[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 102 (Wednesday, June 24, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E970-E973]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           CALIFORNIA DROUGHT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOHN GARAMENDI

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 23, 2015

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, we need to think in a comprehensive way 
about water in California. The controversial California Water Fix, 
formerly known as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), is an 
outdated and destructive plumbing system. It does not create any new 
water nor does it provide the water and the ecological protection that 
the Golden State must have. California and the federal government must 
set aside this big, expensive, destructive plumbing plan and 
immediately move forward with a comprehensive approach that includes:
  1) Conservation,
  2) Recycling,
  3) The creation of new storage systems,
  4) Fix the Delta--right sized conveyance, levee improvements, and 
habitat restoration,
  5) Science driven process,
  6) Protection of existing water rights.
  This combination of projects constitutes a comprehensive water plan 
for the state.
  Through a comprehensive plan that brings all stakeholders to the 
table, California can solve its water needs, and it can avoid the 
continuous water wars that have long divided our state. Unfortunately, 
California is once again embroiled in a bitter water war brought about 
by the California Water Fix (BDCP), the most recent attempt to fix 
California's water supply. After more than five years of study and over 
$200,000,000 spent on consultants, the process has become bogged down 
and turned into another battle pitting north vs. south, water exporters 
vs. environmentalists, and senior water right holders vs. new comers. A 
classic California water brawl is in full bloom.
  The governor's water plan for California is to take water out of the 
Sacramento River just south of Sacramento and put it into two tunnels 
each 40 miles long, 40 feet in diameter and with a potential capacity 
of moving 15,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). While the current 
proposal is set up to move 9000 cfs, the twin tunnels have a much 
larger capacity therefore setting the system up for future expansion. 
Pumping would also continue directly from the southern Delta at the 
Tracy pumps. The system will be able to deliver up to 5.3 million acre 
feet of water to the pumps in Tracy and then on to the San Joaquin 
Valley farmers and Los Angeles.
  So what is wrong with the Water Fix (BDCP)? It is not a water plan 
for California. It does not create one gallon of new water. It does not 
solve the long term needs of the state. With a minimum estimated 
construction and operating cost over 50 years of $24.5 billion, it is 
an extraordinarily expensive plumbing system dressed up with a coating 
of habitat restoration. The plan simply takes water from one region and 
delivers it to another while tearing up acres of prime agricultural 
farm land in the process. All of this while stoking the fire of 
divisiveness over water that has plagued our state for years.
  A quick look at the water flow in the Sacramento River over the last 
two decades shows that approximately six months out of the year there 
is somewhere between 15 and 20 thousand cubic feet per second (cfs) of 
water flowing in the Sacramento River. This proposal has the potential 
to suck the river dry and destroy the largest delta estuary on the west 
coast of the Western Hemisphere. Critical habitat for dozens of fish 
species like salmon, striped bass, and sturgeon would be threatened. 
These fish and the water they live in are crucial for jobs, agriculture 
and fishing businesses, and the region's economy.
  We should never build a water system that has such destructive 
potential. It is never safe to assume that ecological concerns will 
trump greed and thirst. We should keep in mind that in 2012 the U.S. 
House of Representatives voted on H.R. 1837, the euphemistically titled 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Reliability Act. The bill passed by a 
vote of 246 to 175 and swept away all environmental protections for the 
Delta while stealing 800,000 acre feet of water from the aquatic 
environment. Luckily, the legislation was derailed in the U.S. Senate, 
but H.R. 1837 in one form or another is likely to return in future 
legislative battles.
  California must move beyond a patched plumbing system. We need to 
think about what California really needs, and what it needs is a 
comprehensive water plan. Big changes are coming that threaten our 
water supply and our economy. A short list of these challenges include: 
climate change and related weather events, population growth, world 
food supplies, and earthquakes.
  Climate change is real and its effect on California will be 
significant. The Colorado River Basin is in a prolonged drought, and 
likely to be much drier in the future. Based on today's water flows, 
