species recovery programs, the Colorado 
River Salinity Control Program, and others. While these annual expenses 
can be absorbed in normal water years, requiring hydropower customers 
to pay for these federal programs while confronting the massive 
additional costs expected due to the extreme drought conditions and 
difficult power market conditions is a significant financial hardship.
Colorado River Reconsultation
    At the same time we are responding to the water and power impacts 
of our existing drought conditions, the Basin States, irrigation 
managers, water agencies, Native American tribes, nongovernmental 
organizations, and other stakeholders are beginning the hard work of 
replacing the 2007 ``Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and 
the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead'' that expire 
in 2026. This new set of Guidelines will largely govern how Colorado 
River water is managed over the coming decades and negotiations will 
involve many difficult decisions and creative solutions.

    As these efforts get underway, members of the ABWC and Yuma County 
Agricultural Water Coalition are working with agricultural water users 
throughout the Upper and Lower Basins to ensure that farming and 
ranching is properly considered in negotiations. There will inevitably 
be disagreements between stakeholders as reconsultation negotiations 
progress. However, we are we are working together to present 
fundamental expectations of the reconsultation and are nearing 
agreement on the following set of outcomes that we believe Colorado 
Compact decision makers must achieve in the next set of produce 
operating guidelines:

  1.  Recognize that Western irrigated agriculture is a strategic and 
            irreplaceable national resource.

  2.  Provide certainty to all users and interests with equitable 
            apportionment decisions made from a foundation of state 
            water law, common sense and fairness.

  3.  Address critical data gaps to facilitate the trust needed to make 
            fair operational and legal decisions related to the next 
            set of Interim Guidelines.

  4.  Manage Lake Mead to provide the Lower Basin's share of the 
            Colorado River Compact water to Lower Basin users. Manage 
            Lake Powell to meet both the Colorado Compact obligations 
            to the Lower Basin and protect the Upper Colorado River 
            Compact obligations to the four Upper Basin states.

  5.  Expand supply augmentation opportunities as options for meeting 
            growing water demands, at a time when Colorado River 
            supplies appear to be diminishing.

  6.  Emphasize that future urban growth cannot be encouraged without 
            locking in sustainable and diverse water supplies.

    These outcome expectations build off the policy principles 
developed by Basin agriculture interests in the Family Farm Alliance's 
2015 publication entitled ``Colorado River Basin Water Management: 
Principles and Recommendation.'' These principles include:

  1.  State water laws, compacts and decrees must be the foundation for 
            dealing with shortages.

  2.  Water use and related beneficial use data must be accurately 
            measured and portrayed.

  3.  Benefits of water use must reflect all economic/societal/
            environmental impacts.

  4.  True costs of transferring water away from irrigated farms in a 
            managed system like the Colorado River through land 
            fallowing must be accurately accounted for, including 
            unintended consequences and third-party impacts. 
            Understanding these costs will assist in determining the 
            fair value of any land fallowing proposal.

  5.  Agricultural water conservation can help stretch water supplies, 
            but has its limits.

  6.  Public sentiment supports water remaining with irrigated 
            agriculture, and developing strategic water storage 
            opportunities as insurance against shortages.

  7.  Technologies for water reuse and recycling are proven effective 
            in stretching existing supplies for urban, environmental 
            and other uses.

  8.  Urban growth should not be permitted in the future without 
            locking in sustainable and diverse water supplies, and 
            using irrigated agriculture as the reservoir of water for 
            municipal growth is not sustainable in the long run.

    Making strategic decisions based on these outcome expectations and 
policy principles will prevent any systemic and permanent reallocation 
of irrigation water to urban or environmental use. Such a reallocation 
would not only harm U.S. food security and reduce the employment, 
cultural, and environmental values of agricultural lands and rural 
communities in the Basin, it would also reduce drought resilience for 
urban water users in the Basin. By reducing the agricultural water 
supply that could be made available to urban use on a temporary and 
voluntary basis to respond to emergency shortages and incorporating it 
into base supplies that are relied upon annually by growing urban 
populations, we will essentially harden urban demand to the point that 
there will be no flexibility during years of shortage. This outcome 
would create tensions between urban and agricultural water users ending 
up in a zero-sum game of urban versus rural in the Basin.
Conclusion
    Thank you for holding this important hearing and for the 
opportunity to testimony on behalf of ABWC and the Coalition. The path 
out of the current drought and long-term management challenges on the 
Colorado River will be a long one and will be successful if a 
transparent and collaborative process is undertaken. To accomplish 
this, Arizona agriculture--along with agricultural producers throughout 
the Basin--must have a place at the table from day one and the full 
value of irrigated agriculture for food production, responsible water 
management, rural economies, and the environment must be considered. 
The Coalition understands the growing water needs in the Basin and 
supports augmenting existing supplies in a strategic way that avoids 
targeting reallocation of low-cost sources including transfer of 
agricultural water without consideration of the true costs and 
consequences of such a reallocation.
    Agricultural water users have always stepped up to work 
constructively with other stakeholders to find lasting solutions. We 
look forward to working with the Basin States and this Subcommittee to 
do so again in the future.

                                 ______
                                 

    Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Tom Davis, President, 
                Agribusiness & Water Council of Arizona
              Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
    Question 1. In the hearing, I asked about how repairing conveyance 
infrastructure in other basins outside of the Colorado River could 
benefit management of the Colorado River but also the State Water 
Project and Central Valley Project. Since we had limited time in the 
hearing, I would like to give you the opportunity to provide written 
responses to this question: Could you explain how improving or 
repairing conveyance infrastructure in basins outside of the Colorado 
River could help with regards to managing the Colorado River's demands?

    Answer. Metropolitan Water Project of Southern California has 
multiple sources for its water supply. Water pumped from the Colorado 
River and water imported from northern CA are two of these sources. 
Logically the more water imported from northern CA the less Colorado 
River water Metropolitan would be required to pump. I understand 
Metropolitan is having infrastructural problems getting its water 
through the Sacramento River delta area. There have been designs for a 
tunnel transport or a bypass canal transport of moving water through 
the delta. If an efficient transport of Metropolitan water through the 
delta can be constructed, possibly less Colorado River would be 
required to serve its supply.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Before we go to our next 
witness, let me just clean up a little housekeeping item that I 
had meant to address in my opening remarks.
    We would like for Representative Susie Lee of Nevada and 
Paul Gosar of Arizona to join us today as part of the hearing 
to ask questions of the witnesses.
    So, hearing no objection to that, it is so ordered.
    We had intended to have Congressman Joe Neguse introduce 
our next witness, who is Ms. Anne Castle, a senior fellow at 
the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and 
the Environment at the University of Colorado.
    Mr. Neguse sings your praises, Ms. Castle, and regrets that 
he is unable to be here for that introduction. But I want to 
pass along his best wishes and recognize you to testify for the 
next 5 minutes. Thank you, and welcome to the Committee.

  STATEMENT OF ANNE CASTLE, SENIOR FELLOW, GETCHES-WILKINSON 
   CENTER FOR NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 
           UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, BOULDER, COLORADO

    Ms. Castle. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, and good morning, 
Ranking Member Bentz, and members of the Subcommittee. Thanks 
very much for the invitation to testify.
    My work focuses on western water policy issues, and 
particularly the Colorado River. From 2009 to 2014, I was the 
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of 
the Interior.
    The Colorado River Basin has been the lightning rod for 
climate change shocks to the water system. Last year, Lake 
Powell's water levels dropped more than 50 feet, and that 
represents a loss of over 4 million acre-feet of water in just 
1 year. If we have another year like the one we just had, Lake 
Powell's level will drop below the hydropower turbines in Glen 
Canyon Dam. So, in less than a year from now, there wouldn't be 
any power generation at Lake Powell, and the Upper Basin's 
ability to continue to meet its obligations under the Colorado 
River Compact could also be in jeopardy soon after that. And 
even that scenario could be optimistic.
    You have heard about the substantial and really exemplary 
efforts of the states, Interior, and the major water users in 
increasing their conservation, releasing water from upstream 
reservoirs, working on additional recycling, and a whole lot of 
other good work. And this Committee is funding proposals for 
the Salton Sea, and large-scale reuse projects will also help 
to bring balance to the system.
    But despite all those efforts, the reservoirs continue to 
decline. What we have is a water imbalance--a math problem, as 
you put it last week, Chairman Huffman. And there is really no 
getting around the fact that this means that everybody has to 
use even less water, just as Mr. Costa said.
    So, we need a plan that shares the burden of these reduced 
supplies, but does it in a way that promotes equity among the 
states, between the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, among the 
various sectors of the economy, including the agricultural 
sector, and with the Native American tribes. And the Colorado 
River Basin has a history of coming together around 
collaborative agreements for management of the river, and the 
water leaders in this Basin have been rightly celebrated and 
admired for their collaborative efforts and the results.
    If you look at those past agreements, there are two 
ingredients they all had in common. One was hydrology. It has 
to get really bad before there is sufficient motivation to act. 
And the other common ingredient is a directive or a deadline 
from the Department of the Interior. Both of those factors were 
critical in spurring the agreements that led to the 2007 
Guidelines and the Drought Contingency Plans.
    Well, we certainly have the bad hydrology right now, but 
there has not been a directive or a deadline from Interior, or 
a default plan that could go into place if the collaborative 
agreement that everybody wants doesn't come together quickly 
enough. So, the point I want to emphasize is the need for 
speed.
    The urgency of what we are experiencing, and the rapid 
declines in the reservoirs mean that we need all the available 
tools to be deployed. And you have heard about a lot of those 
tools. It is just not clear that the river will allow the 
current pace of discussions to continue without devastating 
consequences.
    I also want to mention the need to ensure that all tribal 
communities in the Colorado River Basin have clean and safe 
water to drink. We have a window of opportunity with the 
infrastructure bill to make meaningful progress. And the 
funding that is provided there is absolutely essential to close 
the gaps in drinking water infrastructure in Indian Country. We 
owe it to these communities to provide them with the same basic 
level of service that most Americans take for granted.
    Thank you again for the invitation to speak today, and I 
look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Castle follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Anne Castle, Senior Fellow, Getches-Wilkinson 
               Center, University of Colorado Law School
    Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, Thank you for the invitation to testify on this important 
subject of shrinking flows in the Colorado River and the necessary 
response. My name is Anne Castle and I am a Senior Fellow at the 
Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the 
Environment at the University of Colorado Law School. I am an attorney 
who focuses on western water policy and, from 2009 to 2014, I was the 
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the U.S. Department of the 
Interior.

