SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
57–837 l
1999
CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MAY 20, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 106–27
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
GEORGE MILLER, California
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
RUSH D. HUNT, New Jersey
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California, Chairman
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
MIKE SIMPSOM, Idaho
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE MILLER, California
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
ADAM SMITH, Washington
DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
ROBERT FABER, Staff Director/Counsel
JOSHUA JOHNSON, Professional Staff
STEVE LANICH, Minority Staff
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held May 20, 1999
Statement of Members:
Dooley, Hon. Calvin M., a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Doolittle, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Radanovich, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of
Statement of Witnesses:
Babbitt, Hon. Bruce, Secretary, Department of Interior, accompanied by Patricia Beneke, Assistant Secretary, Department of Water and Science, Department of Interior
Prepared statement of
Gartrell, Gregory, Assistant General Manager, Contra Costa Water District, Concord, California
Prepared statement of
George, Hon. Merv, Jr., Chairman, Hoopa Tribe, Hoopa, California
Prepared statement of
Gleick, Peter, President, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California
Prepared statement of
Guy, David J., Executive Director, Northern California Water Association, Sacramento, California
Prepared statement of
Kaniewski, Donald J., Legislative Director, Laborer's International Union of North America, LIUNA–AFLCIO, Washington, DC
Prepared statement of
King, Dennis, Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland, Center for Environmental Sciences, Solomons Island, Maryland
Prepared statement of
McCormick, Steve, Vice President, Western Division, The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, California
Prepared statement of
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Nelson, Barry, Senior Fellow, Save the San Francisco Bay Association, San Francisco, California
Prepared statement of
Nelson, Dan, Executive Director, San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority, Los Banos, California
Prepared statement of
Nichols, Mary D., Secretary for Resources, State of California
Prepared statement of
Sprague, Stan, General Manager, Orange County Municipal Water District, Fountain Valley, California
Prepared statement of
HEARING ON CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT
THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:10 a.m. in Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Doolittle [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Subcommittee on Water and Power will come to order. We're meeting today to hear testimony on the California Central Valley Water Management. First session of the hearing will be devoted to issues regarding the California Bay-Delta program. And during the second half the hearing, we'll discuss the implementation of the Central Valley Improvement Act.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This hearing concerns water management in the Central Valley of California, it involves some of the most important issues we will consider in this Congress. It represents a major Federal, State and local commitment to solving California's water needs and sets the stage for future water management policies and facilities in the State of California.
I believe that the participation of Secretary Babbitt and Secretary Nichols indicates both the importance of this issue as well as an opportunity to discuss among some of the major policy leaders the steps we need to take to provide for California's water management future.
While I recognize that there are other pressing issues we will discuss, it is encouraging to see that the stakeholders have agreed that $35 million of the CALFED funding for next year should be allocated for activities that address water quality and water supply issues. Although I don't believe that this sum goes far enough in addressing the needs for additional water supply, it does represent an important acknowledgment and commitment for augmenting California's future water supplies.
Today I would like to address four areas of specific interest to the Subcommittee regarding water management and the Central Valley of California. These areas include ecosystem criteria, and performance standards, the development of a cross-cut budget, augmenting our current water supply and addressing where we are going with the CALFED program.
We need to ensure that there are adequate criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of CALFED's restoration program. Not only do we currently lack many of the project descriptions to be undertaken by CALFED, but we have a shortage of measuring sticks to determine when we have achieved a specified goal once the money has been spent. The CALFED program must incorporate milestones and objective measurements that define the future essentials of success as well as when specific goals have been met.
The Committee is concerned that the Federal agencies involved in the CALFED program are not coordinating the myriad of activities going on in the watersheds under restoration. I am currently discussing with the congressional support agencies a way to determine how fundings are currently being accounted for and how an effective cross-cut budget should be prepared. Last night we receive the long-awaited program-level cross-cut budget for the expenditures dedicated to the CALFED program. Today I seek Secretary Babbitt and Secretary Nichols' commitment to develop the more comprehensive project-level cross-cut budget, which identify all Federal and State expenditures being allocated to achieve the objectives being pursued by the CALFED program.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our existing water management systems can no longer provide a sufficient reliable water supply to meet the needs of the environment and our current water users. How are we going to develop the process to meet the future California urban, rural, agriculture, business, labor and environmental water needs if we can't even meet our current needs? Conservation, transfer and adaptive management are part of the solution, but they are not enough by themselves.
Storage needs must be addressed immediately for two reasons. First, the demand for water in California currently exceeds the supply during normal years, and according to the California Department of Water Resources and CALFED's own documents, this shortage will grow to between 3 and 7 million acre-feet a year in the year 2020. If we do not immediately begin to address these needs, we will lose the valuable time necessary to prepare for this occasion.
