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




  H.R. 215, ``WATER FOR CALIFORNIA ACT''; AND H.R. 872, ``FISH ACT''

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

                       LEGISLATIVE FIELD 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

                               __________

             Tuesday, April 11, 2023 in Tulare, California

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-15

                               __________

       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

51-883 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023












                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

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

Doug 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 Tuesday, April 11, 2023..........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon............................................     3
    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     5
    Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California, prepared statement of.................     7
    Valadao, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     8

Statement of Witnesses:

    Phillips, Jason, Chief Executive Officer, Friant Water 
      Authority, Lindsay, California.............................    10
        Prepared statement of....................................    11
    White, Chris, Executive Director, San Joaquin Rover Exchange 
      Contractors Water Authority, Los Banos, California.........    16
        Prepared statement of....................................    17
    Sutton, Jeff, General Manager, Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority, 
      Willows, California........................................    19
        Prepared statement of....................................    21
    Bourdeau, William, Director, Westlands Water District, 
      Fresno, California.........................................    24
        Prepared statement of....................................    25
    Fukuda, Aaron, General Manager, Tulare Irrigation District, 
      Tulare, California.........................................    27
        Prepared statement of....................................    29
    DeGroot, Tony, Farmer, DG Bar Ranches, Hanford, California...    31
        Prepared statement of....................................    33

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
    National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Statement for the 
      Record on H.R. 215 and H.R. 872............................    49
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Statement 
      for the Record on H.R. 215.................................    51
    Department of the Interior, Statement for the Record on H.R. 
      872........................................................    54

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        Various Organizations, Letter Opposing H.R. 215..........    55
        Various Organizations, Letter Opposing H.R. 872..........    56
        Audubon California, Letter Opposing H.R. 215.............    57

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Calvert

        Association of California Water Agencies, Letter 
          Supporting H.R. 872....................................    58
        Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 
          Letter Supporting H.R. 872.............................    59
        Santa Clara Valley Water District, Letter Supporting H.R. 
          872....................................................    60
        United Water Conservation District, Letter Supporting 
          H.R. 872...............................................    61
                                     

 
   LEGISLATIVE FIELD HEARING ON H.R. 215, TO PROVIDE LONG-TERM WATER 
 SUPPLY AND REGULATORY RELIABILITY TO DROUGHT-STRICKEN CALIFORNIA, AND 
  FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``WATER FOR CALIFORNIA ACT''; AND H.R. 872, TO 
 AMEND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 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 AND 
  SPECIES OF FISH THAT SPAWN IN OCEAN WATERS AND MIGRATE TO FRESH OR 
         ESTUARINE WATERS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``FISH ACT''

                              ----------                              


                        Tuesday, April 11, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

             Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                           Tulare, California

                              ----------                              

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:08 p.m., at the 
World Ag Expo, 4500 S. Laspina Street, #214, Tulare, 
California, Hon. Cliff Bentz [Chairman of the Subcommittee] 
presiding.

    Present: Representatives Bentz, Westerman, McClintock, 
LaMalfa, and Duarte.
    Also present: Representatives Costa and Valadao.

    Mr. Bentz. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and 
Fisheries will come to order. I have found it is always a good 
idea, after all of us gathering together, to make sure people 
can hear. So, if you can't hear me, then wave your arms or do 
something, and we will make sure that Thomas turns up the 
volume and you can hear us. If at any time during the hearing 
you can't hear, let us know.
    I want to begin with a few thank-yous. First of all I want 
to thank the Friant Water Authority for the wonderful tour this 
morning. It was great fun. It looks a lot better than when I 
was here a year ago, or actually last summer, and there was 
hardly any water in it. Today, to see 8,000 or 9,000 CFS coming 
out of it was pretty amazing.
    I want to thank John and Vicki Dykstra, from Dykstra Dairy 
for the tour. I want to thank the World Ag Expo for allowing us 
to use this beautiful facility. I want to thank the Tulare 
Sheriff's Department for providing the security for us this 
afternoon. And I think that is it.
    So, with that, good afternoon everyone. I want to welcome 
our witnesses, Members, and our guests in the audience to 
today's hearing.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on two 
bills, H.R. 215, the WATER for California Act, introduced by 
Congressman David Valadao, and H.R. 872, the FISH Act, 
introduced by Congressman Ken Calvert.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time. Under Committee Rule 
4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to 
the Chairman, the Ranking Minority Member, and Chairman of the 
Full Natural Resources Committee. Therefore, I 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.
    By way of introduction I am Cliff Bentz, the Chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries. I also 
represent the 2nd District of Oregon, much of which has 
irrigated agriculture. That is not quite right. The district is 
huge and very little of it has irrigated agriculture because we 
have so little water, but that is one of the reasons I am very 
happy to be Chair of this Committee.
    I am grateful to be joined today by several Members who 
represent this region but who are not on the Natural Resources 
Committee. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentlemen from California, Mr. Valadao and Mr. Costa, be 
allowed to participate in today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    To begin today's hearing, I will now defer to my 
distinguished colleague, David Valadao, who represents part of 
Tulare, for a few introductions, and to begin this hearing.
    Mr. Valadao.

    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Bentz. Can you guys hear me all 
right? Thank you all for being here today and thank you to 
Chairmen Westerman and Bentz for agreeing to host this 
important field hearing. Since this is a congressional hearing 
we are going to begin, as we do with every session of the House 
of Representatives, with a prayer and the posting of the 
colors, and the Pledge of Allegiance. So, I ask Pastor Nicholas 
Ferguson to lead us in prayer.
    Mr. Ferguson. Oh, you are going to need a minute here. You 
gave a pastor a microphone, so I am going to say some things. 
It is going to be more than just prayer. The good news is I 
have to pick up my kids from school in a little bit so I won't 
be that long.
    Romans 13:1-2 says this: Let every person be subject to the 
governing authorities, for there is no authority except from 
God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 
Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has 
appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
    For you who are Representatives of the people of California 
and your other states, because I understand there are 
Representatives from Arkansas and Oregon, if that verse does 
not drive you to your knees, you are here representing God's 
authority, and we need you to be like him. To love God and to 
love people summarizes the entire word.
    We just celebrated Easter, and the night that Jesus was 
betrayed he prayed for every single one of us in this room. And 
his prayer was that we would be united, that we would be one. 
His prayer, and to be like God, means to unify and not to 
divide, and we know exactly what that word ``divide'' means 
because everything in this world is trying to get us to divide. 
A pastor from Georgia challenged his Senate to move to the 
middle, and I challenge every single one of you to love the 
people more than your party, to love God more than your party, 
and to move to the messy middle where you are going to take 
shots from the front and the back, but that is where the gold 
is. With that being said, let us pray.
    God, I lift up every single person who has a voice in this 
room to love you and to love the people of this state, to do 
what is right, to do what you have called them to do. You have 
appointed them. We lift them up to you. God, give them your 
wisdom. Give them your clarity. Give them your strength. Help 
us, as a people, to lift them up, to lift them up toward you, 
to call them to a higher standard because they are appointed by 
you.
    God, we needed water and you provided it. Help us to use it 
to the best of our abilities. Thank you for the blessing. Help 
us, guide us, lead us. In your son Jesus' name we pray, amen.

    Mr. Valadao. Thank you. I now want to recognize the 
Porterville Military Academy to post colors, and we will have 
the Tulare Mayor, Terry Sayre, lead us in the Pledge of 
Allegiance, so please rise.

    [Group recitation of Pledge of Allegiance.]

    Mr. Bentz. I will 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 start again by thanking Representative 
Valadao and Representative Duarte for their help in organizing 
this important hearing. And for the people of this state let me 
explain why we are here. California is obviously terrifically 
important to America--40 million people, 15 percent of the 
nation's GDP, 70 percent of the nation's fruit and vegetable 
production, $22.5 billion in total GDP just a year or so ago. 
But the terrible drought that California has suffered will be 
back, and when the water that is so abundant now will be gone.
    So, we are holding this hearing to first hear about two 
bills that address several things that we in Congress could do 
to improve California's ability to manage and use one of its 
most valuable resources, and that, of course, is water. Second, 
we want to hear from Californians what you think Congress 
should do to help address water supply and management. And 
third, we want to hear what Californians believe are the 
obstacles standing between California and the actions that are 
needed to help make water supply in this state more certain and 
more reliable.
    It happens, as I mentioned, that Congressman Valadao 
invited me to visit the Central Valley Project last summer. 
During that visit I learned these things. First, there is a 
huge lack of storage, be it through designing more efficient 
means of recharging the astounding amount of storage space in 
aquifers--I have heard it is as much as 170 million acre-feet 
of space in aquifers; increasing in size the number of surface 
impoundments; or improving water production capacity of your 
millions of acres of forested watersheds. We have an expert 
here in Bruce Westerman, who is the Chair of our Committee and, 
of course, a forester and an engineer. He may speak on this 
issue.
    You have lots of dams but many are antiquated. To your 
levees and your dikes that are essential to reduction of flood 
risk have not been necessarily maintained. Water courses 
themselves have not been maintained, exposing towns and cities 
to catastrophic floods when water tries to escape and cannot. 
Your forests are overgrown and choked with understory brush, 
leaving them tinder dry as they wait to burn, and when they do 
burn essential watersheds are destroyed, leading to ever-worse 
and more damaging flooding.
    I learned that the water originally stored for farmers was 
now being sent to the ocean. This has resulted in totally 
predictable overdraft of groundwater, collapsing aquifers, and 
dramatic subsidence of huge parts of the Central Valley. And I 
learned that water supplies have been politically redirected to 
instream uses, fish, with no arrangements for those from whom 
this water has been taken.
    Those are just a few of the problems that I learned about 
last summer.
    What are the obstacles, which I know we are going to hear 
about today? One, the failure to invest in these systems, and 
the question is why. I can't think of something that is more 
important to California than this system of water delivery that 
is literally the envy of the world. So, why isn't more money 
being spent keeping that system up, by the entire state?
    And why are there what I would call prejudiced, single-
purpose allocations of water, which I am all too familiar with 
since I represent the Klamath area up in Oregon, and have 
watched much, if not all, of the water allocated to instream 
uses with no regard for the farmers.
    Failure to recognize the collateral impact of forest change 
in water allocation, litigation based on the Clean Water Act, 
ESA, NEPA, blocking necessary action. Bureaucratic inertia--it 
is a lot easier to do nothing than to do something. And, of 
course, we are here today to listen to you and to, I hope, 
learn things that we can do to help.
    With that, thank you again for being here. I am very, very 
happy for this opportunity to listen to our witnesses and to 
listen to the questions that are going to be asked by my 
colleagues.
    With that, I recognize our Full Committee Chairman, Mr. 
Westerman, for his statement.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Bentz, and thank you for 
chairing the Committee today. It is a real pleasure to be here 
in Tulare and to have had a chance to visit parts of the San 
Joaquin Valley. And after saying two sentences, I took all the 
mystery out of who the guy from Arkansas is. If anybody needs 
me to talk slower so you can understand, just raise your hand 
and I will be glad to do that.
    I do want to thank Mr. Valadao and Mr. Duarte for hosting 
us here and for helping plan the trip. We were in Mr. 
McClintock's district this morning at Friant Dam. It is very 
important for Members of Congress to get out and spend time 
with the men and women whose lives are directly affected by 
Federal policies. And that is the reason why we have these 
field hearings.
    You will notice some empty seats down at the end of the 
other table. It is unfortunate that those seats are empty, 
because we invited people from the Administration. We invited 
folks from the U.S. Department of the Interior and Commerce and 
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to this hearing. 
Those who could have been attending but chose not to from the 
Bureau of Reclamation, Commissioner Camille Touton; from the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Director Martha Williams; Dr. 
Rick Spinrad, who is Administrator of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration; and then Mr. Chuck Bonham, the 
Director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 
Unfortunately, they chose not to attend today. Instead, the 
Interior Department chose to submit testimony in writing and in 
opposition to both bills without being here to answer questions 
as to why they are opposed to the legislation. In addition, the 
Bureau of Reclamation is conducting a congressional staff tour 
of the Central Valley Project. They had time to do that, but 
not time to attend this hearing.
    This is disappointing, and I will say it is unacceptable 
and telling of how much they disregard the importance of this 
hearing, of congressional oversight, and the need to change the 
status quo. And we have a new policy in place. When we invite 
folks from the Administration to hearings and they choose not 
to come, automatically generate a letter to the Appropriations 
Committee, which Mr. Valadao is on, asking them to consider 
that when they do the appropriations for those agencies who do 
not have time for Congress. The only way I have found to get 
their attention is through the strings of the purse. So, I hope 
the Appropriations Committee will take the recommendation from 
the authorizing committees with those agencies.
    I am glad that our friend, Jim Costa, is here today. Jim is 
a Democrat. He used to be on the Natural Resources Committee, 
and this is not the first time I have been to California and 
participated in bipartisan meetings with Jim. He does a 
fantastic job, and talking about working with people to get the 
solutions, Jim is one of those guys, and Jim, I really 
appreciate you being here.
    The last time I was in the San Joaquin Valley was about 2 
years ago, and I can tell you even when we planned this hearing 
you were in a drought out here, but my, how things have 
changed. This area is experiencing record rainfall, snow, and 
flooding, and it is because of this boom-and-bust cycle is 
exactly why our country invested in multipurpose dams in the 
first place. It is why we need to clear the way for more 
storage to reduce the impact of drought and flooding.
    When you talk about Western water, it all kind of starts 
with California. There are obviously more states in the West 
that are having water problems as well, but being somebody from 
a place where we usually get more water than we can use, I just 
come here and look at what is happening and see the facts and 
the data. This could be solved. The state of California, God, 
nature produces enough water to meet all your needs. It is just 
a matter of managing that water, building the proper 
infrastructure to use it. And it is frustrating that this 
problem can't get solved because it could stretch into the 
neighboring states as well, and we could be very good stewards 
and very good managers of the resources that we have. We are 
seeing all the water that is going into the ocean today because 
of a lack of infrastructure, water that could be saved for 
those tough times.
    Congress has issued funding and approval for projects. 
There were feasibility studies that were done for new storage 
that has languished in the bureaucracy have been approved, and 
water operations had some regulatory certainty because of the 
WIIN Act that was passed a few years ago. But now the current 
Administration has put a grinding halt on progress. They 
propose changing water operations by redoing fish recovery 
plans on which the operations were based. The proposals to 
change endangered species plans have delayed construction on 
two off-stream reservoirs, including Sites.
    The Administration, along with some of our colleagues 
across the aisle, who are not here today, they also stopped the 
common-sense raise of Shasta Dam. The Shasta raise and Sites 
combine to capture more than 1 million acre-feet of new storage 
in this system if they were in place today.
    But we have the opportunity to change this situation 
because of legislation introduced by Mr. Valadao, H.R. 215. It 
is to restore some balance and to be able to plan for the 
future. It reauthorizes parts of WIIN that would not only help 
California but also the entire West. It also helps get the 
Shasta raise out of the ditch. Also, Mr. Calvert from 
California has introduced H.R. 872, to ensure that two agencies 
managing two endangered fish species do not conflict with one 
another by consolidating those functions into one agency.
    I am going to read that again. We need to pass a law to 
ensure that two agencies managing two endangered fish species 
do not conflict with one another, by consolidating those 
functions into one agency. We are in the greatest country in 
the world, and we have two agencies trying to manage two fish 
species in two different ways, and it just creates a gridlock 
and a grinding halt. We can do much better than that.
    Again, we will not hear from the Biden administration 
today. They chose not to provide any witnesses for this 
hearing. The Committee Democrats chose not to provide any 
witnesses. And, again, the status quo is not acceptable. But we 
do have six expert witnesses and our California Members here at 
the dais who care deeply about the future and have pushed for 
the needed change that we will talk about today.
    I look forward to hearing each one of them, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Chair Westerman.
    As is typical with legislative hearings, the bill sponsors 
are recognized for 5 minutes to discuss their bill. Mr. Calvert 
was not able to attend today's hearing but has provided written 
testimony on his bill, H.R. 872, the FISH Act, and I ask 
unanimous consent to include his statement in the hearing 
record.
    Without objection.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
    Prepared Statement of the Hon. Ken Calvert, a Representative in 
                                Congress
                      from the State of California
    on H.R. 872, the Federally Integrated Species Health (FISH) Act
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit a Statement for the Record 
on H.R. 872, the Federally Integrated Species Health (FISH) ACT. The 
bill would consolidate the protection of fish and the regulation of 
waterways under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) into a single agency.
Background

    In 1966, a federally appointed commission recommended the creation 
of a national oceanographic program. President Nixon incorporated the 
commission's recommendation into his Advisory Council on Executive 
Organization which recommended that this new agency be housed in the 
Department of Interior (DOI) where the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 
is located. However, then-Secretary of Commerce, Maurice Stans 
successfully argued that the program be temporarily housed in the 
Department of Commerce under the National Marine Fisheries Service 
(NMFS). Now, 57 years later, the anticipated and generally expected 
``more consistent realignment'' of agency functions to the Department 
of the Interior has still not occurred.
    The agency misalignment over coordinated ESA management decisions 
has led to numerous instances of directly contradictory federal 
regulatory agendas across the Pacific Northwest. For example, in 2008 
and 2009, the FWS and NMFS issued new biological opinions (BiOp) for 
the continued joint operation of the Federal Central Valley Project and 
the State Water Project. FWS has issued a biological opinion that 
considers how joint operations impact Delta Smelt, and NMFS issued a 
biological opinion that considers how joint operations impact 
anadromous species, including several species of salmon. In March 2016, 
despite an abundance of water in the Shasta Reservoir, NMFS called for 
reduced releases from Shasta Dam to 8,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) 
throughout the summer and into the fall to preserve cold water for 
Winter-run Chinook salmon. While NMFS, sought to limit releases, FWS 
called for increased releases from Shasta for the Delta Smelt during 
the same period. The two agencies, pursuant to their separate and 
uncoordinated authority under the ESA, imposed requirements that 
directly contradicted each other. The result of this confusion 
amplified the damaging effects of the drought throughout the Central 
Valley Project service area.
H.R. 872

    H.R. 872 would consolidate the management and regulation of the ESA 
within the Department of Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The 
FWS primarily has responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater 
organisms, while the NMFS is mainly responsible for marine wildlife, 
such as whales, and anadromous fish, such as salmon. Currently, both 
FWS and NMFS have split authority over many of the same waterways under 
the ESA. This has caused differing--and even contradictory--regulations 
at times. The FISH Act places the regulatory authority solely within 
the FWS thus eliminating these types of conflicting requirements. The 
bill enjoys broad bipartisan support from water managers across the 
country, including multiple California water agencies.
Conclusion

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement on the 
bipartisan Federally Integrated Species Health Act. My office would be 
happy to provide any follow-up information requested by Members of the 
Committee. I look forward to working with the Committee to advance this 
bill for a vote on the House floor.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. I will now recognize Mr. Valadao for 5 minutes 
for a statement on his bill, H.R. 215.
    Mr. Valadao.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID VALADAO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, 
everyone. I am Congressman David Valadao. Thank you all for 
being here today.
    I want to first thank Chairman Westerman for bringing the 
Natural Resources Committee to the Central Valley to have this 
important hearing. I also want to thank my colleague from 
Oregon, Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Bentz. He was out here in 
the fall to learn about some of what we are going to talk about 
here today, and I want to thank him for his partnership working 
on this critical issue in Washington.
    Thank you also to the witnesses here today for taking the 
time to testify. I know we are going to hear some powerful 
testimony from people who have firsthand experience with our 
water issues in California and the Central Valley.
    I don't need to tell any of you in this room, but it is an 
especially important time for the Committee to be here. After 
years of drought, we have had just one of the wettest years on 
record, and snowpack is currently sitting at about 300 percent 
of its typical value. This increased rainfall is welcome news 
after the severe drought that forced our farmers to turn up 
pumping groundwater to protect their high-value crops and for 
communities to meet their needs.
    As a result of pumping groundwater just to survive, these 
communities experienced land subsidence at the expense of 
critical water infrastructure. In the worst cases, farmers were 
forced to fallow their fields and dry out valuable orchards due 
to little or no water access. Now these same fields that were 
dry just a few months back are flooded, and our communities are 
preparing for what happens next when record snowpack finally 
melts.
    This situation we are seeing and the devastating flooding 
impacting our communities emphasizes the urgent need to be 
proactive about fixing some of our storage and infrastructure 
issues so that we are better prepared for these kinds of 
weather events and resilient to periods of drought.
    For too long, complex and contradictory laws and 
regulations that control much of how we are able to pump and 
what storage projects we are able to move forward have 
amplified California's water problems. My bill, ``Working to 
Advance Tangible and Effective Reforms,'' or the WATER Act for 
California, is one we are here today to discuss, and it would 
help alleviate some of the water problems by increasing water 
storage, streamlining operations, and bringing much-needed 
accountability to the way our water is managed in this state.
    The comprehensive legislation promotes water conveyance 
through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta consistent with 
the Endangered Species Act and advances key surface water 
infrastructure projects, among other things in this bill. It 
extends authorization of the successful surface water storage 
program established by the WIIN Act, streamlines operation by 
requiring the Central Valley Project and State Water Project be 
operated consistent with the 2019 Biological Opinion, and 
increases water infrastructure by making additional funding 
available for the Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project, 
the most cost-effective water storage project in California.
    While we cannot control the weather, we can control the 
laws and the regulations that govern our water, and ensure we 
are using the most common sense possible. If we don't take 
steps to address some of the misguided policies that prioritize 
fish over people here in California, the entire country will be 
impacted.
    The Central Valley is my home, and like many others here 
today I have grown up working agriculture on my family's dairy 
farm. With less than 1 percent of our nation's farmland, the 
Central Valley produces a quarter of the country's food. If 
California's water supply problems continue to go unaddressed, 
it will not just affect those in this room but the entire 
country. Food security is a national security issue, and 
without reliable water supply our ability to feed the nation 
will be in jeopardy.
    It is devastating what we are seeing right now in our 
community, completely under water, and we can and must do 
better so that we are better prepared for both dry years and 
wet years. The future of our country's food security and the 
livelihood of thousands of my constituents depend upon us 
taking action.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back.