the water in the Colorado River is oversubscribed by a third and 
projections indicate less water in the future. This is a big, big 
problem for the seven states that rely on the river, and especially for 
Southern California.
  The Sierra Nevada Mountains, the Central Valley, and the coastal 
ranges will also be drastically impacted by climate change. We know 
that the timing of the precipitation is going to change and the snow is 
already melting earlier. As a result, the snowpack is moving up the 
mountains and while it may be deeper at the higher altitudes, the 
amount of land it covers is greatly reduced. It's the lower snowpack 
that has the greatest volumes of water and if that continues to recede, 
we will have less and less water. The 2009 ``California Water Plan,'' 
published by the California Department of Water Resources, estimates 
that the snowpack will decrease 25-40 percent by 2050. We must also 
anticipate more severe storms and flooding. All of this means the 
natural and man-made storage systems will hold less water. Putting the 
denial of scientific facts aside, California has to deal with the 
reality of climate change and its water policy implications.
  We know California's population will continue to grow and therefore, 
the demand for water will increase. We know the world will be very 
hungry in the future, and we know that the role of agriculture in 
California is going to be exceedingly important. California agriculture 
not only fills our own desire for diverse and nutritious foods, but it 
will also continue to meet basic food needs for people around the world 
and will continue to serve as an essential component of our nation's 
economy.
  We know the Delta is in serious trouble. The fish species are 
threatened with extinction and a total collapse of the estuary 
ecosystem is possible if the current water pumping program continues. 
Rising sea levels and deferred maintenance threaten the Delta levees 
which protect nearly 500,000 people, thousands of acres of valuable 
farm land, and miles of critical highways, gas and water transmission 
lines, and water delivery channels. Major upgrades are needed.
  For these reasons, California must take off its blinders and expand 
its scope when thinking about ways to manage its water supply. It must 
be a holistic approach that is applied to every project that will 
impact the water needs of all Californians.
  To achieve this comprehensive approach, here are six specific actions 
to provide a foundation for California's water future. If California 
does all of these, we will create new water supplies and better use the 
resources we already have:
  1) Conservation,
  2) Recycling,
  3) The creation of new storage systems,
  4) Fix the Delta--right sized conveyance, levee improvements, and 
habitat restoration,
  5) Science driven process,
  6) Protection of existing water rights
  The quickest and cheapest source of new water is to stretch our 
current supplies by conserving what we have. Californians have been at 
this for years in our cities, in our industries, on the farm, and in 
our homes. We have engaged in serious water conservation, yet more can 
and should be done everywhere.
  There are many conservation strategies. One conservation strategy is 
to use devices that measure the moisture in the soil to provide real 
time monitoring of the exact amount of water needed for ideal growing 
conditions. These devices are connected to a computer that 
automatically turns on just the right amount of water. These systems 
are in use and conserve at least ten percent with a financial payback 
in less than one year. If they were deployed widely perhaps at least 1 
percent of the 30 million acre feet of water consumed by agriculture 
could be saved each year (300,000 acre feet).
  All of us are going to do a lot more water conservation, not just the 
agriculture community. The water conservation mandate set by the state 
is a 20 percent reduction per capita by 2020 which equals 1,600,000 
acre feet. In a very real way conservation can create new water that 
was not previously available for use. To be on the conservative side, 
let us assume that just one quarter of the State's goal could be 
obtained in the next decade, thereby adding 400,000 acre feet of new 
water to our supplies each year.
  Can you name the fifth biggest river on the west coast of the Western 
Hemisphere? It's the water that flows out of the sanitation plants in 
Southern California and is dumped into the Pacific Ocean.
  Why would any sane government take water from the Sacramento River, 
pump it 500 miles south, lift it 5,000 feet in the air, clean it, use 
it once, clean it to a higher standard than the day it arrives in 
Southern California, then dump it in the ocean? California does just 
this as it discharges over 3.5 million acre feet of water to the ocean 
each year, much of which could be reused.
  We need to think seriously about recycling, not just in Southern 
California, but everywhere. The State of California currently recycles 
approximately 650,000 acre feet of water

