[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                       BENEFITS AND ACCESS: THE
                     NECESSITY FOR MULTIPLE USE OF 
                            WATER RESOURCES

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND 
                                FISHERIES

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                        Wednesday, March 8, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-8

                               __________

       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                    
51-504                       WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------               
          
          
          


                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

oug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 	
Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

                       CLIFF BENTZ, OR, Chairman
                      JEN KIGGANS, VA, Vice Chair
                   JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member

Robert J. Wittman, VA                Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Tom McClintock, CA                   Mike Levin, CA
Garret Graves, LA                    Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Kevin Mullin, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Val T. Hoyle, OR
Daniel Webster, FL                   Seth Magaziner, RI
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Debbie Dingell, MI
Jerry Carl, AL                       Ruben Gallego, AZ
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Joe Neguse, CO
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Katie Porter, CA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL                Ed Case, HI
John Duarte, CA                      Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                              ----------                                
                                
                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, March 8, 2023.........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon............................................     1
    Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Keppen, Dan, Executive Director, Family Farm Alliance, 
      Klamath Falls, Oregon......................................     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     7
    Guyas, Martha, Southeast Fisheries Policy Director, American 
      Sportfishing Association, Tallahassee, Florida.............    21
        Prepared statement of....................................    23
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    31
    Cordalis, Amy, Legal Counsel, Yurok Tribe, Klamath, 
      California; and Co-Founder, Ridges to Riffles Indigenous 
      Conservation Group, Sacramento, California.................    31
        Prepared statement of....................................    33
    Corwin, Scott, Executive Director, Northwest Public Power 
      Association, Vancouver, Washington.........................    39
        Prepared statement of....................................    40

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submission for the Record by Representative Bentz

        American Public Power Association (APPA), Letter dated 
          March 8, 2023..........................................    64

    Submission for the Record by Representative Luna

        NOAA Fisheries, Poster titled ``Where does our seafood 
          come from?''...........................................    51

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman

        Recreational fishing organizations, Letter dated March 7, 
          2023...................................................    67

        Ocean Conservancy, Letter dated March 10, 2023...........    70

        Oceana, Statement for the Record from Connor Fagan, 
          Federal Policy Manager.................................    78



 
                   OVERSIGHT HEARING ON BENEFITS AND
       ACCESS: THE NECESSITY FOR MULTIPLE USE OF WATER RESOURCES

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, March 8, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

             Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:16 p.m., in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Bentz 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Bentz, McClintock, Graves, 
LaMalfa, Gonzalez-Colon, Carl, Kiggans, Luna, Duarte, Hageman; 
Huffman, Levin, Peltola, Hoyle, Porter, and Case.

    Mr. Bentz. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and 
Fisheries will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    Good afternoon, everyone. I want to welcome Ranking Member 
Huffman and our new and returning Members to the first 
Subcommittee hearing of the 118th Congress. The Subcommittee is 
meeting today to hear testimony on Benefits and Access: The 
Necessity for Multiple Use of Water Resources.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record 
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

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

    Mr. Bentz. Let me begin by saying how much I appreciate 
Chair Westerman giving me the opportunity to lead the Water, 
Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee. I spent much of my life 
preparing for the opportunity to positively address issues of 
wildlife, fish, water shortage, and water allocation. And there 
is no better place to realize on this opportunity than right 
here in this Subcommittee.
    It is my hope that the conversations we will have with the 
many excellent witnesses that will appear before us, such as 
those we have here today, will lead to solutions which help 
resolve the hugely challenging problems that face us across the 
United States when it comes to water and in our oceans.
    These problems include crashing aquatic populations, lack 
of flexibility in the application of regulation, the forest 
return to desert of vast amounts of agricultural lands, water-
starved but still ever-expanding cities, declining aquifers, 
unresolved tribal claims to water, wildfire destruction of 
watersheds, overallocation, and, of course, the massive impact 
overgrown forests have on water supplies, to name but a few.
    It is also my hope that our discussions, while direct, will 
focus on solutions rather than why one water user is most 
deserving or why one approach is most scientific. Anyone who 
has had anything to do with water allocation knows that a set 
of veritable Federal and state laws, engineering, culture, 
environment, agency ambition, money, and even the weather, to 
name but a few of the normal ingredients of a water discussion.
    So, it is easy to dredge up arguments supporting any 
position, but we really don't have the luxury of time. We 
absolutely must focus now on encouraging states to increase the 
sustainable supply of water, to stop using water in ways that 
irreversibly deplete groundwater resources, and we can't avoid 
taking on the incredibly difficult question of what we do when 
there simply isn't enough water.
    Do we rely on the markets? Do we rely on regulation? Do we 
rely on the courts? Do we rely on Congress? Do we rely on 
technology? These are water-related issues that we will be 
talking about over the next 2 years.
    Of course, this Subcommittee has far more than water within 
its jurisdiction, and I look forward to hearings on the 
essential part that hydropower plays in the Western United 
States, the consequences of reintroduction of various species, 
including wolves, compacts between states, dams, the treaty 
with Canada, the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, aquaculture, oversight over 
the Bureau of Reclamation, and oversight over power marketing 
administrations such as the BPA, the dams that produce the 
energy they market, and of course review of U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
Indian water rights settlements, and investigation where the 
new--some $15 billion under reclamations authority is being 
spent.
    Obviously, we have a lot to do. But today, we will be 
talking about the importance of the multiple uses of water and 
ocean resources.
    A poster child for such warnings is California. After 3 dry 
years in that state, 2023 began with a series of historic 
atmospheric river storms. While some of this rain was captured, 
a significant amount of the water was wasted into the ocean. 
This week, another strong winter storm brings multiple feet of 
snow with major impacts expected once again, as I speak, over 
the foothills and mountains of California.
    As of Monday, California's statewide snow water content is 
192 percent of average, yet how much of this water will be put 
to beneficial use? If history is any indication, much of it 
will go to waste. This is a cycle that we have seen before. The 
2016-2017 water year was one of the wettest years in California 
history and was preceded by 5 dry years. Yet, can we point to 
any long-term water solutions that resulted in the last decade?
    The previous administration tried by approving long-awaited 
feasibility studies on storage. Our witness, Dan Keppen, will 
discuss the implications of these policy decisions to our rural 
communities addressing food supply. As stated on our water 
infrastructure, hydropower is the critical use of water as it 
generates clean, renewable baseload energy.
    The Pacific Northwest has benefited from the development of 
hydropower. In fact, Oregon and Washington are the highest 
hydropower-producing states in the nation, yet far too often 
narratives are being pushed that implore the removal of this 
critical infrastructure. This is a knee-jerk reaction to meet 
environmental slogans without regard to real-world impacts of 
these decisions, impacts like a reliable energy grid.
    Our witness, Scott Corwin, will speak to the importance of 
hydropower. Just like water management of the ocean resources 
can only be as good as their data, unfortunately, instead of 
utilizing the best available science in the case of data on the 
red snapper, for example, NOAA insists on converting the 
state's data into inferior data management program.
    Our witness, Martha Guyas, will share with us the firsthand 
experience of what happens when a Federal agency fails to 
utilize best available science.
    With that, I am sure that each of you will have ideas to 
share regarding the dangers to our environment, our 
communities, our economy, and our way of life, should we 
inappropriately limit our water resources to single purposes.
    The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority Member for 
any statement.

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

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. Good morning. Good afternoon, 
rather. And congratulations, Chairman Bentz. I wish you well. 
As your Chairmanship of this Subcommittee begins, I want to 
pledge the good faith and cooperation of my colleagues and I in 
some work that hopefully we can do together.
    Last Congress, this Subcommittee was very productive. We 
held hearings on 63 bills, 41 of which were bipartisan, 16 were 
led by Republicans. In all, at least 25 bills related to this 
Committee's work were signed into law last Congress. That 
doesn't include impressive wins in the American Rescue Plan, 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the Inflation Reduction Act, 
where a lot of our work became law.
    Today, we are focusing on the extensive use of Federal 
water and ocean resources, and I hope we all can agree that 
these are resources owned by all Americans, and they should, 
therefore, be stewarded in a responsible, sustainable way that 
promotes the well-being of people, wildlife, and ecosystems.
    The topic of today's hearing is very broad. I would suggest 
each of these issues--Western water, hydropower, and 
fisheries--might merit their very own hearing if we had 
adequate time, but there are a few overarching themes that I 
would like to touch upon in these areas, starting with water 
and fisheries.
    The Chairman asked the hypothetical question whether we 
have done much in the space of water and water supply. I think 
a better thing to say, in light of everything we have done in 
the last Congress, would be thank you. And even though that 
wasn't said, I will go ahead and say you are welcome, because 
during the 117th Congress, Democrats enacted real, sustainable 
solutions that improve water access for American households, 
the environment, fishermen, and the agricultural industry.
    We passed the most significant climate change investment in 
history, and that included $4 billion for drought mitigation, 
$550 million for tribal drinking water projects, $2.6 billion 
for habitat resilience and fisheries science. That was all 
through the Inflation Reduction Act. We also passed legislation 
to fund water access through the NDAA, through the Omnibus, 
through several standalone bills, and of course through the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which included $8.3 billion to 
address Western water needs through the Bureau of Reclamation 
and $2.5 billion for tribal water settlements. And these are 
huge investments, the biggest in the history of our nation in 
this space.
    And, sadly, although we would have loved for this to be 
truly bipartisan, we did not have the support of most 
Republicans on this Committee.
    But there is more. Legislating, updating, and reauthorizing 
the Coral Reef Conservation Act, making improvements to the 
Fishery Disaster Program, strengthening enforcement against 
illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing, phasing out the 
use of drift gill nets off the coast of California, these are 
things that will help the needs of fishermen and fisherwomen 
and improve habitats that are so important to our fisheries.
    We also enacted legislation to advance innovative and 
modern water solutions to stretch our water supplies while 
enhancing our aquatic ecosystems across the West.
    When you talk about climate, because our water challenges 
and shortages in the West are not driven by the Endangered 
Species Act, radical environmentalists, or the deep state--in 
fact, the principal driving force is climate change. That is, 
of course, the case with the historic drought in the West and 
other threats to our water supply. Climate change elevates the 
need for drought-proof water supply projects, including water 
recycling, modern desalination, investments in modern water 
storage and groundwater recharge, water conservation, and water 
use efficiency, and watershed health and ecosystem restoration 
projects.
    These are all things that we, again, enacted record 
investments in in the last Congress, and these are things that 
are going to make a real difference for water managers in the 
years ahead.
    On the fisheries side, we are seeing the real and immediate 
impacts of climate change with no end in sight. Last fall, 
Bristol Bay Red King Crab Fishery and the Bering Sea Snow Crab 
Fishery were closed, in part due to climate change impacts. 
Just last week, the West Coast salmon groups called for the 
closure of the 2023 salmon season, again, due to drought and 
poor water management.
    Climate change is directly affecting access to fishery 
resources, and this is why my legislation to reauthorize the 
Magnuson Act included provisions for climate-ready fisheries.
    And then, third, we must be wary of using themes like water 
access and natural climate solutions as cover for just 
attacking NEPA and eroding the Endangered Species Act, the 
Magnuson Act, the Antiquities Act, and other important laws.
    We are seeing this with hydropower projects. Hydropower can 
be a very useful energy source when it is administered 
consistent with our nation's environmental laws and with 
safeguards to protect tribal resources, fish, wildlife, and 
recreational opportunities.
    But attempts to waive legal requirements under current laws 
so that specific hydro projects can move forward are the wrong 
way to go. We need to protect fish populations and the 
communities that rely on them.
    So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I very much look forward to 
hearing from the witnesses. And, again, I wish you lots of 
success and productivity as our new Chair.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you for your kind remarks.
    I will now introduce our witnesses. First, Mr. Dan Keppen, 
Executive Director of the Family Farm Alliance. Second, Ms. 
Martha Guyas, Southeast Fisheries Policy Director for the 
American Sportfishing Association. Ms. Amy Cordalis, Legal 
Counsel for the Yurok Tribe, and co-principal of the Ridges to 
Riffles Indigenous Conservation Group. And Mr. Scott Corwin, 
Executive Director of the Northwest Public Power Association.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, 
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their 
entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin 
your testimony, please press the ``On'' button on the 
microphone. We will use timing lights. When you begin, the 
light will turn green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will 
turn red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
    I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Keppen for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF DAN KEPPEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FAMILY FARM 
                ALLIANCE, KLAMATH FALLS, OREGON

    Mr. Keppen. Good afternoon, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member 
Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. It is nice to be back 
in person with you all again.
    Thank you for this opportunity to testify today.
    There is a passage in John Steinbeck's East of Eden that 
does a pretty good job describing California and much of the 
West's hydrology. ``The water came in a 30-year cycle. There 
would be 5 to 6 wet and wonderful years, then would come 6 or 7 
pretty good years, and then the dry years would come. During 
the dry years, the people forgot about the rich years, and when 
the wet years returned, they lost all memory of the dry years. 
It was always that way.''
    And it is still that way today. Just last fall, 
California's reservoirs had dropped to dangerously low levels. 
A record number of wells in the Central Valley had run dry. 
Nearly 700,000 acres of the most productive farmland in the 
world were fallowed. People were told to stop watering their 
lawns. California was headed for a fourth year of drought. And 
then, just in time for the holidays, we were blessed with a 
series of atmospheric rivers.
    Just in the past 2 weeks, more than a dozen feet of snow 
fell in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. California's statewide 
snowpack report last Friday was 190 percent of normal. The 
state's record snowpack was set 40 years ago. This week we 
could actually break that record in Northern California.
    Reservoirs across the state are filling, and there is a 
year's worth of snow melt stored in the Sierra Nevada right 
now.
    After several critically dry years requiring severe 
cutbacks, many people are asking the obvious question. Does 
this mean the California drought is over? The answer of course 
is no. California's water management system was designed 
specifically to manage this volatile hydrology to store wet-
year water to be used in dry years.
    But, currently, even our amazing system of dams and canals 
can't meet the state's water demands. Our population in 
California, of course, is a factor. But even more remarkable, 
decades after it was built, the government will no longer allow 
our existing water infrastructure to operate the way it was 
intended. More and more, multiple uses of our water resources 
are ignored in favor of just a few.
    Starting in the 1990s, as a result of state and Federal 
laws, regulations, lawsuits, and agency decisions, reservoirs 
in California and the Klamath Basin are not allowed to convey 
the water stored for their intended purposes. Instead, a large 
percentage of water must now be sent to the ocean.
    Each year, this problem is getting worse. Unelected 
government officials are allowed to divert more and more water 
away from homes, communities, wildlife refuges, and farms. We 
have yet to see them demonstrate accountable results showing 
the promised benefit to endangered fish. Taking 100 percent of 
once reliable surface water away from Western agricultural 
communities, which has happened more than once, takes 
productive Ag land out of production. It also seriously 
stresses once reliable groundwater resources, imparts 
tremendous damage on national wildlife refuges in the Pacific 
Flyway, and destroys the economies of rural farming 
communities.
    While most pronounced in California, Central Oregon, and 
Klamath Basin, similar experiences are happening in other parts 
of the West. For those of us who live in those rural 
communities, it is almost impossible to understand. Many of the 
farmers and ranchers I work with feel like our government is 
about to throw away the best food production system in the 
world at a time when our country and the world will need that 
food more than ever.
    The single species approach to fishery management has 
steadily ramped up for decades. We have yet to see a 
correlation that shows a positive response from water directed 
away from irrigated agriculture and toward targeted species 
protected by the Endangered Species Act.
    Adding insult to injury, farmers and ranchers across the 
West have been targeted and attacked in traditional and social 
media. Legions of reporters, documentarians, and bloggers 
choose to advance narratives that demonize American farmers who 
toil to make a living growing food for the country.
    Fortunately, we know that farmers, local communities, 
constructive conservation groups, tribes, other stakeholders, 
and government agencies can work together. It is possible to 
develop water solutions that reconcile the needs of waterfowl 
and fisheries in a way that multiple species can thrive in 
harmony.
    Solutions can be reached that address the true stresses on 
fish in a way that doesn't take away water supplies from 
farmers and ranchers. My written testimony includes examples of 
those success stories. For the time being, this nation needs 
our farmers and ranchers to produce food and fiber. Laws and 
regulations need to be updated to mandate accountable and 
transparent results from diverting water away from Western 
farms and creating man-made droughts.
    There has never been a more important time to maintain our 
country's food productivity. Rising food prices and global 
hunger are linked to the war in Ukraine, extreme climate 
events, and other global stressors. Still, our own government 
has chosen to voluntarily withhold water from rural class food 
producers in the Central Valley, Central Oregon, and the 
Klamath Basin. The list would continue to grow if we don't do 
something soon about these misdirected policies.
    The hour is growing late. We look forward to working with 
you to immediately right this ship.
    Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Keppen follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Dan Keppen, Executive Director,
                          Family Farm Alliance
    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman and Members of the 
Committee: Thank you for this opportunity to share observations with 
you on the importance of managing water for multiple uses. 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 affordable 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.

                                OVERVIEW

    Managing water for multiple benefits has long been a top goal for 
water managers across the West. For many years, a primary purpose of 
Bureau of Reclamation projects was to capture mountain snowmelt, store 
it, and distribute it during the long, dry summer months of the West, 
primarily to irrigated lands that produced food and fiber. Then, 
starting in the late 1960s, for a variety of reasons, water stored for 
agricultural use had its importance diminished in many watersheds. In 
recent years, we've actually seen large Western water projects that 
were originally authorized and constructed to supply farms with 
irrigation water receive zero allocations for agriculture, with 
available supplies solely used for environmental uses. In those areas, 
the pendulum has unnecessarily swung too far with no effort toward 
compromise. The purpose of my testimony today is to explain why that is 
happening in certain areas, and underscore the importance of restoring 
irrigation as a top priority in multipurpose water management.
    Water is of key importance to the American West. Food security is 
as vital to our homeland security as our nation's other strategic 
interests, and the domestic production of food and fiber, especially on 
Western irrigated lands is critical to our nation's ability to feed 
itself in an affordable and safe manner.
    In the U.S., a set of forces appears to be aligned against keeping 
domestic agricultural lands in production, even as our country is now 
importing more agricultural products than it exports.\1\ Arizona and 
California are paving over and losing productive farmland at the 
fastest rate in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The USDA forecasts the U.S. will again run a deficit in 2023 
for the third time since 2019. (Politico Pro DataPoint).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The U.S. last year faced yet another record-breaking drought year 
in the West. Undoubtedly, the drought reduced the amount of water for 
many users, including irrigated agriculture. However, in places like 
California and Oregon, much of the water that once flowed to farms and 
ranches was re-directed by the federal government for environmental 
purposes, mainly for perceived fishery needs. In other words, federal 
water policy withheld water for hundreds of thousands of acres of 
productive farmland. In the Colorado River Basin, competing water user 
interests have mounted a sustained campaign against agricultural water 
use in the Basin, often pointing to alfalfa as an example of one crop 
that uses too much water and should no longer be produced. The same is 
true in the Rio Grande Basin, plagued for more than ten years with 
Supreme Court litigation among the states where the primary focus has 
remained on agriculture and ``high water use'' crops, fueled by 
misinformation put forward by other, more junior water uses.
    At a time when the future of Ukraine and other countries' ability 
to help feed the outside world is at risk, our ability to increase 
productivity is being further curtailed--due in part, to our own 
government and increased competition from other demands for the same 
water supply. The grim global hunger conditions we once expected to 
encounter in 2050 may very well hit us sooner.\2\ This testimony seeks 
to explain this critical issue further, and provides recommendations 
intended to protect irrigated agriculture as a growing number of 
faraway critics minimize the importance of using water in the West to 
produce affordable and safe food and fiber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ To sustainably produce food and agricultural products for more 
than 9 billion people in 2050, agricultural productivity must increase 
an average of 1.73 percent annually. From 2011-2020, global 
agricultural productivity grew at an average of just 1.12 percent per 
year, a significant drop from the average growth rate of 1.99 percent 
from 2001-2010 (USDA ERS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       PRIORITIZING ENVIRONMENTAL WATER USE OVER FOOD PRODUCTION

    Historically, the Bureau of Reclamation has been the federal agency 
partner to step up and assist with the construction and initial 
financing of water projects that continue to serve agricultural water 
users in the Western United States. The Reclamation Act of 1902 is the 
federal law that funded irrigation projects for the arid lands of 20 
states in the American West. The language of the Reclamation Act of 
1902, before subsequent amendments, provided wide discretion to the 
executive branch to withdraw land, and to study and construct projects. 
Many of these projects were constructed with the primary purpose of 
supplying water to agricultural water users, building communities in 
the West, and feeding the nation and the world.
    However, the failure of Teton Dam in Idaho, the emergence of the 
environmental movement, and the announcement of President Jimmy 
Carter's ``hit list'' on water projects profoundly affected the 
direction of Reclamation's programs and activities in the United 
States. Reclamation projects provide agricultural, household, and 
industrial water to about one-third of the population of the American 
West.\3\ Reclamation is a major American generator of electricity. 
Today, with more than 120 years of additional Congressional direction 
on top of the 1902 Act, the current mission of the Bureau of 
Reclamation is ``to manage, develop, and protect water and related 
resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the 
interest of the American public''. The word ``irrigation'' isn't even 
mentioned in Reclamation's mission these days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.usbr.gov/history/borhist.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For many reasons--political, economic, and social--the priority of 
serving reliable water supplies from federal water projects to Western 
agricultural irrigators has significantly diminished in recent decades. 
Certainly, enactment of well-intended federal laws like the Clean Water 
Act, Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Environmental Policy 
Act along with the effective litigious action taken by critics of 
irrigated agriculture employing those laws in Western courts has slowly 
chipped away at the once-reliable stored water supply irrigators have 
depended on for decades. The federal government has effectively 
redirected that use, primarily for fisheries protection under the ESA, 
many times with little if any scientific justification or positive 
results. Perhaps the most dramatic legislative action taken to move 
towards multipurpose management of federal water was the Central Valley 
Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), signed into law in 1992, which 
mandated balancing competing demands for a limited supply of water, a 
balance that included meeting the requirements of fish and wildlife; 
agriculture; and municipal, industrial and power contractors.
1. Regulatory Focus of California's Bay-Delta Environmental Challenge

    Starting at around the time that CVPIA was signed into law, between 
1990 and 2014, a number of regulatory and policy decisions have been 
enacted, the results of which reduced the average water supply for 
Central Valley Project (CVP) South of Delta agricultural water service 
and repayment contractors (farmers and ranchers in the San Joaquin 
Valley who receive water from the CVP) from 100% of their contracted 
deliveries, except in the worst drought in California's history in 
1976-77, to an average of 35% of contracted supply. Last year, south-
of-Delta ag service contractors located on the west side of the San 
Joaquin Valley received a 0% water allocation. That was the fourth time 
in a decade those water users received a 0% allocation, resulting in 
the fallowing of hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland in one of 
the most productive agricultural regions in the world.
    In short, state and federal regulations have reduced water supply 
availability. With each subsequent policy decision, more water was 
allocated to in-stream use and away from other uses, such as municipal 
and agricultural uses. From the 1952-1990 time period, farmers had a 
sense of reliability and certainty regarding their CVP water contracts 
and annual water deliveries. But those water deliveries have decreased 
over time as policy and legal actions were taken to crush that 
certainty for farmers.
    While reduced snowpack over the last several years is certainly 
contributing to the water crisis in California, the imbalanced 
application of environmental laws and policies has undermined one of 
the primary uses of the CVP, supplying water for agriculture, with 
little apparent benefit to the environment that can be demonstrated. A 
large portion of the water in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers is 
left in stream to flow to the ocean to provide specific conditions in 
the rivers for salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon, species protected by 
state and federal policies and laws. The San Joaquin Valley farms and 
communities, including major industries in Silicon Valley, use fresh 
water pumped from the San Francisco Bay-Delta to supplement their 
needs; however, over the past several decades, exports via those pumps 
have been reduced through a layering of state and federal policies in 
order to meet specific water quality standards in the Bay-Delta and to 
address the decline in the delta smelt population, another protected 
species. These pumped exports from the Delta are used as key indicators 
of policy decisions throughout the state regarding agricultural water 
allocations and fisheries management. Presently, agriculture in 
California does not have a reliable supply of water, which undermines 
the industry's ability to make long term decisions regarding adaptation 
and resilience.
    The frustrating fact to agricultural producers is that the severe 
water cutbacks that have already occurred are not increasing the 
populations of salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, or the delta smelt, 
species listed for protection under the federal ESA. The National 
Research Council (NRC) in 2012 suggested that reducing pumping for 
agricultural water does not significantly impact fish populations; 
whereas other stressors along the systems, such as wastewater 
contaminants, lack of productive habitat, and competing non-native 
aquatic species, do have a more significant impact on the health of the 
ecosystem and the biological functions it supports. Protected fish 
populations could be more effectively managed and recovered by focusing 
on other stressors to the Bay-Delta system while also providing a 
reliable water supply for agricultural use.
2. The Failure of Single Species Management in the Klamath River 
        Watershed

    The Klamath Project in southern Oregon and northern California is a 
leading example of the imbalance in federal water policy. Farms, 
communities, and wildlife are being sacrificed in order to provide more 
water to ESA-listed fish species, but after 30 years of this policy, 
there has been no identifiable benefit for the listed fish populations, 
which are two species of Upper Klamath Lake dwelling suckers in Oregon, 
and coho salmon in California downstream of that lake in the Klamath 
River.
    In 1903, federal engineers investigated the feasibility of a 
reclamation project in the area we now know as the Klamath Project. 
They reported that, unlike other areas, in Klamath, the engineering 
challenge was not to transport water to arid land. Rather, there was a 
need to get rid of water. Well over 100,000 acres of open water and 
marsh was reclaimed. The water that once spilled from the Klamath River 
during spring snowmelt was instead held back in reservoirs for 
beneficial use during the irrigation season on world-class soils known 
for the quality of their food and habitat production. The agricultural 
lands and neighboring national wildlife refuges supported millions of 
waterfowl, amphibians, and terrestrial animals.
    A water supply that was reliable for nearly a century has become a 
guessing game at best, and severe shortages rule the day. The water 
stored in reservoirs is not allowed to go to the land for which it was 
stored. Instead, it is held to provide increasing depths in Upper 
Klamath Lake for endangered suckers or released to the Klamath River to 
augment flows for coho salmon. In fact, during each of the past three 
irrigation seasons, the amount released to the Klamath River has been 
considerably greater than the inflow to Upper Klamath Lake during the 
same period.
    Leaders in the Klamath agricultural community have observed that 
water management has become more of a competition among regulatory 
agencies over who can get the most water for one species or the other. 
For some regulators and others, ``winning'' has become the goal instead 
of actual success for species and communities. Food production suffers, 
communities and wildlife suffer, and the agricultural community feels 
targeted and devalued. Producers are struggling to explain to their 
children why raising food has become a thing to be ashamed of, and why 
the downsizing of the Klamath Project has become a trophy to be won by 
the opponents of irrigated agriculture in the Basin.
3. Proposed Flow Experiments at Glen Canyon Dam

    Decisions made by federal administrators regarding allocation of 
our water resources during this drought must rely on proven 
technologies, not experiments. Operations of Glen Canyon Dam on the 
Colorado River is one such example. Currently, Reclamation is 
evaluating experimental stored water releases at the expense of 
hydropower generation, in an attempt to stop the potential 
establishment of smallmouth bass populations below Glen Canyon Dam. 
Unfortunately, not only is the scientific underpinning of these 
additional releases unproven, Reclamation's analysis to date has not 
evaluated any potential non-flow measures to address this concern. 
Instead, Reclamation is evaluating only flow-related measures, all of 
which to varying degrees, bypass hydropower generation. All this comes 
at a time when Reclamation, in fact, has been attempting to use 
extraordinary measures, like demand management and water purchases 
affecting farmers in the Basin, to protect hydropower production by 
keeping water storage levels behind Glen Canyon Dam as high as possible 
and avert predicted water levels crashing to dead pool as water 
continues to be withdrawn for deliveries to the Lower Colorado River 
Basin.
    The end result of this will be the cost of purchasing expensive 
replacement power being passed on to power customers, many of which are 
small municipal, agricultural and tribal providers whose customers are 
unable to afford these price increases. But this is not just a 
financial issue alone. Reclamation has also failed to acknowledge there 
is not a readily available supply of replacement power available for 
purchase--even though Western Area Power Administration has identified 
this as an issue of concern in previous comments on this proposal. We 
understand there is an environmental need, but again, other uses are 
being impacted by this narrowly focused proposal. Decisions like these 
must be grounded in sound science and the financial and technical 
impacts of these decisions must be fully addressed.

    WESTERN WATER AND LANDSCAPES CAN BE MANAGED FOR THE BENEFIT OF 
                    AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

    Many of our members in the West--particularly in California and the 
Pacific Northwest--know that our water management system isn't helping 
anyone as fish continue to struggle, farmers fallow land, businesses 
and residents face continuing restrictions. That's because it's based 
on decade-old siloed scientific hypotheses embedded in a top-down 
regulatory system that lacks the ability to incorporate new science as 
it becomes available. Fortunately, there are examples in California, 
Oregon, Washington State, and other parts of the West that suggest 
other paths might be taken that lead to true multi-purpose management 
of water resources that yields benefits to agriculture and the 
environment.
1. Scientific Study + Proven Results = Smarter Water Management

    Science has been telling us for some time that fish need more than 
water to survive--habitat restoration and improvement, predator control 
and food supply are also critically important. In California's 
Sacramento Valley, on-the-ground projects have generated results to 
prove this approach works.

