Congressional Hearings
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE STATE OF WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY IN THE 21st CENTURY
Congressional Hearings
SuDoc ClassNumber: Y 4.R 31/3
Congress: House of Representatives
CHRG-116hhrg35277
| AUTHORITYID | CHAMBER | TYPE | COMMITTEENAME |
|---|---|---|---|
| hsii00 | H | S | Committee on Natural Resources |
[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE STATE OF WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY IN THE 21st CENTURY
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-6
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-277 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, po@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member
Grace F. Napolitano, CA Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Doug Lamborn, CO
CNMI Robert J. Wittman, VA
Jared Huffman, CA Tom McClintock, CA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Paul A. Gosar, AZ
Ruben Gallego, AZ Paul Cook, CA
TJ Cox, CA Bruce Westerman, AR
Joe Neguse, CO Garret Graves, LA
Mike Levin, CA Jody B. Hice, GA
Debra A. Haaland, NM Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Jefferson Van Drew, NJ Daniel Webster, FL
Joe Cunningham, SC Liz Cheney, WY
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Mike Johnson, LA
Diana DeGette, CO Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Wm. Lacy Clay, MO John R. Curtis, UT
Debbie Dingell, MI Kevin Hern, OK
Anthony G. Brown, MD Russ Fulcher, ID
A. Donald McEachin, VA
Darren Soto, FL
Ed Case, HI
Steven Horsford, NV
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
Matt Cartwright, PA
Paul Tonko, NY
Vacancy
David Watkins, Chief of Staff
Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Chair
TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Ranking Republican Member
Grace F. Napolitano, CA Doug Lamborn, CO
Jim Costa, CA Robert J. Wittman, VA
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Garret Graves, LA
CNMI Jody B. Hice, GA
Jefferson Van Drew, NJ Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Daniel Webster, FL
Anthony G. Brown, MD Mike Johnson, LA
Ed Case, HI Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Russ Fulcher, ID
TJ Cox, CA Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
Joe Neguse, CO
Mike Levin, CA
Joe Cunningham, SC
Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
-----------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, February 26, 2019....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Diedrich, Bill, Family Farm Alliance, Los Banos, California.. 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Ibach, Harrison, President, Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing
Association, Humboldt, California.......................... 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Nelson, Jonathan, Policy Director, Community Water Center,
Visalia, California........................................ 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Udall, Brad, Senior Water and Climate Research Scientist,
Colorado Water Institute, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado.......................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Willardson, Tony, Executive Director, Western States Water
Council, Murray, Utah...................................... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Questions submitted for the record....................... 32
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Rep. Cox Submission
South Valley Water Association, statement for the record. 64
Rep. Napolitano Submission
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., Letter to Secretary of the
Interior, dated August 28, 2009........................ 65
Rep. Van Drew Submission
Van Drew, Hon. Jefferson, Letter to Chairman Grijalva,
dated February 26, 2019................................ 69
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE STATE OF WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY IN THE 21st
CENTURY
----------
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jared Huffman
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Huffman, Napolitano, Costa,
Sablan, Cox, Neguse, Levin, Cunningham; McClintock, Hice,
Radewagen, and Fulcher.
Mr. Huffman. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on
Water, Oceans, and Wildlife will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
state of water supply reliability in the 21st century.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any opening statements at this
hearing will be limited to the Chairman, the Ranking Member,
the Vice Chair, and the Vice Ranking Member. This allows us to
hear from our witnesses sooner and helps keep Members on
schedule. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other
Members' opening statements be made part of the record if they
are submitted to the Committee Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or the
close of the hearing, whichever comes first.
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thanks, everyone, for joining us today. I
believe this is an important hearing, an important chance to
examine the state of water supply reliability in our Nation.
As I mentioned at our last WOW Subcommittee hearing, one of
my goals this Congress is to focus on the factual and the
scientific baseline for natural resource issues in this
Subcommittee's jurisdiction through what I informally referred
to as ``WOW 101'' hearings. This is the second one.
Finding consensus on tough issues, of course, is hard. But
I believe we can make progress on that front if we can develop
a common understanding of the baseline facts and science before
jumping right into the most contentious policy debates. And
that is why we are having these hearings.
I am also personally meeting with every member of this
Subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, to get feedback and
explore areas where we can work together. Thanks to the members
that have met with me so far. I truly believe that there are
good ideas on both sides of the aisle, and I am hopeful this
Subcommittee will disprove that old notion that ``water is for
fighting over,'' and instead work to come up with common-sense,
scientifically-based solutions to the challenges we face.
So, let's get started. Today, we will be looking at the
state of our Nation's water supply and water supply challenges.
As many here know, the western United States has been suffering
from frequent and increasingly severe drought in recent years.
For example, in my home state of California, we recently
emerged from the state's worst drought in 1,200 years,
according to some credible scientific reports. In the northern
Great Plains, we recently experienced an extreme drought that
NOAA categorized as a ``$1 billion disaster.'' And the Colorado
River, which supplies water to 40 million people and 5.5
million acres of farmland in seven western states and Mexico,
is currently going through its 19th year of drought, with no
end in sight.
Today, we will hear from witnesses about the specific
challenges caused by these water shortages. We will hear today
from community voices about what happens when rural communities
literally run out of water for basic human needs because of
drying wells. We will hear how water shortages have impacted
coastal communities and thousands of fishermen. In my district
and along the Pacific Coast, fishing families have been dealt
multi-million-dollar blows in recent years because of water
shortages that have battered our salmon fisheries.
We will also hear about the great costs of water shortages
to agriculture, cities, tribes, and western states.
And, finally, we will hear today what the science says
about how climate pressures will make our water challenges more
difficult in the future. Climate pressures, including warming
temperatures, shrinking snowpack, more volatile precipitation,
rising seas, just to name a few, will reduce our water supply
and impact millions of Americans. It is important that this
Subcommittee soberly assess and plan for these challenges.
Part of that process requires a thoughtful evaluation of
policy options. I look forward to a thorough examination of the
policy options that this Subcommittee can pursue to promote
water supply reliability and resilience now and in the years to
come.
One policy option that we will hopefully agree on is the
need to invest in water infrastructure. Much of our existing
infrastructure is nearing the end of its design life and is in
great need of maintenance and repair.
Last Congress, I worked across the aisle with
Representative Gosar on a bill that would regularly require the
Bureau of Reclamation to assess and publicly disclose major
repair and rehabilitation needs for Reclamation projects. That
bill recently passed the Senate as part of the omnibus public
lands package, and I think it is a good first step in working
across the aisle to address our repair and maintenance needs. I
hope we will see it move through the House and signed by the
President soon.
I will also commit to work across the aisle on other areas
of bipartisan agreement, such as the need to construct new
water infrastructure to grow our water supply. That new
infrastructure can include a variety of projects, including
smart storage, water reuse, desalination, and water-use
efficiency projects. It is imperative that this Subcommittee
work on these kinds of common-sense projects that will promote
water supply reliability for all stakeholders.
To conclude, I look forward to this Subcommittee evaluating
and addressing our water challenges in a deliberative and open
way. Communities need clean water to drink. Farmers need water
to irrigate their crops. Fish and wildlife and the people whose
livelihood depend on them need water to survive and to thrive.
This Subcommittee will work hard to ensure water supply
reliability for all of these important stakeholders.
Finally, I would like to welcome members of the Association
of California Water Agencies, ACWA. I see several in the crowd
here this morning. We look forward to working with you on all
of these issues to promote water supply sustainability and
reliability.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, Chair, Subcommittee on
Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
Thank you everyone for joining us today for an important hearing
examining the state of water supply reliability in our Nation.
As I mentioned at our last ``WOW'' hearing, one of my goals this
Congress is to work to reset the factual and scientific baseline for
natural resources issues in this Subcommittee's jurisdiction through
what I informally refer to as ``WOW 101.''
Finding consensus on tough issues is a formidable task. But I
believe we can make progress on that front if we can develop a common
understanding of the baseline facts and science before jumping right
into the most contentious policy debates. That's why we're having these
101 hearings.
I am also personally meeting with every member of this
Subcommittee, on both sides of the aisle, to solicit feedback and
explore areas where we can work together. I truly believe there are
good ideas on both sides of the aisle. And I'm hopeful that this
Subcommittee can work together to disprove that old notion that ``water
is for fighting over,'' and instead work to come up with common-sense,
scientifically-based solutions to the challenges before us.
So, let's get started. Today, we'll be looking at the state of our
Nation's water supply and the water supply challenges we'll face in the
21st century.
As many here know, the western United States has been suffering
from frequent and increasingly severe drought in recent years:
For example, in my home state of California, we recently emerged
from the state's worst drought in 1,200 years, according to some
scientific reports.
In the northern Great Plains, we recently experienced an extreme
drought that NOAA categorized as a ``billion-dollar disaster.''
And the Colorado River--which supplies water to 40 million people
and 5.5 million acres of farmland in seven western states and Mexico--
is currently going through its 19th year of drought, with no end in
sight.
Today, we'll hear from witnesses about the specific challenges
caused by these water shortages.
We'll hear today from community voices about what happens when
rural communities literally run out of water for basic human needs
because of drying wells. We'll hear how water shortages have impacted
coastal communities and thousands of fishermen. In my district and
along the Pacific Coast, fishing families have been dealt multi-
million-dollar blows in recent years because of water shortages that
have battered our fisheries. We'll also hear about the great costs of
water shortages to agriculture, cities, tribes, and western states.
And finally, we'll hear today what the science says about how
climate pressures will make our water challenges more difficult in the
future. Climate pressures--including warming temperatures, shrinking
snowpack, more volatile precipitation, and rising seas, to name a few--
will reduce our water supply and impact millions of Americans. It's
important that this Subcommittee soberly assess and plan for these
challenges.
Part of that planning requires a thoughtful evaluation of policy
options. I look forward to a thorough examination of the policy options
that this Subcommittee can pursue to promote water supply reliability
now and in the years to come.
One policy option that we'll all hopefully agree on is the need to
invest in our water infrastructure. Much of our existing water
infrastructure is nearing the end of its design life and is in great
need of maintenance and repair.
Last Congress, I worked across the aisle with Representative Gosar
on a bill that would regularly require the Bureau of Reclamation to
assess and publicly disclose major repair and rehabilitation needs for
Reclamation water projects. That bill recently passed the Senate as
part of the omnibus public lands package, and I think it is a good
first step in working across the aisle to address our repair and
maintenance needs. I hope we see it move through the House and signed
by the President soon.
I'll also commit to work across the aisle on other areas of
bipartisan agreement--such as the need to construct new water
infrastructure to grow our water supply. That new infrastructure can
include a variety of projects, including smart storage, water reuse,
desalination, and water-use efficiency projects. It's imperative that
this Subcommittee work on these kinds of common-sense projects that
will promote water supply reliability for all stakeholders.
So, to conclude, I look forward to using my role on this
Subcommittee to evaluate and address our water challenges in a
deliberative and open way. Communities need clean water to drink.
Farmers need water to irrigate their crops. Fish and wildlife and the
people whose livelihoods depend on them need water to survive and
thrive. This Subcommittee will work hard to ensure water supply
reliability for all of these important stakeholders.
Ranking Member McClintock, I hope we can find opportunities to work
together to get things done. While we may have some differences in
outlook, there are many common-sense solutions that Republicans and
Democrats can pursue on this Subcommittee, and I hope you'll join us in
that effort.
Finally, I would like to welcome members of the Association of
California Water Agencies in the audience today--we look forward to
hearing from you and working with you as well to promote water supply
reliability.
With that, I want to invite the Ranking Member to say a few
remarks, and then we will welcome and introduce our witnesses.
______
Mr. Huffman. With that, I want to invite the Ranking Member
to say a few remarks, and then we will welcome and introduce
our witnesses.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. According to the
EPA, since 1901, global precipitation has actually increased at
an average rate of roughly one-tenth of an inch per decade,
while precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased
at a rate of nearly two-tenths of an inch per decade. Globally,
annual rainfall alone produces roughly 18,000 gallons of fresh
water every day for every man, woman, and child on this planet.
The problem is this abundance of fresh water is unevenly
distributed over time and space.
Throughout the 20th century, it was the policy of this
government to guarantee abundant water for all the people and
regions of our country. We built reservoirs to transfer water
from wet years to dry years, and we built canals to transfer
water from wet regions to dry ones. By doing so, we made the
deserts bloom, we protected our communities from floods and
droughts, and we opened up vast tracts of land to support a
prosperous population made possible by water abundance.
Sadly, these policies were reversed over the last 45 years.
In my region, 4 years of drought, combined with massive pulse-
flow water releases mandated by environmental laws, drained our
reservoirs to nearly deadpool levels. The next year, an
atmospheric river opened up, requiring the loss of massive
amounts of water to the ocean, because we had no place to store
it--not for lack of suitable sites, but because of inaction in
using them.
The climate is constantly changing, which requires constant
adaptation. Up until 5,000 years ago, the Sahara was one of the
wetter regions of our planet, with frequent monsoons that
produced the largest freshwater lake in the world. During the
Roman warm period, much of the Roman grain supply was grown in
North Africa.
The foresight of America's 20th century water engineers
should be more apparent today. In the modern warm period, water
will be stored for less time as snow in the mountains, which
means that without new reservoirs to capture this runoff, it
will be lost to the ocean.
During the last several Congresses, the House sent major
legislation to the Senate to expedite and reform the permitting
process that has made the construction of new reservoirs
endlessly time consuming and ultimately cost-prohibitive.
Unfortunately, the Senate failed to act.
As one example, the Shasta Dam was built to an elevation of
600 feet and stores about 4\1/2\ million acre-feet of water.
But it was designed to an elevation of 800 feet. The difference
is 9 million acre-feet of water storage. Yet, less than 20 feet
of additional elevation, about 600,000 acre-feet of additional
storage, has been stalled for decades in an endless cycle of
environmental studies with no end in sight.
Droughts are nature's fault. They happen. But water
shortages are our fault. They are a choice that we made when we
stopped building adequate storage to meet the needs of the next
generation.
We are told that reservoirs are old-fashioned, and we must
look to solutions like conservation, recycling, and
desalination. Well, we need to understand what that actually
means.
Conservation does not add a drop to our water supply, it
merely copes with the shortage that our own policies have
imposed. And there is a limit to how much conservation can be
mandated before it begins to have a significant negative impact
on the quality of life for our people. Californians are soon to
get a major lesson in this when mandated, year-round water
rationing signed by Governor Brown takes effect in a few years.
Recycling and desalination makes sense in deserts where
water is scarce and can't be imported. Fortunately, most
regions of our country are blessed with abundant water.
According to the California Energy Commission, surface water
storage costs between $400 and $800 per acre-foot; while water
desalination costs between $1,800 and $2,800 per acre-foot; and
water recycling between $1,200 and $1,800 per acre-foot.
In other words, storing water before it is lost to the
ocean costs a mean of $600, while reclaiming it once it has
been lost to the ocean costs about $2,300. Water desalination
is a great idea if you don't mind your water bill quadrupling.
We should be looking at the most cost-effective ways to
produce water abundance, not the most expensive. That is the
difference between abundance and scarcity, the difference
between prosperity and rationing, and the difference between
the policies before us today.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Tom McClintock, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
According to the EPA, since 1901, global precipitation has
increased at an average rate of 0.08 inches per decade, while
precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of
0.17 inches per decade. Globally, annual rainfall alone produces
roughly 18,000 gallons of fresh water every day for every man, woman
and child on this planet.
The problem is that this abundance of fresh water is unevenly
distributed over space and time. Throughout the 20th century, it was
the policy of this government to guarantee abundant water for all the
people and regions of our country. We built reservoirs to transfer
water from wet years to dry years and we built canals to transfer water
from wet regions to dry ones. By doing so, we made the deserts bloom
and opened up vast tracts of land to support a prosperous population
made possible by water abundance.
Sadly, these policies were reversed over the last 45 years. In my
region, 4 years of drought, combined with massive pulse flow water
releases mandated by environmental laws, drained our reservoirs nearly
to dead-pool levels. The next year, an atmospheric river opened up,
requiring the loss of massive amounts of water to the ocean because we
had no place to store it--not for lack of suitable sites, but for lack
of action in utilizing them.
The climate is constantly changing, which requires constant
adaptation. Up until 5,000 years ago, the Sahara was one of the wetter
regions of the planet, with frequent monsoons that produced the largest
freshwater lake in the world. During the Roman Warm Period, much of the
Roman grain supply was grown in North Africa.
The foresight of America's 20th century water engineers should be
more apparent today. In the Modern Warm Period, water will be stored
for less time as snow in the mountains, which means that without new
reservoirs to capture this runoff, it will be lost to the ocean.
During the last several Congresses, the House sent major
legislation to the Senate to expedite and reform the permitting process
that has made the construction of new reservoirs endlessly time
consuming and ultimately cost-prohibitive. Unfortunately, the Senate
failed to act.
As one example, the Shasta Dam was built to an elevation of 600
feet and stores more than 4\1/2\ million acre-feet of water. But it was
designed to an elevation of 800 feet. The difference is 9 million acre-
feet of water storage. Yet less than 20 feet of additional elevation--
about 630,000 acre-feet of additional storage--has been stalled for
more than 20 years in an endless cycle of environmental studies with no
end in sight.
Droughts are nature's fault. They happen. But water shortages are
our fault. They are a choice we made when we stopped building adequate
storage to meet the needs of the next generation.
We are told that reservoirs are old-fashioned, and that we must
look to solutions like conservation, recycling and desalination. We
need to understand that this actually means.
Conservation does not add a drop to our water supply--it merely
copes with a shortage that our own policies have imposed. And there is
a limit to how much conservation can be mandated before it begins to
have a significant negative impact on the quality of life for our
people. Californians are soon going to get a major lesson in this when
mandated year-round water rationing signed by Governor Brown takes
effect in a few years.
Recycling and desalination make sense in deserts where water is
scarce and can't be imported. Fortunately, most regions of our country
are blessed with abundant water. According to the California Energy
Commission, surface water storage costs between $400 and $800 per acre
foot while water desalination costs $1,800 to $2,800 per foot and water
recycling $1,200 to $1,800 per foot. In other words, storing water
before it is lost to the ocean costs a mean of $600 while reclaiming it
once it's been lost to the ocean costs $2,300. Water desalination is a
great idea if you don't mind your water bill quadrupling.
We should be looking at the most cost-effective ways to produce
water abundance--not the most expensive. That is the difference between
abundance and scarcity--the difference between prosperity and
rationing--and the difference between the policies before us.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. McClintock. We will now hear
from our witnesses.
Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee Rules,
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes. But their
entire statement will still appear in the hearing record.
When you begin, the lights on the witness table will turn
green. After 4 minutes, you will see the yellow light come on.
Your time will have expired when the red light comes on, and I
will ask you to please complete your statement.
I will also allow the entire panel to testify before we
turn to questions from the Members.
I will now begin with the witnesses. I see that Mr. Neguse
is here. Our first witness is from Colorado. We will invite the
gentleman from Colorado to introduce his home state
constituent.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the
opportunity to do that. And I am so honored and pleased to
introduce Mr. Bradley H. Udall from my district, the Colorado
2nd District.
Brad currently serves as the Senior Water and Climate
Research Scientist for Colorado State University's Colorado
Water Institute. He helped author the Fourth National Climate
Assessment, and he is an expert, literally in the sense of the
word, in anything related to western water.
I also would be remiss if I didn't point out the weight,
certainly, that we all feel, and that certainly Brad must be
feeling, in testifying in this room. If you all look to the
back of the room, you can see the picture of his father, the
legendary Mr. Morris Udall.
Brad, it is such an honor to have you here today, and I
certainly know that your father would be very proud, as is the
state of Colorado. Thank you for taking the time to come
testify and help us learn about a topic that is extremely
important to our district, our state, and our country.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
It is an honor to have you, Mr. Udall.
STATEMENT OF BRAD UDALL, SENIOR WATER AND CLIMATE RESEARCH
SCIENTIST, COLORADO WATER INSTITUTE, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY,
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member
McClintock, and other members of the panel. Thank you for
providing me an opportunity to speak. I am a senior scientist
at Colorado State University, where I study how climate change
will affect Western U.S. water supplies. Today, I want to focus
on the Colorado River.
After 19 years of unprecedented low flows and over-use in
the lower basin, the Nation's two largest reservoirs, Lakes
Mead and Powell, are now barely 40 percent full. Without major
action by the Colorado River Basin states, there is a
substantial risk of draining Lake Mead to deadpool in the next
7 years, an event that would prove to be very challenging.
Since 2000, Colorado River flows have been 19 percent below
the 20th century average. Temperatures in the basin are now 2
degrees Fahrenheit warmer, and those temperatures are certain
to continue rising. Scientists have begun using aridification
to describe the ongoing hot and dry climate in the basin,
rather than just drought.
In 2017, Jonathan Overpeck and I found that higher
temperatures due to climate change had reduced the flow of the
Colorado River by approximately 6 percent, and that additional
warming could reduce flows by approximately 20 percent by 2050,
and up to 35 percent by 2100, should precipitation remain the
same.
Higher temperatures increase evaporation from soils and
water bodies, increase sublimation from snowpacks, and increase
water use by plants, due to a longer growing season and more
warmth on any given day. Other studies have come to similar
conclusions.
The 2018 National Climate Assessment found that snowpacks
are being reduced, so melt runoff is occurring earlier in the
year, and flows in the fall are lower. More of our
precipitation is occurring as rain, rather than snow.
The not-yet-approved Drought Contingency Plan is an
important first step to solving the basin's problems. It
significantly reduces the chance of emptying Lake Mead. Most
critically, the DCP buys us time to implement more permanent
solutions. However, it leaves many hard decisions for the next
plan.
Negotiations for that replacement plan should begin next
year. This plan needs to be a climate change plan for the
basin. The planning process should be open and inclusive. It
should solve the over-use problem in the lower basin and
prepare for extended and unprecedented low flows. It should
also re-visit a number of long-standing assumptions about how
the river is being managed, including the upper basin's so-
called delivery obligation, who bears the burden of solving the
lower basin's over-use, and how the reservoirs are operated.
I want to offer a few suggestions for how the Federal
Government might help ensure water security in the basin.
Additional ideas are in my written testimony.
With climate change, the past is no longer a guide to the
future. This makes planning very difficult. Scientists need to
devise new ways to predict future runoff, and find other ways,
including scenarios to help decision makers grapple with this
very different future.
Agriculture will be at the center of additional water
shortages in the basin, because of its approximately 70 percent
of total water use. Deficit irrigation, rotational fallowing,
crop switching, irrigation efficiency all offer opportunities
to save water, while keeping Ag. in production. There is much
that a coordinated effort, between Interior with WaterSMART and
USDA with its Farm Bill, can do to ensure that the harm to Ag.
is minimized.
The Salton Sea deserves significant Federal resources.
Without a functioning Salton Sea, the Imperial Irrigation
District's ability to contribute to a meaningful resolution of
the lower basin's over-use will be seriously constrained.
Interior needs to continue to fund our National Streamgage
Network. Congress should continue to support existing programs
like NOAA's RISA, Interior's Climate Adaptation Science
Centers, and the USDA Climate Hubs.
Finally, any solution must aim at the root cause of these
temperature-induced flow reductions. The ultimate goal must be
net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as is practical,
ideally net zero by 2050, but no later than 2070. Greenhouse
gas reductions must be pursued through a suite of actions,
including carbon pricing, investments in technology, tax
credits, and other techniques.
In conclusion, climate change is water change, and it is
already impacting the Colorado River. My father was a member of
this Committee for over 30 years, and he chaired it for 14.
This very hearing room is named for him. That generation did
not shy away from solving the great problems of its day,
including how to provide reliable water supplies for the
American Southwest.
Similarly, this generation should not shy away from solving
the great problems of today, which include how do we adapt to
climate change, and how do we stop it? Climate change threatens
all we hold dear. This is especially clear when it reduces our
life-giving water supplies.
Climate change is the key threat to 21st century water
supply reliability. To minimize this threat we must act now by
adapting to the coming changes with smart water management
policy, with technology, with science, and also by reducing
greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as we can.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brad Udall,\1\ Senior Water and Climate Research
Scientist/Scholar, Colorado Water Institute, Colorado State University
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to my position at Colorado State University, I am a
co-investigator with the DOI Southwest Climate Adaptation Science
Center, and a member of the Colorado River Research Group.
(www.coloradoriverresearchgroup.org).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member McClintock, and other members of
the panel, thank you for providing me an opportunity to speak on this
important issue.
I am a senior scientist at Colorado State University where I study
how climate change will affect western U.S. water supplies. For over 15
years, I have published and spoken extensively on the impacts of
climate change on western rivers, and how we might reduce those
impacts. Today I want to use my time to focus on the Colorado River.