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
    I will now introduce our witnesses. Mr. Jason Phillips, the 
Chief Executive Officer of the Friant Water Authority; Mr. 
Chris White, Executive Director of the San Joaquin River 
Exchange Contractors Water Authority; Mr. Jeff Sutton, General 
Manager of the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority; Mr. William 
Bourdeau, Director of the Westlands Water District; Mr. Aaron 
Fukuda, General Manager of the Tulare Irrigation District; and 
Mr. Tony DeGroot, of the DG Bar Ranches and DeGroot Dairies.
    You will notice that the list I just read does not include 
anyone from the Biden administration or the Newsom 
administration, even though we gave both administrations a 
customary 2-week notice. They have unfortunately chosen not to 
participate in today's hearing and instead submitted statements 
for the record that do not support either bill. Had they been 
here they could have explained their positions.
    Moving along, let me remind the witnesses that under 
Committee Rules, you must limit your oral statements to 5 
minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing 
record.
    We use timing lights. When you begin the light will turn 
green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn 
yellow. At the end of 5 minutes the light will turn red, and I 
will ask you to please complete your statement. In fact, what I 
will start doing is tapping on the microphone like this, louder 
and louder, until finally I drown you out. That is how it is 
going to work.
    [Laughter.]

    Mr. Bentz. I will also allow all witnesses to testify 
before Member questioning.
    I now recognize Mr. Phillips for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Phillips.

 STATEMENT OF JASON PHILLIPS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FRIANT 
              WATER AUTHORITY, LINDSAY, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Chairman Bentz.
    Chairman Bentz and members of the Subcommittee, thank you 
for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Jason 
Phillips, CEO of Friant Water Authority. Friant Water Authority 
operates and maintains the Friant-Kern Canal and advocates on 
behalf of Friant Division water contractors. The Friant-Kern 
and Madera Canals, together with Friant Dam and Millerton Lake 
on the San Joaquin River form the Friant Division, and on 
average the canals deliver over 1 million acre-feet of 
irrigation water annually to more than 15,000 farms, on over 1 
million acres of the most productive farmland in the world.
    Everyone knows that 2023 has been extremely wet here in 
California. We have experienced flooding, and reservoirs across 
the state are filling. And now, after several critically dry 
years requiring severe cutbacks, many people across the nation 
are asking the obvious question: Does this mean the California 
drought is over? Unfortunately, the answer is no. See, 
California water shortages are not due to hydrology. We have 
always known that hydrology here is volatile, with several dry 
years followed by extreme wet years and flooding. Our water 
management system was designed specifically to manage this 
volatile hydrology and weather through the dry years.
    But currently, even our system of dams and canals cannot 
meet the state's water needs because decades after they were 
built, the government will no longer allow our water 
infrastructure to operate the way it was intended. The 
situation we find ourselves in has been caused by over 30 years 
of decisions by state and Federal agencies that are not based 
on any new laws. It is caused by decisions to reallocate water 
away from communities, away from farms, in increasing 
quantities to comply with old environmental laws. These 
decisions continue to be undertaken in many instances because 
unelected agency staff continue to be delegated the 
responsibility for being the final decision-makers on probably 
the most significant public policy issue we face in the state 
of California--how to best manage the state's limited water 
resources.
    And to add insult to injury, despite all of the water that 
has been reallocated to comply with old environmental laws, 
many of our listed species are now worse off than ever. If you 
take account for all the environmental water and take that into 
account with other uses, California currently uses 
significantly more water every year than is sustainably 
available.
    The current patchwork of laws enacted to solve this problem 
and avoid a crisis are not working. Without additional action 
by Congress, failure is guaranteed, and California's 
environment and economy will never be what it was or what most 
people want it to be.
    So, is it worth rediverting all this water, our most 
precious resource, away from people? Frankly, I am not the 
right person to ask. But I also don't think the right person to 
ask is the unelected government employee that has no 
accountability to the public. People that are elected to 
represent us need to be the ones held accountable for decisions 
about how our most important resource is managed and allocated. 
The laws need to be updated to rightly put the accountability 
for creating man-made droughts back on elected officials in an 
open and transparent fashion.
    For those reasons and the reasons laid out in my written 
testimony, the Friant Water Authority supports H.R. 215, the 
WATER for California Act, and H.R. 872, the FISH Act. The rigid 
and severely constrained management of the CVP over the last 30 
years is not working for our communities or the environment, 
and the calls for an ever-increasing amount of water diverted 
from cities and farms to provide additional flows out to the 
ocean need to be reversed. To be clear, current operational 
requirements imposed by government, delegated to unelected 
employees by Congress' inaction will guarantee that our next 
water shortage crisis is right around the corner. We need to be 
asking how we can bring balance back to our system and increase 
available water for all needs in all years.
    I again thank the Subcommittee for traveling to the Valley 
to hold this critical hearing and for the opportunity to 
testify. I hope that this hearing and bills before the 
Subcommittee start moving things in a positive direction. I 
continue working with you all. I respect each one of you.
    You have all been of great help in many times, and Jim, 
specifically, I want to thank you for being here. And also I 
will mention your CANAL Act you introduced will be very 
helpful. It is very timely. I hope that can move as well. So, 
thank you for crossing over the line and being here today. I 
appreciate it.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Phillips follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Jason Phillips, Chief Executive Officer, Friant 
                            Water Authority
                        on H.R. 215 and H.R. 872
    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of the 
Subcommittee: My name is Jason Phillips, and I am the Chief Executive 
Officer of the Friant Water Authority in California's San Joaquin 
Valley. The Friant Water Authority (Authority or Friant) is a public 
agency formed under California law in part to operate and maintain the 
Friant-Kern Canal, a component of the Central Valley Project (CVP) 
owned by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). In addition to that 
responsibility, the Authority also advocates on behalf of the Friant 
Division and eastside communities for sound public policy on water 
management and operations.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee 
today. From my perspective, working on a daily basis with the over 
15,000 family farms and growers in the Friant Division, the simple 
reality is that operating a farm and growing food for our nation 
continues to be more and more difficult every year. While there are 
many contributing factors that add to the complexity of feeding 
America, the sad truth is that some of these factors we can control, 
yet for reasons I can't fully fathom, decision makers choose not to do 
so.
    First, I want to underscore the critical importance of maintaining 
our country's food security and locally sourced foods. The multiple-
year drought we have faced here in California and in many parts of the 
West--coupled with other domestic and global developments--has already 
affected 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.
    The Western U.S., including the Central Valley of California, 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. Increased reliance on foreign food has never 
been a policy our Nation has intentionally embraced in the past, but as 
water availability continues to shrink in the Central Valley, more and 
more food historically produced here will need to come from somewhere 
else or not be available at all.
    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. Generations 
ago, these leaders had the wisdom and vision to plan, design and 
construct a water delivery system meant to level out the variability in 
California's hydrology by capturing and storing water in the wet years 
for use in the dry years. And for many years, this system has worked. 
But over the past few decades, due to decisions to prevent the ability 
of the system to function combined with the inability to take necessary 
action to improve it, the water system is now failing us.
    Take this year for example: due to a lack of new or expanded water 
storage facilities, the incredible hydrology we have been blessed with 
will simply waste away downstream, causing floods and wreaking havoc on 
our communities, bridges and roads while flowing to the ocean. Instead, 
had we collectively taken the bold steps to capture more of this water 
whether in new facilities, expanded facilities, and in aquifers 
underground, not only would we be experiencing less flood damage, but 
we would be able to store water for future use.
    Unfortunately, this is not a one-year malaise. Instead, the 
situation we find ourselves in has been caused by over 30 years of 
decisions by state and federal agencies that are not based on any new 
laws or definitive science. These decisions have been taking water away 
from farms and communities in increasing quantities yet have done 
nothing to help change the decline in environmental conditions. But 
these decisions continue to be undertaken, in many instances, because 
unelected agency staff continue to be delegated the responsibility for 
being the final decisionmakers on probably the most significant public 
policy issue we face in the state of California: how to best manage the 
state's limited water resources. And to add insult to injury, despite 
all of the water that has been reallocated for the benefit of the 
environment, many of our listed species are worse off now than ever, 
and native species and migratory birds dependent on the Pacific Flyway 
are struggling to survive as water is diverted away from refuges and 
important habitat provided by agriculture.
    California currently uses more water every year than is sustainably 
available. Bold, common-sense action is needed now to avoid a crisis. 
The current patchwork of laws enacted to solve this problem and avoid a 
crisis are not working. Without additional action by Congress, failure 
is guaranteed and California's environment and economy will never be 
what is was or what people want it to be.
    Current laws guiding water decisions, enacted decades ago, have 
been interpreted to almost unilaterally optimize water for just a small 
subset of the environment, not for all beneficial uses. It is way past 
time for those elected to represent the people of the state to provide 
fresh direction, direction that is clear on how to interpret 
environmental regulations, clear on who the final decision-makers 
should be on these multi-generational decisions on how to prioritize 
our water resources; and provide the tools needed to be successful. 
Water managers need to be provided the laws and resources necessary to 
plan for the future so that when the next big water year is upon us, we 
can capture and store for later the water that is currently causing 
such damage to our communities.
    Additionally, as a member of the board for the Water Blueprint for 
the San Joaquin Valley, a regional collaboration focused on water 
solutions, we must work together toward identifying and implementing 
real progress on projects for the vibrant communities that make up 
California's Central Valley. And we will need your help to ensure that 
these communities can enjoy reliable, clean drinking water and realize 
the full benefit of some of the most productive agricultural land in 
the world.
    With this backdrop, we stand prepared to work with the Subcommittee 
and the federal and state administrations to put common sense back into 
the equation regarding effective management of our water resources. I 
believe Friant is particularly well positioned to provide technical, 
policy, and legal input to decisionmakers at all levels of government.
Background on the Friant Division

    The 152-mile-long Friant-Kern Canal and the 36-mile-long Madera 
Canal, together with Friant Dam and Millerton Lake on the San Joaquin 
River, form the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project. On 
average, the canals deliver 1.2 million acre-feet of irrigation water 
annually to more than 15,000 farms on over one million acres of the 
most productive farmland in the world. Friant Division deliveries also 
are vital to meeting the domestic water needs of many small communities 
in the San Joaquin Valley, as well as larger metropolitan areas, 
including the City of Fresno--California's fifth-largest city.
    The Friant Division was designed and is operated as a conjunctive 
use project to convey surface water for direct beneficial uses, such as 
irrigation and municipal supplies, and to recharge groundwater basins 
in the southern San Joaquin Valley. The ability to move significant 
water through the Friant Division's canals in wetter years to store in 
groundwater recharge basins is critically important for the project to 
work as intended, and these operations sustain the primary source of 
drinking water for nearly all cities, towns, and rural communities on 
the Valley's East side.
    Over the past 30 years, unelected State and federal agency staff 
have been increasingly imposing stringent environmental requirements on 
our water projects that have redirected water away from the Valley in 
an attempt to aid a subset of fish populations dependent on the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) that are struggling. As 
these requirements reduce the ability to export water through the Delta 
as the projects were designed, many San Joaquin Valley water users have 
increasingly relied heavily on groundwater supplies to maintain 
economic viability for their communities. The increased reliance on 
groundwater overdraft has exacerbated impacts to drinking water systems 
and land subsidence, causing damage to the Friant-Kern Canal, Delta-
Mendota Canal, and California Aqueduct and compromised their ability to 
deliver water in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. The 
southern third of the Friant-Kern Canal has lost 60% of its capacity, 
which translates to 100,000-300,000 acre-feet of water per year that 
doesn't flow to farms and communities.
    Additionally, by reducing the canal's ability to deliver water to 
aquifers in the south Valley, the conveyance constriction will also 
worsen existing water supply and water quality problems in the more 
than 55 rural and disadvantaged communities within the Friant Division 
service area, all of which are almost entirely reliant on groundwater 
wells for their water supplies.
    Thankfully, we at Friant are currently in the midst of repairing 
the Middle Reach of the Friant-Kern canal and future repairs to other 
reaches of the Canal are being planned, but time is still of the 
essence as current hydrologic conditions offer significant 
opportunities to replenish groundwater supplies and allow us to prepare 
for future water supply challenges.
California's Water Management Challenges

    The 2023 water year is off to a tremendous start. This year is 
shaping up to be one of those years that will be so significantly wet 
that reservoirs will be full, groundwater recharge will be plentiful, 
and water will move around the state as the system was designed.
    But for most of the past century, we also have experienced 
``average'' water years in which the state and federal water projects, 
the State Water Project (SWP) and CVP respectively, were operated in a 
sensible and responsible manner. Even following the passage of the 
federal and state Endangered Species Acts (ESA) and the Central Valley 
Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), communities and industries who rely on 
the SWP and CVP could expect a water supply allocation sufficient to 
ensure safe drinking water and irrigation needs. But we now worry most 
about these ``average'' years, when decisions about conveying and 
storing water result in the difference between having enough water to 
supply the cities and farms that depend on it, or not.
    Starting in the early 1990s, the interpretation of state and 
federal laws, regulations, lawsuits, and decisions, both by elected and 
unelected officials, began to change how water is managed in 
California, and not for the better. And as each year has passed, these 
changes have only gotten worse. This is not hyperbole and is the reason 
why you often hear the term or see billboards or social media posts 
deriding the ``man-made drought''. And to make matters worse, the 
single species, flow-only approach to recovering struggling fish 
populations promised to benefit from these actions is not working. The 
result is a system that is broken.
    In five of the past eight years the Bureau of Reclamation has taken 
Friant Division water stored in Millerton Lake (the primary water 
supply for the east side of the San Joaquin Valley) and delivered it 
down the San Joaquin River to meet the needs of the San Joaquin River 
Exchange Contractors, who would otherwise receive Sacramento River 
water through the Delta-Mendota Canal. This is the result of the 
failure of state and federal water operators to be able to convey water 
in average years. This has occurred even in what previously would have 
been considered ``normal'' water supply years, such as 2019.
    Many water users in California blame increased ``regulations'' that 
have resulted in more environmental restrictions requiring that less 
water be delivered to our farms and communities. But no new major 
environmental laws have been enacted by Congress in over 30 years. The 
truth is that the last major law passed by Congress that reduced water 
delivery capability and received any public debate at all was the 
CVPIA. Enactment of the CVPIA was a major change in the way the CVP was 
operated, and although it caused significant impacts at a tremendous 
cost, at least it was a public process that included a lot of thought, 
debate, negotiation, and ultimately approval by the Congress.
    Today, the operations of the CVP and SWP are controlled by federal 
and state agencies and their unelected government employees who 
continually add new regulatory requirements and reduce the ability of 
our vast water management system to actually deliver water, chipping 
away at water supplies for people and farms in California. But these 
requirements and reduced water deliveries are failing with no 
accountability and providing little or no benefit to the very species 
they are intended to protect. And the biggest losers are Californians--
all Californians.
    The bipartisan Water Infrastructure Investments for the Nation Act 
(WIIN Act) signed by President Obama in 2016 and the 2019 Biological 
Opinions for SWP/CVP operations contained provisions and actions that 
should have helped our average water years translate into water supply 
stability for millions of Californians. Unfortunately, those key 
provisions in the WIIN Act have expired and the 2019 Biological 
Opinions are in the midst of litigation.
    As long as the pattern of using environmental regulations to reduce 
or eliminate water deliveries from the CVP and SWP to people and farms 
in California over the past 30 years continues, we will never really be 
able to declare the drought over, even if we get another good winter 
next year.
    The time has come to build on the success of the WIIN Act and to 
have additional congressional direction in the management and operation 
of the water system in California.
H.R. 215--``Working to Advance Tangible and Effective Reforms for 
        California Act''

    Friant Water Authority supports H.R. 215, the ``Working to Advance 
Tangible and Effective Reforms (WATER) for California Act (the Act).'' 
We believe that, if enacted, the WATER for California Act would provide 
some of the ``common-sense'' solutions to our state's water management 
challenges and we thank Rep. Valadao and the co-sponsors for their 
leadership and vision in introducing the legislation.
    Title I of the Act would provide congressional direction in the 
operation of the CVP and would not conflict with the Preferred 
Alternative Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the 
reinitiation of consultation on the Coordinated Long-Term Operation of 
the CVP and State Water Project (SWP) dated December 2019, or the 
Biological Opinions of the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) dated October 21, 2019. Congressional 
direction provided in Title I, if enacted, would allow flexibility for 
voluntary changes to CVP operations, cut costs, protect native species, 
limit unnecessary reconsultation under the ESA, and help to improve 
water supply reliability. This will improve water supply reliability to 
CVP agricultural, municipal, and industrial contractors, water service 
or repayment contractors, water rights settlement contractors, exchange 
contractors, refuge contractors, and SWP contractors. Title I would 
also extend Section 4004 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for 
the Nation (WIIN) Act for an additional 10 years.
    Title II of the Act would require the Secretary of the Interior to 
make every reasonable effort to operate the CVP in a manner that 
maximizes water deliveries to contractors in the Sacramento River 
Watershed in certain water year types, with flexibility given to any 
changes in operations voluntarily agreed to, approved and implemented 
by CVP contractors. Title II would also protect water supplies to 
refuge, municipal and industrial, and other contractors, including 
settlement contractors, exchange contractors, and Friant contractors.
    Title III would modify federal laws to allow for federal financial 
participation in a project to enlarge Shasta Dam and Reservoir on the 
Sacramento River. Title III also directs the Commissioner of the Bureau 
of Reclamation to issue a water deficit report to Congress to identify 
projected shortages in water supplies in the State of California 
supplied by the CVP and SWP and recommend infrastructure projects or 
other actions to reduce or eliminate projected water supply shortages 
or fulfill water allocations to all water contractors in the CVP and 
SWP. Title III would extend Section 4007 of the WIIN Act and authorize 
federal funding for a project to enlarge Shasta Dam and Reservoir on 
the Sacramento River. We need to look at all opportunities to build new 
water storage facilities in our Valley to take advantage of years like 
this to capture and protect our water supplies into the future.
    Finally, Title IV would require the Secretary of the Interior to 
complete the refuge water supply program under the CVPIA and give 
priority to funding that completion through various federal funding 
sources identified in the Act. Title IV requires the fish, wildlife, 
and habitat mitigation and restoration actions mandated under section 
3406 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act be deemed complete 
by the Secretary on or before September 30, 2025. We understand some of 
our Central Valley stakeholders may be impacted by this Title in the 
Act, and we stand ready to work with those entities to find common 
ground in bringing California's water system back to efficiently and 
effectively meeting the water supply needs of the state's cities, 
farms, refuges, and the environment.
H.R. 872--``Federally Integrated Species Health Act'' or the ``FISH 
        Act''
    Friant Water Authority also supports the intent of H.R. 872, the 
``Federally Integrated Species Health Act'' or the ``FISH Act.'' The 
FISH Act requires the transfer of all functions vested in the Secretary 
of Commerce or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) with 
respect to anadromous species and catadromous species under the ESA to 
the Secretary of the Interior. Friant believes the history of having 
two federal agencies under two federal Departments protecting two 
vastly different and sometimes competing categories of species under 
the ESA has been a disaster. Single species management has allowed for 
vast sections of the once-majestic Pacific Flyway and its wildlife 
refuges, where millions of migratory birds, reptiles, fish and other 
non-protected species once flourished, to be dried up for the sake of 
flushing water to the ocean in the name of protected species 
protection.
    This must stop, and the FISH Act would be a step in the right 
direction, placing all federal ESA species management in one agency 
under one federal Department. By placing NMFS' ESA functions into the 
Fish and Wildlife Service, ESA activities would need to be coordinated 
in a more comprehensive manner, including analyzing impacts to all 
species--those protected under the ESA and those that are not. The 
negative impacts of taking water away from one (or more) species to 
benefit another would need to be evaluated much more thoroughly and a 
more holistic approach developed to ensure a vibrant ecosystem remains 
intact.
Conclusion

