[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10285-10293]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           CALIFORNIA DROUGHT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the 
subject of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure it is going to be 
that controversial, but I was just looking outside the Capitol before I 
came in to make this presentation, and it is raining. It is a downpour. 
For those of us from California, it has been a long time since we have 
seen a downpour.
  The Golden State, the seventh largest economy in the world and home 
to over 35 million people, is in the throes of a historic drought. This 
is the fourth year, and it is a world of hurt in California.
  The economy is moving along. We are not complaining about the 
economy. Many parts of it are moving along. But

[[Page 10286]]

for everyone in the State of California, whether you are in the far 
north up near Mount Shasta or way down here in the San Diego area, we 
are hurting.
  There is a lot of talk. Water restrictions are taking place in every 
city, whether you are on the coast, up in the north, or in the far 
south at Laguna Beach. Wherever you happen to be in the State of 
California, these restrictions are tightening up on the ability of 
communities to prosper, grow, and keep their lawns green, but more 
important in some communities, to even live there.
  In some parts of the Central Valley, down here in the Fresno area, 
there are communities that are out of water. Communities of 3,000, 
5,000, maybe even 10,000 people, have virtually no water at all.
  This is a problem today. As we look to the future, we are going to 
see the State's economy and population grow and the demand for water 
will ever increase, unless we do something. What we must do is develop 
a water plan for all of California.
  Unfortunately, what we do most of the time in California is fight 
over water. There is the famous saying from Mark Twain: ``Whiskey is 
for drinking. Water is for fighting over.''
  And so it has been ever since my great-great-grandfather came to 
California in the early days of the Gold Rush up here in the mother 
lode region. You couldn't mine without water. And fighting over that 
water was the order of the day, and it is today.
  So as this entire State and much of the Southwest region--Nevada, 
southern Oregon, Utah, New Mexico, and even the western parts of 
Texas--suffer through this historic drought, we have taken to fighting 
in California. And I want to spend a few moments this evening talking 
about what we must do immediately and then a long-term solution for the 
State of California.
  Immediate, we are going to have to seek help. The State of California 
is using some bond money from past bond acts and some bond money from 
the historic passage of Proposition 1 last November to immediately try 
to fix problems that exist in those communities without water. And so 
that money will begin to flow to those communities, wherever they 
happen to be.
  There are a couple up here in the Sacramento Valley and further down 
in the San Joaquin Valley. The deserts have always been without water, 
so this is not new to them, although it is more extreme.
  It is good that the bond act can provide immediate relief, but the 
rest of the short-term solutions will come from Washington. I want to 
congratulate and thank the administration for providing $110 million of 
money for a variety of projects. Some of those projects are to dig 
deeper wells for those communities without water, to find ways to 
improve the conservation immediately, and to set about other programs 
that are short-term in nature--all to the good. And that should 
continue.
  In the days ahead, we are going to take up the appropriations bill 
for water. In that appropriations bill, we should direct the 
administration to do what it is doing--and to continue doing it through 
this drought--and that is to focus all of those resources on the 
immediate drought that is occurring.
  Whether it is aid for ranchers and farmers or cities, it makes no 
difference. It is broad and it needs to be done, and it should line up 
with Proposition 1 of the last November ballot. That is both short-term 
and long-term. So the Federal Government supports those projects that 
would be funded under that $7 billion bond act that the citizens of 
California voted for in an overwhelming majority.
  But I would also like to talk about the long-term here. Because 
droughts will come and go, and we must be prepared not only in 
California, but across the West.
  For many years, the Department of Water Resources in California has 
looked at the problem and has made many, many suggestions; but until 
about 4 years ago, those suggestions were never put together in a 
comprehensive plan.
  I am familiar with this. I am a water warrior in California. I have 
represented this part of California for nearly 40 years, the great 
Central Valley of California. I will put up another map so you can get 
a better look at it.
  So the plans that were put together by the California Department of 
Water Resources deal with the Sacramento River, which flows south, and 
the San Joaquin River, which flows north from the Fresno area. This is 
way beyond Sacramento. Mount Shasta and Oregon, it is way up there.
  These are the two great rivers of California, together with the 
Colorado, which is way to the south. It flows into an area here which 
is called the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This is the largest estuary 
of the Western Hemisphere, which is on the West Coast. From Alaska to 
Chile, there is no other estuary as important to fish and species of 
all kinds and to the environment and the economy of California.
  As this water flows down the Sacramento River and the San Joaquin 
River, it is collected here and pumped south into the San Joaquin 
Valley and over the Tehachapi Mountains way down here to southern 
California. That is the Great Southern water project and the Federal 
water project.
  But the result of that pumping is an extreme decline in the 
environment of the delta, Suisun Bay, and San Francisco Bay. Along with 
it, the salmon and other species have been largely decimated by those 
projects.
  So what are we to do? We will take the information that has been 
developed over these many years by the California Department of Water 
Resources and develop a comprehensive plan.
  One plan, which actually dates back some 60 years now, is one that 
would take the water around the delta and deliver it to the pumps down 
here at Tracy. That plan, first proposed in the forties and then in the 
fifties, was taken up by our current Governor, Governor Jerry Brown, in 
the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was called the Peripheral Canal--
peripheral, that is around the delta, delivering water to the pumps.
  I represented the delta at that time, and I said: Governor, what you 
have managed to create here is the great vampire ditch.
  The Peripheral Canal was big enough to take the water from the 
Sacramento, depriving the delta of the freshwater that it needed for 
its environment, and deliver it to the pumps.
  So we had another great water war. It actually went on the ballot, 
and the people of California decided not to build that canal. And so 
there it sat until the second iteration of our current Governor, and he 
decided it was time to address this problem.
  And so now his suggestion is, instead of a canal, bury it underground 
so nobody can see it. He said: Don't worry about the canal. Don't 
worry. You will never see it.
  I said: Because it is not going to get built?
  He said: No, no. Because it will be underground.
  Two massive tunnels, each 40 feet in diameter--about as tall as this 
Chamber, actually, if we consider this is probably 50 feet in here--big 
enough to take all of the water out of the Sacramento River half of the 
year, creating an existential threat to the delta.
  Something needs to be done, no doubt about it. So by cobbling 
together the plans that were developed by the Department of Water 
Resources and others, I put together what I called, a Water Plan for 
All California.
  By the way, this tunnel was first priced at $25 billion and did not 
create 1 gallon of new water--not 1 gallon of new water.