1. the 21st century climate challenge for the colorado river basin
Nineteen years of unprecedented drought in the gaged record have
brought the Colorado River basin to the brink of the first ever major
water delivery reductions in the Lower Basin. The combined contents of
the two largest reservoirs in the United States, Lakes Mead and Powell,
are now barely 40 percent full (Figure 1). Last month the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation said that there is a 69 percent chance for the first-
ever shortage in 2020 and a 21 percent chance that Lake Mead will be
less than 25 percent full in 2023 \2\ (Figure 2). At this level, the
reservoir's ability to supply water to Nevada, California, Arizona and
Mexico is at risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ January 2019 Projections from Reclamation's Mid-Term Operations
Model (MTOM) model here: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/riverops/
crss-5year-projections.html. Note that these projections use the full
111 years of historical hydrology (1906-2016) which includes the
pluvial at the beginning of the 20th century. The actual risk using
some form of `stress test' hydrology without the wet period would be
substantially higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: Combined Contents of Lakes Powell and Mead 2000 to January
31, 2019.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 2: Shortage Probabilities for 2019 to 2023 from
Reclamation's January 2019 study.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsSince 2000 flows have been 19 percent below the 20th century
average (Figure 3). 2018 was the hottest and driest year in the 4-
Corners region since records were first kept in 1895 (Figure 4).
Temperatures in the basin are now over 2+ F warmer than the 20th
century average, and those temperatures are certain to continue rising.
Because the term drought implies a temporary condition, and this 19-
year drought has been anything but that, scientists have begun using
``aridification'' to describe the ongoing hot and dry climate in the
basin.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ It should be noted that it is possible that the Colorado River
may see a decade or more of higher flows in the 21st century--our
enhanced water cycle is now capable of generating very large flows. But
on balance, the science tells us that over the course of the 21st
century the greatest risk is for flow reductions and ongoing
aridification.
Figure 3: Reservoir Contents, Upper Basin Natural (undepleted) Flows,
Precipitation, and Temperature for various periods to end of September
2018.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4. 2018 was a record setting hot and dry year in large parts
of the American Southwest.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In addition to climate change, overuse has also contributed to
the problem. Water users in the Lower Basin states consume roughly 10.2
million acre-feet \4\ (maf) annually, while inflows from upstream
average 9 maf leaving an imbalance of 1.2 maf/year, or about 7 percent
of the total flow in the system. This imbalance, known as the
``Structural Deficit,'' along with the low flows, has helped to drive
both Lakes Mead and Powell lower (Figures 1 and 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ An acre-foot is 1 foot of water depth over an area of 1 acre or
about 325,000 gallons. This is enough water for 2 to 4 families per
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 5. Contents in millions of acre-feet of Lakes Powell and Mead,
January 1, 2000 to January 31, 2019.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
the salience of warming temperatures
In 2017, Dr. Jonathan Overpeck \5\ and I published a peer-reviewed
paper \6\ which said that higher temperatures due to climate change had
reduced the flow of the Colorado River by approximately 6 percent, and
that additional warming could reduce flows by approximately 20 percent
in 2050, and up to 35 percent by 2100, should precipitation remain the
same.\7\ Higher temperatures increase evaporation from soils and water
bodies, increase sublimation from snowpacks, and increase water use by
plants due to a longer growing season and more warmth on any given day.
A thirstier atmosphere which can now hold more moisture due to higher
temperatures also contributes to the problem. Given the large 2+ F
warming in the basin, we called the current period a ``hot drought''
and the flow losses ``temperature-induced flow reductions'' to
distinguish them from a more normal ``dry drought'' that causes
precipitation-related flow reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Dr. Overpeck is Now Dean of the University of Michigan School
for Environment and Sustainability. At the time of the paper he was the
Director of the Institute of the Environment at the University of
Arizona and the Thomas R. Brown Distinguished Professor of Science.
\6\ Udall and Overpeck, 2017, The 21st century Colorado River hot
drought and implications for the future.
\7\ In the paper these numbers all have ranges on them. The range
of current flow reduction was from 3% to 10%; 6% is roughly the mid-
point of this range. The range in 2050 was from 8% to nearly 30%, using
3 different temperature sensitivities and a broad range of future
emissions. In 2100 the range was from 12% to 55%. In the text above, I
round to the middle of these ranges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year Dr. Dennis Lettenmaier,\8\ his doctoral student Mu Xiao,
and I published another peer-reviewed paper \9\ showing that 50 percent
of the flow reduction from 2000 to 2014 was due to higher temperatures
and the remaining 50 percent was due to shifting precipitation
patterns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Distinguished Professor of Geography at the University of
California at Los Angeles.
\9\ Xiao, Udall and Lettenmaier, 2018. On the Causes of Declining
Colorado River Streamflows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other recent papers have also found significant impacts of
temperatures on Colorado River flows \10\ and other western rivers.
Southwestern U.S. megadroughts--droughts lasting decades-have been
shown to be much more likely in the 21st century as it warms, even if
precipitation increases.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Dettinger, Udall, & Georgakakos, 2015; McCabe, et al.,
2017; Overpeck & Udall, 2010; Vano, Das, & Lettenmaier, 2012; Vano et
al., 2014; Vano & Lettenmaier, 2014; Woodhouse, et al., 2016.
\11\ Ault, et al., 2016; Cook, Ault, & Smerdon, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 4th National Climate Assessment \12\ found that the
hydrologic cycle has already been profoundly modified by climate
change. In the West, snowpacks are being reduced, snowmelt runoff is
occurring earlier in the year, and flows in the fall are lower. More of
our precipitation is occurring as rain rather than snow. Previous
National Assessments in 2009 and 2014 reported similar results. Studies
also note that past hydrology is no longer a suitable guide to future
hydrology, a concept sometimes known as the ``Death of Stationarity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://nca2018.globalchange.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear the Colorado River, and the entire Southwest, has
shifted to a new hotter and drier climate, and, equally important, will
continue to shift to a hotter and drier climate for several decades
after we stop emitting greenhouse gasses. Last year humans emitted over
37 billion tons of CO2 , an increase of 2.7 percent over
2017.\13\ Given these unprecedented changes to our climate and water
supplies, our 20th century water management systems will need
fundamental modifications to ensure that humans, our economy, and our
environment suffer the least harm from likely future reductions in
water supplies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/12/05/
we-are-trouble-global-carbon-emissionsreached-new-record-high/
?utm_term=.874be32b4d7b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. the drought contingency plan (dcp)
The seven Basin states are close to a ``Drought Contingency
Agreement \14\'' that will implement large proactive reductions in
deliveries in the basin to protect Lakes Mead and Powell from reaching
dangerously low volumes. In the Lower Basin, Central Arizona
agriculture will be especially hit hard along with more manageable
shortages for Las Vegas and central Arizona municipalities. If flows
remain low, California agriculture and municipalities in Southern
California will be impacted in future years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The DCP is actually a set of agreements. https://www.usbr.gov/
dcp/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The states, the Central Arizona Project, irrigation districts,
NGOs, Indian tribes and others deserve recognition for the hard work
needed to agree on very difficult reductions in water use. And
Reclamation has been within its rights to strongly encourage all of the
parties to finish these agreements soon.
The agreement is an important first step. To be sure, it
significantly reduces the chance of emptying Lake Mead, an event that
would prove to be very challenging for the entire Southwest. Most
critically, the DCP buys us time to implement more permanent solutions.
And on paper the DCP `solves' the Structural Deficit. It is, however,
not perfect. It has mechanisms to account for and repay any shortages
should flows later partially refill reservoirs. These paybacks have the
potential to put the reservoirs back into precarious territory just
when they show signs of recovery. Although the agreement has not been
finalized, I am very optimistic that it will be completed soon.
This agreement will only last 7 years. New negotiations will need
to begin by the end of 2020 to replace the existing 2007 agreement on
shortage sharing and reservoir operations \15\ which expires in 2026.
Hard issues left unresolved by the DCP will make the coming
negotiations even more challenging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/
RecordofDecision.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. the 2020-2026 negotiations leading to the 2026 agreement
In the long term, the Basin states need not just a Drought
Contingency Plan, but a Climate Change Plan that accounts for likely
future declines in flows. Should flows continue to drop, as the science
suggests is likely, additional reductions in consumption will be
needed. Agreeing on reductions that cause the least harm to water
users, the overall economy and the environment will be an exceedingly
difficult task, much harder to come by than those achieved in the DCP.
To ensure water reliability in the 21st century, planning for major
flow reductions should be the main charge for those leading the
negotiations for the new 2026 agreement.
4.1. An Open, Inclusive EIS Process Needed
The negotiations will need a full Environmental Impact Statement
including the transparency that such a process requires. (With the
exception of Arizona, the DCP process lacked transparency and
inclusion.) This process should allow for alternatives supplied by the
states, tribes, municipalities, academia, NGOs and others. The 2007
process, for example, incorporated an NGO-sponsored `Conservation
Before Shortage' alternative that provided some of the ideas
implemented in the 2007 agreement and later in the DCP. Reclamation
should support making modeling tools available to interested parties;
modeling allows for thinking with numbers in much the same fashion that
writing allows for thinking with words. Without these open access
tools, some stakeholders will be unable to fully participate in the
process.
4.2. Permanent Structural Deficit Solution Needed and Plans for
Extended Low Flows
A permanent solution to the Structural Deficit should be part of
the 2026 negotiations. The negotiation also needs to consider how water
management will respond to potential future unprecedented low flows
that require reductions in additional to those needed to solve the
Structural Deficit. The current rules, laws and agreements imply
solutions that may lead to litigation, may be undesirable and perhaps
even impractical. Rules, laws and agreements around ``equalization,''
who bears the burden of solving the Structural Deficit, and the
agreement around the Upper Basin delivery `obligation' will all need to
be considered.
With each passing year, the existing 2007 reservoir rules reduce
the possibility of `equalization releases' from Lake Powell to Lake
Mead. It has been these large (e.g., 3-5 maf in 1 year) releases that
have allowed the Structural Deficit to persist. The combination of
future large temperature-induced flow reductions and the likely
continuation of the existing high bar for equalization means that it is
very likely that at least 1.2 maf/year of demand will need to be
permanently removed from the river in the 2026 agreement with
provisions for additional reductions if needed.
Contrary to what the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act says,
the Central Arizona Project (and to a much lesser degree, Nevada)
should not have to bear the entire burden of solving the Structural
Deficit. This is because 5m people in Phoenix and 1m people in Tucson
rely at least to some extent on this surface water. (Tucson has no
surface water, although it does sit atop a large but not infinite
supply of groundwater.) This fact has been acknowledged implicitly by
inclusion of shortages to California in the DCP. It is extremely likely
that additional shared sacrifice by all Lower Basin entities will be
needed.
Since 1922, the Lower Basin has relied on Section III(d) of the
Colorado River Compact which appears to obligate the Upper Basin to
deliver 75 maf every 10 running years as a backstop to future potential
low flow conditions. That wording of that clause says that the Upper
Basin shall not cause the flow to decline below 75 maf. However, if
climate change causes those flow reductions, and if the Upper Basin is
well under their Compact Section III(a) consumptive use limit as they
currently are, the Upper Basin has a strong case to make that Section
III(d) does not apply. Were this to occur, the Upper Basin would have
been in serious drought for a number of years and its reservoirs would
likely be empty. In addition, water to meet such a `compact call' would
come disproportionately from already suffering Upper Basin
municipalities including Colorado's Front Range, Albuquerque, and Salt
Lake City. This could lead to lengthy litigation, an outcome that would
do little to provide either water or an immediate solution. In such a
situation, the Lower Basin would need to reduce uses well beyond that
needed to solve the Structural Deficit.
4.3. The Tension between Water Conservation to Raise Lake Levels and
Later Recovery
Well-meaning existing efforts (``Intentionally Created Surplus''
and variants) allowed by the 2007 agreement to prop up Lake Mead with
unused conserved water may have an implicit flaw, which is that these
waters are accounted for and are later allowed to be withdrawn from the
system, potentially at times when the system is more exposed. This year
Metropolitan Water District announced plans to withdraw its previously
stored water rather than have it stranded by the existing rules which
prevent withdrawals at low lake elevations. This is the water
management equivalent of a bank run, and without a surefire mechanism
of deposit insurance, such untimely withdrawals may happen in the
future.
To be sure, these efforts were designed to encourage water
conservation and this has occurred. But there remains a tension between
encouraging conservation and at the same time allowing the recovery of
this water later which actually means that no real conservation
occurred--the storer merely shifted water use in time. These water
storage efforts allow us to push the problem forward in time, hoping
that Mother Nature will rescue us. But they can make low flow years
worse, with storing entities desiring to recover these saved supplies
during such low years exactly when the reservoirs are bottoming out.
Unfortunately, there is no clear way to provide the equivalent of
deposit insurance, which in this case would be a supply of emergency
water to prop up either the reservoir or the depositor.
These rules might make sense in a system where a reasonable
expectation is that a better future will soon occur. In a declining
system, however, these rules push difficult decisions to the future
when those decisions will be even more challenging. It is not clear how
to solve this problem, but at least shedding light on it may help
identify solutions.
4.4. Developing Future Hydrology that accounts for Warming and Non-
Stationarity
One of the most difficult aspects of water resource management in
the era of climate change is that the past is no longer a guide to the
future.\16\ Current floods and droughts are now routinely exceeding the
envelope of the historic record. This makes planning, including
probabilistic modeling, very difficult.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Milly et al., ``Stationarity Is Dead.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current projections for the future of the basin often use the full
range of historical hydrology from 1906 onward to generate
probabilities of future delivery reductions. Yet we know these
probabilities are understated because of a very wet period at the
beginning of the 20th century that will likely not reoccur. In these
modeling efforts, the wet years refill reservoirs and bail out the
system. In recent years Reclamation has investigated using shorter
periods (``stress test hydrology'') that remove this wet period and use
only the more recent dry period. It is possible that even these efforts
understate the future risk. Other work is ongoing to understand the
increasing influence of temperature on streamflows, including the
physical mechanisms for the uncoupling of runoff from precipitation.
Much more work needs to be done.
Reclamation has also been experimenting with future hydrology
scenarios that step back from probabilities. These scenario-based
efforts attempt to provide plausible futures for decision makers
without explicit, overly precise and misleading probabilities.
Additional work is needed in this area and Reclamation needs to be
given the resources to pursue all of this work. This is a national
problem as well.
5. other actions and considerations
5.1. Agricultural Solutions
Agriculture will be at the center of additional water shortages in
the basin because of its approximately 70 percent of total water use.
The Drought Contingency Plan provides money and a plan to replace
Colorado River water with groundwater to partially mitigate harm to
Arizona irrigators. With potential cuts to locations outside of central
Arizona and in California, groundwater is unlikely to be available as a
replacement source.
In 2017 Greg Peterson and I published a study \17\ on how
agriculture might adapt to lower flows. We looked at deficit irrigation
of alfalfa, rotational fallowing, crop switching, irrigation efficiency
\18\ and water conservation. All of these water saving techniques offer
the promise of at least some water savings, although each also has
distinct costs. Perhaps the most promising of these techniques is
switching to less water intensive crops, although it is also the least
known and least tried. Crop switching requires growers to change labor,
equipment, markets, transportation, storage and more. For crop
switching to work, growers will need assistance and assurance that
these new products will be financially viable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ http://www.cwi.colostate.edu/media/publications/cr/232.pdf.
\18\ Improperly done, irrigation efficiency measures can
paradoxically increase water consumption. Properly done, irrigation
efficiency can provide needed flexibility and save water. See (Grafton
et al., 2018; Ward & Pulido-Velazquez, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is much the Federal Government can do to assist with such a
transformation. The U.S. government should help facilitate all of these
techniques through programs at Reclamation such as WaterSMART,\19\ and
through the Farm Bill. The Department of the Interior and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture need to ensure that inter-departmental
coordination occurs so that programs can be integrated as much as
possible. Given that agriculture will bear much of the brunt of coming
reductions, it is imperative that USDA be as active as possible in
mitigating the impacts to agricultural users. In addition, Reclamation
should consider a broad study to see where its large backlog of
infrastructure needs might overlap with opportunities to pursue
irrigation efficiency and water conservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2. The Salton Sea
The Salton Sea stands out as an area of special concern--2017
marked the last year of extra flows into the sea to mitigate transfers
to San Diego. It has now begun to decline rapidly, falling 1.7 feet in
the past 2 years, threatening both a critical ecological resource and
human health in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. Impacts are already
being noted.\20\ There are a number of reasonably simple actions that
could be taken to resolve problems, and also importantly, to allow
future Colorado River problems to be solved. Without a functioning
Salton Sea, the Imperial Irrigation District's ability to contribute to
a meaningful resolution of the existing Structural Deficit, and
additional demand reduction if necessary, will be seriously
constrained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/2019/02/08/salton-sea-
california-fish-bird-die-off-winter/2818025002/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plans exist to minimize the developing impacts at the sea; what has
been missing is resources to implement these ideas. The USGS Salton Sea
Science Office needs a full-time director based near the sea.
Reclamation could support hydrologic studies, engineering review and
general construction management for Salton Sea habitat projects. The
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Salton Sea Wildlife Refuge should be fully
staffed and funded, including money for the Red Hill Bay project.
Despite its size and apparent last minute nature, the Imperial
Irrigation District's recent $200m request is reasonable. There is a
need for long-term funding for Salton Sea monitoring and O&M which is
largely unmet by California's bond funding.
5.3. New Diversions in the Basin
Despite the ongoing aridification and warning signs that the river
is overallocated and overused, additional diversions are still being
planned in the Basin. Given all that we know, these plans should be
delayed or if built only allowed to divert when the harm to existing
users will be very low, such as when Lakes Powell and Mead are full or
nearly full. With serious shortages already possible, the last thing
this basin should consider is additional diversions.
5.4. The Federal Role in Policy
The Federal Government through Reclamation has long played an
important role in the basin. Historically, that role has been primarily
to build and run the massive infrastructure. In recent years,
Reclamation has provided important scientific support to the Basin
states in their negotiation of new water agreements. The agency has
played a critical convening and process role, while letting the states
lead on policy, as is appropriate given state ownership of most water
rights. However, when the states fail to lead, Reclamation has rightly
threatened, scared and cajoled the states back to their proper role.
This is as it should be and Reclamation should continue to provide
scientific support, management and the appropriate leadership on new
water agreements including a willingness to impose solutions if the
states are unable or unwilling to make the difficult choices required.
5.5. Science and Data Collection
Interior through the USGS and its partners needs to continue to
fund our national stream gage network, and expand that network where
scientists and decision makers agree that additional gaging is
necessary. To use a navigation analogy, climate change puts us in
uncharted territory. With less than complete ``maps'' of our climate
future, we need to make sure that our instruments are working and
providing the very best information on our location.
Congress should continue to support existing programs like the
NOAA-funded Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessment (RISA)
programs, the Department of Interior Climate Adaptation Science Centers
(CASC), Reclamation's water science efforts and the USDA Climate
Hubs,\21\ all of which serve to connect scientists with decision makers
so that useful science can be created and understood. These programs
have a known track record of knowledge coproduction, which includes the
breaking down of barriers between scientists and decision makers. The
RISA and CASC programs have been especially good at assessing the state
of science for stakeholders. The Climate Hubs are much newer, show
great promise with helping agriculture adapt to climate change, but
need more resources. Reclamation's scientist-engineers are very
talented and deserve recognition and support for moving emerging
science into useful engineering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ I have served as the Director of the Western Water Assessment
RISA, am a co-investigator for the Southwest Climate Adaptation Science
Center and serve as one of Colorado State University's liaisons to the
Northern Plains Climate Hub.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that these actions will have widespread national benefits
beyond the Colorado River.
5.6. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts
Finally, any solution set must aim at the root cause of the
temperature-induced flow reductions. Climate change is as serious a
problem as humans have ever faced and thus requires not one, but a vast
set of solutions. The ultimate goal must be net zero greenhouse gas
emissions as soon as is practical, ideally with net zero reductions by
2050 but no later than by 2070.\22\ This is achievable but will take
great leadership. To the extent we fail to do this, we will impose
great costs on ourselves, our youth, and especially on future
generations. Greenhouse gas reductions must be pursued through a suite
of actions including carbon pricing, investments in technology, tax
credits, and even thru Climate Smart Agriculture \23\ which aims to
increase farm yields while sequestering carbon in soil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ These are the recommendations from the recent IPPC 1.5 Degree
Special Report.
\23\ Colorado State University has a new Climate Smart Agriculture
initiative and works with the USDA Climate Hubs. Climate Smart
Agriculture was initially conceived by the Food and Agriculture
Organization in 2013. See Lipper et al, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. conclusions
Scientists have attributed changes in the global water cycle to
human caused climate change including enhanced precipitation in
hurricanes like Harvey which dropped 50+ inches of rain in 4 days,\24\
record-setting droughts like the one in California from 2012 to
2017,\25\ and recent flow declines in the Rio Grande.\26\ Climate
change is also clearly impacting river flows in the Colorado River,
too. Simply put, climate change is water change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Risser & Wehner, 2017; Trenberth, et al., 2018.
\25\ Diffenbaugh, Swain, & Touma, 2015.
\26\ Chavarria & Gutzler, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My father was a member of this Committee for over 30 years and
chaired it for 14 years. This very hearing room is named for him, and
his portrait overlooks us all. His generation, the greatest generation,
revered science and the knowledge it provided that allowed us to build
the amazing water supply infrastructure that now exists on the Colorado
River.
That generation did not shy from solving the great problems of its
day, including how to provide reliable water supplies for the American
Southwest and how to clean up our environment. My best guess is that in
this very room the ground breaking 1968 Colorado River Basin Project
Act was passed out of Committee.
Similarly, this generation should not shy away from solving the
great problems of today, which include how do we adapt to climate
change and how do we stop it. The science on climate change is now 200
years old, and is very, very clear. When major oil companies accept the
science \27\ and say we must act, as they have,\28\ the debate should
be over. It is over in every other major country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oil-giant-accepts-
climate-consensus-denies-responsibility-forwarming/.
\28\ https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/Energy-and-environment/
Environmental-protection/Climate-change; http://reports.shell.com/
sustainability-report/2015/energy-transition/addressing-climate-
change.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate change threatens all we hold dear--our economic well-being,
our culture, our way of life, our environment, our kids and future
generations. This is especially clear when it reduces our life-giving
water supplies as it is now doing in the Colorado River Basin. Climate
change is the key threat to 21st century water supply reliability.
To minimize this threat, we must act now by adapting to the coming
changes with smart water management and policy, with technology, with
science and also by reducing greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as we
can.
Thank you for your time.
references
Ault, T.R., et al. (2016). Relative impacts of mitigation, temperature,
and precipitation on 21st-century megadrought risk in the American
Southwest. Science Advances, 2(10), e1600873. https://doi.org/10.1126/
sciadv.1600873.
Chavarria, S.B. & Gutzler, D.S. (2018). Observed Changes in Climate and
Streamflow in the Upper Rio Grande Basin. JAWRA Journal of the American
Water Resources Association, 54(3), 644-659. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1752-1688.12640.
Cook, B.I., Ault, T.R., & Smerdon, J.E. (2015). Unprecedented 21st
century drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains.
Science Advances, 1(1), e1400082. https://doi.org/10.1126/
sciadv.1400082.
Dettinger, M., Udall, B., & Georgakakos, A. (2015). Western water and
climate change. Ecological Applications, 25(8), 2069-2093.
Diffenbaugh, N.S., Swain, D.L., & Touma, D. (2015). Anthropogenic
warming has increased drought risk in California. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 112(13), 3931-3936. https://doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.1422385112.
Grafton, R.Q., et al. (2018). The paradox of irrigation efficiency.
Science, 361(6404), 748-750. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat9314.
McCabe, G.J., et al. (2017). Evidence that Recent Warming is Reducing
Upper Colorado River Flows. Earth Interactions, 21(10), 1-14. https://
doi.org/10.1175/EI-D-17-0007.1.
Overpeck, J. & Udall, B. (2010). Dry times ahead. Science, 328(5986),
1642-1643.
Risser, M.D. & Wehner, M.F. (2017). Attributable Human-Induced Changes
in the Likelihood and Magnitude of the Observed Extreme Precipitation
during Hurricane Harvey: Changes in Extreme Precipitation in TX.
Geophysical Research Letters, 44(24), 12,457-12,464. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2017GL075888.
Trenberth, K.E., et al. (2018). Hurricane Harvey Links to Ocean Heat
Content and Climate Change Adaptation. Earth's Future, 6(5), 730-744.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000825.