[[Page E971]]

each year and has set a water recycling goal of 1.5 million acre feet 
of new water in California by 2020, and 2.5 million acre feet by 2030. 
While achievable, WateReuse California estimates this goal cannot be 
achieved without State regulatory changes to expand the types of 
recycling available that rely on existing technologies.
  Another option is desalination of the ocean. This is feasible and 
used extensively throughout the world, however it is not a viable 
option for all communities. It costs about 40 percent more to 
desalinate sea water than to recycle water using current technology. 
However, technological advances are being pursued for both recycling 
and desalination that could lower the costs of both.
  In the next ten years, conservation and recycling in California can 
create approximately 2.2 million acre feet of new water to use each 
year, and that can increase to 3.2 million acre feet in twenty years. 
This is new water that is not available today because it is wasted or 
pumped out to sea. It can be developed at a reasonable cost when 
compared to all other alternatives that might be out there. 
Conservation and recycling are steps one and two in a comprehensive 
water program for California.
  Water storage south of the Delta is possible and necessary. The 
capacity of the great Delta pumps near Tracy is 15,000 cubic feet per 
second. They are designed to meet maximum demand south of the Delta. 
They do not operate year round, only when there is sufficient water in 
the Delta, when threatened fish are not near the pumps, and when there 
is agricultural and urban demand south of the Tracy pumps. There is 
very limited water storage capacity south of the Delta. We must build 
more. San Luis and Los Vaqueros reservoirs could be expanded. New dams 
could be built at Los Banos Grandes, Temperance Flats, and numerous 
smaller off stream sites throughout the San Joaquin Valley. There are 
extensive and numerous aquifers throughout the San Joaquin Valley that 
may prove suitable to store additional water that would be used in a 
conjunctive water management system. With these water storage 
facilities in place and a smaller cross Delta facility operating year 
round, the need for havoc causing, excessive pumping in the Delta could 
be avoided.
  When coupled with recycling, the underground aquifers in Southern 
California are another key to our water future. The underground 
aquifers of the Santa Ana River in Orange County, the San Fernando 
Basin, Chino Basin, San Bernardino, San Gabriel Basin, and others have 
a combined capacity larger than Shasta Reservoir, the largest man made 
reservoir in the state. Today, some recycled water is put into the 
underground water basins to be stored for those inevitably dry years. 
When needed, it is pumped out, used, cleaned and returned to storage. 
On a larger scale this recycling system could create as much as 2.5 
million acre feet of new water, and thereby reduce the need for 
shifting Colorado River supplies and imports from the Sacramento River.
  Surface and underground storage should be used in a conjunctive water 
management program. Use the rivers when there is lots of water and use 
the reservoirs when there is little. Another way to describe this 
strategy is ``big gulp'' and ``little sips.'' When there are low flows 
in the Delta the system would take a little sip. When there is 
excessive water in the Delta, the system would take a big gulp, but 
there must be some place to put that water when the big gulp is taken. 
Therefore, the surface and sub-surface reservoirs south of the Delta 
become an essential element in a California water plan.
  Water storage north of the Delta is also important, and three 
proposals are on the books today. An off stream reservoir at Sites, 
located west of Williams, has great promise for storage and for 
creating greater flexibility in managing the Sacramento River for 
salmon runs, water demand, and Delta outflow. This reservoir can 
deliver 500,000 acre feet of annual yield and the additional 
flexibility that it offers can under some scenarios save another 
500,000 acre feet of water that would otherwise be released into the 
river systems. Raising Shasta Dam is also possible, as is better 
conjunctive management of the many aquifers in the Sacramento Valley. 
State and federal agencies have already commenced studies for these 
projects. A quick completion of these studies is essential.
  The current plan for the California Water Fix (BDCP) is a dual use 
facility with the main focus on the twin tunnels with a capacity of 
15,000 cubic feet per second, and the continued use of the Delta 
channels for moving water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers to 
the Tracy pumps. This dual use system adds another layer of risk to the 
eco-system and agricultural economy of the Delta with the potential for 
the massive tunnels to suck the Delta dry from the north and from the 
south with the thirsty pumps. In scale, the cost and destructive 
potential of this project will rival the Three Gorges Dam on the 
Yangtze River in China. The twin tunnel proposal is a large scale, 