              Colorado River Declining Flow and Responses

    The Colorado River is the lightning rod for climate change impacts 
on water resources. Impacts in this basin have been relentless and 
dramatic.
    Since the start of the 21st century, the river's flows declined by 
20 percent compared to the 20th century average. The reservoirs have 
dropped as a predictable result, from 95 percent full at the end of the 
20th century to 32 percent full at the end of September 2021.
    The reservoirs' declines have come despite significant reductions 
in water use among U.S. users in the Lower Colorado River Basin and 
Upper Basin users never expanding into their full legal allocation. The 
best available data suggests water use in the basin is declining. The 
1922 Colorado River Compact and subsequent statutes and court decisions 
allocated 7.5 million acre feet of water each from the Colorado's 
mainstem for the river's Upper and Lower Basins. From 2011-2020, the 
Lower Basin average use was 7.2 million acre feet of water, while the 
Upper Basin averaged 3.9 million acre feet of use from 2009-2018.
    Notwithstanding users taking less than they were originally 
allotted, the major reservoirs have continued to decline because of an 
imbalance between 20th century expectations of how much water use the 
river could support and the 21st century reality. Last month, the U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation's projections posited a 41 percent chance that 
Lake Mead could drop to less than one quarter full by 2025, and a 34 
percent chance that Lake Powell could drop so low that water would no 
longer be able to reach its power-generating turbines as soon as 2023. 
It is also important to note that many tribal water rights in the basin 
have not yet been fully developed but likely will be in the future, 
putting additional stress and uncertainty on an already over-allocated 
system. Nor have environmental or ecosystem needs been historically 
accounted for as part of the overall system water balance.
    Hydropower generation has been and continues to be an important 
element of the Colorado River system of dams and reservoirs. This 
system can supply approximately 4,200 megawatts of energy annually, 
reducing the use of fossil fuels in the area. The value of the 
hydropower produced at Glen Canyon Dam alone has been estimated to 
average over $150 million annually. But hydropower production at Glen 
Canyon has decreased by approximately 16% since the year 2000, and 
further reductions across the system are anticipated because of lower 
inflows and releases. The loss of this power generation not only 
affects customer rates but also ripples through many different sectors 
as power revenues support the operation of and repayment for other 
Reclamation water projects, environmental programs (e.g., Upper 
Colorado and San Juan endangered fish recovery programs and basin-wide 
salinity control), and the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program.

    The chart below shows the progression of storage levels in Lake 
Powell (in blue) and in the entire system of Colorado River Storage 
Projects reservoirs in the Upper Basin (in orange). The plunging levels 
over the last two years signal the need for rapid action to prevent 
further unsustainable losses in these critical water savings accounts.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       Action Urgently Needed

    Lake Powell dropped over 50 feet in the water year that ended three 
weeks ago. That represents a loss of over four million acre feet of 
water in just one year. If we experience another year like the one we 
just had, Lake Powell's level will drop below the hydropower turbine 
intakes. So in October 2022, there would be no hydropower generation at 
Lake Powell. And the Upper Basin's ability to meet its obligations 
under the Colorado River Compact could be jeopardized soon thereafter. 
That's just one year from right now, if this hydrology continues.

    We should not allow that to happen.

    The Colorado River Basin has a history of coming together around 
collaborative agreements that govern the management of the river. The 
basin state leaders and major water users are rightly celebrated and 
admired for that work and results, and the testimony of the witnesses 
at this hearing have emphasized that collaboration.
    If you look at the agreements on river management reached 
collaboratively in the past, there were two ingredients they all had in 
common. One was hydrology--it has to get really bad before there is 
sufficient motivation to act. The other common ingredient is a 
directive or a deadline or a default plan from the Department of the 
Interior.
    In 2004, Interior officials warned the Lower Basin states that 
cutbacks in deliveries would be unilaterally imposed unless the states 
came to agreement. In 2005, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton 
directed Reclamation to develop a plan to address low reservoir 
conditions. A collaborative agreement came together in 2007 with the 
adoption of the Interim Guidelines, eliminating the need for the 
implementation of the federal plan.
    Another example occurred in 2013, when continued low flows in the 
river revealed that the 2007 Interim Guidelines provisions were not 
sufficient to halt the declines in the reservoirs. Secretary Sally 
Jewel told the states to come up with additional plans to address the 
impacts of climate change. She stated that she had a responsibility to 
take action if the states did not. That directive spurred the 
discussions that ultimately resulted in the Drought Contingency Plans.
    But those plans still hadn't come together five years later. So in 
2018, Commissioner of Reclamation Brenda Burman warned that unless the 
states were able to come to agreement by the end of January 2019, 
Reclamation would develop and implement a plan on its own within the 
year. The states cleared the way shortly thereafter and the DCPs were 
put in place later in 2019.
    All of those previous collaborative agreements were facilitated by 
terrible hydrology and a directive or deadline from Interior. We 
certainly have the bad hydrology right now, but there has not yet been 
a federal directive or default plan that would go into place if the 
states are not able to act quickly enough.
    The Basin States and Interior are certainly focused on addressing 
the deteriorating hydrology and rapidly declining reservoir levels. 
Emergency drought response operations are being implemented now in the 
Upper Basin to raise water levels in Lake Powell. But this effort will 
boost the elevation by only 3 feet at a time when the reservoir 
experienced a decline of 50 feet in just one year. Work is continuing 
on a longer-term plan for drought response operations, but it will 
likely not be in place for another year. Consultation is beginning 
between the Lower Basin states and Interior, triggered by the 
provisions of the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan and the 
declining levels in Lake Mead, concerning additional measures to be 
taken to protect against catastrophic further declines.
    Interior is also devoting very substantial funding to its drought 
relief efforts, including payment of compensation to induce water users 
to forego use and allow the conserved water to remain in the system. 
The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, H.R. 3684, would 
provide the Bureau of Reclamation with tremendous additional funding of 
$8.3 billion to address infrastructure, conservation, drought, and 
climate change. This Committee's proposals in the budget reconciliation 
bill (Build Back Better Act) will add to Reclamation's abilities. This 
funding will undoubtedly assist greatly in contributing to conservation 
and improved infrastructure that will help the basin adjust to the new 
normal.
    There is an ongoing healthy debate about population projections in 
the Colorado River basin states and the resulting water demand. Issues 
concerning realistic population growth, forecasts of water demand as 
compared to historical actual usage, and additional water development 
anticipated by the Colorado River Compact have all received 
considerable attention. But the simple fact remains that the Colorado 
River system is limited by supply and any additional demands imposed on 
the system reduce the amount available for existing uses.
    The Colorado River system is in a state of imbalance. What is 
needed is a plan for sharing the burden of reduced supplies, one that 
recognizes the diverse economic and investment-backed interests at 
stake, but also provides equity among the Basin States, between the 
Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, and for the Native American tribes.
    Imposition of a federally designed river management system is not a 
good outcome. A solution that reflects robust give and take among the 
states, tribes, and water users is a far better result. But state 
officials are challenged by their need to protect multiple interests 
with sometimes competing priorities, and progress toward collaborative 
solutions can be slow. The ongoing investigation of demand management 
in the Upper Basin reflects those challenges and the consequent lack of 
speed. It is unclear whether the river will allow the current pace to 
continue without devastating consequences.
    The healthy and understandable dislike of unwelcome federal 
interference in river operations provides rich motivation to states, 
tribes, and water users to reach their own agreement.
    Having a default alternative to work against can provide additional 
motivation to reach agreement on difficult compromises in a timely 
manner. Federal directives have been most effective when they establish 
explicit goals and deadlines. The point is not to determine winners or 
losers but to provide one option designed to address and mitigate the 
devastating impacts of a shrinking river. Other options may prove more 
acceptable to the states, tribes, and major water users and, if so, 
should definitely be adopted.
    The urgency of reaching such an agreement cannot be overstated. The 
relentless declines in reservoirs levels are occurring despite heroic 
efforts by states, tribes, and water users to conserve, to develop 
alternative sources of water, and to use water more efficiently. 
Unfortunately, this means that the available options for addressing the 
deteriorating conditions are narrowing. If the storage levels decline 
further, the amazing resource and flexibility provided by the Colorado 
River's huge reservoirs as water savings accounts will disappear. 
Action is necessary now to maintain equilibrium in the system and take 
advantage of the relatively small amount of stored water cushion that 
remains.

    Universal Access to Clean Drinking Water for Tribal Communities

    In the context of water issues in the Colorado River basin, it is 
critical to include the necessity of addressing the ongoing lack of 
access to clean and safe drinking water for Native Americans. The need 
and obligation to ensure that all tribal communities have clean water 
to drink cannot be overemphasized. We have a window of opportunity with 
the infrastructure bill and other funding vehicles to make meaningful 
progress, and we owe it to these indigenous communities to provide the 
same level of basic service that most Americans take for granted.
    The coronavirus pandemic has tragically highlighted the vast and 
long-standing inequities facing Tribal communities, including 
disparities in water access. According to the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC), American Indians and Alaska Natives are 
more likely than any other ethnic or racial group to be hospitalized or 
die from COVID. Limited access to running water is one of the main 
factors contributing to this elevated rate of incidence. According to 
the U.S. Water Alliance, Native American households are 19 times more 
likely than white households to lack indoor plumbing. Without a safe, 
reliable, affordable, and easily accessible water supply, these 
households are unable to meet basic personal hygiene, food preparation, 
domestic cleaning, and other needs required for good health.
    ``Water is essential to every aspect of household and community 
life and the economy,'' as recognized by the American Society of Civil 
Engineers. Yet many tribal communities still do not have access to 
clean and safe water. This lack of access reflects historical and 
persisting racial inequities that have resulted in health and socio-
economic disparities. ``Race is the strongest predictor of water and 
sanitation access,'' with Native Americans more likely than any other 
group to face water access issues.
    At least seven different federal agencies provide some type of 
funding for tribal drinking water or sanitation projects through over 
20 different programs. The primary agencies involved in water related 
projects include: Indian Health Service through its Sanitation 
Facilities Construction Program; Environmental Protection Agency 
through its Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants--Tribal Set Aside and 
Clean Water Act--Tribal Set Aside programs; U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Rural Development program; and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 
as directed by Congress.