Vano, J.A., Das, T., & Lettenmaier, D.P. (2012). Hydrologic
Sensitivities of Colorado River Runoff to Changes in Precipitation and
Temperature*. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 13(3), 932-949. https://
doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-11-069.1.
Vano, J.A. & Lettenmaier, D.P. (2014). A sensitivity-based approach to
evaluating future changes in Colorado River discharge. Climatic Change,
122(4), 621-634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1023-x.
Vano, J.A., et al. (2014). Understanding Uncertainties in Future
Colorado River streamflow. Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society, 95(1), 59-78.
Ward, F.A. & Pulido-Velazquez, M. (2008). Water conservation in
irrigation can increase water use. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 105(47), 18215-18220.
Woodhouse, C.A., et al. (2016). Increasing influence of air temperature
on upper Colorado River streamflow. Geophysical Research Letters,
2015GL067613. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067613.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Udall. The next witness is Mr.
Jonathan Nelson from the Community Water Center, a non-profit
environmental justice organization based in California's San
Joaquin Valley. The Community Water Center works to ensure that
all communities have access to safe, clean, and affordable
drinking water. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Nelson to testify.
Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN NELSON, POLICY DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY WATER
CENTER, VISALIA, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member
McClintock, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is
Jonathan Nelson. I am the policy director of the Community
Water Center, or CWC, an environmental justice organization
that works in the southern San Joaquin Valley and central coast
of California, whose vision is to ensure that all communities
in California and in America can have access to safe, clean,
and affordable water, through organizing education and
advocacy.
CWC also works as part of national coalitions to address
issues related to safe and affordable drinking water supply
across America.
At CWC, we believe that access to safe drinking water is a
basic human right. Yet, each year, millions of Americans are
impacted by unsafe water supply, including more than 1 million
in California. The data shows toxic drinking water
disproportionately impacts low-income communities of color.
Access to safe drinking water supply is a public health crisis,
and it is happening under our watch.
With this as quick background, I would like to offer two
points at the intersection of climate change and water supply.
First, climate change is already hurting access to safe
water supply in our communities. Climate science is clear that
droughts have the potential to become more frequent, longer,
and more severe. We saw that during the recent historic drought
in California, where over 10,000 Californians were impacted by
loss of water supply.
Communities like East Porterville, which had already faced
inequitable development and contaminated water, went dry as
farmers increasingly tapped into groundwater at unsustainable
rates, resulting in a reality where low-income communities
simply could not afford to chase the falling groundwater table.
It was a human catastrophe. Just imagine going home at the end
of today and not having water in your house, and having to have
your family rely on portable community showers and tanked
water.
What is worse, Stanford has documented the negative
relationship between stressed water supply and water quality.
The take-away is that climate change and more severe droughts
are the new normal, and we cannot look at issues of water
supply and water quality in isolation; they are fundamentally
connected.
The second point I would like to offer is to take proactive
action now to protect water supply for our most vulnerable
communities before the next water shortage crisis hits. CWC has
worked with others in California to recently pass proactive
drought preparedness legislation that would require more
advance drought emergency planning, and that also requires the
state of California to proactively identify communities that
may be at risk of future water supply shortage in the event of
a drought.
CWC is also working to implement legislation that requires
better stewarding of our precious groundwater resources, to
make sure that they last for future generations.
Finally, as already has been pointed out, we need far
greater levels of Federal investment, which has shrunk
dramatically in recent decades. These are just some of the
actions that we can take to avoid another climate-caused water
catastrophe, and we would like to work with this Congress in
taking action before it is too late.
To close, we believe that access to safe and affordable
drinking water is a basic human right. Yet, millions are
impacted by toxic water each year. This is not an abstract
issue, if you live in one of these impacted communities, and it
is only going to get worse as we move forward into a new normal
of climate change. Climate change is going to only accelerate
the challenges, but we can take action now to protect our
communities. So, we urge Congress to act. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan Nelson, Policy Director, Community Water
Center, Visalia, California
introduction and background on community water center
Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member McClintock, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony as
part of this informational hearing.
My name is Jonathan Nelson and I am the Policy Director of the
Community Water Center. I am here today to share with you information
and our perspective on the challenges and solutions regarding access to
safe drinking water supply in California, and particularly in
California's San Joaquin Valley and Central Coast regions.
As background, the Community Water Center is an Environmental
Justice non-profit founded in 2006 and headquartered in Visalia,
California, in the Southern San Joaquin Valley. The vision of the
Community Water Center, or CWC, is to ensure all communities have
access to safe, clean, and affordable water. CWC works as a catalyst
for community-driven water solutions through organizing, education, and
advocacy in California's San Joaquin Valley and Central Coast. We build
grassroot capacity to address water challenges in small, rural, low-
income communities and communities of color, and also engage on
statewide drinking water policy. CWC also works as part of national
coalitions to address issues related to safe and affordable drinking
water across the country.
In our view, those directly impacted by water contamination must
lead in creating and advocating for solutions. At CWC, we strive to
reduce barriers that prevent impacted residents from participating
effectively in decision making, and we firmly believe that in order to
solve California's drinking water crisis, all stakeholders must have a
seat at the table.
background on our drinking water crisis
At CWC, we believe that access to safe drinking water is a basic
human right, not a privilege. Yet each year millions of people across
the country depend on drinking water systems that serve unsafe water
\1\ and in California alone more than 1 million Californians are
exposed to unsafe drinking water from the taps in their homes, schools,
and communities.\2\ Although water problems exist statewide in
California, they disproportionately impact low income communities and
communities of color.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maura Allaire et al., National trends in drinking water quality
violations, 115 Proc. Nat'l Acad. of Sci., U.S. 2078, 2078 (2018),
https://perma.cc/Y9FU-SC7C (``[I]n 2015, nearly 21 million people
relied on community water systems that violated health-based quality
standards.'') (this number only includes those who rely on water
systems and not on private domestic wells).
\2\ https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2019/feb/14/
gavin-newsom/true-more-million-californians-dont-have-clean-dri/.
\3\ http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/communitywatercenter/
pages/52/attachments/original/1394398105/
Balazsetal_Arsenic.pdf?1394398105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California's San Joaquin Valley and Central Coast, where we
organize in, is particularly impacted. The San Joaquin Valley alone
hosts some of the most contaminated water basins in the nation,\4\ yet
nearly 95 percent of San Joaquin Valley residents rely on groundwater
for their domestic needs.\5\ This results in the San Joaquin Valley
having the highest rates of drinking water contamination and the
greatest number of public water systems with Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) violations in the state.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Exceedance/Compliance Status of Public Water Systems, Cal.
Water Bd., https://perma.cc/CF55-6XYW (last visited October 13, 2018, 2
PM),; Eli Moore et al., The Human Costs of Nitrate-Contaminated
Drinking Water in the San Joaquin Valley 11 (2011), https://perma.cc/
67GX-3ASC.
\5\ Carolina Balazs et al., Social Disparities in Nitrate-
Contaminated Drinking Water in California's San Joaquin Valley, 119
Envtl. Health Persp. 1272, 1273 (2011), https://perma.cc/JX8V-DHXC.
\6\ http://waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/hr2w/
index.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the acute health risks associated with the Central
Valley's and Central Coast's water contamination, communities face the
disproportionate economic burden that stems from a lack of basic urban
water infrastructure. Residents are often forced to pay twice for
water, having to purchase bottled water to supplement the unsafe tap
water delivered to their homes. These drinking water costs alone can
amount to as much as 10 percent of a household's income.\7\ In other
words, those most affected by the lack of safe water are also those
least able to afford the extra cost of alternative water sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/communitywatercenter/
pages/52/attachments/original/1394397950/assessing-water-
affordability.pdf?1394397950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Droughts and other water supply stressers only exacerbate the
challenge. California has recently emerged from the most severe drought
in the state's recorded history. Thousands of wells went dry, which
forced communities and residents to turn on old, contaminated back-up
wells or rely on emergency drinking water supplies like trucked water
or bottled water. For a long time, many residents were filling buckets
from their neighbors' water hoses in order to have enough water for
basic sanitation. And we still have communities and private well owners
whose wells remain dry years later.
Finally, the communities most impacted by unsafe drinking water
were for decades continuously and deliberately excluded from full
participation in their local water decision-making governance. And
still today there are challenges in ensuring adequate participation by
local communities in water governance.
We know through experience that if you give communities a seat at
the table, and empower them with the information they need, that they
can meaningfully participate in the decision-making process--and that
the solutions that result will better reflect the needs of communities.
solutions to secure safe drinking water supply for vulnerable
communities in the face of climate change
I would like to spend the remainder of my remarks today outlining a
few areas of need at the intersection of climate change and access to
safe drinking water supply.
The first point is acknowledging that climate change is already having
a direct impact on access to safe drinking water supply for vulnerable
communities.
The California community of East Porterville was severely and
disproportionately impacted during the 2011-2017 drought. East
Porterville is an unincorporated community of around 7,000 people in
Tulare County, California. Up until recently, due to inequitable
development patterns, nearly all East Porterville residents were served
by private domestic wells. As many as 300 wells were reported dry over
the drought years of 2014 and 2015. What is worse, many wells in the
area had tested positive for nitrates, a dangerous contaminant. As
surface water deliveries diminished, farmers increasingly tapped into
groundwater at unsustainable rates. This resulted in plummeting
groundwater levels, causing land subsidence and a reality where low-
income communities could not afford to keep drilling to chase the
falling groundwater table--causing domestic and shallow municipal wells
to go dry.
In response, CWC worked collaboratively with both local and state
government to address what had become a grave public health crisis. The
solution involved both interim and long-term drinking water solutions.
The interim measures included emergency bottled water, water tanks, and
portable showers--however these band-aid measures came at great
financial cost to the state of California, an estimated $633,500 per
month just for East Porterville--that's $7.6 million per year.\8\ The
long-term solution involved a consolidation for residents on domestic
wells into the city of Porterville's water system. CWC conducted large-
scale community outreach to ensure residents understood their options
and what to expect if they chose to connect to the city of
Porterville's water system. Since then, more than 700 East Porterville
homes have been connected to the city of Porterville's public water
system and now have a source of safe and reliable water for years to
come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/What-We-Do/
Emergency-Management/Files/East-Porterville/East-
Porterville_Feasibility-Study_Public-Draft_Rev_060316-1.pdf--pg. 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately East Porterville was not an isolated incident. In
2014, USDA granted more than $4 million in emergency funding to 11
public water districts in Tulare County alone to address water supply
shortfalls.\9\ Over 10,000 Californians suffered inadequate access to
water supply during the drought.\10\ Most of these Californians resided
in low-income communities of color that at worst had experienced
historic discrimination and at best insufficient levels of funding
investment. Climate change science tells us there will be more East
Porterville type emergencies in the future, as droughts become more
frequent, longer, and more severe. It is not a question of if the next
drought strikes, but when.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/story/news/local/2014/07/28/
tulare-county-gets-million-drought-help/13266557/.
\10\ State of California Household Water Supply Shortage Reporting
System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The East Porterville story also illustrates what real solutions
look like--in this case, funding to support consolidation of households
to a nearby water agency that still had access to water, coordination
between multiple levels of government, engagement with community-based
organizations. These solutions will continue to be needed as we grapple
with a new normal at the intersection of climate change, drought, and
our most vulnerable communities.
Finally, it is worth noting the relationship between water supply
and water quality, which is often not talked about. We repeatedly found
increased challenges with water quality in California's Central Valley
due to the drought and the resulting (even more) stressed water supply
as the composition of the aquifers changed. 6Stanford University has
recently released a study \11\ documenting the negative relationship
between stressed water supply and water quality in the aquifers. The
takeaway is we cannot look at issues of water supply and water quality
in isolation--they are fundamentally connected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2018/06/05/
overpumping-groundwater-increases-contamination-risk/.
The second point is around proactively building resilient drinking
water institutions, particularly in our most vulnerable and
disadvantaged communities, in order to secure a safe and affordable
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
water supply in the face of climate change.
What do we mean by building resilient drinking water institutions?
To us, resilient drinking water institutions are those that have the
capacity to provide safe drinking water both now and for the long term,
in the face of complex challenges such as resulting from water
contamination, over-depletion of groundwater sources, and stressors
like population growth--and perhaps most critically, climate change.
There are a number of actions we are pursuing in California to
better prepare for when the next drought hits, so that we never again
subject so many to such horrific conditions. In addition to responding
to the real-time impacts of climate change and drought emergencies, CWC
has worked over the last few years to pass proactive drought
preparedness legislation. For example, CWC worked collaboratively with
numerous other organizations to put forward legislation in 2017,
California Assembly Bill 1668, that would require certain planning
measures to be taken before a drought hits so that we can build more
resiliency ahead of time for our most vulnerable communities.
Importantly, the legislation would (1) require the state of California
to work with the appropriate water and government stakeholders to
develop recommended guidelines for drought and water shortage
contingency planning/emergency response, and (2) proactively identify
communities that may be at risk of water shortage in a future drought.
This is just one example of policies we are pursuing in California to
build resiliency for our most vulnerable communities in response to a
future of increased climate change and drought.
Another important effort in California to prepare for a future of
climate change and increased drought is to better steward our precious
groundwater sources. In 2014 California passed legislation, the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act or SGMA, to address a reality of
over-pumping of groundwater aquifers that directly contributed to so
many vulnerable Californians losing access to water during the drought.
SGMA requires the creation of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies and
Plans in order to achieve sustainability of groundwater use while
protecting the needs of communities and drinking water. SGMA is still
in the early stages of implementation and we have serious concerns that
the interests of small communities are being overshadowed or even
ignored by larger, more powerful interests. That said, SGMA does at
least offer a pathway toward greater sustainability of how groundwater
is used--so that it can be preserved and stewarded for the generations
to come.
Most importantly it must be noted that lasting change must start
within the community and has to be sustained by the community. We must
ensure that both funding processes and planning processes allow for
meaningful community engagement, not just a rubber stamp, so that
solutions can best reflect their needs.
Finally, we need to acknowledge that we need far greater levels of
Federal investment. A recent California State Water Board report found
that ``the percentage of federal support in the total public spending
on infrastructure for water utilities has fallen from over 30% in the
1970s to less than 5 percent in 2015.'' \12\ Congress must invest more
into ensuring access to a safe and affordable drinking water supply if
we are ever to secure every American's basic human right to water in
our country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/
conservation_portal/assistance/docs/2019/draft_report_ab401.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
To reiterate, we believe that access to safe, clean and affordable
drinking water is a basic human right. Securing this basic human right
for everyone in the United States is within reach if we muster the
political will and back it with the necessary funding investments. The
need is more urgent than ever in the face of climate change, which is
accelerating the set of challenges to ensuring universal access to a
safe and affordable water supply. We urge Congress to act.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present as part of this
hearing, and please do not hesitate to reach out if we can be a further
resource or of assistance.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Next we will recognize
Mr. Tony Willardson, who serves as the Executive Director of
the Western States Water Council. The Council is appointed by
the 18 Republican and Democratic governors of the western
states to work on water policy issues.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Willardson. The Chair now
recognizes you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TONY WILLARDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WESTERN
STATES WATER COUNCIL, MURRAY, UTAH
Mr. Willardson. Thank you, Chairman Huffman and Ranking
Member McClintock, and other members of the Subcommittee. We
appreciate the opportunity to testify on positions that the
Council has adopted. I would point out that we are a government
entity. We are an instrumentality of each and every
participating state, which includes the 17 reclamation states
and Alaska.
A secure water future is increasingly uncertain, due to a
number of factors. This includes limited data regarding water
supply, as well as demands in existing uses; unpredictable
climate extremes, such as drought; aging and often inadequate
infrastructure; competing and poorly defined water rights;
changing values and regulatory requirements; and integrated
collaborative and grass roots approaches needed to water
resources management. And this is going to require stronger
cooperation that transcends geographical boundaries between
states, Federal agencies, tribes, and local communities.
Emphasizing, obviously, from our state perspective, the
states have a primary responsibility for water resources
management. But also we strive to cooperate with national,
regional, local, and tribal entities with their
responsibilities and seek cooperation, rather than conflict and
litigation.
Water data is an area where we need to place a high
priority. There are many vital water data programs, but in
2007, the National Science and Technology Council simply stated
that quantitative knowledge of U.S. water supply is currently
inadequate. That remains the case.
Here, this Committee has jurisdiction over the USGS and
their Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program, over the
National Water-Quality Assessment and water use data, as well
as land imaging and thermal infrared imaging with Landsat. And
I mentioned the Bureau of Reclamation's Agrimet weather station
network, as well.
We need to invest more in the water data that is critical
for decision making. The Council supports state and Federal
applied research and hydroclimate data collection programs that
assist water agencies at all levels of government to adapt to
climate variability, and make sound scientific decisions.
Future decision making will depend on our ability to
understand, monitor, predict, and adapt to climate variability.
It has serious consequences, as has been described.
The Council also supports Reclamation's drought response
program, as well as other Federal programs, including the
National Integrated Drought Information System. I co-chair the
executive council for NIDIS. It is a recurring threat, and NOAA
estimates between 2015 and 2017, it cost this country $11
billion. We need to improve our ability to observe, understand,
model, predict, and adapt to variability.
And the Bureau of Reclamation has a rule here, as well, and
particularly given their interest in forecasts as part of
reservoir operations. Seasonal to sub-seasonal forecasting is
an area where we need a better understanding of hydro-climatic
processes, dynamical earth system modeling, and probabilistic
outlooks of climate extremes. We need to improve our western
observing systems as it relates to extreme events.
The Council also supports integrated energy and water
program and project planning. We enjoy diverse and abundant
energy resources in the West that include renewable and non-
renewable. We need to maintain adequate and sustainable
supplies of clean water and energy, which are inter-related
challenges.
And I would also mention the Council supports hydropower
development, a reasonable development that includes protecting
our environmental resources, consistent with the state's
authority under the Clean Water Act section 401. Hydropower is
a vital part of our energy portfolio.
I had mentioned briefly infrastructure and the challenges
that we face there with the aging infrastructure. Many have
exceeded their design life. Inadequate and untimely funding is
increasing those costs. The Council particularly supports
funding for rural water projects, many of which have been
unfunded, as well as for tribal water projects.
And I would conclude by mentioning the importance to us of
using the Reclamation Fund, which was created by Congress in
1902 with revenues and receipts from water and power sales,
from Federal land sales, from mineral leasing and oil and gas
revenues to fund these kinds of projects. Currently, the
unobligated balance is nearly $16 billion, and that money has
been spent for other Federal purposes, contrary to the original
intent of Congress.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Willardson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tony Willardson, Executive Director, Western
States Water Council
introduction/vision statement
Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member McClintock and members of the
Subcommittee: My name is Tony Willardson and I am the Executive
Director of the Western States Water Council (WSWC). The Council is a
bi-partisan government entity created by western governors in 1965 as a
policy advisory body representing 18 western states. Our members are
appointed by their governors, and we have a small staff located in Salt
Lake City, Utah.
My testimony is based on our existing policy position statements
covering many water issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the
Subcommittee and Committee. All our policy positions are available
online at www.westernstateswater.org/policies-2/.
Water is an increasingly scarce and precious resource and should be
a public policy priority. In the West, water is critically important to
our public health, economy, food security, environment, and western way
of life. We must cultivate a water conservation ethic through greater
understanding of, and appreciation for, water's value.
Population growth, competing economic and ecological demands, and
changing social values have stressed surface and groundwater supplies
in many areas. As a result, the number and complexity of conflicts
among users and uses is increasing. A secure water future is becoming
increasingly uncertain. Numerous factors contribute to the uncertainty,
including our unpredictable climate, aging and often inadequate
infrastructure, data limitations regarding water supplies and demands,
competing or poorly defined water rights, and a constantly evolving
regulatory landscape.
An integrated, collaborative, and grassroots approach to water
resources management is essential to ensure an adequate, secure and
sustainable supply of water of suitable quality to meet our diverse
economic and environmental needs now and in the future. This will
require stronger collaboration and cooperation that transcends
political and geographic boundaries between states, Federal agencies,
tribes, and local communities. We should work together to identify
water problems and develop optimal solutions at the lowest appropriate
level of government. Striving for cooperation rather than conflict and
litigation, we must recognize and respect national, state, regional,
local and tribal differences in values related to water resources.
The States' primary stewardship over water resources is fundamental
to a sustainable water future. Federal water planning, policy
development, regulation, protection, and management must recognize,
defer to, and support state water laws, plans, policies, and programs,
as well as state water rights administration, adjudication and
regulation, compacts and settlements. Rather than attempt to dictate
water policy, the Federal Government should engage states early in
meaningful consultation--avoiding, or at least minimizing, the need for
Federal regulatory mandates. Further, the Federal Government should
contribute its fair share of funding in support of Federal obligations
and objectives that may be implemented as part of state water planning,
management, and protection programs and projects.
A secure and sustainable water future will be determined by our
ability to maintain, replace, expand and make the most efficient use of
critical water infrastructure. We must preserve and improve existing
infrastructure, as well as encourage and support innovative water
supply strategies and new storage options to better balance supplies
with demands.
All levels of government must prioritize the collection, analysis
and open sharing of reliable data regarding water availability,
quality, and usage given its importance to research for sound science
and data driven decision making.
water data
The Western States Water Council urges the Congress and the
Administration to give a high priority to the allocation and
appropriation of sufficient funds for vital water data programs, which
benefit so many, yet have been, or are being allowed to erode to the
point that it threatens the quantity and quality of basic water data
provided to a myriad, growing and diffuse number of decision makers and
stakeholders, with significantly adverse consequences. (WSWC Position
#428, October 26, 2018)
This includes the Bureau of Reclamation's Agrimet network of
weather stations and similar networks that provide data used for
improving agricultural water use efficiency and ground-truthing,
calibrating and validating remote-sensing platforms such Landsat. (WSWC
Position #418, March 14, 2018)
Quoting from a 2007 National Science and Technology Council report,
A Strategy for Federal Science and Technology to Support Water
Availability and Quality in the United States, September 2007: ``Many
effective programs are underway to measure aspects of our water
resources. However, simply stated quantitative knowledge of U.S. water
supply is currently inadequate. A robust process for measuring the
quantity and quality of the Nation's water resources requires a systems
approach. Surface water, groundwater, rainfall, and snow-pack all
represent quantities of water to be assessed and managed--from the
perspectives of quantity, quality, timing, and location.''
Sound decision making demands accurate and timely data on
precipitation, temperature, evapo-transpiration, soil moisture, snow
depth, snow water content, streamflow, groundwater, water quality and
similar information.
The demands for water and related climate data continue to
increase, and this information is used by Federal, state, tribal, and
local government agencies, as well as private entities and individuals
to: (1) forecast flooding, drought and other climate-related events;
(2) project future water supplies for agricultural, municipal, and
industrial uses; (3) estimate streamflows for hydropower production,
recreation, and environmental purposes, such as for fish and wildlife
management, including endangered species needs; (4) facilitate water
management and administration of water rights, decrees, and interstate
compacts; and (5) design and construct resilient water infrastructure
projects.
Without timely and accurate information, human life, health,
welfare, property, and environmental and natural resources are at
considerably greater risk of loss. Data gathering and analysis needs
transcend administrative agency boundaries and congressional committee
jurisdiction requiring collaboration. State-of-the-art technology has
been and is being developed to provide real or near real-time data in
formats that can be shared and used by different computer programs with
the potential to vastly improve the water-related information available
to decision makers in natural resources and emergency management, and
thus better protect the public safety, welfare and the environment.
Vital information is gathered and disseminated through a number of
important Federal programs that provide useful products to assist in
visualizing and interpreting data on water and snow, making water
supply and availability information more accessible, and easy to
interpret.
These include, but are not limited to: (1) the Snow Survey and
Water Supply Forecasting Program, administered by the National Water
and Climate Center (NWCC) in Portland, Oregon, and funded through
USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); (2) NWCC's Soil
and Climate Analysis Network (SCAN); (3) the U.S. Geological Survey's
(USGS) Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program (GWSIP) and
National Streamflow Network, which are funded through the Department of
the Interior; (4) Landsat thermal data, archived and distributed by the
USGS, and other remotely sensed data acquired through the National
Atmospheric and Space Administration (NASA) and its water-related
missions; (5) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA) National Weather Service and Climate Programs Office; and (6)
the Environmental Protection Agency's National Environmental
Information Exchange Network (NEIEN).