destructive project that does not create one gallon of new water for a 
thirsty California.
  The location of the intakes for the twin tunnels is in the heart of 
the rich farm lands of the northern Delta, near the small community of 
Courtland. Thousands of acres of valuable farmland essential to 
California agriculture production will be destroyed during construction 
of the project, and, following completion, a vast industrial zone of 
pumping stations, fish screens, reservoirs, and electrical stations 
will impede on one of California's great agricultural regions. Along 
the forty mile route of the twin tunnels the construction process will 
produce a total of 22 million cubic yards of tunnel muck. This 
combination of soil and conditioning agents will have to be stored and 
managed and the latest draft of the plan calls for storage areas along 
the tunnel ranging in size from 100 to 570 acres. The amount of muck 
extracted would be enough to cover 100 football fields to a height of 
roughly 100 feet, and in the end will destroy close to 1600 acres of 
farm land while disrupting domestic and agricultural water wells.
  Go forward carefully; start small; use science to evaluate each step; 
then proceed to the next step. Remember the Delta is a unique and 
precious environmental asset. We must take care of it. A narrowly 
focused plumbing system like the California Water Fix/BDCP will not 
achieve progress in creating a water supply sufficient for California's 
future. We must pursue a holistic, comprehensive approach that will 
achieve a bigger bang for our buck.
  First, reduce demand on the Delta with steps one, two and three: 
water conservation, recycling, and strategic use of storage facilities. 
Use the ``Big Gulp, Little Sip'' pumping strategy. Move forward with 
the flood plain and fresh and saltwater marsh habitat improvements. 
Repair and improve the key Delta levees. Evaluate the effect on the 
Delta as these projects come on line.
  Then, and only if necessary, proceed with a conveyance system that is 
much smaller and with a reduced capacity to destroy.
  A much smaller facility with a capacity of no more than 3,000 cubic 
feet per second could be built to deliver water from the Sacramento 
River to the Tracy pumps. With the normal minimum flows in the 
Sacramento River above 15,000 cfs, a small 3,000 cfs facility could 
operate at least 300 days in most years, delivering approximately two 
million acre feet of water south to the pumps at Tracy where it would 
be pumped south to the new and expanded storage facilities.
  There are several alternative ways to build this smaller system. One 
alternative is found with a careful look at the Delta map which reveals 
that two thirds of this Delta friendly system is already built. Two 
miles from the State Capital is the Port of Sacramento and the shipping 
channel that ends 25 miles south near Rio Vista. From there it is 
thirteen miles to existing channels and the Tracy pumps. The Federal 
Government already owns the land along the river where an intake and 
fish screen could be built, allowing 3000 cfs of Sacramento River water 
to enter the channel and flow south to a shipping lock at the southern 
end of the channel. Then, pumps could deliver the water into a short 
12-mile pipe beneath the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and into the 
existing Delta channels that lead to the Tracy Pumps. The threatened 
Delta fish could be protected by sealing the channel from the Delta. 
Such a smaller facility is less costly than two 40-foot diameter, 40-
mile long tunnels that devastate large swaths of the Delta and put the 
entire Delta at risk.
  It is correct that this smaller facility like the twin tunnels is 
insufficient to quench the thirst of the Southern water contractors. 
This is where the southern reservoirs and the ``Little Sip, Big Gulp'' 
strategy comes into play. In normal water years there is sufficient 
water in the Delta to allow the pumps to take a big gulp of two million 
acre feet of water. This amount together with the two million acre feet 
delivered through the 3,000 cfs facility and the new water developed 
from conservation and recycling efforts could add up to six million 
acre feet. This plan would create far more new water than will ever be 
available with the current California Water Fix (BDCP) plan, which in 
its current state creates nothing new, except new destruction.
  This small 3,000 cfs proposal and the current twin tunnel proposal 
envision the continued use of the existing Delta levee system as water 
conveyance channels for the delivery of water to the big pumps at 
Tracy. However, the California Water Fix (BDCP) has neither a plan nor 
funding for the maintenance of the levees that are crucial for their 
proposed water conveyance system. The Delta levees must be upgraded and 
maintained if water is to be transported through the Delta and if the 
Delta agriculture, infrastructure, ecology and people are to be 
protected.
  No sane homeowner would go fifty years without maintaining their 
plumbing system. For more than fifty years, the Bureau of Reclamation 
and the California Department of Water