                              {time}  1945

  What it did was to create an existential threat to the delta, in that 
it was big enough to deprive the delta of the fresh water half of the 
year. I said: Governor, that doesn't work. Let's look at this in a 
serious way that can create water for California's future.
  This proposal was put together from plans that the State agencies had 
developed in the past. I commend this to anybody that really wants to 
look at what California's water future could be. Instead of a battle 
royal, which we

[[Page 10287]]

are now commenced with as we fight over these tunnels, and $25 
billion--oh, by the way, there is a new iteration of it, and they are 
throwing aside most of the habitat restoration and most of the 
environmental restoration and just going for the straight tunnels and 
just a little bit of mitigation.
  Let's do something different. Let's create water that California will 
need in its future. Let's build a system that will actually deliver 
more water for California, while protecting the environment, and that 
is what this plan is all about, a water plan for all California.
  There are the following elements in it: conservation; recycling; 
storage; fixing the delta, which actually has to be fixed; letting 
science run the process rather than politics; and make sure you protect 
the water rights that have been in existence for more than a decade and 
a half--excuse me--a century and a half.
  These are the principal elements, and we are going to go through them 
one at a time and explain why, if we were to spend, let's say, the full 
$17 billion, the current cost of the tunnels, and that is the first 
bid; that is not the final cost. Let's say we would spend that $17 
billion.
  Let's allocate some of it for conservation, agricultural 
conservation. Now, every agriculturalist--and I am one--in California 
will say, Yes, but we are already conserving water. Indeed, we are, and 
a lot of water conservation has taken place, but that much more can be 
done again.
  There are somewhere, by the estimates of the State, 3 to 4 million 
acre feet of new water, available simply through conservation, and that 
does not include the urban conservation.
  Now, understand, in today's drought, conservation is on everybody's 
mind, and in fact, it is mandated by law and executive order, but we 
can do maybe 3 million acre feet of new water. That is enough for over 
120,000 homes a year per million acre feet.
  Secondly, recycling--I often say, and I think this is more or less 
accurate, that the fifth largest river on the West Coast of the Western 
Hemisphere are the sanitation plants in Southern California.
  Whoa, what do you mean the fifth biggest river? Well, consider this: 
the Colorado River, over here, abutting Arizona and Nevada, water is 
taken from the Colorado River, 200 miles into the Los Angeles Basin.
  Water is taken from northern California, the Sacramento River, in a 
canal, pumps here at the delta, in a canal, 5,000 feet over the 
Tehachapi Mountains, into the Los Angeles Basin. That water is cleaned 
once. It is used in the Los Angeles Basin, cleaned again, in most 
cases, to a higher standard than the day it arrives in southern 
California; and nearly all of it is dumped into the ocean.
  What? You do that in California? Well, we do. Fortunately, Orange 
County, a bastion of conservatism, is far ahead of the rest of the 
State and probably the Nation in water recycling. We need to do more of 
it.
  For a few million, a couple of million dollars--excuse me, a couple 
of billion dollars, we could recycle at least a million acre feet of 
new water in southern California, water that is already there, water 
that is not being used.
  In northern California, the San Francisco Bay area, for my friends in 
San Francisco, you are taking what you tell the world is the cleanest 
water in America, right out of Yosemite National Park, piping it across 
the Central Valley into the San Francisco area, clean it--well, you 
really don't have to do much cleaning because it is already clean--use 
it once, then you pipe it a mile offshore and dump it in the ocean.
  Recycling is necessary in every part of California. Another million, 
perhaps, more acre feet of water could be available through recycling.
  So conservation, recycling, 3, 4 million acre feet--we are getting 