Over many years, the lack of capital investments in water data
programs has led to the discontinuance, disrepair, or obsolescence of
vital equipment needed to maintain existing water resources related
data gathering activities. There is a serious need for adequate and
consistent Federal funding to maintain, restore, modernize, and upgrade
Federal water, weather and climate observation programs, not only to
avoid the loss or further erosion of critical information and data, but
also to address emerging needs, with a primary focus on coordinated
data collection and dissemination.
climate adaptation
The Council supports state and Federal applied research and
hydroclimate data collection programs that would assist water agencies
at all levels of government in adapting to climate variability and
making sound scientific decisions. (WSWC Position #421, March 14, 2018)
Climate variability has serious potential consequences for water
supply availability, water resources planning and management, water
rights administration, flood management, and water quality management.
Further, much of the West's water infrastructure was designed and
constructed prior to our current understanding of climate variability,
often from short hydrologic records from the first half of the 20th
century. The impacts of climate variability can include increased
frequency and intensity of severe weather (droughts and floods),
reduction of mountain snowpacks, changes in timing and amount of
snowmelt runoff, and changes in plant and crop evapotranspiration
resulting in changed water demand patterns.
Climate variability leads to additional stress on western water
resources, which are already challenged by population growth,
competition for scarce resources, increasingly stringent environmental
regulations, and other factors. Water resources planning and management
at all levels of government and sound future decision making depend on
our ability to understand, monitor, predict, and adapt to climate
variability. The Council has over the years co-sponsored several
workshops to gather input on climate adaptation and research needs,
including research on extreme events. These workshops and various
Federal reports have helped in identifying knowledge gaps, research
needs, opportunities to improve planning capabilities, and other
activities that would assist in climate adaptation including those that
could impact water quality and thus, available water supply.
Applied research needs and improvements to water resources planning
capabilities include subjects such as evaluation of modifications to
reservoir flood control rule curves, evaluation of the adequacy of
existing Federal hydroclimate monitoring networks, improvements to
extreme precipitation observing networks and forecasting capabilities,
development and improvement of applications for remote sensing data
(satellite imagery), preparation of reconstructed paleoclimate datasets
for drought analyses, and development of new guidelines for estimation
of flood flow frequencies.
drought preparedness
The Council supports the Bureau of Reclamations Drought Response
Program, as well as other Federal programs including, but not limited
to, the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), under
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other
programs designed to improve our forecasting and response capabilities.
Further, the Council urges and encourages the Congress and the
Administration to assess and consider the need for a comprehensive
national drought preparedness and response program on par with Federal
efforts to address natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes,
floods and similar extreme events. (WSWC Policy Position #430, October
26, 2018)
Since its inception the Council has been actively involved in
national drought preparedness, planning and response, as well as
related policy and program development and implementation. Drought is a
recurring threat. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), National Centers for Environmental Information,
from 2015-2017, economic losses due to drought have been estimated at
$11.1 billion.
The Bureau of Reclamation's current Drought Response Program
supports a proactive approach to drought and provides financial
assistance to water managers and users via its WaterSMART program to:
(1) develop drought contingency plans; (2) implement drought resiliency
projects to build the capacity of communities to mitigate and respond
to drought--increasing the reliability of water supplies, improving
water management and operational flexibility, facilitating voluntary
sales, transfers or exchanges of water, and providing benefits for fish
and wildlife and the environment; and (3) undertake emergency actions
to minimize losses due to drought through temporary construction
activities and other activities, including water purchases and the use
of Reclamation facilities to convey and store water.
The Council strongly supports legislation to permanently authorize
Title I activities under the Reclamation States Emergency Drought
Relief Act and provide adequate appropriations to meet priority needs
and continue the Reclamation Drought Response Program. There is a
continuing need for making permanent the temporary authority allowing
Reclamation the flexibility to continue delivering water to meet
authorized project purposes, meet environmental requirements, respect
state water rights, work with all stakeholders, and provide leadership,
innovation, and assistance.
There is a need for maintaining and improving existing monitoring
networks that help provide drought early warning signals, as well as
for tracking the impacts of drought. There is a continuing need for
developing new monitoring technologies, such as remote sensing, that
provide more timely data on water availability and better spatial
coverage for assessing water supplies and drought impacts. The
collection of basic monitoring data on streamflow, snow pack,
groundwater levels, and weather and climate data are essential to
understanding water availability and interpreting the early signs of
drought. (WSWC Position #429, October 26, 2018)
subseasonal and seasonal forecasting
The Council urges the Federal Government to support and place a
priority on research to improve subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) forecasts
and research related to extreme events, including research on better
understanding of hydroclimate processes, paleoflood analysis, design of
monitoring networks, and probabilistic outlooks of climate extremes.
Further, the Council supports development of an improved observing
system for Western extreme precipitation events such as atmospheric
river storms, as well as baseline and enhanced stream, snow and soil
moisture monitoring capabilities.
Western states experience great subseasonal, seasonal, and annual
variability in precipitation, with serious impacts and consequences for
water supply planning and management, drought and flood preparedness
and response, water rights administration, operation of water projects,
and aging water infrastructure. Sound decision making to protect life
and property by reducing flood risks and to inform decisions involving
billions of dollars of economic activity for urban centers,
agriculture, hydropower generation, and fisheries depends on our
ability to observe, understand, model, predict, and adapt to
precipitation variability on operational time scales ranging from a few
weeks to a season or more. Investments in observations, modeling, high-
performance computing capabilities, research and operational
forecasting of precipitation provide an opportunity to significantly
improve planning and water project operations to reduce flood damages,
mitigate economic and environmental damages, and maximize water storage
and water use efficiency. (WSWC Position #399, April 14, 2017)
The Federal Government should place a priority on continuing
Federal research to develop new and improved predictive capabilities
for precipitation at subseasonal to seasonal time scales (as described
in the report to Congress prepared by NOAA pursuant to Title II of PL
115-25). Our present scientific capability for forecasting beyond the
weather time domain--beyond the 10-day time horizon--and at the
subseasonal to interannual time scales important for water management
is not skillful enough to support water management decision making. The
Council has sponsored a number of workshops on hydroclimate data and
extreme events, to identify actions that can be taken at planning to
operational time scales to improve readiness for extreme events.
Multiple approaches have been identified at these workshops that could
be employed at the planning time scale, including ensembles of global
circulation models, paleoclimate analyses, and improved statistical
modeling, to improve flood frequency analysis and/or seasonal
forecasting. (WSWC Position #407, June 29, 2017)
Advances in forecasting research, such as the hydrometeorological
testbed program on West Coast atmospheric rivers, demonstrate the
potential for improving extreme event forecasting at an operational
time scale. The Federal Government should sustain and expand its
Hydrometeorology Testbed-West program, in partnership with states and
regional centers, to build upon the initial progress made in that
program for developing and installing new technologies for
precipitation observations.
The responsibility for operational weather forecasting rests with
the National Weather Service (NWS), but improvements through Forecast
Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) is also of particular interest to
the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which can
also contribute to this effort.
infrastructure financing
The Council supports appropriate Federal investments in water
infrastructure projects and programs that provide jobs and economic
security, while protecting the environment--as well as dedicated
Federal water infrastructure funding. (WSWC Position #419, March 14,
2018)
The West and the Nation depend on an intricate and aging system of
weirs, diversions, dams, reservoirs, pipelines, aqueducts, pumps,
canals, laterals, drains, levees, wells, stormwater channels, and water
and wastewater treatment and hydroelectric power plants. Maintaining
and delivering sufficient supplies of water of suitable quality is key
to maintaining the Nation's and the West's economic prosperity, meeting
our environmental needs, and sustaining our quality of life, both now
and in the future. Appropriate water-related infrastructure investments
ensure our continued ability to store, manage, conserve, and control
water during both floods and droughts--as well as protect and treat our
water resources. Existing and new infrastructure is critical to meet
drinking water, wastewater treatment, irrigation, hydropower, flood
control, interstate compact, tribal and international treaty, fish and
wildlife habitat needs.
Water infrastructure in the West is financed and maintained under a
complex network of state, tribal, local, private, and Federal
ownership, benefiting a broad segment of water users and other
stakeholders. Aging water infrastructure has deteriorated--due to
underfunded and deferred maintenance, repair, and replacement needs--
and in many cases has exceeded its useful life span, raising public
health and safety issues, risking loss of life and threatening public
and private property. Inconsistent, inadequate, and untimely funding
increases project construction and financing costs, as well as risk,
including the failure of critical infrastructure. Substantial and
sustained investments in water project construction, maintenance,
rehabilitation and replacement is necessary and pays long-term
dividends to the economy, public health and safety, and the
environment. The Council supports appropriate infrastructure asset
management and capital budgeting.
Existing Federal, state and local programs to publicly finance
water-related infrastructure projects are crucial, but insufficient to
meet water quality and water resources management challenges related to
future growth, including municipal, industrial, agricultural,
environmental, and energy needs. Water infrastructure systems require
ongoing, thoughtful investments to account for life cycle costs, and
should be managed with planned retirement or replacement in mind.
The Federal Government has a significant role to play in financing
and cost-sharing for water-related infrastructure given Federal
economic and environmental objectives, Federal tribal trust and treaty
obligations, other past commitments, and Federal regulatory mandates.
Federal financial resources are limited, and many authorized Federal
water infrastructure projects have not been started or remain
incomplete for decades due to inconsistent, incremental, or
insufficient appropriations; permitting and licensing backlogs;
duplicative environmental reviews; litigation delays; and oversight by
multiple Federal agencies without adequate interagency coordination.
Further, current Federal budget scoring guidelines assess the full
cost of infrastructure investments up front, while disproportionately
discounting long-term economic, public health and safety, and
environmental benefits--sometimes making new water project investments
challenging to justify financially.
Local water district and state agency investments, private capital
markets, performance-based contracting, and other alternatives offer
help to close the Federal funding, delivery, and maintenance gaps, and
meet some of our national water infrastructure needs in partnership
with Federal agencies. Such partnerships have the potential to reduce
overall project development costs and risks associated with such
capital investments, expedite project delivery and associated water
resource benefits, improve efficiencies and cost effectiveness, and
maximize the respective strengths of the public and private sectors.
Opportunities exist to leverage Federal and non-Federal funding through
grants, loans and credit enhancements, as well as provide greater
access to private sources of financing.
One challenge is that Federal agencies often lack legislative
authority to dedicate a sustained revenue stream to assure non-Federal
investors are fairly compensated for the costs and risks of
constructing or maintaining Federal water projects, sometimes requiring
approval through an act of Congress to proceed. The Council supports a
method of congressional budget scoring that considers the unique timing
of the costs and benefits of water infrastructure investments, and
accounts for long-term public health and safety, economic and
environmental benefits, with fair and appropriate discounting.
There is no one-size-fits-all program, but several Federal
financial and technical assistance programs, grants, loans, cost-share
programs, and Federal-state-local or public-private partnerships have
proven beneficial to the timely completion and ongoing maintenance of
infrastructure projects at all scales.
The Congress and the Administration should work together to ensure
adequate, stable, and continuing Federal appropriations for
constructing, maintaining, and replacing critical Federal water
projects and to assist states and local governments as they address
their water infrastructure needs. Further, they should work together
and with the states to streamline permitting processes and coordinate
environmental and other regulatory reviews to eliminate duplicative
procedures, reduce costs of compliance and construction, and ensure
timely completion, maintenance, or relicensing of authorized
infrastructure projects so vital to the West and the Nation.
Moreover, the Council supports the creation and maintenance of
dedicated water infrastructure funding through special accounts with
dedicated receipts to be promptly appropriated for authorized purposes
following their deposit, as well as a variety of grant, loan, credit
enhancement and other financial incentive programs to help meet diverse
needs at all scales.
rural water projects
The Council strongly supports congressional action to expedite
construction of authorized rural water supply projects in a timely
manner, including projects that meet tribal trust and other Federal
responsibilities--recognizing and continuing to defer to the primacy of
western water laws and tribal settlements in allocating water among
users. (WSWC Position #423, August 3, 2018)
Across the West, rural and tribal communities are experiencing
water supply shortages due to drought, declining streamflows and
groundwater supplies, and inadequate infrastructure, with some
communities hauling water over substantial distances to satisfy their
potable water needs. Often water supplies that are available to these
communities are of poor quality and may be impaired by naturally
occurring and man-made contaminants, including arsenic and carcinogens,
which impact communities' health and their ability to comply with
increasingly stringent Federal water quality and drinking water
mandates. At the same time, many rural and tribal communities in the
West are suffering from significant levels of unemployment and simply
lack the financial capacity and expertise to finance and construct
needed drinking water system improvements.
In 2014, the Bureau of Reclamation working with other Federal
agencies and the Western States Water Council sought to identify and
evaluate rural water needs and the demand for new rural water supply
projects. Reclamation estimated the costs for rural potable water
supply system improvements in the 17 western states to be in the range
of $5 billion to $9 billion for non-Indian projects and approximately
$1.5 billion for specific Indian water supply projects. Reclamation
also estimated that the cost to complete currently authorized projects
that are under construction rose from the $2 billion originally
authorized to $2.4 billion (in 2014) and costs continue rising. Given
past levels of funding these priority projects will not likely be
completed until well after 2065 at a cost of more than $4.8 billion.
Reclamation has not requested funds for grants to undertake
additional appraisal investigations or feasibility studies for new
rural water projects, given the significant backlog of authorized
projects and lack of Federal funding. Federal expenditures for rural
water projects generate significant returns on the investment through
increased national and local economic benefits, as well as improvements
in quality of life. However, project benefits cannot be fully realized
until the projects are completed.
reclamation fund spending
The Council has a long-standing policy in support of fully
appropriating receipts accruing to the Reclamation Fund for authorized
projects, including rural and tribal water supply projects, as well as
supporting an investigation of converting it to a true revolving trust
fund. (WSWC Position #408, June 29, 2017)
Under the Reclamation Act of 1902, the Reclamation Fund was
envisioned as the principle means for financing Federal western water
and power projects with revenues from western resources--but these
receipts are only available for expenditure pursuant to annual
appropriation acts. Receipts are largely derived from water and power
sales, project repayments, and receipts from public land sales and
leases, as well as oil and mineral-leasing and related royalties,
almost exclusively from western lands, many adjacent to rural and
tribal communities. With growing receipts--in part due to energy
development across the rural West--and declining Federal appropriations
for Reclamation Act purposes, the unobligated balance grows larger and
larger (and is expected to soon exceed $16 billion), while the money is
actually spent elsewhere, for other Federal purposes, contrary to the
Congress' original intent.
The Council is committed to continuing to work cooperatively with
the Congress, the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation
to meet our present rural water needs in the West for present and
future generations, within the framework of state water law. The
Council recommends that the Congress and the Administration investigate
the advantages of converting the Reclamation Fund from a special
account to a true revolving trust fund with annual receipts to be
appropriated for authorized purposes in the year following their
deposit (similar to some other Federal authorities and trust accounts).
tribal water rights settlements
The Council has consistently supported negotiated settlement of
disputed tribal water claims, as well as steps to ensure that
settlements, once enacted, will be funded. Unresolved tribal claims
leave tribal and non-tribal water supply reliability uncertain. (WSWC
Position #412, October 20, 2017)
The settlement of Native American water right claims is one of the
most important aspects of the United States' trust obligation and is of
vital importance to the country as a whole and not just individual
tribes or states. The public interest and sound public policy require
the resolution of tribal water rights claims in a manner that is
equitable and least disruptive to existing uses of water. Negotiated
quantification of tribal water rights claims is a highly desirable
process which can achieve quantifications fairly, efficiently, and with
the least cost. The advantages of negotiated settlements include: (1)
the ability to be flexible and to tailor solutions to the unique
circumstances of each situation; (2) the ability to promote
conservation and sound water management practices; and (3) the ability
to establish a foundation for cooperative partnerships between Native
American and non-tribal communities.
The successful resolution of certain claims may require physical
solutions, such as development of Federal water projects and improved
water delivery and application techniques that provide tribes with
``wet water.'' The United States has developed many major water
projects that compete for use of waters claimed by Native American and
non-tribal communities and has a responsibility to assist in resolving
such conflicts. Tribal water rights settlements involve a waiver of
tribal water right claims and tribal breach of trust claims that
otherwise could result in court-ordered judgments against the United
States and increase costs for Federal taxpayers. The obligation to fund
resulting settlements is analogous to, and no less serious than, the
obligation of the United States to pay judgments rendered against it.
Current Federal budgetary pressures and legislative policies make
it difficult for the Administration, the states and the tribes to
negotiate settlements knowing that they may not be funded because
either they are considered earmarks or because funding must be offset
by a corresponding reduction in some other expenditure, such as another
tribal or essential Interior Department program. Tribal water rights
settlements are not and should not be defined as congressional
earmarks.
Steps should be taken to ensure that any water settlement, once
authorized by the Congress and approved by the President, will be
funded. Congress should expand opportunities to provide funding for the
Bureau of Reclamation to undertake project construction related to
settlements from revenues accruing to the Reclamation Fund, recognizing
the existence of other legitimate needs that may be financed by these
reserves.
energy & water planning
The Council supports integrating water and energy program and
project planning, including promoting conservation and use efficiency,
while seeking to minimize economic, environmental and other costs.
(WSWC Position #420, March 16, 2018)
The West enjoys diverse and abundant energy resources, including
renewable and non-renewable resources, and the West is a leader in the
planning, development, diversification, management and protection of
the Nation's water and energy resources. Maintaining adequate and
sustainable supplies of clean water and energy present interrelated
challenges. Water is scarce in much of the region and may or may not
always be sufficient for all proposed uses. Power plant cooling and
other energy development related water requirements can be significant
on state, local and westwide scales.
An integrated approach to water and energy resource planning,
development, diversification, management and protection is necessary to
achieve a thriving and sustainable future for the West. Effectively
planning for the future requires gathering and integrating data and
information on past, present and future water and energy supplies and
demands, including demands by different sectors, uses and users. In
general, current water use data (especially consumptive water use data)
are not sufficient for detailed and comprehensive analyses to support
many water/energy decisions and policy makers' needs. The Council has
worked collaboratively with state and Federal agencies to develop a
better understanding of water and energy supplies and demands.
Public-private partnerships are increasingly important in
addressing our future water and energy challenges; and there is a
continuing need for Federal and state water and energy resource
agencies, public utility commissions, and other planners, regulators
and policy makers to better define and consider the nexus between water
and energy resources in their respective areas of jurisdiction.
Continuing water and energy nexus research and development is needed to
further our understanding and evaluate the effectiveness of different
policies and programs given various future scenarios.
hydropower
The Council supports Federal legislative and administrative actions
to authorize and implement reasonable hydropower projects and programs
that enhance our electric generation capacity and promote economic
development, through streamlined permitting processes, while
appropriately protecting environmental resources. The future
development of potential hydropower resources should be appropriately
undertaken in compliance with substantive and procedural state water
law and interstate compacts, and consistent with the states' authority
under Clean Water Act Section 401. Further, all rights and preference
privileges of existing water and power users should be respected. (WSWC
Position #391, March 22, 2016)
The hydropower resources of the West have been developed through
partnerships between energy and water users and continue to be
inextricably connected. Clean, efficient, inexpensive hydropower is a
vital part of the energy resources needed to meet our present and
future energy demands. Hydropower is a prominent component of
electricity generation in a number of western states, and important
part of state renewable portfolio standards. Hydropower is the largest
source of renewable electricity in the United States, representing
about 48 percent of total renewable electricity generation, with
approximately 101 gigawatts (GW) of capacity and nearly 7 percent of
total electricity generation. (www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/10/
f33/Hydropower-Vision-Chapter-2-10212016.pdf--p. 76)
The potential exists for further public and private hydropower
development by upgrading existing generators, developing small hydro
and the power potential from existing man-made conduits and canals, as
well as hydroelectric pumped storage projects. Such development can
often be undertaken with little impact on the environmental and
important ecological resources, requiring minimal further environmental
review. Permitting requirements may be appropriately minimized and
streamlined so as to promote reasonable development while avoiding
unnecessary costs.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
Question Submitted for the Record by Rep. Cunningham to Tony
Willardson, Executive Director of the Western States Water Council
Question 1. This is an issue that is particularly relevant to the
folks of South Carolina's 1st District. Down in my district you've got
the Ashley River and the Cooper River coming together to form the
Charleston Harbor before discharging into the Atlantic Ocean. My
district is among the East Coast's most vulnerable areas when it comes
to rising sea levels. The lack of infrastructure and drainage systems
to handle the uncompromising sea level rise often puts our community
under water. It also leads to habitat loss, seawater encroachment,
flooding, and a loss of water quality. Scientists expect climate change
to increase the frequency of very heavy precipitation events. In my
home state of South Carolina, they say that ``When it rains, it floods
in Charleston.'' A recent study showed that Charleston is one of the
most at-risk cities in the United States, and they predict that
Charleston could be underwater in 80 years. This is a very important
issue that doesn't just affect Colorado or the western United States,
it affects all of us.
What emerging technologies and management approaches can
communities implement that will help them manage increasingly
unpredictable precipitation and flood conditions?
Answer. Thank you for the question Rep. Cunningham.
Each individual state is unique, and South Carolina faces its own
particular challenges. While as a region, the West is generally more
concerned with scarcity, drought and water supply availability, we are
also vulnerable to flooding and other unpredictable climate extremes.
Sea level rise and its impact on coastal communities is obviously an
issue for our West Coast states, and Texas on the Gulf of Mexico. In
order to improve our resiliency to climate variations, there are both
short- and long-term actions that the Council supports focused on an
integrate, collaborative and grassroots approach that will require
stronger collaboration and cooperation that transcends political and
geographic boundaries between states, Federal agencies, tribes, and
local communities.
First, we need to invest more to maintain, restore, modernize and
upgrade water, weather and climate observation networks. We need to be
able to better define the problems, which requires placing a high
priority on funding vital water data monitoring and visualization
programs, and related geospatial applications for climate adaptation
planning. Critical Federal on-the-ground and remote sensing programs
include the U.S. Geological Survey's Streamflow Information Program and
the National Land Imaging Program (and Landsat). The National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) uses Light Detection and Ranging
(LiDAR), often from aircraft, to gather topographical data supporting
activities such as inundation and storm surge modeling, hydrodynamic
modeling, sediment transport modeling, shoreline and habitat mapping,
emergency response, hydrographic surveying and coastal vulnerability
analysis. NOAA has also developed and is refining its National Water
Model, which is primarily designed to predict flooding. Better data and
science will lead to better decisions, and hopefully allow public and
private decision makers to take more informed actions to avoid and/or
mitigate adverse consequences.
Second, the Council supports state and Federal applied research
programs that would assist water and emergency management agencies at
all levels of government in adapting to climate variability and making
sound scientific decisions. More informed decision making depends on
our ability to understand, monitor, predict, and adapt to climate
variability. The West and the Nation experience great sub-seasonal,
seasonal and annual precipitation variability. Decision makers need
more skilled dynamical and probabilistic modeling to better understand
hydroclimate processes and improve forecasts of rainfall and runoff.
This involves a greater investment in atmospheric and other sciences,
as well as high-capacity computing resources for timely and multiple
runs of very complex models.
Third, the West and the Nation depend on an intricate and aging
water infrastructure system. Greater investment is needed to maintain
its reliability and our ability to store, manage, conserve, control,
protect and treat our water supplies. As our ability to predict
precipitation events improves, particularly extreme events,
opportunities will become apparent to implement forecast informed
reservoir operations (FIRO) with more confidence to more efficiently
operate projects and time reservoir releases to maximize storage for
both water supply and flood protection.
Many water projects have exceeded their design life, and others
have deteriorated due to underfunded and deferred maintenance, repair
and replacement. Inadequate, inconsistent, and untimely Federal funding
increases construction, maintenance and financing costs. Often the lack
of a dedicated revenue stream raises costs. Moreover, Federal budget
scoring assesses the full cost of investments upfront, while
disproportionately discounting long-term benefits.
Existing Federal, state and local programs to publicly finance
water infrastructure are crucial, but insufficient. The Federal
Government will continue to play a significant role in cost sharing and
financing projects with national benefits. Further, opportunities also
exist to leverage Federal, non-Federal and private capital through
grants, loans and credit enhancements.
Long-term difficult decisions and expensive investments may be
necessary to adapt to climate variability and extreme events related to
sea level rise. Speaking from personal experience, my home state of
Utah is obviously not susceptible to sea level rise, but much of our
population is located along the Wasatch Front, adjacent to the Great
Salt Lake. A terminal lake, its levels have dropped to the point that
it isn't so great--as a result of multiple years of drought! However,
in the 1980s the lake rose unrelentingly due to unusually wet weather
patterns. I remember volunteering to fill sand bags on a Sunday night
at midnight, and for days water ran in a makeshift channel through
downtown Salt Lake City. That year there was also significant damage to
the spillway outlets at the Federal Glen Canyon Dam as Upper Basin
flows on the Colorado River peaked.