    I again thank the Subcommittee for traveling to the Valley to hold 
this critical hearing and for the opportunity to testify. The rigid and 
severely constrained management of the CVP over the last 30 years is 
not working for our communities or the environment, and the calls for 
an ever increasing amount of water being diverted from cities and farms 
to provide additional flows out of the Delta need to be reversed. We 
saw examples once again this year when, despite virtually no observed 
Delta Smelt and massive outflows to the ocean that by all measures 
precluded their presence, water management policies dictated 
constrained pumping in the Delta for species protection purposes rather 
than filling our dwindling reservoirs.
    Ultimately, we were lucky to have additional storms come through 
the state, but this was not a given when these decisions were made, and 
we can't allow luck to be our water management strategy. Instead, we 
need to be asking how we can bring balance back to our system and 
increase available water for all needs in all years. I hope that this 
hearing and the bills before the Subcommittee will be the start of 
moving toward some normalcy for CVP operations. I look forward to 
continuing working with the Subcommittee and the many stakeholders in 
the Valley on these issues and would be happy to answer any questions.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Phillips.
    I now recognize Mr. White for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF CHRIS WHITE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAN JOAQUIN ROVER 
  EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, LOS BANOS, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. White. Good afternoon, Chairmen Westerman and Bentz, 
and Congressional Members. First we want to welcome you and 
thank you for holding this hearing in the Central Valley, and 
thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of 
the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority. My 
name is Chris White. I am the Executive Director for the 
Exchange Contractors. We are responsible for administering 
conservation plans, transfer programs, water resources 
planning, as well as advocating for dependable water supplies 
for our member agencies and the 240,000 acres that they 
represent.
    I would like to express our great appreciation for 
Congressman Calvert and Congressman Valadao for their 
unflagging efforts in the pursuit of water supplies for 
California during their careers in Congress. I would also place 
Congressman Costa in that same category.
    In just the law few months, record precipitation fell and 
record snowpack accumulated in this part of the state. This 
enormous volume of precipitation, which followed a 3-year 
period of extreme drought, if you look at the historical 
weather patterns climate extremes are obviously the norm in 
California. Those extremes, combined with the current 
regulatory environment make providing reliable water supplies 
for water users throughout the state very challenging, if not 
impossible. Environmental, urban, and agricultural water users 
need more tools to be able to adaptively manage through those 
extremes if we ever hope to have a truly drought-resilient 
water supply.
    What is needed to manage these weather conditions is the 
type of regulatory certainty placing focus on investment in 
water resilience projects and the forward-thinking tools 
provided in H.R. 215 and H.R. 872. I ask myself, well, what if 
H.R. 215 had already been in place for a couple of years? Well, 
today project operations would be more stable for all water 
users in the state, including environmental, urban, and 
agricultural interests, in a way that protects the operations 
of both the state and Federal projects.
    That stability would provide the space for development of 
plans for storage and conveyance and lead to a much more 
comprehensive drought resiliency plan, a plan that provides 
more environmental cold water in the north along with the 
additional ground and surface water storage throughout the CVP.
    With respect to H.R. 872, the Exchange Contractors believe 
that the change in vision under this bill is long overdue. 
Combining ESA implementation responsibilities of both NMFS and 
Fish and Wildlife Service within one Federal agency is a win-
win for the fish, the environment, the Federal Government, and 
us stakeholders.
    Our region is working on projects that would advance the 
plans envisioned within H.R. 215. The Exchange Contractors are 
working with Del Puerto Water District on the Del Puerto Canyon 
reservoir project, which we are very grateful for the support 
we have received from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The Del 
Puerto Canyon reservoir project, combined with the proposed 
raising of the B.F. Sisk Dam would provide an additional 
210,000 acre-feet of storage in our backyard that could be used 
for future drought purposes.
    In addition, our region is working on a number of regional 
and small groundwater storage projects. The Exchange 
Contractors are working with our neighbors on conversion of 
existing Los Banos Creek detention dam, which is a flood 
control project, converting it into a water storage project, 
with water supply benefits for wildlife, for agriculture, and 
for the city of Los Banos. We are also working on groundwater 
banks in both Los Banos and Orestimba Creeks.
    Also, as the current flood circumstances demonstrate, 
maintenance and re-establishment of conveyance capacities of 
our local flood channels and water conveyance infrastructure is 
vitally needed to be able to save water for future droughts.
    Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today 
and share some of our thoughts with the Subcommittee. We will 
be happy to provide more information and details on the topics 
that we just discussed. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Chris White, Executive Director, San Joaquin 
               River Exchange Contractors Water Authority
                        on H.R. 215 and H.R. 872

    Good Morning Chairmen Westerman and Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman 
and all other congressional members. First, let me welcome all of you 
and thank you for holding this hearing here in the Central Valley. And 
thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the 
San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority (Exchange 
Contractors). My name is Chris White and I am the Executive Director of 
the Exchange Contractors. Our organization is a joint powers authority 
formed under California law in 1992 by four member agencies, the 
Central California Irrigation District, San Luis Canal Company, 
Firebaugh Canal Water District, and Columbia Canal Company. We are 
responsible for administering conservation plans, transfer programs, 
and resource planning, as well as advocating for dependable water 
supplies for our agencies and the 240,000 acres of agricultural land 
they represent.
    Before I talk about the bills on the agenda for this hearing, I 
would like to express our great appreciation to Congressman Calvert and 
Congressman Valadao, the authors of the bills we are discussing today, 
for their unflagging efforts to pursue water supplies for California 
during their careers in Congress. We understand how difficult it can be 
to shepherd legislation through the U.S. Congress. We thank them for 
their tireless efforts and for the efforts of their excellent staff. I 
also greatly appreciate the newest member of our valley delegation, 
Congressman Duarte, and his knowledge and deep interest on our water 
issues.
California's Climate Extremes--The need for more water supply adaptive 
        management tools

    This has been an extraordinary three and a half months in 
California. In that short time frame, record precipitation fell, and 
record snowpack accumulated in this part of the state. This enormous 
volume of precipitation followed a three-year period of extreme 
drought, during which time were all fearful of a continued drought with 
the limited tools available to us. The 2022 drought was broken with an 
extraordinary string of precipitation events, and we went from one 
extreme to the present, with flood flows now expected to extend well 
into the summer. Looking at historical weather patterns, climate 
extremes are obviously the norm in California. Those extremes, combined 
with the current regulatory environment, make providing reliable water 
supplies for all water users throughout the state very challenging, if 
not impossible. Environmental, urban and agricultural water users need 
more tools to be able to adaptively manage through these extremes if we 
ever hope to develop a truly drought resilient water supply.
H.R. 215 and H.R. 872

    What's needed to manage between these weather conditions is the 
type of regulatory certainty, investment in water resilience projects, 
and the forward-thinking tools provided in H.R. 215 and H.R. 872.

    The Exchange Contractors support advancing the two bills which are 
the focus of this hearing: H.R. 215, the ``Working to Advance Tangible 
and Effective Reforms for California (WATER) Act'' and H.R. 872, 
``Federally Integrated Species Health Act (FISH Act)''
H.R. 215

    I would first note that H.R. 215 is the product of countless hours 
of work by a wide array of stakeholders in the last Congress. The 
Exchange Contractors were closely involved in these efforts, and we 
appreciate the opportunity to be included. The end product that we see 
in this Congress, H.R. 215, reflects a tremendous amount of negotiation 
and compromise. It is a common-sense and much needed approach to the 
management of water here in the Central Valley.
    This bill would help provide long-term water supply and regulatory 
certainty to California. The certainty afforded to the project 
operators of both the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water 
Project (SWP), and ultimately their customers, would provide the 
opportunity for better water management planning for a changing 
climate. It would also allow for investments in water resilience 
projects such as water use efficiency, groundwater banking, increased 
surface water storage, and conveyance projects.
    The bill would provide the flexibility for voluntary agreements to 
continue to be developed and implemented, which we all recognize could 
serve a very important role in the operation of both the CVP and the 
SWP in the years ahead.
H.R. 872

    With respect to H.R. 872, Congressman Calvert's bill, the Exchange 
Contractors believe the change envisioned under this bill is long 
overdue. Combining ESA implementation responsibilities of both NMFS and 
FWS within one federal agency would be a win-win for the fish, the 
environment, the federal government, and all stakeholders. The current 
two-agency approach makes the management operations of the Central 
Valley Project cumbersome and inefficient. One key example in our 
region is the Delta Smelt Biological Opinion prepared by FWS, which 
requires releasing flows from storage to manipulate habitat, while the 
NMFS Biological Opinion for salmon requires keeping water in storage 
for temperature control. Even a person with little expertise in water 
management can see that this leads to a confusing and dysfunctional 
approach, which is harmful for all stakeholders.
Storage and Conveyance

    So what do we believe should be the takeaway from the last three 
and a half months? We suggest at least two intertwined concepts should 
be prioritized: storage and conveyance. Regarding storage, the 
important point is we do not need larger storage projects with 
multibillion-dollar price tags. Instead, we believe we need, and could 
make very good use of, strategically positioned smaller-size storage 
projects. Also, as our present flood circumstance demonstrates, we need 
to enhance direct groundwater recharge through the use of smart multi-
benefit floodplain habitat projects that provide fish and wildlife 
habitat while increasing transitory storage of flood flows to reduce 
downstream flood damage.
    With respect to conveyance, we need to invest in the best 
maintenance and improvement possible for conveyance capability. When I 
use the word ``conveyance,'' I mean all forms of conveyance--from 
canals to our rivers and flood control systems. An investment in 
conveyance will pay off greatly, for it will open channels so that more 
water can be moved when needed but can also be stored until that time 
of need. I would be happy to go into more detail on this point if 
anyone would like me to do so.
    That leads me to make some comments on a project I am very familiar 
with, the planned storage facility in Del Puerto Canyon. Let me first 
note we are immensely grateful for the support this project has 
received to date from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. It would have 
been very difficult to reach the point of planning we have reached 
without that vital financial support.
    We believe the planned storage reservoir in Del Puerto Canyon is 
precisely the kind of above-ground storage project that is needed in 
California. It will provide off-stream storage in a location that will 
not hinder fish passage or migration in any way. The reservoir, when 
completed, will allow for the storage of up to 82,000 acre-feet of 
water in a year such as this one. That water will help to replenish 
groundwater, as well as provide water that can be transported and 
delivered to farmers and municipalities in the region. It will also 
solve the recurring issue of flooding on Del Puerto Creek. This 
flooding, when it occurs, has a negative impact on neighboring farms, 
residential areas, and commercial activity. The reservoir will also 
provide important habitat for a variety of species of migrating birds. 
We started the planning in earnest for this project in 2019; we are 
hopeful construction will begin in 2028.
    We believe there are numerous additional locations in California 
where similar projects could be built.
Additional Projects Underway

    I also want to briefly describe two of the projects the Exchange 
Contractors are working on, on different stretches of the San Joaquin 
River. These are innovative, relatively low cost, and intended to 
provide a range of multiple benefits. They are:

  1.  Orestimba Creek Recharge and Recovery Project: This project will 
            receive water to be stored for future use, by creating a 
            series of storage basins and recharge ponds, with the 
            necessary infrastructure. This project should accelerate 
            the recharging of groundwater in the underlying aquifer.

  2.  Los Banos Creek Detention and Diversion Projects: In the 
            Detention project, the current dam, which is used only as a 
            flood control facility, would be re-purposed to serve also 
            as a water storage (and release) facility. In the Diversion 
            project, a structure would be installed to allow water to 
            better move through Los Banos Creek and the Delta-Mendota 
            Canal, recharging creek flows. This would allow for better 
            management of flood control and increase the reliability of 
            the water in the creek, as well as improve the recreational 
            possibilities of the creek.

    The Exchange Contractors also continue to work, as we have since 
2006, on projects under the umbrella of the San Joaquin River 
Restoration Program. These include a control structure and fish screen 
at Mendota Pool, as well as a fish screen and fish passage project at 
Arroyo Canal. These projects, once complete, will allow fish to survive 
and make their journey to the Delta. The projects also include building 
a well-designed flood plain habitat/transitory storage project with 
benefits accruing to fish rearing, flood control, and groundwater 
recharge. It includes the installation of control structures which will 
ensure that the floodplain benefits will occur across a wide range of 
river flows.
    Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and share 
some of our thoughts with the Subcommittee. We will be happy to provide 
more information and details on any of the points or projects I have 
mentioned today.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. White.
    I now recognize Mr. Sutton for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JEFF SUTTON, GENERAL MANAGER, TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL 
                 AUTHORITY, WILLOWS, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Sutton. Chairman Bentz, members of the Subcommittee, 
Congressman Costa, thank you for joining us as well, and 
Chairman Westerman, thank you for coming out here from 
Arkansas. And thank you to all the folks here in the crowd. I 
think folks would rather be out this time of year, farming and 
growing the food that feeds our nation and the world, but 
unfortunately, because of some of the challenges we are trying 
to address here today, we are in this room trying to fix 
problems. But thank you for being here.
    My name is Jeff Sutton. I am the General Manager of the 
Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority. We manage the Sacramento Canals 
Unit, the CVP, serving 17 water districts through 4 counties on 
the west side of the Sacramento Valley. Our service area is 
150,000 acres and provides about $1 billion annual to our local 
and regional economy.
    And I should say where we are, and similar to where we are 
sitting here today, agriculture is our economy. When that goes 
bad, our communities suffer greatly. And we saw that just 
recently through this drought, from 2020 to 2022, but I want to 
actually back up to 2017 and 2019. The CVP was built--they 
modeled this to get through the drought of the late 1920s and 
early 1930s. It is supposed to provide 5 years of drought 
protection. In 2017, we were spilling 85,000 CFS over Shasta. 
The ground was shaking below the dam. It was awesome. In 2019, 
again the same thing happened. It would have sure been nice to 
have an extra additional 18.5 feet to store an extra 680,000 
acre-feet of water and also have that added flood protection, 
not to mention--and I will talk more about this in a minute--
the Sites Reservoir downstream to capture some of that water as 
well.
    Five years of protection, 2020, turn around and we dropped 
a lot of water for delta smelt habitat. Water service 
contractors, the very next year, in Northern California, we 
were at 50 percent, the very next year, spilling water over 
Shasta. South of Delta it was even much worse than that. Then 
we experienced 2021 and 2022, 2 years of zero allocation for 
our entire service area, and also the service areas of the San 
Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority.
    The year 2022 was extremely--we have never experienced in 
the history of our valley. The Sacramento River Settlement 
Contractors, the most senior rights that predate the Central 
Valley Project, the back upon which the Central Valley Project 
was built, in drier years that are supposed to get not less 
than 75 percent. That promise had never been broken in history. 
They received 18 percent for single species management, for 
winter-run salmon below Shasta Reservoir. It crippled our 
communities.
    Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, one of the oldest and 
biggest water right holders on the Sacramento River--my great-
great-grandfather signed the document and chaired the meeting 
that created that organization--they typically planned 100,000 
acres of rice. The district is 150,000 acres. They planted 
1,100 acres in 2022. Several districts at 18 percent, it was so 
inefficient they could not even operate, which actually allowed 
us to purchase some of that water and keep our permanent crops 
alive to avoid even a bigger disaster. Those are expensive 
transfers, and to add insult to injury, it occurred during a 
time they got a freeze and they had no income coming in from 
those trees as well.
    And I am looking at my time and I am talking too long, so I 
want to say the system is broken. We have to fix it. Both of 
these bills are a step in the right direction.
    I am also the Vice Chairman of the Sites Joint Powers 
Authority, a $4 billion, 1.5-million-acre-foot reservoir, that 
we are working feverishly, and have been since our organization 
was started in 2010, to build that. We are making progress, but 
we need to make these projects a lot easier to implement. It is 
incredibly challenging.
    These crises are predictable. It is going to stop raining 
again. We are going to experience droughts. But they are 
preventable if we make the right investments.
    I also want to say regarding the FISH Act, what we are 
doing now lacks common sense. It is inefficient. It is 
ineffective. It is in constant conflict. You have one fish 
against another, release all the water out of Shasta for the 
delta smelt, hold it for the winter-run salmon. And I want to 
say, moreover, when you are not providing water to those 
working landscapes, you are hurting a whole host of other 
species that rely on that habitat. And what we are going to do 
is result in having more listed species when we are not helping 
the fishery species either.
    I will close. Thank you so much.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sutton follows:]

Prepared Statement of Jeffrey P. Sutton, General Manager, Tehama-Colusa 
                            Canal Authority
                        on H.R. 215 and H.R. 872
Introduction

    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the 
House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries. 
My name is Jeff Sutton, and I am the General Manager of the Tehama-
Colusa Canal Authority (TCCA).
    The TCCA is a Joint Powers Authority, a public agency created under 
California law, that delivers water to 17 water agencies throughout a 
four county (Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, Yolo) service area along the 
westside of the Sacramento Valley. Pursuant to a contract with the 
United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), TCCA operates and 
maintains a large dual canal water delivery system commonly referred to 
as the Sacramento Canals Unit of the Central Valley Project (CVP). 
These facilities provide irrigation water to approximately 150,000 
acres of prime farmland, generating over $1 billion of regional 
economic benefit annually. Throughout our rural agricultural region, 
farming is the foundation of our economy, and any interruption in the 
ability to deliver water to these crops could have significant and 
long-lasting impacts.
    Peak irrigation season in the TCCA service area typically occurs 
from early May though early September. Post-harvest irrigation 
typically continues throughout the months of September, October, and 
November, and sometimes longer until the rains set in. Also, post-
harvest water plays an important role in our region, both to decompose 
rice straw and to provide critical habitat for a variety of wildlife, 
waterfowl, and shorebirds.
2020-2022 Drought Impacts

    The recent drought experience, from 2020-2022, put a spotlight on 
the flawed management approach we experience in the CVP. Constantly 
increasing regulatory pressure and the lack of investment in new 
surface and groundwater storage to offset the resulting impacts to our 
water supply, has served to cripple the reliability and operational 
flexibility of the CVP. This has negatively impacted the communities 
and farms reliant on this important water infrastructure and caused 
significant harm to wildlife species dependent on the habitat provided 
by the working landscapes that make up the Sacramento Valley. And most 
frustrating, we have seen scant, if any, progress toward recovery of 
fisheries, the stated purpose of these impactful regulatory actions. In 
many cases, we continue to see further declines in the fisheries as 
misguided and off target regulations focus on single species management 
and water cutbacks, ignoring the habitat needs and other stressors on 
these endangered fish.
    California weather has always been variable, a dynamic that has 
intensified in recent years. However, weathering such fluctuations in 
hydrology was the very purpose for the construction of the CVP which 
was designed and built to provide flood control, power generation, and 
water storage sufficient to weather a five-year prolonged drought 
period. Unfortunately, we have lost sight of these important goals, 
rendering our water management system more and more ineffectual to 
accomplish its intended and authorized purposes.
    2019 was an extremely wet year--our reservoirs and groundwater 
aquifers filled to the brim. Huge quantities of water spilled from the 
reservoirs that year and we lost an opportunity to capture them for 
future use. However, just one year later, after experiencing only one 
very dry winter in 2020, the CVP water service contracts held by the 
TCCA water agencies were reduced by 50%, with even deeper water cuts 
for contractors south of the Delta. This was followed by two more dry 
years, 2021 and 2022, where TCCA water agency allocations were 0% each 
year. This resulted in the fallowing of approximately 40% or 60,000 
acres of our service area. This led to a greater reliance on 
groundwater pumping and expensive water transfers causing more 
fallowing throughout the region as growers tried to protect and 
preserve high value permanent crop plantings.
    Moreover, the CVP was unable to even meet obligations to the 
Sacramento River Settlement Contractor, the holders of the most senior 
water rights that predate the creation of the CVP, in 2021 and 2022. In 
2022, for the first time in history, the Sacramento River Settlement 
Contractors were allocated a mere 18%, despite holding contracts that 
legally require the delivery of a 75% water supply. The entire west 
side of the Sacramento Valley was laid barren of annual crops. 
Likewise, the accompanying seasonal habitat created by rice fields and 
wildlife refuges ceased to exist. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, 
which typically plants 100,000 acres of rice, saw a total of 1,100 
acres planted. Several water districts were unable to even operate at 
all under these conditions, idling entire districts because they could 
not assure growers they had sufficient water to get them to harvest. 
This resulted in unparalleled devastation to the Sacramento Valley 
economy and environment, causing great hardship to farms, businesses 
and communities throughout the region, as well as the array of 
wildlife, waterfowl, and shore bird species reliant on the non-existent 
habitat due to the water cutbacks.
    Increased investment in new surface and groundwater storage and a 
more thoughtful and holistic approach to resource and species 
management is desperately needed to restore the operational 
flexibility, water supply reliability, and climate change resiliency of 
the CVP and California's water management system as a whole. If we do 
not alter our current trajectory, which has eroded our ability to meet 
the water demands of our state, we are doomed to experience 
increasingly intractable and impactful resource and species conflicts 
into the future.
    The impacts experienced during the 2013-2015 and 2020-2022 crises 
were unfortunate but are now in our rear view mirror. These events were 
both predictable, and preventable. We are all fully aware that Mother 
Nature will continue to bring periods of wet and dry to California in 
the future. However, the responsibility to prepare and plan for such 
events, to minimize and mitigate the impacts associated with these 
occurrences, is within our abilities. It requires dedication, foresight 
and leadership to make the commitments and investments necessary to 
accomplish this goal. It is now on us.
Opportunities in Wet Years

    The severity of the boom-and-bust hydrologic cycles that we 
continue to experience should serve as a wake-up call to all of us that 
we must continue to invest in innovative projects that increase 
California's drought resilience and provide an insurance policy against 
future drought conditions.
    I have the honor of serving as the Vice-Chairman of the Sites 
Project Authority (Authority), a Joint Powers Authority formed in 2010 
for the purpose of permitting, designing, constructing and operating a 
new 1.5 million acre foot reservoir. Sites Reservoir is a multi-
benefit, off-stream water storage facility, located north of Sacramento 
in rural Colusa and Glenn counties. Sites will capture and store 
stormwater and flood flows from the Sacramento River, after all other 
water rights and regulatory requirements are met, for release primarily 
in drier years, such as 2022. Recent analysis by the Sites Project 
Authority illustrates that had the project been operational today, it 
could have diverted and stored nearly 494,000 acre feet of water from 
the severe storms that California experienced during January, February, 
and March. And we would likely continue to add to that total for weeks 
to come.
    Sites is a 21st century water storage facility which will utilize 
existing state-of-the-art screened, fish friendly water diversions on 
the Sacramento River and existing water conveyance facilities (Glenn-
Colusa Canal, Tehama-Colusa Canal, and the Colusa Basin Drain). It 
provides a new off-stream water storage facility that integrates 
perfectly into our current water management system. In fact, the 
project dedicates a significant portion of its water supply and 
operational benefits to the enhancement of terrestrial and aquatic 
environments, while also providing significant flood control and 
recreational benefits.
    The project is a federal, state, and local partnership that 
strictly adheres to the ``beneficial pays'' principal as each 
participant is required to invest in the reservoir at an amount that is 
equal to the benefit that they will receive from the project. As an 
investor in the project, Reclamation utilizes funding from the WIIN Act 
storage account to fund its share of the project. TCCA greatly 
appreciates Section 304(b) of H.R. 215, the WATER for California Act, 
which would extend the authorization for the WIIN Act storage account.
    In California, we have relied on the Sierra Nevada snowpack and the 
spring/summer runoff to fill our reservoirs and recharge our 
groundwater aquifers--which in turn provides water for agricultural, 
environmental, and urban uses. However, this snowpack has become 
increasingly unreliable because of changed hydrology. At present, most 
of California's precipitation now comes from intense storm events that 
produce extreme amounts of stormwater that runs off before it can be 
captured for maximum benefit.
    This fact is why Sites is so important. Moreover, Sites Reservoir's 
operational, environmental and water supply benefits are amplified 
under a climate change scenario.
    Here in the Sacramento Valley, we do not face the regulatory 
challenges that other CVP contractors south of the Delta experience 
when trying to export water through the Delta to their service area. 
However, TCCA does support additional operational flexibility during 
wet years to make it easier for our friends south of the Delta to 
utilize the additional water in the system. Because of that, TCCA 
strongly supports the language in Title III of H.R. 215, which would 
ensure that TCCA's contractors are not negatively impacted during 
situations where additional exports through the Delta are warranted.
H.R. 872, The FISH Act