close to what California needs in the future.
  So where are you going to put the water? Even in the midst of a 
drought, we have had heavy rain flows--no place to put the water.
  My colleague from northern California, the Sacramento Valley, Mr. 
LaMalfa and I have introduced a bill to build an off-stream storage 
reservoir here on the west side of the Sacramento Valley, a reservoir 
that could hold 2 million acre feet of water--well, slightly less--and 
that water would be available when needed.
  It could flow down the Sacramento River, sweetening, pushing back the 
saltwater in the delta; or it could be used for agricultural purposes 
in the Sacramento Valley or down in the San Joaquin Valley.
  It also gives flexibilities to the great reservoirs of Shasta, the 
Oroville Reservoir on the Feather River, and the Folsom Reservoir here 
on the Sacramento River, giving flexibility to the water managers.
  When it is needed for salmon and other species, you could use the 
water out of Sites Reservoir. When it is needed for agriculture or for 
water quality in the delta, you could use it out of Sites Reservoir, 
keeping the cold water in Shasta, Oroville, or Folsom that is necessary 
for the salmon that spawn in those rivers.
  Storage, off-stream storage, off-stream storage here, just east of 
Contra Costa, in Los Vaqueros Reservoir, off-stream storage further 
south down here in Los Banos at the San Luis Reservoir, and the biggest 
off-stream reservoir of all, the great aquifer of the Sacramento, San 
Joaquin Valley, the great Central Valley of California, arguably, the 
second or third largest aquifer anywhere in the world, one that is now 
seriously overdrafted, as Californians, agriculture, cities, and others 
thirst for the water in this drought.
  These storage reservoirs in northern California are just one part of 
the storage systems that are needed for the future. The other part 
actually exists here in southern California, out here along the coast, 
the West Basin, the San Fernando Valley, the San Gabriel Valley, the 
Santa Ana in Orange County, and as you move east into Riverside and San 
Bernardino.
  These are all historic aquifers that could be available to take that 
recycled water, put it back in the ground, pull it out, clean it, and 
recycle and recycle and eventually, these aquifers, many of which are 
contaminated, would be clean and available for the future.
  We could probably add all of the capacity of these aquifers in 
southern California and have greater storage capacity than the largest 
reservoir in the State of California, which is Shasta Reservoir, way up 
here in northern California.
  By using the aquifers as a storage facility in what we call 
conjunctive water management, when you have a lot of rain, you store 
it--store it off-stream, store it below ground in the aquifers. Then 
when you have your dry periods, as California historically does, you 
can take that water out, but you cannot take out as much as currently 
being taken from these aquifers in California.
  We are seeing the collapse of the aquifers in the San Joaquin Valley. 
We are seeing the land subsiding in some places, as much as a foot a 
year as the water is extracted, so we have to stop that, and so water 
management becomes extremely important in the process.
  I want to now turn to the delta, put this delta map back up and 
remind us, the Sacramento River coming down, the San Joaquin River 
coming north. From the north, the Sacramento, from the south, the San 
Joaquin, meeting here in the great delta of California--this delta is 
seriously at risk, as I said a moment ago.
  What to do about this? The Governor's plan, to take water around it, 
to deliver it to the pumps down here, I think, creates an existential 
threat. Don't build something that could destroy the largest estuary on 
the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere.
  Instead, build something that is the right size, recognizing that 
while the delta is imperiled, perhaps by earthquakes, perhaps by sea 
level rise, nonetheless, all the plants call for water to be pumped out 
of the delta, even if it is taken around the delta.
  The first thing to do, right now, is to armor, strengthen those key 
levees in the delta that are necessary for the transfer of water to the 
pumps, for the