In response to the flooding and rising lake levels, communities
around the lake seriously considered the need to dike around their
sewage treatment plants. Salt Lake City improved its storm drain
system. The state of Utah with Federal funding raised I-80 near the
lake, not once, but twice. The state also built a pumping plant to move
lake water into our West Desert to evaporate. The Corps of Engineers
completed a long-delayed flood control reservoir above the city,
Mountain Dell. The Bureau of Reclamation redesigned and rebuilt the
outlets at Glen Canyon. Similar measures are likely to be needed across
the country as we adapt to changing climate conditions and increasing
variability.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Willardson. Next we recognize
Mr. Bill Diedrich, who will be testifying on behalf of the
Family Farm Alliance.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Diedrich. The Chair
recognizes you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BILL DIEDRICH, FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE, LOS BANOS,
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Diedrich. Good morning, Chairman Huffman, Ranking
Member McClintock, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is
Bill Diedrich. On behalf of the Family Farm Alliance, I thank
you for this opportunity to present this testimony on
reliability of water supplies in the western United States.
I am a fourth-generation California farmer, and I cherish
the role that sustainable, irrigated agriculture plays in
producing safe and affordable food supply. Those of us who
understand say we have dirt in our veins. My written testimony
illustrates the problems the western farmers and ranchers face,
in terms of water supply reliability. The testimony outlines
what producers like me and others across the West are doing to
address these challenges, and it provides policy
recommendations that we believe lay the foundation for more
effectively addressing water supply reliability in the western
United States.
The most helpful thing that Congress can do for states
suffering from unreliable water supply is to urge creativity,
innovation, and flexibility on the part of Federal water
management and regulatory agencies.
My state of California is still recovering from the 2012-
2016 drought, the worst drought in its recorded history. Record
dry conditions, coupled with water supply reductions related to
regulatory actions and aging water infrastructure, resulted in
water supply reductions or constraints for all beneficial uses
of water in California.
During the height of recent drought, for 3 years in a row,
many agricultural water users effectively received no
allocations at all from the Federal Central Valley Project, one
of the largest irrigation water projects in the world. These
challenges continue, despite recent and continued
precipitation. As of last week, nearly every reservoir in
California is at or over its historical average for this time
of year. Still, CVP farmers south of the delta were given an
initial allocation of only 35 percent of their contract
amounts.
What this means is that California has plentiful snow,
plentiful rain, and nearly adequate reservoir levels. Yet, at
this time the San Joaquin Valley CVP Ag. water service
contractor irrigators are likely to receive less than half of
their contracted water supplies when the final allocations are
made. These initial allocation numbers are critical to making
crop planting decisions.
California's groundwater resources are an overdraft, and
the drought has made this worse. The Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act passed by the state of California in 2014 will
become fully implemented and begin the process of eliminating
this overdraft by 2040.
There are only two ways to achieve this: increase supply or
reduce demand. This will magnify the surface water shortfall
and jeopardize the safe and affordable food supply produced in
the Central Valley of California. This groundwater depletion
has occurred in the San Joaquin Valley, predominantly as a
result of reduction in reliability of surface water supplies.
The recent and current water crisis in California provides
a real-world sense of the types of challenges western
irrigators face in times of reduced water supply reliability.
These include competition for scarce water supplies,
insufficient water infrastructure, growing populations,
endangered species, and increased climate variability.
Water management in the West is becoming increasingly
complex and inflexible. Water managed for environment is not
held to an equal standard of accountability as other beneficial
uses. The Federal Endangered Species Act needs to be
implemented in a multi-faceted way across agencies to better
benefit species, the environment, and rural communities.
Considering increased climate variability and competing needs,
it is obvious the western water storage capacity is
insufficient.
Given these challenges, in order to secure future water
supply reliability, we must depend on collaborative, science-
based water management decisions; increase our investments in
water infrastructure; and diversify our water portfolio,
including water recycling, conservation, reservoir
optimization, and weather forecasting technologies. What works
for one region doesn't work for all.
Thank you, and I would stand for any questions members of
the Subcommittee have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Diedrich follows:]
Prepared Statement of William Diedrich, representing The Family Farm
Alliance
Good morning Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member McClintock, and
members of the Subcommittee. My name is William Diedrich, and on behalf
of the Family Farm Alliance (Alliance), I thank you for this
opportunity to present this testimony on a matter of critical
importance to our membership: the reliability of water supplies in the
western United States. The Alliance is a grassroots organization of
family farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts, and allied industries
in 16 western states. The Alliance is focused on one mission: To ensure
the availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to
western farmers and ranchers. We are also committed to the fundamental
proposition that western irrigated agriculture must be preserved and
protected for a host of economic, sociological, environmental, and
national security reasons--many of which are often overlooked in the
context of other national policy decisions.
The Family Farm Alliance has a long history of collaboration with
partners in all levels of government, conservation and energy
organizations, and Native American tribal interests who seek real
solutions to water resources challenges in the West. We seek to
advocate for a proper role for the Federal Government on water matters,
a vision that focuses on research and development; full integration,
coordination and maximum sustainable use of resources; and planning
that is driven from the ``ground up.'' The Alliance also has a well-
established relationship with Congress, with 70 invitations to testify
before congressional committees on Western agriculture, water and
environmental matters in the past decade.
This testimony will illustrate the problems Western farmers and
ranchers face in terms of water supply reliability, outline what
producers like me and other Westerners are doing to address these
challenges, and provide policy recommendations that we believe lay the
foundation for effectively addressing water supply reliability in the
western United States.
personal background
I am a fourth-generation California Central Valley farmer and I
appreciate the role of a sustainable irrigated agriculture industry. I
have also been very involved in water issues and see the importance of
reliable water for the many important needs that exist. At my core, I
am a Californian and an American, and I believe the health of our
communities, our ecosystems and our farmers and ranchers are directly
related to our prosperity as a state and a Nation. Water shortages
affect all sectors of the Western economy, creating problems for cities
and towns, manufacturers, builders, service providers, and individual
citizens that are just as challenging as the difficulties faced by
farmers and ranchers. The environment, too, is stressed by water
shortages. In many areas of the West, we see fish and wildlife,
plentiful or endangered, struggling to adapt and survive in extremely
harsh conditions during times of drought.
Water connects us all--farms, cities and the environment--and while
decreased water supply reliability presents unique problems for each
sector, our solutions should be interconnected and mutually
beneficial--not divisive. That requires a willingness of all parties,
including Federal agencies, to be creative and flexible. That is
happening in some places. In other places, it's not. The most helpful
thing that Congress can do for states suffering from a lack of water
supply reliability is to encourage, demand, and even mandate, where
necessary, creativity, innovation and flexibility on the part of
Federal water management and regulatory agencies.
The Family Farm Alliance is an organization made up of farmers and
ranchers in the West, but the water shortage problems we all face vary
by region, topography, climate, soil conditions, hydrology, and crop.
These problems have some elements in common, including inadequate or
deteriorating water storage infrastructure, inflexible or outdated
operational requirements and regulatory conditions, and government
agencies that are not nimble enough, or not motivated, to seek out and
embrace better ways of doing things to ensure the most benefit for the
broadest suite of public interests. Solutions also vary by state or by
region, but they, too, are characterized by certain common elements,
including creativity, flexibility and balance. I will discuss water
supply reliability issues in a few different areas of the West, as well
as some examples of successful solutions and potential solutions. Since
I'm from California, I'll begin there.
recovering from the 2012-2016 california drought
California is still recovering from the 2012-2016 drought, the
worst drought in its recorded history. Record dry conditions, coupled
with water supply reductions related to regulatory actions and aging
water storage and conveyance infrastructure, resulted in water supply
reductions or constraints for most sectors in California. In 2014, vast
areas of farm land in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys received
no surface water at all--a 100 percent reduction. Those same areas were
again zero-ed out in 2015. Overall, agricultural water supplies in the
Central Valley have had their reliability reduced by 65 percent since
1992. During the drought, nearly 75 percent of the state's irrigated
farm land (7 million acres), received 20 percent or less of its normal
surface water supply and according to the California Department of
Water Resources (DWR), nearly 692,000 acres of farmland were fallowed
in 2014 as a result of water shortages.
During the height of the recent drought, for 2 years in a row, many
agricultural water users received no allocations at all from the
Federal Central Valley Project (CVP), one of the largest water projects
in the world. Table 1 shows the CVP allocations from 2014-2016. In both
2014 and 2015 no surface water supplies were allocated to water users
on the Tehama-Colusa Canal, and in the San Luis Unit and Friant
Division of the CVP. Settlement contractors, primarily agricultural
water users, have water rights that pre-date the Federal project,
making them priority rights on the system, yet even allocations to
those senior water rights holders were reduced during the drought.
Table 1. Central Valley Project Water Allocations (2014, 2015 & 2016)
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
SOURCE: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 2019
Almost as large as the Federal CVP, California's State Water
Project (SWP) cut agricultural deliveries by 80 percent in 2015.
In most areas where surface water supplies were severely reduced or
eliminated, farmers turned to groundwater to maintain their permanent
crops--grapes, tree fruits, nuts, citrus--that represent a lifetime's
investment. But groundwater supplies are not infinite and were severely
depleted during the drought in areas that received no surface water.
Groundwater also isn't cheap. Wells cost upwards of $200,000 each and
they are expensive to run, so many farmers pump only enough water to
keep their trees alive, but not producing. Often, farmers tear out
mature, productive trees and vines and replace them with saplings that
won't produce a crop for years, but require far less water to keep
alive in challenging conditions. And in some places like the citrus
belt in the Friant Division of the CVP, there is no groundwater at all.
The many small farms there, which produce most of the Nation's oranges,
had their surface water cut off for the first time in 60 years in 2014
and 2015.
Many of my neighbors in 2014 and 2015 were forced to abandon or
fallow portions of their farms. When one hears that land is
``fallowed'' it might only seem that the impact is to the farmer, but
that is definitely not the case. Every acre of farmed land generates
jobs, economic activity and products. That is why the reduction in the
water supply reliability of the CVP is so devastating to the rural
agricultural communities of the Central Valley.
For every acre fallowed, workers have less work and tractors are
used less. If I use my tractor less, I buy less fuel, lubricants and
parts and tires, which means the local businesses that supply these
things sell less and their companies suffer. When I don't purchase
inputs for the land (fertilizer, seeds, amendments, etc.), the local
companies that sell these items suffer reduced sales and the truck
drivers who deliver these items have less work. With fewer trucks
running fewer routes, fuel and parts purchases are reduced. If that one
fallowed acre was intended to be a tomato field, those tomatoes would
not be trucked to market or the processing plant.
As you can see, there is a direct interconnection between
agriculture and many other industries. Press reports will acknowledge
that California agriculture is a $50 billion industry, but then attempt
to minimize this impact by suggesting that it is ``only'' 2 percent of
the GDP of the state. The oft-reported $50 billion number is only the
farm gate value of the products. It does not include all the other
industries that benefit from the trucking and processing of the
agricultural products (and all the fuel, parts, etc., from the
activities). Clearly, agriculture is a huge economic driver for my
state, particularly in rural communities. A report by the University of
California shows that the food and beverage industry contributed $82
billion and 760,000 jobs that are directly and indirectly linked to
agricultural products.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are-update/files/articles/
V18N4_3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very concerning time for me, my family, and my neighbors,
since substantial investments are being made, primarily with the intent
of converting more of our operation to drip irrigation, which we hope
will stretch limited water supplies. This conversion creates an
electrical demand as we move from gravity irrigation to pressurized
subsurface irrigation. My friend Cannon Michael, who serves on the
Family Farm Alliance board of directors, recently installed 1 megawatt
of solar panels to offset the impact of the power cost needed to
support his drip irrigation conversion. Those investments will be for
naught if the current lack of reliability for surface water deliveries
persists into the future and there is no water to conserve or use for
groundwater recharge.
My fellow California farmers are doing their best to offset the
devastating loss of water. For example, producers have been forced to
buy water, when available, from other sources. In certain instances,
farmers had no choice but to buy water at a rate more than 25 times
what they normally would pay. In the absence of once reliable surface
water supplies, California farmers have looked to groundwater, where
available, which is not sustainable. Central Valley producers have been
trying to get ahead of a much feared, but anticipated, drought for
years. Notably, they've spent about $3 billion to install more
efficient irrigation systems on almost 2.5 million acres from 2003 to
2013, according to information compiled by the California Farm Water
Coalition. These investments will continue as farmers strive to stretch
and most efficiently manage their water supply.
california drought: myth vs. reality
Here are some facts that are often overlooked in media coverage of
the recent California drought:
California agriculture grows more than 50 percent of
America's fresh fruits, nuts and vegetables across 78,000
farms, 400 crops and 450,000 jobs. California's value of
agricultural output was $50 billion in 2017.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ California Department of Food and Agriculture, Gianinni
Foundation of Agricultural Economics--University of California, USDA,
Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development and the Economy.
California is the country's largest agricultural producer
and exporter. Agricultural products were one of
California's top 5 exports in 2017, totaling $20.6 billion,
over 14.6 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ California Department of Food and Agriculture, California
Agricultural Statistical Review, 2017-2018.
Crop production per acre-foot of water rose 43 percent in
California between 1967 and 2010.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, California
Department of Water Resources.
Some media accounts continue to advance the decades-old myth that
farmers consume 80 percent of water supplies in California and other
parts of the West. But if we look at the ``water footprint'' in the
same way as we have come to talk about the ``carbon footprint,'' we get
a different picture, particularly in California. Numbers from the
California DWR provide perspective. According to the Department,
statewide water use breaks down as follows: 10 percent urban use; 41
percent agricultural use and 49 percent use for environmental
management: wetlands, Delta outflow, wild and scenic designations, and
instream flow requirements.
We should also recognize that farms transform water into products
that are needed to sustain the lives of our entire population. We are
all part of ``agricultural water use'' every day--multiple times per
day.
Others in the media suggested that the shift toward higher value
crops like nuts and wine grapes have led to an increase in agricultural
water use. During the 2014-2015 drought years, almonds were the
preferred target of these reports. But according to California DWR, the
total amount of agricultural water use has held steady since 2000 and
has actually declined over the longer term.
the california water reliability crisis
California has an incredibly diverse and variable climate, with
precipitation and snowpack totals varying widely from year to year,
with runoff totals ranging from a high of 52,830,000 acre-feet in 1983
to the lowest recorded runoff of 6,170,000 acre-feet in the driest
individual year of 1977. While California has natural variability in
precipitation and snowpack, water allocations to CVP contractors have
been disconnected from water year types, predominantly resulting from
increased requirements for environmental water deliveries. This year is
a good example of the increasing disconnect between the amount of
actual water that California receives each year and the ability of the
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to operate the CVP and allocate
water to its contractors in a fashion that reflects the actual
hydrology.
As of February 22, 2019, nearly every reservoir in California is at
or over its historical average for this time of year, snow water
content is 115 percent of the April 1 peak, and precipitation is 120
percent of average, but just last week, south of Delta CVP agricultural
service contractors received an initial allocation of only 35 percent
of their contract amounts. What this means is that California has
plentiful snow, plentiful rain, and nearly full reservoirs, yet San
Joaquin Valley irrigators are likely to receive less than 50 percent of
their contracted water supplies when the final allocations are made. In
order to make decisions about planting crops, a farmer must consider
the water available to grow the crop. Thus, the initial allocation
numbers are critical. Even if the allocation increases in future
months, it will be past the time when a farmer must make their decision
to plant.
Future Projections
The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Basin Study released by
Reclamation indicates that throughout the 21st century, temperatures
are projected to increase, snowpack will likely decline and snowpack
elevation levels will rise, precipitation will increase during fall and
winter months, and spring runoff will decrease. These factors will
exacerbate the existing imbalance between the demands in these river
basins and the ability to deliver reliable water supplies to
communities and ecosystems that rely on them. The result of these
changes, coupled with expected population growth and changes in land
use, is an average annual unmet water demand for CVP contractors that
is expected to range between 2.7 million and 8.2 million acre-feet per
year, with most of the unmet demands occurring south of the Bay-
Delta.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/
sec_order_no._3343_cal_water_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groundwater
Groundwater is a critically important part of California's water
supply, accounting for 40 percent of total annual agricultural and
urban water uses statewide in an average year, and up to 65 percent or
more in drought years. About three-quarters of the state's residents--
around 30 million people--depend on groundwater for at least a portion
of their water supply; for 6 million residents, it is their only
supply.
California DWR estimates that on average, 2,000,000 acre-feet is
withdrawn from the state's aquifers per year more than what is being
recharged, and much more so during periods of drought. This is nothing
new; scientists estimate that since California's development in the
late 1800s, the state's groundwater reserves have been reduced by
125,000,000 acre-feet, or 4.5 times the capacity of Lake Mead. Most of
this groundwater depletion has occurred in the San Joaquin Valley,
predominantly as a result of a reduction in the reliability of surface
water supplies.
key challenges facing western irrigators
The key challenges Western irrigators face in times of reduced
water supply reliability include competition for scarce water supplies,
insufficient water infrastructure, growing populations, endangered
species and increasing weather variability/climate change. Across the
West, several key water policy challenges stand out:
Water management in the West is becoming increasingly complex and
inflexible
We need a new way of looking at how we manage our limited water
resources, one that includes a broader view of how water is used, along
with consideration of population growth, food production and habitat
needs. The goal should be to integrate food production and conservation
practices into water management decision making and water use
priorities, creating a more holistic view of water management for
multiple uses. We must begin to plan now in order to hold intact
current options. Planning must allow for flexibility and consider all
needs, not just focus on meeting future needs from population growth.
In many parts of the West, litigation stemming from citizen suit
provisions of environmental laws including the ESA and Clean Water Act
(CWA) is producing Federal court decisions (or court approved
``settlements'') that direct Federal agency ``management'' of state
water resources. Congress should recognize that this type of litigation
and resulting settlements can actually harm the overall health and
resilience of landscapes and watersheds by focusing on single species
management under the ESA. We should seek solutions that reflect a
philosophy that the best decisions on water issues take place at the
state and local level. Finding ways to incentivize landowners to make
the ESA work is far more preferable than the ESA being used as a means
of ``protecting'' a single species (such as the Sacramento-San Joaquin
River Delta smelt in California, or the spotted frog, in Oregon)
without regard for other impacts, including those on other non-listed
or state-listed species.
Droughts occur routinely in the West; that is why Reclamation made
such important investments in water supply infrastructure over the past
century. However, this infrastructure was never designed to meet the
burgeoning demands of growing populations and environmental needs in
the West, while continuing to support farmers, ranchers and rural
communities during periodic droughts. Unfortunately, future droughts in
the West are predicted to be deeper and longer than we have
historically experienced in the 20th century. We believe Congress
should provide Federal agencies with more flexibility under
environmental laws and water management regulations to respond to
drought conditions when they arise. And where such flexibility
currently exists, Congress should demand that agencies use it promptly
and with a minimum of bureaucratic delay.
As one example of where innovation, flexibility and creativity are
needed, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) operates dozens of
water projects throughout the West, and it regulates the operations of
many non-Federal dam and reservoir projects according to criteria that
in many cases were established decades ago and have not been updated to
reflect changed conditions or new technology. As a result, projects are
sometimes forced to waste large amounts of water in order to adhere to
the letter of a flood-control plan that no longer has a basis in
reality. The Corps now has existing authority to make short-term
adjustments to operation criteria during droughts, but the agency
rarely does so on a proactive basis.
Environmental water management should be held to an equal standard of
accountability as other beneficial uses
We must manage water to meet all needs but in a manner that
``shares the pain,'' not creates winners and losers, especially when
the losers are mostly the very beneficiaries--farmers and rural
communities--the Federal water projects were originally built to serve.
The past Federal management of water flows in California's Bay-Delta,
which has redirected millions of acre feet of water away from human
uses and toward the environment, with little, if any, documented
benefit to the ESA-listed fish intended for protection, is a prime
example.
Good water management requires flexibility, as well as adaptive
management. More regulation usually reduces this flexibility to balance
competing demands and find a way forward that works for all
stakeholders. Federal agencies managing the competing demands for water
in the West have in some cases failed in creating opportunities for
more flexible water management during times of crisis, and rarely
measure their actual results (good or bad) from their water supply
decisions.
The ESA needs to be implemented in a new way to better benefit species
and rural communities
The original intent of the ESA--stated in the Act itself--was to
encourage ``the states and other interested parties, through Federal
financial assistance and a system of incentives, to develop and
maintain conservation programs which meet national and international
standards.'' Of special importance to the Family Farm Alliance is that
the ESA explicitly declared that it was the policy of Congress that
``Federal agencies shall cooperate with state and local agencies to
resolve water resource issues in concert with conservation of
endangered species.''
The authors of the ESA clearly believed in applying the ESA in a
way that would foster collaboration and efficiency of program delivery,
in an incentive-driven manner. Unfortunately, implementation of the ESA
has developed into an approach that is driven by litigation and
conflict rather than collaboration. As far as the Act itself is
concerned, little to no progress has occurred to keep this 40-year-old
law in step with the challenges facing declining species in an era of
climate change. The ESA has not been substantially updated since 1988.
At the heart of the Family Farm Alliance's concerns with the ESA is
the ever-present potential of serious Federal restrictions being placed
on the West's irrigation water storage and delivery activities, often
using federally developed water infrastructure in protecting listed
species. Future endangered species listings are on the horizon. That
prospect has the Alliance very concerned about potential new Federal
restrictions being placed on the water supplies that are crucial to the
West's $172-billion per year irrigated agricultural economy.
The ESA, while well intentioned, is a law that is not working as it
was originally intended. It needs to be more about incentives and
collaboration and less about litigation and regulation. Fewer than 2
percent of the species ever listed under the Act have been recovered
and removed from the list. Meanwhile, the negative economic and
sociologic impacts of the ESA have been dramatic.
The Family Farm Alliance for decades has worked to develop
specific, practical changes to the ESA that we think will make it work
effectively today. Application of the ESA today must be viewed through
the prism of other human needs, including food production. To that end,
management of our natural resources should be geared toward an approach
that views the entire landscape in a more holistic manner regarding its
value for wildlife, food production, and other capacities. The
flexibility built into the Act has the potential to yield net
conservation benefits for imperiled species, as ESA practitioners have
recognized.\6\ While a regulatory approach may be necessary for species
on the brink of extinction, such an approach should be employed
sparingly, consistent with congressional intent and sound public
policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ P. Henson, R. White, and S.P. Thompson. 2018. Improving
Implementation of the Endangered Species Act: Finding Common Ground
Through Common Sense, BioScience (available at https://doi.org/10.1093/
biosci/biy093).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insufficient Storage and Aging Water Infrastructure Must be Addressed
to Protect Future Water Supply Reliability
More surface and groundwater storage is a critical piece of the
solution to future water shortfalls. Congress should streamline
regulatory hurdles and work to facilitate the construction of new and
expanded surface storage facilities, providing a more effective process
to move water storage projects forward.
Also, new tools to assist in financing major improvements to aging
water infrastructure will be needed in the coming years to ensure that
farmers and ranchers who benefit from these upgrades can afford
repayment terms. Water infrastructure is a long-term investment, as are
farms and ranches, and longer repayment and lower interest terms will
be crucial to reinvesting in these aging facilities to meet the
challenges of tomorrow. Such improvements could include investments in
everything from new and expanded water storage reservoirs (both on- and
off-stream), regulating reservoirs, canal lining, computerized water
management and delivery systems, real-time monitoring of ecosystem
functions and river flows for both fish and people, and watershed-based
integrated regional water management. With the creation of the Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) in the WRRDA 2014,
the Alliance believes a similar affordable loan program could be
instituted at Reclamation to assist in providing capital for such
investments. Also, more flexibility may be needed to allow for private
investments at Reclamation facilities in order to attract additional
capital to meet future water supply needs.
Western irrigators need flexible, streamlined policies and new
affordable financing tools that can provide balance and certainty to
support collaborative efforts and manage future water infrastructure
challenges. Solutions in all of these areas will be crucial to future
successes in agricultural production, conservation and community
outcomes in the West.
innovative solutions
For family farmers and ranchers, finding solutions to constantly
emerging challenges is just business as usual. Nature, the markets and
the government are always finding new problems to throw at farmers, and
farmers who are not determined, resourceful and innovative will not
succeed.
Irrigators and their local water agencies are responding to the
challenges of reduced water supply reliability with determination,
resourcefulness and innovation. They also are bringing those attributes
to bear in planning for a future where ``drought'' may be a long-term
or even permanent condition. Throughout the West, farmers, ranchers and
irrigation agencies have undertaken creative measures to efficiently
manage increasingly scarce water resources. Some of these actions were
intended to address the immediate crisis of recent western droughts;
others have been implemented as part of the broad portfolio of actions
that successful farmers are employing to stay profitable in today's
fierce economic and regulatory climate. If Federal agencies are willing
to work collaboratively with farmers and ranchers, the result would
likely be better management of water for both economic purposes and
environmental uses.