Twenty years ago computer programmers knew the phenomenon we now call the Y2K bug, and they knew that would have to be addressed, yet policymakers failed to act until very recently. The results are far greater costs and the risks of significant dislocations. Surely we have the wherewithal to avoid these mistakes in water.
I do not believe that these concerns present insurmountable obstacles. Rather, they represent reasonable attainable goals which should reflect the way government conducts its business. The CALFED partnership represents potential funding in the billions of dollars. It has the potential to be used to enhance the water quality and environmental resources in the Bay-Delta as well as for other water resource activities in California. Yet how it is administered will be a test of government's ability to transition to a smarter, more efficient, less coercive mode of operation.
Finally, I believe that we need to continue our scrutiny of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. The implementation of this Act not only has a significant impact on the CALFED program, but it also is an indication of whether or not the government can approach these water problems in a constructive manner or will continue to do so with a heavy hand.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In my conversation yesterday with Secretary Nichols I was encouraged with the spirit of cooperation that she extended. I look forward to hearing the testimony and discussing the future of California's water management with the witnesses and will now recognize our Ranking Member Mr. Dooley for his statement.
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
STATEMENT OF HON. CALVIN M. DOOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for holding this hearing today to review the status of the CALFED process and the implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. These two efforts are closely interwoven, and both will have a profound impact on the future of California.
I would also like to thank all of our witnesses today for their participation. My constituents are greatly affected by the CVPIA and have been active participants in the CALFED process because they recognize that resolving the environmental problems associated with water project development is the key to restoring and ensuring an adequate and reliable water supply for the future.
I continue to believe that a well-functioning, collaborative process such as CALFED remains the most effective approach to finding a long-term solution that addresses California's water supply and water quality needs while simultaneously protecting and restoring this State's unique ecosystems. From my perspective, a well-functioning process is a balanced one that produces tangible benefits for all participating stakeholders.
It is clear to me, as I hope it is to all those involved, that this process will not succeed if major concerns of key stakeholders remain unaddressed. It is also important that we recognize that all policy decisions affecting California's water supply have an impact on our ability to devise a long-term solution through the CALFED process. In that regard I have been impressed and encouraged by the cooperative spirit displayed by the stakeholders with respect to the appropriations request, and I have also greatly appreciated remarks by Secretary Babbitt in recent months which indicated a continued commitment to a balanced process that addresses water supply and quality concerns while we pursue ecosystem restoration. And I would just like to recognize that if it wasn't for the active and personal involvement of Secretary Babbitt, I think we might not have had the CALFED process maintain the momentum that it was able to achieve in the last year, and I am deeply gratified and indebted to your effort there.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'm also very pleased with the new State administration in California, who is represented here today by Secretary Nichols, who also in the first few months of their administration have been very constructively engaged, and I'm very confident about the leadership that you're going to provide in the upcoming years. I look forward to this leadership and being a partner in this effort and as we move towards a balanced, long-lasting and environmentally sound response to California's water supply and water quality needs.
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. MILLER. So I don't shock people, but I would like to associate myself with Mr. Dooley's remarks, and if I could include my opening statement in the record.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, without objection, so ordered. And that will certainly be the case for any of the other Members who wish to incorporate their statements into the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the participation of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, Assistant Secretary Patricia Beneke, California Resources Secretary Mary Nichols, and all other witnesses who will participate in today's hearing. We have an ambitious schedule today, and my remarks will be very brief.
The timing of this hearing is certainly interesting:
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
• A Federal judge in Fresno has just ordered the Interior Department to comply with the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
• The United States Supreme Court just refused to intervene in the case involving the Friant Unit contracts.
• The long-awaited Flow Study for the Trinity River will be released, perhaps as early as next week.
• And CALFED will reach another milestone in a few weeks when the revised draft EIS/EIR is released along with the draft preferred program alternative.
The convergence of these California water events is a reminder that California water issues are a reflection of the vibrant growth and energized nature of our State. Nowhere else in the West is water truly a statewide issue with direct impacts on the daily lives of tens of millions of people. We have a real opportunity in California to demonstrate our ingenuity and to devise the best and most creative ways to use our water resources responsibly. The CVPIA and CALFED are the tools we have at our disposal, and we have to make them work together.
I continue to support the goals of the CALFED program, and I will work hard to secure the funding we have requested for the coming fiscal year. I hope we can get the entire California delegation to support us. The CALFED team has very effectively responded to the concerns raised during the last budget cycle.
I also look forward to working with Chairman Doolittle, the California Delegation, and the CALFED stakeholder community, to promptly enact legislation to extend the spending authority for the CALFED Bay-Delta programs. We cannot put this critical program at risk by allowing the funding authority to expire.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While there are many benefits associated with the CALFED process, we have to keep a close eye on where we are regarding implementation of the CVPIA. The CVPIA is designed to make basic changes in the priorities of Federal water policy in California, changes that inevitably impact traditional water uses and water users. Implementation of the law has been proceeding, but at a slower pace than many of us would prefer. I am working closely with Secretary Babbitt as we close the gaps on CVPIA implementation, and I am confident the fundamental precepts of this law are sound and that challenges to the implementation of the law will not prevail.