    H.R. 872 would transfer authority for management of anadromous fish 
species from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). TCCA believes that if enacted, this 
legislation would improve management coordination for fish species 
listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and could prevent 
conflicting water management directives, something we have previously 
experienced within the CVP. Currently, ESA consultations require 
Reclamation to work with two independent agencies that, despite their 
best efforts, often lack coordination which can cause disparate and 
conflicting directives. This dynamic has dominated ESA consultations 
and water management in recent years.
    The transfer of this authority to a single agency is a practical, 
common-sense proposal that would serve as the catalyst for the 
departure from the current single species management paradigm, causing 
a much-needed shift to a more holistic, efficient, effective, and 
coordinated, ecosystem-wide resource management approach.
    In the CVP today, we have NMFS, which is singularly focused on 
Sacramento River temperature concerns related to Winter Run Chinook 
Salmon. NMFS regularly requires increased water storage and restrictive 
release patterns from Shasta Reservoir. At the same time, USFWS seeks 
significant storage releases to augment outflow for Delta Smelt. The 
result of these conflicting requirements is an inherent and intractable 
conflict which greatly impairs the ability of the CVP to serve its 
congressionally authorized purposes. This has negative water supply and 
economic impacts to communities and farms. Meanwhile, this circumstance 
further ignores the significant effects on terrestrial species, 
waterfowl, and other wildlife that rely on the habitat created by water 
deliveries to the agricultural working landscapes throughout the 
Sacramento Valley.
    Without change, the dynamic we experience today will continue to 
prevent more thoughtful and effective resource management strategies. 
It is likely to result in the continued downward trend we see for ESA 
listed aquatic species and is likely to result in additional ESA 
listing caused by the unintended consequences of single species 
management. Continuing with this inefficient, duplicative, and 
imprudent regulatory structure is a recipe for future conflict, 
frustration, and failure.
    TCCA appreciates the opportunity to provide insight and perspective 
into the ongoing water management challenges that we face in California 
and looks forward to working with the Committee and Congress to 
implement the change we so desperately need.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Sutton.
    And I now recognize Mr. Bourdeau for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BOURDEAU, DIRECTOR, WESTLANDS WATER 
                  DISTRICT, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Bourdeau. Good afternoon, Chairman Bentz and members of 
the Subcommittee. It is an honor to appear before you. My name 
is William Bourdeau. I bring 26 years of experience in 
business, agriculture, and public service to the Subcommittee. 
Today, I am testifying as the Westlands Water District 
Director.
    My family has lived on the west side of the San Joaquin 
Valley for over 100 years, and in the early days I was told 
there was nothing but tumbleweeds and alkali. Now it is one of 
the most productive farming regions in the world. Pioneering 
individuals built these projects that moved water from where it 
is abundant to where it is needed. We are all beneficiaries of 
the immense foresight and the incredible infrastructure that 
has been built.
    Westlands farmers are extremely productive. We are blessed 
with fertile soil, a Mediterranean climate, and the Sierra 
Nevada mountains that capture a significant amount of snow, as 
highlighted this year. Farmers in Westlands are able to grow 
approximately 60 different crops with a value of $2 billion, 
generating around $4.7 billion in farm-related economic 
activity each year, supporting nearly 35,000 jobs, and 
benefiting the local communities and across the state. Growing 
up in Coalinga, when I was young, I would have never imagined 
being involved in something so impactful.
    The Central Valley Project and the State Water Project are 
two truly feats of human ingenuity and engineering. They are 
designed to deliver reliable water supplies to support the 
people and industries that now call California home. But our 
water management system needs to be adapted and to be improved. 
We need to modernize the state's water infrastructure, 
particularly storage, so that we can capture more water when it 
is plentiful and preserve it for when it is dry. We also need 
smarter, science-based, regulatory approaches that will allow 
for biological-based management that achieves environmental 
goals, adaptively manages resources to optimize overall 
benefits, and encourages cooperation rather than conflict.
    Both the WATER for California Act and the FISH Act reflect 
common-sense approaches to real issues facing California. These 
bills are timely, especially if we want the next generation of 
Californians to pursue farming as a career. We need to address 
the challenges that are driving people away. Farmers are 
leaving California. Some of them I know well. And their 
decisions to leave are at least, in some part, related to the 
lack of adequate and reliable water supply. Without sufficient 
water, it is impossible to have the crop production that is 
needed to run a business, employ people, and contribute a 
necessity to society.
    The WATER for California Act includes important provisions 
to advance water storage in California. We need to store more 
water to improve reliability. When farmers do not receive their 
allocations, they fallow the land and rely more heavily on 
groundwater, with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 
making this even more complicated. The results are serious. 
People lose jobs. Food banks are strained. Schools lose 
attendance. The tax base takes a hit. And the human impacts are 
severe.
    I am also concerned about the food security implications of 
reducing the ability for farmers to farm in the San Joaquin 
Valley. As a Marine, I know disrupting supply lines are key to 
military success. If this country does not produce its own 
food, we will become vulnerable. It is good public policy to 
support farming communities. It is in our national interest.
    Communities in the Central Valley have, at times, run out 
of water or have been unable to provide safe drinking water. 
Quite simply, the lack of reliable water threatens the economy 
and public health. The Federal Government plays an important 
role in operating key water infrastructure in California, and 
it should be a partner in ensuring that the projects are able 
to satisfy their multiple purposes, including delivering an 
adequate and reliable water supply to people and farms.
    There have been many times when requirements imposed by the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have conflicted with 
requirements imposed by the National Marine Fishery Service. 
Having two different Federal agencies consulting over 
operations of Federal water projects also adds to the 
complexity of ESA compliance.
    In conclusion, I fully acknowledge the immense challenges 
involved in managing California's water resources. The state 
continues to grapple with rapid hydrological changes as 
atmospheric rivers deliver much-needed rainfall and snowpack 
following 3 years of the driest in California's recorded 
history. Efficiently capturing and transporting this water to 
where it is needed remains a daunting task.
    However, infrastructure improvements alone are insufficient 
to achieve water supply reliability. In the Central Valley, we 
aspire to foster thriving ecosystems and fish populations 
alongside flourishing businesses and farms. To realize this 
vision in California, we must maintain operational flexibility 
and implement improvements in the regulatory landscape. 
Regulations ought to be grounded in scientific evidence, with 
regulatory action only when they address specific biological 
needs. I believe the two bills under consideration today would 
help to accomplish these important goals.
    I again thank the Subcommittee for allowing me to testify 
today at the field hearing, and I look forward to answering 
questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bourdeau follows:]

   Prepared Statement of William Bourdeau, Director, Westlands Water 
                                District
                        on H.R. 215 and H.R. 872

    Good afternoon, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members 
of the Subcommittee. It is a great privilege to appear before you.
    My name is William Bourdeau, and I bring over 26 years of expertise 
in business and agriculture to the Subcommittee. I serve on the board 
of directors for the Westlands Water District, American Pistachio 
Growers, Family Farm Alliance, and the Agriculture Foundation of 
California State University, Fresno. Additionally, I hold several key 
leadership positions, including Vice Chair of the San Luis & Delta-
Mendota Water Authority, Chair of the California Water Alliance, and 
Chair of the Valley Future Foundation. I am dedicated to public service 
and the communities where I live and work.
    Today, I am testifying as a director of the Westlands Water 
District (``Westlands'').
    The District and its farmers appreciate the value of water and the 
importance of water conservation. Those instrumental in the formation 
of the Westlands are responsible for its existing water conveyance 
system, which is comprised entirely of buried pipeline (approximately 
1,100 miles of pipe). Over time, Westlands and its farmers have 
continued to invest in this sophisticated system. All surface water 
diversions are metered, and Westlands is just completing its efforts to 
install meters on all groundwater wells. In many of the fields within 
Westlands, farmers employ surface and subsurface drip irrigation or 
micro-sprinklers. The result of these investments is that farmers 
achieve some of the highest water use efficiencies in the world.
    Farmers in Westlands are also incredibly productive. They are able 
to grow approximately 60 different high-quality, nutritious crops under 
some of the highest environmental standards in the world--producing 
crops with a value of $2 billion and generating more than $4.7 billion 
in farm-related economic activity each year, supporting nearly 35,000 
jobs, and benefiting local communities in the San Joaquin Valley and 
across the state. The primary source of the water necessary to grow 
food and provide the economic benefits is the federal Central Valley 
Project.
    Today, I share with you my experiences as a resident, farmer, and 
public servant in an area served by the Central Valley Project and my 
views of the two bills that you are considering, H.R. 215, the WATER 
for California Act, and H.R. 872, the FISH Act. Both of these pieces of 
legislation reflect commonsense approaches to the real issues facing 
California. Both are intended to provide regulatory efficacy and 
certainty, as well as enhance the operational flexibility of the 
Central Valley Project and the State Water Project to allow them to 
better achieve their congressionally established purposes.
    The Central Valley Project and State Water Project are truly feats 
of human ingenuity and engineering. They were designed to deliver 
reliable water supplies to support the people and industries that now 
call California home. And they have provided the foundation for 
communities in California's Central Valley. But years of shortages, 
particularly over the last few years when Westlands and other agencies 
received zero allocations, followed by the torrential rain and snow 
this year, demonstrate that our water management system needs to adapt 
and be improved. We need more infrastructure, particularly storage so 
that we can capture more water when it is plentiful so that we have 
water available to get us through the dry periods. We also need 
smarter--science based--regulatory approaches that will allow for 
biological-based management that achieves environmental goals, 
adaptively manages resources to optimize overall benefits, and 
encourages cooperation rather than conflict.
    The WATER for California Act would benefit the cities, farms, and 
ecosystems throughout California that depend on the Central Valley 
Project and State Water Project.
    The bill includes important provisions to advance water storage in 
California by extending section 4007 of the Water Infrastructure 
Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act. Under this provision, the 
Bureau of Reclamation can provide up to 50% federal funding for 
federal-led storage projects and 25% federal funding for state led 
projects. By extending the storage project authorizations until 2028, 
the bill will facilitate both the surface and groundwater storage 
necessary to improve the reliability of water in the Central Valley.
    The bill would also preserve operational flexibility for the 
Central Valley Project and State Water Project. To improve the efficacy 
of actions taken to protect or improve the environment and to support 
the ability to beneficially use the water resources of the State to the 
fullest extent of which they are capable, it is vitally important that 
regulation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project be 
science based. Regulation should reflect the need to comprehensively 
address all factors that affect the abundance of at-risk fish species 
and control only when serving biological needs.
    These objectives of the WATER for California Act are of critical 
importance to Westlands, not only because of the direct benefit this 
bill would provide to Westlands' farmers but because of the benefit it 
would provide to community water systems--to the water supplies for me 
and the people with whom I work and live. The impacts of unreliable 
water supplies were evident in the prior two years. Just one example 
concerns the community of Coalinga in Fresno County. In 2022, it nearly 
ran out of water. Those who live in Coalinga rely solely on Central 
Valley Project water, delivered by the Bureau of Reclamation through 
the Central Valley Project. Reclamation, in the face of a severe 
drought, allocated Coalinga enough water for minimum health and safety 
needs. Coalinga did everything it could do use its available water 
supply efficiently, restricting outdoor water use and providing 
incentives for conservation. Even so, it was on the brink of not being 
able to provide adequate water for facilities located there, including 
a state prison and state mental hospital. Coalinga was able to purchase 
water from a nearby district, which was enough to get through the year. 
But the experience has had a chilling effect on the community, causing 
water insecurities and concern about its future. Other communities in 
the Central Valley have at times run out of water or been unable to 
provide water that is safe to use for drinking. Quite simply, lack of 
reliable water threatens the economy and public health. The federal 
government plays an important role in operating key water 
infrastructure in California, and it should be a partner in ensuring 
that the CVP and SWP are able to satisfy their multiple purposes, 
including delivery of an adequate and reliable water supply to people 
and farms.
    The FISH Act, like the Water for California Act, is aimed at 
rationalizing regulations, only with a focus on threatened and 
endangered fish. The bill would consolidate Endangered Species Act 
responsibilities over fish into a single federal agency, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service (FWS). Under current law, the National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS) has responsibility for anadramous and 
catadramous fish (fish that move between fresh and ocean waters during 
their lifetimes). For fish species that remain in freshwater their 
entire lives, FWS has ESA responsibility. There have been times when 
requirements imposed by FWS have conflicted with requirements imposed 
by NMFS. Having two different federal agencies consulting over 
operations of federal water projects also adds to the complexity of ESA 
compliance. Consolidating responsibility in a single agency will 
improve the ability to protect threatened and endangered species by 
ensuring coordinated approaches, particularly when dealing with a 
finite natural resource such as water. For these reasons, the 
consolidation makes sense.
    In conclusion, I fully acknowledge the immense challenges involved 
in managing California's water resources. The state continues to 
grapple with rapid hydrological changes, as atmospheric rivers deliver 
much-needed rainfall and snowpack following three of the driest years 
in California's recorded history reaches record levels. Managing flood 
risk and efficiently capturing and transporting this water to where it 
is needed remain daunting tasks. Enhancements to water infrastructure 
are essential for providing the operational flexibility required to 
navigate these extreme climate variations effectively.
    However, infrastructure improvements alone are insufficient to 
achieve water supply reliability. In the Central Valley, we aspire to 
foster thriving ecosystems and fish populations alongside flourishing 
businesses and farms. To realize this vision in California, we must 
maintain operational flexibility and implement improvements in the 
regulatory landscape. Regulations ought to be grounded in scientific 
evidence, with regulatory actions taken only when they address specific 
biological needs.
    We do not seek perpetual conflict over regulations or discrepancies 
between state and federal laws. Instead, we yearn for certainty and the 
capacity to invest in a brighter future. I am confident that the two 
bills under consideration today will contribute significantly to 
accomplishing these vital objectives.

    I again thank the Subcommittee for allowing me to testify at 
today's field hearing.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Bourdeau.
    And I now recognize Mr. Fukuda for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF AARON FUKUDA, GENERAL MANAGER, TULARE IRRIGATION 
                  DISTRICT, TULARE, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Fukuda. Chairmen Bentz and Westerman and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak at my 
first Committee hearing. This is a first for me, so bear with 
me.
    My name is Aaron Fukuda. I am the General Manager of the 
Tulare Irrigation District. We are one of the oldest irrigation 
districts in the state of California, formed in 1889. Since its 
inception, the district has developed an irrigation system with 
300 miles of canals, 1,300 acres of recharge basins, and a 
water supply portfolio that includes water rights on the Kaweah 
River system and a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation.
    To quote my friend and colleague, Eddie Ocampo, Director at 
Self-Help Enterprises, ``The culture of our region is 
agriculture.'' What we have found is that our region has 
suffered from these climatic swings between wet and dry, and we 
have not been given the tools to prepare ourselves for these 
wet and dry years, with limited investment in aging and new 
infrastructure along with a burdensome regulatory atmosphere we 
find ourselves in here in California.
    Over the last 3 years, our Tulare Irrigation District has 
received such little surface water supply that we have not had 
an irrigation run, and therefore our growers have had to turn 
to groundwater to backstop their agricultural needs. This has 
been devastating to our economics as we don't have any revenue 
to cover our ongoing expenses, but the risk is the future. When 
we look forward, do we have the surface water storage that we 
know we are going to have a water supply in the coming years?
    So, our region has had to go to groundwater to keep our 
agricultural communities thriving. As our groundwater depleted, 
we hit our all-time lows in our groundwaters this fall of 2022. 
Many of our communities, predominantly disadvantaged, like the 
community of Okieville, had numerous domestic wells that went 
dry this last year. This need to use groundwater water driven 
by the necessity to keep our agricultural communities simply 
alive.
    In the fall of 2022, though, we were greeted, in December, 
with a wet season and nine atmospheric rivers, which was much 
needed. While we enjoyed a short reprieve in February 2022, in 
early March we received several warm atmospheric river systems. 
For the first time in decades, local reservoirs were put into 
spill conditions, and downstream rivers received flows that 
exceeded channel capacities. Widespread flooding conditions 
were experienced in the upper Kaweah River system, the lower 
St. Johns River system, and down into the lower historic Tulare 
Lakebed.
    Crop damage is significant in our area and extensive. 
Farmers are losing their winter wheat crops and others are 
losing permanent crops such as citrus and nut crops. Small 
communities such as Lindsay, Woodlake, Alpaugh, and Allensworth 
that surround our hearing today also have experienced severe 
flooding conditions, requiring residents to abandon their homes 
with very little notice.
    But given these dramatic swings in hydrology, our local 
communities have tried to lean into these hard times and 
prepare for the next disaster. How are we doing this, and how 
maybe can this Committee help?
    In the face of the drought conditions, last year, our 
agricultural community passed the 2022 Emergency Ordinance, 
which cut back on groundwater pumping in our area. We saved 
about 13 percent of our Ag demand, which is about 20,000 acre-
feet, and then turned that into this wet year by doubling our 
recharge rate, from 700 acre-feet to 1,500 acre-feet per day. 
But with the ability to now reduce groundwater, we still found 
some of our local domestic wells were drying up, and we can do 
with some Federal support to help backstop these wells and get 
them to resiliency by drilling them deeper.
    There is also a much better way to buffer extremes and that 
is with multi-benefit reservoirs. Our Seaborn Reservoir project 
is a shining example, and I want to thank Congressmen Valadao, 
Costa, and McCarthy, who are graciously trying to support our 
project and help us find funding. This project is an 8,000 
acre-foot off-stream reservoir with a habitat restoration zone 
around the reservoir and a community center to be used for 
educating our youth and community on agriculture and the 
habitat supported in the area. The project will allow the 
district to help the region by providing much needed flood 
relief during high flows, such as this year, drought resiliency 
by allowing increased recharge opportunities in and around 
disadvantaged communities, and the development of a community 
education center.
    Last but not least, our region really does need water 
supply reliability and regulatory relief to ensure that we can 
have water supply guaranteed to us under our contractual 
obligations with the Bureau of Reclamation as well as our pre-
1914 water rights. H.R. 215 and H.R. 872 make too much sense, 
and they are the path forward for securing those needs. By 
ensuring that our water supply is governed by sound and modern 
science in an adaptive manner, such that the Central Valley 
Project is operated to support the needs of our region, we can 
ensure that our region has the water supply to achieve 
sustainability.
    On behalf of the Tulare Irrigation District, I thank the 
Committee for holding this hearing here in Tulare. We are 
committed to working with Members of Congress and the 
Administration to ensure that we have a thriving agricultural 
community, and that begins with a resilient water supply and 
infrastructure to support that.
    This concludes my remarks, and I am happy to answer any 
questions the Members may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Fukuda follows:]

Prepared Statement of Aaron Fukuda, General Manager, Tulare Irrigation 
                                District
                        on H.R. 215 and H.R. 872

    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of the 
Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding 
the drastic local conditions that our growers and communities are 
experiencing. My name is Aaron Fukuda and I am the General Manager of 
the Tulare Irrigation District. The Tulare Irrigation District is one 
of the oldest irrigation districts in the State of California, formed 
in 1889 to deliver irrigation water to the lands in and around the 
community of Tulare. Since its inception, the District has developed an 
irrigation system with over 300 miles of earthen canals, management and 
operation of 1,300 acres of recharge basins, and a water supply 
portfolio that includes water rights on the Kaweah River and a Bureau 
of Reclamation Contract on the Friant Division of the Central Valley 
Project.
    To quote my friend and colleague Eddie Ocampo, Director at Self-
Help Enterprises, ``the culture of our region is Agriculture''. For far 
too many years, our region has suffered tremendously due to climate-
induced hydrologic shifts between consecutive drought years to 
extremely wet years, like the one we are experiencing this year. What 
we have found is that there is a lack of preparedness due to limited 
investment in aging and even new infrastructure to address these 
hydrologic swings, compounded with the burdensome regulatory atmosphere 
in California, which stresses the agricultural fabric of our region 
from the fields to the communities and is devastating the ag culture of 
our region.
    During the last several years of drought and limited water supplies 
made available by the state and federal projects, the District was 
faced with three consecutive years where the water supplies available 
did not meet the minimum volume needed to deliver to growers and our 
communities. Therefore there was no irrigation run. This put the 
District and our growers under economic stress, with only one year of 
financial reserves for operations and questions as to the ability to 
have enough water in the coming years due to the lack of surface water 
storage throughout the state. With no surface water for irrigation, 
growers turned to groundwater to meet their minimum irrigation demands 
to keep their businesses and community intact. Without sufficient 
surface water supplies, a dependence on groundwater exists and the 
groundwater levels in the area have declined significantly during this 
period, reaching our all-time lows in the Fall of 2022. This not only 
devastated the agricultural viability in our region but, more 
importantly, had a significant impact on our communities which are 
predominantly ``Disadvantaged'', like Okieville, where numerous 
domestic wells went dry. This need to use groundwater was one driven by 
the necessity to keep our agricultural communities alive. The region 
saw significant crop stress and damage, and our small communities 
suffered from ongoing dry wells.
    In the Fall of 2022, we all were preparing for another drought 
season based on early forecasts that indicated La Nina conditions would 
prevail and a greater than 50% chance of dry conditions through the 
winter. In December 2022, the Central Valley was greeted with a much-
needed wet cycle, including nine atmospheric rivers that hit the Valley 
and the Sothern Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. While we enjoyed a short 
reprieve in February 2022, in early March, we received several warm 
atmospheric river systems that have wreaked havoc on most of the 
Southern San Joaquin Valley rivers, streams, and creeks. For the first 
time in decades, local reservoirs were put into spill conditions, and 
downstream rivers received flows that exceeded channel capacities. 
Widespread flooding conditions were experienced in the upper Kaweah 
River system, lower St. Johns River system, and down in the historic 
Tulare Lakebed. Crop damage is significant and extensive, with farmers 
losing winter wheat crops and others losing permanent citrus and nut 
crops due to extended flooding. Small communities such as Lindsay, 
Woodlake, Alpaugh, and Allensworth that surround our hearing today have 
all experienced severe flooding conditions requiring residents to 
abandon their homes with very little notice.
    Given these dramatic swings in hydrology and the annual 
unpredictability, our growers and our communities are barely able to 
manage from one disaster to another. While there are hard times, I 
would posit with this Committee that our region is working hard to lean 
into these issues, banding together and trying to prepare for our 
inevitable next disaster. So how are we doing this, and how can this 
Committee help?
    In the face of drought conditions, our agricultural community came 
together in 2022 to implement an Emergency Ordinance to allocate and 
reduce the use of groundwater for agricultural production. This was not 
a popular program but a necessary program. In 2022 our program reduced 
groundwater consumption by 13%, which is approximately 20,000 acre-
feet. This then allowed our growers to move to the wet season and 
increase our recharge capacity. Our historic recharge capacity was 
approximately 700 acre-feet per day, and with the Emergency Ordinance 
in place, growers accrued groundwater credits for over-application of 
irrigation supplies in the winter, which increased our recharge 
capacity to 1,500 acre-feet per day, a doubling of our recharge 
efforts.
    With the ability to now reduce groundwater demand, we still have 
the need to drill new domestic and community wells down to safe levels 
that guarantee a resilient and clean supply of groundwater. Federal 
funds to assist in this effort and our well mitigation plans will 
provide our landowners with confidence that our wells are ready for 
droughts and floods.
    There is no better way to buffer extremes than with multi-benefit 
water storage projects. Our Seaborn Reservoir project is a shining 
example of a project that will serve multiple purposes for our 
agricultural community. We are grateful to our congressional members, 
Congressman Valadao, Congressman Costa, and Congressman McCarthy who 
are graciously aiding our efforts in trying to secure funding for our 
new reservoir. The Seaborn Reservoir Project is an abandoned gravel 
mining operation owned by the District and a private ditch company and 
will be turned into a multi-benefit reservoir located immediately off 
stream of the Kaweah River. It includes the development of an 8,000 
acre-feet (AF) off-stream reservoir with a habitat restoration zone 
around the reservoir and a community center to be used for educating 
the community and our youth about agriculture and the habitat supported 
in the area. This project will allow the District to help the region by 
providing much needed flood relief during high flows, drought 
resiliency by allowing for increased recharge opportunities, including 
recharge in and around disadvantaged communities, and the development 
of a community educational center.
    Last but not least, our region needs water supply reliability and 
regulatory relief to ensure that we can have the water supply 
guaranteed to us under our contractual obligations with the Bureau of 
Reclamation as well as our Pre-1914 water rights. H.R. 215 and H.R. 872 
represent a path forward for securing those needs. By ensuring that our 
water supply is governed by sound and modern science in an adaptive 
manner such that the Central Valley Project is operated to support the 
needs of our region and deliver the contractual amounts due to its 
users, we can ensure that our region has the water supply to achieve 
sustainability.
    On behalf of the Tulare Irrigation District, I thank the Committee 
for holding this hearing here in Tulare. We are committed to working 
with members of Congress and the administration to ensure that we have 
a thriving agricultural culture, with vibrant and healthy communities, 
and that begins with a resilient water supply and infrastructure.