    Partnerships to Implement New Science on Butte Creek Turned 100 
Salmon into 10,000--Working together, farmers, urban water users and 
conservationists made improvements to fish passage, fish food 
production and habitat for juvenile salmon as well as providing more 
water at the time when fish needed it the most. The result has been a 
dramatic increase in returning salmon from as low as 100 to an average 
of 10,000 annually. Other species have also benefited. http://
westerncanal.com/butte-creek-fish-passage-project

    Operation FatFish--Scientists Teamed Up with Farms to Produce a New 
Food Supply for Fish--If salmon are malnourished, they're not strong 
enough to make it through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to 
reach the Pacific Ocean and populations decline. Partnering with 
scientists at UC Davis and CalTrout, farms have been flooding fields in 
the winter in order to grow bugs (which growing fish depend on for 
food) and then re-connecting these floodplains to the river. Results 
from Operation FatFish have shown an increase in growth and health of 
juvenile salmon inside and outside seasonally flooded rice fields. In 
addition, these managed wetlands support millions of waterfowl, 
shorebirds and other waterbirds along the Pacific Flyway. https://
caltrout.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Nigiri.pdf

    Boulders & Branches--Experiments with Fish Habitat Have Produced 
Improving Salmon Populations--River Garden Farms created 25 fish 
habitat shelters made of almond trunks and walnut tree root wads. These 
were bolted to 12,000-pound limestone boulders and dropped into the 
river. The roots and branches are designed to help juvenile winter-run 
chinook survive by serving as a shield against swift river flows and 
predators. A survey conducted by wildlife biologists revealed a large 
school of juvenile salmon had taken to the tree roots. Salmon were 
finding refuge and populations were improving. https://
www.rivergardenfarms.com/environment/salmon-shelter-project/

    Painter's Riffle--Biologists Urged Restoration of Spawning Grounds, 
Leading to Successful Collaborative Projects--Over time some 
traditional salmon spawning grounds have been filled in. One example is 
Painter's Riffle, a side-channel that successfully produced fish nests 
resulting in up to 750,000 young salmon since the 1980s. When a major 
storm filled in the channel, farms, water districts and government 
agencies partnered to open it again. Speaking of a similar project U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation Biologist John Hannon said, ``These projects are 
an important part of helping our local fish populations weather the 
drought conditions and recover in the future.'' https://
norcalwater.org/wp-content/uploads/PaintersRiffleFact-Sheet-FINAL.pdf

    On-Demand Water--Focus on Providing Water for Fish in the Right 
Place at the Right Time--Obviously, fish need water, but what science 
has discovered is that we should focus on providing it at key junctures 
in time and in combination with other non-flow measures such as those 
discussed here. These ``functional flows'' are more productive than 
simply flooding the system with water. A 2015 study by the Delta 
Independent Science Board recommended more study on the concept of 
functional flows, which may promote fish and wildlife health by closely 
considering time, space and parameter scales relevant to biological 
processes. https://ceff.ucdavis.edu/articles

    Several new projects are being constructed this winter in the 
Redding area to promote recovery of Chinook salmon by providing 
additional spawning and rearing habitat. The projects are implemented 
through a collaboration of Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, 
conservation organizations and state and federal agencies. These 
efforts are part of the comprehensive Sacramento Valley Salmon Recovery 
Program and help to implement the National Marine Fisheries Service's 
Recovery Plan for the Sacramento River, the California Natural 
Resources Agency's Sacramento Valley Salmon Resiliency Strategy and 
Healthy Rivers California (Voluntary Agreements). By following the path 
that science has laid out, collaborative efforts can improve the 
environment while increasing water availability and reliability for all 
water users.
2. Certainty for Water Users and Water for Endangered Species on the 
        Deschutes

    Farmers in the Deschutes Basin of Central Oregon have been dealing 
with risks and uncertainties to their water supplies for years. The 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the bull trout and the Oregon 
spotted frog (OPS) as ``threatened'' under the ESA, while the National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Mid-Columbia steelhead as 
``threatened'' under the ESA as well. All three species are present in 
the Deschutes Basin. These ESA listings ultimately culminated in a 
lawsuit, whereby environmental groups sought a court order to 
effectively end all irrigation storage in the Deschutes Basin. The 
water users fought back and defeated the environmental groups' motion 
for injunctive relief that would have put at risk the water supplies 
for some 150,000 acres of irrigated farmland in the Basin. The water 
users and their irrigation districts took matters into their own hands, 
as they developed a long-term plan that would both provide certainty 
for agricultural water supplies, while at the same time, providing a 
plan that would provide water for and benefit the listed species.
    The Deschutes Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was the product 
of 12 years of scientific study, hard work, and collaboration between 
irrigators, federal and state agencies, the Confederated Tribes of the 
Warm Springs Reservation, cities, counties, multiple non-governmental 
organizations, and the general public in the Deschutes Basin. Finalized 
in 2020, the HCP sets the course for conservation efforts in the 
Deschutes Basin for the next 30 years. It provides the eight irrigation 
districts in the basin (organized as the Deschutes Basin Board of 
Control, ``DBBC'') with both a pathway and time for modernizing their 
water delivery systems through canal piping and other projects.
    In exchange for the commitments made by the DBBC districts under 
the HCP to conserve water over time, the DBBC districts are authorized 
to continue to access their water supplies without running afoul of the 
ESA, even when those water supplies are limited during times of 
drought. In this way, the HCP provides a level of certainty with 
respect to the DBBC district's obligations under the ESA, as well as 
some level of certainty with respect to their water supplies. At the 
same time, the ongoing effort to implement the HCP is not without 
challenges. Districts and irrigators face endless court battles from 
potential lawsuits brought by national groups who will never be 
satisfied with the irrigators' commitments to conservation, and 
routinely argue that irrigated agriculture should take an even harsher 
hit in the basin than it already has.
    Meanwhile, as required under the HCP, the DBBC districts and 
irrigators are making significant financial investments to implement 
conservation measures, such as canal piping. Individuals and third-
party citizen groups are threatening to prevent open irrigation canals 
from being replaced with buried pipe, arguing among other things that 
open ditches flowing with irrigation water amount to water feature 
``amenities'' for their subdivision homes. These challenges are 
intended to create roadblocks and prevent the districts from 
implementing solutions for both stabilizing irrigation water supplies 
and meeting fish and wildlife habitat needs. Despite these ongoing 
challenges, the Deschutes Basin irrigation districts and their partners 
remain committed to implementing the HCP, as it is the only real option 
for trying to keep the agricultural community in the basin intact and 
in control of its own destiny while providing and protecting habitat 
for listed and other wildlife species in the Basin.
3. Water 4: Conservation that Provides Multiple Benefits to People and 
        Wildlife

    Irrigated lands comprise over 60 percent of wetland habitat in the 
snowpack-driven systems of the Intermountain West. These lands provide 
vital habitat for migratory birds, sustain floodplain function, and 
recharge aquifers, but are at risk of fragmentation from rural 
subdivision, competing water demands, and the ongoing impacts of 
climate change. We work closely with the Intermountain West Joint 
Venture (IWJV), a leader in utilizing science and technology 
advancements to link agriculture, hydrology, and wildlife habitat 
conservation. The IWJV's Water 4 Initiative is focused on the 
importance of maintaining agricultural land for habitat conservation 
and landscape resiliency within western states. The rapid fragmentation 
of agricultural wildlife habitat, as well as crop conversions and 
changing irrigation practices, have implications that reverberate 
beyond agriculture and begin to impact local water availability for 
people and wildlife. Integrating agriculture, science, technology, and 
ecology can lead to improved understanding of key linkages related to 
the importance of agricultural irrigation and the need to invest in 
modernizing irrigation infrastructure. Such investments also have 
collateral benefits for landscape resiliency including groundwater 
recharge, habitat enhancement, and conservation of fish and wildlife.
    Spatial analysis combined with detailed water bird population 
information has allowed IWJV to begin to quantify the exact number of 
agricultural acres that need to be enhanced/protected in the Klamath 
Basin in California and Oregon (among other locations) to provide 
habitat to sustain water bird and waterfowl populations. This has 
critical implications for the broader agricultural community in the 
Pacific Flyway. If habitat is not maintained in the Klamath Basin, 
migrating birds will likely move south, to California's Central Valley, 
earlier in the season. This earlier migration means birds may arrive 
before rice is harvested, resulting in potentially devastating impacts 
to rice production.
    Conserving irrigated wet meadows contributes to system-wide 
resiliency by providing key habitat for migratory birds, sustaining 
floodplain function, recharging aquifers and supporting agricultural 
communities.
    There are proven examples of where food producers, water managers 
and conservationists can work together in a way that benefits 
agriculture and the environment. We must continue to do more of this 
type of work, where environmental objectives can be reached without 
taking water away from farmers and ranchers. As will be described in 
the next section of this testimony, it has never been more important to 
provide affordable and safe food for our country and the world.
4. Yakima River Basin Integrated Plan

    The Yakima River Basin (WASHINGTON) supports a $4.5 billion-dollar 
agricultural economy and historically produced significant salmon and 
steelhead runs. The Yakima Basin Integrated Plan (YBIP) is a 
collaboratively developed 30-year plan developed and implemented by 
YBIP partners such as the Yakama Nation, irrigation districts, cities 
and counties, conservation groups, the federal government and the State 
of Washington, among others. The YBIP has provided opportunities in the 
Yakima River Basin for local, state, and federal partnerships to allow 
our member irrigation districts, including the Sunnyside Valley 
Irrigation District, the Roza Irrigation District, the Yakima Tieton 
Irrigation District, the Kittitas Reclamation District and others to 
work aggressively on a drought resiliency strategy to modernize their 
water delivery systems to conserve water to the benefit of both fish 
and farmers. Modernization of these important irrigation water delivery 
systems is providing the means to ensure reliable and consistent 
irrigation water delivery to basin farmers. And, the YBIP has embraced 
a new drought emergency water storage project at Kachess Reservoir, as 
well as new fish passage, habitat, water and groundwater supply, and 
headwaters restoration projects in the Yakima River Basin that benefits 
and promotes healthy fish, farms and communities.
    One YBIP partnership between the Kittitas Reclamation District, 
Reclamation, the State of Washington and NGOs has been able to 
establish a more normative summer flow regime in the Yakima River 
tributaries that typically dried up in the summer months. The Kittitas 
Reclamation District is also working to increase their canal capacity 
to carry cool storage water to streams for fish while at the same time 
making more consistent irrigation water deliveries to agricultural 
lands in their service area. This resiliency strategy is an integral 
part of the YBIP collaboration that is working toward increasing salmon 
and steelhead population abundance and productivity and at the same 
time provide for a consistent supply to the farmers growing our 
nation's food.
5. 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 \4\ (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Beetle Outbreaks in Subalpine Forests and What They Mean for 
Snowmelt, May 2021. Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Forest 
Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Three years ago, Alliance President Pat O'Toole, whose family owns 
and operates a cattle and sheep ranch on the Colorado-Wyoming border, 
testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. A 
study he referenced in his testimony relates to research \5\ 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 \6\ per year. His testimony included other 
examples of 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, and also references other anecdotal reports from 
around the West of water yield increases resulting from clearing pinon 
and juniper stands.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ 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).
    \6\ 160,000 AF of water would cover all of Chicago, Illinois with 
over one foot water.
    \7\ 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, Flagstaff, AZ 86001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last June, Mr. O'Toole testified again before the Senate ENR 
Committee, where he referenced the North Yuba Forest Partnership 
(CALIFORNIA), which developed a strategy to treat 20 million acres on 
national forest lands and up to an additional 30 million acres of other 
federal, state, Tribal, private and family lands over the next decade. 
The partnership is using the latest science to integrate multiple 
stakeholder priorities into projects with the objective of 
accomplishing forest restoration and wildfire risk reduction at a 
landscape scale. Partnership activities include meadow restoration, 
ecological thinning of forest density and prescribed fire.
    Mr. O'Toole's own family is helping to lead an effort to design a 
comprehensive, multistakeholder, large landscape initiative to restore 
two severely degraded (non-functioning) 50,000-acre watersheds; one in 
the Medicine Bow National Forest in Wyoming and a second in the Routt 
National Forest in Colorado. Their vision is to restore two forested 
rangelands to a resilient state that filters and stores water, produces 
protein, sustains wildlife and fisheries, sinks carbon, produces 
renewable energy feedstocks and enables economically viable rural 
communities to thrive.

A PERFECT STORM: WESTERN DROUGHT, INFLATION, WAR IN UKRAINE AND GLOBAL 
                            FOOD INSECURITY

    Western irrigated agriculture is criticized by some because of the 
amount of water that is required to grow food and fiber. It is not the 
farmers that are ``consuming'' the water. It's the customers who 
consume the products that farmers and ranchers provide. Farmers and 
ranchers only grow crops and raise livestock that other people buy as 
their food source. Current vegetable and value-added farm and ranch 
products are subject to the same supply and demand rules of American 
manufacturers. With the current backdrop of severe drought conditions 
in the West, significantly inflated food costs, global food supply 
challenges, and a looming global famine, the importance of Western 
agricultural production has never been greater and should be carefully 
and thoughtfully valued. Now is the time to focus on the critical 
importance of maintaining our country's food security and locally 
sourced foods. Reliable water for Western irrigated agriculture is a 
critical component in that equation.
    The multiple-year drought we have recently faced in many parts of 
the Western U.S.--coupled with other domestic and global developments--
is already affecting the availability and price of food for many 
Americans. Rising food prices and global hunger are linked to the war 
in Ukraine, extreme climate events like the Western U.S. drought, and 
other global stressors. All of these factors have combined to cause 
significant inflation and global food shortages that loom on the 
horizon.
1. Rising Cost of Growing Food = Rising Food Prices

    Those Western producers who do have water have seen production 
costs increase by as much as 25%, because of rising fuel prices and 
transportation costs. Rising input costs (fuel, pesticides, 
fertilizers, equipment repairs), combined with the ongoing energy and 
supply chain crises, continue to impact food supply and demand.\8\ 
Since January 2021, many fertilizer types have tripled or quadrupled in 
price and remain high (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Steve Benson, Family Farm Alliance Director, Testimony Before 
the U.S. House of Representatives Republican Forum--``Skyrocketing 
Energy Costs are Hurting Americans''--June 24, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Inflation was higher in 2021 and 2022 than in any other years of 
the previous four decades, as measured by the price index for personal 
consumption expenditures. In 2005, Americans paid about 6.2% of 
disposable income on food and non-alcoholic beverages. That means that, 
for every $1,000 of disposable income, only $62 is being spent on food. 
That frees up tremendous additional capital for other needs, like 
buying a new car, investing in your children's education, or going on 
vacation. Globally, people paid roughly 10.2% on the same products. 
Now, due in part to factors discussed previously in this testimony, the 
U.S. average has increased to 10.3% with other countries following 
suit. This is concerning for our national economy since less domestic 
food production means more global competition and higher prices for 
American consumers.
    Our economy depends on an affordable high-quality food supply for 
which we spend less of our disposable income than any country in the 
world. This leaves much more disposable income available for other 
needs and wants which also fuel our economy. This small investment in 
food for our families is made possible because farmers and ranchers 
have made significant changes in water use practices and investments in 
technological water efficiency tools. While some say growing crops in 
the arid West is not ``sustainable,'' available land, growing 
conditions, workforce and access to transportation have proven this 
region to be a prosperous agricultural and economic engine.
2. Global Hunger Crisis

    At the global level, hunger is on the rise, and the world community 
is not prepared to address this looming crisis. The 2022 State of Food 
Security and Nutrition in the World report \9\ prepared by the United 
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization found that an unprecedented 
count of up to 828 million people went hungry in 2021, an increase of 
46 million from the previous year, and a leap of 150 million people 
since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even before the latest 
inflationary woes hit us and after years of seeing global hunger 
numbers drop, global hunger is back at record levels and rising.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://data.unicef.org/resources/sofi-2022/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our organization has been tracking the Global Agricultural 
Productivity (GAP) Report since 2010, when it first quantified the 
difference between the current rate of agricultural productivity growth 
and the pace required to meet future world food needs. That report 
predicted that total global agricultural output would need to be 
doubled by the year 2050 to meet the food needs of a growing global 
population. The 2022 Global Agricultural Productivity (GAP) Report was 
released last October by the Virginia Tech College of Agriculture and 
Life Sciences. The 2022 GAP Index found that total factor productivity 
(TFP), which increases when producers increase their output while using 
the same or less inputs, is at its lowest level of growth to date. The 
overall message of the GAP report is that vulnerable agricultural 
systems rest on fragile foundations. Reversing the downward trajectory 
of global agricultural productivity growth, the report says, demands 
urgent action from policymakers, leaders, donors, scientists, farmers, 
and others in the agri-food system. In short, the 2022 GAP report found 
that current efforts to accelerate global agricultural productivity 
growth are inadequate.
    Just in the past month, we've seen ``under the radar'' media 
coverage of vegetable rationing in Great Britain, famine in the Horn of 
Africa, prolonged drought in France, Italy, and other parts of Europe, 
and farmers pushed to brink due to Argentina's drought. But, sadly--and 
as is likely to be expected--the story most people are clicking on is 
``Will climate change upend tequila production?'' This issue is no 
laughing matter. According to the February 21, 2023 edition of 
POLITICO's Weekly Agriculture (``Russia's war pushes food crisis to its 
most dangerous stage''), this year, 2023 will be the biggest test. 
Russia is continuing to weaponize food, holding back some of its 
fertilizer exports while cutting off Ukraine, a major grain and food 
exporter, from its normal global trading routes--most notably to Africa 
and the Middle East.
    We've also seen increased reports of world leaders sharing fears 
that global price spikes in food, fuel and fertilizers will lead to 
widespread famine, prompting global destabilization, starvation and 
mass migration on an unprecedented scale. Sri Lankan President Gotabaya 
Rajapaksa fled the country last summer, just days after thousands of 
protesters stormed his residence over the nation's crippling economic 
crisis. Sri Lanka for months had grappled with severe food and fuel 
shortages and skyrocketing inflation. Domestic food production also 
took a hit by the government's April 2021 decision to ban the 
importation of fertilizers and agrichemicals, in an apparent shift to 
organic agriculture. By the time the ban was partially reversed in 
November, farmers reported a 40 to 50% loss in rice production.
3. War in Ukraine

    When war first broke out in Ukraine in early 2022, world leaders 
feared that sanctions and destroyed ports could take nearly 30% of the 
world's grain supply out of production or off the market this year. 
Ukraine is a breadbasket for Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Now, 
global grain stocks are pushing toward a decadal low. Shipments out of 
the Black Sea ports were too few, and harvests from other major crop 
producers (U.S., France, and China) were smaller than initially 
expected due to poor weather in key agricultural regions. These factors 
are shrinking grain harvests and cutting inventories, heightening the 
risk of famine in some of the world's poorest nations. The bleak global 
economic outlook, coupled with higher fertilizer and other production 
costs, ``pose serious strains for global food security,'' Maximo 
Torero, the Chief Economist for the U.N. Food and Agriculture 
Organization said last August.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ U.N. News, August 5, 2022. ``Major fall in global food prices 
for July, but future supply worries remain''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In December 2022, the U.N. sought a record $51.5 billion for world 
hunger aid needs, as more than 4% of the world's population needs 
hunger assistance. The U.N. aid system is being ``tested to its 
limits'', according to the U.N. aid chief. This represents a 25% 
increase in aid over the previous year; over five times the amount 
sought a decade ago.\11\ Hunger-stricken African countries are 
struggling with reduced wheat imports due to Russia's war in Ukraine. 
However, one country--Zimbabwe--is looking to build a small strategic 
reserve for the first time in its history. Zimbabwean President 
Emmerson Mnangagwa in April described Russia's war in Ukraine as a 
``wake-up call'' for countries to grow their own food (Associated 
Press).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Reuters, December 1, 2022. ``From Ukraine to Yemen, U.N. seeks 
record $51.5 bln for `shockingly high' aid needs''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Vanishing American Farmland

    Closer to home, the American Farmland Trust (AFT) reported in 
``Farms Under Threat 2040: Choosing an Abundant Future'' earlier this 
year that Americans are paving over agricultural land at a rapid pace. 
From 2001-2016, our nation lost or compromised 2,000 acres of farmland 
and ranchland every day. ``Farms Under Threat 2040'' shows we are on 
track to convert over 18 million acres of farmland and ranchland from 
2016-2040--an area the size of South Carolina. If recent trends 
continue, 797,400 acres of California's farmland and ranchland in 2040 
will be converted to uses that jeopardize agriculture. The latest study 
from AFT shows that Arizona and California are paving over and 
compromising productive farmland at the fastest rate in the U.S. 
According to the AFT report, Maricopa County, Arizona is losing 
farmland at a faster rate than any other county in the nation. Fresno 
County in California's Central Valley, the nation's leading 
agricultural county by gross value, is the 17th fastest in the nation 
in terms of farmland lost to other uses.
    According to recent and alarming USDA data, foreign ownership and 
investment in U.S. agricultural land has nearly doubled over the past 
decade, 2010 through 2020. As of December 31, 2020, this represents 2.9 
percent of all privately held agricultural land in the United States is 
held in foreign ownership. One of the largest groups of foreign 
investors is renewable energy companies, causing some to raise concerns 
that farmland will be further removed from production to meet renewable 
energy goals.
5. The U.S. Agricultural Trade Deficit

    The Western U.S. is a critical part of what has long been a proud 
national agricultural powerhouse, where our country consistently has 
run an agricultural trade surplus. But in 2019, for the first time in 
more than 50 years, the U.S. agriculture system ran an agricultural 
trade deficit, importing more than it exported. The USDA forecasts the 
U.S. will again run a deficit in 2023 for the third time since 2019. 
This growing deficit is driven primarily by our dependence on imported 
Mexican fruits and vegetables (Politico Pro DataPoint). Increased 
reliance on foreign food has never been, and should never be a policy 
our Nation has intentionally embraced.
6. Farmland Fallowing Due to Drought

    The U.S. last year faced yet another record-breaking drought year 
in the West. Farmers and ranchers in some of these areas received 
little to no water from federal water projects this past summer. Major 
reservoirs in California and along the Colorado River and Rio Grande 
reached or approached historic lows. As discussed earlier in this 
testimony, the government has also regulatorily withheld water from 
producers in places like the Central Valley of California, Central 
Oregon and the Klamath Basin. Our farmers and ranchers that are largely 
responsible for keeping the nation's grocery store aisles stocked were 
forced to leave fields fallow or reduce livestock herds. Nationwide, 
the U.S. red winter wheat crop was the worst since 1963. Ranchers 
didn't have enough grass, hay and corn to feed cattle and other 
livestock, and were forced to sell off herds early or purchase 
extremely expensive feedstocks. Oregon and Texas herds were down 30-
50%, which will spike beef prices over the next 2-5 years.
    Of course, California last year faced another year of punishing 
drought. A research team from the University of California (U.C.) 
Merced, studying the California drought, found that the 2022 water 
shortage in the Central Valley was 2.6 million acre-feet, which 
resulted in 695,000 idled acres of farmland, with additional acreage 
impacted. The ravaging drought left hundreds of thousands of acres of 
Sacramento Valley farmland unplanted this year, causing dramatic harm 
to people, fish, waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wildlife. Researchers 
at U.C. Davis published a report entitled ``Continued Drought in 2022 
Ravages California's Sacramento Valley Economy'', which projected that 
the 2022 drought impacts on farm production are likely to cause a loss 
of about 14,300 jobs and about $1.315 billion in economic value lost in 
the Sacramento Valley. California rice production was down 50% in 2022.
    Most of the tomatoes consumed in the U.S., fresh, canned, and 
otherwise, come from California. Factors like the ongoing drought and 
rising fuel prices made the fruit harder and more expensive to grow, 
which will materialize in terms of scarce availability and higher 
prices on grocery shelves in the coming months. While critics of 
California agriculture suggest that increasing agricultural production 
in other states is a solution, the reality is that other states simply 
cannot replace California's lost fruit and vegetable production.
    Irrigated land in California is disappearing for a variety of other 
reasons. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires 
groundwater users to bring their basins into balance over the next two 
decades. In the San Joaquin Valley, this will likely mean taking more 
than 500,000 acres of agricultural land out of intensive irrigated 
agricultural production.\12\ SB 100 (2018) requires 100 percent of the 
electricity sold to California customers to be derived from renewable 
or zero-carbon resources by 2044, which will put more pressure on 
finding room for new solar farms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Public Policy Institute of California Report, September 2022. 
``Solar Energy and Groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Central Arizona Project (CAP) irrigators--due to operating 
guidelines on the Colorado River--expect about 100,000 acres of 
farmland will be fallowed in 2023. Most of these lands (approximately 
40,000 acres) currently produce cotton, but roughly 20,000 acre--
according to CAP producers--will be alfalfa fields.
    Undoubtedly, the Western drought has reduced the amount of water 
for many users, including irrigated agriculture. However, in places 
like California and Oregon, much of the water that once flowed to farms 
and ranches is currently being redirected by the federal government for 
environmental purposes. In other words, federal water policy is 
shutting down water availability for hundreds of thousands of acres of 
productive farmland. At a time when the future of Ukraine and other 
countries' ability to help feed the outside world is at risk, our 
ability to increase productivity is being further curtailed--due in 
part, to our own government.

                  HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN HELP

    Americans are facing rising food costs and the potential for global 
famine looms on the horizon. The recent national infant formula 
shortage has further underscored the importance of a strong national 
domestic food supply system. Meanwhile, our own government has 
regulatorily withheld water from producers in places like the Central 
Valley of California, Central Oregon and the Klamath Basin. Many 
producers in the Southwestern U.S. are bracing for yet another year of 
severe drought and unprecedented water shortages.
    There are things that the federal government can do to alleviate 
this disaster and better prepare and manage for future droughts. 
Federal investments in improving and building new water supply 
infrastructure--partnering with the Western states and non-federal 
water users--can help prevent or reduce the impacts of future droughts. 
Moving away from flow-based single species management to collaborative 
watershed-based approaches that respect and protect all uses will help 
prepare Western water stakeholders for a more predictable and secure 
future. We need to act, and act now, to accomplish these tasks.
    Western irrigated agriculture has been dealing with changes in 
climate and hydrology for over a century. But the prognosis for water 
supplies in the future is not positive and will continue to negatively 
impact this important source of our Nation's food supply, the economic 
engine for most of our rural Western communities. Coupled with the 
growing demand for existing water supplies from burgeoning cities and 
the environment, irrigated agriculture is fast becoming a target for 
one thing--water. We must look to several solutions in order to 
maintain food security for the nation and economic wellbeing of the 
Western landscape.
1. Improve Regulatory Processes at the Federal Level

    The economic, environmental, and national security implications of 
Western irrigated agriculture must be assessed and incorporated into 
federal water management decisions. These critically important issues 
must be treated with the same priority that federal agencies currently 
place on climate change and environmental values. For example, food 
security impacts must be properly assessed. Policy makers need to 
understand the direct and indirect linkages to the economy derived from 
a low-cost food supply, making available large blocks of disposable 
income to the consumer spending economy, as well as the availability of 
high-quality food sources provided by Western irrigated agriculture. 
Federal decision making must consider more than single species 
management of water resources, which has shown it can destroy anything 
and everything else in its path with little to no benefit to a listed 
species nor accountability by federal agency officials making those 
choices.
    In January, I spent four days in Reno, Nevada at the 55th Annual 
Mid-Pacific Water Users Conference. This event is organized through a 
unique partnership between the Bureau of Reclamation and its water user 
customers in California, Western Nevada, and the Klamath Basin. Much of 
the discussion at the conference dealt with the juxtaposition of the 
recent multi-year drought with the series of ``atmospheric rivers'' 
that swamped much of California in late December and early January. The 
conference attendees also had plenty of stories to tell about the 
recent drought, which showed that water management in the West is 
becoming too inflexible. Even during times of flooding, state and 
federal regulations can prevent that water from being held over time to 
support human uses.
    In Reno, I moderated a panel of five CVP water authority and 
district managers who all emphatically stated that we need a new way of 
looking at how we manage environmental demands for our limited water 
resources. One of those speakers, Jason Phillips, the CEO for Friant 
Water Authority, explained that, even in times when water is plentiful, 
California's magnificent dams and canals still cannot meet the state's 
water needs. As discussed earlier in this testimony, starting in the 
early 1990s, as a result of state and federal laws, regulations, 
lawsuits, and decisions, (both by elected and unelected officials), 
reservoirs are not allowed to convey the water stored for the intended 
purposes, and instead a large percentage of water must now be sent to 
the ocean.
    ``This is because decades after they were built, the government 
will no longer allow our water infrastructure to operate the way it was 
intended,'' Phillips said. ``Each year this problem is getting worse, 
and unelected government officials are allowed to divert more water 
away from homes, communities, and farms.''
    We need a broader view of how water is used to meet environmental 
needs, one that considers state water laws, science, population growth, 
food production and habitat needs.
    For those of who live in rural communities that have been impacted 
by these government decisions, it's almost unfathomable to understand. 
Many of the farmers and ranchers I work with feel like our government 
is about to throw away the best food production system in the world, as 
a time when our country and the world will need them more than ever . . 
. for what? So agency fishery biologists can sleep better at night?
    My friend Ben DuVal, a Klamath Project farmer, shared his 
frustration last year, after NMFS told Reclamation to release over 
400,000 acre-feet of water down the Klamath River, 190,000 acre-feet 
more than the projected inflow into the storage system.
    ``If we farmers failed as badly as the federal agency biologists 
who are controlling water policy, our bankers would have foreclosed on 
us 20 years ago,'' he said. ``NMFS's regulatory demands are neither 
fair nor effective.''
    The ``zero'' allocation announced in May 2021 for the Klamath 
Project was unprecedented. The reason for the absolute curtailment of 
irrigation water was to provide increased water for competing 
threatened and endangered fish species in Upper Klamath Lake and the 
Klamath River and a species of whale that eats salmon in the Pacific 
Ocean, hundreds of miles away. But there is no evidence that any 
species benefited from this management. Not in 2021. Not in other 
recent years where irrigation has been shorted in the name of the ESA.
    ``It's the world's worst-kept secret that NMFS is using Klamath 
Project water to try to mitigate problems not caused by the Klamath 
Project,'' added Paul Simmons, executive director of the Klamath Water 
Users Association. ``And when that doesn't work, they just do it again, 
and then again.''

    Lots of pain. No gain.