[[Page 10288]]

protection of the cities here on the eastern side, and to make sure 
that you are able to always be able to take that water through the 
delta. It is called the armored delta.
  Under the Governor's plan or my plan or any other plan, those levees 
are going to be used for at least the next two decades, if not for a 
much longer period of time. Improve the delta, levees, and that is a 
job for the Federal Government.
  I talked earlier about what could be done immediately by the Federal 
Government, and that is to secure some of these key delta channels by 
improving the levees on those channels. That is step one.
  Step two is what I call science. This area, the richest estuary on 
the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere, home and nursery to salmon, 
to other species, such as the delta smelt and many other species, 
requires very careful attention and very careful scientific study.
  We are talking over here, in a place called Rio Vista, about building 
a science center, bringing together all the State and Federal agencies 
so they can work in a collaborative science program. That is a great 
program called the Rivers Program. There are other science studies that 
are underway.
  You have to let science drive this process. You cannot allow politics 
to drive it; otherwise, you put at risk the communities in this area; 
you put at risk the environment; you put at risk the fish species, and 
you put at risk the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western 
Hemisphere.
  Keep in mind that the Congress of the United States, twice in the 
last 4 years, has passed legislation that removes the environmental 
protections for this estuarine system and simply grabs 800,000 acre 
feet of water that was meant for the environment and sends it into the 
southern valley, into the southern valley here.
  It is a rip-off. It is part of what has taken place in California 
since the gold miners came in the 1850s, and that is, if you want 
water, you simply take it from somebody. In this case, you are taking 
it from the delta, from the environment, from the agriculture; and you 
are pushing aside the environmental protections. Don't do it. It is not 
necessary.
  There is another thing, in addition to fixing the levees, and I call 
it the ``Little Sip, Big Gulp.'' Here it is. This is a map of the delta 
of California. Sacramento is up here, the confluence of the American 
River and the Sacramento River. That is the State capital. This is the 
delta here.
  We were talking about it in the larger map. San Francisco Bay is over 
here, Suisun Bay and the rest. This is the heart of the delta. Stockton 
is down here. Tracy and the big massive pumps at Tracy, capable of 
taking well over 15,000 cubic feet per second, are down here in this 
area.
  The tunnels that the Governor wants to build would start here, travel 
through some of the richest agricultural land in the delta, or in the 
Nation, agricultural land that has been in production since the 1850s 
and 1860s, along the Sacramento River, displacing, oh, maybe 4 or 5 
miles of habitat and agriculture and communities along this area. The 
tunnel would come down into this--the tunnels would come down into this 
area.
  $17 billion--why would you do something that, first of all, is large 
enough to allow for the destruction of the delta? Why would you spend 
all that money, when a good portion of that project is already built? 
This is it.
  This is the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, an ocean, a channel 
that begins at San Francisco Bay, comes up the Sacramento River, and 
then, in a channel that was built by the Army Corps of Engineers, all 
the way up to the Port of Sacramento here in West Sacramento, on the 
other side of the State capital.
  This is a deep water shipping channel. Ocean ships come into San 
Francisco Bay and come all the way up here. It is a pretty good 
economic activity. Agricultural products are shipped out.
  I was over that way this last weekend, and they have log decks. I 
guess these are logs from the various fires that have occurred in 
California, and those are going to be shipped off to China. I sometimes 
wonder why we don't use those logs for the things that we should be 
making in America, but that is another subject for another day.
  So what is an alternative? I call this the little sip solution, 
``Little Sip, Big Gulp solution.'' Take the water out of the Sacramento 
River here, 3,000--not 15,000--3,000 cubic feet per second. We know how 
to do that. Fish screens are already built to do that.