    This concludes my remarks, and I am happy to answer any questions 
the members may have.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Fukuda.
    And with that I recognize Mr. DeGroot for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF TONY DeGROOT, FARMER, DG BAR RANCHES, HANFORD, 
                           CALIFORNIA

    Mr. DeGroot. With all that said, I am about done with my 
speech.
    Thank you, House of Representatives, for having us here. My 
name is Tony DeGroot, a local dairy farmer in Kings County. I 
am a second-generation farmer, along with my son Jared being 
the third, and his sons hopefully to be the fourth. I have been 
asked to give a short testimony of events in our area along 
with possible struggles which may hinder my sleep at night.
    I would like to start by thanking our God for sending us 
the water we have been praying for. I believe God has given us 
an open door and an opportunity to act on the abundance of rain 
and snow he has given for the fourth time in my lifetime. We 
are blessed with storms every year but I have only seen 
flooding of this magnitude in 1969, 1982, 1997, and now again 
here in 2023. Unfortunately, this year's rain and snowpack will 
be another wasted blessing if we watch it go by and do not 
invest in our dry future years.
    In preparation for this speech, I was asked to bring a few 
challenges I face as well. A challenge that we do have in our 
area, being a white area farmer, is to have representation on 
our local GSA board. We are making some headway. We are getting 
people to listen to us now, but it would be nice to have a seat 
at that table so our voices could also be heard.
    And second, we need more infrastructure by the way of 
canals, sinking basins, reservoirs, pipelines, and pumps. It 
would also make the use of new and expanded dams more valuable, 
allowing all farmers to have increased access to surface water.
    Another much needed asset to California would be the 
success of the Valley Blueprint, not only for wet years but in 
as much in dry years. We believe the answer for salmon and 
wildlife along with the future of California farmers could all 
be worked together. The Valley Blueprint is a big piece of our 
future, and I hope we can make some progress there.
    I would also like to share my account of flooding and 
successes and our communal response in our area. Our family 
dairy farm is in Hanford, California, where Cross Creek and 
Highline Canals cross. I received a call from my neighbor who 
was asking for my input as he had never witnessed or been 
through one of these devastating floods in our area. After a 
quick assessment, it was clear that this was the biggest flood 
I have ever witnessed. At that time, water was flowing through 
the railroad tracks, over Grangeville Boulevard, through 
fields, and heading in his direction.
    If desperate measures had not been taken, portions of two 
dairies, including feed yards and houses, would have been 
flooded. Temporary dams were built on Grangeville, tractor 
pumps were pumping water to higher ground, levees were 
constructed to hold water back from feed areas.
    Due to abnormally high water flows in Cross Creek, the 
Highline Canal was breached in several spots, allowing an 
unprecedented amount of water to flow toward the city of 
Corcoran.
    Over the next couple days, a bypass channel was constructed 
on the property of Jack De Jong south of Highway 198 from 
Highline Canal back into Cross Creek where it originated from 
upstream. The Highline Canal now has a newly constructed dam 
with a head gate to allow a percentage of water to pass for 
downstream users and percolation.
    I share this story because when I got the initial call I 
immediately called the Kings County Board of Supervisors for 
their help. Within 3 days, they had three emergency meetings 
that would have normally taken 30 years just to approve. Now 
all of the work we did got accomplished in only 30 hours. This 
was all made possible with communication and common sense of 
local farmers and authorities working together. If it can 
happen. If there is an emergency, it should happen all the 
time. Let's cut some red tape and allow these things to happen 
as they need to.
    My family is blessed that our facilities are elevated just 
high enough that our structures have stayed dry. However, we do 
have approximately 600 acres of great farmland under water. 
This is significant due to the implementation of SGMA and new 
water allocations and fees on top of our pumping cost. We have 
cut our wheat planting acreage down 50 percent compared to 
previous years. And now of that remaining 50 percent, this 
year's wheat is now underground.
    Another unknown factor is how long the flooded acres will 
remain flooded and how we will now feed our cattle for the 
remainder of the year. For us and many like us there will be a 
feed shortage, with wheat and alfalfa drowning throughout the 
Central Valley. With 600 flooded acres, this means that about 
50 percent of our corn ground may remain underwater for this 
season as well.
    I am not looking for pity. There are many in much worse 
condition, those that have lost their facilities, moved cattle 
entirely off of their facilities, and all of their farm ground 
is underwater. It is very devastating, and I am sorry for those 
people and the community I hope is still standing behind you as 
well.
    I can remember as a child going with my father to meetings 
as he advocated for the Mid Valley Canal. However, it failed 
because people had no vision of what things would look like 
with no water. Well, 50 years later, we can see it now. I can 
envision what California will look like with more dams, more 
canals, new methods of irrigation, all while preserving more 
wildlife habitat while continuing family farming for 
generations to come.
    Congressman Valadao and all the panel, thank you so much 
for not only hearing our concerns but for acting on our behalf. 
I was taught many years ago that if you take care of the 
ground, it will take care of you. As I learned from my dad, our 
goal is to leave this world better than we received it. And if 
we all work together, I believe this goal is achievable for 
generations to come.
    Thank you, gentlemen.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. DeGroot follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Tony DeGroot, Farmer, DG Bar Ranches
                              on H.R. 215
    My name is Tony DeGroot, a local dairy farmer in Kings County. I am 
a second generation farmer with my son Jared being the third and his 
sons to be the fourth. I have been asked to give a short story of 
events in our area along with possible struggles which may hinder my 
sleeping at night.
    I will start by thanking our God for sending us the water we have 
been praying for. I believe God has given us an open door and an 
opportunity to act on the abundance of rain and snow he has given for 
the 4th time in my lifetime. We are blessed with winter storms every 
year but I have only seen flooding of this magnitude in 1968, 79, 83 
and now again here in 2023. Unfortunately, this year's rain and snow 
pack will be another wasted blessing if we watch it go by.

    In preparation for this speech I was asked to bring out a few 
challenges I face in my business.

  1.  White area farmers, (those with only one water source), need a 
            seat on their local board, at this point we can only make 
            our voice heard after the closed sessions have already made 
            their decisions.

  2.  More infrastructure by the way of canals, pipelines and pumps, 
            this would also make the use of new and expanded dams more 
            valuable, allowing white area farmers to now have access to 
            surface water.

  3.  Another much needed asset to California would be the success of 
            the Valley Blue Print.

  4.  Farmers are price takers not price makers yet we are continually 
            bombarded with added fees coming from all sides, we are now 
            expected to solve the water crisis by not being allowed to 
            pump water while expected to feed the world, I believe this 
            cost should be shared by all tax payers, not only the 
            farmer.

    I would also like to share my account of flooding and success from 
my area. Our family dairy farms in Hanford Ca. where Crosscreek and 
Highline canals cross. I received a call from my neighbor who was 
asking for my input as he'd never witnessed or been through one of 
these devastating floods in our area. After a quick assessment it as 
clear that this was the biggest flooding I have ever witnessed. At that 
time water was flowing through the RR tracks, over Grangeville blvd in 
a new location, through fields and heading in his direction.
    If desperate measures had not been taken, portions of two dairies, 
including feed yards and houses would have flooded. Temporary dams were 
built on Grangeville Blvd, tractor pumps were pumping water to higher 
ground, levees were constructed to hold water back from cow and feed 
areas.
    Due to abnormally high water flows in Cross Creek the Highline 
Canal was breached in several spots allowing an unprecedented amount of 
water to flow toward the city of Corcoran.
    Over the next couple days, a bypass channel was constructed on the 
property of Jack De Jong south of highway 198 from Highline canal back 
to Crosscreek where it originated from upstream. The Highline canal now 
has a newly constructed dam with a head gate to allow a percentage of 
water to pass for downstream users and percolation. I share this story 
because when I got the initial call I immediately called the Kings 
County Board of Supervisors for their help. Within three days they had 
three emergency meetings. What would have normally taken 30 years just 
to ``approve,'' now got accomplished in 30 hours. This was all made 
possible with communication and common sense of local farmers and 
authorities working together. ``It can happen!''
    My family is blessed that our facilities are on just high enough 
ground that our structures should stay dry, however we do have 
approximately 600 acres of great farmland under water. This is 
significant due to the implementation of SGMA and new water allocations 
and cost of water, on top of our pumping cost. We have cut our wheat 
planting acreage down 50% compared to previous years. And now of that 
remaining acreage 50% of this year's wheat is under water. Another 
unknown factor is how long the flooded acres will remain flooded and 
how we will now feed our cattle for the remainder of the year. For us, 
and many like us there will be a feed shortage with wheat and alfalfa 
drowning throughout the Central Valley. With 600 flooded acres this 
means that about 50% of our corn ground may remain underwater for this 
season as well.
    As a child I went with my father to meetings as he advocated for 
the Mid Valley Canal. It failed because people had no vision of what 
things would look like with no water. ``Well 50 years later can we see 
it now.'' I can. I can envision what California will look like with 
more dams, more canals, new methods of irrigation. Preserved wildlife 
habitat while continuing the family farm for generations to come.
    Congressman Valadao, thank you so much for not only hearing our 
concerns but for acting on our behalf. I was taught many years ago that 
if you take care of the ground it will take care of you. Our goals are 
to leave this world better than we received it. And if we all work 
together, I believe this goal is achievable for our generation, and 
generations to come.