The following are real-world examples that Congress and the
Administration should consider when developing legislation and polices
to address the current drought and water management for the future:
Collaboration, Ecosystem Restoration, and New Storage: Yakima Basin
(Washington)
The Yakima River Basin in Washington State does not have enough
surface water storage facilities, with over 2.4 million-acre feet of
water needs annually dependent upon only 1 million acre-feet of surface
water storage capacity. The Yakima Basin is experiencing increased
pressures and demands on our 1 million acre-feet of reservoir storage
capacity, while we are now at above average carryover water storage,
current water storage capacity cannot make up for shortages in the snow
pack. They desperately need increased water storage carrying capacity
to meet dry-year demands like those we experienced in 2015, with pro-
ratable (junior) water rights receiving only 47 percent of normal
supplies--a dire situation for the significant number of permanent
crops in the Basin.
To help plan for expanding access to more irrigation and M&I water
storage capacity and to help relieve tensions in the Yakima Basin over
water supply management for all needs, a large cross-section of the
water stakeholder interests and the Yakama Nation have worked together
over the past several years in developing the Yakima Basin Integrated
Plan. The Integrated Plan is a well thought out, long-term
comprehensive set of solutions to restore ecosystem functions and fish
habitat and improve long-term reliability of water supplies for stream
flows, agricultural irrigation and municipal supply. The Integrated
Plan was developed in a public, collaborative process involving local,
state, Federal and tribal governments plus stakeholders representing
environmental, irrigation and business interests. The consensus
achieved by this diverse group represents a major and unprecedented
accomplishment for the Yakima Basin and for water management in the
western United States. The Integrated Plan offers a means to avoid a
tangle of litigation and hardship for these users in future years. The
Yakima Basin Integrated Plan is believed to be the first basin-wide
integrated plan in the United States to achieve this level of success.
Prior efforts to increase water storage in the Yakima Basin have
failed, in part due to a lack of consensus among the key stakeholders.
The Integrated Plan offers the best opportunity in decades to resolve
long-standing problems afflicting the Basin's ecosystem and economy. In
addition, improving water conservation and management, along with
making available increased water storage for farms, fish and our
communities are key components of the Plan. When implemented, the Plan
will greatly improve operational flexibility to support instream flows
while meeting the Basin's basic water supply needs under a wide range
of seasonal and annual snowpack and runoff conditions, both now and
under a wide range of estimated future hydrologic and climatic
conditions.
Long-term Environmental Enhancement and Water Supply Reliability:
Voluntary Settlement Agreements to update the Sacramento San
Joaquin Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan (California)
The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) oversees
water rights and water quality in California. The Board is in process
of updating its Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan, which identifies
beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta, water quality objectives for the
reasonable protection of those beneficial uses, and a program of
implementation for achieving those objectives.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, the California Natural
Resources Agency, and water rights holders throughout California are
working on a separate but related effort to craft voluntary,
stakeholder-based outcomes in the watersheds of the Sacramento River
and major San Joaquin River tributaries. These voluntary settlement
agreements (VSAs) are a comprehensive plan to improve water quality and
habitat conditions with a manageable impact to water users and
highlight the positive outcomes that can occur when agencies choose to
collaborate with water users. Implementation of the VSAs will maintain
the viability of native fishes in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River
watersheds and the Delta ecosystem, while concurrently protecting and
enhancing water supply reliability, consistent with the statutory
requirement of providing reasonable protection for all beneficial uses.
The VSA's have a few key components: \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Framework Proposal for Voluntary Agreements to Update and
Implement the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan (https://
water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Blogs/Voluntary-Settlement-
Agreement-Meeting-Materials-Dec-12-2018-DWR-CDFW-CNRA.pdf).
Provide additional instream flows averaging between
740,000 and 1,040,000 acre-feet in a manner that does not
conflict with groundwater management requirements under
California law, doesn't reduce flows for wildlife refuges,
and maintains reliability of water supply for other
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
beneficial uses.
Implementation of significant non-flow measures to address
the many factors negatively impacting fish populations,
including predation by non-native species, passage
barriers, and hatchery productivity.
The development of a comprehensive science and monitoring
program, incorporating a structured decision-making
process, to inform implementation of flow and non-flow
measures.
Dedicated funding for implementation of science and
ecosystem and habitat improvement measures of approximately
$770 million from a per acre-foot fee placed on water
users.
It is the Alliance's position that locally negotiated, stakeholder
driven solutions are far more durable than those driven through a
regulatory process that leads to litigation. The Alliance would urge
congressional support for Federal efforts to implement California's
Voluntary Settlement Agreements.
Conservation and Drought Resilience: Colorado River Basin
In Wyoming, ranchers Pat and Sharon O'Toole have always managed
their land with conservation in mind. Along the way, they've built
strong partnerships with Trout Unlimited, Audubon Wyoming and The
Nature Conservancy; organizations some ranchers once viewed as
adversaries. Further south, in the fertile North Fork Valley outside of
Paonia, Colorado, Harrison Topp took the leap from annual vegetable
production to perennial fruit, growing food in a region with just 15
inches of annual average precipitation.
The Family Farm Alliance report, ``Innovations in Agricultural
Stewardship: Stories of Conservation & Drought Resilience in the Arid
West,'' \8\ focuses on these two case studies and three others that
profile producers across the Colorado River Basin and beyond who--with
curiosity, creativity and seasons of trial and error--are conserving
resources while enhancing productivity. The Alliance teamed up with the
National Young Farmers Coalition on this report with the aim of
elevating the voices of farmers and ranchers who are employing smart
solutions to build drought resilience, steward water and grow good
food.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.youngfarmers.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NYFC-
template-FINAL_low New.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the farmers highlighted in the Alliance report are
integrating efficient irrigation technology with soil health to
increase both productivity and water savings. Others are navigating
conservation within constraints outside of their control, such as the
operations of the ditches which deliver water to farms. To paint a
fuller picture of the complexities and nuances of agricultural water
conservation in the West, the Alliance worked with the engineering firm
Applegate Group to create a water balance for three of the case
studies. These water balances utilize a technical, objective approach
to assess the producers' water rights, current conservation efforts,
and barriers or opportunities for future conservation. They underscore
the reality that conservation practices are different on every
operation and unique from farm to farm.
As the pressures of climate variability and drought increase,
farmers and ranchers are at the forefront of our national adaptation
strategy. Producers are coming together to help one another, but they
also need support from consumers, policy makers, scientists, and
service providers. The Alliance hopes that these case studies will
provide policy makers and other stakeholders with a more nuanced
understanding of the diversity and complexity of western agricultural
water conservation and an appreciation of what continuing to take
agricultural lands out of production might mean.
Empower Locals to Develop New Storage: Sites Joint Power Authority
(California)
Growing concerns about the delays and costs associated with the
proposed Sites off-stream reservoir project in the Sacramento Valley of
California, as well as the need for a local voice, led to the
formation, in August 2010, of the Sites Project Joint Powers Authority
(Sites JPA). The Sites JPA, which includes Sacramento Valley counties
and water districts, was formed with the stated purpose of establishing
a public entity to design, acquire, manage and operate Sites Reservoir
and related facilities to improve the operation of the state's water
system.
The Project would also provide improvements in ecosystem and water
quality conditions in the Sacramento River system and in the Bay-Delta,
as well as provide flood control and other benefits to a large area of
the state of California. The formation of local JPA's was included as a
key provision in the 2009 California Water Package Water Bond
legislation for the purposes of pursuing storage projects that could be
eligible for up to 50 percent of project funding for public benefits.
As the Sites JPA began working with the Bureau of Reclamation and
California Department of Water Resources, the JPA took a common-sense
approach. The JPA worked with Reclamation and DWR to put together
Foundational Formulation Principles. In other words, first identifying
the needs of the water operations system and then designing the project
that would meet those needs. Local project proponents envisioned a
project that would be integrated with the system they already had, and
one that would also operate effectively regardless of future
operational changes to the larger system, such as construction of new
conveyance to export water users located south of the Delta. The JPA
wanted to maximize the benefits associated with existing infrastructure
and provide as much benefit as possible to both the existing state and
Federal water projects at the lowest feasible cost.
The JPA has approached the Sites project with the goal of making
the best possible use of limited resources, and in the end, local
irrigators believe they have identified a project that is both
affordable and will provide significant benefits. The proposed project
maximizes ecosystem benefits consistent with the state water bond,
which states that at least 50 percent of the public benefit objectives
must be ecosystem improvements. Other benefits include water supply
reliability, water quality improvements, flexible hydropower
generation, more recreation benefits and increased flood damage
reduction. In short, the JPA approached the Sites project with the goal
of generating water for the environment while improving statewide water
reliability and regional sustainability in Northern California. They
believe they are achieving that goal.
Collaboration with Diverse Stakeholders: The Western Agriculture and
Conservation Coalition (WACCC)
The Family Farm Alliance sits on the Steering Committee of the
Western Agriculture and Conservation Coalition (WACC), a diverse group
of organizations that first came together a decade ago around the Farm
Bill conservation title with the goal of supporting the common
interests of agriculture and conservation. Other founding steering
committee members included Trout Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy,
California Farm Bureau, Environmental Defense Fund, Public Lands
Council, Arizona Cattle Growers Association, Wyoming Stock Growers
Association, and the Irrigation Association. The group has expanded in
recent years; for a complete list of members, go to: http://
www.waccoalition.org/.
The WACC is becoming increasingly effective on the narrow list of
topics its members engage in, including the farm bill that Congress
passed last December, sending the compromise legislation to the
President's desk. The new farm bill includes several important
provisions--many of them driven by the WACC--that will assist Western
agricultural irrigators. The new farm bill included expanded authority
under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) for
irrigation districts--for the first time ever--to receive funding as
direct applicants for water conservation measures, as well as continued
eligibility as partners for conservation activities with growers. This
language was originally proposed and advocated for by the Alliance and
other WACC partners starting a decade ago. The new EQIP includes
funding for water conservation scheduling, water distribution
efficiency, soil moisture monitoring, irrigation-related structural or
other measures that conserve surface water or groundwater, including
managed aquifer recovery practices. The farm bill also provides
improved contracting for partners engaged in work with producers, which
is intended to be streamlined and made more effective under the
Regional Conservation Partnership Program. Importantly, the 2018 farm
bill preserves existing authorization structure and $50 million in
mandatory funding for the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act, a flexible and useful program utilized by Western water managers.
The demand for this program is probably at least twice as much as what
was funded, but the farm bill made this mandatory funding, which is
encouraging.
The WACC provides a core that can help policy makers and our
collective members remember that the foundation for some true,
collaborative solutions that are driven from the constructive
``center.'' The WACC shared perspective on species conservation is
rooted in our experience with practical, on-the-ground solutions that
work well for ranchers, farmers, and other landowners, as well as for
fish, wildlife and plants. Indeed, maintaining a mosaic of working
farms and ranches along with lands managed for conservation purposes,
represents the best opportunity for conserving the ecosystems upon
which species depend so that species do not decline to the point where
a listing under the ESA is warranted, and so that currently listed
species can recover.
Unless the agricultural industry and conservation come together,
the public policies and resource management strategies necessary to
maintain a viable and sustainable rural West will be impossible to
achieve. There will always be isolated instances of successful
partnerships. But, these discrete examples of success will not suffice.
The threats to a viable and sustainable rural West are numerous,
complex, and variegated. A broad and authoritative voice like that of
the WACC is needed to effectively address these threats with
collaborative solutions. The coalition's recent engagement and success
in the farm bill's conservation title is Exhibit ``A'' toward that end.
how the federal government can help
The Congress and the Federal Government certainly cannot change the
hydrology of the West, but there is a role it can play to support
family farmers and ranchers. Policy makers should understand the
following observations and principles as they develop new solutions to
the decreasing long-term reliability of western water supplies:
State water laws, compacts and decrees must be the
foundation for dealing with shortages.
Water use and related beneficial use data must be
accurately measured and portrayed.
Benefits of water use must reflect all economic/societal/
environmental impacts.
Water conservation can help stretch water supplies, but
has its limits in certain situations (impacts to
groundwater recharge by moving away from flood irrigation).
Public sentiment supports water remaining with irrigated
agriculture, and developing strategic water storage as
insurance against shortages.
Technologies for water reuse and recycling are proven
effective in stretching existing supplies for urban,
environmental and other uses.
Urban growth expansion should be contingent upon
sustainable water supplies; using irrigated agriculture as
the ``reservoir'' of water for municipal growth is not
sustainable in the long run and will permanently damage our
Nation's food supply and rural communities.
Planning for water shortage in the West must look to the
long-term in meeting the goals of agriculture, energy,
cities, and the environment.
A successful water shortage strategy must include a
``portfolio'' of water supply enhancements and
improvements, such as water reuse, recycling, conservation,
water-sensitive land use planning, and water system
improvements. New infrastructure and technologies can help
stretch water for all uses.
Temporary fallowing proposals should be approached in a
thoughtful, thorough manner only after urban, energy and
environmental users of water demonstrate a better
management of their share of the finite supply.
Unintended consequences associated with reducing
productive agricultural land/groundwater recharge/riparian
habitat benefits should be avoided and, if unavoidable,
minimized and fully mitigated.
We offer the following specific actions that Federal policy makers
can address in new water supply legislation:
Encourage accurate measurement and portrayal of water use and related
beneficial use data
As is often the case, what happens in California often has a ripple
effect that extends to other western states. For example, the common
misconception that ``farmers use 80 percent of the water'' is applied
by critics of irrigated agriculture in areas throughout the West. We
need to find clear and comparable ways to present these types of water
use numbers as we struggle with finding the appropriate way to
prioritize our water uses among competing demands. And, we need a solid
understanding of how water used for environmental purposes is really
benefiting the species or habitat it is intended to protect, and how to
more efficiently manage such uses for maximum benefit using less water,
the same standard to which irrigated agriculture is currently being
held.
Find ways to streamline regulatory hurdles to assist in developing new
environmentally sensitive storage projects and other necessary
infrastructure improvements
In past Congresses, several bills have been introduced that were
intended to facilitate the construction of new surface storage
facilities. Congress should work to pass legislation to increase water
storage throughout the western United States.
The President and Congress will prioritize whatever Federal funds
are available to meet existing and future water supply needs. As for
the rest of the necessary capital needed to develop and construct this
new water infrastructure, it must come either from state and local
governments or from the private sector. If the Federal Government
cannot fund the required investments, it should take meaningful steps
to provide additional incentives for non-Federal entities to fill the
void, and remove barriers to the new ways of doing business that will
be required.
The Alliance believes that the Federal Government must seriously
consider adopting a policy of supporting new projects to enhance water
supplies while encouraging state and local interests to take the lead
in the planning and implementation of those projects. Local and state
interests (see Sites JPA example above) have shown enormous creativity
in designing creative water development projects. Water agencies have
at times obtained additional Federal funding through the appropriations
process; however, Reclamation could also supplement this effort by
providing funding for local partnership agreements, especially where
Reclamation and its water contractors are identified as potential
beneficiaries.
Provide additional funding to support WaterSMART and/or other programs
that provide incentive-driven cost share money for new water
conservation projects
Small Federal investments in cost-shared, competitive grants help
irrigation districts make larger investments in water conservation and
management technologies that can help stretch water supplies to meet
unmet needs. The Secure Water Act should be reauthorized to extend
these grant programs into the future. Additionally, legislation should
be enacted to authorize Reclamation to develop or access a WIFIA-like
loan program, which would increase access to affordable, long-term,
credit-based loans to help support locally developed water projects
across the West.
Require fish and wildlife agencies to set scientifically based
priorities and be accountable in their effort to manage
environmental water
In the western United States, environmental enhancement and
mitigation programs are increasingly competing for existing sources of
water. In some instances, these actions have caused major conflicts,
costly lawsuits and delayed benefits for endangered species and the
environment. Water is far too important a resource in an era of a
changing climate to utilize it in an ineffective or inefficient manner.
Accordingly, the Alliance believes that all users of water should be
held to the same level of accountability in their water use.
Environmental interests, fish and wildlife agencies and water managers
must set scientifically based priorities and be held accountable in
their effort to manage environmental water. Legislative language that
requires fisheries agencies to demonstrate quantifiable benefits to
targeted imperiled fish species would be helpful. An institutional
structure that ensures true peer review and impartial decision making
relative to this objective would also be useful.
conclusion
California and the West need to manage water as if every year is a
drought year. We need to invest in new water storage facilities to
capture water in wet years, we need to look to innovative technology to
enhance management of water supplies and delivery and we need to
maximize the benefits from the water we have available to meet multiple
needs. The ability to measure, assess and show value for how that water
is used is incumbent on every water manager--environmental, urban and
agricultural.
It will be hard work to reach an agreement and enact legislation to
wisely manage the West's water now and in the future, but that's the
kind of work we elected you to do. Farmers work hard, and we expect
Congress to do the same. We need you--all of you, urban and rural,
Republican and Democrat--to come together and find a way to fix this
broken system, now, before it breaks us all.
Only together can we in California and the West plan and prepare
for our collective future. If we don't, we ensure only that the water
supply reliability will continue to decline.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Diedrich. The Chair will now
recognize Mr. Harrison Ibach.
Mr. Ibach is President of the Humboldt Fishermen's
Marketing Association and is a commercial fisherman in my
district.
Welcome, Mr. Ibach. In my district and across the Pacific
Coast, native fisheries provide a livelihood for fishermen and
their families and are a key element of our local economy and
culture. I want to personally thank you, Mr. Ibach. I
appreciate you being here to tell this Subcommittee how drought
and water supply shortages have affected fishing communities
all along the Pacific Coast.
Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HARRISON IBACH, PRESIDENT, HUMBOLDT FISHERMEN'S
MARKETING ASSOCIATION, HUMBOLDT, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Ibach. Good morning Chairman Huffman, members of the
Committee. It is good to be with you today. My name is Harrison
Ibach. I am the President of the Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing
Association, and I am the owner and captain of the fishing
vessel Oceana from which 100 percent of my income is generated.
I fish for salmon, Dungeness crab, and groundfish out of Eureka
in Northern California. I have come here today so you can hear
directly from the North Coast about the devastation that water
mismanagement has caused to my family and my community.
I am going to give you the salmon industry's perspective on
California's water resources, the ways these resources are
being managed and abused, and what Congress might do in order
to save the Central Valley from itself and assure a more
equitable use of our vital water system to benefit all of the
food producers of our state who rely on it.
Salmon are part of a cycle that nature has managed well for
millions of years. But in the last century, water mismanagement
in the West has sent our salmon into a death spiral. When I was
born, in the early 1980s, there were around 4,500 commercial
salmon fishermen in California. Today, there are fewer than 450
who can afford the time and the financial investment to fish
for salmon each summer. It has become so bad that we have lost
90 percent of our fishery.
When King Salmon fisheries are healthy, they are an
economic powerhouse, feeding America. These fish support 23,000
jobs in California and 11,000 in Oregon in a normal, non-
drought year. The industry serving both sport and commercial
salmon generates about $1.4 billion in economic activity by the
time you add in all the multipliers, and about half that much
again in jobs and dollars in Oregon, where as much as 60
percent of their ocean-caught salmon originate in California's
Central Valley.
We haven't had a decent salmon season since 2013, and the
fishery hasn't been reliable since long before. Decisions at
the Federal level have a tangible impact on salmon stocks and
on our incomes. I have personally witnessed the devastating
effects of mismanagement of water. I saw the largest salmon
kill in the western United States on the Klamath River in 2002.
Up to 70,000 adult salmon died when water was diverted away
from the river for use inland.
Relaxed regulatory oversight and maximized Delta pumping
between 2003 and 2006 led to the complete closure of the salmon
fishery in 2008 and 2009. Imagine that for a second. For 2
years straight, an entire industry was told it could not go to
work. This shutdown was a nightmare for the fishing industry.
We had to rely on Federal disaster relief to scrape by.
Fishermen don't favor handouts. We know how to work hard, and
we prefer to go to work.
In 2013, there was a good season because of the strong
salmon protections coming from the Endangered Species Act's
2009 salmon Biological Opinion and a wet spring in 2011. In the
years since, California went through the worst drought it has
had in decades.
The 2009 Biological Opinion gave salmon a break for a
couple of years. If it hadn't been implemented, the drought
would have wiped us out for good. The overwhelming success of
the 2009 Biological Opinion was short-lived due to the
stressors of the 2012-2016 drought. But now the Federal
Administration wants to erase the gains we made by installing
an even more regressive water regime than we had before 2009.
And if this Subcommittee doesn't pump the brakes and stop this
callous action, we won't have a salmon fishery. And that is the
truth.
Today's Bureau of Reclamation appears to me to be run more
like a cash faucet for irrigators than a water agency that owns
and operates storage and flood-control infrastructure. The
Bureau has recently released a Biological Assessment for a new
Central Valley Project Operations Program. According to experts
who my organizations work with, this new management regime
would be ruinous to our salmon. It would certainly bring
economic devastation to the coastal communities like mine.
Members of the Subcommittee, this Administration's war on
salmon must be stopped in its tracks. We know that water
management can make or break a fishing season and can determine
if a fisherman will be able to provide for his family. Sending
water to the ocean is not wasting it--it is an investment in
biodiversity, in the fishing industry, and our coastal
communities. The industry is looking toward our Federal and
state water managers to determine the future of salmon and our
industry.
Looking forward, the projects and standards being pursued
at the Federal level will only help push salmon and West Coast
commercial fishermen to extinction.
Honorable members of the Subcommittee, please make sure
salmon fishermen are protected so we can continue to share
nature's bounty with you and our fellow Americans. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ibach follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Harrison Ibach, President, Humboldt
Fishermen's Marketing Association
Good morning Chairman Huffman, members of the Committee. It's good
to be with you today. My name is Harrison Ibach, I'm the President of
the Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing Association and I'm the owner and
captain of the fishing vessel Oceana from which 100 percent of my
income is generated. I fish for salmon, Dungeness crab, and groundfish
out of Eureka in Northern California. I've come here today so you can
hear directly from the North Coast about the devastation that water
mismanagement has caused to my family and my community. I'm going to
give you the salmon industry's perspective on California's water
resources, the ways these resources are being managed and abused, and
what Congress might do in order to save the Central Valley from itself
and assure a more equitable use of our vital water system to benefit
all of the food producers of our state who rely on it.
Commercial fishing has been a noble occupation since before the
founding of this country. The ocean's bounty has been a cultural and
culinary mainstay of the West Coast for thousands of years. And in our
part of the world, salmon is king. Or at least it was.
Salmon are part of a cycle that nature has managed well for
millions of years. But in the last century, water mismanagement in the
West has sent our salmon into a death spiral.
When I was born, in the early 1980s, there were around 4,500
commercial salmon fishermen in California. Today, there are fewer than
450 who can afford the time and financial investment to fish for salmon
each summer. It has become so bad that we've lost 90 percent of our
fishery.
When king salmon fisheries are healthy, they're an economic
powerhouse, feeding America. These fish support 23,000 jobs in
California and 11,000 in Oregon in a ``normal'' non-drought year. The
industry serving both sport and commercial salmon generates about $1.4
billion in economic activity by the time you add in all the
multipliers, and about half that much again in jobs and dollars in
Oregon, where as much as 60 percent of their ocean caught salmon
originate in California's Central Valley.
We haven't had a decent salmon season since 2013, and the fishery
hasn't been reliable since long before. Decisions at the Federal level
have a tangible impact on salmon stocks, and on our incomes.
I have personally witnessed the devastating effects of
mismanagement of water. I saw the largest salmon kill in the western
United States on the Klamath River in 2002. Up to 70,000 adult salmon
died when water was diverted away from the river for use inland.
Relaxed regulatory oversight and maximized Delta pumping between
2003 and 2006 led to the complete closure of the salmon fishery in 2008
and 2009. Imagine that for a second. For 2 years straight an entire
industry was told it couldn't go to work. This shutdown was a nightmare
for the fishing industry. We had to rely on Federal disaster relief to
scrape by. Fishermen don't favor handouts--we know how to work hard and
we prefer to go to work.
In 2013, there was a good season because of the strong salmon
protections coming from the Endangered Species Act's 2009 salmon
biological opinion and a wet spring in 2011. In the years since,
California went through the worst drought it's had in decades.
The 2009 Biological opinion gave salmon a break for a couple of
years. If it hadn't been implemented, the drought would have wiped us
out for good.