    Adding insult to injury, the Klamath Project was targeted and 
attacked in traditional and social media. Legions of reporters, 
documentarians, and bloggers chose and perpetuated narratives that 
demonize farmers and ranchers who make a living in irrigated 
agriculture growing food for the Nation.
    Our farmers and ranchers need protection, and the government needs 
to be held accountable. Biological opinions are being written by 
unelected agency staff that have grave implications for farmers and 
ranchers living hundreds of miles away. We don't even know who is 
authoring these recipes for disaster. There is no accountability or 
transparency, and it sometimes seems as if they are crafting a grand 
experiment--consequences, reality and costs be damned. Just last week, 
the FWS announced the availability of the draft recovery plan for the 
Oregon spotted frog and the opening of a 60-day public comment period. 
The estimated cost for recovery of the OSF (on page 12 of the draft 
plan) is $2.78 BILLION over 40 years.
    We need to manage our Western fisheries in a more coordinated 
manner. The Alliance since 2017 has supported various versions of H.R. 
3916, the ``Federally Integrated Species Health (FISH) Act.'' This 
legislation would amend the ESA to vest in the Secretary of the 
Interior functions under that Act with respect to species of fish that 
spawn in fresh or estuarine waters and migrate to ocean waters 
(anadromous fish), and species of fish that spawn in ocean waters and 
migrate to fresh waters (catadromous fish). We believe that by 
combining the ESA implementation responsibilities of both NMFS and FWS 
under one federal Department, we would promote more efficient, 
effective, and coordinated management of all ESA responsibilities for 
anadromous and freshwater fish in Western watersheds, from the highest 
reaches of our headwaters to the Pacific Ocean. Merging the NMFS ESA 
duties with those of FWS and tapping into the ``constructive center'' 
will lead to practical solutions that fit for ranchers, farmers, and 
other landowners, as well as fish and wildlife and tribal and local 
communities.
    Finally, given the $12 billion+ that the Bureau of Reclamation will 
be spending over the next four to five years on Western water 
infrastructure (see below), we need to expedite permitting and get 
these new water projects to construction within a reasonable period of 
time at a reasonable cost, as well as create collaborative partnerships 
between federal, state, tribal, and local entities interested in 
finding solutions to our water-climate problems through adaptive 
strategies that can work on the ground.
2. Actively Manage and Restore our Federal Forests

    Drought brings less snowfall in many areas. The snow that falls in 
some upland areas melts off up to 45 days earlier and runs off 
downstream on frozen ground. 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 healthy 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.
3. Invest in Technology

    We must manage our water supplies better through more efficient and 
effective use of technology to improve the modeling and predicting of 
weather patterns, snowpack, and runoff forecasting, as well as using 
technology to manage our water storage and distribution to improve 
efficiencies in utilizing our precious water resources.
4. Invest in Western Water Infrastructure

    Planning for water shortage in the West must look to the long-term 
in meeting the needs of agriculture, energy, cities and the 
environment. The federal government should partner with Western water 
users in promoting collaborative solutions, more flexibly implement 
environmental laws to meet multiple uses and species and use existing 
funds to efficiently and effectively invest and partner in Western 
water infrastructure. This will give farmers the tools necessary to 
deal with these complex challenges and still grow food for a hungry 
nation. We must be thinking in terms of ``Re-Reclaiming the West'', 
with a focus on adapting our existing infrastructure to meet new 
hydrologic challenges, now that we know our water comes into our 
systems in different ways than it did historically. Creativity, 
thinking outside the box, and the federal government's recognition of 
the national interests at stake must all converge to create a new path 
forward for western irrigators who feed our Nation.
    New infrastructure and technologies can help stretch water for all 
uses and boost the economies of Western rural communities. We urge 
Congress to maintain priority funding and in the new Farm Bill allow 
more flexible utilization of the Watershed and Flood Prevention 
Operations Program (WFPO)--administered by the USDA's Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) and also known as P.L. 566--for watershed 
enhancements. This funding could be used for a variety of critical 
drought response and resilience projects including irrigation 
modernization, development of rural water supply sources, erosion and 
sediment control, and fish and wildlife habitat enhancement. It is also 
critical for supporting the modernization of irrigation water delivery 
infrastructure at scale. This is a program that Alliance members have 
put to use to replace leaking, open canals with pressurized pipes, and 
overall improving agricultural water security. The program's funding is 
becoming increasingly competitive because of the scale of need in 
modernizing agricultural infrastructure.
    The NRCS awarded all $500 million that the IIJA allocated to WFPO 
in two rounds of announcements in 2022. The NRCS' announcement 
recognized that ``[t]he amount provided to protect our watersheds is 
historic and highlights the priorities set by Secretary Vilsack to 
address the effects of climate change, ensure equity, and create a path 
toward climate resiliency.'' Unfortunately, the ``path toward climate 
resiliency'' created by the funding awards is overwhelmingly dedicated 
to feasibility studies (94% of awards) for small dam construction (59% 
of feasibility studies) to address flooding concerns in the eastern 
U.S. This decision raised two concerns with our membership: 1) Several 
Western irrigation modernization projects which have already developed 
watershed plans and are in the cue, moving toward implementation, were 
not funded; 2) It is uncertain how many of the feasibility studies for 
the new projects will ultimately be implemented. If those feasibility 
studies ultimately support implementation of small new dam projects, 
the available funding for a program that is already oversubscribed and 
underfunded will become even more strained.
5. The Western Drought's Silver Lining

    Perhaps the only silver lining is that this unprecedented drought 
crisis is that it drew public and political attention to Western 
agriculture's critical role in providing a safe and reliable food 
supply, boosting the national economy, and continuing the country's 
stature as the world's premier food basket. Certainly, the drought 
helped drive Congressional action in the past year, where the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act signed into law in November 2021 
by President Biden included $8.3 billion for Western water 
infrastructure. The Inflation Reduction Act signed into law last year 
included another $4 billion to address the Western drought, with 
priority placed on Colorado River challenges. We can only hope that 
further political attention leads to necessary, reasonable policies 
that support farmers and investment in rural communities, including 
water infrastructure and increased water-storage capacity. The Family 
Farm Alliance and other Western agriculture and water organizations 
believe the drought--followed by the recent series of ``atmospheric 
rivers'' that have largely restored California's mountain snowpack--
underscores the urgent need to take immediate action to help better 
manage impacts to water resources from drought in the West.

                               CONCLUSION

    In order for irrigated agriculture to exist into the future, we 
need to look to enhance management of water supplies and delivery and 
we must maximize the benefits from the water we have available to meet 
multiple needs. Growers across the West are stepping up, at their own 
expense and in partnership with federal funding programs, to provide 
solutions for the viability of their basins and the communities those 
basins serve. In many cases, that means senior water rights holders are 
voluntarily making water supplies available to junior water users, 
preventing cuts otherwise required. There are other collaborative 
efforts underway to fund on-farm conservation projects that are helping 
reduce demand. Urban, agricultural, and environmental water users would 
all benefit from such efforts in the short and long term.
    What does not help is the relentless finger-pointing by non-
agricultural water agencies and critics of agriculture, saying that 
farmers aren't doing enough and what they are doing is killing fish. 
Critics of irrigated agriculture continue to shame farmers for growing 
crops, such as alfalfa, saying they should fallow their fields or 
switch to crops that use less water, which fixes nothing. The Western 
agricultural system was built on local supply of feed and food. 
Shifting production to other states adds additional food delivery 
miles, greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, and ultimately 
higher costs and/or emptier shelves at the grocery store. Locally grown 
food for humans, dairy and animal proteins results in lower costs to 
producers and consumers.
    Many agricultural regions of the West do not have an economic base 
that can absorb additional unemployment, business closures, and the 
loss of tax revenue that come with fallowing. Agricultural regions, 
such as the central valleys of California and Arizona, are facing a 
future of dwindling and unsustainable groundwater supplies as they look 
to replace potential shortages from traditional sources like the Bay-
Delta and the Colorado River. Entire communities are at risk of 
closing, bankrupting their populations.
    Are we going to wake up and realize the world has drifted far from 
the stability we have known for our lifetimes and make required course 
corrections? Or do we remain committed to our own demise and continue 
on a crash course with what may likely be the greatest food shortage in 
global history? We have some decisions to make. Fallowing Western 
farmland means increased reliance on food production in other countries 
with lower or non-existent production standards. Fallowing any land 
during a time of crisis should be temporary, or we risk losing control 
of our ability to provide a reliable and safe U.S.-grown food supply.
    Agricultural production in the West is an irreplaceable, strategic 
national resource that is vital to U.S. food security, the ecosystem, 
and overall drought resilience. The role of the federal government in 
the 21st century should be to protect and enhance that resource by 
doing whatever it can to ensure that water remains on farms. At a time 
of unprecedented change, one certainty holds firm and true--our 
nation's most valuable natural resource must be preserved. The Alliance 
looks forward to working with you to address the issues we have 
identified in this testimony and those we have not.

    Thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony today. I 
stand ready to answer any questions you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Guyas for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MARTHA GUYAS, SOUTHEAST FISHERIES POLICY DIRECTOR, 
    AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

    Ms. Guyas. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and 
members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the American 
Sportfishing Association, I am honored to testify regarding the 
importance of sound Federal policies to support the economic, 
social, and conservation benefits recreational fishing provides 
the nation.
    In 2021, 52.4 million people went fishing in the United 
States, supporting 826,000 jobs and contributing $129 billion 
to the economy. In addition to its economic benefits, fishing 
connects people to the outdoors and provides substantial 
funding for conservation. Fishing participation is dependent on 
access and healthy fisheries.
    My testimony today will focus on important issues impacting 
saltwater recreational fishing access and conservation in my 
region of the southeastern United States.
    The first issue I would like to talk about is Gulf red 
snapper. The Great Red Snapper Count, which was funded by 
Congress, indicates that there are three times as many red 
snapper in the Gulf of Mexico as previously estimated. 
Unfortunately, the path to integrating this groundbreaking 
science into management and assessment has not been 
straightforward. As the stock assessment for Gulf red snapper 
proceeds, we ask for your oversight to make sure that the Great 
Red Snapper Count results are meaningfully incorporated to 
better inform future management of this fishery.
    Our recent success with Gulf red snapper is state 
management, which provides reasonable angler access while 
improving recreational catch monitoring. Unfortunately, NOAA's 
insistence on calibrating state data collection programs to 
MRIP has created unnecessary strain on Gulf red snapper state 
management.
    The calibrations fail to account for the data collection 
improvements made through the state programs, documented issues 
with using MRIP for harvest monitoring, and drivers of 
differences between the state programs and MRIP. Mississippi 
and Alabama will experience severe and unnecessary cuts in 
catch limits starting this year due to calibration.
    Quickly resolving the differences in state programs and 
MRIP should be a priority, so that more appropriate calibration 
methods can be developed. ASA asks Congress to continue to stay 
engaged on this issue.
    South Atlantic red snapper has rebounded so much that the 
stock is at record abundance and biomass. However, rebuilding 
success has not translated into successful management that 
provides reasonable harvest access, and serious questions have 
been raised about the latest stock assessment, which indicates 
that the stock is overfished and undergoing overfishing.
    NOAA has advocated for bottom fishing closures for all 55 
species of snapper grouper to address overfishing of red 
snapper. Meanwhile, anglers struggle to avoid catching red 
snapper because the stock is so abundant. The frustrating 
disconnect between Federal management and reality is posing 
dire economic and social implications for fishermen, the 
recreational industry, and our coastal communities.
    Thankfully, the South Atlantic Red Snapper Count funded by 
Congress will provide much needed independent data on this 
fishery. ASA supports taking a science informed approach and 
holding off considering drastic bottom fishing closures until 
this new science is incorporated into the next assessment.
    Another major access challenge is the proposed rule to 
broaden the current 10 knots speed restriction intended to 
protect North Atlantic right whales from vessel strikes, to 
include vessels 35 feet and larger, and expanded speed zones 
that essentially include the whole Atlantic coast out as far as 
90 miles, with these restrictions lasting up to 7 months a 
year.
    Regrettably, NOAA did not engage with stakeholders during 
development of this proposed rule, which has significant flaws 
that overestimate risk to whales from small vessels, 
underestimate the number of recreational vessels that would be 
affected, underestimate the negative economic impacts of this 
rule, and fail to consider how the rule would reduce human 
safety.
    While we strongly dispute that the proposed rule is a 
commensurate response to the level of risk posed by 35- to 65-
foot vessels, we recognize that the recreational fishing 
community has a responsibility to help protect right whales. 
Right whales deserve better protection, but vast blanket speed 
restrictions that are not based on the best available science 
are not the solution.
    Our industry is eager to work with NOAA and offers whatever 
expertise and assistance we can provide to ensure the success 
of the near real-time monitoring and mitigation pilot program 
for North Atlantic right whales that Congress included in the 
recent National Defense Authorization Act. We urge Congress to 
fully fund this program and believe this approach offers our 
best hope of saving right whales from extinction.
    The last issue I would like to bring to your attention is 
shark depredation, which is when a shark consumed a hooked fish 
before it is landed. Because human conflicts with sharks are 
expected to further increase as shark populations continue to 
improve, fishery managers and scientists should collaborate 
with the recreational fishing community on solutions to 
depredation focused on management, policy, education, and 
research.
    Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide the 
sportfishing industry's perspective on challenges impacting 
fisheries in the Southeast. We look forward to working with you 
on legislation that impacts the recreational fishing industry.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Guyas follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Martha Guyas, Southeast Fisheries Policy 
              Director, American Sportfishing Association
    On behalf of the American Sportfishing Association, I am honored to 
have been asked to testify before the House Committee on Natural 
Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries regarding the 
importance of sound federal policies to support the economic, social 
and conservation benefits recreational fishing provides to the nation.
    The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) is the sportfishing 
industry's trade association committed to representing the interests of 
the sportfishing industry as well as the entire sportfishing community. 
We give the industry and anglers a unified voice when emerging laws and 
policies could significantly affect sportfishing business or 
sportfishing itself. ASA invests in long-term ventures to ensure the 
industry will remain strong and prosperous, as well as safeguard and 
promote the enduring economic, conservation and social values of 
sportfishing in America. Recreational fishing is truly an all-American 
activity. Our fisheries resources, which are held in the public trust 
and conserved through sound laws and policies, are envied the world 
over. In 2021, 52.4 million people went fishing in the U.S., supporting 
826,000 jobs and contributing $129 billion to the economy. Fishing is 
the third most popular outdoor recreation activity, behind only running 
and hiking.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Outdoor Foundation. 2021 Participation Trends Report. Available 
online at: https://outdoorindustry.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2021-
Outdoor-Participation-Trends-Report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All of this fishing activity supports the economy, connects people 
to the outdoors and provides substantial funding for conservation. 
Through fishing license purchases, excise taxes and direct donations, 
the recreational fishing community contributes approximately $1.7 
billion toward aquatic resource conservation each year. I am confident 
in saying that no other user group contributes nearly as much toward 
ensuring our nation's waterways and fisheries are healthy and 
accessible to the public.
    Our community is also working hard to ensure that the sport 
continues for generations to come. After about a decade of steady 
growth in participation, the number of recreational fishermen in the 
U.S. surged dramatically in 2020, increasing from 50.1 million 
Americans in 2019 to 54.8 million Americans in 2020.\2\ As the COVID-19 
pandemic disrupted work schedules, travel plans and many in-person 
activities, Americans turned to the outdoors in record numbers for 
their physical and mental health, and to pass time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation and The Outdoor 
Foundation. 2022 Special Report on Fishing. Available online at: 
https://www.takemefishing.org/getmedia/155fcbd1-716a-41e5-ad5b-
1450b76b9162/2022-Special-Report-on-Fishing.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With COVID-19 vaccines available and life returning closer to 
normal, fishing participation declined by 4 percent in 2021 to 52.4 
million anglers, a number still greater than pre-pandemic. With the 
return of other activities, we now have more competition for peoples' 
time, so must work to remind and educate people of why they took up--
and hopefully enjoyed--fishing to begin with.
    Some of the largest increases in participation have come from 
Hispanics (increasing by 7 percent from 2019 to 4.7 million in 2021) 
and females (increasing by 8 percent since 2010 to 19.4 million in 
2021). In addition, participation among youth ages 6-17 increased by 14 
percent from 2019 to 12.9 million in 2021, providing hope that fishing 
will continue for generations to come.
    Fishing participation is dependent on two primary factors--access 
and healthy fisheries. Access can take several forms, including 
physical access to water (e.g., boat ramps, piers, public shorelines) 
and regulatory access (e.g., seasons, bag limits, size limits, 
closures). While simply being outdoors and wetting a line is a large 
part of the enjoyment of fishing, at some level, most people want to 
actually catch fish too. There are many more effective ways of catching 
fish than a rod, reel and hook, so for recreational fishermen to have a 
decent probability of encountering a fish, there have to be a lot of 
fish in the water.
    Decisions that affect fishing access and fisheries conservation are 
made at every level of government all across the country. While fishing 
itself can be relaxing and carefree, fisheries policy is generally the 
opposite. Fisheries management is carried out in a wide range of 
regulatory and legislative arenas, following complicated processes that 
often arrive at contentious outcomes.
    In the southeastern U.S., where I work, the issues also get more 
complicated and contentious the further offshore you go. The federal 
government, via NOAA, manages fisheries in the exclusive economic zone 
(EEZ), which for the purpose of fisheries management is 3-200 miles off 
the South Atlantic coast and from 3 or 9 miles out to 200 miles in the 
Gulf of Mexico.
    While there are many important issues affecting marine fishery 
access and conservation, my testimony today will focus on what I 
believe are the top four issues currently impacting the recreational 
fishing community in the southeastern U.S.
Gulf Red Snapper

    Red snapper is arguably one of the most valued recreational 
fisheries in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and certainly the 
most contentious. The fishery is not considered overfished or 
undergoing overfishing but is in a rebuilding plan.\3\ Thanks to state 
management, Gulf red snapper recreational harvest opportunities have 
improved in recent years, but challenges remain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ NOAA Fisheries. Status of Stocks 2021: Annual Report to 
Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries. Available online at: https://
media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-05/2021%20Status%20of%20 
Stocks%20RtC_051022_FINAL.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Red Snapper Count

    Results of the Great Red Snapper Count (GRSC), which was funded 
with a $10 million appropriation from Congress to provide an 
independent estimate of abundance of Gulf red snapper, indicate that 
there are more than 118 million red snapper in the Gulf as of 2019. 
Abundance was previously estimated to be about 36 million fish. The 
wide disparity in estimates is explained by the GRSC finding a 
surprisingly large biomass of red snapper over uncharacterized bottom 
that was not considered in previous stock assessments. Although the 
GRSC improves our knowledge of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, the 
path to integrating this groundbreaking science into red snapper 
management and assessment has not been straightforward.
    Effective January 1, 2023, NOAA implemented regulations that use a 
percentage of the baseline GRSC estimate of abundance to increase the 
overfishing limit (OFL) for Gulf red snapper from 15.5 to 25.6 million 
pounds (mp). This increase accounts for the abundance of all red 
snapper over structure and 13% of the abundance from the 
uncharacterized bottom since most red snapper fishing occurs on 
artificial reefs, natural reefs, and other structures. The same 
rulemaking increased the allowable biological catch (ABC), which is 
equal to the overall annual catch limit (ACL) for red snapper, by 
300,000 pounds using the National Marine Fisheries Service bottom 
longline (NMFS BLL) survey rather than the GRSC. This results in the 
ABC being an unprecedented 60.1% below the OFL, whereas the previous 
ABC was 2.6% below the OFL. I'm not aware of any other fishery, at 
least in the southeast, with such a massive difference between the ABC 
and OFL. In frequently asked questions issued regarding the final rule, 
NOAA cites a declining trend in the NMFS BLL survey and uncertainty in 
the Great Red Snapper Count estimates as reasons for the large 
difference between the OFL and ABC. Increasing the OFL by a significant 
margin based on the GRSC, yet only providing a modest increase to the 
ABC and ACLs for red snapper is confusing to most fishermen, 
considering the GRSC increased the estimate of red snapper in the Gulf 
of Mexico by threefold.
    After recommending NOAA implement these new limits, the Gulf of 
Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) requested catch advice for 
red snapper be reconsidered using new studies and revised estimates 
from the GRSC. The GRSC results, revisions to the GRSC estimate for 
Florida based on a post-stratification analysis, and incorporation of a 
separate study that estimated red snapper abundance off Louisiana, were 
then used by NOAA to arrive at a Gulf wide red snapper abundance 
estimate of 85.6 million fish. This estimate was then used to generate 
catch advice scenarios for consideration by the GMFMC's Scientific and 
Statistical Committee (SSC). Ultimately, the SSC and GMFMC recommended 
an OFL of 18.9 mp and ABC (and overall ACL) of 16.31 mp. This latest 
round of catch advice sets a much lower OFL than that implemented by 
NOAA, seemingly discounting the findings of the peer reviewed GRSC, but 
increases the ABC based on the same information, thus making more fish 
available for harvest. This change in catch limits is currently under 
review and pending implementation by NOAA. Although the GRSC results 
indicate there are roughly three times as many red snapper in the Gulf 
than previously estimated, if this proposed rule is implemented, the 
overall Gulf ACL will increase by a modest 8% compared to the ACL in 
place before the GRSC was complete. This situation is difficult for 
experts, let alone the angling public, to understand and explain.
    A new research track stock assessment for Gulf red snapper is 
underway and will be followed with an operational assessment that will 
provide information about stock status and be used to generate catch 
advice. On a recent stock assessment webinar, NOAA staff tentatively 
proposed using 2018 GRSC data as regional indices of abundance in the 
assessment. We are hopeful that GRSC results can be meaningfully 
incorporated into the stock assessment to better inform red snapper 
management moving forward.
State Recreational Data Calibrations

    After two years of testing the concept of state management under 
exempted fishing permits, in 2020, NOAA delegated each of the Gulf 
states the ability to set red snapper seasons, bag limits, and size 
limits for their anglers in adjacent federal waters. State management 
has been a game changer by providing reasonable private angler access 
to red snapper harvest that is tailored to local needs while improving 
recreational catch monitoring compared to the federal Marine 
Recreational Information Program (MRIP), which provides general trends 
in recreational catch and effort but was not designed for tracking 
harvest relative to ACLs. Prior to state management, the federal Gulf 
red snapper season got shorter every year and was down to just a 
handful of days. Last year, private recreational angler red snapper 
seasons set by the states ranged from 57 to 128 days.
    Under state management, each state must monitor and constrain 
harvest relative to their allocated portion of the private angler 
component of the recreational ACL. To do this, each state uses their 
own data collection program that is designed to meet the needs of their 
state and its anglers. For example, Louisiana's program, called LA 
Creel, replaced MRIP in 2014 to provide more precise, localized, and 
near real time data on all saltwater recreational fisheries, including 
red snapper. Alabama and Mississippi designed programs that also 
provide red snapper harvest estimates independent of MRIP. Florida's 
program, called the State Reef Fish Survey, was designed to provide 
more precise and more timely catch and effort data on 13 species, 
including red snapper, by supplementing MRIP. The surveys from Florida, 
Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana are ``MRIP certified'' by NOAA, 
which means they have been peer-reviewed and determined to be 
statistically valid for monitoring recreational catches.
    In the final rule to implement state management, NOAA noted that 
calibrations that adjust for differences in the state data collection 
programs and MRIP would be necessary so that 1) landings from each of 
the different programs can be directly compared and 2) each state's 
ACLs could be adjusted such that each state's landings and ACL are in 
the same ``currency.'' NOAA implemented these calibrations effective 
January 1, 2023. Unfortunately, calibration has created unnecessary 
strain on Gulf red snapper state management, which has successfully 
resulted in improved data collection, sustainable access, and until 
now, minimized the friction between the angling community and fishery 
managers.
    ASA believes the simple calibration ratios that were finalized in 
this rulemaking calibrate the states' recreational red snapper data to 
MRIP using methods and data that are not the best available science. 
Indeed, at their February 2022 meeting, the Gulf of Mexico sub-group of 
the MRIP Transition Team acknowledged the limitations of the simple 
calibration ratio approach and recommended that alternative approaches 
be explored and used in the long term. While the proposed simple ratio 
calibrations achieve NOAA's goal of converting state data from four of 
the Gulf states into MRIP ``currency'' for easy comparison (Texas has 
never participated in MRIP, therefore did not require calibration), 
they fail to account for the data collection improvements made through 
the various state programs, the documented issues with using MRIP for 
ACL monitoring of Gulf red snapper, and drivers of the differences 
between the state programs and MRIP. In essence, although state 
programs like Alabama Snapper Check and Mississippi's Scales and Tails 
were designed to improve upon and replace the use of MRIP for red 
snapper monitoring, the ACLs for these states are still derived using 
problematic MRIP data. The calibration ratios will result in 
Mississippi and Alabama experiencing severe 50-60% ACL cuts starting 
this year, which will result in fewer harvest opportunities for 
anglers, and in turn, have negative economic impacts on the 
recreational fishing industry and disenfranchise the angling community 
that has supported and benefited from the data collection and 
management improvements realized under state management. Given that the 
GRSC shows a more robust population than previously believed, these 
cuts will be especially difficult for anglers to swallow.
    When the GMFMC approved these red snapper recreational data 
calibrations, they recommended postponing implementation of calibration 
to allow the Gulf states and the NOAA Office of Science and Technology 
time to resolve the differences in the state data collection programs 
and MRIP, as recommended by both the Council's SSC and a 2021 National 
Academy of Sciences report to Congress. Unfortunately, these 
differences have not yet been resolved, even with encouragement and 
appropriations from Congress. Although a multi-year plan has been 
developed, the slow progress in resolving this critical need is 
perpetuating a climate of mistrust and a lack of confidence, and 
results in anglers being unfairly penalized.
    Just two months after NOAA implemented these calibrations, the 
GMFMC initiated a new action that would update the calibration ratios 
for Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi based on recommendations from its 
SSC and concerns that adjustments to the calibration ratios may be 
warranted. These updates would change the years and/or MRIP waves used 
in the calibrations implemented by NOAA, but do not address the need 
for an alternative long-term approach. Quickly resolving the 
differences in the state data programs and MRIP should be a priority of 
NOAA and the Gulf of Mexico sub-group of the MRIP Transition Team so 
that more appropriate calibration methods can be developed as needed. 
We encourage NOAA to work collaboratively with the states on this so 
that both anglers and states trust the calibration process and 
outcomes.
South Atlantic Red Snapper

    In terms of rebuilding, Atlantic red snapper is a success story. 
The fishery has responded to strong regulatory measures taken by the 
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) to rebuild the stock. 
Since 2010, South Atlantic red snapper have rebounded so much that 
scientists and fishermen both agree the stock is at record abundance 
and biomass, such that there are now more red snapper in the South 
Atlantic today than any living person has ever seen. Recruitment of 
young fish into the population has also been consistently high for 
nearly a decade. However, success in rebuilding has not translated into 
successful management that provides reasonable harvest opportunities. 
The recreational fishery has largely been closed for the past 13 years 
except for a few weekend openings. Last year's season was two days.
    Successful rebuilding also has not affected the status of the 
Atlantic red snapper stock; the latest stock assessment indicates the 
fishery is undergoing overfishing and is overfished. Although red 
snapper are abundant, the fishery is considered overfished because most 
of the fish in the stock are young, and it is believed that older fish 
are the key to a healthy population. The stock assessment points to 
discards from the recreational fishery as the cause of overfishing. As 
red snapper have become more abundant, fishermen are catching more and 
are forced to release them when they are fishing for other species 
outside the red snapper closed season.
    Questions have been raised by the SAFMC, scientists, and the public 
about whether the data and assumed reference points in the stock 
assessment are leading us to the wrong conclusion about this fishery 
being overfished and undergoing overfishing. The overfishing 
designation hinges on discard estimates that are unvalidated, very 
uncertain, and generally considered unreliable and unsuitable for 
fisheries monitoring. In addition, much of the fishery independent data 
used the assessment are from relatively recent studies that do not 
provide us with a good historical perspective of the fishery, which is 
problematic for understanding the population dynamics of a fish that 
can live to be nearly 50 years old. How can red snapper be considered 
chronically undergoing overfishing when so much progress in rebuilding 
has occurred that the stock is at record abundance and biomass? Is this 
record biomass fueling the trend of continuously high recruitment of 
young fish? What about recruits coming over from the Gulf stock? Are 
more old fish truly necessary to sustain a healthy fishery, or is it 
possible that a stock with a lot of young fish can be just as 
productive as one with a broader range of ages? Better data and a fresh 
look at the measures of success that are used to assess and manage this 
stock are needed. Luckily, thanks to $5.1 million in appropriations 
from Congress, the Atlantic Red Snapper Count will provide independent 
data on Atlantic red snapper to inform the next stock assessment.
    Despite the serious questions about the reliability of the data and 
stock assessment, NOAA has informed the SAFMC that they are required to 
act to end overfishing immediately. At the June 2022 SAFMC meeting, the 
NOAA Southeast Regional Administrator noted that discard mortality 
needed to be reduced by 65% to end overfishing and advocated for the 
SAFMC to consider seasonal and/or area-based bottom fishing closures 
for all 55 species of snapper grouper as a way ``to keep people off the 
fish.''
    Thankfully, the SAFMC has thus far rejected this approach. Large 
area and/or seasonal closures to all bottom fishing would be 
devastating to the recreational fishing industry and South Atlantic 
offshore anglers and would sacrifice the ability to achieve optimum 
yield for the other 54 species in the snapper grouper complex. The 
remarkable rebuilding progress Atlantic red snapper has made in recent 
years raises serious questions about the need for extreme and draconian 
measures to end overfishing of red snapper, especially given the dire 
economic and social implications for fishermen, the recreational 
industry, and our coastal communities. ASA supports taking a science-
informed approach to red snapper and holding off considering seasonal 
and/or area-based bottom fishing closures and other significant 
measures until the South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count and other 
data that will improve our understanding of the stock are incorporated 
into the next assessment, which is slated to begin in 2024. ASA also 
supports taking a fresh look at the red snapper stock assessment 
assumptions and reference points before considering significant 
restrictions so that NOAA, SAFMC, and the public can be confident that 
they are making the right choice about the future direction of red 
snapper and the snapper grouper fishery as a whole.
    ASA supports reducing dead discards of red snapper, but snapper 
grouper bottom fishing closures are not the way to get there with a 
stock that by all measures is historically abundant and has rebounded 
at an astonishing pace. Soon, the SAFMC is expected to take a final 
vote to recommend that NOAA reduce the ACL for red snapper and prohibit 
use of more than one hook per line in the recreational snapper fishery 
as steps toward ending overfishing of red snapper. ASA supports these 
measures and the SAFMC's efforts to educate fishermen on use of 
descending devices and best fishing practices that help released fish 
survive. Moving forward, we are hopeful that states will obtain 
exempted fishing permits to test other ways to manage this fishery, 
improve data collection, and provide harvest opportunities that reflect 
rebuilding success.
North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Speed Restrictions

    On August 1, 2022, NOAA announced a proposed rule to broaden the 
current 10-knot (11.5 mph) speed restriction intended to protect North 
Atlantic right whales from vessel strikes to include vessels 35 feet 
and larger (down from 65 feet) and expand the speed zones from discrete 
calving areas to essentially the whole Atlantic Coast out as far as 90 
miles, with these restrictions lasting as long as seven months a year.
    These speed restrictions will severely impact offshore recreational 
fishing in the Atlantic, making fishing grounds that previously took at 
most a few hours to reach now impossible to get to and from in a single 
day. Rather than traveling slower, many offshore fishermen will forgo 
trips entirely, resulting in fewer expenditures and economic activity 
in coastal communities. Inevitably, many boat owners will question why 
they own, or would want to purchase, a boat that can't effectively be 
used for half the year.
    To be clear, ASA recognizes that the recreational fishing community 
has a responsibly to help protect North Atlantic right whales. As 
America's original conservationists, recreational anglers and boaters 
proactively support science-based efforts to conserve our marine 
ecosystems. In many cases, our industry has offered constructive input 
that was ultimately used to develop management solutions, including 
sacrificing recreational access for long-term benefits, that meet 
conservation goals and allow for the continued contributions our sector 
provides to the nation.

    While this proposed rule had been in development for more than a 
year, NOAA's Office of Protected Resources did not conduct any formal 
engagement with stakeholders. This lack of engagement helps partially 
explain, though does not justify, the significant flaws within the 
rule, including:

     An analysis of NMFS data found approximately 5.1 million 
            recreational fishing trips were taken in this region by 
            vessels 35-65 feet in length since 2008. Assuming all five 
            right whale strikes during that time were from recreational 
            vessels, and that all these vessels were on fishing trips, 
            the chance of a 35-65 foot recreational vessel striking a 
            right whale during an offshore fishing trip is at most 
            0.000098%, or less than one-in-a-million. Attempting to 
            predict risk on a one-in-a-million chance of a vessel 
            strike is simply not an effective management strategy and 
            highlights the futility of expanding the Seasonal Speed 
            Zones (SSZs) to address such a small possibility of vessel 
            strike interactions.

     NMFS is using unrepresentative whale density values in 
            their risk modelling, thereby creating a significant bias 
            that may overestimate risk to whales from small vessel 
            strikes. NMFS' own technical memo states that, ``the high 
            densities predicted along the mid-Atlantic may not be 
            realistic.''

     The model assumes 10-meter draft depth criteria when 
            calculating vessel strike risk. However, recreational 
            vessels in this size class rarely have a static draft that 
            exceeds 2 meters. This also creates bias that may 
            overestimate risk to whales from small vessel strikes.

     NMFS underestimates the number of recreational vessels 
            that will be impacted by the proposed rule at 9,200 
            vessels. However, based on 2021 vessel registration data 
            analyzed by Southwick Associates, there were more than 
            63,000 registered recreational saltwater vessels measuring 
            35-65 feet in states across the proposed SSZs.

     NMFS estimates the positive economic output from whale 
            watching in the northeast at $95.1 million. In contrast, 
            NMFS estimates $46.2 million in negative impacts for all 
            vessel size classes and regions combined. It is difficult 
            to understand how the economic benefits of whale watching 
            operations in the northeast exceeds the proposed rule's 
            economic harm to all recreational vessels.