                              {time}  2000

  Let it flow down the Deep Water Channel to about here, just north of 
Rio Vista. Put in a single ship lock and a pump.
  Alternative one: put it in a small pipe through the delta down here 
to this area; and then, in an open channel along what is called Old 
River, take it down to the pumps at Tracy, 3,000 cubic feet per second.
  You could do that most every day of the year, and it could deliver 2 
million acre-feet of water to the pumps at Tracy in most years. In this 
drought year, it wouldn't be possible.
  A second alternative would be to take it down the Deep Water Channel, 
3,000 cubic feet, to the shipping lock and the pump, put it into a 
canal that goes behind Rio Vista here, crosses Sherman Island at the 
confluence of the Sacramento and the San Joaquin Rivers, and over to 
Contra Costa County to the pumps.
  This is a very interesting solution because this solution creates a 
fail-safe solution for about 7 million people that live in the San 
Francisco Bay area, because this particular route intersects six 
aqueducts: the Solano aqueduct here, this would intersect it down here 
in Contra Costa; East Bay Municipal Utility aqueduct; the Contra Costa 
County aqueduct; the Los Vaqueros aqueduct for the Los Vaqueros river; 
zone seven, down here in the Livermore area, over here in this area; 
and also the South Bay aqueduct, going all the way down to Silicon 
Valley.
  What has happened, if this solution were chosen, should the need ever 
arise for some reason, these critical water districts that supply the 
water to this entire Bay area could get access to the Sacramento River 
water. So if, for some reason, the delta was to become saline as a 
result of a collapse of a levee system or any other reason, we have a 
fail-safe solution for the entire Bay region, except Marin County, 
which has its own water system.
  Either of these is a system that would be right-sized. That is a 
Little Sip big enough to provide 2 million acre-feet of water, which is 
roughly 40, 45 percent of the amount of water needed south of the delta 
for southern California, for Los Angeles, and for the San Joaquin 
Valley.
  That is the Little Sip solution: a route through the delta, a 
pipeline from here to Old River, and then an open channel on the east 
side of Old River to the pumps, or a canal across Contra Costa and 
Solano County. Either of them would work. And it would be a fraction of 
the cost of the massive twin tunnels that would come this direction, 
destroying the agricultural communities here in Portland and Clarksburg 
and putting at risk the entire delta because of the enormous size.
  This is a 15,000-cubic-foot-per-second tunnel system. Now, granted, 
they are only going to build three of the intakes here on the 
Sacramento River. Okay. It is good to have only three. That gives you 
9,000, which is roughly two-thirds of the water going down the 
Sacramento River half of the year.
  So what does that mean for the delta? It means the delta is going to 
be salty and deprived of the freshwater that this estuary needs. And 
all they need to do is to put in one more intake, and then they can 
take all of the water half of the year.
  Don't do it. Never build something that could be so destructive of 
such a precious natural resource as the delta.
  So this is the Little Sip.
  Where does the rest of the water come? It is called the Big Gulp. 
Even in this drought year, there have been two very heavy rains that 
have sent a surge of water down the San Joaquin and