There are too many issues, and not enough time. I appreciate the cooperation of everyone who participates in the development of CALFED and the constructive implementation of the CVPIA. I look forward to hearing the statements of our witnesses today.
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. We have our distinguished first panel. I would like to ask them to please rise and take the oath, and then we'll begin.
Will you raise your right hands, please.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
We welcome you both here today and appreciate your making yourselves available to address these important issues.
Our first witness will be our Secretary of the Interior, the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary Babbitt.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY PATRICIA BENEKE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman and Committee members, I come today grateful for the Committee's hearing and inquiry into the status of these related issues. I think it is very important and very timely, and I think I speak on behalf of all the CALFED participants in saying we welcome the increasing involvement of this Subcommittee and other portions of the United States Congress in this issue.
The reason I emphasize that is because this is, in fact, a new type of water management and development. It is a—what is going on here represents a quite dramatic break from the tradition of water development, which occupied so much time of all the participants during the century past. Now, it's not surprising that California becomes, if you will, the lead ship in making this transition precisely because of the importance of water resources in the State of California.
The process that gave rise to CALFED and which now drives this new kind of water project, in my judgment, is working very, very well. The stakeholders, for reasons that I will comment upon, are actively and deeply involved. It began in the Wilson administration with a strong commitment from the political leadership, the Governor and the legislature. We have made a remarkably effective and seamless transition with the coming office of the Davis administration, and I am particularly pleased with the Governor's choice of Mary Nichols as his resource Secretary. We have worked together on these issues for many, many years, and I'm confident that together we are going to make this process work and, with your help, bring in to being an entirely new way of meeting the needs of all of the stakeholders in a process which you have emphasized correctly, I think, that we need to see improvement on all fronts in terms of the needs of all the stakeholders.
The reason, if I may elaborate briefly, that this process and this departure, if you will, this new chapter of water resource management opened in California is precisely because we had reached an absolute impasse in water future of the State through years of contention, of impasse, of litigation. Finally, all of the stakeholders came to one very basic conclusion, and that was simply that each one of the stakeholder groups has absolute power to frustrate any motion in any direction. Every stakeholder here today has demonstrated beyond a doubt its veto power over motion in any direction, and the stakeholders have finally discovered that that's not just a temporary phenomenon. That veto power that has been given to stakeholders by the people of California represents a cultural change which is here to stay. And out of that we have put together a process which recognizes that reality and says we are going to sit down in this most excruciating process and find consensus, which is in the manifest interest of each group. I elaborate on that because I think it's of extraordinary importance in the dynamic of this.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, Mr. Chairman, I see a yellow light, and if I am held to that, I will simply stop right there.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Secretary, let me say for this first panel with you and Secretary Nichols, we will be liberal in our application of those lights. So you can just continue and just whatever you want to say——
Secretary BABBITT. That is the first time I have ever heard that word from your lips——
Mr. DOOLITTLE. And you won't hear it often.
Secretary BABBITT. [continuing] with a positive connotation. Okay.
Now, the progress that we're making in the CALFED process brings us back to the United States Congress with some very different sets of issues that I think very much are going to challenge our ability to keep this going, because it's going to require a different kind of process and response not only in the administration, but also in the Congress, because what we have moving forward now is a process of multiple parties which gives rise to some extraordinary budget issues, which you have very properly identified, which in turn call forth a lot of new motion on the concept of cost-sharing.
The reason that I believe California is moving to the head of the line is because of—well, in part, I guess, nobody has overlooked the fact that there are 54 Members of Congress from California. Is that the current figure? Correct? But it's not a lot more than that. It's about a message from Sacramento, and the message is cost-sharing. And I believe that that fact is going to increasingly drive priorities in this Congress. And the State of California under the Wilson administration and the Davis administration has demonstrated extraordinary capacity, the bond issue of 1994, in the forthcoming bond debate and in the appropriation process, that it is committed to that partnership. Now, in the last 2 or 3 years, that commitment on both sides of this partnership, in the Congress and in Sacramento, has been made on the basis of continuing confidence in the progress that we can make with this consensus-driven process.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You have already mentioned the concepts that are working on a daily basis in this process: efficiency, markets, systemic changes, the integrated supply study, which I'm sure you will want to talk about at some more length. And the fact is that you can see the progress that's being made out on the ground. It's happening right now. The increased flexibility of the Delta issues that have been dealt with in the south Delta in terms of improving the conveyance system are now under way. The fish screening process is working. Go up to Butte Creek, you'll see something really extraordinary. If I were to say to the press and to Californians, you want one specific example of what's happening, go to Butte Creek. It is a sight to behold. It is a statement that we can restore these fisheries consistent with stabilizing and guaranteeing agricultural water supplies and stabilizing and making more predictable the urban water supplies as well.