     A sportfishing vessel and a shipping container vessel pose 
            different threats to right whales based on vessel 
            characteristics (e.g., length, draft, traffic patterns). 
            However, instead of developing management options based on 
            known differences in vessel characteristics (mainly traffic 
            patterns), NMFS estimates risk is uniform across all 
            vessels greater than 35 feet which is inconsistent with 
            best available science.

     Enforcement of the proposed rule using Automatic 
            Identification Systems (AIS) would be impractical and could 
            lead to significant human safety risk. AIS is mandatory for 
            certain vessels over 65 feet to improve the navigational 
            safety of the vessel and other vessels operating in the 
            area. AIS is not required on recreational vessels 35-65 
            feet although many boat owners voluntarily carry and 
            operate AIS for the added safety-at-sea benefits. It is a 
            very real concern that operators of boats less than 65 feet 
            may decide to turn off their AIS systems in fear of 
            triggering a speed restriction enforcement action. This 
            would have the unfortunate consequence of reducing 
            navigational safety, boater safety and hampering efforts 
            during search-and-rescue operations.

     Vessel speed is a significant safety feature on a 
            recreational boat. Most recreational boats lack high 
            displacement hull design that often provides ocean-going 
            and commercial vessel stability and the ability to operate 
            safely in significant sea states. The 10 knot speed limit 
            would force recreational boaters to operate in conditions 
            that would compromise safety of the passengers and vessel.

    While we strongly dispute that the proposed rule is a commensurate 
response to the level of risk that 35-65' vessels pose to right whales, 
we acknowledge that there is some risk, no matter how minimal. Right 
whales deserve better protection, but vast, blanket speed restrictions 
that are not based on the best available science are not the solution.
    Among the many flaws with this regulatory approach is the high 
level of non-compliance with existing vessel speed restriction. 
According to Oceana, non-compliance within existing seasonal management 
areas ranged from 32.7% to 89.6% over three seasons.\4\ It is illogical 
to take a regulatory approach that has shockingly low compliance among 
a relatively small number of professional shippers, apply it to a much 
larger area and to tens of thousands of non-professional vessel 
operators, and expect success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Oceana. July 2021. Speeding Toward Extinction: Vessel Strikes 
Threaten North Atlantic Right Whales. Available online at: https://
usa.oceana.org/sites/default/files/4046/narw-21-0002_ 
narw_ship_speed_compliance_report_m1_digital_singlepages_doi_web.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rather than rely on blanket speed restrictions that will have 
devastating impacts to the marine economy and offer little realized 
benefit to right whales, we believe the focus needs to be on technology 
that can deliver real-time monitoring of individual right whales. It is 
feasible to gather real-time location information on a significant 
portion of the right whale population and disseminate information to 
mariners and other vessel operators, which would apply empirically-
based, targeted precaution instead of excessively severe measures that 
do not accurately reflect actual risk nor can be adequately enforced.
    To that end, ASA is grateful that Congress included in the recent 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 the 
authorization of a near real-time monitoring and mitigation pilot 
program for North Atlantic right whales (Sec. 11303 of Public Law 117-
263). We urge Congress to fully fund this program. Our industry is 
eager to work with NOAA, and offers whatever expertise and assistance 
we can provide, to ensure the success of the near real-time monitoring 
and mitigation pilot program. We believe this approach offers our best 
hope of saving right whales from extinction.
Shark Depredation

    Imagine hooking the fish of your lifetime, enduring a long, hard 
fight to get it to the boat, and at the last second before landing the 
fish, a shark emerges and engulfs your catch. Few experiences can match 
the highs and lows of fishing as shark depredation, and unfortunately 
it is becoming an increasingly common occurrence.
    Shark depredation occurs when a shark eats or damages a hooked fish 
before the fish can be landed. These interactions can be frustrating 
for anglers when they result in damage to or loss of fish, bait, and/or 
fishing gear. There are also concerns that increasing levels of shark 
depredation on hooked fish and scavenging of released fish is reducing 
fish survival, negatively impacting fisheries, and will eventually 
contribute to stricter regulations intended to offset or avoid shark 
interactions. The sportfishing community cares about conservation of 
all marine life, and the escalating issue of shark interactions with 
recreational fishing must be addressed for the benefit of all fisheries 
and the fishing public.
    A recent study found that, ``77% [of anglers surveyed] had 
experienced depredation in nearshore and pelagic fisheries in the last 
five years, with depredation more commonly reported in the southeastern 
United States.'' \5\ 87% of charter guides surveyed said they 
experienced depredation with clients, resulting in a negative business 
impact. This research underscores the economic burden and negative 
attitudes generated from shark interactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Grace A. Casselberry, Ezra M. Markowitz, Kelly Alves, Joseph 
Dello Russo, Gregory B. Skomal, Andy J. Danylchuk. When fishing bites: 
Understanding angler responses to shark depredation, Fisheries 
Research, Volume 246, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the United States, sharks are managed at state, interstate, and 
national levels and through international treaties. Historically, shark 
populations were significantly reduced primarily due to overfishing. 
Over the past few decades, management under the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act has focused on rebuilding 
overfished stocks and maintaining sustainable shark fisheries. As such, 
the United States has achieved increases in populations of many shark 
species.\6\ Despite this progress, several shark species are expected 
to be in rebuilding plans for decades because they are slow to grow and 
reproduce; prohibited from harvest for conservation purposes; and/or 
listed under the Endangered Species Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Peterson et al. 2017. Preliminary recovery of coastal sharks in 
the south-east United States. Fish and Fisheries (18):845-859.
    \7\ NOAA HMS, 2021. 2021 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 
Report for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species. National Marine Fisheries 
Service, Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Division. 250 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although this multi-layered management framework has contributed to 
the success in rebuilding shark stocks, it also presents constraints in 
how fishery managers can respond to increasing shark interactions. 
Human conflicts with sharks are expected to further increase as shark 
populations continue to improve. This will require fishery managers and 
scientists to collaborate with the recreational fishing community on 
solutions, while considering the complexities of shark fishery 
management and science.

    We support a variety of methods to protecting sharks across four 
pillars: Education, Management, Policy and Research.
Education

    Given the apparent increase in the frequency of shark interactions, 
ASA believes educating anglers on how to avoid and respond to them 
should be a priority in the short term. Guidance should include 
information on the following strategies:

     Relocation

     Teaching the best methods for landing a fish quickly.

     How to avoid depredation when releasing fish.

     Use of shark deterrents, such as magnetic technology, that 
            can redirect sharks away from boats.

    As we learn more about shark interactions and how to address them, 
ASA expects educational messaging to evolve. We look forward to 
engaging with fishery managers and other organizations on developing a 
public messaging campaign surrounding shark encounter education.
Management

    We urge NOAA and other fishery managers to consider how shark 
management measures can impact fisheries and vice versa. NOAA should 
consider several strategies to manage shark and fish interactions, 
which could include designing a more holistic management approach that 
accounts for and balances species interactions, allowing anglers to 
turn discards into retained fish and allowing anglers to retain fish 
damaged by sharks.
    Harvest increases for shark stocks that are considered healthy and 
contribute to depredation should also be considered if supported by 
sound science. However, we caution against expanding the use of 
indiscriminate commercial fishing gear on sharks, which can create 
increased bycatch of important recreational fisheries, sea turtles and 
other protected species.
Policy

    It appears that shark depredation of targeted and scavenging of 
released fish may not be simply opportunistic, but a learned behavior. 
For example, shark dive tours in which sharks are attracted to dive 
sites by feeding may teach sharks to associate humans and their vessels 
with food. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(MSA) currently prohibits shark feeding off Hawaii and the Western 
Pacific because of such concerns. ASA supports amending MSA to end the 
practice of shark feeding nationwide.
Research

    ASA supports ongoing and future research to better understand the 
occurrence and causes of shark conflicts with fishing vessels. Specific 
shark research needs include the following:

     The species involved, locations and seasonality of shark 
            interactions.

     Prioritizing shark stock assessments to evaluate harvest 
            opportunities.

     Physiological cues, which may have led sharks to become 
            habituated to people and environmental cues.

     How angler behaviors and regulatory frameworks influence 
            shark interactions.

     Additional techniques and strategies for limiting shark 
            interactions, including the use of deterrents.

    Lastly, ASA recognizes that there is a wide array of government and 
non-government entities that are affected by and should be involved in 
addressing this challenge. Unfortunately, coordination across the 
fishery management community on how to tackle shark depredation has 
been severely lacking. ASA supports the establishment of a multi-
disciplinary task force to encourage coordination and communication and 
identify priorities and funding opportunities for research and 
strategies to address shark interactions.
    Increasing shark depredation is negatively impacting fishing 
experiences, threatening the safety of sharks and humans, and 
negatively impacting the sustainability of targeted fish populations. 
ASA believes that fishery managers need to move beyond identifying the 
challenges with shark interactions and begin working collectively on 
solutions.
Conclusion

    Thank you again for the opportunity to provide the sportfishing 
industry's perspective on some of the top challenges impacting marine 
recreational fishing in the southeastern U.S. We are grateful for the 
ongoing work of the House Natural Resources Committee to advance 
legislation that will strengthen the management and conservation of the 
nation's public lands and waters. We look forward to working with the 
Committee on legislation that impact the recreational fishing industry 
and America's 52 million anglers.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Martha Guyas, Southeast 
      Fisheries Policy Director, American Sportfishing Association

Ms. Guyas did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate 
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Dingell

    Our nation's water resources are a vital part of our environmental 
heritage. As we discuss access to U.S. water resources, we must 
remember that keeping America's fisheries sustainable is critical in 
keeping fisherman on the water, rebuilding overfished stocks, and 
securing our seafood supply.

    Every angler knows that big fish need little fish to eat, that is 
why robust forage fish populations are vital for the overall health of 
the marine ecosystem.

    Forage fish are smaller fish that support other recreationally and 
commercially important species such as tuna, salmon, and cod. However, 
many of these fish species have declined dramatically in recent years, 
while demand for these fish species has only continued to grow.

    Question 1. Ms. Guyas, as I recall, the Morris-Deal report, which 
articulated a vision for management of recreational fisheries and was 
endorsed by the American Sportfishing Association, included the need 
for improved forage fish management as one of its key policy pillars. 
Ms. Guyas, how important are forage fish for healthy recreational 
fisheries?

    Question 2. Ms. Guyas, last Congress, I introduced the bipartisan 
Forage Fish Conservation Act, which was passed out of this committee as 
part of the broader MSA reauthorization. The Forage Fish Conservation 
Act would implement science-based management approaches to ensure we 
have enough forage fish in our oceans for a healthy marine ecosystem. 
It also earned the support of 10 Republicans and 11 Democrats as co-
sponsors, underscoring the broad consensus for strengthened fisheries 
management. Ms. Guyas, but left unaddressed, how will declining forage 
fish stocks affect the overall marine environment?

    Question 3. Speaking of bipartisan efforts to promote healthy 
fisheries and help sustain fishery access for anglers, American 
Sportfishing Association has also supported the Recovering America's 
Wildlife Act. Ms. Guyas, why would RAWA be transformational for 
wildlife conservation and sportsmen's access to water resources?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. I thank the witness for the testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Cordalis for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF AMY CORDALIS, LEGAL COUNSEL, YUROK TRIBE, KLAMATH, 
   CALIFORNIA, AND CO-FOUNDER, RIDGES TO RIFFLES INDIGENOUS 
           CONSERVATION GROUP, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Cordalis. [Native language spoken] Subcommittee 
Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    My name is Amy Cordalis. I am a member of the Yurok Tribe, 
Legal Counsel for the Tribe, and also the co-founder of the 
Ridges to Riffles Indigenous Conservation Group, a non-profit 
dedicated to the protection of tribal cultural and natural 
resources.
    Unfortunately, there are few better examples of the 
challenges associated with multi-use water resources than my 
home waters, the Klamath Basin in Southern Oregon and Northern 
California.
    The Klamath supports Tribal Nations, a Federal irrigation 
project, a wildlife refuge, a hydroelectric project, recreation 
and commercial and offshore fisheries. Historically, when the 
Klamath was healthy, it could support all these interests. But 
now the Basin is in ecological, cultural, and economic crisis. 
No one is thriving.
    The Federal Government, working through the Departments of 
the Interior and Commerce, often work at cross purposes trying 
to appease the interests of diverse groups rather than serving 
the public interest through policies that support ecosystem 
resiliency and equitable access and use of waters.
    There is no harsher example of the risk created by Federal 
agencies working at cross purposes than the 2002 Klamath River 
Fish Kill. That year, over 78,000 adult Chinook salmon died on 
the Klamath River within the boundaries of the Yurok 
Reservation. It was the largest fish kill in American history.
    It was caused by the Bureau making deliveries to 
agriculture that led to historic low flows on the Klamath River 
at the same time a healthy run of adult Chinook salmon returned 
to the river. A fish disease called ich spread through the 
salmon run and killed them.
    The fish kill was caused by the Bureau's mismanagement of 
the Klamath. It led to closures of the entire West Coast salmon 
fishery in 2004 and harmed endangered whales and was a 
violation of the Yurok Tribe's water and fishing rights and a 
breach of the Federal Government's trust responsibility to us.
    2023 poses yet again a difficult year in which there may 
not be enough water to meet the needs of endangered fish and 
agriculture despite all of the hydrology coming in in other 
parts of the area.
    So, it is not because this is a dry year, but because the 
Bureau is once again mismanaging the Klamath. The Bureau 
allowed too much water, including illegal diversions, from 
Upper Klamath Lake to be used last year. And as a result, lake 
levels are now low. The Bureau claims there won't be enough 
water to meet ESA needs and decided to violate the NMFS Coho 
BiOp by cutting river flows 16 percent below those required by 
the BiOp from January through April.
    Salmon redds are at risk of being dewatered. And as we move 
further into March and April, tens of thousands of salmon fry 
are at risk of dying because there won't be sufficient habitat.
    These 2 years illustrate that conflicting demands on water 
often leads to poor management that drives ecosystems and the 
cultures and economies dependent upon them further into crisis. 
Making matters worse, the Federal Government continues to 
ignore the Yurok Tribe's water rights. No water is provided to 
protect the Tribe's interest, despite decades of harm to our 
fishery and community water supplies.
    We haven't had a viable commercial fishery in over 10 years 
because salmon populations are at 1 to 5 percent of their 
historical size. Failed Klamath stocks leads to commercial 
fisheries' closures throughout the West Coast because salmon 
country is all connected.
    Commercial and subsistence fisheries are important and are 
likely to collapse under current management regimes. This 
mismanagement is happening under Republican and Democratic 
administrations. The Federal Government would do better to 
serve the Klamath by recognizing water management is a 
bipartisan issue, because every American deserves equitable use 
and access to water resources.
    The path forward in the Klamath is taking this fundamental 
approach and supporting local solutions that rebuild 
ecosystems, cultures, and economies.
    Klamath dam removal embodies this approach. Klamath dams 
don't impact water supplies, generate a very small amount of 
power, and are old and require significant investments. And 
they destroy the Klamath River ecosystem and tribal rights.
    PacifiCorp made a business decision to remove those dams 
that were supported by the local stakeholders.
    And, Chairman Bentz, in your remarks you asked, who do we 
rely on? And I urge this Committee, the Subcommittee, to rely 
on the American people, because time and time again we have 
always met the challenges of the day, and we will find local 
solutions to these problems as well.
    Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Cordalis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Amy Cordalis, Yurok Tribal Member, Legal Counsel 
for the Yurok Tribe, and Co-Founder of the Ridges to Riffles Indigenous 
                           Conservation Group
    Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 
today at the hearing on Benefits and Access: the Necessity for Multiple 
Use of Water Resources. My name is Amy Cordalis, and I am a Yurok 
Tribal member, legal counsel for the Yurok Tribe, and co-founder of the 
Ridges to Riffles Indigenous Conservation Group, a non-profit dedicated 
to the protection of tribal cultural natural resources. I submit this 
testimony on behalf of the Yurok Tribe and Ridges to Riffles Indigenous 
Conservation Group.
I. USE AND ACCESS TO WATER SHOULD REFLECT THE RICH DIVERSITY OF THIS 
        COUNTRY BY ENSURING THAT EVERY AMERICAN HAS EQUITABLE ACCESS TO 
        WATER RESOURCES
    Across the Nation, there are powerful watersheds that support life 
on this planet. Iconic watersheds--like the Mississippi, Colorado, 
Columbia, and the Klamath--carry water and resources from mountain 
headwaters through forests, plains, deserts, and valleys to the Ocean 
as a part of this planet's hydrologic cycle.
    All life requires water. Accordingly, the United States has 
developed watersheds to maximize their benefit to the nation. 
Watersheds support multiple uses, such as providing water for domestic, 
industrial, commercial, municipal, tribal, fisheries and wildlife, 
agriculture, hydropower, and recreation. Over the last one hundred 
years, watersheds were vastly altered through massive federal 
reclamation and hydropower projects. The buildup of western dams and 
irrigation projects changed the western landscape and allocated water 
to consumptive uses for large agricultural, industrial, and municipal 
needs. The legacy of that development has been the impairment of tribal 
rights, fisheries, and ecosystem health--but it does not have to be 
this way.
    Multiple federal agencies--subject to complex, often conflicting 
statutory and regulatory directives--are responsible for managing these 
diverse watersheds. Climate change and drought further complicate 
matters by reducing the amount of water available and drastically 
changing hydrological patterns. Now, many major watersheds in the 
United States are sick and weak. Overworked and compromised by decades 
of habitat destruction, too-high water diversions, and pollution. 
Several west coast fisheries, including the Klamath River, have 
collapsed and many species are on the verge of extinction. Incredibly, 
every major river on the west coast has been in prolonged litigation 
for decades over collapsing fisheries impaired by historic development.
    Our current western water conflicts, which are many, arise not from 
a lack of ingenuity or a failure of its water users to engage in 
solutions; rather, the conflicts are created by ecosystem collapse 
caused by inadequate instream flows, polluted water, degraded habitat, 
over allocation of water, aging infrastructure for reclamation and 
hydroelectric projects, and conflicting regulatory directives. Congress 
and federal agencies should support equitable access to water, 
incentivize ecosystem restoration, and champion regulatory and physical 
infrastructure modernization to be sure that the multiple beneficial 
uses of our water resources meet the needs of the public in the 21st 
century.

    Further, use and access to water should reflect the rich diversity 
of the country by ensuring that every American has equitable access to 
water resources. This can be achieved by supporting laws and policies 
that equally value human interests (including Indigenous), business 
interests, and ecological interests in multiple-use waters. This can be 
accomplished by:

  1)  restoring ecological health of major watersheds;

  2)  empowering stakeholders -- tribes, states, businesses, and NGOs 
            -- to co-manage water resources;

  3)  updating or removing aged and inefficient infrastructure;

  4)  engaging in better water use planning based on the best available 
            science and law, for drought, tribal rights, and 
            agriculture deliveries;

  5)  upholding the Nation's duties to Indigenous peoples.

II. WATER USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE BASED ON 20TH-CENTURY ETHOS AND 
        TECHNOLOGY

    Much of the Country's water resources were developed in the early 
1900s. The development was based on laws, policies, and technologies of 
the era when little was known about ecosystem function or health. At 
that time, the nation was ending a war with Indigenous nations and the 
country was moving westward, developing an agrarian and extractive 
economy that incentivized inefficient water usage of few over wise use 
for many.
    The nation prioritized the development of water resources to 
support energy and food production at any cost. Rivers were dammed 
without fish passage. Ecosystems were altered by wetland draining, 
flooding of other lands, and rerouting of waterways to construct 
federal reclamation projects. In most cases, water resources were 
developed without regard for ecological implications. Tribal treaty 
rights to water, fish, hunt, and gather were either terminated, 
removed, or flat-out ignored.
    Today, we witness the implications of past water resource 
development. Many water-based ecosystems across the country are sick--
polluted and weak. Some species, including salmon, are close to 
extinction and we have lost many species already. Tribal water rights 
remain unrecognized. Of the over 574 federally recognized Tribes, less 
than 45 have had their water rights quantified.\1\ Moreover, these 
unquantified, and usually senior, tribal water rights remain ignored or 
contested, like the Yurok Tribe's water rights on the Klamath and many 
tribes in the Colorado River Basin. Further, much of the hydropower and 
reclamation project infrastructure built in the 1900s has aged and is 
in poor condition and in need of significant investment to become 
efficient and consistent 21st-century technology. Power companies often 
refer to these projects as ``legacy assets'' that no longer bring value 
to the company and are burdens on company portfolios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Making matters worse, the federal agencies involved in managing 
multiple-use waterways responsible for protecting farmers, tribes, and 
species seem to work at cross purposes failing to implement multiple 
statutory requirements. This results in poor natural resource 
management that further plunges water ecosystems and communities 
relying on water diversions into crisis.
    Climate change and drought make water resources management even 
more difficult by reducing the reliability of modeling necessary to 
support water and species management. Climate change is also causing 
changes to hydrology patterns in ways that we cannot predict, making 
management of federal reclamation projects even more unreliable and 
risky.
III. ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL CRISIS IN MANY WATERSHEDS--
        CLIMATE CHANGE EXACERBATES CRISIS: THE KLAMATH BASIN EXAMPLE

    Unfortunately, there are few better examples in the Country of the 
challenges associated with multi-use water resources than my home 
waters, the Klamath River Basin in Southern Oregon and Northern 
California.
    The Klamath River Basin is a mighty basin. Its headwaters are in 
southern Oregon which flow into Upper Klamath Lake, home to the Klamath 
Tribes, the Klamath Reclamation Project, and the Klamath National Bird 
and Wildlife Refuge. The waters then flow into the Klamath River and 
downstream through the Klamath Hydroelectric project, into California 
and through Karuk Tribe Country, the Yurok Reservation, and finally 
into the Pacific Ocean. The Klamath supports tribal nations, a federal 
irrigation project, wildlife refuges, a hydroelectric project, 
recreation, and commercial and offshore fisheries.
a. Klamath Basin Development

    For millennia the Indigenous peoples of the Klamath Basin managed 
the natural resources of the Klamath Basin. The pillar of their 
management was balance: never take more than what was needed to support 
family and tribe, reflecting respect and honor for the ecosystem that 
provided life. Indeed, the people and the species of the Klamath 
Basin--including the now notorious endangered coho salmon and suckers--
evolved and co-existed in the Basin together. The success of this 
approach is proved by the fact that the historical Klamath salmon runs 
were the 3rd largest in the continental United States.
    This was disrupted by colonization in the mid 1800s and early 
1900s. In 1855, the Yurok Reservation was created through Executive 
Order on the lower 45 miles, one mile on either side of the Klamath 
River, reserving for the Yurok people its inherent sovereignty, and 
aboriginal water, fishing, hunting, and gathering rights.\2\ The 
Klamath Reclamation Project was authorized in 1905, setting in motion 
the draining of the Upper Klamath Basin wetlands and lower Klamath Lake 
to make over 200,000 acres available for agriculture, the removal of 
the river channel from the Upper Klamath Lake to the Klamath mainstem, 
and the construction of over a hundred miles of canals to carry Klamath 
water to agricultural fields.\3\ This work forever changed the 
ecosystem of upper Klamath lake by dramatically altering its natural 
state and disrupting critical ecological functions necessary to keep 
the ecosystem healthy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ www.yuroktribe.org.
    \3\ https://www.usbr.gov/mp/kbao/aboutus/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While construction on the Klamath Reclamation project was still 
happening in the Upper Klamath Basin, construction on the Klamath 
Hydroelectric project began in 1912 and continued with the development 
of four dams by 1962. Built without salmon ladders, these dams block 
salmon from accessing over 400 miles of spawning habitat which has 
nearly annihilated the wild salmon stocks in the Klamath River. Making 
matters worse in 1955, Congress authorized the development of the 
Trinity River Diversion (``TRD'') to divert water from the Trinity 
River, one of the largest tributaries to the Klamath and one of the 
most important for salmon, into the Central Valley Project. In 1980, an 
Environmental Impact statement reported an 80% decline in chinook 
salmon and a 60% decline in steelhead populations since the 
construction of the TRD and reported that lack of instream flows as the 
primary cause.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Biological Opinion for the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery 
Restoration EIS and Its Effects on Southern Oregon/Northern California 
Coast Coho Salmon, Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon, Central 
Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon, and Central Valley Steelhead, at 2. 
See, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/
bay_delta/california_ waterfix/exhibits/docs/PCFFA&IGFR/part2/
pcffa_109.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Through this, the federal government's trust responsibility to the 
Indigenous peoples of the Klamath Basin, including the Yurok Tribe, 
remained to protect tribal homelands, fishing, and water rights. Yet, 
as for Yurok, the Tribe's hard-fought-for federally reserved fishing 
and water rights have been ignored. The Tribal commercial fishery has 
been closed for almost 10 years and the subsistence fishery has been 
dismal due to nearly collapsed Klamath salmon stocks. The Tribe's water 
supply is not sufficient to support economic development, housing, or 
government services on the Reservation.
    Today, the federal government working through the Department of 
Interior--the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation--and the Department of 
Commerce--through NOAA fisheries--often works at cross purposes trying 
to appease the interests of these diverse groups rather than serving 
the public interest through policies that support ecosystem resiliency 
and equitable access and use of waters. There are dismal runs of fish 
and an insufficient water supply on the Yurok Reservation because the 
federal government manages the Basin to appease competing needs rather 
than following congressional direction established in the law of the 
Klamath River through Tribal treaties, the Endangered Species Act, the 
Reclamation Act and other sources. These important laws establish a 
priority in the Klamath Basin to satisfy tribal treaty rights and 
Endangered Species Act needs prior to other interests in the Basin. 
Yet, the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau or Reclamation) continues to 
ignore the Yurok Tribe's water rights and fails to manage the Klamath 
project to ensure sufficient water for Endangered Species Act listed 
species.
b. 2002 Fish Kill and 2023 Temporary Operations Plan; the Federal 
        Government at Cross Purposes

    There is no harsher example of the risk created by federal agencies 
working at cross purposes than the 2002 Klamath River fish kill. In 
2002, over 78,000 adult chinook salmon died on the Klamath River within 
the boundaries of the Yurok Reservation. This was the largest fish kill 
in American history. The fish kill was caused by the Bureau of 
Reclamation allocating water for agricultural deliveries that dropped 
river flows below 800 cubic acre feet per second at Iron Gate Dam. The 
result was some of the lowest flows the Klamath River has ever 
experienced at the same time a healthy run of adult chinook salmon 
returned to the river. The low flows reduced the habitat available for 
salmon causing overcrowding, increased water temperatures to almost 
lethal warm temperatures, and polluted water quality. This created 
river conditions that spread a fish disease called Ich, a fatal and 
extremely contagious fish disease that spread through the entire salmon 
run that year.
    The fish kill was man-made; the Bureau of Reclamation diverted 
water to support agriculture, cut river flows, and the fish died as a 
direct result. It impacted tribal fisheries, ocean fisheries, and ocean 
species dependent on salmon. In 2004 west coast salmon fisheries were 
closed down due to the low levels of Klamath River stock which was the 
same class of fish killed in the 2002 fish kill. Further, southern 
Oregon orca whales are now listed on the Endangered Species Act due to 
population loss caused by insufficient food supplies, mostly salmon 
from the Klamath River. The Yurok Tribe hopes the salmon did not die in 
vain. Instead, may their deaths teach us that we must equally value the 
rights and needs of ecosystems with those of people and businesses on 
multipurpose waters.
    This year, 2023, poses yet again a difficult water year in which 
there won't be enough water to meet conflicting needs of Endangered 
Species Listed species of coho salmon and sucker fish, and agricultural 
needs. The Bureau of Reclamation's mismanagement of the Klamath 
Reclamation Project is exacerbating these problems. In 2022, 
Reclamation provided a second agricultural allocation and allowed 
illegal water diversions for agriculture through late summer, fall, and 
winter which drained the Upper Klamath Lake to low levels. In January 
the Bureau adopted a 2023 Temporary Operations Plans (TOP) which 
adopted a system wide priority of making an Upper Klamath Lake level of 
4142.4 to improve sucker spawning habitat in the lake and the USFWS 
issued a new Sucker Biological Opinion that reinforced the lake level 
as a system priority.\5\ Because of the extra agricultural deliveries, 
there is not enough water in the lake now to meet 4142.4 while also 
allowing releases of water to the river to meet the minimum flows 
required by the NMFS Coho Biological Opinion (Coho BiOp).\6\ As a 
result, for the first time since 2005 when the 9th circuit in Pacific 
Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations v. U.S. Bureau of 
Reclamation, 426 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2005), declared Coho BiOp minimum 
flows in the Klamath essential to salmon survival, the Bureau cut river 
flows to 800-834 cfs, 16% below those required by the NMFS Coho 
BiOp.\7\ The Bureau is now in violation of the Coho BiOp because it is 
not maintaining minimum flows required by the BiOp, it has not 
consulted with NMFS on the impacts of dropping flows, and it will cause 
take of coho which is a violation of the Endangered Species Act. The 
results have been disastrous. Salmon redds have been stranded. As we 
move into March, both coho and chinook salmon fry will migrate 
downriver and there will be insufficient habitat which will cause high 
mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https : / / www.usbr.gov / mp / kbao / docs / klamath-project-
january2023top01262023.pdf; https://www.usbr.gov/mp/kbao/docs/
20230113final-2023-klamathproject-biological-opinion-fws-wcover-
signed.pdf.
    \6\ https : / / www.fisheries.noaa.gov / resource / document / 
biological-opinion-effects-proposed-klamath-project-operations-may-31-
2013.
    \7\ In more detail, going below the minimum flows violates the ESA 
in three ways. First, Reclamation has not completed consultation with 
the National Marine Fisheries Service (``NMFS'') on going below the 
minimums, which have been treated by Reclamation and NMFS as inviolate 
ever since the Ninth Circuit held in 2005 that the minimum flows had to 
be met throughout the life of Klamath Project operations plans. 
Reclamation is, therefore, in violation of its duty to consult with 
NMFS before it takes actions that are likely to adversely affect SONCC 
Coho Salmon and Southern Resident Killer Whales by depleting their 
Chinook Salmon prey base. Second and related, Reclamation set into 
motion the conditions it now asserts necessitating going below the 
minimums when it increased agricultural water deliveries in the summer 
of 2022. Reclamation established the water allocation in the spring in 
keeping with the 2019 Biological Opinion and Interim Operations Plan, 
but then allocated an additional 57,000 AF to agriculture when water 
availability exceeded the spring forecasts. Just as the 2019 Biological 
Opinion never analyzed the effects of going below the minimums, so too 
it did not assess the effects of providing more water to agriculture 
than allocating in keeping with the parameters set out in the 
operations plan. The past two years have underscored how important it 
is to ensure adequate water is in Upper Klamath Lake at the end of the 
water year to ensure water availability to meet the needs of the 
endangered fish in both the lake and the river. Third, going below the 
minimums will cause the take of SONCC Coho Salmon in violation of ESA 
Section 9 by dewatering salmon redds, reducing spawning habitat 
availability, and reducing juvenile salmon habitat availability. If the 
flows continue to be below minimums into the spring, salmon fry and 
juveniles will experience reduced rearing habitat and the impacts of C. 
shasta infections to young salmon will be exacerbated. In order to 
avoid such take, Reclamation must not allocate more water to Ag after 
the water allocations are set in the spring and must not go below the 
minimum instream flows required to protect ESA-listed species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The loss of this class of salmon impacts the overall health of the 
Klamath salmon stocks by reducing stock population and genetic 
diversity. Only 1-5% of the Klamath salmon stocks remain. Only once in 
the last eight years have the Klamath chinook salmon made the 
escapement goal and only 20 times out of the last 44 years.\8\ Taken 
together the future is grim for Klamath salmon stocks and the people, 
like the Yurok Tribe and the Commercial fishermen who depend on them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/documents/
ContextDocs.aspx?cat=KlamathTrinity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Importantly, Yurok's senior water rights remain unrecognized, and 
no water is provided to protect Yurok's tribal trust resources. A grave 
miscarriage of justice provided that Yurok's water rights are some of 
the most senior in the Basin and include flows for fisheries purposes 
that would provide water to help restore Klamath salmon stocks and 
ecosystem resiliency.
    2002 and 2023 illustrate the challenges of managing multi-purpose 
watersheds: ecological collapse, harm and failure to recognize tribal 
rights, conflicting species needs, over allocation of water resources, 
lack of water to support agriculture and wildlife refuges, and aging 
inefficient infrastructure. There are too many conflicting demands on 
too little water in the Klamath Basin. There will be no fish, birds, 
farmers, or Indians in the Basin if the status quo continues. The 
Klamath ecosystem will simply collapse.
c. The Future of the Klamath Basin