    Thank you for your time.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, all of the witnesses, for your 
testimony, and I will now recognize Members for 5 minutes for 
questions. We will begin with Mr. McClintock.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Phillips, on the tour of Friant Dam you gave us today 
you said that we could face major flooding because Millerton 
Lake cannot contain the runoff and may not be able to release 
it fast enough. If Temperance Flat had been built, would you 
have the same concerns?
    Mr. Phillips. I would not have the same concern, 
Congressman. We have 3 million acre-feet of snowpack above 
Millerton Lake right now, and it has about 300,000 acre-feet of 
capacity, so there is no way to correctly do the math on that 
when it comes off.
    Mr. McClintock. So, too late for Temperance Flat to prevent 
what you see?
    Mr. Phillips. Too late this year. The million acre-feet at 
Temperance Flat would have been able to provide, because we are 
going to have to release about 600,000 to 2 million acre-feet, 
somewhere in that range.
    Mr. McClintock. I know you made mention of the fact that 
twice in a decade we have seen historic droughts followed by 
years of record rainfall. During the droughts, our reservoirs 
were drawn down perilously low, half million acres of farmland 
were desiccated, thousands of farm workers lost their jobs. 
This year we have experienced atmospheric rivers that have 
caused massive damage from flooding. The floodgates on those 
same dams are now wide open and they are pouring millions of 
acre-feet of water into the ocean because we have no place to 
store the excess.
    Mr. Sutton, what do you suppose nature is trying to tell 
us?
    Mr. Sutton. There are some solutions that I think if we can 
get out of our own way. It takes Federal, state, and local 
partnership, and I think a lot of folks have stepped up. But 
some folks have continued to try to create impediments. We need 
to build dams.
    Mr. McClintock. The last generation was able to do that 
effortlessly. We are still living from the gifts of the 
founders, as they say.
    In 1959, the legislature passed the Burns-Porter Act. It 
included a water bond of $1.75 billion. Now, if you do the 
inflation adjustment, that is about $17 billion in today's 
money. Now with that $17 billion, in today's money, we have 
built 10 storage dams, 11 ancillary dams that store 7 million 
acre-feet of water, and by the way, also generate 3,000 
megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest electricity on the 
planet. And with what was left over, we built the California 
Aqueduct.
    Now it is kind of interesting. In the last, well, since 
2000, voters have approved six water bond measures, $27 
billion, including $17 billion of that that we have already 
spent. So, we have spent about the same as we did in the entire 
Burns-Porter Act, all promising to enhance California's water 
supply.
    I wonder, Mr. Sutton, can you tell me what our generation 
has gotten with $17 billion of water bond spending?
    Mr. Sutton. We haven't gotten 7 million acre-feet of new 
storage. We have gotten promises, and we are working to get 
across the finish line, trying to overcome challenges.
    Mr. McClintock. So, our generation has dropped the ball. 
Why is that? What is keeping us from doing what the last 
generation accomplished so effortlessly?
    Mr. Sutton. Regulatory hurdles.
    Mr. McClintock. So, we have done it to ourselves. We are 
not suffering because of acts of God. We are suffering because 
of acts of government. Is that a fair statement?
    Mr. Sutton. It is a very fair statement, Congressman. The 
Sites Reservoir Project has been on the books since the 1950s.
    Mr. McClintock. Mr. Bourdeau, would it be helpful to 
streamline the process for new dam construction, put the Bureau 
of Reclamation in charge of all Federal permitting agencies for 
an application, require the permitting process to run 
concurrently and not consecutively, and put a 2-year time limit 
on that process?
    Mr. Bourdeau. It would be tremendously helpful. It is 
unbelievable to me that we are able to build sports stadiums in 
record time. And though I like sports, I don't think they help 
society the same way water infrastructure would.
    Mr. McClintock. Mr. Chairman, by the way, my H.R. 186 would 
do exactly that. It passed the House when we last held the 
Majority. I would hope that we will get consideration of that 
measure before the summer.
    Mr. DeGroot, we keep hearing about agricultural water. I 
wonder, is there really such a thing? I understand that a 
cheeseburger, for example, requires about 700 gallons of water 
to grow the stuff in that cheeseburger, a pair of jeans about 
1,500 gallons of water. So, isn't this entire discussion one 
between abundance and scarcity, or prosperity and poverty for 
our children?
    Mr. DeGroot. The amount of water that is claimed to even 
grow one almond I believe is over 60 or 80 gallons, I have 
heard.
    Mr. McClintock. So, that is water that we use in our daily 
lives. That is the water that is necessary to produce the 
prosperity that we enjoyed and once took for granted in what 
was once a golden state.
    Mr. DeGroot. Yes.
    Mr. McClintock. We cannot do that anymore because when 
something is scarce, it becomes expensive. When it is 
plentiful, it is cheap. We are making water more and scarce, 
therefore more and more expensive. And we are just sabotaging 
the very prosperity that once brought our forebearers to this 
state, looking for a better future. Is that an adequate summary 
of what is taking place with these environmental laws?
    Mr. DeGroot. The environmental laws are keeping--just one 
example is our forestry. We are not taking care of our 
forestry. We are letting the trees get overrun. If we cut out 
half the trees----
    Mr. McClintock. That is a subject for a different day and a 
different subcommittee.
    Mr. DeGroot. Well, it kind of plays in mind, right? Water 
is staying up in those mountains, and for our valley here, a 
lot of our water comes through snowmelt, which comes here. Now 
if those trees are taking that water up and evaporating it, 
that is less water that we are getting in this direction again. 
So, it is just another environmental thing. That is not our 
choice. That is what has happened.
    If we took these gentlemen here to my right, and maybe 
asked if they could live off the smelt, maybe let them eat 
smelt and drink water only the rest of their lives, maybe they 
would look at the rest of their food that we are growing for 
them a little differently.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. McClintock.
    Mr. LaMalfa, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, and also Chairman 
Westerman, for allowing us to have this field hearing for the 
National Resources Committee. Thanks to our panelists. Thanks 
for all the audience showing up here today and being heard.
    Let me go to Mr. Phillips here. You have mentioned that 
there are a variety of projects in California that could be 
built. For example, we have many that are on the books that 
have been engineered or at least studied in the past, and the 
Auburn Dam, I think, has even come back into being mentioned, 
which is a significant amount of storage. So, what can be done 
to get the higher-ups in BOR, since you are representing BOR, 
in the conversation along with Friant? How can we get these 
folks upstairs to start agreeing with us on the need for water 
storage instead of the slow slog we are seeing with Sites 
Reservoir and every other project? Talking about the Dykstra 
family, late success in order to get 10 more feet added to a 
28,000 acre-feet, 20-plus years of jabbering about that.
    Mr. Phillips. Congress is going to have to just direct 
which projects are to be built and get them going because 
agency staff have figured out the formula to keep any project 
from ever getting built because the time to get the 
environmental permitting done is longer than any election 
cycle, so it is a never-ending loop. So, Congress just needs to 
say these are the projects you will build and here is the 
funding for it.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Do you notice there is a change in attitude 
depending on which political party is in power in the White 
House or maybe in the Governor's office?
    Mr. Phillips. I have been through a lot of different 
administrations. There is a change of attitude. And I have also 
noticed that a lot of the agency staff are the same.
    Mr. LaMalfa. They stay the same, yes. They outlast us. That 
is the counter-argument for term limits because the bureaucracy 
stays in place, and we are here and gone. I know it looks self-
serving for an elected to say, ``No term limits,'' but it is 
indeed very frustrating for us on this end. I am a farmer in my 
real life too.
    Mr. Fukuda, how much do we spend on high-cost rail here in 
California, you think?
    Mr. Fukuda. Wow, what a first committee testimony.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Fukuda. I don't know, but I am going to say too much. I 
lost track, in the billions. But I am going to tell you right 
now it is under water, right where we told them not to put it.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Literally.
    Mr. Fukuda. They asked a bunch of farmers where should you 
put it. Don't put it in the subsidence bowl. Where did they put 
it? In the subsidence bowl. At the end of the day, wake up and 
ask a farmer what you should do in the morning and you are 
going to get a straight answer. They didn't listen, and now 
they are dealing with the ramifications.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. I have taken a wild guess. It is hard to 
keep track but I think they have maybe spent around $20 billion 
for a project originally told to be $33 billion, and probably 
estimates are conservative at $120 billion. We hear, in our 
Committee, from some of our opponents that, ``Oh, this water 
storage is so expensive,'' and when you add the costs of the 
floods, just what we saw at the Dykstra Dairy here and the 
neighbors there, what they are going to get in crop losses and 
orchards being wiped out, the other damage you get from floods, 
to communities and just everything else, the flood value 
itself. And the water has value, of course, hydroelectric 
power. Me and Mr. Bentz share that Oregon border there, where 
they want to tear out four perfectly good hydroelectric dams. 
We want CO2-free power coming from either nuclear 
power plants or hydro, I guess, if we want to get rid of 
CO2. I remind you, CO2 is only--take this 
home--0.04 percent of our atmosphere. It is not the end of our 
world we have in CO2.
    So, water storage means good things. I am representing Lake 
Shasta and Lake Oroville up there, and Sites. We have an 
opportunity with raising Shasta, as was mentioned, 630,000 
acre-feet by just an 18-foot raise on an existing project. 
Sites Reservoir, which would be an easy project to build, Jeff 
Sutton's office is like 10 feet from it, practically, would be 
an easy build, 1.5 million acre-feet when full. That is 2.1 
million acre-feet for all Californians, whether it is 
environmental water or farm water, and it will all make 
hydroelectric power if allowed to. So, it is all plusses.
    And it even gives us the luxury on Lake Shasta of, they 
don't let the water out for agriculture in the spring anymore 
as much, because they want to keep the lake fuller, higher 
elevation, so the water at the bottom stays colder, so they can 
release that water off the bottom later in the fall so that the 
river will be 1 degree colder in temperature, thinking that is 
going to make all the difference in the amount of fish that 
might come up the Sacramento River. I tell you, since 1992, 
hundreds of thousands of new acre-feet have been flushed out 
through the delta. We now have less smelt, we have less salmon, 
and it is futile.
    I have a bill for you on that, and the House passed it, 
H.R. 1, to streamline a lot of this nonsense in getting 
projects done as well as forestry, as was mentioned. Forestry 
is very important for the water actually getting down the hill 
when you have the right amount of trees per acre. Mr. Westerman 
is going to hit that one out of the park probably in a minute--
as well as these great bills we have here.
    Calvert's bill, the FISH Act, why can't we have one-stop 
shopping for permits? It is just a constant spanking line of 
having to go through all these different lettered agencies to 
try to get anything done, because they know, as was said, it is 
a ballgame of trying to stop it.
    Anyway, I need to stop there, but I look forward to working 
with you folks. God bless you for hanging in there. Please 
don't give up on us. We have good ideas and we are going to 
push them through.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa.
    I recognize Mr. Duarte for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and David for having 
us all here today. Great work on this.
    So, California, I think Tom touched on this, 3 point 
trillion-dollar economy annually. Everyone name a favorite 
water project and what the outside number it might cost. 
Raising Shasta, Mr. Bourdeau?
    Mr. Bourdeau. Well, unfortunately it costs billions.
    Mr. Duarte. How many billions? $2 billion. OK.
    Mr. Sutton. And the Sites Reservoir, about $4 billion.
    Mr. Duarte. $4 billion. OK. We have $6 billion. Add it up.
    Mr. Bourdeau. Seaborn Reservoir, $23 million.
    Mr. Duarte. Whoa. OK. I need even billions here.
    Mr. White. [Inaudible] $800 million.
    Mr. Duarte. I think it is $80 million, isn't it? $800 
million? $800 million. OK. That is almost a billion.
    Mr. White. Temperance is $3 billion.
    Mr. Duarte. $3 billion. OK. We are under $10 billion. 
Thirty-six billion dollars would be 1 percent of California's 
GDP in 1 year. We are talking about gold-plated water 
infrastructure, water abundance for every Californian, for 
every industry, new housing dropping in cost because we no 
longer have water constraints to build homes. We are talking 
about every Californian having a rent or mortgage payment going 
down by $1,000 a year, for water infrastructure that would cost 
us one-third of 1 percent of California's annual GDP. That is 
the math.
    We are dealing with agencies. We have to call it out as it 
is. These are simply the Lords of Scarcity. They gain power 
over us by keeping us on the edge of privation. The working 
American family, the lowest 40 percent income of Americans is 
spending 25 percent of their annual income on food alone, yet 
we are taking probably God's greatest agricultural gift, we 
have the largest watershed in the world with the Sierra 
Nevadas, we have the largest precipitation bank in the world 
with the Pacific Ocean, we have the largest, most fertile 
valley in the world here in the Central Valley, and we have a 
Mediterranean climate. You can't talk about agriculture without 
seeing a map of the globe and where are all the Mediterranean 
climates, and it is little spicks and specks all over, except 
right here. We have the biggest Mediterranean climate in the 
world.
    Yet, the most prosperous nation, fifth in the world, if 
California was a nation, with the biggest innovation hub, San 
Francisco, Silicon Valley, Los Angeles, won't invest one-third 
of 1 percent of its annual GDP to create two or three 
generations of water infrastructure. Let's say one generation, 
no, two generations to catch up, plus leave it in place for the 
next generation, and they might have to think about it and 
revisit it then.
    We have to understand this for what it is. We have to be 
the champions of abundance and call out these agencies for 
being anti-human scarcity mongers. And there is really no happy 
way to put that. This is just mean. It is mean to working 
families. It is mean to hungry people. I mean, look at woke 
Moses, our governor. He goes to Florida and he wants to tell 
and stem the U-Haul tide. Well, I can tell woke Moses how to 
stem the U-Haul tide. Build the water infrastructure. Let 
California's economy and people thrive again. Feed the world. 
That is how we do it.
    So, this coming summer we need to make some hay here. When 
towns are flooding, let's remember this and make sure we get it 
out in the media. When food prices go up again this year, even 
as affordability is lost and the economy and the opportunity of 
better jobs kind of ebbs and flows--I see some folks over here, 
it looks like you belong to a group of working families, a 
labor group or something. I am happy to have you here because 
you are who we are fighting for. You are the ones that count 
Fridays. If you count Fridays, you are a working family. If you 
know how many Fridays are in the month, how many paychecks you 
are going to get, you are a working family, and you are getting 
pushed against the edge of privation right now.
    So, thank you gentlemen. Thank you for coming and giving 
your stories. They are all very credible. I am more accustomed 
to having the guys in the far end of the table down there, the 
ones that are not here today--we should name them because they 
deserve recognition. Martha Williams from the Fish and Wildlife 
Services is not here today. Now they are the ones that blocked 
the permit in Planada. When the Army Corps wanted to allow them 
to clean up the ditch that just flooded the same grammar 
schools, the same working families' homes in Planada twice in 5 
years, that was the Fish and Wildlife Service that blocked the 
Army Corps of Engineers permitting that. Jim Costa, my good 
friend down here, reached over in a Farm Bureau meeting the 
other day and said, ``Wait a minute. I got them money to clean 
that ditch and fix that levee 5 years ago when the school 
flooded 5 years ago.'' Well, Martha Williams is not here today 
to explain that to us.
    Rick Spinrad from NOAA is not here today to talk to us 
about how we haven't saved the salmon in 40 years of flows out 
to the delta, and how the smelt and the salmon are both still 
in decline, despite our depleted aquifers and economic duress 
here.
    Camille Touton from the Bureau of Reclamation is not here 
today to talk about their flood control plans for this coming 
summer, and what they intend to do, and how carefully they are 
all working together to make sure there is a flood control 
plan, an immediate dredging of our waterways, to make sure that 
we get the water out to the ocean without destroying our 
communities.
    And Charlton Bonham is not here from California Fish and 
Wildlife, to give us the build permits so we can build Sites 
Reservoir.
    So, let's not understand this for anything but what it is. 
These are the Lords of Scarcity pushing working families up 
against the edge of privation, right where they want you.
    Thank you. Thanks for coming today.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Duarte, and thank you, Mr. Costa, 
for being here, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for bringing 
the Subcommittee here to our valley, the valley that we love. 
And Mr. Chairman, it is good to have you back always.
    I have been involved in these issues, as has been noted, 
for a few years, even before I had this Arctic blonde hair you 
are looking at. And one thing that I think is true is that 
water in California has always been complicated and 
controversial, and some people want to reverse the order, 
controversial and complicated. It is both. And clearly 
everybody here in this hearing, I believe, views, as I do, food 
a national security issue, and we understand the critical 
importance of investing in our infrastructure, that it has 
allowed us to do what we have been able to in California--
invest in our infrastructure for decades, through generations.
    Having been involved in a whole host of issues back to my 
days when I chaired the Senate Ag and Water Committee in 
Sacramento to the last 18 years, we have had progress in areas 
with the Intertie that has moved hundreds of thousands of acre-
feet. We have had progress in getting RESET in 2014, Senator 
Feinstein and I, and others, on the Biological Opinions that 
need to be implemented now. And I appreciate some of the 
testimony to that point, and that President Trump signed in 
2019 in the authorization.
    But the fact of the matter is, it is hard. All of this is 
hard. I mean, you add up the additional water supply that we 
need and raising San Luis Reservoir, building Sites, Los 
Vaqueros, Del Puerto, and all of that would add up to a 
significant amount of water, over 2 million acre-feet of water. 
And if we had that today, we would be in a much better 
position.
    We also need to look at improving our water corridors, and 
I am glad that that was mentioned earlier about the efforts on 
the canal bills for the Friant-Kern Canal, that we are 
currently rehabbing, the Delta-Mendota Canal, and the 
California Aqueduct.
    Let me get to a couple of questions here because I think 
that we have a consensus that we need to fix our broken water 
system. We need to create sustainability that we don't have 
today. And currently, I told the Ag Committee hearing that we 
had 2 weeks ago, we had extreme droughts and for 3 years we 
have prayed, and we have prayed, and we have prayed for more 
rain and snow in the mountains. And in the last 3 months, man, 
I guess we prayed too well because we certainly have gotten the 
rain and the snow that we needed. But now we don't have the 
capability of handling this, with the extreme droughts and the 
extreme weather conditions.
    Mr. Phillips, you talked about the lack of coordination 
with the different groups, and you have worked very hard with 
others here on the Blueprint. Can you give a quick description, 
because I want to ask some other questions, on the water 
Blueprint for fixing our broken water system here in the 
valley?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. The Blueprint is 
a coalition of water agency representatives, and farm 
representatives, and community representatives with one mission 
in mind, and that is unifying behind what the San Joaquin 
Valley needs to have all the water to avoid having to rely on 
groundwater overdraft.
    Mr. Costa. Quickly, can the Federal Government play a role 
with the additional funding that we have provided recently here 
to advancing these projects identified in the Blueprint?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Costa. And you are working with the Eastside, Westside 
folks to figure out where we can put that funding to the best 
use?
    Mr. Phillips. And that is critically important, yes.
    Mr. Costa. Mr. White, you have talked about the Los Banos 
Detention Dam in your testimony, and you talked about other 
efforts. What is the status of the project, and how long is it 
going to be to fulfill the goal of getting the most out of 
this?
    Mr. White. Yes. Los Banos Creek Detention Dam is currently 
going through the closing of the environmental process and we 
will be in construction next year, Congressman.
    Mr. Costa. Mr. Bourdeau, you talked about the efforts that 
Westlands is undergoing on recharge goals and a host of other 
areas. Can you highlight on how much Westlands alone, along 
with many of the other water districts that are focusing on 
water recharge, and now we have water to recharge, how we can 
best do that?
    Mr. Bourdeau. Well, we are putting incentives in place to 
try to get as much water into the ground as possible. I think 
currently we are putting 1,000 acre-feet a day into the ground, 
and we are trying to find innovative ways to get caught up, 
because there is a lot of water, and I do think our goal is to 
try to either farm with it or recharge the aquifer.
    Mr. Costa. Well, it is a real opportunity, not just water 
districts but farmers as well.
    Mr. Bourdeau. And there is on-farm recharge. We are 
allowing that, so it is happening as we speak.
    Mr. Costa. And the waiver, the 215 areas with the permit 
process allows us to go forward on that, and we need to take 
advantage of the opportunity while they are here now.
    Mr. Chairman, my time has run out but I want to thank you, 
and I will submit the other questions that I have. Mr. Fukuda, 
I am glad you talked about the Seaborn project that we want to 
get over the finish line. A lot of work to do, and your purpose 
here--thank you--highlights our efforts with the community that 
we have to work together. It is complicated, it is 
controversial, and food is a national security issue that we 
all, I think, engender and we care about.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Costa.
    With that, I now recognize Mr. Valadao for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start 
with Mr. Sutton. How long as the Sites project been, I guess, 
in the process of where it is at now?
    Mr. Sutton. It was first contemplated back in the 1950s, 
but with the Delta Reform Act in 2009, a state bill, we formed 
the Sites Joint Power Authority in 2010, the Prop 1 was passed 
in 2014, and since that time, efforts have really ramped up. 
But I think the real work probably started in 2010, to make 
this project a reality.
    Mr. Valadao. When do you think you will actually break 
ground?
    Mr. Sutton. It is a loaded question. It depends on the 
outcome of a couple of processes. One, the State Water Resource 
Control Board, we need to get our water rights.
    Mr. Valadao. Do you believe we will break ground?
    Mr. Sutton. I am an optimist, so I am going to say yes. But 
it was 2024, and we have pushed that date to 2025. And I want 
to mention, because this goes to the FISH Act as well, one 
other challenge is we did a biological opinion in 2019, but now 
because of change of winds, not change of circumstance, we are 
doing a new one, and now we can't get our biological 
consultation done because of that effort, so that is one of our 
real challenges as we sit here today, as well.
    Mr. Valadao. So, you still do not have an exact date of 
when you think you will break ground. Do you actually think it 
might be within the next 10 years?
    Mr. Sutton. Yes, or I am going to start throwing chairs.
    Mr. Valadao. That is fair.
    Mr. Bourdeau, how many acres, how many farms had to fallow 
over the past few years?
    Mr. Bourdeau. Oh, I would say the majority of farms in 
Westlands had to have at least some fallow ground. The farm 
that I farm, we were, I don't know, 60, 70 percent fallow.
    Mr. Valadao. 60 to 70 percent. Do you think that was a 
pretty consistent number across the valley, or across 
Westlands?
    Mr. Bourdeau. In Westlands, yes. There was a very high 
number of fallow grounds.
    Mr. Valadao. Yes, so about two-thirds. How many 
communities, cities, actually get water from the same place 
that those farmers out on Westside?
    Mr. Bourdeau. Well, there are several communities on the 
west side of the San Joaquin Valley that rely on surface water. 
Coalinga is one of them. They don't have groundwater to fall 
back on, so they are completely reliant on surface water, and 
they nearly ran out of water this year, last year.
    Mr. Valadao. So, you have communities like Coalinga, 
Avenal, Huron, Kettleman, all these different communities are 
relying on the exact same water. So, when we hear people in the 
news or people in the media saying things about this being a 
farmers versus fish thing, it is people who live here in the 
Valley.
    Mr. Bourdeau. As a former city council member in Coalinga I 
intimately understand the details, and we cut back. I mean, 
last drought we made people fallow their front yards and really 
dramatically reduce the amount. And the Bureau of Reclamation 
punished us by giving us a percentage of what we actually 
saved. So, it was like, OK, you saved this much water, we are 
going to give you a reduced percentage of that. And on top of 
that, when you run a water treatment facility, you have to sell 
water. You have to have highly sophisticated people to make 
sure you meet these water quality standards. You can't do that 
if you are not selling water.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Thank you.
    Mr. Fukuda, I understand Tulare County will account for 
about 25 percent of all the fallowing that will take place in 
California as a result of the implementation of SGMA. Has DWR 
been understanding of the recent floods impacting groundwater 
sustainability plans that continue to be denied by the state? 
Are there any extensions of those planned deadlines being 
offered on account of massive rain events?
    Mr. Fukuda. No. It does not seem to be that there is any 
recognition of any ongoing issues in our area, nor at the state 
Water Resources Control Board, which is where we find ourselves 
now as inadequate. So, I would say I don't think there is a 
recognition of that.
    Mr. Valadao. I guess this is probably a little bit more 
broad of a question. I don't know who would best answer this. 
But something I have heard a lot, and today out at Dykstra's 
you can really see it as we were driving along near some of 
those canals. You would see a lot of brush, a lot of trees, a 
lot of fallen debris stuck in the trees in these rivers and 
creeks, impeding the amount of water that was supposed to be 
flowing, causing a lot of the flood damage that we are 
experiencing. And, obviously, it is going to cost us a lot of 
money. One, it is going to cost the farmers, and hopefully the 
Federal Government will play a role in helping to remedy that.
    Why does it take so long to clean up some of those? Why 
aren't some of these local farmers given the ability to clean 
up some of these things in their own backyards when they are 
making the effort, they are applying for the permits, they are 
applying for the processes to allow them to do that? Who would 
be best to answer that, and what agencies do we point fingers 
at on this one?
    Mr. Fukuda. I will take a stab at it, but to get into these 
natural streams, which you called it, we call them rivers or 
creeks or streams, you have to get in for your Corps permits, 
to get in and access those. So, sometimes you get stuck in that 
process in getting the permits to do your maintenance. So, it 
is not one which a farmer can often get in there and make that 
happen. You have to have an agency. The agency will make those 
requests, and sometimes those take time and/or they don't get 
authorized.
    Mr. Valadao. What agencies are we looking at?
    Mr. Fukuda. Army Corps of Engineers is the lead one. Jeff, 
in your area it might----
    Mr. Sutton. No, I was agreeing with everything you were 
saying. I was just going to add, also, the mitigation 
associated with that work can be incredibly expensive.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, my time has expired so thank 
you, Chairman.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Valadao, and I recognize Chair 
Westerman for 5 minutes.
    I am sorry. Mr. DeGroot, please go ahead.
    Mr. DeGroot. I am sorry. I would add to that list, Fish and 
Game also has a lot to do with it, because we have a lot of 
trees that are dead, ready to fall over in our creeks, but they 
are not allowed to do anything to them because there might be a 
hawk or a bird or something in that area.
    Mr. White. Congressman, it is also just a huge maze of you 
have Fish and Wildlife Service, you have Fish and Game, you 
have the Corps of Engineers, and everybody kind of points at 
each other also. So, if you are a private individual wanting to 
get a permit, it is a maze to go through, as well.
    Mr. Bentz. Does anybody else want to weigh in? No?
    OK, then Chair Westerman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, and thank you to 
all of the witnesses today for your testimony. It has been very 
informative. I have just one thing to add on to what we were 
just talking about, and I think it was Representative LaMalfa 
mentioned we passed H.R. 1 last week, and part of that was to 
have one Federal decision, which is very similar to Mr. 
Calvert's bill, where you don't have competing interests with 
Federal agencies, and nobody takes initiative because nobody 
knows who is in charge. So, I think that could really help.
    This morning when we were out at Friant and Mr. Phillips 
was telling us about he had maps there showing where dams could 
be built, where dams could be raised, where a lot more 
infrastructure could be built. He talked about all the water 
that is coming down the streams now, how much snowmelt there 
is. It is evident that California produces enough water. The 
problem is the infrastructure to store it and the operation of 
that infrastructure. It has often been said that you could put 
my mother in a racecar and she is still going to drive at about 
55 miles an hour at top end. And as I look at the massive 
infrastructure that is here now, and Mr. Phillips, I think you 
alluded to it this morning, it is an operational issue. You 
could be doing so much better with the infrastructure that you 
have if you didn't have all the impediments to operation. And 
that is not caused by laws that Congress passed. It is by 
administrative actions that are happening.
    But there is also opportunity in the need for more 
infrastructure. So, I am going to kind of put you all on the 
spot and go down the line and ask the question, is it more 
infrastructure or operations or is it a combination of the two? 
And if you want to take just a brief minute to explain your 
answer that will be fine too.
    Mr. Phillips?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes. In the near term, it is operations. The 
last congressional action, in 1992, CVPIA was the last time 
Congress weighed in on environmental requirements. There have 
been about a half dozen times after that, that government 
agency employees have imposed further requirements than CVPIA--
--
    Mr. Westerman. You are saying operations. I am going to 
have to move quickly here. Mr. White, operations or 
infrastructure?
    Mr. White. I would say it is equal, operations and 
infrastructure. I have no doubt that if we built new 
infrastructure that there would be some procedures to stop you 
from using it.
    Mr. Westerman. You are getting into my next question. If we 
build the new infrastructure, if you get the racecar, is it 
still going to be an operational issue?
    Mr. White. Yes.
    Mr. Westerman. All right.
    Mr. Sutton. I say it is both. I want to highlight that most 
of, in the Sac Valley, along the Sac River where most of this 
water comes from, all of our projects in our generation have 
been environmental projects--fish screens, removing other 
things. We want to solve problems. But during these droughts, 
the environment is suffering as well. If we could raise these 
reservoirs, we can benefit our communities, and our farms, and 
the environment. All this work and investment, and the fish 
numbers are still declining.
    Mr. Westerman. So, it is operations.
    Mr. Bourdeau. I would say it is a combination of both, but 
in the immediate near term we need to focus on recharge and 
streamlining that process and getting as much of this water 
into the ground. So, when it is dry, because it will be dry 
again, we will be able to manage through it because we are not 
going to be able to build infrastructure, big, large 
infrastructure projects in the short term, which I think we 
need to continue to invest in and make sure it happens. But we 
need to focus on taking advantage of the opportunities we have 
right now.
    Mr. Fukuda. I feel we need to get with the operations 
because you can't get to the infrastructure. You can't even get 
into your racecar. Are you wearing the right pants? Are you 
wearing the right shoes? Do you have the flame retardant on? 
So, we need to get the operations out of the way, but we do 
need to focus on the infrastructure, because you need the tools 
once you get into the race. You are going to need to fix the 
car. You are going to need the extra gas tank. So, we are going 
to need that stuff.
    Mr. DeGroot. And for me, area specific, if you get into the 
hills we can be building dams there. If you get into the valley 
where our local farms are, we need that infrastructure. We need 
a few more canals to transport water to those drier areas.
    Another piece of it, though, is personnel. On a year like 
this, all the districts are just slammed. They cannot get 
ahead. There are channels that are empty right now. There is 
nobody to open them up. There is nobody to monitor them once 
they are full.
    Mr. Westerman. Sorry to cut you off but I want to move on 
pretty quickly here. It appears that the immediate thing that 
could be done to make the situation better is operations, but 
there is definitely need for long-term infrastructure. So, we 
are focusing on California water today, but within the next 
month or two, I will be over in Colorado and we will be 
conducting a similar hearing to this.
    You might know that today the Biden administration put out 
a plan on the Colorado system and said that they need to cut 
2.1 million acre-feet from the Colorado River and didn't say 
who needed to cut, either Southern California or Colorado.
    So, as a Member from Arkansas chairing this Committee, when 
I go to Colorado and they say, ``You know, California wastes 
their water. We are not generating any more water here. We 
shouldn't be sending more Colorado River water to California.'' 
How do we counter that argument?
    Mr. Bourdeau. I would say it in reverse. We have an 
opportunity to quit letting so much water go out to the ocean. 
We have senior water rights to Colorado so we can solve our 
problem in California, and it will free up more water for 
Colorado. We all need to work together. We need Colorado 
Senators to support us.
    Mr. Westerman. And Colorado Senators are the ones wanting 
to have the hearing in Colorado as well. So, I know that is a 
very contentious issue, but it is hard to justify all the 
releases in California.
    Mr. Bourdeau. We are not trying to justify them. They are 
wrong.
    Mr. Westerman. I know I am preaching to the choir here, but 
there is so much more we could talk about, forest management, 
which could add a tremendous amount of additional water without 
having to even build reservoirs. But I am out of time and I 
will yield back to Mr. Bentz.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will recognize 
myself for 5 minutes.
    I took the time over the last couple of weeks in 
anticipation of this hearing to actually read the L.A. Times, 
and I hate to admit it in front of this group. But wonder of 
wonders, some of the people writing editorials actually agreed 
that there should be more water stored. I almost fell out of my 
chair when I read it.
    But the question is, how does this group right here build 
on that public opinion change? I am on the Judiciary Committee. 
We had dinner the other day with Newt Gingrich, and he was 
talking about if you are going to effect change, you better 
have public opinion with you.
    So, I would ask the panel, and I want a short answer from 
each, and we will go right down the list, how do you think this 
group right here can help effect public opinion in a way that 
actually moves the needle? I do not want a real long answer, so 
keep it short, please.
    Mr. Phillips. We need to call out every time when there is 
an operational waste, like we saw in the last year, every time 
there is a regulatory operational waste.
    Mr. Bentz. And how would you call that out?
    Mr. Phillips. Like we did with those who remember the first 
flush, which was the regulatory requirement that says when we 
get our first storm of the year, for 2 weeks we have to not 
pump it, not store it. We have to let it go out to the ocean. 
And that is not based on any specific Act of Congress.
    Mr. Bentz. Mr. White?
    Mr. White. Yes. Redevelop or refresh the vision of what 
California is and why agriculture and the environment----
    Mr. Bentz. How?
    Mr. White. Well, through developing that vision.
    Mr. Bentz. I know, but through social media? Through the 
L.A. Times? How.
    Mr. White. All of the above.
    Mr. Sutton. Yes, we are the fifth-biggest economy in the 
world in California, farms, our communities, and our 
environments suffering. We are hearing from all the people that 
we have to do this. Sites Reservoir has 23 partners from every 
corner of the state, Southern California to Redding, and I have 
a waiting list. People say, ``Oh, it is too important.'' I have 
a waiting list that want in. And as this project gets closer, 
that waiting list is going to grow. We need to build more 
reservoirs.
    Mr. Bentz. OK, but again I am hearing a lot of statements 
of what you should do. What I want to know is how you get the 
word out and how you change public opinion.
    Mr. Sutton. I think public opinion sees it. I mean, what is 
happening now and what we went through the last 3 years, if 
that doesn't highlight it, people are screaming for it. We just 
have to give them what they are asking for.
    Mr. Bentz. Mr. Bourdeau?
    Mr. Bourdeau. I think we need funding. I was part of an 
effort to start a local digital news organization, and I have 
reporters reporting on the facts in the news every day. And I 
think we all need to try to educate people on the importance of 
agriculture and farming. I think people used to grow up on a 
farm or live near a farm, and they understood the complexity 
and the challenges that were associated with it, and they have 
lost touch with that. And we all have to communicate, because 
it is a wonderful story that we all have, and we just need to 
make sure everybody understands it.
    Mr. Bentz. And you will tell everybody how to join your 
messages.
    Mr. Bourdeau. Yes. The San Joaquin Valley Sun.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    Mr. Bourdeau. Most people in here probably already read it.
    Mr. Fukuda. I would say that I agree with everybody here in 
getting the word out through social media and the other 
avenues. But I think there are some projects out there and they 
are low-hanging fruit. Selfishly, I think we have one, where 
this Committee can use it as a flagship for funding, where it 
is called multi-benefit. We hit the environment. We hit the 
agriculture. We hit the disadvantaged communities. And we 
target those projects where the communities benefit at all 
levels and use that as a good funding stream.
    Mr. Bentz. Mr. DeGroot?
    Mr. DeGroot. I have no idea. If we can talk with these 
gentlemen here on my left, if we can ask them to work with us, 
have them tell us, how do they expect California to work? Is it 
going to be to take all the water with no farming? If there is 
no revenue for California, California will die and move out. 
What is their solution?
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. Just an interesting thought. I was 
astounded when we went to the Friant project this morning and I 
saw 9,000 CFS flowing out through the pipes below the dam. And 
it struck me that we should--and I have been doing this back in 
DC, calling out the value per acre-foot of that water in San 
Diego, where they pay $3,800 per acre-foot for desalinated 
water, $3,800 per acre-foot. There are 17,800 acre-feet a day 
flowing through those pipes below the dam. If you take that 
times $3,800, it is $64 million a day, if you value that water 
as they do in San Diego.
    So, it seems to me that there are all kinds of 
opportunities if we can get the proper word out, and what we 
should be debating is how best to do it. Because I think we 
have all been saying the same thing for the last almost 2 
hours. I just thing we need to get the message out.
    With that, my 5 minutes is up, and I am going to turn this 
over for a few final words to Mr. Valadao.
    Mr. Valadao. Well, I guess this is getting close to the 
end. First, I want to thank all my colleagues for being here. I 
know two of you traveled a long distance, and four of you share 
the same areas I do so you are very familiar with this, but the 
opportunity to have this here.
    The reason why this is important is a lot of the time this 
goes on in Washington. The room that we have these in is a lot 
smaller with a lot less people. Sometimes we have folks like 
these travel all the way across the country to testify, but the 
ability for us to do it here, with all of you here to see for 
yourselves, this is kind of the process we go through. We have 
more steps to go.
    And I know the Chairman, both Chairmen here, will be 
bringing up water bills in the next few months. So, we will 
have more debates on this, and the hope is that we bring them 
to the House Floor, move them off the House Floor, and see what 
we can get from our Senators.
    But this is part of the process. It is a slow process. It 
is not fun and it is not exciting, but at the end of the day 
the process has to play out because people need to be involved, 
have the opportunity to be engaged in this process, and have 
their voices be heard, and give you the opportunity to give us 
feedback as this process moves forward.
    But this type of legislating is very important, and as you 
can see, it is way, way beyond due. I mean, we need to get 
these things done 30 years ago, much less yesterday. But it is 
a frustrating thing. But the fact that they are taking the time 
to come here, see the Valley, spend some time here, learn from 
folks is something that I really appreciate, and I know a lot 
of folks here really appreciate because this is how we get that 
message back to Washington.
    One other organization that was mentioned but wasn't 
addressed, Self-Help Enterprises. Tami, who is sitting up here 
in front, is one of my friends that I work with quite a bit 
over the years. When we run out of water on farms, obviously we 
have our calls we make sometimes to fallow fields. But when a 
community runs out of water, there is only one person you call, 
and it is Self-Help Enterprises. They have about 2,000 
communities right now, or cities or individuals, who are 
actually, when they run out of water or a well goes bad they 
come in, they install tanks, and they truck water out there, 
and they keep water going to homes. So, thank you for what you 
guys do.
    [Applause.]
    Mr. Valadao. And to the folks who took the time to be here, 
I am glad you didn't have to travel all the way to Washington 
for this, but you could have gotten some sightseeing in. But we 
got to do the sightseeing today. I appreciate you taking the 
time to be here and the preparation for this.
    Aside from that, thank you, Chairman Bentz, for the 
opportunity and for your time as well.