Now, what I would like to do is leave CALFED, because your resource secretary will devote her remarks to some of the details that are unfolding in this very powerful and very unique state of Federal partnership. I would like to just say a word about two other components. One is the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and the third is the Trinity River.
The CVPIA is now unfolding at an accelerated rate. This has been a very tough issue. It's been at the top of my agenda for 7—nearly 7 years. I find it hard to believe that I have been coming up here for 7 years, and I don't know whether to celebrate or lament the fact that I am now near the end of this process. But nonetheless, in the 7 years we have worked this stakeholder process to the point that the programmatic EIS framework for implementation of the Central Valley Improvement Project will be completed during this year for accelerated implementation in 2000 and beyond.
As you look across the landscape, you will see the negotiations over water service contracts are now under way, and I believe taking shape nicely. That's a tough issue because it involves the water resource for 90 percent of the agricultural water delivered by the Central Valley Project. If you go out into Westlands, I think you will see a remarkable arrangement there that was worked out under the mandate of the land retirement issue out there, which was mandated by the CVPIA because of the drainage and salinity problems in that district. We have worked out a process in which land has been retired, support of the land owners and the district, and the water has been redeployed in a way that I believe is generous to the district and helpful to the stability of agricultural water supplies. So to put it more directly, we bought the land, and the district retains the water. It is, I believe, a thoughtful and useful way of going about this.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is now (b)(2) water flowing in the system in aid of fisheries. There are a variety of other issues. There is litigation over the exact extent of the so-called (b)(2) obligation. I don't think there's any reason to get too excited about that. There is always litigation. I guess my ultimate dream is the consensus would reach the point where we absolutely all of us foreswore hiring litigators or even going near the courts. We're not quite there, but the CVPIA is working. It can be made to work. The process is under way. And we are acutely aware of the need to interface the CVPIA with the CALFED process, because in the final analysis, they are both aimed in the same direction. And I would just repeat that one more time, that is that we can manage this system with not just a few tools; all the tools at our disposal, conservation, efficiency, reuse, transfers, and storage.
Lastly, a word about the Trinity River. The hydrological studies of the Trinity River Basin will be released next week. Now, briefly a bit of history. The Trinity River studies have been under way for nearly 20 years. This is not a new issue. There was both legislation and administrative action taken clear back in 1980. The issue was simply this: The Trinity Diversion Project, which takes water from the Trinity River into the—into Trinity Lake and across to Whiskey Town and down the Sacramento River in some years was—was and is diverting as much as 90 percent of the flow of the Trinity River.
That was a project which was authorized and completed under the rules of the century past, and what I mean by the rules of the century past is that project was authorized and completed with no consultation with the Yurok and Hupa tribes as to their entitlement under the Federal reserve rights doctrine. It was completed with no studies about the fisheries issues, and the fisheries have collapsed. The reduction in anadromous fish in the system, I think, is about the same as the water, about 90 percent, and that's what gave rise to the studies. Now, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act mandated, didn't ask, it didn't encourage, it gave us an explicit mandate to restore the fisheries. That's what this study is about.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, lastly, a word about the study. I predict that the California press, although it is among the most enlightened, progressive, insightful, studious of all media people in the entire world, is going to be sorely tempted to write a story saying X acre-feet of water are put back into the Trinity River, and that means the following reduction in supply to the Central Valley. Anybody want to take me on that, lay some odds? That's the headline next week. Now, that's not what this is about. This is about a study showing hydrographic models related to fisheries biology. That study will be translated into an environmental impact statement which will be done in the course of this year and will be the predicate for a decision.
There will be a lot of issues between the boat and the dock in this case that relate to how you manage stream flows: The profile of the stream hydrograph, the amount of water that's necessary in dry years versus wet years, and the relationships between the storage capacity in the Trinity-Whiskey Town system and how that relates to annual flows. So what I am saying is before people pick up weapons and head into battle, remember it's not anything more than a study. It has lots of possible scenarios, and we are dedicated to trying to make this process work.
Mr. Chairman, I have egregiously exceeded my time. I think even I know that there are limits to liberalism. So thank you very much.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I haven't often heard that acknowledgment, but I'm pleased to note it.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Babbitt follows:]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. We are now pleased to have our Secretary of Resources of the State of California, the Honorable Mary Nichols testify.
Madam Secretary.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF MARY D. NICHOLS, SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. NICHOLS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting me here today to testify in support of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. I also want to thank you and the Committee for your continued support of the program, and I am looking forward to continuing to work with you to ensure its success.