    The future of the Klamath is investing in habitat restoration to 
make the ecosystem more resilient. Species will recover not by 
providing minimum lake levels or river flows as required by the 
Endangered Species Act but by improving water quality, restoring 
habitat, and attempting to restore the Basin closer to its original 
condition to enable natural ecosystem functions. Agriculture should be 
made sustainable. Power companies should be allowed to terminate legacy 
dams and assets. The recent investments in the Klamath Basin through 
President Biden's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction 
Act funding will support critical restoration projects that will begin 
the process of healing the Klamath ecosystem.
    As for the role of the federal government, the Klamath Basin would 
be better served by a recognition that water management is a bipartisan 
issue because every American, including those in the Klamath Basin, 
deserves equitable use of and access to water. The best approach is one 
that empowers local Indigenous people, farmers, power companies, 
recreation industries, and fishermen to comanage the resources that 
impact their livelihood. Drought can be managed through planning. 
Tribal rights can be acknowledged through planning. Agriculture can be 
managed through planning. The federal government, including Congress 
and the Administration, should empower this process by investing and 
supporting locally driven solutions such as a management council that 
would allow tribes, farmers, NGOs, and the federal government to 
determine annual water allocations and regulatory compliance.
IV. RESTORE ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE BY INVESTING IN WATERSHED RESTORATION 
        AND LOCAL CO-MANAGEMENT AND SOLUTIONS

    To maximize the public value by supporting multiple uses of water 
resources, the nation should support ecological resilience by investing 
in our waters with the goal of ensuring that every American has 
equitable access to water resources. This can be achieved by supporting 
laws and policies that equally value human (including Indigenous), 
business, and ecological interests on multiple use waters, empowering 
local stakeholders to co-manage water and investing in ecosystem 
restoration to build watershed resiliency.
    Any recent success on the Klamath has come through this fundamental 
approach of equality in access and use of federal waters. Klamath dam 
removal represents a model for updating water resource infrastructure 
to restore ecosystems, improve equitable water use and access while 
advancing business interests.\9\ Klamath Dam removal is contemplated 
according to the terms of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement 
Agreement (KHSA). The KHSA is signed by California, Oregon, Karuk 
Tribe, Yurok Tribe, Pacificorp, and several NGOs. Klamath dam removal 
is scheduled to be completed by December 2024. Four dams will be 
removed to restore volitional fish passage and allow salmon to return 
to over 400 miles of spawning habitat. Dam removal will provide several 
benefits to the entire ecosystem by improving the overall ecosystem's 
health and resiliency, allowing the river to heal and flow naturally. 
This will improve water quality, lower water temperatures, and reduce 
fish disease. This will improve conditions for all species on the 
river, not just salmon, and will restore important tribal trust 
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://klamathrenewal.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dam removal does not reduce or impact the amount of water available 
in the system for sucker fish, coho salmon, or agricultural needs. 
Importantly, PacifiCorp, owner of the Klamath hydroelectric project, 
chose to support dam removal based on the best interests of the 
corporation and their ratepayers because it was more affordable to 
remove dams than it was to install fish ladders as would have been 
required by the Federal Power Act. Finally, the Klamath dams generated 
a very small amount of energy. On the Klamath, dam removal worked 
because it equally served tribal, ecosystem, and business interests.
    Some question removing dams while the country is moving toward 
renewable energy, arguing hydropower is a clean green energy source. 
However, no energy source is ``clean or green'' if it ignores tribal 
treaty rights, leads species to extinction and causes ecological 
collapse, which is sadly the case for many hydroelectric projects in 
the Country. Further, in many cases, a decision on whether to remove 
aging infrastructure or a legacy asset that no longer serves ratepayers 
and the public should be left to the power companies and local 
stakeholders. It should not be influenced by political party positions.
V. CONCLUSION

    ``Conservation means development as much as it means protection. I 
recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the 
natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to 
waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after 
us''

                       Theodore Roosevelt, Osawatomie, Kansas, 1910    

    Our Nation developed some of the world's most powerful multiple 
purpose water resources in the 20th century. Much of this development 
was supported by President Roosevelt, who believed equally in the 
development and protection of natural resources. As we enter the 21st 
century, the Nation should once again follow the leadership of 
President Roosevelt by encouraging protection, rather than unencumbered 
development, as the guiding principle of multiple uses of water 
resources management.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you for your testimony.
    And with that, I recognize Mr. Corwin for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF SCOTT CORWIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST PUBLIC 
            POWER ASSOCIATION, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON

    Mr. Corwin. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, members 
of the Committee, I thank you for this opportunity. I love 
talking hydropower.
    I am Scott Corwin, Executive Director of the Northwest 
Public Power Association, comprised of consumer and electric 
utilities across the West, many in communities where clean, 
renewable hydropower plays a prominent role.
    Hydropower has a rich history as a critical part of 
multiple use river systems. When much of the West was still 
without electricity in the early 20th century, the dams brought 
light, economic opportunity, and a new way of life. Dams are 
also critical to transportation, irrigation, flood control, 
recreation, and have a multitude of mitigation measures for 
fisheries and endangered species protection.
    Although it makes up only 7 percent of energy capacity 
nationally, hydropower provides almost 60 percent of the 
capacity in the Northwest, and almost 90 percent of the 
capacity used by many of our members who have contracts with 
Federal power marketing administrations.
    There is a lot of great potential for new hydropower at 
existing dams where there isn't generation yet and at sites 
where pumped storage is possible. Federally owned hydropower is 
subject to congressional oversight through this Committee and 
has a distinctly different regulatory regime than non-Federal 
hydropower. Utility consumers with first right to Federal power 
pay for those costs of the operations and maintenance of 
projects and rates set by those four Federal power marketing 
administrations, or PMAs. Proper allocation of costs to various 
power and non-power purposes is an important principle.
    Non-Federal hydropower is subject to an often arduous and 
lengthy licensing and permitting process involving multiple 
Federal agencies and other interests. The average time to 
relicense a project is 7 years and costs $3.5 million in 
paperwork, not counting any new environmental, or safety, or 
other upgrades.
    It took less time to renew Energy Northwest's license for 
their 1,200-megawatt nuclear plant than it did for their 27-
megawatt hydro project. Without change to these unpredictable 
timelines and costs, there is serious risk of abandonment of 
projects. According to the National Hydropower Association, by 
2035, there are 459 licenses up for renewal for about 9,076 
megawatts of hydropower and 8,380 megawatts of pumped storage.
    So, we support the legislative proposals that would improve 
the hydropower permitting process, and we also support creating 
a level playing field in tax policy for existing hydropower to 
receive the treatment similar to other renewable generation.
    Another permitting challenge to hydropower involves areas 
prone to wildfire where runoff from Federal lands creates rapid 
buildup of sediment in reservoirs, which causes serious 
problems at those projects.
    The bottom line is we need hydropower because it is 
efficient, clean, reliable, relatively low cost, and, most 
importantly, because it is flexible. It can be adjusted quickly 
to changes in demand.
    Hydropower plays a critical role in the Western 
interconnection for grid resilience. Though it is only 10 
percent of the total generation for the California independent 
system operator, it makes up 60 percent of the CAISO's spinning 
reserves.
    Hydropower was there when needed during last summer's 
heatwaves in the Northwest and in California. The four lower 
Snake dams provided over 1,000 megawatts of energy production 
and reserve capacity while maintaining flows for juvenile fish 
migration. And for reference, 1,000 megawatts is about the same 
amount used by a city the size of Seattle.
    A study conducted for the Public Power Council showed 
losing generation from just those four dams would result in 
increased annual CO2 emissions of over 4 million 
metric tons per year and would increase the risk of shortage 
events in the Western grid, which is already concerned about 
resource adequacy and increased risk of rolling blackouts, and 
would cost energy consumers about $790 million per year in 
added costs. In other words, this is critical hydropower 
capacity that is not easily replaced.
    Hydropower is well positioned to play a lead role in our 
energy future. It complements and enables other multiple uses 
of our water resources and is one of the best, most flexible 
tools that we have to achieve our energy goals and face the 
challenges ahead.
    Thank you for your leadership in holding this oversight 
hearing today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Corwin follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Scott Corwin, Executive Director, Northwest 
                        Public Power Association
    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the 
multiple use of water resources so vital to the economic and social 
fabric of communities across our country. We appreciate you holding 
this hearing and your support of water resources and specifically of 
the hydroelectric power generation that our members rely on to energize 
their communities.
    The Northwest Public Power Association is comprised of over 150 
consumer-owned electric utilities in the Western United States and 
British Columbia. These are rural electric cooperatives, 
municipalities, and public utility districts governed by the people 
they serve and located in the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, 
Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
    Our membership uses a wide mix of power generation resources 
including coal, natural gas, hydropower, nuclear, wind, solar, 
geothermal, biomass, and diesel. With many members relying on it to 
meet a large portion of their demand, clean and renewable hydropower 
plays a prominent role in many rural communities in the West that face 
economic challenges from an array of other factors.
Background on Hydropower and Multiple Use of Water Resources

    Hydropower has been the foundation of renewable power since the 
earliest use of the waterwheel to grind corn. In many areas of the 
country, and particularly in the West, hydropower is a critical element 
of the multiple use river systems that are the lifeblood of these 
communities. When much of the West was still without electricity in the 
early 20th century, the dams brought light, economic opportunity, and a 
new way of life as the nation emerged from the great depression.
    A foundation of the West's energy supply, hydropower is a vital 
component of our nation's clean energy generation portfolio. Although 
it makes up only 7% of energy capacity nationally, hydropower provides 
25% of the capacity in Alaska, almost 60% of the capacity in the 
Northwest generally, and almost 90% of the capacity used by our members 
who have contracts with the federal power marketing administrations 
such as the Bonneville Power Administration and Western Area Power 
Administration.
    The dams lend not only a clean, continuing supply of power, they 
are critical to transportation, irrigation, flood control, and 
recreation as well. Just down the road from our office in Vancouver, 
Washington, flood levels of the Columbia River in the late 19th century 
and during the deadly flood of 1948 were measured at over 30 feet of 
elevation where the river is usually between one and five feet. We now 
have 37 million acre-feet of upstream storage reserved for flood 
control. With respect to navigation, the Columbia and Snake River 
System moves 51 million tons of international trade, including 60% of 
all of the nation's wheat according to the Pacific Northwest Waterways 
Association. Just one towboat with four barges replaces over 500 trucks 
to haul those same commodities.
    The benefits of hydropower pertain to most hydropower facilities, 
whether produced at federal or non-federal dams. Non-federal hydropower 
is subject to a lengthy licensing and permitting process by the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in conjunction with various other 
agencies. Federal projects are marketed by the federal Power Marketing 
Administrations, are subject to Congressional oversight through this 
committee, and have a distinctly different regulatory regime than the 
non-federal hydropower. Most federal projects are owned and operated by 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, but the 
customers of community-owned utilities with rights to purchase that 
power pay for the costs of operating and maintaining those projects.
    There are four federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs), 
which sell the electrical output of federally owned and operated 
hydroelectric dams in 34 states. They are the Bonneville Power 
Administration (BPA), Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), 
Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), and Southeastern Power 
Administration (SEPA).
    BPA, headquartered in Portland, Oregon, markets the power from 31 
federal dams operated by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of 
Reclamation. BPA also owns 15,000 miles of high-voltage transmission 
lines that tie together this large integrated system.
    WAPA, headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, markets and delivers 
power across 15 states from 10 rate-setting projects that encompass 
both WAPA's transmission facilities and the power-generating facilities 
owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (Corps) and the International Boundary and Water Commission. 
These projects are made up of 14 multipurpose water resource projects 
and three transmission projects.
    SWPA, headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, markets hydroelectric power 
in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas from 24 
Corps multipurpose dams with a combined generating capacity of 
approximately 2,213 MW. Southwestern operates and maintains 1,381 miles 
of high-voltage transmission lines.
    SEPA, headquartered in Elberton, Georgia, has the authority to 
market hydroelectric power and energy from 22 reservoir projects 
operated by the Corps in the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 
Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, and does not operate a 
transmission system.
    With their organic statutes linked to flood control and irrigation 
as well as other governing laws and treaties which address navigation, 
fisheries, recreation, and environmental stewardship, the federal 
hydropower projects are prime examples (as are many non-federal 
projects) of how the multiple uses of water resources fit together to 
benefit a broad array of interests. It is also worth noting that power 
customers pay via rates for the costs of power production and 
transmission and that proper allocation of the costs of other project 
purposes to the appropriate users is an important principle that 
supports continued ability to market hydropower effectively.
Specific Benefits of Hydropower

    Even though hydropower may fluctuate year to year, month to month, 
or week to week, it is stable and flexible within short periods of 
time. It has very important positive characteristics in addition to 
deriving its source of energy from continuously renewable water: (1) it 
is efficient in its conversion of energy; (2) it is clean in that it 
does not have waste heat or external emissions; (3) it is reliable 
since it makes use of basic and time-tested technology; (4) it is 
generally low-cost; and, (5) it is flexible in that it can adjust 
quickly to changes in demand.
    While other forms of energy storage that exhibit some of these 
characteristics may increase over time, the ability to store the energy 
of falling water is serving us today and provides the fast response 
needed on demand. Significant pursuit of development of pumped storage 
hydropower projects will also serve to create even more capacity for 
meeting peak demand, for avoiding reliability events, and for balancing 
other resources.

    Non-Emitting Flexibility--Hydropower's unique attributes add 
stability to the grid and enable newer forms of generation. These 
qualities include a high level of flexibility that very well matches 
the increasing need to balance intermittent renewable generation 
sources such as wind and solar. It lends system stability, reliability, 
ramping capacity, resilience, and effective integration of other 
resources that do not have this same level of capacity.

    Grid Resilience--The threat of electric system outages, especially 
during severe weather, is always a top concern to our members. Grid 
resiliency is getting more focus at a national and hydropower is 
particularly well suited to lend a hand with resilience as outlined in 
a useful Department of Energy report from October 2021 called 
Hydropower's Contributions to Grid Resilience (PNNL-30554). It noted 
the critical role hydropower can play in the Western Interconnection 
during extreme events causing unplanned large loss of generation. 
Hydropower also has qualities very well suited to rapid restoration of 
service. Even small-scale, run-of-the-river hydropower has potential 
for adding resiliency in black start situations. In a demonstration 
project with public power utility Idaho Falls Power, the Idaho National 
Laboratory completed a series of tests to implement operational 
controls in which they could restart generators individually and then 
gradually add load to operate the system in islanded mode--in effect, 
creating their own new microgrid during emergencies.
    Another study from September 2022 by DOE's Pacific Northwest 
National Laboratory is noteworthy in showing the benefits of regional 
diversity in hydropower resources. The multiyear drought has had 
devastating effects in some areas of the West. Each hydropower project 
and electrical systems are impacted in different ways over various time 
periods. PNNL found that even during the most severe droughts over the 
last two decades, hydropower has sustained 80% of average power 
generation to continue to help balance supply and demand on the grid. 
(PNNL-33212)
Access and Challenges

    Access to hydropower as a primary use of water resources is 
critically important. Losing these assets would be devastating to many 
communities relying on their multiple purposes and would threaten the 
stability of our electric system.
    For example, even though it is only 10% of total generation for the 
California Independent System Operator, hydropower provides up to 60% 
of CAISO's spinning reserves. For the Midcontinent Independent System 
Operator it can provide up to 35% of spinning reserve requirements 
according to DOE's Hydropower Value Study: Current Status and Future 
Opportunities (January 2021 PNNL-29226). This is not capacity that is 
easily replaced.
    When hydropower was needed during last summer's heat wave it was 
there to help. BPA noted during the heat wave in late June 2022, that 
the four lower Snake River dams provided 1,118 MW of combined energy 
production and reserve capacity while maintaining flows for juvenile 
fish migration. For context, a city the size of Seattle has an average 
electricity consumption of about 1000 MW.
    Two studies by consulting firm Energy GPS, analyzed the 
operational, financial, and CO2 impacts of breaching the four lower 
Snake River dams. One study conducted for Northwest RiverPartners 
detailed why it would take five times as much new renewable generation 
and battery storage to replace the clean, flexible power of the dams. 
https://nwriverpartners.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/EGPSC_LSRD-
Power-Cost-Replacement-Study_6_29_2022_Final_1223.pdf.
    Another study by Energy GPS conducted for the Public Power Council, 
a well-respected organization that represents customers of BPA, 
analyzed likely results from proposals for increased spill for fish 
(rather than using the water to generate power) as well as breaching of 
the four lower Snake River dams. The report showed both policies 
combined would cost $790 million per year (based on 2023 prices) and 
result in increased annual CO2 emissions of 4.2 million metric tons per 
year. The analysis also reveals how a looming scarcity in generating 
resources in the West is increasing the risk of shortage events, 
``possibly including blackouts, higher carbon emissions, and higher 
prices for consumers and businesses.'' Losing any additional hydropower 
capacity would only exacerbate these concerns. https://www.ppcpdx.org/
wp-content/uploads/Cost-Carbon-and-Reliability-Impacts-of-Increased-
Spill-Requirements-and-LSRD-Removal.pdf.

    Market Valuation--As capacity resources become scarcer, it is 
evident that hydropower's flexibility is needed to address the resource 
adequacy concerns arising from situations where renewable portfolio 
standards and carbon policies create large amounts of variable 
resources such as wind and solar that may not be available to the 
system when needed most (for example during an evening peak in hot 
weather). Traditional energy markets value some attributes of power, 
such as energy, and are not designed to provide proper price signals 
for capacity, ancillary services and other attributes. This failure to 
adequately price hydropower's attributes puts reinvestment in these 
resources, and reliability of the system, at risk.

    Permits to Remove Sediment--Some of the challenges to hydropower 
involve the regulatory process to simply maintain a facility in good 
working order. A notable example of this is sediment removal when it 
involves federal lands. In areas prone to wildfire, the run-off from 
the cycle of fires and floods on U.S. Forest Service lands adjacent to 
reservoirs creates rapid buildup, dramatically reducing generating 
capacity, restricting water supply, and potentially causing safety 
concerns at the dam. This sediment buildup limits storage capability, 
degrades water quality, and reduces overall generation of a clean and 
renewable resource. The USFS should accept relocated sediment onto 
their lands for beneficial use in a timely, transparent, and efficient 
manner. Federal permitting processes and laws must be reformed to 
recognize and reflect the time-sensitive climate adaptation challenges 
this presents.

    Permitting for Vegetation Management--On another issue related to 
wildfire, there is still room for improvement in the permitting process 
for conducting vegetation management on lines crossing federal lands. 
The benefits of hydropower are only available if the power can be moved 
to where the demand exists. Ability to properly maintain power lines in 
a timely manner is critical for stability of the grid, and for 
prevention of fires caused when trees are blown into lines during 
storms. There has been some progress on this issue resulting from a 
federal law passed in 2018 and the follow-on work of a joint federal 
industry task force. More consistency between federal agencies and 
their various offices and more pervasive use of standardized agreements 
that reduce unnecessary time and cost burdens is needed especially for 
smaller utilities trying to implement critical wildfire mitigation 
plans with limited staff and budgets.
Other Challenges and Solutions for Permitting

    Existing or new hydropower projects navigate an arduous federal 
permitting process that threatens continued access to these resources. 
The laws around licensing are intended to address the impacts of 
projects to the surrounding environment, and owners and operators take 
their stewardship responsibilities and mitigation needs very seriously. 
But often resources that could be invested in mitigation measures are 
tied up instead to pay for lengthy processes and duplicative studies 
that may or may not have a clear nexus to impacts of the project. 
Energy Northwest, a public power joint operating agency in Richland, 
Washington said that it took less time and process for them to renew 
the license for their 1200 MW nuclear plant than it did for their 27 MW 
hydro project. In describing how this could be the case, they highlight 
the contrast between having a clear lead agency in the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission with authority to drive and manage the other 
agency reviews versus an array of agencies without firm timelines for 
their hydro project. FERC should be the clearly designated lead agency 
for hydro license renewals with the ability to hold to firm schedule 
discipline and exercise accountability to ensure timely coordination 
among federal agencies.
    We support various legislative proposals that would add more reason 
to this hydropower permitting process. We also support bills to level 
the playing field for existing hydropower from a tax perspective to 
receive tax treatment similar to other renewable generation.
    Without significant changes to this process there is risk of more 
abandonment of projects because developers and investors have other 
places to focus their resources and project sponsors cannot afford to 
continue to pursue these projects at exorbitant cost on an 
unpredictable timeline. According to the National Hydropower 
Association, 40 licenses (275 MW) were surrendered between 2010 and 
2019, and by 2035 there are 459 licenses up for renewal for 9,076 MW of 
hydropower and 8,381 MW of pumped storage. The average time to 
relicense a hydropower project is 7 years and costs $3.5 million in 
paperwork, not counting any new environmental, safety, or other 
equipment upgrades.
    Once a license is in place, FERC should allow operating flexibility 
to meet critical needs. As operators see changes to the hydrograph from 
wildfire, landslides, flooding, and extreme weather that increases 
uncertainty, variability, and demand, it would be helpful if FERC could 
offer additional operating flexibility to support maintaining and 
increasing hydropower capacity during certain conditions.
Conclusion

    Thank you for your attention to the important issues surrounding 
multiple use of our water resources. As one of those uses, hydropower 
is positioned well to play a lead role in our energy future. Because of 
its significant benefits to consumers and to the environment hydropower 
should be preserved, encouraged, and enhanced where possible. Local 
communities have benefited for decades from this resource and its 
capability to provide clean energy, low impact transportation, 
irrigation, flood control, and recreation. This safe, reliable, and 
low-cost resource has the flexibility to enable other renewable 
generation and meet the operational challenges of the energy evolution. 
Hydropower can be one of the best tools in our industry to help achieve 
our goals and is a technology too valuable to ignore considering the 
challenges facing us in the days and years to come.

    Thank you for your leadership in holding this oversight hearing 
today.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. I thank the witnesses for their testimony.
    The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes for 
questions, beginning with Mr. McClintock for 5 minutes.

    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As has been 
pointed out twice in the last decade, we have seen historic 
droughts followed by record rainfall. But because we don't have 
the capacity to store excess water from wet years, we approach 
catastrophic shortages during the dry ones.
    California receives about 200 million acre-feet of 
precipitation annually. That is about 4,500 gallons for every 
man, woman, and child in the state every single day. The 
problem, of course, is it is unevenly distributed over time and 
distance.
    So, we used to build dams to move water from wet years to 
dry ones. We built aqueducts to move water from wet regions to 
dry regions. We did that through the beneficiary pays 
principle, so that the taxpayers weren't on the hook. The 
projects were paid entirely by the beneficiaries who use the 
water and the power from those projects.
    And in the 1970s we abandoned that model. Sometimes we 
abandoned dams in mid-construction, and we began financing much 
more expensive water projects with general taxpayer dollars, 
which hides their true cost and burden.
    A few years ago, the California Energy Commission estimated 
that the price of water in the San Diego region, the most 
expensive way to produce water they found was desalination at 
the cost of $2,300 per acre-foot; water recycling, $1,500; 
importing water, $925; groundwater storage, $737. Cheapest 
source of water, according to the California Energy Commission, 
was good old-fashioned surface storage, dams and reservoirs, at 
about $600 per acre-foot.
    So, put simply, surface water storage gives us nearly four 
times as much water for the dollar as desalination. And I just 
don't understand the logic behind less policy. And instead of 
capturing freshwater before it is lost to the ocean, they 
prefer to spend four times as much money to recover that water 
after it is lost to the ocean.
    A real life example. We could spend about $1.4 billion to 
raise Shasta Dam by 18 feet or spend $1 billion for another 
Carlsbad desalination plant. Shasta would yield as much as 
630,000 acre-feet of water each year; Carlsbad, 56,000 acre-
feet. So, for 40 percent more than the cost of Carlsbad, we 
could get about 1,200 percent more water.
    And consider this, when water is drawn out of Shasta, it 
generates enough electricity to supply about 710,000 homes. 
When water is drawn out of Carlsbad, it consumes a quarter-
megawatt for every acre-foot of water. That is enough to power 
25 homes for a year in a state that can't guarantee enough 
electricity to keep your refrigerator running in the summer.
    In fact, the state has made unprecedented subsidies for 
wind power, but it has to shut down the electricity grid on 
windy days. This is just lunacy.
    California voters approved a purported water bond in 2014 
with the promise it would be used for water storage, yet to 
date it has failed to deliver a single major water project, but 
$1 billion of these funds are slated to be used to tear down 
the four dams on the Klamath.
    Mr. Keppen, in 2021, the Bureau of Reclamation closed 
Project A's canal, delivering zero water to irrigators in order 
to meet the Endangered Species Act requirements. The Klamath 
Water Users Association estimates the lack of irrigated water 
led to the loss of $100 million in economic activity, a drastic 
decline in farm income, and 700 regional jobs lost.
    Can you describe what that means in human terms?
    Mr. Keppen. Thanks for the question, Congressman 
McClintock. Yes, so I actually moved to the Klamath Basin in 
2001, that fall. That was the year that for the first time in 
95 years that the water had been shut down in the project.
    And in terms of what it does to a community, it is 
devastating because some folks have the capability to take 
advantage of the government programs and are able to sort of 
scoot by. Others can't. So, it creates this tension between 
neighbors. It really does fracture the community. And it is not 
just the farmers and the ranchers and the workers that work for 
them that are impacted. It is all of the other service 
communities. It is the fertilizer districts or dealers. It is 
the restaurants. There is a real impact that you see in the 
community.
    And it is pretty depressing because Klamath County, where I 
live, agriculture is really the big driver in that county.
    Mr. McClintock. Let me just round a point. The Iron Gate 
Fish Hatchery depends on the Iron Gate Dam. That hatchery 
produces 5 million salmon smolts every year; 17,000 return to 
spawn in the Klamath River every year. What happens to the 
hatchery if they tear down the dam? And what will that do to 
salmon populations on the Klamath?
    Mr. Keppen. Well, I am not really sure I am the one to 
respond to that question as far as the fishery impacts, 
honestly. I could definitely look into that and get back to you 
after talking to Klamath water users and folks in Siskiyou 
County and others.
    Mr. McClintock. All right. Thanks. My time has expired.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Mr. Huffman for 5 minutes.