    The Indian Health Service's Sanitation Facilities Construction 
Program is the effort most directly aimed at ensuring that tribes have 
clean drinking water infrastructure. This program, like many of the 
others listed above, has been historically underfunded. The chart below 
shows the discrepancy between the unmet need for water and sanitation 
facilities in Indian country as estimated by the Indian Health Service 
and the annual appropriations for the program.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Tribal Access to Clean Water Act of 2021, S. 2369, would 
provide funding for each of the primary agency programs aimed at 
righting this long-standing wrong. The full current amount of estimated 
need for Indian Health Service construction funding, $3.5 billion, is 
included in the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, H.R. 
3684. This funding is an absolute necessity for Indian country.
    But the need doesn't stop with construction funding. These systems, 
whether new or existing, need to be operated by qualified personnel and 
maintained in a manner that preserves their functionality. Multiple 
tribes have attested to the desperate need for operation and 
maintenance support, even for new facilities, as the remote nature of 
many of these systems makes them expensive to maintain and the 
available resources within tribal communities to support ongoing costs 
can be lacking. Tribal communities do not have access to the same 
sources of funding as other municipal water providers, lacking the 
ability, for example, to impose property taxes on their lands for the 
purpose of funding and maintaining capital infrastructure.
    The Indian Health Service has authority to provide O&M assistance 
(25 U.S.C. 1632(b)), but that authority has never received funding. The 
authorizing statute contemplates the need for O&M assistance ``to 
protect the Federal investment in tribal sanitation facilities.'' The 
unprecedented amount of funding for construction and repair of these 
facilities through the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act underscores the need to protect that investment and ensure 
sustainable operation of these systems. IHS technical assistance will 
help fill the gaps in tribal capacity to design, operate, and maintain 
appropriate water and wastewater disposal systems.
    As provided in S. 2369, $500 million is needed to fund the IHS 
authority to provide operation and maintenance assistance to tribal 
communities for water and wastewater infrastructure. Further funding is 
necessary for tribal technical assistance, to allow tribes to 
participate in the planning of the needed systems and to ensure that 
tribal members are developing the technical skills required to take 
over the operation and maintenance of both the physical systems and the 
governance structures. S. 2369 would provide funding for the existing 
technical assistance programs in IHS and the Bureau of Reclamation in 
the amounts of $150 million and $90 million, respectively. These needs 
are not currently funded in either H.R. 3684 or the budget 
reconciliation (Build Back Better) bill, but they should be.
    In addition to funding, it is also necessary to ensure that the 
work of the various federal agencies that have tribal water programs 
are coordinated in their approach and committed to the goal of 
providing universal clean water access in Indian country. The solutions 
for each tribal community will be site specific and a ``whole of 
government'' approach is required to take advantage of the strengths of 
each relevant agency. Tribes understandably lack the resources, both 
human and financial, necessary to navigate all the potentially 
applicable federal programs and access them successfully. To fully 
realize the goal of universal access to clean water, the federal 
government must internalize the responsibility of assessing the unique 
tribal needs, determine through consultation and recognition of tribal 
sovereignty which programs can provide the necessary support, assist 
the tribes in navigating those programs, and help to implement the 
infrastructure and services needed on the ground. Throughout this 
process, federal personnel should ensure that designated tribal members 
are developing the technical skills required to take over the operation 
and maintenance of both the physical systems and the governance 
structures.
    Tribes have not historically been included in negotiations and 
agreements concerning Colorado River management. The principals in the 
Basin States and federal agencies have committed in good faith to 
correcting that omission. Ensuring that tribal communities in the Basin 
have universal access to clean and safe drinking water should be 
considered a foundation for any future agreements.
    A window of opportunity has opened to address drinking water 
insecurity in Indian country. It is critical that action be taken 
before that window closes and these issues are allowed to languish for 
another decade or even another generation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on 
this important subject. I look forward to your questions and further 
discussion.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Anne Castle, Senior Fellow, 
    Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy and the 
                  Environment, University of Colorado
            Questions Submitted by Representative Napolitano
    Question 1. In your testimony, you say that ``ensuring that tribal 
communities in the Basin have universal access to clean and safe 
drinking water should be considered a foundation for any future 
Colorado River agreements.''

    (a) Can you explain why you recommend linking the two critical 
issues of: securing clean water for tribes, and creating a meaningful 
role for tribes in Colorado River discussions?

    Answer. Because access to clean drinking water is a fundamental 
component of human life, it is not surprising that Colorado River Basin 
leadership supports achievement of the goal of universal access, as has 
been affirmed by the Western States Water Council and by the Governor's 
representatives of the Colorado River Basin States in their testimony 
to this Subcommittee on October 15, 2021. The Basin States and the 
Department of the Interior have also committed to meaningful inclusion 
of Tribes in discussions and negotiations concerning management and 
operation of the river and reservoirs. The 30 tribal nations in the 
Colorado River Basin will determine exactly what interests and demands 
they will seek to have considered in future Colorado River agreements, 
and I do not presume to speak for them. However, regardless of whether 
universal access to clean and safe drinking water is a specific point 
of negotiation in Colorado River management discussions, it should be 
considered foundational to a broader recognition of equity throughout 
the basin.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Stansbury
    Question 1. In your testimony, you noted that at least seven 
Federal agencies provide some type of funding for Tribal drinking water 
or sanitation projects through over 20 different programs. How can the 
Federal Government better consult with Tribes and improve programs to 
address Tribal water needs?

    Question 2. How can Reclamation make programs such as WaterSMART 
more accessible to Tribes and Pueblos and small rural communities where 
the local cost share requirement is prohibitive?

    Answer. A coordinated federal approach to deploying the 
unprecedented funding provided by the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act is essential to effective use of these resources and achieving 
the goal of universal access to clean drinking water in Tribal 
communities. A report recently released by the Water & Tribes 
Initiative (Admin Reform Report) describes in specific detail the 
barriers to optimal deployment of funding to support universal access 
to clean water in the programs of the Indian Health Service, EPA, USDA-
Rural Development, and the Bureau of Reclamation and provides 
recommendations for operational, administrative, policy and regulatory 
reforms.
    The Admin Reform recommends a ``whole of government'' approach to 
maximize the capabilities of each of these agencies and provides a 
roadmap for implementing that approach, including the establishment of 
a Cross-Agency Priority Goal by the executive branch and reinvigorating 
the Federal Tribal Infrastructure Task Force established in 2007 but 
dormant during the last Administration. Tanya Trujillo, Assistant 
Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior, also 
recommended the use of this task force in her testimony to this 
Subcommittee on Nov. 4. In October 2021, the EPA Office of Water issued 
its report on Strengthening the Nation-to-Nation Relationship with 
Tribes to Secure a Sustainable Water Future Action Plan, which also 
indicates its support for this task force (which EPA heads) and for 
renewing the Memorandum of Understanding that created the task force.
    The Admin Reform Report provides specifics on appropriate changes 
to the federal agency programs that will enhance the agencies' 
abilities to effectively utilize the new funding made available by the 
IIJA and eliminate constraints on assistance that are no longer 
necessary. The Report also makes recommendations for the enhancement of 
Tribal consultation in connection with identifying appropriate 
solutions to lack of access to clean water in the Tribal communities 
and improving Tribal capacity to operate and maintain these systems 
over the long term.
    The requirements for a local cost share in many of the federal 
programs addressing safe and clean drinking water have presented 
prohibitive barriers to Tribal use in the past. The report referenced 
above recommends elimination of at least some of those cost share 
requirements. With respect to the WaterSMART program, authority for 
this program is provided by Section 9504 of P.L. 111-11, 42 U.S.C. 
10364. That law provides that the federal share of the cost of any 
infrastructure improvement or activity supported by a WaterSMART grant 
may not exceed 50 percent of the cost of the infrastructure improvement 
or activity. Reducing the cost share requirement for WaterSMART grants 
to Tribes would require a statutory amendment. This should be 
considered as it is unfortunately true that funding available to Tribes 
for water infrastructure may frequently go unused because the 
associated cost share requirements cannot be met.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Neguse
    Question 1. Earlier this year, I introduced a resolution that 
recognizes the critical importance of access to reliable, clean 
drinking water for Native Americans and Alaska Natives, and confirms 
the responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure such water 
access.

    (a) What are the barriers that prevent a whole of government 
approach to solving this tragic problem of water access for Tribal 
communities?

    (b) What steps can Congress take to invest in universal access to 
clean drinking water in Indian Country?