The overwhelming success of the 2009 Biological Opinion was short
lived due to the stressors of the 2012-2016 drought. But now, the
Federal Administration wants to erase the gains we made by installing
an even more regressive water regime than we had before 2009. And if
this Subcommittee doesn't pump the brakes and stop this callous action,
we won't have a salmon fishery. And that's the truth.
Today's Bureau of Reclamation appears to me to be run more like a
cash faucet for irrigators than a water agency that owns and operates
storage and flood control infrastructure. The Bureau has recently
released a Biological Assessment for a new Central Valley Project
operations program. According to experts who my organization works
with, this new management regime be ruinous to our salmon. It would
certainly bring economic devastation to coastal communities like mine.
Members of the Subcommittee, this Administration's war on salmon must
be stopped in its tracks.
We know that water management can make or break a fishing season
and can determine if a fisherman will be able to provide for his
family. Sending water to the ocean is not wasting it--it is an
investment in biodiversity, in the fishing industry, and our coastal
communities. The industry is looking toward our Federal and state water
managers to determine the future of salmon, and of our industry.
Looking forward, the projects and standards being pursued at the
Federal level will only help push salmon, and West Coast commercial
fishermen, to extinction.
We have a saying in California fisheries: are you here for the
salad, or are you here for the main course? Honorable members of the
Subcommittee, please make sure salmon fishermen are protected so we can
continue to share nature's bounty with you and our fellow Americans.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Ibach. I thank the panel for
the testimony. I want to remind Members that Committee Rule
3(d) imposes a 5-minute limit on questions. The Chair will now
recognize Members for any questions they may wish to ask the
witnesses.
I will start by deferring to Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first
like to introduce a letter that I sent as Chair of this
Committee on August 28, 2009 to Mr. Ken Salazar, Secretary of
the Interior, on recycled water.
I focus mostly on recycled water because in California we
are in the desert in the south of California. And we have had a
long battle with Northern California over the water. And the
spectrum is everything. There is no silver bullet to the water
wars that we have in California. However, I would like to
suggest that we refocus on making water. By making water I say
recycled water, specifically.
The letter included how to look at the establishment of a 1
million acre-foot new water program, help farmer irrigation
efficiency, and establish a water conservation initiative for
urban and rural water districts.
That said, I understand the Committee's effort to bring it
all together. I would like to ask a few questions, Mr.
Willardson.
Title XVI has been successful in helping construct water
recycling infrastructure and is greatly underfunded. We
currently have $64 million approved by the Committee, but none
funded. There is no way to fund these projects with $50 million
a year. I introduced a bill that increased the authorization to
$500 million so we can finally start to adequately fund and
complete the approved projects.
I have heard firsthand not only from my water agencies, but
from up and down California and other states, how vital the
program is. Do you believe recycled water projects are the most
cost-effective solution to drought management or one of the
tools in the box?
And to start refocusing investments to our recycled water,
do you think an increase in Federal funding would help this
problem?
Mr. Willardson. Yes, Representative Napolitano. The Council
supports an all-of-the-above approach to diversifying our water
resources and supplies. Obviously, water reuse is something
that is being used in many areas, particularly in the
Southwest. States are making their own investments, as are
local communities.
As I mentioned, with respect to the Reclamation fund, the
current receipts are roughly $2 billion, something under that
now. We are spending about $1 billion on authorized Reclamation
programs. If all of that money were spent, we could go a long
ways to funding water reuse projects, or addressing some of the
infrastructure deferred maintenance backlog, and a number of
other projects, including rural and tribal water supply
projects.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. We are working in Southern
California to limit demand for imported water, due to the
unpredictability of supply. Can you discuss the predictability
that recycled water provides and how that affects the cost in
the long run?
Mr. Willardson. Obviously, it is an area that has sometimes
been called drought-proof, in that we do have the opportunity
to reuse it over and over again. I have toured the Orange
County facility twice. The first time they wouldn't let me
drink the water. The second time I did get to try it.
It is an important area. It is not inexpensive. There are
many other areas that we have to look at. I can tell you that I
have looked at conservation early in my career, and that is not
inexpensive, either. I think it is one of many important areas
that we need to look at, particularly in Southern California.
Mrs. Napolitano. Southern California has long been the
leader in modernizing water infrastructure. The county recycles
more than 100 million gallons of water per day for irrigation
purposes. Has the farming community gone to recycling?
Mr. Willardson. I can tell you that there are a number of
opportunities to capture tailwater and to reuse that water, as
well as to move toward the appropriate use of different
qualities of water.
Northern water, I think, in Colorado, they are looking to
use wastewater that has been treated after it has been used for
municipal purposes. So, there are changes that are happening,
as well, of reuse in the agricultural community.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ranking
Member McClintock for 5 minutes.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Willardson, let me ask you this question. What is
better, abundance or scarcity? I know that sounds like a trick
question, but it is a very important one that we are exploring
with this last line of questioning. What is better, abundance
or scarcity?
Mr. Willardson. Well, obviously, we would like more water
or more money, or both.
Mr. McClintock. OK, so let me go over these figures again.
And these are from San Diego County. They come to us from the
California Energy Commission. The mean cost of surface water
storage for San Diego County was $600 per acre-foot;
groundwater storage, $737 per acre-foot; importing water, $925;
recycling, $1,500 per acre-foot; and desalination, which San
Diego has made an enormous investment in, cost them a
staggering $2,300 per acre-foot. So, desalination costs us
roughly four times what surface water storage costs in San
Diego, a very dry area of the country.
The question is, shouldn't we be focusing on the least
expensive sources of water before we put money into the most
expensive? What is better, 1 gallon of water or 4 gallons of
water?
Mr. Willardson. Well, I minored in economics. I know a
little bit about markets, enough to know I don't like macro or
micro, but I can tell you----
Mr. McClintock. It is pretty much a rhetorical question,
because I want to go on to another question I think is also
very important.
Mr. Willardson. I would state simply that there are many
different factors that go into water cost that have to be
considered. And obviously, as an economist, we look at what are
the lower costs, but they are not always available.
Mr. McClintock. Again, my time is limited, so I want to go
on to another question for you.
We have heard that snowpacks are going to be reduced in the
future. Precipitation is going to be realized more as rain than
as snow. We are not going to be able to store precipitation as
snow in the mountains as long. Doesn't that suggest that we
need to be capturing that runoff in reservoirs, rather than
lose it to the ocean?
Mr. Willardson. Obviously, it is going to change the regime
in which we look at our water supplies.
Mr. McClintock. If we can't store it as snow, doesn't that
mean we need to store it as water?
Mr. Willardson. Surface reservoirs are one. Groundwater
recharge or other opportunities which are being used widely.
Mr. McClintock. Right, so, again, it gets back to a very
simple question--if we can't store it as snow, we have to store
it as water, or we lose it.
Mr. Diedrich, would you agree?
Mr. Diedrich. I absolutely agree.
Mr. McClintock. How about the Shasta Dam? That was built in
the 1940s. It was built to an elevation of 600 feet. It was
actually designed to be 800 feet. We can't even get a minor 20-
foot extension over decades of studies. Would that be an
appropriate policy avenue to pursue, if our objective is clean,
cheap, and abundant water?
Mr. Diedrich. I believe it would.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Udall, what is your view of that?
Mr. Udall. I don't claim to have any particular expertise
on Shasta and the raising of its elevation. Clearly, in some
places raising existing reservoirs makes sense. Other places,
it doesn't.
Mr. McClintock. Your father thought it made sense; he is
the one who authored the 1980 legislation authorizing the
expansion of Shasta.
Mr. Willardson, my limited understanding of meteorology is
that the El Nino is actually triggered by warmer than average
temperatures in the Pacific. Doesn't that mean, if the climate
is warming, we should be expecting more precipitation overall,
not less?
Mr. Willardson. Again, I am not a climatologist, but I
would expect that that is the case.
Mr. McClintock. And, certainly, that is what we are
observing. I cited the EPA study in my opening statement. Just
within the 48 contiguous states, we have seen 17 one-hundredths
of an inch per decade of increased precipitation. Over 12
decades, that is 2 inches of additional precipitation per year,
so it seems like we are looking at more water, not less.
The problem is how we are able to store it, transfer it as
snow in the mountains to water in our reservoirs, to transfer
it from wet years to dry years, and to transfer it from wet
regions to dry regions.
Mr. Willardson. The challenge, really, is where that water
is going to fall, and how that is going to change. And we do
not have an understanding of the dynamical earth systems to be
able to make those predictions.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Diedrich, you testified we are at 115
percent of snowpack right now. You are getting 35 percent of
allocations. Why the difference?
Mr. Diedrich. The difference is because of cold water being
held in Shasta for salmon, basically.
Mr. McClintock. Well, let's look at the salmon, looking at
the relative numbers for California. Agriculture produces about
$50 billion a year in direct product. The salmon industry, $88
million. So, for every dollar that the salmon industry
produces, agriculture generates $568. Am I in the ballpark
there?
Mr. Diedrich. I believe you are.
Mr. McClintock. Great, thank you.
Mr. Huffman. The Chair now recognizes himself for 5
minutes.
Mr. Willardson, since you were asked to respond to some
hypotheticals, let me ask you one. What is more valuable to
western states, paper water or wet water?
Mr. Willardson. Wet water.
Mr. Huffman. And does building new dams make it rain or
snow any more?
Mr. Willardson. It does not. It does provide the
opportunity to store what we do get.
Mr. Huffman. Is it fair to say that over the last century,
California and other western states have identified the most
productive sites for dams, for the most part, and built them?
Mr. Willardson. We obviously depend now on the investments
that have been made in the past, and will continue to do so.
And it has provided a lot of flexibility.
Mr. Huffman. And with respect to new surface water storage
projects, the cost estimates that you just heard for dams that
were built in the previous century, the most productive sites
that were identified and constructed, these new projects now
that are being proposed are at a much higher cost, are they
not?
Mr. Willardson. They are at a greater cost, both----
Mr. Huffman. Mr. McClintock has cited some costs in
questioning you for recycled water and desalination, over
$1,000 an acre-foot. I will just say that the new storage
projects in California, if you back away the public subsidy,
are very much in that range.
And lest we disparage desalination and recycling, let me
just point out under the new Majority one change you see is
that we don't have these little bottled water units at every
desk, because for the last 6 years, while criticizing recycling
and desalination as too expensive, our colleagues across the
aisle thought that the taxpayer dollars should be spent on
bottled water for each Member of Congress that, if you pencil
it out, is over $3 million an acre-foot. So, perspective is
also important.
Let's go to you, Mr. Udall. Of course we would all like to
see abundance. But your testimony urged us to plan for
increased scarcity and increased volatility because of climate
change. What do you think is the most prudent baseline
assumption as we go forward and think about the infrastructure
and the policy solutions to build a resilient water supply, and
why?
Mr. Udall. The Southwest is not homogenous with regard to
future water supplies. The southern portion of the United
States and the southern portion of the Southwest clearly are
looking at hotter and drier conditions. As you go north--and I
would suggest that line might be the Colorado-Wyoming border,
maybe the middle of Colorado--we expect to see increased
precipitation.
Congressman McClintock's remarks about increased precip
globally are true, but we have regional winners and losers. And
unbelievably, we get both more floods and more droughts out of
climate change. We lose on both sides.
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Nelson, you spoke eloquently about
communities that have been impacted by water shortages in the
Central Valley. If you did away with the Endangered Species Act
and all the other environmental laws that we have heard
criticized in some of the testimony and the comments, would
that solve the problem for the communities that you represent?
Mr. Nelson. No, it wouldn't. And, in fact, we would expect
that it would make the challenge even worse. And we would say
that it is a false choice to choose between environmental
protections that in fact do protect our communities and in
making sure that every American can have access to safe
drinking water.
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Udall just mentioned the notion of winners
and losers. And Mr. Ibach, you offered some testimony that was
a little different than what we often hear in this Committee.
When there are water shortages for agriculture, I think we are
very familiar with the concept of fallowing and the hardships
that sometimes are felt. But we haven't had a chance to hear
about what happens to fishing communities because of droughts
and water management decisions. Can you speak specifically
about what you have seen in your community from those impacts?
Mr. Ibach. Yes, absolutely. I know in my community we have
seen a lot of hardship. I have personally witnessed many
families go through many financial hardships. I have witnessed
people not only lose their jobs, but forced to sell everything.
And that is not just in my community. When we are talking
about coastal communities that are affected by a lack of
salmon, it is not just our community in Northern California. It
extends as far south as Santa Barbara in California, and all
the way up to the Oregon border. And not just up to the Oregon
border, it actually extends all the way up into Oregon and
Washington. And not only Washington, it actually extends all
the way up into Alaska, as well.
The fall-run salmon from Sacramento are actually caught up
and down the entire West Coast of the United States. So, it is
not just our local communities, it is actually up and down the
entire West Coast.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hice
for 5 minutes.
Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I do
live in what is referred to as Lake Country in Georgia. We have
over 800 miles of shoreline in my district. And just for
clarification and simplification, let me just say that dams
protect us both from floods and drought. I think that is an
important thing for us to come to just a basic understanding,
which I know we know, but it is good for it to be restated.
Mr. Diedrich, let me go to you. I am not an expert, by any
means, on California. But my basic understanding is, current
population there is ballpark 39 million. But the water supply
is really suited for approximately 22 million. Is that your
understanding?
Mr. Diedrich. That is a fair characterization.
Dr. Hice. A fair characterization, all right. I also am
under the impression that California is expected to double in
size by 2050 and have approximately 80 million. If that is the
case, what in the world are they going to do? What needs to
happen to catch up from currently being behind in the capacity
of water? And what in the world needs to happen to be prepared
for the influx of population growth?
Mr. Diedrich. It is absolutely going to take a portfolio
approach to every area.
But Number 1 is that we are going to have to have increased
storage in the state of California. You cannot put water in the
ground when there is a flood. You have to put water in the
ground off season. And in order to do that, you have to store
it when it comes down.
So, storage is absolutely vital. We have to find additional
storage that can be built as soon as possible in the state of
California.
Dr. Hice. Sounds like it is going to require a significant
amount of storage, as well.
Going along with that, we also all know how much produce is
provided for our country that comes out of California, just
with fruits and nuts and vegetables, all that sort of thing.
Probably 50 percent or so for our country comes out of
California.
If what you just highlighted does not take place, the
increase of storage capacity for water, how would that impact
the rest of the country, in terms of produce coming out of
California?
Mr. Diedrich. The safe and affordable food supply that
comes out of the Central Valley and all of California is going
to be in jeopardy. I cannot tell you at this time to what
degree, other than it is going to be significant.
There are only two ways that you can deal with this. It is
to control the demand, which is going to require fallowing, and
land taken out of production, on top of all of the other things
that we already are doing, which is conservation, water use
efficiency, reuse, all of that. Or increase supply.
And Representative McClintock represented the situation
fairly when he said it is just a matter of where the
precipitation falls and the timing of the precipitation. So, in
order to control that, we have to have additional storage.
Dr. Hice. I think your point is well taken. And it seems
obvious to me that you are barking up the right tree, in terms
of a solution.
One of you mentioned a while ago, someone briefly, about
the Endangered Species Act. How has the Endangered Species Act
complicated water rights? Or has it?
Mr. Diedrich. I believe that the solution is going to be a
collaborative effort. I am in no way proposing that the
Endangered Species Act be eliminated. What I propose is that it
be managed and implemented in an equitable, scientific, and
fair way.
I understand that collaboration is required between all of
the stakeholders and the agencies. There are things that we can
do that are non-flow projects that will increase habitat and
increase the viability and the propagation of endangered
species that don't have to do with water flow. Water flow is
essential, obviously, but there are many other projects that we
need to undertake to mitigate the harm to the endangered
species.
I believe that some of the characterization today has been
unfair, although I understand that this is going to be an
effort that we all are going to be involved in. Mr. Nelson's
problem, Mr. Ibach's problem, and our farm problem are all very
much related.
Dr. Hice. I thank each of our witnesses. Thank you for your
answers, and I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Hice. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Costa for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costa. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member. I
think this topic is an important part of this Subcommittee's
jurisdiction, and one that we will continue to work on for this
Congress.
Clearly, the sustainability of our water resources, not
only for California, but for the West and for our Nation, are
really a determiner as to whether or not the world can deal
with the challenges of climate change and the impacts of water
availability for the sustainability of not only our Nation, but
the world. That is really what is at risk here.
And many of you who I have worked with over the years know
that I like to make a reference to using all the water tools in
our toolbox, because there is not, I don't think, one single
solution, but it is a combination of strategies and
collaborations, as Mr. Diedrich was suggesting, I think.
Let me quickly get to a couple of questions here. Mr.
Diedrich, you stated in your written testimony--and you
restated it just a moment ago--that environmental interests,
fish and wildlife agencies, and water managers set
scientifically-based priorities and to be held accountable in
the efforts to manage those. And, of course, water flow is a
key component. No one denies that. But could you elaborate more
specifically on what kinds of things you think would be helpful
in increasing fish populations in this effort?
Mr. Diedrich. A lot of that work is going on right now,
today. Public water agencies that fly farm water are very much
engaged. There are projects--anybody that is interested, they
can Google Floodplain Fatties. Right now, we are flooding rice
fields to mimic the flood plain to produce food for salmon
smolt. That is a project that we are collaborating with. And we
are dropping root balls into certain areas of the river to
provide habitat and cover for the salmon smolt to protect them
from predators. There is a tremendous amount of work that is
ongoing today to identify the stressors that are in the system
that are affecting the endangered species.
Mr. Costa. I appreciate that. Let me go on, because there
are a lot of examples, as you noted, and others that I would
like to submit for the purpose of the hearing that are
collaborative efforts that we should acknowledge.
Mr. Ibach, the impacts of your fishing communities are
heartfelt, and I know of them from my colleagues. They are very
similar to the stories that we have had during the height of
the drought in our farm-working communities, where we have had
unemployment levels as high as 40 percent, and close to 50
percent. So, the drought has had mutual negative impacts.
When we look at the impacts of climate change, sea levels
rising, the impacts of water temperatures--and you noted on the
Sacramento River--and we had a great debate in the last year--
between 56 and 57 degrees temperature on the cold water pool
behind Shasta. I have seen historical maps of the Pacific Coast
up to the Canadian border, up to Kamchatka Peninsula on salmon
runs. And clearly, climate change is going to impact,
notwithstanding our best efforts, would you not agree?
Mr. Ibach. Yes. I agree that climate change definitely
plays a role, as well.
Mr. Costa. I mean, there are multiple factors in this. We
have more population, we have rivers down the coast far below
San Francisco that no longer provide the fishery resource that
they used to because of a whole combination of factors and
decisions that were made. Is that not the case?
Mr. Ibach. Yes, it is multiple factors. But one of the key
main factors is water. Salmon need water----
Mr. Costa. No, I understand. But 40 years ago, we had 20
million people in California. Today, we have 40 million people.
By the year 2030, we are going to have 50 million people. I
wish I could do something about that. Actually, I have. I have
not contributed to that population growth.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Costa. But the fact is it continues, so we have to deal
with the reality.
Mr. Udall, the law of the river--I studied a lot, your
father was involved--do you think that is going to have to be
revisited on the Colorado when California gets its water
resource from Northern California, from the Colorado, and from
the east side of the Sierra? One of the seven states. What is
your thought?
Mr. Udall. There is a terrific opportunity with the
negotiations that come up next year to redo the 2007 interim
shortage sharing guidelines. And I think we have to look at
every aspect of the law of the river during that 6-year period.
Mr. Costa. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. But
obviously, this is a discussion that we need to continue. And
your opening comments about attempting to try to put aside some
of the politics that have made dealing with these issues
difficult and providing solutions, I welcome, and I will work
with you.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Costa. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Fulcher for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question for Mr.
Diedrich.
In my state of Idaho, I get feedback from our stakeholders
quite frequently in regard to who really is making the
decisions on water management. And as you know, the Western
States Water Council--I think it is position 425--says that the
state is to be the primary decision maker, or more local, on
how the allocation, administration, and management of that
water is to be handled.
In reality, because of ESA--at least the stakeholders in my
state frequently come to me and argue that, hey, look, that is
really not what is happening here.
So, (a) are you in line with that? Do you see some of those
conflicts? And (b) if so, what types of reforms to ESA do you
think we need to make, in order to allow more local control of
administration of that water?
Mr. Diedrich. That is a very difficult question. I believe
that many of our stakeholders feel the same. It is a very
complicated system, where the state and the Federal cooperate
with the Federal agencies. In California, we have some very
powerful state agencies--we have a California State Endangered
Species Act also. Everybody has to collaborate on making
decisions on operation of the system. So, we need inter-agency
and collaborative effort. They all need to work to the same
goal.
One of the things that would be helpful, I believe, is the
FISH Act. I believe that if we can get Fish and Wildlife to
have the anadromous fish species that are in commerce under one
roof, it might be helpful.
Mr. Costa. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Fulcher. Yes.
Mr. Costa. I think the point that Mr. Diedrich is making is
important. And not that California is always a good example,
because we have our own challenges, I believe.
But Mr. Diedrich, we have been through this, you and I, for
a long time. But if you could give some perspective to the
gentleman as to that collaborative effort over the last 10
years, the last 5 years, a descriptive as to whether it is
getting better, worse, or the same.
Mr. Diedrich. Well, I think certainly 5 years ago we had
issues with--we had section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
for example, where we are managing each species individually.
And a lot of the times what is good for one is not good for
another. And if they are at a conflict, it is a problem. We
have that problem with smelt and with salmon.
So, we just feel like if we could get this all in one
house, it might be managed a little bit more effectively.
Mr. Costa. Do you think the collaboration is getting better
or worse?
Mr. Diedrich. I think it is--I went on a Delta tour
recently, and I was hopeful. I think some of this Biological
Assessment and this activity that is going on right now with
the President's memo is a good thing. It is going to help----
Mr. Costa. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Fulcher. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Costa. So----
Mr. Huffman. Reclaiming your time, Mr. Fulcher?
Mr. Fulcher. I am, thank you, and just more of a statement
than a question at this point.
Mr. McClintock made a statement about the economic impact
of the Ag. community--versus the fish and that component,
economically. As I close up my amount of time, I need to echo
that sentiment for my home state.
And I would also like to point out that we have made some
pretty good progress with salmon flows. Frankly, it has been
our Native American population and the fisheries and hatcheries
that have been very integral in developing and managing, and
they have helped bridge that gap.
But to think for a moment that we can sidestep the economic
engine of our entire state by breaching and those types of
things, we just simply have to find a smarter way.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you. And Mr. Costa, Mr. McClintock,
the panel.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Orange County, Mr. Levin--Orange County being a place
where they actually drink highly treated wastewater as part of
their baseline water supply. And it looks pretty healthy, looks
pretty good.
Mr. Levin. I have consumed it myself, Mr. Chairman, and I
have lived to talk about it.
I wanted to thank you for holding this hearing. As many of
my colleagues here on the dais know, California has a
complicated water system that faces sustainability challenges,
given our changing climate. Snowpack is projected to lessen as
the climate warms, and the state will see a larger percentage
of its precipitation in the form of rain.
With these changes and our continually growing population
in mind, we must consider how to make our water resources more
sustainable and reliable for our population centers.
In my district, in North San Diego County, in South Orange
County, we have a number of projects that are moving our
communities toward a sustainable future. I am pleased to say
that the Bureau of Reclamation recognizes the value of those
projects, and that the Doheny Ocean Desalination Project and
the expansion of Oceanside's Mission Basin Groundwater
Purification Facility are set to receive a combined $11 million
from Reclamation. Together, these projects will increase access
to locally sourced, great, clean drinking water.
I am proud that the water agencies in my district are
building toward the future in a way that will allow them to
more sustainably manage their water supply. I am also
encouraged that we are finally having a long-overdue discussion
on climate change, and how it relates to water supplies.
To Mr. Udall, as a scientist who studies the impact of
climate change on water supplies, you may have seen reports
that President Trump plans to establish a group at the White
House to review climate science. The group would be led by
William Happer, a physics professor who has no formal training
as a climate scientist.
In November 2017, Mr. Happer said--and I quote--``It is not
as though if you double CO2 you make a big
difference. You make a barely detectable difference.''
Mr. Udall, do you think Mr. Happer's statement is
scientifically accurate? And how would you respond to his
assertion?
Mr. Udall. That statement is not scientifically accurate.
When Chevron tells us that the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change is right, as it recently did, and when Exxon
decides we need a carbon fee, I think the debate is over on
whether or not this issue is a real issue, and we need to do
something about it.
Mr. Levin. Another quote from Mr. Happer in March 2016. He
said, and I quote, ``I am trying to explain to my fellow
Americans the serious damage that will be done to us and,
indeed, to the whole world by cockamamie policies to save the
planet from CO2 .''