[[Page E972]]

Resources have used the Delta levees as a plumbing system to deliver 
water from the Sacramento River to the Tracy pumps. Yet, they have 
spent virtually no money maintaining these critical levees, the failure 
of which could shut down water deliveries for an extended period of 
time. The Federal and State agencies have relied upon the local 
reclamation agencies to do the repairs, literally giving the exporters 
a free ride. When a levee does give way and an island is flooded, it is 
the local agency and Federal and State governments that foot the bill 
to repair the levees, often at a much greater cost than would have been 
necessary with basic maintenance.
  Legislation is necessary to require that the Federal and State water 
contractors, who have for years and will continue for even more years 
depended upon the Delta levees for the delivery of water to their 
fields and cities, pay a part of the levee maintenance cost.
  The California Water Fix (BDCP) envisions restoring flood plains and 
the salt and freshwater marsh habitat of the Delta in an effort to 
restore the fisheries. However, a series of questions are raised: where 
to do it, how much to do, what type, at what cost and who is to pay for 
the restoration? Those who have created the ecological problem should 
pay for the restoration of the problem. All this will require careful 
attention to science, and a careful balance between competing goals. 
Current science indicates that no amount of habitat restoration can 
compensate for the damage done to fish from excessive water exports.
  The California Water Fix (BDCP) and any other proposal must be based 
and driven by quality science that measures and informs decisions. 
California and federal law require that the Delta aquatic and 
terrestrial ecosystems be protected. We must do so, not just because 
the laws demand it, but because our status as human beings on this 
planet demands that we pay attention and protect precious and rare 
ecosystems. Also, healthy ecosystems provide a valuable asset to our 
communities because healthy ecosystems help to ensure we have healthy 
water. If we let the ecosystems fall by the wayside, our water will get 
dirtier making it increasingly difficult and costly to clean it up 
enough to use. For all of these reasons, we must let science govern.
  The California Water Fix (BDCP) anticipates 50-year permits from 
state and federal agencies to allow incidental takes of endangered fish 
species. Once granted, the water exporters will have assurances that 
the project can take covered species and pump Delta water despite 
changes in the environment. To date, the California Water Fix (BDCP) 
has not built in flexibility to address the inevitable changes that 
will occur and the damage that could be done if the plan does not 
account for climate change.
  We must also use science to understand our river basins in the age of 
climate change. Dams on California Rivers serve multiple purposes of 
water storage, flood protection, electric power generation, recreation, 
and environmental river flows. Current dam operations on California 
Rivers place flood protection as the first priority followed by water 
storage. The decisions to release water to create greater flood storage 
are based on the average river flows compiled from the last 60 years. 
Climate change and resulting river flow change is certain and one can 
only imagine how rare it will be for the historic average to actually 
occur.
  We have the technology today to better understand what is happening, 
in real time, in every river basin in this state. Satellites and 
unmanned aircraft using infrared and ground sensing radar, together 
with terrestrial stations collecting soil conditions, snow temperature 
and moisture content coupled with telemetry will soon be deployed in 
the American River basin. Collecting this data and using it in real 
time to predict river flows allows for better operation of the dams so 
that additional flood storage capacity could be available by lowering 
the reservoir ahead of the storm or keeping water in the reservoir if a 
major storm is heading for a different river basin or if it is a cold 
snow storm. Using the best science can simultaneously deliver increased 
flood protection and greater water storage.
  Soon after gold was discovered in California, the miners discovered 
that water could be used to separate gold from gravel and soon after, 
the right to the water flowing in the rivers became as valuable as the 
gold. Today, water is California's gold. The classic water war in 
California is usually about one group attempting to take another 
group's water. It is reasonable to view the current twin tunnels 
conflict in this way: southern exporters taking water belonging to 
northern water right holders and water necessary for the aquatic river 
environment. Any water plan that ignores the prior and existing water 
rights is destined to be embroiled in a vicious and contracted water 
war. If a project is to be built, then existing rights must be honored.
  California must develop a comprehensive water program. The current 
California Water Fix (BDCP) is an outdated and destructive plumbing 
system. It does not create any new water. It does not provide the water 
and the ecological protection the Golden State must have. California 
and the federal government must set aside the big, expensive, 
destructive plumbing plan and immediately move forward with a 
comprehensive program that includes:
  1) Conservation,
  2) Recycling,
  3) The creation of new storage systems,
  4) Fix the Delta--right sized conveyance, levee improvements, and 
habitat restoration,
  5) Science driven process,
  6) Protection of existing water rights
  California is once again embroiled in a water war. The California 
Water Fix/BDCP is not a comprehensive plan; it is a plumbing system 
that seeks to extract water from one part of the state and deliver it 
to another part. If history is any indication, water wars are expensive 
and fruitless. Only by embracing a comprehensive plan that creates new 
water for the entire state can we avoid gridlock and a water war. This 
paper presents a plan that emphasizes using the best available science 
and a portfolio of water projects to create a positive solution to the 
water challenge facing California. It's time to move forward and ensure 
a reliable water supply for the entire state.