    Answer. Thank you Rep. Neguse for your introduction of House 
Resolution 320, recognizing the critical importance of access to 
reliable, clean drinking water for Native Americans and Alaska Natives 
and confirming the responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure 
such water access. All of the testimony of witnesses at the hearing of 
this subcommittee on November 4, 2021 supported H. Res. 320 and the 
concepts it propounds.
    As documented in the report of the Colorado River Water and Tribes 
Initiative on Universal Access to Clean Water for Tribal Communities, 
there are at least seven different federal agencies with over twenty 
different programs that provide some type of drinking water or 
sanitation funding for Tribes. Each agency has unique strengths and 
challenges in effectively implementing its programs to address some or 
all of the forms of lack of access to clean drinking water in Indian 
Country. Every program provides different types of assistance and 
levels of funding, and has its own eligibility, cost share, and 
application requirements. The multiplicity of programs and requirements 
creates a very difficult navigational challenge for Tribal communities 
and water/wastewater providers. Limited historical funding for these 
programs has also meant that the responsible agencies have prioritized 
and circumscribed the projects and efforts to which agency funding will 
be directed. These limitations are not necessary or appropriate now 
with the infusion of funding for these programs in the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
    A new report released on November 16, 2021 by the Water & Tribes 
Initiative (Admin Reform Report) describes in specific detail the 
barriers to optimal deployment of funding to support universal access 
to clean water in the programs of the Indian Health Service, EPA, USDA-
Rural Development, and the Bureau of Reclamation, and provides 
recommendations for operational, administrative, policy and regulatory 
reforms. This report recommends a ``whole of government'' approach to 
maximize the capabilities of each of these agencies and provides a 
roadmap for implementing that approach, including the establishment of 
a Cross-Agency Priority Goal by the executive branch and reinvigorating 
the Federal Tribal Infrastructure Task Force established in 2007 but 
dormant during the last Administration. Tanya Trujillo, Assistant 
Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior, also 
recommended the use of this task force in her testimony to this 
Subcommittee on November 4. In October 2021, the EPA Office of Water 
issued its report on Strengthening the Nation-to-Nation Relationship 
with Tribes to Secure a Sustainable Water Future Action Plan, which 
also indicates its support for this task force (which EPA heads) and 
for renewing the Memorandum of Understanding that created the task 
force. The Admin Reform Report provides specifics on appropriate 
changes to the federal agency programs that will enhance the agencies' 
abilities to effectively utilize the new funding made available by the 
IIJA and eliminate constraints on assistance that are no longer 
necessary.
    Congress can ensure that the funding provided by the IIJA for 
Tribal access to clean drinking water is appropriately and 
expeditiously utilized and effectuates real solutions on the ground. 
Oversight hearings on the deployment of this funding can be useful to 
establish deadlines and spur progress. The House Natural Resources 
Committee can require accountability and request regular reporting on 
plans for deployment of funding and progress made. Specific milestones 
and metrics can be established, e.g., number of Tribal households newly 
provided with access to clean water, number of households where the 
reliability of water supply was substantially improved, etc.
    In addition, funding is required to support operation and 
maintenance (O&M) of clean and safe drinking water systems for Tribal 
communities. Multiple Tribes have attested to the desperate need for 
O&M support, even for new facilities, as the remote nature of many of 
these systems makes them expensive to maintain and the available 
resources within Tribal communities to support ongoing costs can be 
lacking. The Indian Health Service is currently authorized to directly 
provide O&M support for Tribal water, sewage, and solid waste systems 
(25 U.S.C. 1632(b)). However, Congress has never appropriated any 
funding for IHS to provide assistance to Tribes for the day-to-day 
expenses related to effectively running a drinking water system. This 
funding should be appropriated in the amount of $500 million, as 
provided in S. 2369, the Tribal Access to Clean Water Act of 2021. IHS 
should also develop a method of identifying any systems in service that 
have ongoing challenges meeting their long-term O&M costs.

    Question 2. You mentioned in your testimony the existing history of 
officials in the Colorado River Basin and the Federal Government coming 
together to develop plans and address the low water levels in the basin 
in the past, but that there has not yet been a similar agreement 
reached for this year, despite the impending water cutbacks that will 
begin in January of next year for Lower Basin states.

    (a) What additional action should the Federal Government take in 
order to support these collaborative efforts?

    (b) How do we ensure that all states, tribes, and communities that 
will be impacted will be represented in those discussions?