[[Page 10289]]

down the Sacramento. The pumps were turned on--not to their full might, 
but the pumps were turned on, and the water was shipped to the south.
  Okay. It worked. Can it work in the future in normal years?
  There is sufficient water in the delta in a normal year to get 
another 2, 2.5 million acre-feet of water out of the delta, itself, and 
that is the Big Gulp. So you combine a small facility with a Big Gulp 
when the water is available in the delta.
  Now, keep in mind, this project and the twin tunnel project that the 
Governor is proposing both require storage south of the delta. Neither 
project will work. And, in fact, the California water system today will 
not work without storage south of the delta.
  That is why--to back up to a map of all California--we have to have 
storage offsite, at Sites Reservoir. There is talk of enlarging Shasta 
Reservoir, way up here in this area. There is talk of building a new 
reservoir here on the San Joaquin River at Hanford's flat. There is 
talk of enlarging--in fact, this one is almost certain to happen--
enlarging Los Vaqueros Reservoir. The San Luis Reservoir down here 
needs to be rebuilt because of earthquake safety, and it could be 
expanded.
  There is another reservoir site just south of it, Los Banos Grande. 
That is another large reservoir. And, of course, the aquifers in the 
entire Central Valley of California, and we have already talked about 
the aquifers in southern California.
  So you have to have storage south of the delta. If you have storage 
south of the delta, then the Governor's plan or my plan, the Little 
Sip, Big Gulp plan will work. Storage is absolutely essential in all of 
these configurations. Fail to do the storage, and nothing is going to 
work.
  Let me just review what we have been talking about here. We have been 
talking about a water plant for all California.
  Conservation, to be sure, the great agricultural areas--even over 
here in the Salinas Valley--conservation along this entire area, 
conservation in southern California, the great metropolitan areas, and 
in the Bay area. In doing so, the State's own estimate was 5 million. 
Let's just say you get 3 million acre-feet. Agricultural conservation, 
urban conservation, 3 million acre-feet of new water, water that is 
currently unavailable but there.
  Recycling, we talked about recycling here in southern California. A 
$2 to $3 billion investment will give you 1 million acre-feet of water, 
and you already have the storage systems in place, the underground 
aquifers of southern California. Similarly, recycling in the Bay area.
  Sacramento, right here, starting just a month ago, a new recycling 
program, a $2 billion recycling program in Sacramento to recycle 
water--some for that area, the rest to put clean water down the river 
rather than some of the water, which is a little shady.
  So recycling, another million acre-feet at least, maybe more, as you 
bring on the recycling in the Bay area.
  Now we have got 3 to 4 million acre-feet of water.
  Storage systems, it is estimated that the Sites Reservoir can add in 
this drought here, were it available, would have been 900,000 acre-feet 
of water in this drought year. Of course it is not built; it is not 
available. But on average, it should provide some 500,000--400,000 to 
600,000 acre-feet of water annually out of Sites Reservoir; plus, as I 
described earlier, the ability to reoperate the great reservoirs and, 
together, be able to perhaps get even more water as a result of Sites 
Reservoir. The other reservoirs can provide additional water also.
  So we ought to be able, through these processes, to get somewhere 
near 5 million acre-feet of new water for California. If we have 
conservation, if we have the storage and we are able to get through the 
current drought, it is a safe bet that 5 million acre-feet of annual 
water yield will carry California into the next 30 to 50 years and 
beyond that, depending on population growth and technologies.
  I had not mentioned the use of this water out here. Well, that is the 
Pacific Ocean. Desalinization and recycling use exactly the same 
technology. Recycling happens to be cheaper, in that it takes less 
energy to clean recycled water than to clean the ocean water because 
the ocean water has a lot of salts and other things in it, and it is 
just more expensive. But clearly, desalinization is also in our future.
  Down here, in the San Diego area, a new recycling plant is going 
online this year. They have been talking about one in Santa Barbara 
that actually was built but then mothballed because it rained again. 
But that one in Santa Barbara is likely to go back online as a result 
of the current drought and in anticipation of future droughts.
  So desalinization is also in California's future.
  Those are the basic elements: conservation; recycling; creation of 