I, too, want to pay tribute to Secretary Babbitt's leadership in this process as well as to the good work that was done by my predecessors in the Wilson administration, including Secretary Wheeler, in paving the way for the seamless transition that Secretary Babbitt referred to; and particularly to thank my colleagues in the Federal Government, including Assistant Secretary Patty Beneke and all of the directors of the regional offices within the Interior Department for having helped to make the seamless transition, at least appear to be seamless.
I think I could have done, though, without the Secretary's reference to the many years that we have been working together on these issues. I like to think of myself as brand new on the scene, but, of course, I have had a history of working on these issues in the past as well in other contexts.
I would just like to quickly move to the status of the program now, and to try to address some of the comments that you have made and your earlier questions to us. In particular, in these several months since the Phase II report was issued last December, I think we've made some very significant progress in a number of program areas, and that based on the briefing materials that we have been able to provide to date as well as the reports that will be coming out in June, that you will see that we have been able to develop an integrated storage investigation program that breaks the gridlock over competition between how groundwater and surface storage projects will be evaluated and how we will proceed to move forward on addressing the storage issue.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We've also developed a draft finance plan that lays out both the commitment that there will be a user-paid principle applied and some of the options for assuring adequate funding for this program. And we've developed a comprehensive set of environmental indicators in the design for the development of a comprehensive monitoring assessment and research program that will really enable us to measure the success of the program. We agree with you that if we can't define success in measurable terms, we can't say that we've achieved it.
As I have indicated earlier we do intend to release the draft EIR/EIS in late June for public comment. It will have been developed with a very widespread stakeholder process, but the document as a whole, of course, needs widespread review. And there will be a series of workshops held around the State. The program will be further defined and developed, and then the final plan is due out in June of next year. And, of course, we have a period then of years afterwards in which we will be spinning off specific projects and specific EIR/EISs on those projects.
I want to call special attention to the level of scientific review and the commitment to developing measures of success for this program. CALFED has relied on expert advice from some of the Nation's leading scientists and natural resource managers to critique and refine this program. The panel drew from expertise drawing on the Chesapeake Bay, the South Florida/Everglades, Columbia River and other programs in developing specific recommendations as part of our strategic plan for implementing the Ecosystem Restoration Program. The plan contains a comprehensive set of restoration goals and objectives, measurable performance standards that define the success of the program, and similar efforts are under way to establish such measures for the water quality, water supply reliability and other elements of the CALFED program.
We're also looking at ecological indicators that will measure the integrity of the Bay-Delta system itself. The restoration program includes three general types of indicators, indicators of ecological integrity or health, scientific and management-oriented indicators on the restoration program performance itself, and more public-oriented major indicators of progress on the program's goals. These are laid out in the draft EIR/EIS and will be available obviously for public comment in June. And assuming that we survive that process, we intend to use them throughout the remainder of the process in our communications with the public as well as with the stakeholders and the scientific community.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also want to highlight the emphasis that has been a hallmark of this process from the very beginning in partnerships with local interests and landowners to find projects that have multiple benefits. You'll be hearing more from the stakeholder groups represented here today. And, of course, the CALFED program itself has showcased some of the major projects that combined fisheries and habitat restoration, flood plain management, water quality, and water supply reliability.
Secretary Babbitt referred to the Butte Creek Restoration Project as one of our signal success stories. Five point six million dollars has been approved there for fish screens, fish passage and small dam removal, watershed support, and general restoration activities on this tributary watershed. Last year more than 20,000 adult spring run salmon returned to the creek after a low of only 200 to 1,000 in recent years, a really extraordinary recovery for the fish.
We could also point to the Consumnes River Project, Sacramento River Conservation area, San Joaquin National Wildlife Refuge and the Battle Creek Restoration Project as very specific examples where combined physical actions are working to improve water quality and water reliability and to improve the habitat for fish.
And I think that it's important to again reference the fact that none of the individual agencies that are represented in the CALFED process would have had the financial resources or the expertise in-house to have addressed these projects and worked with the local communities as successfully as they have if it hadn't been for the umbrella of CALFED bringing them together.
Finally I need to emphasize the importance of continued funding to maintain the momentum behind this program as well as to further support the projects that are vital to the economy and the environment of California. As you know, the fiscal year 2000 appropriation will provide the third year of Federal funding under the Bay-Delta Act authorization of $430 million for this program. To date the program has approved $150 million out of the $160 million that have been appropriated for projects and programs that will have a lasting benefit for farms, families, and fisheries throughout the Bay-Delta watershed.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The State's share of this program has been provided through passage of Proposition 204 in 1996, which allocated $60 million for ecosystem restoration and an additional $390 million upon completion of the final environmental documentation in fiscal year 2000. In addition, Governor Davis announced last Friday that he is asking for another $10 million in this year's budget to support the program's integrated storage investigation, including site-specific work on storage.
The administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request, therefore, is essential to maintaining the Federal share and commitment to this program. As you also know, we've worked closely with stakeholder groups to develop a consensus in support of the administration's fiscal year 2000 budget year request for $25 million for support of the CALFED program. As a result of the discussions with the stakeholders, a broad-based coalition of these groups has developed a consensus in support of allocating $60 million for ecosystem restoration programs and $35 million for water quality, levee system integrity, and water supply reliability programs. I urge you to support this consensus recommendation.
I recognize, as does Secretary Babbitt, the difficulty of funding this program solely through Energy and Water appropriations, and in response to this Committee's strong urging, we are working closely with the Department of Interior and other CALFED agencies to develop a meaningful project-level cross-cut budget to identify major expenditures that are directly related to the CALFED program.
In conclusion, I just wish to repeat my thanks for your continued support of this program and for inviting me here today, and I'm pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nichols follows:]
STATEMENT OF MARY D. NICHOLS, SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Introduction
Thank you for inviting me here today to testify in support of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. I also want to thank you for your continued support of the Program, and I look forward to working with the Congress, Secretary Babbitt, and the stakeholder groups in California to ensure its success.
Secretary Babbitt has outlined the key elements of the Program in his testimony, and the CALFED staff have prepared extensive briefing materials, so I will focus my comments on the areas of special concern to the State.
Importance to the Davis Administration
First, I want to emphasize the importance of this effort to the Governor and his administration. In the area of environment and resources, there is no higher priority than moving this program forward. Certainly, the level of staffing and financial resources devoted to CALFED far exceeds that of any other environmental program in the state.
The Governor demonstrated his strong interest in water policy and the CALFED Program early on by forming an Agricultural and Water Task Force from the leaders of the agricultural and conservation communities. I served on the task force together with CALEPA Secretary Winston Hickox and Bill Lyons, Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, before we were appointed by the Governor. I think it is a measure of the importance the Governor places on water policy that he drew three cabinet members from this task force. The Task Force developed a set of recommendations that formed the basis for many of the key elements of the Phase II Report issued by the CALFED Program last December.
As the Secretary for Resources, I now co-chair the CALFED Policy Group, the principal decision-making body for the CALFED Program, together with Assistant Secretary Patty Beneke of the Department of Interior, and I have met several times with Secretary Babbitt to discuss the key issues surrounding the program. The other members of our leadership team include Tom Hannigan, the new Director of the Department of Water Resources, Linda Adams from the Governor's office, who as a consultant with the State Senate was a lead negotiator and the principal drafter of Proposition 204, the bond Act that has provided the State's share of funding for CALFED, and Patrick Wright, my Deputy Secretary for Policy Development, who formerly served as the Federal chair of the CALFED Management Team. In summary, we have a strong and growing management team at the State, and we are committed to provide the leadership necessary to effectively manage the program.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Commitment to Move Forward
Second, I wish to emphasize our commitment to move aggressively forward with the key elements of the program. Just in the last several months since the Phase II Report was issued in December, we have made significant progress in several important program areas:
• We have developed a programmatic-level preferred alternative that provides benefits for all interests in the areas of water quality, water supply reliability, and environmental restoration.
• We have developed a comprehensive plan to address water quality, fisheries, and water supply reliability issues in the South Delta, the key to the State's plumbing system;
• We have developed an integrated storage investigation program to break the gridlock over how groundwater and/or surface storage projects will be evaluated and constructed.
• We have developed a conservation strategy that will provide regulatory certainty for all parties under the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts as the program moves forward;
• We have developed a draft finance plan to secure adequate funding for the Program; and
• We have developed a comprehensive set of environmental indicators and a design for the development of a Comprehensive Monitoring Assessment and Research Program (CMARP) to measure the success of the Program.
In late June, we intend to release a draft EIR/EIS for public comment and hold a series of workshops throughout the state. We expect to further refine the program and release the final plan in June of next year.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Goals, Objectives, and Measures of Success
Third, I want to call special attention to the level of scientific review and commitment to develop measures of success for the program. CALFED has relied on expert advice from some of the nation's most respected scientists and natural resource managers to critique and refine the program. The panel drew from their collective expertise in the Chesapeake Bay, South Florida/Everglades, Columbia River, and other programs in developing specific recommendations as part of a Strategic Plan for implementing the Ecosystem Restoration Program. The Plan contains a comprehensive set of restoration goals and objectives, the measurable performance standards that define the success of the program. Similar efforts are underway to establish clear measures of success for the water quality, water supply reliability, and other elements of the CALFED program.