    Answer. As my testimony pointed out, directives or deadlines from 
the Secretary of the Interior to the Colorado River Basin States have 
been critical in the past to spurring agreement among the States and 
interested water users. In some cases, the Secretary proposed a default 
plan that would go into place if the collaborative agreement everybody 
wants did not come together quickly enough. That has not yet occurred 
in connection with the crisis now unfolding in the Colorado River Basin 
with precipitous declines in the major reservoirs and low flows in the 
river. The urgency of what the river basin is currently experiencing 
and the rapid declines in the reservoirs mean that we need all 
available tools to be deployed. It is simply not clear that the river 
will allow us to continue the current pace of discussions without 
devastating consequences.
    There are multiple communities that are affected by agreements 
concerning the operation and management of the Colorado River, and the 
impacts on those communities must be considered in any proposed 
management regime. Because of the significant quantum of water owned or 
controlled by Tribal communities and their historical exclusion from 
these discussions, however, it is particularly critical that a formal 
process be followed to ensure Tribal participation. Daryl Vigil of the 
Jicarilla Apache Tribe in his testimony to this Subcommittee on Day One 
of this oversight hearing on Oct. 15 suggested the formation of a 
Sovereign Governance Team that would include the sovereigns in the 
Colorado River Basin (both states and Tribes) and provide a forum for 
substantive discussions. This or some similar type of formal structure 
would integrate tribes in a meaningful way into planning and problem-
solving before decisions are made and provide an opportunity for all 
stakeholders, experts, and the public to be more meaningfully involved 
in an inclusive, open, and transparent process. I support this concept 
and the proposal for a formal structure to ensure meaningful 
involvement.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Ms. Castle.
    I want to remind Members that Committee Rule 3(d) imposes a 
5-minute limit on questions, and the Chair will now recognize 
Members for any questions they may have.
    I will start by recognizing myself for the first 5 minutes 
of questions.
    Mr. Hagekhalil, I would like to begin with you. Thanks for 
your testimony, and I have appreciated the testimony we have 
heard about the regional recycled water project that your 
agency is advancing with partnerships in Nevada and Arizona. 
And despite the regional benefits that this project promises, 
it also builds on something a little different and new from 
Metropolitan. And I want to ask you a little about that.
    We think of Metropolitan as this giant wholesaler that 
imports distant water supplies and wholesales them to the 
entire Southern California region. But in recent years, you 
have actually begun investing in developing local supplies. And 
I want you to, if you could, please talk about how this 
regional water recycling project fits into that strategy of 
local water supply development, and why that strategy is so 
important for reducing reliance on imported water supplies from 
places like the Colorado River and the Bay Delta.
    Mr. Hagekhalil. Thank you, Chairman, for the question. 
Actually, I come to Metropolitan with a history of the last 32 
years of integrated water solutions, and I believe strongly 
that for us to really meet the challenge of the changing 
climate, the issues with the shrinking water supply, we need a 
new Metropolitan, and we need what I call a new Mulholland 
moment for the future that is not importing water.
    What I tell people, what made Southern California great is 
the three aqueducts we have coming in for the last 100 years. 
We need right now a fourth aqueduct, which is not going to be a 
pipeline. It is going to be a combination of a puzzle, a number 
of things that is really providing more local water supply.
    For us to be resilient for the future, to be able to deal 
with the drought, which is going to be with us for the future--
this is the new normal--we need to start investing in a number 
of things, especially recycling our water: conservation, 
recycling, and reuse. So, stormwater and wastewater are 
critical.
    For the last many years, I think the last decade, we have 
invested in over 100 local projects that we were investing in 
the subsidy for agencies to build recycled water, to build more 
local water supplies. But Metropolitan now is in the business 
of providing and creating new water.
    This project we have, Regional Recycled Water Project, that 
hopefully we will rebrand as Pure Water Metropolitan, is a 
partnership of recycling 150 million gallons of wastewater into 
clean, pure water that we can recharge our aquifers, we can 
reuse across the region. And this is in partnership with our 
partners in Arizona and Nevada.
    So, investing in us here, and creating more local water 
supply, creating more storage, more connectivity, conserving, 
capturing every drop, and storing it for the future is going to 
help us here reduce the dependence on the imported water, and 
then provide this ability to put more water in Lake Mead to 
reduce our dependence on Colorado, allow for this ability to 
resolve the issues that we are negotiating right now with the 
seven states and the country of Mexico and the five tribes. 
Because I believe we need this holistic solution.
    And your help at the Federal level is critical. So, really, 
One Water Southern California is a new thing that we are 
embarking on. We have finished our integrated resource plan to 
show the gap between demand and supply. And we are right now 
building the road map to really create more local water supply 
here, and store it together.
    It is an exciting time, and this is all about One Water and 
collaboration.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Hagekhalil, 150,000 acre-feet 
every single year, drought-proof water supply. That is a big 
deal. That is a lot more water than some of the large, new 
surface storage projects that we sometimes fight about in this 
Committee.
    So, I think it is important for everyone to understand 
exactly what you are proposing here, and the possibility that 
it could be a model for other opportunities. And let me just 
ask you about that. Do you see other possibilities for large-
scale water recycling as something that could be pursued by 
yourself and others in the West?
    Mr. Hagekhalil. Yes. I mean, as you know, in our region, in 
Los Angeles, the ratepayers passed Measure W, which is 
stormwater capture, infiltration, and reuse program. We want to 
make sure that our groundwater basins are healthy and safe. So, 
the investments in cleaning up our groundwater is critical.
    Building storage in our groundwater basins so we can store 
water when we have water available, and be able to use it when 
we have a drought, that, what I call the pieces of the puzzle, 
is there. We are working with San Diego. San Diego is starting 
their Pure Water San Diego, a program similar to what we are 
doing here. We have folks up in Las Virgenes, in our area, are 
building Pure Water Las Virgenes. This collaboration is going 
to be great.
    And Los Angeles is building a similar project. We are 
partnering with the City of Los Angeles on building Operation 
NEXT, which is going to double this 150,000 acre-feet of water. 
It is going to be done also at the Hyperion plant. So, imagine 
now we have two rivers, two aqueducts, locally here. It is 
going to be great for us.
    And this is not just for Southern California, this is for 
the entire Southwest. And to me, this is the message I am 
sending--investing in Southern California is investing in the 
entire Southwest, and your help is critical for us on the 
Federal level.
    Mr. Huffman. Well, thank you for that, because that was the 
last thing I was going to ask you.
    You have explained why this is such a valuable part of a 
water supply portfolio for the region. You have talked about 
the broader regional benefits. But in the remaining time that 
we have, let's talk about why it is important for the Federal 
Government to be part of this partnership.
    And, you know, you do have partners in this. It is not just 
Metropolitan going it alone. But why do we need the Federal 
Government to step in and to do more?
    Mr. Hagekhalil. In 2016, as part of developing the water 
resiliency report for the United States, and it was critical to 
know that water security is a homeland security issue.
    Without water, there is no business. Without water, there 
are no jobs. And for us to resolve the issues we have in the 
Bay Delta, the issues we have around the Colorado that we are 
talking about today, and having to get agreements around the 
allocation of water with the seven states and the country of 
Mexico and the five tribes, we need to make the pie bigger, 
right? We need to make the pie bigger, and we need investments 
in creating more local water supply.
    To me, helping us--and I want to acknowledge Representative 
Napolitano, and her bill, H.R. 4099, on the large-scale water 
recycling projects and continuing to invest in Title XVI water. 
To me, that is essential. It is not for Southern California, as 
we talked about, Congressman and Chairman. This is about us 
resolving the issue and making the pie bigger. When you have 
more water--and local water supply is part of it--we can 
resolve the issues, and really help us put more water in Lake 
Mead. So, it is essential for the whole Southwest.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Hagekhalil, for putting that in 
context. That is very important. And I am going to go to the 
Ranking Member now for his 5 minutes.
    And Ranking Member Bentz, my clock was doing funny things 
in the middle of that last 5 minutes. I think I might have 
magically gotten some extra time. I didn't do it on purpose. I 
apologize. But we will recognize you for 5 minutes or whatever 
the clock may give you.
    Mr. Bentz. Mr. Chair, I am hardly one to complain about 
taking too much time, so I won't.
    My first question is for Mr. O'Toole, and it has to do with 
the fact that, as a farmer/rancher myself, I often am asked how 
to protect the water for farmers and ranchers. And many times I 
will respond by saying, ``Well, what, farmers and ranchers, are 
you doing to conserve water, to advance your, or our, 
conservation approaches?''
    And what I am met with many times is this, ``Yes, 
Congressman Bentz, we farmers and ranchers would love to invest 
big piles of money in much more refined conservation 
application techniques, but without the certainty of having the 
water, why would we ever do it?''
    Can you talk about that problem, and why it might, without 
that type of certainty, result in a continuation of the wrong 
type--or perhaps not the most efficient uses of irrigation 
systems?
    Mr. O'Toole. Thank you, Ranking Member Bentz, and I 
appreciate the question.
    As I said, our family are the first irrigators off the 
national forest at the headwaters of the river, so we have an 
opportunity to use our water in an efficient way. We are 
actually a demonstration for the Fish and Wildlife Service on 
how you irrigate and meld fisheries and irrigation. So, we are, 
our whole community has done a series of processes throughout 
all the head gates to make sure that that efficiency is being 
done.
    But if we are going to be honest with ourselves, part of 
the future is assessing watersheds and having small storage as 
part of the mix. Just like forestry is going to have to have a 
whole bunch of tools, the water community has to have tools 
based on the amount of water that could be available.
    Our community is working right now on a very small storage 
project, which would have huge implications to us. But as the 
Family Farm Alliance knows, and as you know, in the Klamath 
Basin, the inability to have sufficient predictability is 
death.
    And I tell people I wish bankers cared about climate and 
conservation, but they care about getting paid back, and they 
get paid back because a farmer has the predictability of the 
water supply.
    Mr. Bentz. There is much discussion, Mr. O'Toole, about the 
fact that cities can buy up ranchers' and farmers' water, 
because the value to people in the cities is greater, there are 
more people in the cities, and they can raise more money. We 
saw the outcome in California of that, drying up communities 
that surround Los Angeles, and the damage that occurs to the 
agricultural industry, as a result.
    Do you think that, ultimately, this is going to happen in 
the Colorado Basin? Are we going to see the cities buy up all 
of the ranchers' and farmers' land?
    Mr. O'Toole. It certainly is happening now in a way that we 
are watching people buy water in Colorado, for example, that 
they intend to turn around and use for urban growth.
    And recently, Pat Mulroy, who fought as hard for water for 
Las Vegas as anybody, said that LA, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and 
Denver or Phoenix are no longer sustainable. What that means is 
the only water for growth that is left is Ag. We are the 
reservoir for growth.
    And as I mentioned earlier, we are expected to produce 50 
percent more food in a world that is demanding more food and, 
at the same time, we are taking water away. And on the western 
slope of Colorado, I am on what is called the Yampa Roundtable, 
and we feel very strongly that more diversions away from here 
for an eastern slope of Colorado that wants to double their 
population and their growth is not sustainable.
    And, I think, the cities, as I have watched over my career, 
have built up reserves, and they need to figure out 
conservation on a much bigger scale. I applaud the--we are 
looking at technology to develop more water, to reuse water. 
That is going to have to be the future. But we have to realize 
that the systems that we all count on are being depleted, and 
further depletions have an incredibly rolling thunder effect.
    Mr. Bentz. They certainly do. And Mr. Chair, I know I am 
growing close to the end of my time, so with that I will yield 
back.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Ranking Member Bentz. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Soto of Florida for the next 5 minutes.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Huffman. Mr. Soto, I didn't mean to surprise you. Our 
batting order has been moving around a little bit, but are you 
ready to go?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Huffman. All right. Since Mr. Soto may not be with us 
just now, we will go to Representative Lee from Nevada.
    Representative Lee, are you ready to go?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Huffman. I apologize, folks. We have had some confusion 
in our batting order here.
    Thankfully, the Chairman of the Full Committee, 
Representative Grijalva, is on my screen, and he is always 
ready to go, spontaneously, and always ever so articulate. So, 
we look forward to hearing from him for the next 5 minutes.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of quick 
questions. Mr. Hagekhalil--and I apologize, I really do. Having 
a lot of vowels in my name, it is always frustrating----
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Grijalva. The regional recycling project that you 
talked about, and people have lauded, in that it is for the 
entire river basin--you talked about the Federal Government 
increasing its investment in these large-scale recycling 
programs, and the Chairman pointed out the net benefit at the 
end.
    You talked about Representative Napolitano's bill. Talk a 
little bit about--it is overdue, and I think another panelist 
said there is an issue of speed being an imperative, and 
urgency being the imperative. How do you see, in terms of the 
investment, how quickly this needs to be done?
    Mr. Hagekhalil. Chairman Grijalva, thank you very much. And 
thank you for your leadership on your efforts in Congress.
    We all understand that for us to really deal with this 
changing new normal on shrinking water supplies, and where the 
snowpack is no longer our storage system, we are seeing very 
small amounts of runoff coming from the snowpack because of 
this extra heat. So, what we need to do is create our local 
water supply, and our local water supply is every drop that we 
can recycle is critical.
    We are looking at expediting our regional recycled water 
project. I actually tasked my team to look for alternatives to 
expedite the design construction of this project. Our board, 
the board of Metropolitan, earlier this month authorized us to 
start the process of getting and approving alternative delivery 
methods for design build to get this going.
    We are also looking for alternatives to see if we can build 
small, decentralized recycled water project to get going fast 