As a trained climate scientist, sir, how would you respond
to that?
Mr. Udall. It is not correct.
Mr. Levin. Finally, in November 2015, Mr. Happer said, and
I quote, ``If plants could vote, they would vote for coal.''
As a trained climate scientist, how would you react to
that?
Mr. Udall. CO2 does, in fact, fertilize plants.
But it causes a whole series of other problems, which we are
now experiencing, including 50-plus inches from Hurricane
Harvey, of which 40 percent was due to climate change.
Mr. Levin. I appreciate your good work on behalf of
evidence and climate science. And I would hope that others
would acknowledge the overwhelming scientific consensus. And
hopefully that will happen eventually in the White House, as
well.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the other
gentleman from the Central Valley, Mr. Cox, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
everyone, for being here today.
There is probably no place that feels effects of climate
change greater than the Central Valley of California. We have
seen it in our shorter winters, our hotter summers, reduced
precipitation, and certainly in the unreliability of our water
supply. And our Nation's water supply has been clearly impacted
by climate change in my district, in California's Central
Valley, as Mr. Nelson well knows and previously testified.
Everyone, from our farmers, our ranchers, and, most
importantly, our rural communities, have been severely impacted
by California's last drought and the ongoing lack of water
supply and access.
Water supply reliability is an issue that affects every
other issue. You can't talk about health care without talking
about lack of access to clean drinking water. You can't talk
about job security, you can't talk about economic growth, or
the stability of our communities without talking about a
reliable water supply and long-term water storage. And the
reality of it is that our way of life is completely determined
by our access to reliable and clean drinking water.
And this isn't a partisan issue at all. We must find
compromise and smart solutions to address our water supply
reliability. That is why we were elected to Congress, that is
why we sit on this Committee today, and it is why we are here
today.
So, with that, I have a few questions.
Mr. Nelson, rural communities, as you pointed out, are
especially vulnerable to running out of water during times of
drought. They often rely on groundwater wells that tend to be
relatively shallow. In recent years, many communities in my
district have literally run out of drinking water and have had
to rely on emergency bottled water deliveries.
What specific impacts have you seen in the communities you
serve in California from the drought?
Mr. Nelson. Thank you for that question. It manifests as a
human catastrophe. I mean, just imagine going home and having
to take your children to a community portable shower in a
trailer. That is the reality.
There are also, as already has been pointed out, economic
impacts. How can we expect our communities to thrive, when we
can't provide something as basic and fundamental as safe
drinking water?
That is a public health crisis of our time, and it needs to
be addressed.
Mr. Cox. Mr. Ibach, you said something that kind of piqued
my interest. And if you could provide a little bit more color.
When you said, ``what Congress must do in order to save the
Central Valley from itself,''--could you give me a little more
explanation on that statement?
Mr. Ibach. I think that goes right along with the other
communities.
Another community that we failed to mention was that the
inland community around the Sacramento River also relies on
salmon, as well. There is a large portion of people, small
communities up and down the entire river system, that benefit
with more salmon in that river.
Mr. Cox. I appreciate that. But how does that go back to
the Central Valley saving itself from itself? I mean, I am
still unclear what you meant by that. I am not trying to put
you on the spot or anything like that, but it is----
Mr. Ibach. I think that the point I was trying to make
there, is that we need to further have better water management,
all together. And we do need to work together. And the Central
Valley, I think, obviously, needs to put--in my personal
opinion--a lot more effort into our salmon stocks, because we
are a dying industry.
It has almost been a nail in the coffin for our industry
and for a lot of people. So, I just can't emphasize enough how
bad we need water to really help salmon for----
Mr. Cox. Well, fair enough. And I could tell you that the
people I represent, the Ag. community, the rural communities,
we are all looking for a collaborative approach, so it is not
fish versus farms.
And I think Mr. Diedrich could probably speak a little bit
about that, with some of the conservation efforts that you are
taking. And, if you wouldn't mind, providing a little more
color around some of the things that you do.
Mr. Diedrich. Absolutely. One of the things Representative
Napolitano had asked earlier was about whether or not we are
engaged in reuse. And I would like to address that, because we
are.
There are some very large water supply projects, where we
are taking the same water that Orange County is drinking and
putting it back in the Delta-Mendota Canal. And we are using it
for irrigation water, so we are using every available tool in
the toolbox, as Representative Costa mentioned earlier, to try
to produce a reliable water supply so we can continue to
produce a safe and affordable food supply. So, absolutely.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much.
Mr. Huffman. And Mr. Cox, just for what it is worth, I took
that statement about saving the Central Valley from itself to
mean that, in the absence of better water management, we will
continue to see chronic groundwater overdraft, and the need for
infrastructure repairs, and other things.
But maybe at some point we can go into more depth into
that. I think that there is a broader explanation of what that
might mean.
Mr. Cox. Yes. Frankly, it wasn't a loaded--I wasn't trying
to make a point. I was just really trying to understand the
context of the statement.
Mr. Huffman. Absolutely. Well, let's do this. We are going
to close now, and I thank the witnesses and the Members for
their engagement.
But one of the things I would like to do before we do that,
Mr. Gosar, who, I believe, is on this--no, he is not on this
Subcommittee, but he has been in the past. He has this little
thing when he chaired this Subcommittee, where he would close
by asking each witness, in 1 minute or less, to say what is the
question you were not asked that you wish you had been asked,
and see if they can just close out with that 1 minute or less.
Let's do that, starting with Mr. Ibach here on the end, and
we will give Mr. Udall the final word. One minute or less, what
do you wish you had been asked, and what would you have said?
Mr. Ibach. I really wish I would have been asked more about
the impacts on our fishery, honestly, and the people that I
represent. The fishing community has been in peril. We heavily
rely on salmon in a big way. And I wish I could just have more
time to elaborate on how bad our situation is in the fishing
industry.
A lot of salmon rivers, 80 percent of the water is taken
away from salmon rivers, rivers that have salmon in them. That
leaves a remaining 20 percent. I just can't emphasize enough
how bad we have been struggling, and how bad we need this
water. Water going to the ocean is not being wasted. That water
going to the ocean is a crucial key factor for the survival and
the longevity of keeping salmon around, which we need.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Diedrich, what do you wish you
had been asked, and what would you have said, in 1 minute or
less?
Mr. Diedrich. Well, I don't know if it hasn't been asked,
but I have a few other things I can say. The issue for
California agriculture is, obviously, the Central Valley,
California overall, produces a safe and reliable food supply.
And we believe that it is a national security issue, not
only in the economic dollars involved with our production, but
having the control of our own food supply, and having it be
safe, and have it being produced under a highly regulated,
sustainable system. There is no doubt that our water supply
reliability is a prime factor in our ability to do that. And in
order to produce a reliable water supply, we are going to have
to deal with many, many other issues.
Ag. has done its part in water conservation, water use
efficiency--today we produce more food per drop of water than
we ever have. We have increased our production incredibly. We
take advantage of every door that we see open. Every tool
available, we take advantage of.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
Mr. Diedrich. I just ask that this Committee do their work,
do their job, and encourage Federal agencies and Federal water
management to cooperate with the state and all the regulatory
agencies.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Willardson?
Mr. Willardson. I think I would emphasize the collaborative
nature and the difficult choices that we are going to have to
make, moving forward.
I would mention, on the Endangered Species area and
changes, Governor Kempthorne of Idaho--then Senator--and now
the Western Governors, have a long list of recommendations for
addressing endangered species.
I would also point out that farmers are fishermen. Being in
Utah, we do have some kokanee, but I don't fish much for
salmon. But I used to fish for trout. I think finding these
economic and environmental balances are important.
And Representative McClintock, one of my first papers 40
years ago, when I went to work for the Council, was on
conservation. It does not create new water. But it is something
that we have to look at. And it can be expensive.
These are very site-specific issues. I live in the Salt
Lake Valley. Utah is the second-highest per-capita water user,
next to Nevada, in the West. And in Salt Lake City, I live next
to the mountains, where we get our snowpack. Our supply is the
snowpack. We don't have to move it through large canals, as
they do in California. We don't have to treat it much. We live
on lots, and we all have large families, which contributes to
that.
They are in the process of beginning to discuss metering my
secondary water system, which I now have. And I pay a lot less
than when I was using municipal water to irrigate my property.
But it is really site-specific when you look at
conservation, when you look at water supply, and you look at
the costs and benefits. And we have to do that in a
collaborative manner, recognizing everyone's needs.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Willardson.
Mr. Nelson?
Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Chairman. One question that comes to
mind is how do we secure every American's basic human right to
water?
As I have already shared, this is a public health crisis.
It is happening under our watch. It is an environmental justice
crisis. And because of climate change, it is only going to
become more of a challenge.
So, as already has been mentioned, we do need more funding
for water infrastructure. But to go back to this concept of a
portfolio approach, we would say that it needs to be a smart,
protective, and environmentally just portfolio approach. And we
need to act not in the future, not in any other moment. We need
to act right now. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. Very good.
Mr. Udall, last word.
Mr. Udall. My question is what is the risk if the Colorado
River Drought Contingency Plan is not put into place. And the
risk is, if we empty Lake Mead, all bets are off. Water rights
are meaningless at that point. We will have no rules for how
this system operates. And the Federal Government will be in
charge of allocation decisions, which should scare everyone.
And they will be making these decisions without full
understanding of the consequences. The DCP has to get across
the finish line.
Mr. Huffman. Very good. Well, thanks again to all of the
witnesses. This hearing has helped spotlight some of the
challenges we will have to manage now, and in the years to come
to secure our Nation's water supply. This Subcommittee will
work hard and thoughtfully to craft policy solutions that
promote water supply reliability for all affected stakeholders.
And I thank our witnesses for joining us to inform that
important work.
Members of the Committee may have some additional questions
for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in
writing if that is the case.
Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must
submit witness questions within 3 business days following the
hearing, and the hearing record will be held open for 10
business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Cox
Statement of the South Valley Water Association
The South Valley Water Association (SVWA) consists of nine
irrigation districts that wield water for agriculture within the
Central Valley Project's (CVP) Friant Division. SVWA represents more
than 400,000 acres of the world's most productive farmland in the
southern end of the Great Central Valley of California. Farmers in SVWA
grow a diverse group of agriculture commodities including: cotton,
grapes, oranges, and a variety of different nuts and dairy products.
Collectively, the SVWA irrigation districts deliver up to 1 million
acre-feet of water annually to farmers in the Central Valley.
Water supply reliability in the San Joaquin Valley will require
robust state, Federal and local investment in infrastructure, along
with coordinated and balanced approaches to water management to ensure
that one of the world's most productive agricultural regions can
continue to provide good jobs and safe, affordable food to all of the
United States.
subsidence
Subsidence is an issue that plagues the entire state of California
but nowhere are the impacts as visible as in the San Joaquin Valley.
Because of subsidence, the Friant-Kern canal, which relies entirely on
gravity to deliver water to communities and a total of 1 million acres
of farmland, has lost roughly 60 percent of its carrying capacity, as
the canal has literally sunk into the ground creating pinch points
upstream of some of the largest users of water. These pinch points
prevent the efficient movement of water and have caused severe economic
impacts.
As the state of California moves toward implementation of the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), the inability to
efficiently move water through the Friant-Kern canal creates
significant hurdles as it limits the ability to move water from
Millerton Lake through to the southern end of the Friant service area.
This part of the San Joaquin Valley has significant groundwater
recharge potential, but it can only be fully realized if the
infrastructure exists to deliver water during times when excess flows
are in the system.
The double-sided impact of subsidence is not just the inability to
deliver irrigation and recharge water and gain the resulting benefits,
but also that the diversion of that water into the Friant-Kern Canal is
also part of mitigating flood impacts on the levy systems below Friant
Dam.
Subsidence is also not limited to just the Friant-Kern Canal. In
2017, the levies of the lower Kings River had sunk enough that flood
releases threatened the communities of Huron and Tranquility. Scenarios
like that will continue to play out in the San Joaquin Valley until the
impacts of subsidence are addressed.
multi-benefit projects
Farmers in the San Joaquin Valley will inevitably have to fallow
land in order to reduce groundwater demand and meet the requirements of
SGMA. Because of this, SVWA has developed a unique partnership with The
Nature Conservancy (TNC) to advance multi-benefit land retirement
projects. SVWA and TNC are in the process of implementing a strategic
land retirement program to ensure that land retirement is done in a way
that minimizes impacts to disadvantaged communities and creates
ecosystem benefits. A scattered approach to land retirement will have
severe socio-economic impacts and limit habitat connectivity. The
program will identify lands for fallowing based on their habitat
potential and will create habitat connectivity in a region that has
historically been characterized by a checkerboard of farmland and
habitat.
Strategically retiring and restoring parts of the farming landscape
to natural habitats, as opposed to leaving them fallow and unused or
converting them to houses or industrial uses, could significantly
increase the potential for recovery of dozens of endangered species in
the San Joaquin Valley.
Restoring former agricultural lands to natural habitats can also
deliver other environmental benefits that provide tangible services for
farmers and San Joaquin Valley residents. Restored lands can be a
reservoir of abundant native pollinators needed for crop production and
natural enemies of agricultural pests which can reduce the pest burden
in many crops. Reducing the agricultural footprint may also help reduce
air quality problems that are leading to chronic human health issues in
the San Joaquin Valley, like high rates of asthma. Retiring and
restoring targeted agricultural areas will create the possibility of
reducing overall nitrate loading in groundwater over time that
currently affects rural communities and contributes rates of birth
defects that are higher than state averages. Further, it could also
significantly contribute to helping the state meets its 2030-2050
targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions a potential source of
funding for landowners and water agencies to help defray the costs of
lost production and restoration.
healthy ecosystems
SVWA recognizes that healthier fisheries lead to more reliable
water supplies and that the two are not mutually exclusive. Farmers
versus fish is a counterproductive approach that only fosters
division--the traditional paradigm that more flows lead to more fish
hinders progress. Science shows that efforts to improve fish
populations should focus on habitat restoration, predator control and
functional flows--flows at the right time and place, rather than
additional requirements for minimum instream flows. Efforts to
reactivate floodplains for fish in the Sacramento Valley have shown
incredible promise and should be replicated on the Lower San Joaquin
River.
______
Submission for the Record by Rep. Napolitano
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515
August 28, 2009
Mr. Kenneth Salazar
Secretary of the Interior
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Mr. Secretary:
As chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, I have grave
concerns I felt I must share with you. Please forgive the lengthy
explanation; I felt it must be given.
Drought in California is polarizing the state, taking up valuable
time and resources resulting in considerable debate and finger-pointing
as to who/what to blame. Thank you for recognizing that the issue is
big enough and requires you dedicating high level staff to addressing
the problem.
The quandary we face is to both reduce demand and increase supply.
Historically, water developers have focused on increasing the size of
the water pie. Developing new water supply takes years to accomplish
(fifteen years by the Governors own estimate), costs billions of
dollars, presently lacks public consensus, public and political will,
and united support. Addressing the water equation by reducing demand
has already resulted in extensive efforts in Southern California to
reduce water consumption (local regulations), improving conservation
efforts (low flow toilets and shower heads) and educating the public
(PSA's and notices in water bills). This has lessened impacts, but as
the population continues to grow and the drought continues, the demand
will increase beyond what conservation alone can provide.
The California Congressional delegation is a diverse group. One
thing that we all agree on is that the water crisis in California is
significant, requires leadership and development of a solutions
portfolio that builds upon our abilities to confront problems, and uses
our innovation and ideas to mobilize the resources necessary to
addresses the issues. Some of us have been giving the California water
issue serious review and determined that the Subcommittee needed to
explore options.
What Does a Water Solution Look Like?
Over the past two months I have had the Water and Power
Subcommittee staff director, Dave Wegner, researching the issue and our
potential roles. I have been briefed on initial findings and we will be
briefing the subcommittee upon our return in September. We are offering
our full assistance to address the long, mid and short-term actions
that can be taken to develop water solutions for California and, by
learning from these efforts, provide opportunities for the rest of the
Western United States. Our concern is that the drought of the last
three years may continue into 2010, possibly further. We need to
implement actions now that will provide the ability to let the
Department focus on the long-term solutions.
Solutions to the California water crisis must be based on a
diversified and dynamic approach, allow for appropriate planning and
permitting that will ultimately allow delivery of water in a timely and
cost effective manner. There is no one single ``silver bullet'' that
will solve the water crisis. The challenge we face is to develop a
cooperative approach that cumulatively will yield a diversified
portfolio and strategy that will result in increased supply, reduced
risk, and improved water security, sooner rather than later.
It is indisputable and imperative that discussions and efforts
directed at long-term solutions continue. At the same time, we must
recognize that when creating new water from large water projects, all
parties and all interests are defined by an immutable rule: the last
dollar must be spent to get the first drop of water. The bottom line is
that until we spend the last construction dollar, no one gets the first
drop of water from any of these proposed projects.
In the course of our research, we have asked state water leaders
when new water supplies could be brought on-line, addressing the
question, when does California achieve that ``first drop?'' The answers
range from 2020 to 2030, depending on a plethora of unknown factors. In
reality the year doesn't really matter. The point is there is no
immediate construction action that can be taken to create new water.
Creating solutions to water demands must incorporate a range of
ideas and approaches. Water managers must continue to explore, and
analyze long-term solutions associated with the Delta, evaluating new
water sources, including storage and conveyance. At the same time, it
is equally imperative that a plan be adopted to address our immediate
challenges.
The Goal: Creating 1 MAF of Water for California in the Near Term
Let me reiterate again Mr. Secretary, we want and are anxious to
work with the Department on a portfolio of solutions for the water
crisis in California. We want to look for solutions and approaches
where Congress and the Administration can work collaboratively on
solutions. As Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, I
submit the following recommendations for immediate actions on your
part, to address challenges to the California water crisis. Each is
based on the concept of stretching existing water supplies in order to
increase the amount of available water and does not require new
legislation, only strong and decisive leadership.
(1) Bureau of Reclamation to establish a 1 Million Acre Foot new water
program
Grow new water in the State--throughout the State
Create, in the next 48-60 months, 1 MAF of new water
annually
Develop this new water without regional water user or
environmental conflict
Accomplish this objective utilizing the Bureau's Title XVI
program, identified by the Commissioner on July 21, 2009,
as part of Reclamation's core mission. (We agree with the
Commissioner's statement made before the Subcommittee and
believe that by working with 0MB we can develop support for
funding.)
(2) Bureau of Reclamation to establish a ``Farmer Helping Farmer''
Irrigation Efficiency Initiative
Make funds available to water districts, water agencies
and individual irrigators to invest in on-farm irrigation
efficiencies to stretch our existing available irrigation
water. These funds could come from the Reclamation Rural
Water Program and other funding vehicles identified in
previous legislation.
Consistent with CVPIA and Reclamation law, allow districts
or irrigators to sell, rent or lease water savings to other
irrigators.
Implement improved and less bureaucratically cumbersome
transfer incentives for farmers and water districts to
allow the efficient and timely movement of water from and
through existing facilities.
(3) Bureau of Reclamation to establish ``Water Conservation''
Initiative for urban and rural water districts
Make funds available to water districts, water agencies
and others as appropriate to invest in conservation efforts
(i.e. irrigation methods, scheduling, land leveling, etc.)
that stretch existing water supplies. These funds could
come from the Reclamation Rural Water Program and other
funding vehicles identified in previous legislation.
Consistent with CVPIA and Reclamation law, allow districts
and/or irrigators to sell, rent or lease water saved to
others.
The objective of these recommendations is to stretch the water
supplies we have. In the short term, we have adequate water supply to
meet the needs of the State of California. What is lacking is the
bureaucratic ability to efficiently move water, incentives for water
right holders to allow for the efficient use of water, and leadership
to address how to get it done.
We can implement programs here and now to create 1 MAF of new water
annually through Title XVI, and supplement that initiative with
projects to stretch existing supplies throughout the State--from our
cities to our farms.
Recommendations requiring action:
The Interior Department and Bureau of Reclamation submit,
urgently, a $250 million budget amendment to the Bureau of
Reclamation's budget for FY 2010 adding funds in the
following amounts:
Title XVI.................... $200 million
Water Efficiency (Farmer-to- $ 25 million
Farmer).
Water Conservation Initiative $ 25 million
OMB, Interior, the Administration, and others as
appropriate and necessary, work with the House Budget
Committee, Appropriations Committee, Energy and Water
Appropriations Subcommittee, Natural Resources Committee,
and the Water and Power Subcommittee to implement this
prior to when the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for
FY 2010 is finalized in conference. Concurrently,
coordinate with the appropriate Senate committees and
subcommittees.
The Title XVI funds should go to develop a new generation
of projects--throughout the State. The objective is to (a)
fund projects not funded by the Stimulus Program; and (b)
underwrite at least 40 congressionally approved new
recycling projects. Today, projects throughout Southern
California--in LA, San Diego, Riverside, Orange and San
Bernadino Counties are on track to develop approximately
500,000 acre-feet of new water annually. This program will
double that--to produce 1 MAF of new water annually and do
so within 48-60 months.
While California puts 1 MAF water into service and on-line, long-
term plans can proceed with the efforts of the Department of the
Interior leading toward actions. California can manage our way through
this challenge rather than be overwhelmed by it. When the day arrives
where California runs short of water, the direct and indirect costs
will be measured in billions and the bureaucratic stress will increase
exponentially. We need to act now and act in a concerted, strategic
approach.
What can be done immediately?
Congress has provided tools so we can begin work now to resolve the
water crisis. First, the Title XVI water recycling and water
reclamation program can be the centerpiece of a constructive solution.
As a result of investment in it, new wet, not paper, water can be
created and placed in service throughout the State. Recycled water
developed throughout California relieves pressure on the Delta, and, in
turn, helps water districts and water users in the San Joaquin Valley,
particularly those on the West Side, who have junior water rights and
water entitlements.
A $200 million investment in Title XVI automatically leverages an
additional $600 million from the water districts and financial lenders.
By law and policy, water districts are eligible for a 25% cost-share,
not to exceed $20 million. This is the most cost-shared water resources
program in the Federal Government. This investment stimulates new
business, puts people to work, develops green jobs, produces 1 MAF of
new water annually and helps the State manage its way through this
water crisis.
The bottom line to the Water and Power Subcommittee is that we
believe that Congress has given the Department tools to address the
California water crisis. We believe that solutions must include near,
mid and long-term actions. And finally, we believe that cooperatively
we can work with the Department to strategically plan for and implement
actions that will result in water in the faucet, will work with local
water districts, will put people to work, and will provide leadership
in addressing long-term water planning and production.
What we would like to Suggest.
We respectfully request a sit down meeting to discuss these ideas
with you, identifying what we can do to work with the Department in
meeting the water needs of California, and doing so in a cost effective
and environmentally sensitive manner. We look forward to your favorable
reply and meeting with you in September. Please contact the Water and
Power Subcommittee or myself to set up the meeting.
Warm Regards,
Grace F. Napolitano, Chairwoman
Water and Power Subcommittee
*****
ATTACHMENT
Supporting Justification for Proposal Suggestions
This request is consistent with:
Bureau of Reclamation Feasibility Study on Water Recycling
in Southern California
Bureau of Reclamation Feasibility Study on Water Recycling
in the Bay Area
State of California Task Force on Water Recycling
DWR's Bulletin 160
MWD and SAWPA approved programs
Other?
Water Recycling Benefits
Consistent with stimulus objectives
Creates green jobs
Provides for continuity of construction jobs in counties
most impacted by the recession
Relieves pressure on the Delta, short-term and long-term
Consistent with reduced energy and lower carbon objectives
Provides drought relief
Consistent with climate change policy objectives
Develops new water supplies (and does so without
generating political conflicts)
Projects can be designed, approved, funded, constructed
and operated within a short time
No other alternative can produce 1 MAF as quickly or
efficiently.
Farmer to Farmer Initiative Benefits
Allows farmers to develop and implement solutions locally
Can be accomplished with days, weeks and months . . . all
short term
Proven technologies can be applied to modernize and
improve water management locally
Maximizes flexibility to local districts and irrigators
within their immediate regions
Conservation Initiative Benefits
Fastest and least expensive way to ``create'' new water
Urban water agencies have a demonstrated capacity
______
Submission for the Record by Rep. Van Drew
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515
February 26, 2019
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Grijalva:
Please excuse my absence for today's Water, Oceans and Wildlife
Subcommittee hearing on ``The State of Water Supply Reliability in the
21st Century'' due to a family emergency.
Sincerely,
Jeff Van Drew,
U.S. Representative,
New Jersey--District 2
[all]
Disclaimer:
Please refer to the About page for more information.