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, my colleague from 
California and I have gone back and forth on a number of things 
you just heard, and a lot of it, frankly, is just stubborn 
mythology. We have explained time and again over the years that 
big Federal water projects were not paid for by beneficiaries. 
There were massive subsidies that went into these projects.
    And that is part of the problem. We built up an expectation 
that that is how we do big water. We do massive Federal 
subsidies, and that just doesn't work anymore.
    The idea that desalination is scandalously expensive, well, 
the folks in San Diego are not stupid. If there was cheap 
surface storage alternatives for them to keep having water when 
you turn on the taps in San Diego, they would have done it. 
Desal made a lot of sense in San Diego, and it was a lot 
cheaper than the other alternatives that they considered.
    So, I don't begrudge them that. I think it has provided 
them a lot of key resilience during really tough dry years. 
That is a pretty good thing because desal really works even in 
the worst drought.
    Surface storage is not cheap. The idea that that is the 
cheapest source of supply--the big controversial surface 
storage projects that are being pushed in California are some 
of the most expensive water, they make desal look like a 
bargain.
    And the idea that we haven't built storage projects since 
the 1970s--we have listed them, we have explained this. We 
have. They just haven't been big, massive, federally subsidized 
storage projects.
    So, back to the real world, Ms. Cordalis, in your view, 
what are the key funding priorities in the Klamath Basin that 
should be fully funded, so that we can try to get through these 
long-standing water challenges that are affecting your tribe 
and others?
    Ms. Cordalis. Thank you for the question. First, I want to 
respond in sharing with this Subcommittee the Yurok world view 
about rivers. We look at rivers as comprehensive ecosystems 
that have overall health, similar to our own bodies, right?
    Right now, the Klamath is ill. It is sick. And because of 
that, it is not performing well. And it is just like us; when 
we are sick, we don't have as high of capacity to support all 
of the things that we care and love about in our life. And that 
is the status of the Klamath right now. It is sick.
    So, I do want to thank you, I want to thank Congress, for 
the investments that you all have made in the Klamath ecosystem 
and restoration, because that is a critical step to healing the 
Klamath and making it strong again. Already NOAA fisheries, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, are motivating, they are organizing 
people, they are putting together projects that will gradually 
restore the health of the Klamath ecosystem as a whole, which 
will then in turn make it stronger and better able to support 
all of these various needs.
    What we need to do next is get funding to support resolving 
some of these water challenges. There are funding venues 
through the Department of the Interior that can support tribal 
water rights, that can support collaborative agreements, and 
working with neighbors in the Basin--farmers, tribes, NGOs--to 
essentially come up with those community-based solutions that 
are going to help solve these problems. So, those are critical 
funding supports, sources of funding.
    The other one I would add, too, is just looking at, how do 
we improve efficiency of agricultural infrastructure in the 
upper basin? We would really like to learn more from our 
agricultural neighbors about how can we use those investments 
to make sure that the existing infrastructure within the 
Klamath project is as efficient as it possibly can be.
    But you put that all together, and that is how we get out 
of these annual plans.
    Mr. Huffman. Right.
    Ms. Cordalis. Yes. Thank you.
    Mr. Huffman. Do you want to say a quick word about the 
importance of responsible permits for hydropower relicensing. 
Mr. Corwin explained how long it takes and how difficult it is 
to relicense a hydro project. A lot of these projects were 
built before many of our modern environmental laws, before we 
tried to make it something we do with tribal consultation every 
time we do one of these things.
    Now they are coming up for relicensing, and we hold them to 
higher standards. Why is that important?
    Ms. Cordalis. Well, and let me first start with, I will 
assure you that it takes just as much time and regulatory red 
tape to take dams out as it does to get them in, and the last 
20 years on the Klamath has demonstrated that.
    We learned a lot about dams through the last, what, let's 
say 120 years in this country. And I think it is important to 
recognize that throughout the West, in some places dams are OK, 
in other places, they are simply not. So, I also think that 
FERC is in a new era.
    We heard Chairman Glick express that he wants to support 
tribal rights through the relicensing, that he wants to take a 
closer look at--the previous Chairman Glick, sorry--and that 
FERC wants to take a closer look at the environmental 
implications of these dams.
    So, I think it is important that we, as a nation, when we 
are thinking about hydro power, when we are thinking about 
reclamation, when we are thinking about how to support farmers, 
and also fisheries because commercial fisheries are important, 
that we really engage in effective natural resource management, 
that a value----
    Mr. Bentz. Ms. Cordalis, if you could wind up, please.
    Ms. Cordalis. Yes, sorry. I was just essentially going to 
say we should really take a hard look at the circumstances on 
the ground.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair now recognizes Congressman LaMalfa.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations 
on your new seat there.
    Mr. Corwin, you were speaking of the Snake River, lower 
Snake River dams and the amount of electricity that they 
produce, 1,100 megawatts is the figure I see here. So, this is 
distributed through the Bonneville Power Administration, and 
the surplus power is frequently used in California.
    So, in light of California's power grid, on hot days, being 
right on the edge, certain folks already have agreements to 
shut down usage of power in manufacturing and other issues, 
and, of course, the hell-bent direction they are wanting to 
push and electrifying everything--stoves, and automobiles, and 
leaf blowers, and generators. I don't know how you would turn a 
generator into--I haven't figured that one out yet.
    But where are we going to replace this power? Can the 
intermittent wind and solar generation make up for 1,100 
megawatts just on the lower Snake?
    Mr. Corwin. Yes. Very difficult to replace. And right now, 
to have the same attributes, both clean and that flexible, that 
capacity that is so sorely needed, it is just not available. 
Well, not available through renewable resources. Gas generation 
has some of those same attributes, ability to follow load.
    That is the study that I cited in my testimony, so----
    Mr. LaMalfa. Plus, it is CO2-free power, right?
    Mr. Corwin. Yes. CO2-free power. And the study I 
cited shows it takes about five times as much of other 
intermittent resources and needing some battery storage, which 
is not available yet in that size either to replace that, and 
that is at a lot greater cost as well.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. We have observed it is pretty difficult 
for the folks actually wanting to build wind and solar farms, 
as they like to call them, to get the permits to do so and the 
land to put them on, the vast amounts of land.
    Mr. Keppen, you talked about how water management decisions 
have been pretty devastating toward long-time traditional users 
of them, such as the Klamath project. For what reason was the 
Klamath project built?
    Mr. Keppen. Irrigation. To supply water to irrigators.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Sorry?
    Mr. Keppen. To supply water to irrigated agriculture.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, was it a multi-use water or was it 
dedicated to agriculture?
    Mr. Keppen. Initially, it was dedicated to agriculture, and 
then as time has gone on, there has also been sort of a refuge 
component as well, which the farmers work very closely with 
trying to get water into the National Wildlife Refuges.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, how many acre-feet did that add to the 
surface of Klamath Lake by building that project?
    Mr. Keppen. Well, what it did is it allowed you to vary the 
depth of the lake. The lake was backed up by a natural reef, 
and when the Klamath project was built, it allowed you to move 
that water around, and so there is more flexibility, so that 
you can store water. Typically, it used to be around 400,000 to 
450,000 acre-feet of water going to agriculture in the 
summertime.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, about 400,000 acre-feet that wouldn't have 
been existing or accessible before the project, which, again, 
was dedicated to agriculture.
    Mr. Keppen. Yes. That is probably right.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, how has the community been compensated for 
the taking of the water from that agricultural project the last 
20, 25 years? Has there been a water right that has been bought 
by the Federal Government in order to rededicate this water 
supply?
    Mr. Keppen. There has been a water bank established that 
helps, encourages people to leave their water in the system for 
environmental purposes, and they will pay to pump groundwater 
in exchange for that or to fallow the land. That is about the 
only payment I see, and I don't think there has been an actual 
compensation for the takings involved with the 2021 
curtailments.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. To Ms. Cordalis, the water that has been 
behind the link in the Iron Gate Dams has provided for 
variability in running the river, for certain purposes 
downriver of flushing or for particular ceremonies. With 
removal of those dams, is there a concern that those water 
levels will no longer be available to, especially in a dry 
year, to have those flows or to be able to carry out those 
rituals?
    Ms. Cordalis. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa, for the question. So, 
the Klamath Reservoir is behind the dams, doesn't actually 
impact the amount of water available in the system. In previous 
years, there had been a practice of borrowing water from 
PacifiCorp, which essentially they would allow some of that 
water to be released, but the Bureau had to pay it back. So, it 
didn't actually increase the amount of water that was available 
in the system.
    And then, I would also like to clarify that the Klamath 
Lake and the project didn't increase the amount of storage 
water available in the lake.
    Mr. LaMalfa. The 400,000 doesn't exist?
    Ms. Cordalis. That was just a natural lake. And when they 
built the project, it essentially just kept the amount of water 
that was already there.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Mr. Chairman, my time is over.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair now recognizes Congressman Case for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have to admit, I have 
been listening to this hearing and to the remarks, and I am, 
frankly, searching for the central point of the hearing. I 
don't think I have heard anything revelatory or anything like 
that. It seems to me to be pretty obvious that water is a 
finite resource. It is not infinite. It doesn't go on forever.
    We clearly do and should make multiple uses of the water 
available. It seems that when you get into a situation where 
the water use is competing around sustainable, some choices 
have to be made, some management regime has to be put in place, 
and it seems to me that all of those situations are 
increasingly complicated by increasing demand at the same time 
that we see a decreasing supply, and we can argue over what the 
causes are.
    I mean, for me it is climate change and related to start 
with, and drought is one indication of that. But also, just the 
fact that we have increasing uses, and it seems obvious that in 
that kind of a situation we also are drawn into debates over 
short-term extracted uses of water versus long-term sustainable 
uses of water.
    I don't think anything along those lines is a surprise, and 
everything that we are talking about here, whether it be hydro, 
or family farms, or tribal rights, or saltwater fishing, seems 
to all fit into that regime.
    In Hawaii, I don't have too much of the water wars in the 
sense of the West, so I am going to switch over to the ocean, 
right, the middle part of this Subcommittee's name.
    And I go back to you, Ms. Guyas. Let's take a little bit 
more of your analysis here. The American Sportfishing 
Association in my view seems to get it. You obviously worked 
with us the last couple of Congresses toward implementation of 
the 30x30 Initiative.
    I think you recognized as a sportfishing alliance that 
sustainability was really the only way to be able to maintain 
some kind of a mutual use of the oceans over time. I think you 
support some hyper-protected areas, and I think you support 
some managed areas, and I think you support some fairly open 
areas, and some combination of all of that.
    First of all, is that correct? I mean, I am trying to give 
you praise and all of that, so you can agree with me if you 
want.
    Ms. Guyas. Yes. I--yes.
    Mr. Case. OK. Thank you. That was what is called a leading 
question.
    So, I guess the question is, where does this go out into 
the future? I mean, you identified, for example, I think two or 
three out of your top four concerns. Red snapper, OK, which 
seems to be the poster child for what we are talking about 
here, if you talk about the oceans, what lesson is to be 
learned from our attempted management of multiple uses in the 
ocean for recreational purposes, for food purposes, for pure 
protection purposes? So, economic, environmental, natural 
resources, and recreational.
    Ms. Guyas. Yes. So, I mean, there are a lot of tools in the 
toolbox that can be used, right? I guess in terms of 
challenges, going back to my testimony today, looking at red 
snapper, one of our challenges is making sure that we are using 
best available science in our decisions.
    And going back, you mentioned 30x30, right, we are glad to 
see the Administration has recognized how important outdoor 
recreation, recreational fishing, is in conservation. We are 
waiting to see what the implications are for Federal waters 
fisheries, of course. NOAA is working on their atlas, and there 
is a Council Coordinating Committee also that is looking at the 
existing protections that are in Federal waters, and they are 
trying to also kind of calculate what have we already done.
    So, I mean, yes, there are a lot of tools that we can use.
    Mr. Case. And what are the friction lines coming up? I 
mean, we still have total overfishing in many of the world's 
oceans. We have pressure on our marine-protected areas in this 
country for that matter. It is a constant discussion.
    I mean, just, again, focusing on what I think is the 
purpose of this hearing, which is to evaluate competing uses of 
increasingly scarce resources in the ocean context, I mean, 
what are the next generations of discussion? Are there any out 
there? I mean, climate change is changing our oceans. That is 
what our Ocean Climate Act of last Congress, which you helped 
us with, was all about.
    Ms. Guyas. Yes.
    Mr. Case. That is the next generation. I mean, where do we 
go from here?
    Ms. Guyas. Well, I mean, with climate change, I can tell 
you the East Coast councils, this is an issue that we are 
already living in, right? We are seeing changes in fisheries. 
In our case, in the Southeast, we don't always have the data to 
tie it to climate change, but that is maybe we think is going 
on.
    And the councils on the East Coast have been going through 
climate change scenario planning. I was fortunate to 
participate in one of the workshops. And they are trying to 
figure out how to address governance issues that are coming up 
with climate change now, and a lot of that I think is going to 
be collaboration across the councils as we see fish stocks 
shift.
    Mr. Case. So, a little bit more talking to each other 
rather than just arguing for our particular slice of the pie.
    Ms. Guyas. Yes. It is----
    Mr. Bentz. Excuse me.
    Mr. Case. OK. I am sorry. I was trying to wrap up there 
because I was sensing our Chair about to cut me off.
    Thank you.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman Luna for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Luna. Thank you very much. The United States is a 
global leader in fishery management with some of the most 
highly regulated fisheries in the world. Our anglers are 
required to follow a broad range of regulations, yet we 
continue to outsource our fishing and seafood industries to 
countries like China, making it harder for our domestic 
fisheries to compete.
    Before we discuss the importance of domestic fisheries, 
please take a look at the impact of China on the global fishing 
and seafood industry.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to submit this 
graphic into the record.
    Mr. Bentz. Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1504.001
    

                                 .eps__
                                 

    Mrs. Luna. Thank you. China has taken advantage of 
fisheries on a global scale by using large fleets to harvest 
far from the Chinese shores. They are the biggest producer of 
aquaculture seafood in the world, and with 70 percent of the 
total production and 55 percent of the total value of 
aquaculture seafood export worldwide.
    If I could also note, I was able to actually pull an 
article that had stated that farmers have coped with toxic 
waters by mixing illegal veterinary drugs and pesticides into 
food feed, which keeps their stocks alive, yet leaves poisonous 
and carcinogenic residues in seafood. So, when we eat it, it is 
obviously not good.
    Like many other industries in China, companies are known 
for using forced labor and have widespread food and safety 
violations. These concerns have led agencies like the FDA to 
put import alerts on Chinese products, mostly fish and seafood 
products, to determine these imports upon arrival to the United 
States.
    My question is for Ms. Guyas. How does the management and 
regulation of domestic fisheries compare to foreign fishery 
operations in countries like China?
    Ms. Guyas. Oh. I mean, absolutely, the United States is 
undoubtedly a global leader in fisheries conservation. Hands 
down. Head and shoulders above other nations like China.
    Mrs. Luna. From this information, it is clear that our 
domestic fisheries produce safer seafood, and honestly I would 
probably prefer to eat American over Chinese any day of the 
week.
    Domestic fishery also has a significant impact on the 
economy of the United States. In 2020, commercial and 
recreational fisheries brought in an estimated $250 billion in 
sales and employed about 1.7 million people. Many of these 
industry professionals live in Florida, and some come from my 
district, where harvesting of red snapper is an area of 
concern, especially with the improvement of private 
recreational data that is collected from anglers and vessel 
permits.
    Ms. Guyas, what sort of data is obtained from private 
recreational anglers that receive vessel permits?
    Ms. Guyas. Well, I can speak specifically to Florida, if 
you would like.
    Mrs. Luna. Yes, please.
    Ms. Guyas. In Florida, we have a program called the State 
Reef Fish Survey that is run by the Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission. And what they do is they have enhanced 
the Federal MRIP program that is used to collect recreational 
data where they have really identified the universe of anglers 
that fish offshore for reef fish, red snapper, grouper, those 
types of things.
    They do specialized surveys to the places where those 
people fish, and they also target those anglers for effort 
surveys as well, so that they get better information about 
private angler catches.
    Mrs. Luna. So, I guess that information could be gathered 
to improve data that is received from private recreational 
anglers?
    Ms. Guyas. Yes.
    Mrs. Luna. Rather than outsourcing fishing and seafood 
products from a country like China where we know little about 
the quality of the product we are receiving, we have 
essentially strangled our fishermen in regulations and red 
tape, and our food processors have turned to China to easily 
and cheaply fulfill their needs.
    I really think that we need to fix this issue.
    And with that, Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    The Chair recognizes the Congresswoman from Alaska, 
Congresswoman Peltola, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a 
question, honestly. I just want to give a shoutout to the 
representative from the Yurok Nation. I really appreciate you 
being here. I am also from a river which depends very much on 
salmon and other marine resources.
    Just as a little bit of background on Alaska, and how 
important the fisheries are and the marine ecosystem is to 
Alaska, last year the ex-vessel value statewide was around $2 
billion, and it usually is about $2 billion in Alaska. It is 
our second-largest industry in Alaska.
    Salmon alone last year, in large part because of the 
Bristol Bay reds, generated $720.4 million, and the total 
economic output is about $5.7 billion.
    But I just wanted to say that, and I don't have a question. 
I don't want to waste your time with a question that doesn't 
make any sense. But I do, Mr. Chairman, hope that I can yield 
the rest of my time to Representative Huffman.
    Mr. Bentz. Of course.
    Mrs. Peltola. Thank you.
    Mr. Huffman. Which I greatly appreciate. I thank the 
gentlelady.
    And to my new colleague from Florida, I was delighted to 
hear your remarks about the abuses of foreign fishing fleets. I 
think you were contemplating the challenge we have with the 
murkiness of our seafood supply chain. We don't know where a 
lot of it comes from.
    China is not the only bad actor out there on the high seas 
and in other places doing all kinds of dubious things, but they 
are the biggest and they are probably the worst in lots of 
ways. So, you have come to the right place. And if you want to 
work on this issue in an absolutely bipartisan way, Mr. Graves 
and I did a lot of good work on this in the last Congress, and 
we would be delighted to partner with you, because there is a 
lot more good work we can do.

    So, thank you for that.

    I am glad I have a little bit of time now to come back to 
Ms. Guyas, because while your testimony focused mostly on red 
snapper, which we hear a lot about in this Subcommittee because 
Mr. Graves is here, he is like Mr. Red Snapper, but you have 
also supported efforts. You and your organization have also 
supported efforts on the West Coast to protect salmon and their 
habitats.

    You have opposed efforts in Congress to undermine Federal 
protections for salmon under the Endangered Species Act, under 
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and other laws, and 
I really appreciate that. I just want to commend you for that. 
And you have thrown your support behind protecting Bristol Bay 
from a really wrong-headed project called the Pebble Mine. So, 
I appreciate your supporting the greatest salmon stronghold 
left on Earth. I am sure Mrs. Peltola would not disagree with 
that description.
    And I just want to ask you, why is it important to anglers 
that we protect these key salmon habitats?
    Ms. Guyas. Well, I live in Florida where the salmon that we 
have are raised in an aquaculture facility outside the Miami 
airport, but I can speak more broadly, just not specifically to 
salmon. Protecting marine ecosystems is essential to having 
successful recreational fisheries, right? We need the fish to 
have the fishing occur, the economic impacts, and the access.
    Mr. Huffman. All right. Appreciate that very much and yield 
back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes. Let me begin by asking 
Mr. Keppen a question. It seems odd, you mentioned that there 
are literally hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water 
stored in the mountains in California right now, but there 
doesn't seem to be any race to try to figure out how to store 
it.
    I mean, I know that the governor has suggested or opened 
the door to maybe 400,000, 500,000 acre-feet. And to put that 
in perspective, if you value this water at $2,000 an acre-foot, 
it is a huge number. So, thank goodness for the governor making 
that motion toward recognizing the value of all the water that 
is up in the mountains about to come out.
    What is it going to take to build a fire under people to 
make them go take advantage of the current situation as opposed 
to just shrugging and going, oh, that is the way it goes?
    Mr. Keppen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a great 
question. I think there is a fire being lit right now in the 
fact that Governor Newsom signed this Executive Order to sort 
of provide a little bit more flexibility to store water over 
these wet periods.
    My understanding is that decision allowed 500,000 acre-feet 
of extra water to be stored for when we need it when it is dry. 
Even more of that potential is out there, and, I mean, 
personally, our organization is going to be urging both the 
Federal Government and the state government to do more of that, 
look for opportunities to take advantage of this huge amount of 
water, so that we can store it and use it in dryer years. And 
that is going to take forms like, just regulatory flexibility 
or management flexibility, so we can tackle these multi-benefit 
goals.
    And then, I think, again, it comes back to infrastructure. 
If Sites Reservoir, which has been around for decades--I mean, 
I was on the planning committee at DWR for that project in 
1999, Mr. LaMalfa, and that project was already 10 years old.
    But if that project was in place right now, just in the 
last month or so, in the month coming into the future, I think 
they said it could have saved us another 400,000 acre-feet, 
which is enough water to cover Washington, DC, 10-feet deep. It 
is a lot of water.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you for that. What I am trying to get at 
here is every opportunity we have, people should be saying, 
``We need to be storing this water,'' and we are not.
    And I had the people from San Diego in my office just a few 
days ago, and I said, ``How much is that desalinated water 
costing you?'' $3,800. Not $2,000, $3,800 an acre-foot. Yet, we 
are letting thousands of acre-feet go down the river.
    And this is not a situation where we are trying to short 
the fish. The fish would probably scream with joy if we weren't 
washing them away with the huge floods that are about to 
inundate California.
    So, I will move on from that for just a moment. I want to 
go back to the assertion, Ms. Cordalis, that was made regarding 
the release of water from the Klamath Lake into the river. 
There is a disagreement apparently over whether or not it is 
actually stored water, but let's pretend for a moment that that 
which is released, according to the Bureau, is stored water, 
and the amount in 2020 in excess of the 400,000--there was 
406,000 acre-feet of water released into the river, going down 
to help the fish, and of that, 76,000 was deemed stored.
    In 2021, there was 361,000 acre-feet released; 101,000 was 
deemed stored. In just this last year, there was 385,000 acre-
feet released, and there was 125,000 of that deemed stored. 
That is water in excess of what flowed into the lake that was 
then released from the lake. That is how we qualify it.
    If you take that number times just $2,000 an acre-foot, 
that number is somewhere around $612 million.
    Now, some would say, what have we done to repair the salmon 
runs? And the first thing I would mention is, well, we are 
taking out those dams apparently. That is about $500 million, 
maybe $550 million. And if we want to add that to the $612 
million of water that has been released, and that is in 
addition to that which would be normally flowing down the river 
because it is over and above that which flowed into the lake.
    So, now we also have the $167 million that is going to be 
spent over the next 5 years that is going to go for habitat 
restoration, $32 million a year, or something like that, being 
spent.
    Lots of money is being spent on the climate to try to make 
it work, and let's all hope it does. Now, having said that, 
this is because I think it is time that we begin to put a 
number on the amount that we are actually spending in the form 
of the water allocated in stream. It is absolutely essential we 
do it, because too often people talk a lot about that which is 
taken out but hardly at all about that which is left in.
    And I am sorry, but I am going to run out of time here. I 
am not going to get to ask you a question, which is really very 
sad. Because you were on the Water Commission in California, 
you probably have the best ideas on how to store the water. 
But, sadly, I am out of time, and that will have to remain a 
secret for the moment.
    So, with that, I am going to turn to Mr.--who is next? 
Congressman Levin, there you are.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Bentz. You have 5 minutes.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you. I want to personally invite you and 
any Member interested to my district and to see the Carlsbad 
desalination plant, which is named after the former Republican 
Mayor of Carlsbad, Claude ``Bud'' Lewis. It is the largest 
desal plant in the Western Hemisphere, provides about 10 
percent of San Diego County's water, does so in an 
environmentally responsible way.
    And I am not here to say that desal is the end all and be 
all for California's water needs or for any water needs. I can 
tell you at 60 million gallons a day it is the largest in the 
Western Hemisphere, but it only ranks 10th in the world. I was 
just in Israel, and I saw a plant that was several times 
larger. And the reality is that we can do both common-sense 
water storage, and desal, and recycling, and conservation. The 
reality is we have to do it all.
    So, let's not scapegoat desal when we really need to be 
doing desal among a number of other things. And, again, a 
standing offer to come to our beautiful district anytime and to 
see the desal plant for which we are very proud and for which 
we have enjoyed broad bipartisan support for as long as I have 
been involved in Southern California environmental law and 
policy, which is pretty much my whole adult life. And the 
project took many years to construct.
    I support more desal, by the way, in Southern California 
when it can be done in an environmentally responsible way. We 
have gotten around $20 or $25 million in support for a plant in 
Dana Point. And where we can do it and it makes sense for the 
community, we should.
    Let me turn to talk about the work of the last Congress 
with regard to water resilience that I think will impact all of 
us in the Western United States: $1 billion for water 
recycling, $250 million for desal, and $4 billion to improve 
the resilience of the Colorado River Basin, all accomplishments 
of the last Congress.
    So, let me ask, Ms. Cordalis, as funding starts to flow--no 
pun intended--through the agencies, what do you think is 
important for agencies to keep in mind as they engage with 
Western stakeholders, identify projects, and provide technical 
assistance?
    Ms. Cordalis. Early and often communication and 
transparency and ecosystem-wide restoration. Whether you are 
looking at the Colorado, the Klamath, the Columbia, the 
Sacramento, it is important to engage stakeholders, tribes, 
NGOs, the various agencies, water users, in meaningful 
discussions about how you can rebuild your ecosystems and 
projects that provide systemwide benefits, because we have seen 
that when you invest in ecosystem restoration, it helps us with 
some of these water issues, because systems become more 
resilient.
    And I do want to express that I think the agencies are 
already doing a great job with the IRA funding and the bill 
funding. They are getting into the communities. They are 
coordinating projects. And I think a lot of this is on the 
local staff of these agencies, and they are doing a good job of 
working with communities. We are all thankful for that.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you for that.
    Ms. Guyas, I want to turn to another bill that I have been 
working on, the Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act, and I want 
to thank the American Sportfishing Association and you for 
endorsing that bipartisan bill. It was with Brian Mast of 
Florida in the last Congress.
    And our district, and Mr. Mast's and many others, would 
really I think be well served with legislation like this with 
lots of lagoons, estuaries, and so forth, really important for 
a local ecosystem, and not to mention our economy, the coastal 
economy, so vitally important to us.
    The bill would reauthorize what is known as CELCP, the 
Coast and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, and I am really 
excited that we are getting a lot of support for this bill.
    Can you talk about the importance of coastal and estuarine 
conservation in ensuring continued access to healthy fisheries 
in particular?
    Ms. Guyas. Yes. Thank you for your leadership on that bill. 
We do support it. And this program, what it does and how it is 
helping fisheries, it is conserving those habitats. A lot of 
those, especially in the Southeast, are also important fish 
nursery sites, which that is where our healthy fisheries are, 
literally, raised. So, thank you.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you so much.
    I am running short of time, but I want to again extend a 
standing offer to any of my colleagues on either side of the 
aisle, or anybody out there in the audience or watching at 
home, to come and visit our desal plant. Again, desal is not 
perfect, but it has gotten extraordinarily better over the 
years. And I think our plant, again, is the largest in the 
Western Hemisphere, is one that we can be proud of, and I hope 
you can come see for yourselves.
    And I will yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Levin.
    Mr. Levin. Even Garret Graves is invited.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Levin.
    I recognize Congressman Duarte for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duarte. Yes. Thank you to all of the witnesses here to 
testify today. Appreciate it.
    I live and represent the district that includes Westlands 
Water District and the South Delta Water Users. I work in 
agriculture. I know a lot of these guys. I represent many of 
those communities.
    Since the 1990s and the biological opinions and the 
lawsuits that ensued afterwards, and the removal of water from 
area to save the Delta smelt, the salmon from the Delta, we 
have depleted groundwater resources. We have destroyed farms 
and family farming operations.
    I drive through my district and see almond orchards being 
removed that haven't produced a crop or paid a nickel of bank 
debt.
    I have hospitals going bankrupt. The property tax revenue 
in this district is eviscerating, evaporating. We have all 
kinds of social ills. We have a man-made dustbowl in the South 
Valley. We have spiking respiratory illness in children. We 
have actually taken certain races of prisoners out of the 
Coalinga Jail because they are particularly susceptible to 
Valley Fever or respiratory illness.
    We are actually destroying the infrastructure itself with 
subsidence, as well as our freeways. We have sacrificed a lot 
for the Delta smelt and the salmon through single species 
management schemes that I hope have delivered tremendous 
results for all the species or the salmon, the smelt, but maybe 
not human so much.
    Mr. Keppen, please update us. How have we done? How are the 
smelt doing? How are the salmon doing?
    Mr. Keppen. Well, I have been using this same sort of flow 
centric approach for the last couple of decades, and we are not 
seeing an impact. I mean, every year we are hearing about some 
looming crisis that is occurring.
    And I think as long as we focus on the single species sort 
of approach, and until the Bureau and National Marine Fisheries 
Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who all have sort 
of their hands in the pie on Delta management, until they look 
at the entire ecosystem and look at all of the stressors, in 
addition to the stress the fish cause by flows, I think the 
Central Valley project is going to continue to under deliver in 
the Central Valley.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Guyas, sportfishing, I grew up in San Diego for a while 
and loved sportfishing. One of the stressors on the salmon in 
the San Joaquin Delta is their predation by non-native bass. 
Does the Sportfishing Association that you represent support 
removing limits and season limits on sportfishing of non-native 
bass species in the San Joaquin Delta?
    Ms. Guyas. I live in Florida, so if it is OK, we can 
provide a written response to that question, but I can't speak 
specifically to that.
    Mr. Duarte. I am very interested in it because removing the 
bag limits, the caps, the season, on non-native bass in the 
Delta has been shown through one scientific report after 
another to very likely help the salmon, even more than the 
human devastation we have brought into my district might. So, 
we think that is a common-sense solution.
    Mr. Keppen, flood plain restoration and feeding ground for 
the salmon hatchlings to size up on. What can you briefly tell 
us on that? I understand it is a far superior approach.
    Mr. Keppen. Yes. That is one of the sort of the success 
stories I use as an example in my written testimony. It is 
happening in the Sacramento Valley right now. So, again, it is 
one means of improving the health of the fish without 
necessarily focusing just on flow. So, what they are doing is 
moving water into the flood plains in the Sacramento Valley, 
and it is a great collaborative effort between the university, 
and NGOs, and the farmers, and the ranchers, and the agencies.
    And, basically, what they are showing is these fish can get 
into these flooded areas. I think some of this is in your 
district, Mr. LaMalfa, where these fish can have sort of 
shelter from predators in the river, and there is actually more 
food in there.
    I have a picture--I probably should have brought a slide--
but it shows on one of these projects where the salmon that are 
getting into the rice fields, same age as the salmon that are 
in the river, but they are about three times the size. So, they 
are----
    Mr. Duarte. Fantastic.
    Mr. Keppen. Yes. It is really amazing. So, I think that 
sort of thing can really help us out. And what is happening in 
the Sag Valley might be mimicked even up in the Klamath Basin. 
We are going to be bringing some producers down to----
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you. While we are screening ahead and 
with common sense, it is far less anti-human than what is 
happening in my district. Tell me what you can about the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act and why those wet furry creatures out on 
the rocks in front of San Francisco Bay are more important than 
the children in Coalinga, California.
    Mr. Keppen. Yes. I am not a real expert on that, but all I 
can say is I know that the sealions and seals are definitely a 
stressor to salmon on the Columbia and on the Klamath.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you very much.
    I yield back to the Chairman.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    With that, the Chair recognizes Congresswoman Hageman for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The 1902 Reclamation Act was a 
visionary piece of legislation that recognized that the future 
of the United States required the development, management, and 
use of our natural resources, including our water and our real 
property.
    Coming from Wyoming, I am especially cognizant of the 
importance of the Reclamation Act and the prosperity that it 
unleashed throughout the interior West as two of the very first 
projects permitted and built were in Wyoming: Pathfinder Dam 
and Reservoir, 1,160,000 acre-feet of water; Buffalo Bill, up 
near Cody, Wyoming, 646,565 acre-feet. And the Pathfinder Dam 
and Reservoir was over 1 million acre-feet. These are beautiful 
facilities that together irrigate hundreds of thousands of 
acres. They provide municipal water. They provide recreation, 
fisheries, wildlife habitat, hydropower, and they are amenities 
that are incredibly important to my state and our communities.
    We have also learned of the incredible benefits that these 
projects provide in relation to irrigation and what irrigation 
has done in terms of creating the bounty that we have in the 
interior Western United States.
    With flood irrigation, we are able to replenish our 
aquifers. We have the deep percolation and the runoff. And that 
is what keeps our rivers alive in the West. We are a snowpack 
state. And as a result, prior to the construction of our dams, 
and prior to the construction of the buildout of these 
facilities and the irrigation infrastructure, many of our 
streams and rivers were dry during certain times, if not most 
of the year.
    The North Platte River, for example, ran dry pretty much 
every year, as well as the Platte River. And why is that? 
Because those rivers and streams were kept alive by snowmelt. 
The water came through as runoff in the spring with spring 
floods, and then was gone.
    So, what do you think happened to the fisheries when the 
rivers and streams went dry? They didn't exist. It is through 
the creation of these types of projects that we have been able 
to create--and I will use the word again--the bounty that we 
have in the interior West.
    In Central Wyoming, south of Casper on the North Platte 
River, we have what is referred to as the ``Miracle Mile.'' 
Have any of you ever heard of the Miracle Mile? It is the No. 1 
Blue Ribbon fishery in the North America.
    Do you know why we have the Miracle Mile in Wyoming? 
Because upstream we have Pathfinder Reservoir, Seminole 
Reservoir, Alcova Reservoir. We are able to release 500 CFS of 
water every day, 365 days a year, to keep that fishery alive. 
And as a result, we have people who come from all over the 
world to enjoy angling, and fishing, and hunting in Wyoming.
    But it was all created because of irrigation. It was all 
created because of the construction of reservoirs. It was all 
created--and, again, it has provided us with a standard of 
living that has created the irrigation infrastructure that we 
needed to grow crops. We grow alfalfa, corn, sugar beets, 
beans. We have created tens of thousands of jobs, and we 
irrigate millions of acres in Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska. 
We are able to produce food for our cattle producers. And as a 
result, we are able to feed the United States.
    So, when I come to a meeting like this or a hearing like 
this and we talk about water, I think one of the things that is 
incredibly important is that you have to understand that for 
the interior West especially, without irrigation 
infrastructure, without reservoirs, we don't have fisheries 
that so many people love about Wyoming, and Montana, and 
Colorado, and Utah, and Idaho. We don't have the production of 
hydropower that keeps the lights on for millions of people 
throughout the West.
    So, Mr. Keppen, in your testimony, you touched a bit on 
some of the shifting priorities in reclamation projects. And 
the Reclamation Act was for irrigation. It was to create these 
irrigation projects. How has that shift in focus affected our 
ability to protect our water resources and all of the amenities 
I have described?
    Mr. Keppen. Well, first, I apologize for not knowing about 
the Miracle Mile, even though you and I both went to the 
University of Wyoming.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Keppen. But can you repeat the question again, 
Congresswoman?
    Ms. Hageman. The shift in focus of the Bureau of 
Reclamation from irrigation to environmental, what are the 
impacts of that?
    Mr. Keppen. Yes. Well, it is like you say, where I live, 
and also in the Central Valley to some degree, the water and 
the irrigation project for the Klamath Basin provides an 
important water fallow function, and it is part of the Pacific 
Flyway. Same with Northern California and the Central Valley.
    And when farms aren't getting water, the refuges are 
impacted, because the birds aren't going to the refuges to get 
food. It is the adjacent farmlands that provides them food. So, 
I have talked to a lot of folks in the waterfowl community----
    Mr. Bentz. Mr. Keppen, could you wind it up, please? We are 
49 seconds----
    Mr. Keppen. OK. One example, when irrigation is taken away, 
it also has environmental impacts, especially to waterfowl.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Thank you for that, and I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    I now recognize Mr. Graves for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Congressman Duarte, I want to invite you to Louisiana. 
While you all struggle with your fishery, we have an abundance 
and would love you to come and participate with the great 
bounty of the Gulf of Mexico any time.
    Ms. Guyas, I want to ask you a question. Over the past few 
years, we have made a lot of progress in legislation, such as 
the Modern Fish Act, which really brings recreational fisheries 
up to the same level in terms of management regime, working 
with Senator Shelby, received funding for the Great Red Snapper 
Count, which I think is the most detailed analysis of a fish 
stock in the country.
    The Modern Fish Act not just brought up the sort of parity 
with recreational and commercial fisheries, but it also 
required that the best science be used to inform fisheries 
management decisions.
    Noting the findings of the Great Red Snapper Count, noting 
that the Modern Fish Act requires the use of the best science, 
do you believe that National Marine Fisheries Service has 
properly managing the red snapper species in the Gulf of 
Mexico?
    Ms. Guyas. Well, I think we are still working toward 
getting that best science incorporated into management and 
assessment. So, it has been sort of a winding path to use the 
Great Red Snapper Count results to inform quotas. It has been a 
little bit of a struggle, and we are on now our second 
rulemaking to adjust quotas based on the Great Red Snapper 
Count.
    At this point, there is a new assessment going on now for 
Gulf red snapper, and the analysts are trying to figure out how 
to incorporate Great Red Snapper Count into it. We will see how 
that goes, but would love to see that, and then, also, the 
state data programs as well.
    Mr. Graves. Which Louisiana, our fishers decided to impose 
a new fee on themselves to create the Louisiana Creel System to 
collect better data, to inform decisions, and ultimately to 
result in better fisheries management.
    And I will tell you, I am very much bothered by the fact 
that the Great Red Snapper Count determined that there was 
effectively a tripling of the species, or I guess say it 
differently, there were more than three times the fish in the 
Gulf of Mexico as National Marine Fisheries Service believed 
and as the management regime was operating under, which is 
incredibly frustrating.
    And, lastly, I just want to make note that the red snapper 
off the coast of Louisiana are much better than those off of 
Alabama.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Carl. They are red because they----
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Graves. I know you get to speak after me, but I am 
going to leave before then.
    I also wanted to ask, look, everybody agrees that we need 
to make sure that we are carrying out the best practices to 
manage the right whale species in the Atlantic and the Gulf of 
Mexico. However, some of the proposals that have been put out 
appear to impose restrictions on vessels that I think would 
actually threaten safety of the vessels whenever right whales 
may not be within 100 miles of that vessel. And I just didn't 
know if you had any reaction to that.
    Ms. Guyas. Yes. Thanks for the question. Vessel speed is an 
important safety feature, actually, on recreational vessels. 
They don't have the same stability as larger commercial 
shipping vessels, so if you are caught in rough seas, being 
able to go fast is really part of your safety plan to get back 
home safely.
    Mr. Graves. Get back home, but also to actually get over 
the swells. Without that speed, without that momentum, you 
actually threaten the safety of the vessels and the passengers 
as well.
    Last question. Can you talk about the benefits of 
artificial reef structures for fisheries and whether, for 
example, energy infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico provides 
benefits to fishery stocks?
    Ms. Guyas. Yes. Absolutely. I am sure you have fished on 
plenty of oil rigs in your time. Fish love that structure, so 
for oil rigs you have amberjack that love that, cobia. I am 
sure you are catching some red snapper there as well. So, yes, 
that structure is definitely fished by the recreational 
fishery.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you. Last question, Ms. Guyas. Did you 
know that when Mardi Gras was celebrated in Mobile, did you 
know that there were only two colors to Mardi Gras at that 
time? It was only purple and gold, which happens to be the two 
colors of LSU. It was only later that Louisiana added green as 
well.
    So, I yield my remaining time to my friend from Alabama.
    Mr. Carl. A lot to ponder there.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Carl. I don't know if I want to follow him or not.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Mr. Carl for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate my 
friend from Louisiana. Obviously, we have a good time picking 
at one another.
    And, Ms. Guyas, I think my question is going to be more 
targeted at you. Before I get to you, though, I would like to 
counter Congressman Huffman. I would love for you to work with 
us on the shrimping industry. Our shrimpers are a dying art, 
between fuel prices, between foreign countries that are 
catching our shrimp that are coming into our waters. I would 
love for us to come up with a way to save our shrimping 
industry in Louisiana, Florida, and Alabama, Mississippi, 
obviously. So, thank you for your offer for all of us to join 
together.
    May I call you Martha? All right. I can remember Martha 
pretty easy. Martha, like you, I am concerned that NOAA is 
using the wrong data and issuing conflicting rules. Their 
decisions hurt anglers, confuse anglers, and are harmful to the 
local economy, which is my district that I am speaking of. And 
it is no surprise that NOAA has prioritized its Federal catch 
data over more accurate state data.
    And that is the key. I think Graves referred to it there as 
the Great Red Snapper Count as we all know it as. States on the 
Gulf Coast, like Alabama, have done an incredible job of 
monitoring red snapper. If you are not used to our red snapper 
program, it is second to none, and I would encourage you to 
look at it.
    And it helps us monitor our red snapper population, and the 
last thing state needs is more Federal Government, getting more 
involved and imposing more regulations on our fishermen.
    We need to get out of their way and let them fish. That is 
what they are there for. That is what they came to do. It is 
their weekend, their money. That is our profits, our tax 
dollars.
    Last year, the NOAA Administration testified in front of 
this--sorry, they testified in front of the Senate Commerce 
Committee and said it was crucial for NOAA to base its 
management decision on the best scientific information 
available. When the Administration later testified in front of 
this Subcommittee, I told them I agreed with them 100 percent. 
And the science he was looking at needs to be the science also 
used in Alabama, the numbers that we use.
    The science clearly showed that we had an abundance of red 
snapper, and the population continues to grow. The bottom line 
is, I support increasing the red snapper quota for everyone. 
And I would love to hear from you about how we can better 
manage our fisheries in a way that will help all of us.
    Ms. Guyas. Thank you for your question. I think state 
management has made a lot of progress. Alabama certainly has a 
great program set up. All five of the Gulf states do. Going 
back to our conversation with Mr. Graves, we need to get that 
Great Red Snapper Count in the assessment, so that that is 
helping to drive forward our management and setting our quotas 
moving out here from here on out.
    The Council of Scientific Advisors, when they have looked 
at the Great Red Snapper Count, they have kind of struggled 
figuring out how to incorporate it into management without 
having it in the assessment. So, I think that is going to be 
the key moving forward.
    Mr. Carl. And for people who don't understand, I heard this 
said, so I am assuming it is correct. I did read it on 
Facebook, so it may be a lie. But Alabama has the most reefs of 
any state. We have buses, we have tanks, we have bridge rubble, 
you name it, we have it out. Chicken coops, they love chicken 
coops.
    I went out on a University of South Alabama group, and we 
sent down the robotics, and chicken coops held the most fish of 
all things in the world. And we are very proud of that, and we 
have spent a lot of private money getting those reefs built.
    So, there is a reason why we have more snapper out there, 
and you are not going to count those snapper by dragging a net 
and counting the fish in the net.
    I appreciate your time. I appreciate everyone coming and 
speaking before this Committee. It is important that our voices 
be heard. It is important that we speak up for those that can't 
be here to speak for us.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I give my time back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Carl.
    And with that, I don't see any other witnesses. Is that 
correct? I thank the witnesses for the valuable testimony and 
the Members for their questions.
    The members of the Committee may have some additional 
questions for witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 
p.m., Monday, March 13. The hearing record will be held open 
for 10 business days for these reasons.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the hearing record 
the letter from the American Public Power Association. Without 
objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