new storage systems; fixing the delta, the levees; Little Sip, Big Gulp 
strategy; science-driven process.
  Keep in mind, you have got to be right on the science; otherwise, you 
are going to destroy this extraordinarily valuable habitat of the delta 
and other places.
  Finally, you had better be paying attention to the water rights and 
the laws of California, which, unfortunately, in the first iteration of 
the bill that passed Congress 4 years ago, just blew aside California 
water rights. So if you want to start a big, big water war, if you want 
to heighten and enflame a water war in California, push aside the water 
rights which, incidentally, is now taking place as a result of the 
drought.
  That is a Water Plan for All of California. It is here. It is 
available. My Web site has it. I recommend it to anybody that is 
interested in a solution for California's long-term water problems; and 
also, I recommend to people that we have the Federal Government in the 
short term align its water policy programs from the EPA--the 
Environmental Protection Agency--the Department of Agriculture, the 
Department of the Interior, the Army Corps of Engineers, that those 
water programs in the short term be aligned with the State of 
California's bond act so that we can promote, augment, and advance the 
projects that would be undertaken in the $7 billion water bond that the 
California voters passed last November.
  My plea to those who think the tunnels are the solution is: stop, 
take another look. Take another look at the Little Sip, Big Gulp 
solution. This actually was something that was first proposed by the 
Natural Resources Defense Council. We were working with this about 5 
years ago. They came up with the Little Sip, Big Gulp name, and with 
some modification, it is now a proposal that would cost a fraction of 
what the twin, massive, 40-foot-in-diameter tunnels would cost.
  So, for California, there is a future. It is the Golden State. It is 
an economy unmatched by any other in the United States. It is an 
economy particularly--well, actually, the entire State's economy is 
stressed as a result of the drought. And if we take the kind of steps 
that I have been talking about here, we will be able to provide the 
water that California needs in the next drought and in the years to 
come as the population grows and as the economy grows.
  So that is the water plan for all California. There are many other 
pieces of the puzzle, one of which I am going to take just a second to 
talk about. And that is this week, as we take up the appropriations for 
water programs in the State of California--actually, water plans for 
the United States, not just the State of California--we ought to be 
mindful of a project called the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a 
program that has been in effect for half a century. It takes the 
royalties from the offshore oil and minerals onshore and allows much of 
that royalty to be spent on preserving the special places of America--
the wildlife refuges, very unique habitat areas--setting aside those 
areas, using that money to buy up the land and, in some cases, to buy 
up easements so that the land will forever remain available to future 
generations in a more natural state. That is the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. Unfortunately, the authorization

[[Page 10290]]

for it expires this year, and at the moment, there is no perceived 
movement by the Congress of the United States to reinstitute and 
reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  When I was deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior in the 
mid-nineties, we used this fund to set aside redwood forest off along 
the coast of California, to protect the Everglades of Florida, to set 
aside some of the land along the sand dunes on the Great Lakes. This is 
a project for all of America, one that is worthy of being reauthorized 
and properly funded.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, perhaps enough about California's drought. 
No, I will take that back.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. Speaker, we have got a problem in California, short term and long 
term, and it deserves the attention of the Congress of the United 
States because California is the seventh largest economy in the world 
and critically important to the future of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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).

[[Page 10291]]

  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 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

[[Page 10292]]

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 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

[[Page 10293]]

     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.

                          ____________________