    Mr. Bentz. Before we adjourn, there are forms on the table 
back there for additional public comment. I want to thank all 
of you for being such a great audience, and we are adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                        Statement for the Record
                   National Marine Fisheries Service
            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                        on H.R. 215 and H.R. 872

    The West Coast Region of NOAA Fisheries (West Coast Region) is 
responsible for the stewardship of our nation's living marine resources 
and their habitats off the coasts and in the watersheds of Washington, 
Oregon, California, and Idaho. These responsibilities cover 317,690 
square miles of the eastern Pacific Ocean's California Current 
Ecosystem, and over 7,000 miles of tidal coastline, as well as the 
ecological functions within the states' vast rivers and estuaries.
    Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on December 28, 
1973, recognizing that the natural heritage of the United States was of 
``aesthetic, ecological, educational, recreational, and scientific 
value to our Nation and its people.'' It was understood that, without 
protection, many of our nation's living resources would become extinct. 
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 vested jurisdiction over certain 
species with the Department of Commerce based on Reorganization Plan 
No. 4 from 1970. As such, NOAA Fisheries has exercised jurisdiction 
over Pacific salmonids since the early 1970s. Under the ESA, our 
responsibilities include helping federal agencies ensure their actions 
do not jeopardize species or adversely modify critical habitat, 
reviewing species' status to determine if listing is warranted, 
developing protective regulations to conserve listed species, 
designating critical habitat to protect the ecosystems upon which the 
species depend, and developing and implementing recovery plans. These 
recovery plans serve as a roadmap to bring threatened and endangered 
species to the point where ESA protections are no longer needed.
    The life cycle of Pacific salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus sp.) 
spans freshwater streams and rivers, coastal estuaries, and the great 
expanse of the California Current ocean ecosystem. The complex life 
cycle and broad geographic range expose Pacific salmon and steelhead to 
a diversity of threats. Many Pacific salmon and steelhead stocks have 
declined substantially from their historic numbers and are now at a 
fraction of their historical abundance. These declines collectively led 
to NOAA Fisheries' listing of 28 Pacific salmon and steelhead stocks in 
California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington under the ESA beginning in 
1989. Primary listing and recovery responsibilities for Pacific salmon 
and steelhead belong to NOAA Fisheries. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, other federal and state agencies, and tribal governments also 
play important roles in recovery.
    Pacific salmon are of profound importance to healthy ecosystems, 
cultures, and economies, making their recovery a priority for the West 
Coast Region and the agency as a whole. NOAA Fisheries has made great 
progress in recent years and completed high-quality recovery plans for 
every ESA listed Pacific salmon and steelhead species in California. 
Recovering Pacific salmon and steelhead populations will take decades 
to achieve, but should ultimately provide long-term economic stability, 
allow the United States to honor its commitment to tribal reserved 
fishing rights, and afford maximum regulatory flexibility. NOAA 
Fisheries remains committed to investing in Pacific salmon and 
steelhead recovery in a way that addresses all threats to the species 
in order to ensure our progress toward recovery remains on track.
    The management priorities of the West Coast Region are to maximize 
productivity and sustainability of fisheries and fishing communities 
through effective fisheries management, and to recover and conserve 
protected species and their habitats. The responsibility of the West 
Coast Region, and the agency, to protect, conserve, and recover the 
Pacific's threatened and endangered anadromous and marine species is 
found in our authorities including the ESA, the Magnuson Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Fish and Wildlife 
Coordination Act, the Federal Power Act, and the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act. Scientists at our Northwest and Southwest Fisheries 
Science Centers contribute to species recovery through research, 
monitoring, and analysis. These scientists provide NOAA Fisheries 
managers and regional stakeholders with the tools and information they 
need to craft and implement effective regulations and develop 
sustainable plans for recovery. Research supporting species' 
restoration and recovery includes studies of distribution and 
abundance, metapopulation dynamics and viability analysis, population 
genetics, life history tactics and strategies, spatial ecology, wild/
hatchery interactions, and ocean and estuarine ecology.
    NOAA Fisheries works with key federal, state, and tribal partners 
as well as public organizations, non-profit groups, and others in 
California's Central Valley to form strong partnerships to recover 
listed Pacific salmonid species. Efforts include restoring habitat, 
leading reintroduction programs, utilizing conservation hatchery 
programs, conducting science and research to closely monitor the 
populations, and carefully managing scarce cold water. A few key 
partnership programs include the Sacramento River Science Partnership, 
the Northern California Water Association's Sacramento Valley Salmon 
Recovery Program, the Interagency Ecological Program, the San Joaquin 
River Restoration Program and the Collaborative Science and Adaptive 
Management Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In addition, 
NOAA's Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund program has a long history 
of successful, targeted, on-the-ground habitat restoration projects 
that support Pacific salmon and steelhead populations that are listed 
as threatened or endangered, or identified by a State as at-risk to be 
so-listed, for maintaining populations necessary for exercise of tribal 
treaty fishing rights or native subsistence fishing, and for the 
conservation of Pacific coastal salmon and steelhead habitat.
    With regard to H.R. 215, the WATER for California Act focuses on 
actions related to implementation of Central Valley Project (CVP) and 
State Water Project (SWP) water operations pursuant to the 2019 NOAA 
Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) biological opinions 
(the ``2019 biological opinions''). The bill also addresses federal 
water allocations, infrastructure projects, and Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act restoration actions. The 2019 biological opinions were 
reinitiated in October 2021 at the request of the Bureau of Reclamation 
and in response to Executive Order (EO) 13990, Protecting Public Health 
and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. 
In March 2022, the Eastern District of California remanded the 2019 
biological opinions, without vacatur, and ongoing operations are 
currently governed by court order. Section 104 of H.R. 215 introduces 
confusion on the status of the reinitiation of the 2019 biological 
opinions because such reinitiation is already underway as a result of 
EO 13990. H.R. 215 would introduce new statutory process requirements 
that could cause significant delays for completion of new biological 
opinions and could introduce regulatory uncertainty for federal water 
contractors until new biological opinions are completed. Operations are 
likely to be governed by court-orders until the completion of new 
biological opinions and issuance of the associated Record of Decision 
by the Bureau of Reclamation.
    H.R. 872, the Federally Integrated Species Health (FISH) Act, would 
move authority to protect endangered or threatened anadromous species 
from NOAA Fisheries to the FWS. For over 30 years, NOAA Fisheries has 
built close relationships with stakeholders to work with the regulated 
public, community, and interest groups to manage, conserve and protect 
anadromous species and their habitats in inland, coastal, and offshore 
waters. NOAA Fisheries partners with public and private universities to 
develop science critical to the recovery and management of anadromous 
fish and their habitats. By sharing jurisdiction under the ESA, NOAA 
Fisheries and FWS each have opportunities to develop creative solutions 
that advance the conservation of ESA-listed species (e.g., salmonid 
4(d) rules). NOAA Fisheries has significant scientific expertise 
regarding anadromous fish. Transferring authority to the FWS would 
reduce opportunities for NOAA Fisheries to continue to develop creative 
solutions that advance the conservation of ESA listed species, and may 
mean delayed protections and conservation. The transfer of authority of 
this scale will significantly delay the processing of environmental 
compliance requirements creating uncertainty to business, industry and 
military readiness, and increased legal vulnerability to litigation. 
NOAA Fisheries is responsible for many integrated and coordinated 
efforts on behalf of ESA-listed anadromous species. Some of those 
authorities include the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Federal Power Act, 
Pacific Salmon Treaty Act, the Mitchell Act (Columbia River 
hatcheries), the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, Fish and 
Wildlife Coordination Act, tribal treaty rights and related cases such 
as U.S. v. Washington and U.S. v. Oregon the long running tribal treaty 
fishing rights case. Transferring authority would disrupt the 
integrated nature of these authorities and contribute to inefficiencies 
in their coordinated implementation.
    The Administration is not seeking a reorganization of 
responsibilities under the ESA. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 
NOAA Fisheries collaborate closely on implementing the ESA, and each 
agency brings valuable experience and expertise to bear in management 
of different types of fish species. The Department of Commerce looks 
forward to working within the Administration and with the Committee to 
ensure that federally listed fish species are managed as effectively, 
responsibly, and efficiently as possible under the ESA.

                                 ______
                                 

                        Statement for the Record
                         Bureau of Reclamation
                    U.S. Department of the Interior
               on H.R. 215, the WATER for California Act
                             April 11, 2023

    The Department of the Interior (Department), through the Bureau of 
Reclamation (Reclamation), appreciates the opportunity to provide this 
statement for the record on H.R. 215, the Working to Advance Tangible 
and Effective Reforms for California Act or the WATER for California 
Act.

Background

    The federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water 
Project (SWP) together provide water for over 25 million Californians, 
millions of acres of some of the most productive farmland in the world, 
and 19 federal, State of California (State), and local wildlife refuges 
along the Pacific Flyway. The projects reduce the risks of catastrophic 
flooding, protect and restore habitat for many rare and unique species, 
supplement local water supplies for communities, produce significant 
low carbon hydroelectric power, backstop water quality in the 
Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta (Delta), and support important 
commercial and recreational fisheries.
    Over the last decade, the State and much of the West have endured 
recurring periods of drought, as well as environmental stressors that 
have negatively impacted fish and other sensitive species in the Delta. 
While this year has seen repeated atmospheric rivers and significant 
precipitation, drought conditions over the last three years have been 
exceptional, with record-high temperatures and record-low levels of 
snowpack and precipitation such that a single wet year does not 
compensate for the compounded impacts of several years of severe 
drought. These alternating cycles of drought and flood have affected 
the Delta and the State's water supply as a whole and are expected to 
become the new normal over the coming decades.
    The Department and Reclamation are committed to working with our 
partners to address drought resiliency, water supply reliability, 
climate change adaptation, and ecosystem health. We will continue to 
seek creative solutions to stretch water supplies to meet the broadest 
possible range of needs.

H.R. 215, WATER for California Act

    The Department and Reclamation recognize that H.R. 215 seeks to 
improve the drought resiliency, operational stability, and 
infrastructure needs of the CVP. While we share these goals, for the 
reasons discussed below, we believe H.R. 215 presents several 
significant challenges that could jeopardize the operational and 
financial stability of the CVP.

Title I

    Title I of H.R. 215 provides congressional direction that the CVP 
and the SWP be operated in accordance with the 2019 Preferred 
Alternative as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on 
the Reinitiation of Consultation on the Coordinated Long-Term Operation 
of the CVP and the SWP (LTO), issued by Reclamation and dated December 
2019, related to the 2019 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Biological Opinions.
    On February 20, 2020, the California Attorney General's Office 
filed a complaint against the federal government on behalf of the 
California Natural Resources Agency, California Environmental 
Protection Agency, and the People of the State of California. The 
complaint challenges the 2019 Biological Opinions issued by the FWS and 
NMFS regarding proposed operations of the CVP and SWP under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Following that action, in March 2020, the 
California Natural Resources Agency issued an Incidental Take Permit 
(ITP) pursuant to State law with operational requirements on the SWP 
that differed with those found in the 2019 Biological Opinions.
    State and federal agencies are currently engaged in reconsultation 
on long-term project operations. Title I of H.R. 215 would 
legislatively restrict this ongoing reconsultation and prescribe 
conditions under which the federal and State resource agencies may 
engage in reconsultation under the ESA. We believe these restrictions 
on consultations would set a negative precedent and hamper the 
Department's completion of this new biological opinion. This creates 
uncertainty that will further complicate the operations of the CVP and 
SWP, adding additional barriers and reducing operational stability.
    In order to operate complex water infrastructure pursuant to the 
State's water rights permitting system and operational considerations, 
close coordination with the State is essential to managing water 
supplies for all of our communities, farms, refuges, and species in the 
Central Valley, the Delta, and the greater San Francisco Bay Area. 
Inconsistency between the regulatory documents used by the two entities 
responsible for operating co-located and co-permitted projects 
significantly complicates delivery of water and power.
    In order to support a stay in the aforementioned litigation of the 
2019 Biological Opinions and the Record of Decision (ROD) implementing 
the 2019 Biological Opinions, Reclamation committed to the State to 
reinitiate consultation, and did so on September 30, 2021.
    For the reinitiated consultation on the Long-Term Operation of the 
CVP and SWP, Reclamation is following a transparent, participatory, and 
science-driven process for the development of alternatives and an 
analysis of environmental impacts. This process has included public 
scoping under NEPA; soliciting knowledge-based papers for relevant 
datasets, literature, and models; performing initial alternatives 
formulation to inform a proposed action; and coordinating pursuant to 
Section 4004 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation 
(WIIN) Act (Public Law 114-322) through quarterly stakeholder meetings, 
monthly interested party meetings, monthly modeling discussions, and 
targeted issue-specific discussions.
    These collaborative approaches are necessary for advancing CVP-SWP 
operations, serving project stakeholders, assuring environmental 
compliance, providing required updates to the Bay-Delta Water Quality 
Control Plan, and effectively planning for new water infrastructure 
coming online, among other considerations.

Title II

    Title II of H.R. 215 directs the Department to ``make every 
reasonable effort'' in the operation of the CVP to allocate water 
provided for irrigation purposes to each existing CVP agricultural 
water service and repayment contractor within the Sacramento River 
Watershed. The language is subject to hydrologic conditions, the 
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title XXXIV of Public Law 102-
575) (CVPIA) commitments to wetlands, and obligations under the 2019 
Biological Opinions.
    Title II seeks to legislatively mandate specific water allocations 
to groups of CVP contractors. The CVP and SWP are authorized to meet 
multiple purposes including flood control and navigation; water supply; 
fish and wildlife mitigation, protection, and restoration and 
enhancement; and power generation. Operation of the CVP and SWP also 
provides recreation and water quality benefits. Reclamation operates 
the project and makes water allocation decisions consistent with 
federal law and the State's water rights priority system to best 
balance these competing demands for water, including water quality and 
flow requirements, agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses of 
water, fish and wildlife needs, and power contractor considerations.
    The legislative mandates included within Title II would restrict 
Reclamation's flexibility to most appropriately allocate water supplies 
based on the existing conditions of particular divisions of the CVP, 
which often differ.

Title III

    Title III of H.R. 215 would deem the Shasta Reservoir Enlargement 
Project to be eligible for funding under the Water Storage and 
Conveyance funding provided under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
(Public Law 117-58) (BIL). It would further require Reclamation to 
develop and submit to Congress a water deficit report to identify 
projected water supply shortages within the State and evaluate 
infrastructure projects that would assist in the reduction of water 
supply shortages.
    Title III would require an additional semi-annual report to 
Congress on the activities carried out under conservation hatchery 
programs established under paragraph (1) of Section 4010(b)(5) of the 
WIIN Act. The Department is concerned about the requirement for semi-
annual reports and would appreciate the opportunity to work with 
Congress on a more efficient reporting cycle.
    Title III would also re-authorize Section 4007 of the WIIN Act, 
which expired on January 1, 2021, until January 1, 2028 with the aim of 
allowing additional projects to be considered further for WIIN-related 
funding. It would further allow for funding provided under several 
previous appropriations bills to be made available to the Shasta Dam 
and Reservoir Enlargement Project, subject to the availability of 
funding, and limit the consideration of applicable State law that was 
enacted with specific applicability to the Shasta project.
    Shasta Dam and Reservoir is the largest reservoir in California, 
and sits at the top of the water system, serving as the cornerstone of 
the CVP and the coordinated operation with the SWP. It is an 
indispensable asset to the State's water security. Over the years, 
proposals to raise Shasta Dam have been studied extensively, with the 
most recent proposal evaluating an 18.5-foot expansion. This proposed 
expansion would inundate an additional 2,500 acres, requiring the 
acquisition of approximately 100 parcels of non-federal land, mostly in 
the community of Lakehead. Congress passed legislation in each of 
fiscal years 2021-2023 that had the effect of prohibiting the use of 
current year funding to support the raise of Shasta Dam. Reclamation 
has acted in accordance with that Congressional directive.
    The Department supports a comprehensive approach to furthering the 
climate resiliency of our water infrastructure. It seeks to do so in 
partnership with states and local communities. We are resolved to 
invest in projects to increase surface and groundwater storage, new 
water sources such as desalination and water recycling programs, along 
with water conservation measures to increase the efficiency of water 
deliveries. Reclamation's consistent and timely allocation of funding 
enacted pursuant to the WIIN Act, the BIL, and other sources 
illustrates this commitment to surface and groundwater storage. 
However, the Department does not support amending Section 40902(a)(2) 
of the BIL to include additional purposes.