                   AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION

                             Arlington, VA

                                                  March 8, 2023    

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

    Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

    The American Public Power Association (APPA) appreciates the 
opportunity to submit a statement for the record for the House Natural 
Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries 
hearing, ``Benefits and Access: The Necessity for Multiple Use of Water 
Resources.'' APPA supports and agrees with the testimony submitted by 
Mr. Scott Corwin, the Executive Director of the Northwest Public Power 
Association (NWPPA).
    APPA is the voice of not-for-profit, community-owned utilities that 
power 2,000 towns and cities nationwide. APPA represents public power 
before the federal government to protect the interests of the more than 
49 million people that public power utilities serve, and the 96,000 
people they employ.
Hydropower Benefits

    Hydropower is one of many uses of water resources. Making full use 
of the nation's hydropower resources is key to ensuring that the 
nation's grid remains reliable and resilient, and that utilities can 
meet emission reduction goals. Hydropower is a source of emissions-
free, baseload power. Furthermore, hydroelectric generators can be 
started or stopped quickly, which makes them more responsive than most 
other energy sources for meeting demand for electricity at its ``peak'' 
or highest volume. Hydropower's ``black start'' capability makes it 
especially valuable in restoring power when there are widespread 
outages or disruptions on the system--this capability allows the 
generating units to cycle back on quickly if they have been tripped off 
in a power outage.
Federal Hydropower

    The federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) \1\ provide 
millions of Americans served by not-for-profit public power and rural 
cooperative electric utilities with cost-based hydroelectric power 
produced at federal dams operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
and Bureau of Reclamation.\2\ The Corps and Reclamation are the largest 
and second largest (respectively) generators of hydropower in the 
country. The PMAs market federally generated hydropower, with a 
statutory right of first refusal granted to not-for-profit entities, 
including public power utilities and rural electric cooperatives 
(called ``preference customers''), at rates set to cover all of the 
costs of generating and transmitting the electricity, as well as 
repayment, with interest, of the federal investment in these hydropower 
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The four PMAs are: the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), 
Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), Southwestern Area Power 
Administration (SWPA) and Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA).
    \2\ Given the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee, this statement 
focuses exclusively on federal hydropower. However, in addition to 
buying hydropower from federally owned dams, many APPA members own and 
operate their own dams, which are licensed by the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In accordance with federal law, PMA rates are set at the levels 
needed to recover the costs of the initial federal investment (plus 
interest) in the hydropower and transmission facilities. The PMAs 
annually review their rates to ensure full cost recovery. None of the 
costs are borne by taxpayers. Power rates also help to cover the costs 
of other activities authorized by these multipurpose projects, such as 
navigation, flood control, water supply, environmental programs, and 
recreation. The annual appropriations process is also important to the 
PMAs. Although the customers pay all the PMA costs through their power 
rates, as mentioned above, for the Western Area Power Administration, 
Southeastern Power Administration, and Southwestern Power 
Administration, those monies flow back to the U.S. Treasury and then 
must be appropriated by Congress. (Bonneville Power Administration's 
(BPA) governing statute, amended in the 1980s, allows for a ``revolving 
fund'' so ratepayer money goes directly to BPA rather than to the 
Treasury.) In addition, the PMAs must receive yearly funding levels 
from Congress for purchasing and wheeling (transmitting) power in a 
drought situation or when the water at the dams is used for purposes 
other than for electricity production (i.e., recreation and 
environmental mitigation). This money for ``purchase power and 
wheeling'' will then be paid for by the PMA customers through their 
rates.
Challenges Facing Federal Hydropower

    Federal hydropower and the PMAs are critical, though often 
overlooked, elements of the nation's power supply. Each PMA is unique 
in its authorizing statutes and the challenges it faces. We would 
welcome the opportunity to work with the subcommittee to address the 
PMA-specific issues highlighted below.

    Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA)--APPA strongly supported 
S. 3719, the Southwestern Power Fund Establishment Act, introduced by 
Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Roger Marshall (R-KS) in the last 
Congress, and urges the reintroduction and passage of the legislation 
this Congress. The current funding process for SWPA has increasingly 
failed to provide the financial certainty necessary to ensure steady 
power rates to customers during drought and other extreme weather 
events. This legislation would move SWPA to a ``revolving fund'' model 
where receipts from power sales would be deposited into a permanent 
mandatory Treasury revolving fund and retained across fiscal years to 
fund future expenses as necessary. Future annual discretionary 
appropriations would no longer be needed. This change will provide SWPA 
and its not-for-profit customers funding certainty for purchase power 
and wheeling and other costs. This is a proven model of success for 
federal utility programs with business-like functions. [See July 28, 
2022, statement for the record submitted by APPA and NRECA to the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee].

    Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)--The protracted drought in 
the West has caused reservoir levels to drop precipitously, thereby 
reducing the production of hydropower at several Bureau of Reclamation 
projects that is marketed by WAPA. It is possible that reservoir levels 
may drop so far that hydropower production is no longer possible. To 
make up for this reduction or even loss of hydropower production, 
WAPA's customers have long-term contracts for a fixed amount of power. 
When that power is unable to be generated at hydropower projects, 
replacement power must be purchased on the wholesale energy market. 
This means that public power utilities and other WAPA customers are 
paying twice: once for the ongoing capital repayment and operation and 
maintenance of the Reclamation project that is unable to produce the 
contracted amount of hydropower and again for the cost of replacement 
power. As not-for-profit electric utilities, increased costs are 
shouldered directly by public power customers at a time when the 
country is already facing high inflation and energy prices.
    Last Congress, Congressman Chris Stewart (R-UT) drafted legislation 
to help address the declining hydropower production in the Upper and 
Lower Colorado River Basins by providing a pro-rata credit to 
customers' monthly invoices for service shortfalls in hydropower 
delivered that are below the contracted amount. Senators Mark Kelly (D-
AZ) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) introduced similar legislation (S. 4233). 
APPA urges the reintroduction and passage of this legislation. [See 
November 10, 2022, letters to Congressman Stewart and Senate Energy & 
Natural Resources Committee Leadership; APPA Resolution 22-11, ``In 
Support of Colorado River Basin Drought Assistance''].

    Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)--The United States and Canada 
agreed to the Columbia River Treaty in 1964 for the mutual development 
of the Columbia River power and flood control systems. Under the 
Treaty, the U.S. provides payments to Canada, called the Canadian 
Entitlement (CE), in the form of returned power generation. The CE 
amount is calculated using a formula from 1961, which was based on the 
expected improvement to U.S. hydropower generation capability due to 
Canadian storage. Today, these calculations exceed the actual benefits 
of coordinated operations by an estimated 70-90 percent. An equitable 
rebalancing of this problem is worth more than a billion dollars to 
U.S. consumers at a time when many are already facing rising energy 
prices. APPA urges Congress to press the State Department and the 
entire negotiating team working under National Security Council 
officials to move faster on renegotiating the treaty with a particular 
emphasis on rebalancing the power provisions between the U.S. and 
Canada. [See April 4, 2022, APPA letter to President Biden].
    Making full use of the nation's hydropower resource is key to 
ensuring that the nation's--and the Pacific Northwest's--grid remains 
reliable and resilient, and that utilities can meet emission reduction 
goals. APPA strongly opposes the removal of the Lower Snake River Dams 
(LSRDs). It is difficult to overstate how critical it is to maintain 
the LRSDs as the region--and the nation--seeks to lower emissions while 
maintaining electric reliability and affordability over the long-term. 
Moreover, recent extreme weather events have demonstrated that the 
LSRDs are irreplaceable resources not just in the future but right 
now--both in terms of energy, capacity, and other grid services key to 
maintaining reliable electricity. [See APPA Resolution 22-12, ``In 
Support of Hydropower, the Federal Columbia River Power System, and 
Opposing Breach of the Lower Snake River Dams''].

    Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA)--Since the 1990s, the 
hydropower customers in the Southeast have witnessed the tug of war 
between the states over the use of federal multi-purpose projects for 
water supply. The water wars involving the States of Alabama, Florida, 
and Georgia have engulfed Corps decision making on the execution of 
water storage contracts, which would supplement water supply at Corps 
projects. Inherent throughout the debate, the question has lingered 
whether the Corps has adequately priced storage to compensate for the 
benefits lost by the hydropower customers who have historically paid 
for the projects.
    With the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
(P.L. 117-53) and the Disaster Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 
117-43), the Corps revealed that the Southeast could be asked to repay 
nearly $500 million in stimulus funds through hydropower rates. These 
funds have been directed to support work at Corps multipurpose projects 
on a variety of non-hydropower related projects. Yet, the Corps cost 
accounting proposes to report to SEPA hundreds of millions in costs 
that should be borne by other project purposes. For customers in the 
Southeast, the threat to hydropower resources is not isolated to 
changes in project operations and competing uses, but also within the 
books maintained by the Corps.
    APPA supports efforts to improve the transparency in accounting for 
costs to ensure that hydropower customers are not asked to bear costs 
unrelated to hydropower production.
Conclusion

    APPA commends the subcommittee for examining the multiple uses of 
our nation's water resources and looks forward to working on 
legislative solutions to preserve and maximize our federal hydropower 
assets.

            Sincerely,

                                       Desmarie Waterhouse,
             Senior Vice President of Advocacy and Communications  
                                                  & General Counsel

Attachments:

The following documents were submitted as attachments to APPA's letter 
to the Subcommittee. These documents are part of the hearing record and 
are being retained in the Committee's official files:

    -- July 28, 2022, statement for the record submitted by APPA and 
NRECA to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in support 
of establishing a SWPA revolving fund;

    -- November 10, 2022, letters to Congressman Stewart and Senate 
Energy Committee Leadership on drought assistance to WAPA;

    -- APPA Resolution 22-11, ``In Support of Colorado River Basin 
Drought Assistance;''

    -- April 4, 2022, APPA letter to President Biden on the Columbia 
River Treaty; and

    -- APPA Resolution 22-12, ``In Support of Hydropower, the Federal 
Columbia River Power System, and Opposing Breach of the Lower Snake 
River Dams.''

This letter with all attachments is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20230308/115450/HHRG-118-II13-
20230308-SD004.pdf

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. If there is no further business, without 
objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Huffman

             Letter from Recreational Fishing Organizations

                                                  March 7, 2023    

Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Ranking Member Huffman:

    The undersigned recreational fishing businesses, organizations, and 
individuals write to you share our concerns about some of the 
challenges facing recreational fisheries today. Saltwater recreational 
fishing supports substantial economic activity in coastal communities 
and is an important tradition that brings together generations of 
Americans. In 2019, our industry of recreational businesses and anglers 
supported 553,000 jobs and over $89 billion in sales impacts, in 
addition to providing livelihood, recreation, and connection to one 
another and to the ocean.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Fisheries Economics of the United 
States 2019, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-229A (March 2022), at 
14, available at https://media.fisheries. noaa.gov/2022-07/FEUS-2019-
final-v3_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Saltwater recreational fishing relies on abundant fish populations 
that are managed sustainably by fishery managers in accordance with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). 
However, in recent years, some have cited the challenges of managing 
recreational fisheries as reasons to weaken or roll back the 
conservation measures in the MSA that we depend on. This is especially 
troubling as, despite progress made under the MSA to rebuild stocks and 
support sustainable fishing, there is more work to be done to create 
resilience in our fisheries to ensure generations to come also have the 
opportunity to fish.
    Healthy and abundant fish stocks are an important part of ocean 
ecosystems and provide opportunities for sustainable fishing now and in 
the future, and the MSA is a vital part of achieving them. The MSA has 
been transformative for U.S. fisheries and making them sustainable, but 
many challenges remain. Despite the progress made through the MSA, 
there are concerning signs that many stocks are struggling. For 
example, 20% of stocks are currently overfished. Frankly, we believe 
that managers could do more to ensure that the law is being implemented 
as intended to support the resilience of fish stocks and fishing 
communities.
    To us, the greatest threats to the fisheries we rely on are 
rollbacks to the sustainability and accountability of recreational 
fishing, challenges with data collection, and our slow progress in 
addressing the impacts of climate change.
    As Congress continues to explore ways to steward our ocean 
fisheries into the future, we look forward to working with you to 
address the following serious challenges to the sustainability of 
recreational fishing.
Sustainable Recreational Management and Data Collection

    Just like any other fisheries sector, recreational fisheries have 
an impact on fish stocks and to grow fishing opportunities, we believe 
that management should be sustainable. That means it must be science-
based, uphold catch limits and accountability measures, prevent 
overfishing, rebuild stocks, and conserve and restore habitat to 
support healthy and abundant fish stocks. In the long run, abundant 
fish stocks are what yields the greatest fishing opportunity, and 
changes to management shouldn't come at the expense of the fish.
    Good management relies on good data, and we know that collecting 
recreational fishing data is inherently challenging. There are 
opportunities to improve upon our data system in ways that will make 
management more effective at supporting abundant fish stocks and 
allowing for the most fishing opportunities for anglers. NOAA Fisheries 
has made a number of improvements to recreational data over the years, 
and data collection should continue to build upon this foundation. This 
includes answering fundamental questions around the number of 
recreational anglers, their effort and catch, their mode of fishing, 
discards, and other questions. Improving data also means making 
refinements to existing recreational fishing surveys and integrating 
additional surveys in ways that ensure the quality of data is 
maintained and can adequately inform management, such as by calibrating 
new sources of data and maintaining consistency of supplemental data 
systems. New approaches should foster the development of innovative 
science-based solutions for recreational management. New data is useful 
in addition to, not in place of, existing information that provides a 
long-term view. We need to invest in obtaining more data and 
modernizing our data systems to ensure that our management is 
responsive and nimble to changes in biomass.
Addressing Climate Change Impacts

    Climate change is making our ocean waters warmer, more acidic, and 
lower in oxygen and disrupting where fish are found, what they can eat, 
where they can live, and how many there are. As fishermen, we see these 
changes every day on the water. These impacts are affecting 
recreational fisheries and every part of the management system. There 
is a lot that fishery managers can do through MSA to prepare our 
fisheries to adapt to the impacts of climate change. However, the law 
does not explicitly address climate, and we see opportunities to 
incorporate climate into the law more fully. Action is needed now to 
help fisheries adapt to changing conditions. Delaying action to address 
the climate impacts on fisheries will have costs, such as lower 
catches, less stable management, and more fisheries disasters. The 
challenge of climate change shouldn't be a reason to throw up our hands 
and do less management and less accountability for recreational 
fisheries. Instead, fishermen, managers, and scientists need to work 
together better to make sure we are considering climate in management 
and making fish stocks as resilient as we can.

                                  ***

    As recreational fishermen, businesses, and organizations, we deeply 
appreciate the decades of leadership in Congress that have created a 
sustainable fishery management system that supports substantial 
recreational fishing activity. We encourage you to look for ways to 
build on the successes we've seen, and avoid policy changes that might 
weaken the foundations of our system. Instead, we hope to work with you 
to tackle climate change impacts, enhance our data systems, and build 
resilience and abundance in our fisheries.

    Thank you for considering our comments on these issues.

            Sincerely,

        Steve Stracqualursi, 
        Product Director              Todd Corayer
        12wt                          Fishwrapwriter.com

        Whitney Tilt, Executive 
        Director                      Tim Hardin
        AFFTA Fisheries Fund          Venturing Angler

        Lucas Bissett, Executive 
        Director                      Rich Heffernan
        American Fly Fish Trade 
        Association                   Angler/Former Board Narragansett 
                                      Surf Casters, RI

        Rick Crawford, President      Ned Bean
        Fly Fishing Climate 
        Alliance                      Plum Island and Martha's Vineyard
        Emerger Strategies            Surfcasters Association, MA

        Bake Merwin--Owner            Eddie Doherty
        Gig Harbor Fly Shop           Author

        Ross Purnell, Publisher/
        Editor                        George Baldwin, President
        Fly Fisherman Magazine        Connecticut Surfcasters Assoc., 
                                      CT
        Kirk Deeter, Publisher/
        Editor                        Patrick Cassidy, Owner
        Angling Trade Magazine        Cape Cod on the Fly and New 
                                      England Maritime

        Michael DeJarnette, 
        Publisher                     Kyle Schaefer, Owner
          /Editor                     Soul Fly Lodge, Bahamas Flats
        Tail Magazine                 Soul Fly Outfitters, Maine

        Jack Reis, Director of 
        Marketing                     Peter Auster, PhD,
        Fishpond                      Research Professor Emeritus, 
                                      University of Connecticut
                                      Senior Research Scientist, Mystic 
                                      Aquarium, CT

        Chad Schmukler, Publisher/
        Editor                        Abbie Schuster
        Hatch Magazine                Kismet Outfitters Tackle Shop/
                                      Charter Fishing Guide,
                                      Martha's Vineyard, MA

        Dave McCoy, Owner             Bruce Bain, President
        Emerald Waters Anglers        Narragansett Surfcasters, RI

        Guy Fleischer, Science 
        Advisor                       David Monti
        Wild Steelhead Coalition      No Fluke Charters/RI Saltwater 
                                      Anglers Assoc./
                                      Am. Saltwater Guides Assoc./RI 
                                      Marine Fisheries Council

        Brook Scott                   Chris Hunt
        Yellow Dog Community & 
        Conservation Foundation       Hatch Adventure Travel

        Brian Bennett                 Ted Upton, CEO
        Moldychum                     Cheeky Fly Fishing

        Shane Cantrell                Peter Vandergrift, CMO
        Galveston Sea Ventures        Wingo Outdoors

        Jonathan Ungerland, 
        President                     John Creighton, Trustee
        Cape Cod Salties, MA          Cape Cod Salties, MA

        Chris Willi
        Owner Block Island Fish 
        Works Outfitters/Charter 
        Captain, RI

                                 ______
                                 

                           OCEAN CONSERVANCY

                             Washington, DC

                                                 March 10, 2023    

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

Re: Using and accessing federal water resources--Gulf of Mexico red 
        snapper

    Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

    Ocean Conservancy\1\ offers the following perspectives on the 
management of the private recreational sector of red snapper in the 
Gulf of Mexico, as it was a featured topic in your subcommittee hearing 
on March 8, 2023, entitled, ``Benefits and Access: The Necessity for 
Multiple Use of Water Resources.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Ocean Conservancy is working to protect the ocean from today's 
greatest global challenges. Together with our partners, we create 
evidence-based solutions for a healthy ocean and the wildlife and 
communities that depend on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Red snapper is a commercially and recreationally important fish 
stock to the Gulf of Mexico region, and management of the fishery must 
rebuild this stock while balancing efforts to allow fair and 
accountable access to the resource. Decades of management innovations 
have improved the health of the stock, increased the stability and 
profitability of coastal businesses, and expanded recreational fishing 
opportunity. However, recent management measures, particularly the 
necessary refinements to the state management system for the private 
recreational fleet and efforts to incorporate the Great Red Snapper 
Count into the fishery management system, have been subject to 
significant misunderstanding by the public. As many of the statements 
made in the hearing regarding red snapper do not align with the facts 
or the reality of the situation on the water, we offer these 
perspectives on the management of Gulf red snapper.

    In particular, we note the following key points:

     Red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is a stock still 
            rebuilding to healthy levels after overfishing drove the 
            population to historically low biomass.

     Every sector that targets or interacts with red snapper--
            the shrimp trawl fleet, the commercial sector, the for-hire 
            sector, and the private recreational sector--has needed new 
            management measures to restrict catch to sustainable levels 
            as part of efforts to rebuild the stock.

     The private recreational sector is the last sector to 
            experience significant management reform.

     ``State management'' is a management approach for the 
            private recreational sector that allows the Gulf states to 
            manage private anglers and their catch throughout the 
            Exclusive Economic Zone. As part of this approach, each 
            state must ensure catch stays under its allocated quota. 
            However, overfishing has continued to occur under state 
            management.

     There are concerning signs that the red snapper population 
            is in decline in the Gulf.

     In order to use the best scientific information available 
            to monitor catch levels in the private recreational 
            fishery, calibration ratios (``common currency'') were 
            collaboratively developed to allow state and federal data 
            systems to work together, as intended by their 
            complementary designs. These ratios have recently been 
            implemented and are necessary to ensure management complies 
            with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
            Management Act (MSA).

     State and federal surveys provide the most information for 
            management when their data are used in complementary ways.

     Calibration ratios, like all scientific considerations in 
            fishery management, will continue to be refined and 
            improved over time. However, fishery management is required 
            to use the best scientific information available at the 
            time of the management decision being made, and so it is 
            appropriate for existing calibration ratios to be 
            implemented. Managers have ample opportunity to revise 
            calibration ratios for use in future management decisions 
            at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (`Gulf 
            Council').

     The Great Red Snapper Count (GRSC) is being considered in 
            the next stock assessment process. This is the appropriate 
            venue for this new information because the abundance 
            estimate from the GRSC should not be considered 
            independently of the other biological factors of the stock. 
            For instance, a higher abundance estimate may mean that red 
            snapper is less productive than previously estimated. 
            Suggestions that catch levels should have simply been 
            multiplied based on the results of the GRSC fundamentally 
            misunderstand or misrepresent the considerations that go 
            into fishery population studies.

     We note that the GRSC is already being used to set the 
            highest catch levels ever in the fishery.