The Program is also developing a comprehensive set of ecological indicators to measure the ecological integrity of the Bay/Delta system. The Ecosystem Restoration Program will include three general types of indicators:
• indicators of ecological integrity or health;
• scientific and management oriented indicators of ecosystem restoration program performance and success; and
• more public oriented major indicators of our progress in meeting the program's goals
These indicators will be fully described in the draft EIR/EIS to be released in late June. They will then be used to describe and present information to the public, stakeholders, and the scientific community on ecological trends and conditions, and to translate the program's goals and objectives into measurable benchmarks of success.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Partnerships with Local Communities
The fourth major point I want to highlight is our continued emphasis on partnerships with local interests and landowners on projects that have multiple benefits. As you will hear from some of the stakeholder groups represented here today, the CALFED Program has been a showcase for projects that combine fisheries and habitat restoration, floodplain management, water quality and water supply reliability. Some of the most prominent examples include:
• The Consumnes River project, where more than 35,000 acres of riverside habitat along the lower floodplain of the Consumnes have been protected within a rapidly urbanizing area. The preserve is a multifaceted program combining land acquisition, land use planning, compatible economic development, agricultural preservation, and community outreach and education.
• The Sacramento River Conservation Area, which encompasses approximately 213,000 acres along 222 miles of the main stem of the Sacramento River between Keswick Dam and Verona. This voluntary program, which grew out of State legislation calling for development of a management plan for the river, seeks to balance existing land uses and needs with preservation and restoration actions. CALFED has dedicated more than $36 million towards preserving and protecting riparian habitat, building fish screens, and conducting research within the Conservation Area.
• Expansion of the San Joaquin National Wildlife Refuge to reduce flooding, protect farmland, restore valuable wildlife habitat, and provide other local benefits. CALFED has provided more than $10.5 to widen the floodplain, increase storage of flood water, recharge groundwater, and restore wildlife habitat.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
• The Butte Creek Restoration project. More than $5.6 million has been approved for fish screens, fish passage and small dam removal, watershed support and general restoration activities on this tributary watershed. Last year more than 20,000 adult spring run salmon returned to the Creek from a low of 200-1,000 in recent years.
• The Battle Creek Restoration Project, which seeks to improve fish passage for four races of steelhead and salmon in the only Sacramento River tributary with exceptionally high flows during the dry season and drought periods. The project includes removal of five dams, screened diversions, increased flows, and other actions to improve water quality and access to 42 miles of historical anadromous fish habitat. To date, CALFED agencies have provided $28 million in funding for the project.
These are just a few of the most prominent examples of projects developed and implemented by local agricultural and conservation groups to provide multiple benefits. These partnerships would not have been possible without coordinated technical and financial assistance from the CALFED program. None of the individual agencies would have had the resources or the expertise to work with local communities in putting together large scale projects with multiple purposes and funding sources.
CALFED Funding
Finally, I want to emphasize the importance of continued funding to maintain the momentum behind the program, and to further support projects and programs vital to the economy and environment of California. As you know, the fiscal year 2000 appropriation will provide the third year of Federal funding under the Bay-Delta Act authorization of $430 million for the CALFED Program. To date, the Program has approved $150 million from the $160 million appropriated to date on projects and programs that will have lasting benefits for farms, families, and fisheries throughout the Bay-Delta watershed.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The State's share has been provided through passage of Proposition 204 in 1996, which allocated $60 million for ecosystem restoration, and an additional $390 million upon completion of the final environmental documentation in fiscal year 2000. In addition, the Governor announced last Friday that he is including $10 million in the State's fiscal year 1999-2000 budget to support the Program's Integrated Storage Investigation. The Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request, therefore, is essential to maintain the Federal share and commitment to the program.
As you may know, we have worked closely with stakeholder groups to develop a consensus in support of the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request for $95 million to support the CALFED Program. As a result of those discussions, a broad-based coalition of these groups has developed a consensus in support of allocating $60 million for ecosystem restoration programs and $35 million for water quality, levee system integrity, and water supply reliability programs. I urge you to support this consensus recommendation.
I recognize, as does Secretary Babbitt, the difficulty of funding this program solely through Energy and Water appropriations. Therefore, in response to the Committee's request, we are working closely with the Department of Interior and other CALFED agencies to develop an interagency cross-cut budget to identify all major expenditures directly related to the CALFED Program.
Conclusion
In closing, I wish to reiterate my thanks for your continued support of the CALFED Program, and for inviting me to appear before you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLITTLE. There is so much to talk about, I'm sure we'll not be able to get it all accomplished in one round of questions. But, Mr. Secretary, I infer from your comments you believe that the matter of the Trinity River flow is going to have to be integrated into the CALFED and the whole the Bay-Delta program; is that a fair statement?
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, the Trinity River mandate is a distinct, defined, specific mandate in law which says I must make a decision about water flows sufficient to restore the fishery. That's the baseline. Now, obviously, that decision has impacts in the Sacramento River Valley and indeed the entire system. And having made—having once made the decision about what's necessary for the flow regimes and the hydrograph, I think it is then possible and indeed imperative that we look at the management regimes in a way that is designed, to the extent possible, to minimize the impact in the Central Valley.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Can you—could you indicate what steps you feel are likely to be taken to mitigate for the loss of water in the Sacramento River system?