Title IV

    Congress enacted the CVPIA in 1992 in an effort to address long-
standing concerns about the CVP's impact on fish and wildlife. Section 
3407(a) of the CVPIA established the CVP Restoration Fund for 
collections from water and power customers based on specific provisions 
within the CVPIA, and for donations from any sources. Reclamation uses 
appropriations from funds other than the CVP Restoration Fund to carry 
out the purposes of the CVPIA. Historically, approximately 40% of the 
CVPIA funding provides refuge water supplies; 50% funds activities for 
supporting Central Valley anadromous fish (including FWS staff); and 
the remaining 10% funds terrestrial habitat restoration, the San 
Joaquin River Restoration Program, and certain Trinity River 
Restoration Program activities.
    Under CVPIA section 3407(d)(2), the Secretary of the Interior must 
determine whether the fish, wildlife, and habitat mitigation and 
restoration activities in section 3406 funded, in part by these 
payments, are complete. The determination is significant because if the 
restoration activities are deemed complete, the Secretary must reduce 
the sums collected from water and power contractors that fund CVPIA 
restoration activities.
    Title IV of H.R. 215 would require Reclamation to complete the 
refuge water supply program within two years, which may not be 
technically feasible, and deem complete the fish, wildlife, and habitat 
mitigation and restoration actions mandated under Section 3406 of the 
CVPIA. Title IV, if it were to become law, would impair the restoration 
program's ability to meet the intended purposes to support the ongoing 
fish and wildlife protection and restoration purposes as expressed in 
CVPIA Sections 3402(a) and (b), and/or require additional otherwise 
unfunded appropriations from Congress to meet the same restoration 
program needs. Such a time limitation would also preclude the necessary 
Departmental collaboration and decision-making necessary for fish and 
wildlife restoration decisions. The CVPIA gives Reclamation and the FWS 
the tools necessary to restore the fish and wildlife resources of the 
Trinity River and the Central Valley. The mandates in Title IV are not 
consistent with the Department's commitment to the protection of the 
fish, wildlife, and habitat affected by CVP operations, and by 
impairing implementation of these programs, could compromise our 
ability to maximize water reliability and water deliveries from the 
CVP.
Conclusion

    The Department and Reclamation agree that additional operational 
flexibility for the CVP is necessary. Reclamation is committed to 
incorporating the best available science into our decisions on the 
operation of the CVP for all of its authorized purposes--for river 
regulation, improvement of navigation, and flood control; irrigation 
and domestic uses; fish and wildlife mitigation, protection, and 
restoration; power generation; and fish and wildlife enhancement.
    However, Reclamation must operate the CVP within a complex 
environment that serves multiple parties and interests. H.R. 215 would 
reduce the ability of State and federal agencies to balance these 
interests. H.R. 215 would mandate Reclamation to act without full 
consideration of possible negative outcomes, complicate CVP-SWP 
operations, and prioritize a few authorized purposes above other 
authorized purposes and statutory obligations of the CVP, such as fish 
and wildlife mitigation. As such, the Department cannot support H.R. 
215.

                                 ______
                                 
                        Statement for the Record
                    U.S. Department of the Interior
  on H.R. 872, the ``Federally Integrated Species Health (FISH) Act''
                             April 11, 2023

    The Administration appreciates the opportunity to submit this 
statement for the record on H.R. 872, the ``Federally Integrated 
Species Health (FISH) Act.'' Executive branch agencies prioritize 
science and being thorough and transparent as we fulfill our statutory 
responsibilities. Multiple agencies work collaboratively with each 
other, state and local governments, Tribes, and stakeholders to carry 
out these responsibilities effectively. A key component of this work is 
administering and enforcing an array of environmental laws enacted by 
the Congress, including the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). This 
year marks the 50th anniversary of the ESA, a bedrock conservation law 
that plays a pivotal role in preventing the extinction of imperiled 
species, facilitating recovery of fish, wildlife, and plants, and 
helping to conserve the habitats on which they depend. The 
Administration is committed to effective and efficient implementation 
of the ESA and our responsibilities under it.
    Under the ESA, the Departments of the Interior and Commerce are 
tasked with joint implementation of the ESA, per President Nixon's 
Reorganization Plan Number 4 of 1970. President Nixon's plan created 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the 
Department of Commerce, by transferring existing authorities of other 
agencies to the newly formed NOAA. The reorganization, which Congress 
endorsed, included transfer of the then-existing authorities of the 
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and marine 
sport fish program of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife with 
subsequent elimination of those bureaus and programs. Following 
implementation of the reorganization plan, the ESA provides authority 
to the Department of Commerce to manage all federally listed fish 
species that live or spend the majority of their lives in marine 
waters, including most anadromous fish. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service manages any remaining federally listed fish species.
    H.R. 872, the FISH Act, would transfer all functions related to 
management of federally listed anadromous and catadromous species from 
the Department of Commerce to the Department of the Interior. 
Anadromous fish are those that spend most of their lives in marine 
waters but spawn upstream in fresh or estuarine waters. These include 
species of salmon, smelt, and sturgeon. Currently, an estimated 43 
anadromous fish species or populations are federally listed under 
National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction. Catadromous fish are 
those that spend most of their lives in fresh or estuarine water but 
spawn in the ocean. These primarily include eels. Catadromous fish are 
currently under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, so 
H.R. 872 would not affect management responsibility for those species. 
Currently, there are no federally listed catadromous fish species.
    The Administration is not seeking a reorganization of 
responsibilities under the ESA. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 
National Marine Fisheries Service collaborate closely on implementing 
the ESA, and each agency brings valuable experience and expertise to 
bear in management of different types of fish species. The Department 
of the Interior looks forward to working within the Administration and 
with the Committee to ensure that federally listed fish species are 
managed as effectively, responsibly, and efficiently as possible under 
the ESA.
                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

   Defenders of Wildlife * Friends of the River * Golden State Salmon

    Association * Natural Resources Defense Council * Pacific Coast

       Federation of Fisherman's Associations * Restore the Delta

        * Sierra Club * The Bay Institute * Winnemem Wintu Tribe

                                                 April 24, 2023    

Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chair
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Opposition to H.R. 215 (Valadao)

    Dear Chair Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

    On behalf of the undersigned organizations and our millions of 
members and supporters, we write to express our opposition to H.R. 215 
by Rep. Valadao (R-CA). H.R. 215 violates and preempts state law, 
undermines critical protections for salmon and other fish and wildlife 
that Native American Tribes and thousands of fishing jobs depend on, 
and reignites divisions over water rights and environmental and public 
health protections to benefit certain water users at the expense of 
others. For these reasons and those outlined below, we urge you to 
oppose H.R. 215.
    First, H.R. 215 overrides state law in order to authorize and 
appropriate funding for the enlargement of Shasta Dam. This project 
would harm Native American Tribes, salmon fishermen, and the 
environment, as well as violate state law. The Bureau of Reclamation 
has admitted that this project would destroy sacred sites of the 
Winnemem Wintu Tribe. State and federal agencies, including the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, have concluded that the project would harm 
native fish and wildlife, including native salmon runs that thousands 
of fishing jobs on the West Coast depend on. The State of California 
has repeatedly opposed this project, including lawsuits by the Attorney 
General of the State of California.
    Second, H.R. 215 overrides the Endangered Species Act and 
reinstates the Trump administration's blatantly unlawful biological 
opinions, which threatens West Coast salmon fisheries. Those biological 
opinions were issued and their requirements deficient as the result of 
political interference, and the federal courts have remanded the 
biological opinions as a result of litigation by the State of 
California and conservation and fishing groups. The salmon fishery in 
California and most of Oregon has been completely closed this year, 
resulting in thousands of lost jobs, and the science is clear that the 
next biological opinions must strengthen protections for Central Valley 
salmon. Instead, H.R. 215 would reinstate and lock in the Trump 
administration's unlawful biological opinions for 7 years, setting a 
dangerous legal precedent that threatens the future of California 
wildlife that are already experiencing a precipitous decline. The bill 
also appears to preempt state law with respect to operations of the 
State Water Project. And despite the fact that H.R. 215 proposes to 
lock these biological opinions into place, the day after Rep. Valadao 
introduced H.R. 215 he demanded that the Biden administration violate 
these same biological opinions in order to increase water pumping, 
demonstrating the bad faith inherent in H.R. 215.
    Third, H.R. 215 irresponsibly prioritizes taxpayer subsidies for 
antiquated, economically inefficient and environmentally destructive 
surface water storage projects. These provisions ignore hundreds of 
millions of dollars appropriated for water storage projects in the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and override the Act's eligibility and 
funding requirements.
    Finally, H.R. 215 threatens wildlife refuges, migratory birds, and 
salmon by threatening restoration funding required by the 1992 Central 
Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). H.R. 215 deems the CVPIA 
``complete,'' despite the Department of the Interior's failure to meet 
the CVPIA's requirements for water deliveries to wildlife refuges, 
which would harm what is left of California's inland wetland refuges 
and threaten populations of waterfowl and shorebirds that migrate north 
each year. Similarly, the CVPIA's salmon doubling goal has not been 
achieved, as salmon populations have further declined in recent years 
in part due to unsustainable water diversions.
    H.R. 215 threatens Native American Tribes and the thousands of 
fishing jobs and communities in California and Oregon that depend on 
healthy salmon runs from California's Bay-Delta. The closure of the 
salmon fishery in 2008 and 2009 resulted in thousands of lost jobs in 
these states, and the West Coast is facing that devastating reality 
once again in 2023. The livelihoods of commercial and recreational 
salmon fishermen, Delta farmers, fishing guides, tackle shops, and 
communities across California and along the West Coast depend on the 
environmental protections that H.R. 215 would eliminate.
    For all of these reasons and more, we urge you to oppose H.R. 215. 
Thank you for your consideration.

            Sincerely,

        Ashley Overhouse              Doug Obegi
        Defenders of Wildlife         Natural Resources Defense Council

        Glen Spain                    Barbara Barrigan-Parilla
        Pacific Coast Federation of 
        Fishermen's Associations      Restore the Delta

        Scott Artis                   Gary Bobker
        Golden State Salmon 
        Association                   The Bay Institute

        Jann Dorman                   Erin Woolley
        Friends of the River          Sierra Club California

        Caleen Sisk
        Winnemem Wintu Tribe

                                 ______
                                 

   Defenders of Wildlife * Friends of the River * Golden State Salmon

    Association * Natural Resources Defense Council * Pacific Coast

       Federation of Fisherman's Associations * Restore the Delta

        * Sierra Club * The Bay Institute * Winnemem Wintu Tribe

                                                 April 24, 2023    

Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chair
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Opposition to H.R. 872 (Calvert)

    Dear Chair Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

    On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we are writing to 
oppose H.R. 872 by Rep. Calvert. This legislation would undermine the 
coordinated management of salmon and other anadromous species, 
threatening Native American Tribes and thousands of fishing jobs that 
depend on healthy salmon runs.
    Under existing law, the National Marine Fisheries Service 
(``NMFS'') manages ocean fisheries for salmon as well as protecting 
salmon species listed under the Endangered Species Act throughout their 
range. As a result, NMFS acts as a steward for these species in both 
freshwater and the ocean, using its extensive scientific expertise 
regarding salmon and other anadromous species. NMFS plays a key role in 
working with international, Tribal, and state governments to manage 
salmon fisheries across the West Coast and ensure Endangered Species 
Act requirements are met.
    H.R. 872 proposes to transfer Endangered Species Act authority over 
salmon and other anadromous species from NMFS to the Secretary of the 
Interior. This would fragment management of imperiled salmon species, 
undermining coordinated management of these species--and of the 
thousands of fishing jobs that depend on their health. In addition to 
lacking NMFS' scientific expertise regarding the management of salmon, 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a significant backlog of species 
proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act, and the Service 
lacks adequate staffing and resources to fulfill all of its obligations 
under the Endangered Species Act. H.R. 872 would further exacerbate 
those funding challenges.
    Because this bill would undermine the coordinated management of 
salmon, we urge you to oppose H.R. 872.

            Sincerely,

        Doug Obegi                    Ashley Overhouse
        Natural Resources Defense 
        Council                       Defenders of Wildlife

        Glen Spain                    Barbara Barrigan-Parilla
        Pacific Coast Federation of 
        Fishermen's Associations      Restore the Delta

        Scott Artis                   Gary Bobker
        Golden State Salmon 
        Association                   The Bay Institute

        Jann Dorman                   Erin Woolley
        Friends of the River          Sierra Club California

        Caleen Sisk
        Winnemem Wintu Tribe

                                 ______
                                 

                           Audubon California

                                                 April 25, 2023    

Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chair
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chair Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

    On behalf of Audubon California, I write to oppose H.R. 215, 
submitted by Representative Valadao (CA-22). H.R. 215 undermines state 
law and prolongs old water conflicts in California when we should be 
focused on finding collaborative solutions that improve our state's 
resilience to drought while protecting people, wildlife, and our 
economy. Therefore, I urge you to oppose H.R. 215.
    Audubon California represents over 118,000 members and 48 
affiliated chapters in the state and works with a broad range of 
partners and stakeholders that includes landowners, farmers, ranchers, 
and community-based organizations. Together, we develop solutions to 
protect birds and the resources they need while supporting thriving 
communities. Audubon California works throughout the state with a 
special focus on the habitats birds need most because bird populations 
have been in significant decline for decades, with many species being 
pushed closer to extinction due to habitat loss, drought, and climate 
change.
    In the Central Valley, California has already lost more than 90 
percent of its wetlands, resulting in steep population declines for 
many species of waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wetland-dependent 
birds. This bill would unfairly reduce payments into the Central Valley 
Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Restoration Fund by falsely deeming it 
to be ``complete.'' Doing so would significantly hinder federal and 
state efforts to maintain necessary habitat and water supplies for 
endangered fish and vulnerable bird species on the Pacific Flyway. By 
undermining important conservation efforts, H.R. 215 sets the table for 
more conflicts and litigation over California's water management when 
we should be focused on finding lasting solutions. Therefore, I urge 
you to oppose H.R. 215.
    H.R. 215 also overrides state law to authorize and appropriate 
funding for the enlargement of Shasta Dam, which would harm sacred 
sites of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, as well as native fish and wildlife 
populations and economic activities associated with the fisheries. 
Audubon California joins the State of California in opposing raising 
Shasta Dam. H.R. 215 perpetuates and compounds on injustices 
perpetrated on the Winnemem Wintu Tribe and many other Indigenous 
People in California who have already lost access to so many sacred 
sites and important cultural resources like salmon. As Members of 
Congress, you have an opportunity to continue this cycle of injustice 
or to break it. I urge you to consider the Tribe's position and oppose 
H.R. 215.
    Finally, H.R. 215 would override the Endangered Species Act and 
reinstate former biological opinions that were issued by the previous 
Administration and found inadequate in federal court. Doing so not only 
circumvents sound science, the will of the State of California, and the 
findings of the court, it would also negatively impact the already 
suffering West Coast salmon fisheries in California and Oregon, which 
support thousands of jobs and other economic activities.
    Overall, H.R. 215 would impose short-sighted water policies that 
will harm California's rich biodiversity, tribes, and communities. The 
bill rejects sound science while California's species, communities, and 
future generations pay the price. For the birds and communities we 
represent throughout California, I urge you to oppose H.R. 215.

            Sincerely,

                                                Mike Lynes,
                                          Director of Public Policy

                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Calvert

            Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)

                                                  April 5, 2023    

Hon. Ken Calvert
U.S. House of Representatives
2205 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: ACWA SUPPORT FOR H.R. 872

    Dear Congressman Calvert:

    The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) is pleased to 
support the Federally Integrated Species Health (FISH) Act, H.R. 872, 
and urges its passage this Congress. ACWA represents more than 460 
public water agencies that together supply over 90 percent of the water 
delivered in California for residential, agricultural, and industrial 
uses.

    The FISH Act would vest all Endangered Species Act authorities for 
managing fish species solely within the Department of Interior and 
eliminate duplicative federal oversight. Under current law, both the 
Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of Interior and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service in the Department of Commerce can 
issue biological opinions for the same species of fish or conduct 
separate consultation processes under ESA. As you are aware, the 
consequences of this duplicative authority have been especially acute 
in California's Bay-Delta. Consolidating ESA authority at the 
Department of Interior would improve management of California's water 
supply.

    ACWA appreciates your leadership on this issue. If ACWA can be of 
any assistance, please feel free to contact the DC office at 
[email protected].

            Sincerely,

                                            David Reynolds,
                                      Director of Federal Relations

                                 ______
                                 

         The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

                        Los Angeles, California

                                                  April 5, 2023    

Hon. Ken Calvert
U.S. House of Representatives
2205 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: H.R. 872, the Federally Integrated Species Health Act--SUPPORT

    Dear Representative Calvert:

    The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 
(Metropolitan) is pleased to support H.R. 872, the Federally Integrated 
Species Health Act, or FISH Act, and appreciates your leadership on 
this issue. Metropolitan is a regional wholesaler that provides water 
for 26 member agencies to deliver--either directly or through their 
sub-agencies--to nearly 19 million people living in Los Angeles, 
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura counties.

    As you know two federal agencies, the Department of Interior's Fish 
and Wildlife Service and the Department of Commerce's National Marine 
Fisheries Service, have jurisdiction over anadromous species. This can 
result in redundant and at times conflicting requirements for 
environmental habitat management as species travel between freshwater 
and marine ecosystems. These management conflicts do not arise for 
species that spend their life in only one aquatic ecosystem. The FISH 
Act consolidates management of anadromous species into the Department 
of Interior. California's water delivery system would benefit from this 
change by having a single federal agency responsible for anadromous 
species management.

    Metropolitan recommends this bill move forward in conjunction with 
an effort to ensure that the Fish and Wildlife Service has the 
necessary resources and funding to take on these new management 
responsibilities. Your leadership and role on the Appropriations 
Committee will be critical to making this transition successful and I 
look forward to working with you on this.

    Thank you for your work on the FISH Act; I hope it will move 
forward this Congress. Please feel free to contact Abby Schneider, our 
Executive Legislative Representative ([email protected]), if 
Metropolitan can be of any assistance in advancing this legislation.

            Sincerely,

                                           Adel Hagekhalil,
                                                    General Manager

                                 ______
                                 

            Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water)

                          San Jose, California

                                                 April 10, 2023    

Hon. Ken Calvert
U.S. House of Representatives
2205 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Notice of Support--Federally Integrated Species Health (FISH) Act 
        (H.R. 872)

    Dear Congressman Calvert:

    I am writing to inform you that the Santa Clara Valley Water 
District (Valley Water) Board of Directors has taken a position of 
support on your bill, the FISH Act (H.R. 872).

    Valley Water is pleased to support this bill that would amend the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) to vest within the Department of the 
Interior the responsibilities under the ESA of managing certain species 
of fish that are currently managed under other agencies. As Silicon 
Valley's primary water agency, our duties include providing flood 
protection and environmental stewardship for Santa Clara County's more 
than 800 miles of creeks and streams, and ensuring a clean, healthy, 
and reliable water supply for our county's nearly two million 
residents. We appreciate that this bill would consolidate management of 
certain fish species under one agency, reducing bureaucratic barriers 
that hinder effective implementation of the ESA for these species.

    Thank you for introducing this important bill. If there is any way 
Valley Water may be of assistance in the bill's passage, please do not 
hesitate to contact me.

            Sincerely,

                                                Marta Lugo,
                             Assistant Officer for External Affairs

                                 ______
                                 

               UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (UWCD)

                               Oxnard, CA

                                                  April 6, 2023    

Hon. Ken Calvert
U.S. House of Representatives
2205 Rayburn
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 872, the Federally Integrated Species Health 
        (FISH) Act

    Dear Mr. Calvert:

    We write to give our appreciation and strongest possible support 
for H.R. 872, which you introduced earlier this congress.

    We believe that by consolidating the management and regulation of 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, all stakeholders affected by the ESA will benefit from a 
unified approach to managing threatened and endangered species. H.R. 
872 will reduce conflicting and often irreconcilable agency directives, 
providing better understanding and policy alignment for all involved.

    Too often, the conflicting directives that water districts like 
ours receive from regulatory agencies cause litigation, paralysis and 
costly delays. By reducing, and hopefully eliminating, incompatible 
biological directives taken by competing resource agencies, those of us 
charged with protecting, preserving, managing and enhancing the 
endangered species who inhabit our regional waters can take actions to 
protect ESA listed species. We will be in a vastly superior position to 
fulfill our preservation mandate, which can only benefit the regional 
ecosystem.

    As many have pointed out, H.R. 872 is an important step in reducing 
wasted time and money while maintaining sound and responsible resource 
management decisions. We applaud your legislation as it represents a 
practical, common-sense approach to enhancing protections for ESA 
listed species. Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the 
federal government's approach to species protection through better 
decision-making is a goal that we should all strive for. Ultimately, we 
are confident that this legislation would only serve to positively 
benefit species.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

            Respectfully,

                                         Mauricio Guardado,
                                                    General Manager

                                 [all]