                           [From sacbee.com]

         Water Solution for California: `Little Sip, Big Gulp'

                          (By John Garamendi)

       Don't be fooled. The dreaded twin tunnels through the heart 
     of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta did not die. The 
     governor's new ``California Water Fix'' plan is the same 
     destructive twin tunnel $17 billion boondoggle, just without 
     the fig leaf cover of habitat restoration. Not one gallon of 
     new water supply is created for our thirsty state.
       California water needs can be met with a comprehensive 
     program that over the next 10 years can create more than 5 
     million acre-feet of new water at a cost no greater than the 
     twin tunnels. Here are the keys to our water future:
       1. Conservation
       2. Recycling/desalinization
       3. Creation of new surface and aquifer storage
       4. Science-driven process
       5. Fixing the Delta--right-sized conveyance, levee 
     improvements and habitat restoration
       Go forward carefully; start small; use science to evaluate 
     each step; then proceed to the next step. The Delta is a 
     unique and precious environmental asset.
       First, reduce demand on the Delta with water conservation, 
     recycling and desalinization, and strategic use of surface 
     and aquifer storage. Move forward with habitat improvements 
     for the floodplain and fresh and saltwater marshes. Repair 
     and improve the key Delta levees. Evaluate the effect on the 
     Delta as these projects come online. Then, and only if 
     necessary, proceed with a conveyance system that is much 
     smaller and with a reduced capacity to destroy.
       A much smaller facility with a capacity of no more than 
     3,000 cubic feet per second could be built to deliver water 
     from the Sacramento River to the Tracy pumps. With the normal 
     minimum flows in the Sacramento River above 15,000 cubic feet 
     per second, a 3,000-cfs facility could operate at least 300 
     days in most years, delivering about 2 million acre feet of 
     water to the pumps at Tracy and on south to new and expanded 
     storage facilities.
       Half of this Delta-friendly system is already built. Two 
     miles from the state Capitol is the Port of Sacramento. A 
     fish screen could be built at the existing opening on the 
     Sacramento River, allowing 3,000 cubic feet per second of 
     Sacramento River water to enter the deep water channel and 
     flow 25 miles south to a shipping lock at the southern end of 
     the channel. Then, pumps could deliver the water into a 12-
     mile pipe beneath the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and 
     into a new aqueduct alongside the Old River channel that 
     leads to the Tracy pumps.
       An alternative route could take the water out at the 
     southern end of the shipping channel, delivering it into an 
     aqueduct around the town of Rio Vista, across the Sacramento 
     River at Sherman Island and through Contra Costa County to 
     the Tracy pumps. This route would intersect six vital San 
     Francisco Bay aqueducts, thus creating a safety system for 8 
     million Bay residents.
       The ``Little Sip, Big Gulp'' strategy completes the program 
     to meet California's future water needs.
       In normal water years, there is sufficient water in the 
     Delta to allow the pumps to take a ``big gulp'' of 2 million 
     acre-feet of water. This amount together with the 2 million 
     acre-feet delivered through the 3,000-cfs facility would meet 
     the annual water demand south of the Delta.
       The new water developed from surface and underground 
     storage, conservation, and recycling and desalinization 
     efforts could add up to 5 million acre-feet, and together 
     with an eco-friendly Delta solution would be enough to serve 
     the future needs of a thriving California.

[[Page E973]]



                          ____________________