enough where the supply is there, the demand is there, and we 
can put the supply closer to the demand. So, we are moving on 
that one, and we are going to get----
    Mr. Grijalva. Is that where the--if I may--that is where 
the investment, in terms of the Federal arm of this discussion, 
needs to be, right?
    Mr. Hagekhalil. It is the money that we need--actually, we 
need investments, the $3 billion. And we are saying the $3 
billion that needs to be invested here, it is a benefit for the 
entire Southwest, the entire country, and it should be helped 
by the Federal Government.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Castle, thank you for your testimony. States, tribes, 
and the Federal Government must develop and make use of the 
best science and climate data to inform water management along 
the Colorado River, and as that date of 2026 approaches, I 
don't think we have the luxury of time here. You said about 
speed, and I agree with you.
    In dealing with management plans, the role of science, the 
role of climate data, and the role that that needs to play as 
we lead it into 2026, plus all the intermediate interventions 
that we need to do around important issues like recycling and 
other things--where are we at on that?
    And then the second part of the question is, who is at the 
table? Legitimately, Indigenous people and tribes have been 
kept off that table, and need to be an integral part of it.
    We heard from agriculture, and from Mr. Davis from Arizona, 
about how we need to be at the table because of the importance 
of the resource we bring. Urban users, conservationists, 
environmentalists, and other extractors in industry.
    So, who has to be at the table? Because at least my 
experience in Arizona, that table has been unbalanced. There 
have been significant groups of stakeholders that have not been 
part of that process. And how can the Federal Government ensure 
that there is equity, there is balance, and we are hearing all 
the opinions, going forward?
    Ms. Castle. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, and I will try to 
give brief answers to your questions.
    With respect to science and data, there are a number of 
things that we can invest in and improve our ability to manage 
the river. Our stream gauge networks need to have continuous 
investment and need to be amplified and improved.
    Several of the witnesses have mentioned things like OpenET, 
which gives us a much better handle on the consumptive use of 
water throughout the entire Basin.
    There are things like the Airborne Snow Observatory that 
tells us much more precisely how much water we can expect from 
runoff in these systems.
    And Mr. O'Toole's testimony mentioned the need to have 
better quantification of the water supply benefits that come 
from better forest management.
    And I think all of those are important. They are long-term 
fixes, and with respect to the participation of tribes, I will 
just be very brief. And I don't speak for any of the tribes, 
but I will note that the testimony of many of the state 
representatives that you heard from last Friday specifically 
mention their commitment to involve tribes in these river 
management discussions. And Daryl Vigil's testimony last week 
suggested the formation of a sovereign governance team to be 
the formal process for making that happen.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
    I yield back, sir. Thank you.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we will now hear 
from Representative Gonzalez-Colon for 5 minutes.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you, all the witnesses, for coming today. I have a question for 
Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis, you said in your testimony there is a narrative 
suggesting that the current Colorado River drought conditions 
may require a reduction in agricultural water to relocate or 
reserve more water for cities and environmental uses. Can you 
tell me why?
    And in your opinion, this will be a wrong approach, and 
what alternatives or solutions we should be considering 
instead?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you for the question. I think that is a 
narrative that is being promoted not only by the folks that 
represent cities, but also there is a movement on the Colorado 
by hedge fund managers to actually purchase agricultural water 
along the river and transfer it to cities.
    Obviously, cities in the Southwest are all growing, as we 
all know. They are growing like crazy. But even if all the 
agricultural water is moved to cities, eventually that growth 
will outstrip the water that is moved there. So, again, there 
will be a shortage of water.
    I like the approach Met is taking with re-use. I think the 
cities really have to look at re-use and any other method to 
stretch their water supplies, just like agriculture is doing. 
And if there is a silver lining to this drought, it is 
requiring us all, Ag and city users, to take a look at how we 
use our water and become much more efficient. I know 
agriculture is doing it.
    Water is just another cost input that agriculture producers 
have to have to figure in, along with fertilizer, fuel, labor, 
and all the other cost inputs. So, by nature, to have a 
productive business, to make a profit, they have to spend less 
on water every year, if it is possible, and produce the same 
amount of yield. So, I think that we all have to look inward at 
our uses and become much more efficient.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Just as a matter of transferring water from one 
use to the other certainly impairs the economy in one method or 
another.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I do have some 
questions for Mr. O'Toole, but I will yield the remaining time 
to Ranking Member Cliff Bentz.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon, for 
your generosity.
    A question for Ms. Hawes of Nature Conservancy, and the 
question has to do with one of the solutions that we could 
actually scale up, if we could get litigation out of the road, 
and that means getting back into the forests.
    What can Nature Conservancy suggest that we might do to 
stop the litigation that is preventing us from repairing the 
watersheds that would do so much to help the Colorado system?
    Ms. Hawes. Yes, thank you for the question. I understand 
there has been controversy in parts of California and Oregon 
over forest management. I think, in the Colorado River Basin, 
we do have a track record of working together. And I think that 
the last few fire seasons have really put a spotlight on this 
issue and our need to work together.
    So, I had a fire across the valley from us just a few weeks 
ago. This is an issue that affects us all, and there are so 
many co-benefits of good forest management.
    So, for right now, the Nature Conservancy is doing research 
to map some of these forests that really have the right 
combinations of benefits that could be for forest health, but 
also retention of snowpack. Not every forest will operate the 
same way, and so we first have to identify those forests that 
will have the greatest return on investment.
    And, I think, we have a long history of working with Family 
Farm Alliance and others. This is the time. We need to get in 
the room, start figuring out where is our common ground, and 
how can we find these solutions together, put money on the 
ground, and start to treat our forests so that we can improve 
our watersheds.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you so much.
    And since I have, I think, used the balance of 
Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon's time, I want to yield back, but 
thank her again for her generosity. I yield back.
    Mr. Huffman. All right. I thank the gentleman. I will now 
recognize Congressman Costa for the next 5 minutes.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and both the 
Subcommittee and the Full Committee. This is an important 
hearing. We had 3\1/2\ hours last week, and everybody is moving 
around with a lot of stuff going on here.
    I would like to kind of talk about the inter-relationships 
between water and the West, where multiple sources receive 
water from, and then make a point.
    While the hearing is focused on the Colorado River, One 
Water management decisions and infrastructure repairs on one 
basin impact water basins in another region. As an example, 
California, we are trying to restore our canals that will help 
improve our drought resistance and bring groundwater supply 
into balance. I am dealing with an important piece of 
legislation that the Chairman knows about, which is SIGMA, to 
get our groundwater management in place.
    Given our conveyance infrastructure, and given the efforts 
on both the bipartisan infrastructure package and 
Reconciliation, where we are having funding for drought relief 
and for repairs and infrastructure, Mr. Hagekhalil and Mr. 
Davis, could you explain how improving or repairing conveyance 
infrastructures in basins outside the Colorado River could 
help, with regards to not only the Colorado River's demands, 
but also dependence on the CBP and the State Water Project?
    Mr. Hagekhalil, welcome. I think you must be the fourth or 
fifth General Manager for Metropolitan Water District that I 
have now worked with. So, thank you.
    Mr. Hagekhalil. Thank you for your leadership, and it is an 
honor to work with you.
    And, really, in Southern California we have two major 
sources of water: the Northern California and the State Water 
Project.
    Mr. Costa. Right, and the Colorado.
    Mr. Hagekhalil. So, really, the same issue we are having is 
shrinking water supply when it comes to the State Water 
Project. But the biggest issue we have is the 20 percent of the 
capacity of the State Water Project, we lost it because of the 
need for repairs.
    And I think this is important, that we restore the capacity 
in the State Water Project, that we build storage, that we 
continue collaborating, and find ways to ensure----
    Mr. Costa. Well, the bottom line is we could do that, and 
because my time is limited to 2:30, I don't want to go into 
that, but the Subcommittee Chairman and I are working on that. 
We are working on something that will limit the 
transevaporation and also create more energy through a concept 
of the use of solar panels. And we would like you to embrace 
that and work with us on that effort.
    Mr. Hagekhalil. I will.
    Mr. Costa. Mr. Davis, obviously, you are in the Arizona 
situation. But to the degree that we can--and Metropolitan, but 
frankly, California--if you look over the last 30 years--and I 
have been a part of all of that, with the Quantification 
Agreement and other things--has gone from 30 percent state 
water, 30 percent Colorado River, and 40 percent local 
supplies. In the 1980s, local supplies for Met was zero. So, it 
has been a tremendous, I think, effort that has taken place 
here.
    But Mr. Davis, do you think we have to use all of the water 
tools, all of the above, when we talk about the Colorado River 
System, Upper Basin and Lower Basin?
    Mr. Davis. Why, certainly. And one of the things we are 
constantly concerned with here on the Colorado, being at the 
lower and the last diverter on the river----
    Mr. Costa. Right.
    Mr. Davis. We are constantly aware of water that is 
transferred out of basin for Met's use, for the City of 
Denver's use. We are constantly hoping that they do these 
practices just outlined----
    Mr. Costa. And we are trying to do that. I guess I would 
take issue with--as a third-generation farmer, Mr. Davis, water 
is more than an input cost--where water flows, food grows, and 
without the water we don't have to worry about the other input 
costs.
    Mr. Davis. Exactly. Without the water, we have a desert, 
right?
    Mr. Costa. Right.
    Ms. Hawes, the drought continues in the Colorado River 
Basin, and for California. What projects is the Nature 
Conservancy looking at to prevent the depletion of groundwater 
aquifers in water-stressed areas?
    And could you stress any best practices you have identified 
to help communities, whether it is in the Colorado River Basin? 
I am, obviously, concerned about the San Joaquin Valley and the 
extreme drought conditions we are facing.
    Ms. Hawes. Thank you for the question. We do have multiple 
projects addressing the groundwater issues.
    In California, we certainly have been working in the 
Central Valley to restore rice fields with additional 
groundwater that can be recharged, but also provide habitat for 
migratory birds. In those----
    Mr. Costa. And it is very important, grasslands and such.
    My time has expired, but if you could provide a list for 
the Committee of those projects, I think that would be helpful.
    Ms. Hawes. Absolutely.
    Mr. Costa. Mr. Chairman, thank you with the Subcommittee, 
and we will continue to work on all of the above, this hearing, 
and I will submit my questions that I didn't get a chance to 
ask.
    Mr. Huffman. Yes, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Costa. 
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gosar for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding 
this important hearing.
    The water on the Colorado River has been the source of 
ongoing challenges, near shooting battles between states, and 
generations of legal wrangling. The past, in many ways, is the 
future. We will see these fights continue, state versus state, 
Federal Government versus states, urban versus rural, 
agriculture versus household, species versus everyone. In this 
mix are real people, communities, tribes, and others who are 
working on eeking out a living from their water rights.
    I have a question for Mr. O'Toole and Mr. Davis. By the 
way, good seeing you, Tom.
    Water in the West has been a blood sport battle between 
layers and layers of different players. Unfortunately, water 
battles have reached a zero-sum game, meaning there are winners 
and losers. But the future appears increasingly a negative sum 
game, meaning there are only losers and worse losers.
    While urban water agencies talk about efforts to reduce per 
capita consumption of water use, the fact is the regions are 
still growing. We heard that earlier. As a result, we see 
demand continue to rise. Meanwhile, drought, species 
conservation, and increased demand all result in agency, 
supports, and water masters looking to cut water allotments.
    Isn't the real solution new supply things like creative 
desalinization, potential advances in atmospheric water 
generation, and other options like resettling, like the lower 
Santa Cruz water system with Mexico to grow our water 
resources, instead of finding ways to do with less?
    Mr. Davis first.
    Mr. Davis. Yes. Obviously, augmentation methods such as 
desal, cloud seeding, all of those should be considered.
    Long term--and there is beginning to be some discussion--
there needs to be probably some imported water from other 
watersheds. We have just outgrown the supply in the Colorado 
River Basin. And as growth continues to occur here, it puts 
more pressure on taking Ag water to other uses. And that, as 
you heard, impairs our food production and our food supply.
    So, I think we need to look long-term into other sources 
that we just mentioned.
    Dr. Gosar. Yes, and I think collaboration with Mexico is a 
golden opportunity to win, win, win.
    Mr. Davis. Certainly.
    Dr. Gosar. And then the second part is creating 
desalinization. When you look at subsurface water, particularly 
in southern Arizona, we have heavy metals and a lot of arsenic. 
So, why can't we clean water as we are utilizing water and 
creativity?
    And if sea level is rising, why won't we take advantage of 
the desalinization?
    Mr. Davis. Yes, I certainly agree with that. Desal from the 
Sea of Cortez, exchanging that water with Mexico for their Mead 
water is certainly something that is being considered and 
looked into. Reclaiming and cleaning underground water supplies 
that are somewhat contaminated, some of that is located in the 
western part of Maricopa County. That can be done. We have a 
groundwater mound here in Yuma that can be considered as a 
resource for the Yuma area.
    We need to look at all sources, obviously, and I think the 
thinking has come around to do that, although that takes time 
and planning, and this drought bites a little harder every 
year. So, immediate results are needed. And sometimes those 
solutions are more long term.
    Dr. Gosar. Mr. O'Toole?
    Mr. O'Toole. Thank you, Representative Gosar. It is curious 
you ask the question. I had people in this room at my house 2 
days ago, who are looking in the Upper Colorado River, we are 
taking coal bed methane water that is developed in the Upper 
Colorado, and injecting it to 7,000 feet, tens of thousands of 
acre-feet--it is good water--without a tremendous amount of 
intervention.