Significant overfishing of red snapper led to management changes for 
        all sectors

    The red snapper stock was first put into a rebuilding plan in 1990 
after overfishing drove it to just 2% of its historic levels; the 
rebuilding plan was revised in 2005 after insufficient progress was 
being made to recover the stock.\2\ In order to rebuild the stock, 
managers needed to address two key problems. First, they needed to 
further reduce bycatch of juvenile red snapper in the shrimp trawl 
fleets. This was accomplished in 2008 by implementing bycatch reduction 
devices and establishing shrimp trawl fishing effort thresholds.\3\ And 
second, managers needed to prevent overfishing from occurring in the 
directed red snapper fishery; this remains an ongoing challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Rebuilding Plan, 
70 Fed. Reg. 32266 (June 2, 2005).
    \3\ Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Reef Fish Fishery and Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 
27/14, 73 Fed. Reg. 5117 (February 28, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The directed red snapper fishery is divided into two sectors for 
management and allocation purposes: commercial, allocated 51% of the 
quota, and recreational, allocated 49%. The commercial sector is 
managed through an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program implemented 
in 2007.\4\ Since IFQ implementation, the commercial sector has 
complied with its catch limit every year. The recreational sector is 
then further subdivided into two components: private recreational 
anglers, who fish from their own private boats, and the for-hire 
sector, who operate charter vessels and headboats that take paying 
customers out into the Gulf to fish. This subdivision of the 
recreational sector is referred to as ``sector separation,'' and since 
its implementation in 2015, the for-hire sector has also stayed under 
its catch limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 26, 71 Fed. Reg. 
67447 (November 22, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Having successfully addressed key sustainability issues with the 
shrimp fishery, commercial red snapper sector, and for-hire red snapper 
sector, managers then turned to improving management of the private 
recreational fleet. The private recreational sector faces several 
management challenges: there are millions of individual anglers, they 
can leave on fishing trips from anywhere in the Gulf (as opposed to 
leaving from specific ports and marinas), it is difficult to collect 
data on their activities, and estimating bycatch (discards) and the 
mortality of those discards is difficult. Further, as the red snapper 
stock began rebuilding from the combined efforts of the other fishing 
sectors, recreational anglers regularly exceeded their annual catch 
limits. This was driven in part due to the size of the fish they 
caught, and also because long seasons in state waters allowed for 
anglers to catch lots of red snapper before the federal fishing season 
began. As a result, federal season lengths significantly contracted, 
down to as few as three days in 2017.
    To be clear, the vast majority of private recreational fishermen 
are conservationists and are doing everything they can individually to 
follow the rules--they fish when the season is open, they only keep as 
many fish as they are allowed, and they try to carefully release fish 
that can't be brought back to shore. However, the sheer number of 
recreational fishermen in the Gulf and the challenges of accurately 
accounting for their activities have led to persistent catch overages. 
Managers needed to address these issues, and they have tackled it with 
a combination of expanded data collection efforts and new management 
approaches.
State management of private anglers contained a serious data flaw that 
        allowed overfishing

    State management is an attempt to improve the fishing experience of 
recreational anglers while finally implementing accountable, 
sustainable management for the private recreational sector in the Gulf. 
Under state management, each of the five Gulf states--Florida, Alabama, 
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas--is authorized to manage a portion of 
the total private recreational annual catch limit for federal waters. 
The proportions of catch given to each state were decided by the states 
themselves and implemented as fixed amounts in the fishery management 
amendment that established state management, Amendment 50.\5\ With 
Amendment 50, each state took on the responsibility for setting 
management measures that would keep its catch under its quotas for 
fishing both in state waters and out to 200 nautical miles (the limit 
of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the U.S.). This includes the 
responsibility to accurately monitor the red snapper catch of anglers 
in state and adjacent federal waters throughout the year and ensure 
that the landings stay below limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendments 50A-F, 85 Fed. Reg. 
6819 (February 6, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, state management suffered from a major data problem: 
separating out the reporting responsibility to the five Gulf states 
meant that each was now using a different survey methodology to 
estimate landings, and the data from these different surveys could not 
be directly compared to each other or to their allocated federal quota. 
In essence, managers couldn't compare landings to quota because each 
one was calculated in a different ``currency,'' and there was no 
methodology, or calibration, implemented to convert among them (a 
problem akin to having multiple currencies used in different countries 
with no currency exchange rate). As noted by NOAA Fisheries, ``Whenever 
existing and new surveys produce estimates that are systematically 
different from one another, calibration is an essential step that must 
occur before the new estimates can be used in science and management.'' 
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ NOAA Fisheries, Statistical Calibration Overview, https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/recreational-fishing-data/statistical-
calibration-overview
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This lack of calibration between these different sources of data 
has allowed excessive recreational fishing in each year since state 
management was implemented. It was particularly notable in 2019, when 
recreational fishing drove the combined Gulf red snapper fishery (all 
sectors) over the overfishing limit (OFL) for the first time in over a 
decade.\7\ This exceedance of the OFL put the rebuilding of the stock, 
which benefits all fishermen, at risk. If fishery management measures 
are set in a way that fails to restrain fishing below annual catch 
limits, allows fishing to exceed the overfishing limit, and fails to 
implement a rebuilding plan, as in this case, they are inconsistent 
with the requirements of the MSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Landings. Tab B, No. 6a, August 25, 
2020. https://gulfcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/B-6a-
SERO_RS_CouncilSlides082020updated.pdf, slide 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To fix the data issues in state management, a multi-year process 
was initiated to develop the necessary calibration ratios that would 
make appropriate comparisons between landings and quota possible. This 
process is often referred to as developing a ``common currency,'' and 
it involved the managers and scientists from each of the Gulf states, 
NOAA Fisheries, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the 
Gulf Council. In July 2019, NOAA Fisheries' Office of Science and 
Technology (OST) released a white paper that identified a range of 
acceptable methods to calibrate data across scientific surveys; they 
concluded that without a calibration, comparison of state survey 
landings with an ACL derived from the Marine Recreational Information 
Program's (MRIP) survey would be ``statistically indefensible.'' \8\ 
The calibration ratios developed during this process are simple 
calibration ratios (the ratio between catch estimates produced by 
running the state and federal monitoring systems side by side), a 
common approach that enables for calibrations to be developed more 
quickly and allowed each state to use its own calibration method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ NOAA Fisheries Recommends Source of Recreational Catch 
Statistics for Assessing Gulf Reef Fish Stocks https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/noaa-fisheries-recommends-source-
recreational-catch-statistics-assessing-gulf-reef, Published August 7, 
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In April 2021, the Gulf Council formally adopted these calibration 
ratios, which were approved for use by their Scientific and Statistical 
Committee (SSC) (making them the best scientific information 
available), to be implemented in January 2023.\9\ NOAA Fisheries 
recently issued the final rule implementing these critical calibration 
ratios, and they will go into effect for the 2023 fishing season that 
starts for some states in May. With this rule, states can still manage 
to meet the needs of their anglers while improving accountability for 
the sake of the long-term sustainability of the red snapper resource 
for all users. Implementing these calibration ratios will necessarily 
rein in recreational fishing in some states, which can come at a cost 
to local anglers. However, implementing common currency was required to 
restore management that complies with the MSA, and these actions were 
necessary to fairly and sustainably manage this public resource.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Data Calibrations 
and Harvest Levels. 87. Fed. Reg. 74014 (Dec. 2, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Refinements to calibration ratios are going to be an ongoing need 
to ensure the successful implementation of state management. As long as 
multiple surveys are being used to estimate red snapper landings, there 
will need to be a way to scientifically convert between them. Ongoing 
revisions and refinements to calibration ratios can occur, and should 
occur in particular if new data become available or if changes are made 
to survey methodologies. These refinements do not imply that existing 
calibration ratios should not be used. The MSA requires that managers 
use the best scientific information available to manage stocks and not 
wait until some future, potentially more preferable scientific 
information is available. It is necessary to implement the existing 
calibrations, and managers can take further action to implement revised 
calibration ratios once they are available. We should also expect 
calibrations to be essential to the stock assessment process for red 
snapper.
The red snapper stock is showing signs of decline

    Currently, Gulf red snapper is more than halfway through its 27-
year second rebuilding plan, and it is critical to meet the deadline of 
having a healthy stock by 2032 for fishermen and communities in the 
region. During the course of this plan, the stock has improved and is 
no longer considered overfished, but it has not yet rebuilt to a 
healthy level. However, as noted above, excessive landings by some 
states fishing under state management over the last six years have 
caused red snapper to undergo overfishing in 2019.\10\ Most concerning 
is that two of the most reliable data series (both fishery-independent 
and fishery-dependent) are showing signs of decline. The bottom 
longline survey data,\11\ one of the longest-running independent 
surveys used to estimate the abundance of red snapper in the Gulf, has 
shown that rebuilding progress has stalled, and worse, potentially has 
started to reverse. In a troubling sign from another long-term fishery-
dependent indicator, catch rates in the for-hire sector appear to have 
declined.\12\ Further, some fishermen in the Gulf are reporting 
significant problems catching red snapper that they can keep, 
suggesting that excessive fishing has noticeably depleted the fish 
stock in certain areas. This is particularly notable off the coast of 
Alabama, where anglers are catching only about a third as many fish as 
they did just two years ago.\13\ With the for-hire and commercial 
sectors fishing accountably, the private recreational sector is most 
likely the root cause of these recent red snapper stock declines. 
Should this level of fishing damage the overall health of the red 
snapper stock, it is not just private recreational anglers that will 
suffer--all sectors will end up taking cuts to their quota if the stock 
declines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Landings. Tab B, No. 6a, August 25, 
2020. https://gulfcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/B-6a-SERO--RS--
CouncilSlides082020updated.pdf. Slide 6.
    \11\ NOAA Fisheries, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Southeast 
Fisheries Science Center, ``Traditional'' Interim Assessment of Gulf of 
Mexico Red Snapper, Meeting of the Gulf Scientific and Statistical 
Committee, April 1-2, 2020, available at https://gulfcouncil.org/wp-
content/uploads/05a.-RS_Traditional_Interim.pdf.
    \12\ NOAA Announcement of the 2022 Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper 
Recreational For-Hire Season, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Bulletin (Apr. 25, 
2022), https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/bulletin/noaa-announces-2022-
gulf-mexico-red-snapper-recreational-hire-season. (The most recent 
season length announcement stated that ``[b]ecause the daily catch rate 
was lower from 2019-2021 than it had been in the recent past, the 
season length will increase to 79 days this year.'' A 79-day season 
length computes to a catch rate of approximately 36,000 lbs/day (ACL 
divided by days open). When compared to the 2017 average catch rate of 
47,753 lbs/day, this indicates a 34% reduction in daily catch rates.).
    \13\ Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 2022 
Red Snapper Landings Summary, https://www.outdooralabama.com/2022-red-
snapper-landings-summary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and Federal data are designed to work together

    Red snapper management works best when all available sources of 
data are leveraged. A primary source of data in the Gulf is MRIP, which 
is a state-regional-federal partnership and survey program that uses a 
range of survey methods to estimate total recreational catch. Resulting 
data from MRIP are used to inform assessment and management. The 
development of MRIP, meant to address some of the inherent challenges 
of collecting recreational fishing data, has, according to the National 
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), ``resulted in 
significant improvements to recreational catch and effort surveys.'' 
\14\ As part of these improvements, a review found that MRIP has ``an 
implementation approach that incorporates the flexibility required to 
address unique regional and state needs while at the same time 
maintaining the standardization and national-level cohesion,'' and that 
``the program has evolved to become a compilation of regionally based 
data-collection programs and is better prepared to address data needs 
at regional and state levels.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 
2021. Data and Management Strategies for Recreational Fisheries with 
Annual Catch Limits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 
https://doi.org/10.17226/26185 at 1.
    \15\ The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 
2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. 
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/
10.17226/24640 at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In order to better understand catch of red snapper in the Gulf, 
supplemental state survey programs were designed to complement the 
general MRIP surveys and address the unique needs of each state. In a 
2021 review of MRIP and recreational fishing data, the NASEM 
recommended that supplemental surveys can provide a number of benefits 
to inform timely catch estimates when used in conjunction with 
MRIP.\16\ Thus, the state supplemental surveys function best not as a 
replacement to MRIP, but as a complement, enhancing the data available 
to improve in-season management and stock assessments, which can 
ultimately lead to better management of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 
2021. Data and Management Strategies for Recreational Fisheries with 
Annual Catch Limits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 
https://doi.org/10.17226/26185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Each survey has its own methods and inherent biases, which means 
that results from different surveys can vary even when the surveys are 
each appropriately designed and capable of producing statistically 
robust data. The NASEM notes that, ``differences among estimates can be 
moderate, or quite substantial,'' \17\ which necessitates calibration 
among the various surveys to ensure consistency. Without a calibration, 
the landings from state surveys stand alone and cannot be integrated to 
assess a stock population as a whole.\18\ For instance, some state 
surveys are intended to provide in-season data collection but do not 
collect landings information outside of the directed season. These 
differences in data collection mean surveys cannot be used 
interchangeably, but they can be integrated together to better inform 
our total understanding of red snapper catch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Id. at page 5.
    \18\ NOAA Fisheries Recommends Source of Recreational Catch 
Statistics for Assessing Gulf Reef Fish Stocks https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/noaafisheries-recommends-source-
recreational-catch-statistics-assessing-gulf-reef, Published August 7, 
2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Though the state surveys in the Gulf have been certified by MRIP, 
certification is not the same as calibration.\19\ MRIP certification of 
a state survey does not presume landings estimates produced represent 
the best scientific information available (BSIA) or imply that they are 
suitable for in-season management. Rather, certification indicates a 
data collection program meets a certain level of statistical rigor and 
that it qualifies for technical and financial support from NOAA 
Fisheries. After that, calibration is the process that accounts for 
differences between surveys and standardizes the estimates to a common 
currency, such as to a historical time series from MRIP. It is 
important to note that calibration does not imply anything about the 
quality of one survey over another; calibration merely offers a method 
for estimates from different surveys to be put into the same currency 
by reconciling differences. Calibration is important because in 
converting estimates to the same currency, it preserves the continuity 
of existing time series.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ NOAA Fisheries, Transitioning to New Recreational Fishing 
Survey Designs, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/recreational-fishing-
data/transitioning-new-recreational-fishing-survey-designs
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Great Red Snapper Count should be incorporated into the stock 
        assessment

    The Great Red Snapper Count (GRSC) was a congressionally mandated 
and funded study to take a one-time snapshot of the total abundance of 
red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. Abundance studies like the GRSC, if 
done rigorously and used appropriately, can provide helpful information 
about the stock and the fishery that can be considered in management. 
However, there has been an enormous amount of confusion around the 
appropriate uses of the GRSC for both science and management. With 
Congress continuing to fund additional abundance studies, it is 
critical that these misconceptions are addressed.
    The GRSC included larger estimates of red snapper occupying 
uncharacterized bottom (UCB, essentially describing areas that are not 
obviously reefs) in the Gulf than had previously been estimated. These 
areas have consistently been surveyed by the long-standing bottom 
longline survey in the Gulf, which is used to track trends in stock 
health over time. The preliminary abundance estimate calculated by the 
GRSC for the total abundance red snapper in the Gulf was 118 million 
fish, a number which was publicly celebrated prior to peer review of 
the study (creating extreme confusion surrounding the scientific 
process). After initial peer-review, the abundance estimate has since 
been revised down to 85.6 million fish and has been integrated for use 
in management. Though abundance estimates provide a useful indicator 
for managers, attempts to frame this number as ``correct'' and previous 
abundance estimates as ``wrong'' are deeply misguided. All factors 
estimating the productivity, natural mortality, and recruitment of a 
fish stock are interrelated. For instance, an outcome from the 
abundance estimates of the GRSC is that scientists may need to 
reconsider how productive the red snapper stock is, as it is very 
possible that productivity may have been overestimated. In other words, 
here is a plausible scenario: before the GRSC, scientists thought there 
was a smaller, more productive red snapper stock; after the GRSC is 
incorporated, it is possible there is a larger, less productive red 
snapper stock. It is important to get this right because if managers 
were to reflexively and dramatically increase catch levels based solely 
on the new GRSC estimate and the stock were less productive than 
estimated, the new fishing levels could quickly decimate the stock.
    With this context, it is much easier to understand the challenges 
faced by scientists on the Gulf Council's SSC in the two times they 
have been asked to set catch recommendations based on preliminary GRSC 
estimates before those estimates had been incorporated into a stock 
assessment. The first time, the GRSC had not been formally peer 
reviewed; an expedited peer review of the study occurred at the same 
meeting where the SSC was asked to set catch limits using the GRSC 
results. The three independent peer reviewers brought up notable 
concerns about the methods used both in the study itself as well as in 
the agency's application of the study through an `interim assessment,' 
rather than through a full stock assessment within the Southeast Data, 
Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process.\21\ SSC members were split on 
how to incorporate the information, ultimately setting a high 
overfishing limit (OFL) of 25.6 million pounds (raised from 15.5 mp) 
but only marginally increasing the acceptable biological catch (ABC) 
from 15.1 to 15.5 mp after considering that other sources of data also 
available to them--namely a long-standing survey of UCB areas--showed 
some concerning trends. The SSC was later asked to look at a revised 
version of the GRSC and ultimately used that information (in 
combination with all other best available science) to revise the OFL 
back down from 25.6 mp to 18.9 mp and raise the ABC, from 15.5 to 16.3 
mp. Once these new catch levels are implemented (they are open for 
public comment now), catch levels for red snapper will be set higher 
than they have ever been set. That means that the total mortality of 
the stock annually will be higher than scientists estimate was 
occurring back in the 1990s, when overfishing drove the stock to 2% of 
its historical biomass, kicking off the entire rebuilding story told 
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Meeting of the 
Standing, Reef Fish, and Socioeconomic SSC, March 30-31, 2021, Agenda 
item II.b, available at: https://gulfcouncil.org/meetings/scientific-
and-statistical-meetings/mar-apr2021/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although abundance studies provide important new information, it is 
imperative that scientists, managers, and others involved in the 
fishery management process clearly distinguish between the differences 
in an abundance study and the stock assessment process in order to 
avoid duplicating the substantial confusion and immense pressure to 
ignore uncertainty associated with the GRSC preliminary estimate and 
revise catch levels. In the case of Gulf red snapper, the new catch 
levels set using the GRSC, done before the study was incorporated into 
the stock assessment, combined with the catch overages that occurred 
due to a lack of calibration for the first four years of state 
management, significantly increase the risk that overall fishing effort 
will be too high, and will damage both the stock and fishery.
    Ultimately, abundance studies should be incorporated into our 
overall understanding of a fish stock through the stock assessment--not 
prematurely rushed into the management advice process. The MSA and the 
regulations to implement the law have established clear and effective 
processes around how information should be integrated for management 
consideration. These established processes must be honored rather than 
rushing to get data out the door if the results could yield a favorable 
outcome. In addition, strong scientific integrity practices can reduce 
the politicization of science and promote better oversight of large, 
congressionally funded studies like the GRSC. These considerations are 
important because new abundance studies modeled after the GRSC are 
currently underway in other fisheries, and it is not yet clear how to 
best quantify and integrate these studies into sustainable catch 
recommendations. Future abundance studies should go through standard 
peer review processes to ensure the management advice qualifies as best 
available science and can be used in stock assessments.
Gulf red snapper provides important lessons for managers

    Now that the implementation of calibrations for red snapper survey 
data is underway, it is important to examine what lessons managers and 
stakeholders can learn from this process. Based on our experience, we 
suggest a few:

     Sustainable management relies on accountability. To 
            rebuild our fisheries, sectors must be accountable to the 
            ACLs and accountability measures (AMs) set forth by 
            management. After an initial failed rebuilding plan, red 
            snapper started making progress toward rebuilding when 
            sustainable catch limits were implemented and 
            accountability increased--first with the shrimp bycatch 
            reductions, then commercial sector, and then the for-hire 
            sector. However, the private recreational sector was 
            allowed to exceed its ACL several years during the initial 
            implementation of state management, which led to the OFL 
            being triggered in 2019 for the first time in a decade, and 
            jeopardized rebuilding progress and the sacrifices made by 
            all sectors. Sustainability is a cornerstone of 
            recreational management, and new regulations should comply 
            with the requirements of the MSA, including through 
            upholding ACLs and AMs, preventing overfishing, rebuilding 
            stocks successfully, and conserving and restoring habitat 
            to maintain resilient and productive ecosystems that 
            support healthy and abundant fish stocks. We particularly 
            emphasize this point as there was discussion during the 
            hearing about delaying action to end overfishing and 
            implement the rebuilding plan for the red snapper stock in 
            the South Atlantic.

     Fishery management should be informed by the best 
            available scientific information. Fisheries data is the 
            foundation of our science-based management system. As new 
            data systems and scientific studies are proposed or 
            developed (such as state surveys or the GRSC), the best 
            practice is to design these to complement and supplement 
            existing data programs and ensure appropriate methodologies 
            are used to integrate new data. As fishery science relies 
            heavily on long-term datasets, abrupt replacements or 
            dramatic shifts in datasets can increase uncertainty and 
            put fish stocks and fishing communities at risk. Advanced 
            planning, cooperative efforts, and transparent 
            communication about both the opportunities and challenges 
            posed with new data approaches is key to maintaining 
            manager and stakeholder trust as our scientific 
            understanding of stocks increases. Additionally, managers 
            cannot delay action in order to wait for more favorable 
            data. The MSA's mandate to use the best available science 
            is an important backstop against delaying needed management 
            actions. Fishery managers will always have to confront 
            situations where the news about the health of a stock is 
            not what people want to hear, and the requirements to act 
            on the best information available to end overfishing and 
            rebuild stocks are crucial for preventing near-term 
            pressures to delay needed management action.

     Transparency and communication are critical for creating 
            trust in the management system. Fishery management is 
            complicated, and the intricacies of fishery data and 
            management actions can be difficult to communicate and 
            understand. A key stumbling block in recreational red 
            snapper management continues to be the ability for 
            scientists, statisticians and managers to communicate with 
            stakeholders about the data and science for the fishery. 
            Gulf red snapper management revealed failures to 
            communicate clearly to the public at key junctures, 
            including: failing to clearly set expectations about what 
            stock recovery in a rebuilding plan would look like on the 
            water for states and anglers; an unwillingness to 
            communicate about the challenges of using multiple data 
            sets for management; an egregious lack of transparency in 
            publicly tracking landings data (there is still no public, 
            transparent, and accurate tracking of private recreational 
            red snapper landings in comparison to state specific quotas 
            or the private recreational ACL); serious miscommunications 
            about the appropriate scientific methodologies for 
            including abundance study results in management; and 
            overall, an unhelpful and combative narrative pitting state 
            and federal scientists and managers against each other 
            rather than highlighting the cooperation necessary to 
            manage a public resource across large geographies, multiple 
            jurisdictions, and many users.

     Fairness is paramount. Our marine fish stocks are a public 
            resource, and the law requires that they are managed for 
            the long-term benefit of the nation. This means that 
            current users of fishery resources have a responsibility to 
            the generations that will follow to steward these resources 
            and support healthy fish stocks and ecosystems. Fairness 
            also means that everyone who fishes the stock now shares an 
            equal burden in complying with science-based limits and 
            management approaches; it also means that all sectors 
            should have an opportunity to benefit from efforts to 
            rebuild stocks. When one sector continues to exceed its 
            limits, as has occurred in Gulf red snapper, it hurts the 
            overall health of the stock and can reduce fishing 
            opportunities for other sectors. Overfishing can lead to 
            stock decline and localized depletions and puts fishing 
            communities at risk. When fishermen see favoritism of one 
            sector over another, it erodes confidence and compliance 
            with sustainable management.

     Plan for change. Our ocean fisheries are ever-changing. 
            They experience changes due to numerous factors, such as 
            fishing effort and ecosystem impacts. And now more than 
            ever, climate change is dramatically reshaping our ocean 
            and the communities that rely on it. Fishery management 
            must start incorporating more ecosystem and climate 
            information via adaptable management approaches to ensure 
            our ocean can support robust fishing opportunity even as 
            our oceans change. By working together, fishermen, 
            scientists and managers can chart a course to a sustainable 
            fishing future no matter what changes lie ahead.

    Thank you for considering our comments, and we hope to work with 
you in this Congress to ensure red snapper, and all U.S. fisheries, are 
managed sustainably, equitably, and accountably.

            Sincerely,

                                            Meredith Moore,
                                Director, Fish Conservation Program

                                 ______
                                 
                        Statement for the Record
                              Connor Fagan
                     Federal Policy Manager, Oceana
Regarding the ``Benefits and Access: The Necessity for Multiple Use of 
 Water Resources'' and implications for the North Atlantic right whale

    Thank you, Chair Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the 
Subcommittee for this opportunity to submit testimony related to the 
intersection of the North Atlantic right whale (NARW) vessel speed rule 
with fisheries issues. Vessel strikes and fishing gear entanglement are 
the two leading causes for the ongoing rapid collapse of the NARW 
population.\1\ Vessel strikes cause close to half of all NARW deaths, 
with 4 reported vessel strikes of North Atlantic right whales in the 
last 3 years alone.\2\

    \1\ S.M. Sharp et al., Gross and Histopathologic Diagnoses From 
North Atlantic Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis Mortalities Between 2003 
and 2018, 135 Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 1, at 1 (2019). https://
www.intres.com/articles/feature/d135p001.pdf (July 3, 2019).

    \2\ Amendments to the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike 
Reduction Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. 46,921 at 46928 (August 1,2022); S.M. 
Sharp et al., Gross and Histopathologic Diagnoses From North Atlantic 
Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis Mortalities Between 2003 and 2018, 135 
Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 1, at 1.

    The 2022 proposed vessel speed rule is based on the best available 
science and evidence, and the National Marine Fisheries Service is 
required under federal law to issue a strong final rule. Among other 
federal mandates related to NARWs, the Endangered Species Act was 
intended to allow federal agencies to issue rules that carry out the 
Act's primary purpose of protecting endangered species. The Marine 
Mammal Protection Act's ``major objective'' is to stop marine mammal 
populations from declining and ensure that they remain a functioning 
part of their marine ecosystems.\3\ For both statutes, NMFS is the lead 
agency tasked with issuing regulations on marine mammals, including 
NARWs.\4\ The proposed rule issued in 2022 is well within the agency's 
authority and obligation to issue rules in holding with its 
Congressional mandate to protect endangered species from injury, death, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and potentially extinction in this case.

    \3\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531(c)(1); 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1361(6).

    \4\ Id. Sec. 1361(2).

    On August 1, 2022, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 
released a proposed vessel speed rule that aims to reduce the risk of 
vessel strikes to critically endangered North Atlantic right whales.\5\ 
NARWs have been listed as endangered under the ESA since 1970 and are 
currently classified as critically endangered according to the 
International Union for Conservation of Nature. The species has been in 
nonstop decline for over a decade, with only about 340 NARWs 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
remaining.\6\

    \5\ International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List 
categories and criteria, version 3.1, IUCN Species Survival Commission 
(SSC) available at https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/7977 (Last 
accessed March 6, 2023)

    \6\ North Atlantic right whales' downward trend continues as 
updates population numbers released (October 24, 2022) New England 
Aquarium. https://www.neaq.org/about-us/news-media/press-kit/press-
releases/north-atlantic-right-whales-downward-trend-continues-as-
updated-population-numbers-released/

    Collisions with vessels are one the leading causes of injury and 
death for NARWs, which are dark in color and difficult to spot, swim 
slowly at the water's surface, and lack a dorsal fin. Since 2017, there 
have been 14 cases of confirmed NARW mortalities caused by vessel 
strikes.\7\ The true impact of vessel strikes on NARWs may be much 
higher, as scientists estimate that observed deaths only represent one 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
third of total NARW mortalities.\8\

    \7\ 2017-2023 North Atlantic Right Whale Unusual Mortality Event 
(n.d.) NOAA Fisheries. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-
life-distress/2017-2023-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-
event

    \8\ Pace, R., Williams, R., Kraus, S.D., et al. (2021) Cryptic 
mortality of North Atlantic right whales. Conservation Science and 
Practice. 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.346

    The original vessel speed rule was issued in 2008. The 2022 updated 
proposed rule contains critical changes such as including vessels 
greater than 35 feet in length (compared to the previous 65 feet), 
expanding seasonal speed zones, and upgrading current voluntary speed 
zones to mandatory in areas where whales are seen.
    While Oceana supports the proposed rule, there is room for 
improvement in an even stronger final rule on vessel speed regulations 
for the U.S. Atlantic. The agency could improve the rule by removing 
exemptions for government vessels, requiring use of Automatic 
Identification Systems (AIS) devices for public vessel tracking, and 
overall improving enforcement of speed limits.

    While current speed regulations only apply to vessels larger than 
65 feet, boats of all sizes can cause fatal injuries to NARWs. As 
mentioned above, the agency points out in their proposed rule that 
there have been 4 reported strikes in the last 3 years alone. Three out 
of the four involved vessels were traveling more than 20 knots at the 
time.\9\ Of the 12 known right whale-vessel collisions in U.S. waters 
between 2013 and 2021, at least eight of the vessels involved were 
confirmed or suspected to have been under 65 feet in length, 
demonstrating the deadly risk of smaller vessels to NARWs.\10\ In 
February 2021, a calf died from propeller wounds, broken ribs, and a 
fractured skull after a collision with a 54-foot recreational fishing 
vessel that was not subject to the speed requirements. Although the 
captain was not operating illegally, this collision caused not only the 
tragic loss of a critically endangered whale, but also resulted in 
sinking the $1.2 million vessel and endangering all passengers on 
board.

    \9\ Amendments to the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike 
Reduction Rule at 46298.

    \10\ Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, 
Conservation Law Foundation, and Center for Biological Diversity v. 
National Marine Fisheries Service and Wilbur Ross (2021). https://
www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/North_Atlantic_right_whale/
pdfs/WDC-v-NMFS-right-whale-vessel-strike-unreasonable-delay-
complaint.pdf

    With so few whales left, every vessel strike is detrimental to the 
potential recovery of this species. In fact, NMFS has determined that 
less than one NARW can die from anthropogenic causes per year for the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
species to maintain its optimum sustainable population.

    At high speeds, vessels cannot maneuver to avoid them, and they 
swim too slowly to be able to move out of the way. Due to not having a 
dorsal fin and their habit of spending much of their time at shallow 
depths, NARWs are particularly susceptible to collisions with 
vessels.\11\ Additionally, should a collision occur, studies have found 
that slowing vessel speeds to 10 knots reduces their risk of death from 
vessel strikes by 80% to 90%. Additionally, the experience and careful 
tendencies of mariners are not enough to reduce risks to marine 
mammals. A 2016 study showed that even trained observers and ideal 
conditions require cannot properly protect against vessel strikes of 
NARWs.\12\ By expanding the regulation to include boats less than 65 
length, NARWs are better protected from these potentially fatal 
interactions.

    \11\ Julia A. Dombroski, Susan E. Parks, & Douglas P. Nowacek, Dive 
behavior of North Atlantic right whales on the calving ground in the 
Southeast USA: implications for conservation, 46 ENDANG. SPECIS. RSCH., 
at 43 (2021)

    \12\ Wiley, D.N., C.A. Mayo, E.M. Maloney, et al. 2016. Vessel 
strike mitigation lessons from direct observations involving two 
collisions between noncommercial vessels and North Atlantic right 
whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Marine Mammal Science 32(4):1501-1509.

    Since the release of the proposed rule, there has been pushback 
from the recreational boating and fishing industries, as well as the 
pilot operator sector, citing concerns of safety and economic harm. 
NMFS recognizes that mariner safety is extremely important and has 
included safety deviation provisions since the initial rule in 2008. 
The new proposed rule only improves these provisions, including 
expansion of exceptions to include emergency situations that present a 
threat to the health, safety, or life of a person; allowing vessels 
under 65 feet in length to transit at speeds greater than 10 knots when 
certain weather conditions are detected; and updated reporting 
protocols. Overall, the proposed regulatory changes continue to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
emphasize mariner safety.

    When discussing the economic impact, some groups pushing back 
against this rule have claimed that this new rule would be devastating 
for businesses. However, the proposed seasonal speed zones would only 
impact boat traffic for the months of the year while the whales are 
migrating to protect mothers and calves in the Southeast during calving 
season and when the whales are aggregated in New England. While 
implementing speed limits on recreational vessels may add some travel 
time to trips, these zones do not prohibit fishing, boating, or other 
activities and still allow mariners to utilize the areas.
    Saving this species from extinction will take a collective effort 
from the fishing, boating, and shipping industries to effectively 
reduce the risk of deadly collisions. The federal government has an 
obligation to protect these whales from this clear threat by 
implementing stronger regulations and enforcement procedures.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this testimony,

        Conservation Law Foundation   Defenders of Wildlife

        Earthjustice                  Oceana

        Whale and Dolphin 
        Conservation (WDC)

                                 [all]