    Voice. In New Mexico, we are looking at the same thing.

    Mr. O'Toole. Yes, there are opportunities everywhere, we 
just have to become more aggressive.

    And, as I told you, I am humbled to be here, but I can only 
tell you we have to have an accelerated process to be able to 
get things done. So, thank you for the question.

    Dr. Gosar. Well, I think we can do two things at the same 
time. I think that is what the advantage is. We have to be 
creative about this. I have worked with the Nature Conservancy 
over and over again looking at the Southwest forests, 
particularly in Arizona.

    There is a win-win situation with the replenishing of our 
aquifers, looking at creative solutions that help us, not 
divide us.

    From that standpoint, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit 
for the record a letter on behalf of Stephen Lewis, the 
Governor of the Gila River Tribe. They wanted to make sure that 
everyone knew that they have been participating, they are 
looking at solutions to try to help out. So, I would like to 
submit that for the record.

    Mr. Huffman. Without objection, that will be submitted.

    [The information follows:]

                        GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
                                           Sacaton, Arizona

                                                   October 20, 2021

Hon. Jared Huffman, Chairman,
Hon. Cliff Bentz, Ranking Member,
House Natural Resources Committee,
Water, Oceans & Wildlife Subcommittee,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member Bentz,

    I am writing on behalf of the Gila River Indian Community to 
commend you for holding important oversight hearings on Colorado River 
drought conditions and engaging with stakeholders to present the 
tribal, state, and federal actions around this crisis.

    As a result of our 2004 water settlement, which at the time was the 
largest water settlement reached between the United States and a tribal 
nation, the Gila River Indian Community has the largest entitlement to 
Colorado River water delivered through the Central Arizona Project 
canal system. As such, the Community is keenly aware of the need for 
immediate action as a result of the drought crisis impacting states and 
tribes along the Colorado River.

    The Community was a key stakeholder in the negotiations of the 
Drought Contingency Plan that was enacted in 2019, and we recently 
brought together a key group of stakeholders to coordinate a plan to 
bolster the supplies of water available in Lake Mead (see attached 
letter). Those discussions have been ongoing for the past several weeks 
so we have watched the subcommittee hearings with interest.

    The Community will be providing a statement for the record that I 
hope will provide relevant information as the subcommittee considers 
next steps in addressing the drought. The Community would also be 
willing to provide a briefing for the subcommittee to understand the 
current state of discussions that are occurring with the key tribal, 
federal, state, and other stakeholders as this may be instructive as 
you move forward on any congressional recommendations or actions.

    Thank you again for the attention on drought conditions along the 
Colorado River and I look forward to discussing this important issue 
with you soon.

            Sincerely,

                                         Stephen Roe Lewis,
                                                           Governor

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Mr. Gosar, your time has expired, but thank 
you.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
    Mr. Huffman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Soto for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. Fires, droughts, low 
snowpack, we see the drastic and terrible effects of global 
climate change deeply hurting the western United States.
    The American West has a real, long-term water challenge, 
and we are excited that, in the bipartisan infrastructure 
package, that there is $50 billion for western water storage, 
and there is more we could do in the Build Back Better Act, as 
well as the legislation proposed here today, for farmers, for 
tribes, for so many communities, for habitat, of course.
    And I am really excited about the measures that the 
Committee is proposing for drought response relief, for short-
term Federal drought relief, for implementation of tribal water 
rights and settlements, for large-scale water recycling, for 
Federal priority stream gauges, for Drought Contingency Plan 
implementation funding, endangered species recovery, and 
conservation programs, desalinization projects, and WaterSMART.
    I also wanted to see if Representative Costa or if 
Representative Huffman would like additional time, knowing that 
this is affecting your districts deeply.
    Chairman, would you like some additional time?
    Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that. I don't see Mr. Costa right 
now, but I will take the gentleman up on his courtesy.
    Mr. Soto. I yield to the Chairman.
    Mr. Huffman. Mr. Costa, are you still there?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Huffman. All right, well, I am going to move ahead with 
a question for Ms. Hawes, because I wanted to bring fish and 
wildlife into this conversation.
    We have heard about some of the drought's impacts on fish 
and wildlife and the tourism industries that depend on them. 
But I want to ask Ms. Hawes to tell us a little bit more about 
why preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife must be a 
key consideration now and in the upcoming negotiations over 
what the Colorado River is going to look like post-2026.
    Ms. Hawes?
    Ms. Hawes. Thank you for that question, Chairman. I think 
there are three different real important pieces of this.
    First, is just the inherent value of our wildlife. This is 
an area that gets billions of dollars from tourism. So, there 
is an economic benefit, in addition to just protecting and 
preserving the species that call this area home, along with us.
    We also, I think, can avoid endangered species conflicts 
that we have seen in other places. This Basin has a history of 
working together on very effective recovery programs. We are 
seeing downlisting of two species right now. That means our 
work is successful, and we want to continue that work so we can 
avoid conflicts.
    And then lastly is the health of our river systems and our 
species are a canary in the coal mine. If we start seeing those 
species die off, the system is crashing. So, our hope would be 
that we can develop the interim guidelines and the next river 
operations to include those environmental benefits on the front 
end, so we don't end up with these conflicts on the back end.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Ms. Hawes. And I will 
yield the balance of time and, again, thank the gentleman from 
Florida.
    The Chair next recognizes the good-looking gentleman from 
Idaho. Please don't tell Mike Simpson I introduced him this 
way.
    But Mr. Fulcher, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate 
those comments very much. I have a comment and a question for 
Mr. O'Toole.
    Mr. O'Toole, I am from Idaho, and we are facing some 
challenges in my home state. There is a debate happening where, 
potentially, there could be the removal of four of the Lower 
Snake River dams. And the investigations continue on that.
    The argument in general is, by removal of these dams, that 
there could be increased salmon flow, which is highly 
questionable. So, whatever we do with the Colorado River system 
has implications in the Pacific Northwest, in terms of 
precedent.
    First of all, you mentioned, I believe, that your family 
had been operating on your existing farm and ranch for more 
than 140 years. Could you tell me if this drought that we are 
going through right now is an anomaly, or are you aware of 
drought conditions that have existed in previous decades?
    Mr. O'Toole. Well, my lifetime has been--thank you, 
Representative Fulcher--but going back and forth drought. And I 
was asked one time, ``Would you rather have drought or lots of 
water?'' And, obviously, lots of water is better, even though 
it has issues, too.
    This is different. And our family right now is drilling 
four wells, and putting pipelines for our livestock operation 
to replicate the springs that we have lost. So, in my view, 
from a personal perspective, this is an anomaly that hopefully 
won't be the clear future.
    We did have some rains this fall that really saved us and 
our operation, but this is different than what we have 
experienced in the past.
    Mr. Fulcher. And I assume part of that struggle is the 
increased demand on the water, correct?
    Mr. O'Toole. Yes, sir, the demand is part of it. And, as I 
mentioned earlier, the trans-basin diversion from the western 
slope is for growth, and for example, the people in Colorado 
that, when they are requested to build a new subdivision, that 
is their legal responsibility, is to find that water. Well, 
what we are finding is that water only exists from agriculture.
    And when you try to figure out who is driving this growth, 
it is the guys with the big hats with a feather that are 
wanting to build a subdivision, make a lot of money. But there 
is no understanding of the farm issues, the food issues, the 
wildlife issues, all the things that are co-existing with that. 
I think we have to have a broader view of what our society is 
going to be.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. O'Toole, and thank you to you 
and your family for your work and perseverance there.
    Shifting to Mr. Martinez before my time is up. Mr. 
Martinez, there is a significant infrastructure along the 
Colorado, in terms of water retention systems, and irrigation 
retention systems, power supply systems. Does your organization 
view that system as a homeland security issue at all? Can you 
speak to that, Mr. Martinez?
    Mr. Martinez. Certainly. Thank you for the question, 
Representative Fulcher.
    Yes, this infrastructure has been built over 100 years, it 
has been operating, basically, to provide vital water here for 
the district and all its farming activities, as well as to 
cities that we serve along the Mexico-U.S. border. Within this 
area we have also military installations that are vital to the 
United States, as well as large reserves of lithium, which is 
another critical element that the Nation is looking forward to 
produce domestically.
    So, from the perspective of food supply, again, the health 
of the economy here, in the southern part of the state of 
California, and military installations, as well as new products 
of lithium, it is definitely a situation where we see a water 
being vital to maintaining those securities going forward.
    Mr. Fulcher. Great. Thank you, Mr. Martinez.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Lee for 5 minutes.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Huffman. I think you may be muted.
    Mrs. Lee. OK, sorry about that. Thank you, Chairman Huffman 
and Ranking Member Bentz, for hosting these hearings on drought 
conditions on the Colorado and for, once again, providing me 
the chance to participate.
    As we discussed last week, southern Nevada and the entire 
desert Southwest is facing an unprecedented drought. And in my 
district, Congressional District 3 in Nevada, Lake Mead, which 
provides water for 25 million people across Nevada, Arizona, 
and California, is at its lowest level since its construction 
in the 1930s.
    On Monday, I was pleased to visit with Vice President 
Harris and appreciated her commitment to the very issues we are 
discussing here.
    To help address this crisis, much more must be done to 
accurately measure consumptive water use, including programs 
like OpenET, and I want to thank Ms. Hawes and Mr. Hagekhalil 
for recognizing this program in their testimony and supporting 
the passage of my bill, the Open Access Evapotranspiration Data 
Act, a very long name.
    But I introduced this legislation with fellow colleagues on 
this Committee to establish a program that uses publicly 
available data from satellites and water stations to provide 
estimates of consumptive water use. This data will support 
water conservation and management efforts of farmers, ranchers, 
and water utilities.
    And I have also been working to secure Federal funding for 
large-scale water recycling projects. My colleagues and I have 
successfully secured Federal funding to advance large-scale 
water recycling projects in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill 
and Build Back Better.
    Mr. Hagekhalil, as you mentioned in your testimony, the 
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is 
participating with the Southern Nevada Water Authority and 
others to develop a multi-billion-dollar regional recycled 
water project. How will this project and your partnerships with 
Nevada and Arizona help bring water supplies in demand into 
better balance on the Colorado River?
    Mr. Hagekhalil. I appreciate your leadership, 
Representative Lee. And one thing I want to say is you cannot 
manage what you don't measure, and thus appreciate your 
leadership on that.
    This is about partnership. And I tell you, when we start 
now, we need to open ourselves up to look at the region as a 
whole. And Metropolitan is partnering with southern Nevada and 
Arizona on finding ways to really collaborate on generating 
more local water supply in Southern California, and 
conservation here, and partnering with the agricultural 
community. Because every drop we can save here, every drop we 
can recycle will be a drop that we can put back in the river, 
in Lake Mead, to help recover from this new normal.
    So, to me, it is all about partnership. And without the 
Federal Government and your support in investing in us, we 
cannot do it. And this is about the Southwest, and we are 
meeting next week in your state, as the seven Basin states, to 
talk about this and how we are going to work together. But I 
will tell you, the collaboration and the level of collaboration 
from the agencies, I haven't seen more collaboration. But we 
can't do it alone. We need you to help at the Federal level.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you. I agree. I can't emphasize more how 
important these partnerships are.
    Ms. Hawes, I just wanted to speak--you talked about what 
should be done through better forecasting and modeling, 
tracking water availability. How can innovative tools like 
OpenET, stream gauge monitoring, and other programs through the 
USGS and the Bureau of Reclamation help farmers, ranchers, and 
water utilities better manage their usage?
    Ms. Hawes. Thank you very much for the question, and thank 
you for your leadership on that bill.
    I agree, we can't manage what we can't measure. So, these 
tools are critical for helping everyone in the system, from a 
farmer on an individual farm, to an irrigation district, to the 
Bureau of Reclamation, to be able to get a better handle on 
what is actually happening on the ground.
    Where is our water being used? How is it impacting a 
particular river system? What is happening in that sub-basin? 
And all of that can help us craft better decisions, better 
solutions, and manage this resource more carefully. Because if 
we have learned anything, we are going to have to have more 
awareness of just how all these things interconnect. So, we are 
very supportive of the OpenET program and the other tools.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you. With that I am finished with my 
questioning.
    I think a combination of both looking at innovative 
solutions, but also all of this data, which, to me, is 
surprising that we don't have it so far at this point in time. 
So, very important pieces of legislation.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Boebert for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see 
Mr. O'Toole here today, who has a lovely ranch in Craig, 
Colorado, which is in my district.
    Thank you so much for testifying today and for all the work 
that you do.
    The drought has forced us to start thinking long-term about 
the availability of water in the West. Too often, the 
discussion focuses on how agriculture, energy, and rural 
Americans must change their livelihoods, while largely 
neglecting the shared responsibility or urban city dwellers.
    I think an important piece of this discussion needs to 
revolve around active forest management, especially on our 
Federal lands. It is no secret that our forests are not 
properly managed. A healthy forest is an actively managed 
forest. And active forest management activities, such as large-
scale thinning of trees, will reduce water stress in forests, 
and ease the severity of droughts as more water will end up in 
our rivers and reservoirs.
    It is by no means the end-all-be-all solution, but it is a 
major part of the solution. And that is why I have introduced 
my Active Forest Management, Wildfire Prevention, and Community 
Protection Act, which requires the Forest Service to harvest a 
minimum of 6 billion board-feet per year.
    My bill also removes incentives for extremist groups to 
file frivolous lawsuits that slow down projects. Democrats like 
to pretend that climate change is to blame for everything. And, 
yes, the climate is changing--four times a year, in fact. But 
these same alarmists fail to take active measures that can 
address the changing climate. It is too often the case that 
radical environmentalist groups will sue in court to stop any 
active forest management activities. What is the Democrats' 
response to this? Nothing. They are too scared to go against 
these powerful special interests.
    Just yesterday, the 10th Circuit ruled against a b.s. 
environment lawsuit trying to stop a logging project within the 
White River National Forest in my district. In 2015, the Forest 
Service began holding meetings to harvest timber and manage 
long-term health of the forest. Out of 2.3 million acres of the 
National Forest, the Forest Service allotted 1,061 acres for 
logging.
    What were the plaintiffs alleging? Apparently, the 
government failed to consider the efforts of climate change on 
fungi in the reason. After a district court dismissed this 
lawsuit, the plaintiffs appealed. And, thankfully, the 10th 
Circuit upheld that decision. We all know that logging on 1,000 
acres in a forest that has 2.3 million isn't increasing climate 
change.
    And if that is really our focus, then we need to start 
harvesting this timber. Because just one wildfire burning in 
Colorado alone, like we saw last year, produces more carbon 
emissions than all of the vehicles in the state of Colorado 
running 24/7 for an entire year, and that is produced in just a 
few days. So, if we want to stop these massive tinderboxes that 
we are creating with the more than 6 billion standing dead 
trees, we need to begin by addressing that.
    Now, Mr. O'Toole, I have a question for you, and I want to 
talk about desalinization. In your testimony, you mentioned 
that it needs to become part of the discussion. It is my 
understanding that Israel has made large-scale investments in 
these operations, and currently receives roughly 80 percent of 
the country's drinking water from it. The technology is very 
popular in Saudi Arabia, where 5 million gallons are produced 
every day, which accounts for 50 percent of the freshwater 
usage. Is this a scalable technology that could be used in 
Colorado for agriculture or hydropower generation?
    Mr. O'Toole. Thank you, Representative Boebert, for the 
question. Yes, absolutely, and I mentioned a specific project 
in northwest Colorado and southern Wyoming taking coal bed 
methane water and minimally cleaning it and putting it into the 
system. We have been working on that for 10 years. I actually 
testified to this Committee about it, with Representative 
Napolitano, years ago. So, yes, it is scalable.
    And, obviously, the lessons are that Israel is doing some 
phenomenal stuff. I will tell you that the Israelis come and 
meet with Family Farm Alliance farmers in California about the 
technology they are using, also.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Toole.
    Mr. Chairman, I am running out of time, so I don't have my 
question for our other witness, Ms. Hawes. Maybe I will submit 
that to the record.
    But I would like to ask for unanimous consent to add this 
Reuters article titled, ``Desalinization Advances in 
California, Despite Opponents Pushing for Alternatives'' to the 
record.
    Mr. Huffman. Without objection, that will be entered in the 
record.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you.
    Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentlelady for expressing her 
concerns about extremist groups. Maybe not the right ones, but 
it is a good start.
    Mrs. Boebert. Oh, shut up, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Huffman. I want to thank all the witnesses for their 
valuable testimony, and the Members for their questions.
    The members of the Committee may have some additional 
questions. We will ask the witnesses to respond to those in 
writing.
    Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must 
submit witness questions within 3 business days of the hearing, 
and the record will be held open for 10 business days to allow 
for responses.
    If there is no further business before the Subcommittee, 
then, without objection, we stand adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Huffman

                        Statement for the Record
                           Stephen Roe Lewis
                      Gila River Indian Community

    Chairperson Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and distinguished 
Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for holding two days 
of oversight hearing on ``Colorado River Drought Conditions and 
Response Measures'' on October 15, 2021 and October 20, 2021.

    The Gila River Indian Community's (``Community'') 583.7 square mile 
Reservation is located along the southern boundary of the Phoenix 
Metropolitan Area and is home to approximately 15,000 of the 
Community's 23,000 members. As a result of the Community's 2004 water 
settlement, which at the time was the largest water settlement reached 
between the United States and a tribal nation, the Community has an 
annual entitlement of 311,800 acre-feet of Colorado River water 
delivered through the Central Arizona Project (``CAP''). The Community 
was forced as a condition of its settlement to accept this Colorado 
River entitlement in lieu of water from its claims to the Gila and Salt 
Rivers in the same way all other settling tribes in Arizona have been. 
The Community's entitlement to Colorado River water delivered through 
the CAP is held in trust by the United States on behalf of the 
Community and its allottees.

    Water delivered through the CAP supplies many municipalities, 
industrial users, tribes and non-Indian farmers located in central and 
southern Arizona. Water delivered through the CAP has a lower priority 
than many other Colorado River water rights, making entitlement holders 
like the Community more vulnerable to drought than many other 
entitlement holders of Colorado River water.

    Given the vulnerability of its Colorado River entitlement delivered 
through the CAP, the Community has closely monitored the current 
hydrology of the Colorado River, which, over the last two years, has 
been one of the worst on record. Forecasts now indicate a very real 
risk of Lake Mead falling below 1,025 feet in the next five years. As a 
result, the Community is keenly aware of the need for immediate action, 
and why we watched the two subcommittee hearings with interest. With 
this testimony, the Community seeks to make the subcommittee aware of 
our efforts to bring together the some of the relevant stakeholders, 
many of whom testified in front of the subcommittee, to create short 
and long-term solutions to the drought conditions on the Colorado 
River.

    On September 29, 2021, we invited the Bureau of Reclamation, 
Arizona Department of Water Resources (``ADWR''), CAP and Salt River 
Project (``SRP'') to the Community to discuss our mutual interest in 
developing a series of Arizona conservation agreements this year and 
the need to act quickly in the Lower Colorado River Basin, and the 
Upper Basin as well. At this meeting the Community expressed our deep 
concern that if Arizona, other Lower Basin States, and Mexico do not 
act quickly we may lose an important opportunity to galvanize action 
and put resources into Lake Mead in time to stave off a deeper drought 
in 2023 and beyond.

    As a result of this meeting and subsequent conversation among 
Arizona stakeholders the Community has committed up to 111,000 acre-
feet of its CAP water for conservation in 2023 with a similar amount in 
2023 provided the Lower Basin States can avoid a Tier 2 shortage in 
2023. The Community is hopeful that its actions will encourage other 
parties in the Basin to commit to additional conservation efforts to 
help reduce the future risk of extreme drought for all of those who 
rely on this precious resource.
    The Community's participation and leadership in any Arizona plan 
for more conservation is guided by the same principles that drove our 
discussions in Arizona regarding the adoption and implementation of the 
Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan:

  1.  Equal treatment for all parties involved in these system 
            conservation or forbearance agreements, thereby 
            facilitating an expeditious negotiation and ensuring 
            parties are working for a common good and not just one-
            party's gain or loss;

  2.  Protection of existing tribal water settlements in Arizona; and

  3.  Voluntary limits on deliveries from Lake Mead to the greatest 
            extent possible while we are making conservation an urgent 
            priority overall.

    The Community believes speed is important if we are to be 
successful, but any plan should be broadly inclusive and transparent as 
possible.
    The Community has also been meeting with Colorado River Basin 
Tribes, all of whom believe that the inclusiveness and transparency in 
near-term actions and long-term actions, like the development of the 
next Colorado River operating guidelines, is something Basin Tribes 
will demand. On October 28 and 29 the Community hosted a meeting with a 
number of leaders and representatives from ten other Tribes located in 
the Upper and Lower Basin to discuss forming a loose ad hoc coalition 
to express common agreement on key issues among Basin Tribes. The 
participants at this meeting expressed a desire to be more involved in 
ongoing decisions, as well as early involvement in developing the next 
Colorado River operating guidelines. The participants at this meeting 
also agreed that federal trust responsibility requires that the United 
States ensure Basin Tribes are included in the development and 
implementation of the policies and rules that will govern how the 
Colorado River will be managed from this point forward.
    This ad hoc group of Basin Tribes may provide a more formal 
position in the near future, but the subcommittee should be aware that 
Basin Tribes as a whole expect to be much more involved in helping find 
solutions to protect water supplies in the entire Colorado River Basin.

                                 [all]