Secretary BABBITT. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think mitigation comes in two packages. The first one is, as I suggested, that is, how we manage the system and how it is the storage capacity in Trinity Lake and Whiskey Town Reservoir is used in a multiyear mode that buffers some of these impacts. The other thing I think we will need to examine very carefully is I can tell you, without being familiar with the report, just from our prior experience with these, the amount of water, the reduction in diversions in and through the Central Valley will be largest in times of large flow, and the impact will be smallest in times of drought. I think that's a very important fact because that does play into the operating flexibility of the system, of the CALFED system, and the storage capacity and flexibility. It isn't just about what kinds of relationships in a given year. It really does play into that. So that would be the second piece of it, sure.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. So you would contemplate, then, using stored water in those reservoirs to provide—to augment some of the flow presently that goes down to the Trinity so as to minimize or reduce the impacts on the Sacramento River system.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. What I'm saying is that is one of the operational flexibility issues that absolutely must be looked at.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Okay.
Secretary Nichols, tell us—I would like to hear what the Davis administration thinks about the need for additional water storage shed. It's my understanding that the administration indeed recognizes the need for that and supports it.
Ms. NICHOLS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Governor has stated, I believe on a couple of occasions, that he believes that additional storage will be needed for California's present and future needs. He has not made any commitments to any particular sites or types of storage, but he certainly recognizes that as we manage the system better, one feature of that management is providing for storage.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. So I take it he has not ruled out on-stream storage as one of the possible solutions?
Ms. NICHOLS. He has not specifically ruled out any particular type of storage, that's correct, although clearly both cost and environmental impacts will play a role in making a decision about what types of storage will be chosen.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Can you—how about you, how do you feel about on-stream storage?
Ms. NICHOLS. I think right now we're in a peculiar situation where we're looking at actually eliminating some dams that in the past were thought to be useful for various reasons. We have got a lot of other dams that are being looked at for reoperation.
Probably the biggest single activity that's going on in the area of storage right now in California is the debate over the future of the PG&E system and what will be done with that. I think we need to take a look at that before we start talking about additional construction. But, again, as a matter of principle and in fairness to the debate, there have been no solutions that have been eliminated from potential consideration in this process.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Secretary, you want to jump in on this?
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, if I might just elaborate by reference to the CALFED proposal for the integrated storage studies. The integrated storage studies have narrowed—they deal, obviously, with both groundwater and surface water.
Now, with respect to surface water, the possibilities have been whittled down to about, I think, 14 sites—Lester, am I about right—for detailed feasibility studies. Now, there are no new on-stream storage sites in those 14. I think that's an important distinction. There are modifications to existing on-stream sites, specifically raising Shasta Dam, and there are a goodly number of off-stream surface storage sites in that 14, essentially the balance of them.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I might mention that the witness lights appears to be not working—we better get these lights going, or we'll be here forever. But I don't think I have gone much over my 5 minutes. Did you want to add something?
Ms. NICHOLS. No. I think that was a helpful elaboration, because I certainly wouldn't want it to be thought that we were moving outside of the integrated storage investigation.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I'm well aware there are no new on-site storage sites discussed in CALFED, a fact that I find disappointing. But in any event, there are—I have an interest in that, and I think some of our Committee members do.
Let me just ask you in your experience do fish ladders generally accomplish their intended purpose or not?
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, there is no simple answer to that. We have been dealing with fish ladders now since really the 1920s and I would say that the extravagant expectations with which fish ladders were viewed as mitigation have really not been met, and there have been a goodly number of failures.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That said, in some cases, within some constraints, fish ladders work pretty well. They never replicate 100 percent the predam conditions, but there are circumstances in which they are certainly worthy of consideration.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I have been told that the Scandinavian fish ladders are built differently than ours. Typically they're much longer and the——
Mr. MILLER. Field trip.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yeah, field trip.
But not only are they longer, but the dams are somewhat differently configured. But apparently they have a much higher success rate than our American fish ladders do. I just wanted to pose that question to you if you have ever looked into that or considered the possibility that maybe we could improve in this area.
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, the Fish and Wildlife Service has a fish ladder research facility, I believe, in West Hadley, Massachusetts. They will be absolutely elated after years of working in total obscurity to hear of your interest, and I am sure there will be a request for budget support in the mail tomorrow morning.
But, seriously, Mr. Chairman, the design and technology of fish ladders is really a very sophisticated subject. And you're correct, this isn't just sort of a cookie-cutter kind of deal. It really involves a lot of physics and hydrodynamics and stuff like that, and we would be happy to have your support for the—for that laboratory.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I only raise that matter because we're now hearing the proposal to tear down some of the dams and as a way of improving the fisheries, but I was not aware of the situation in Scandinavia apparently where that's one way they've addressed this problem, that it appears to be working. I would just like to ask you to look into that and perhaps get back to the Committee with what your findings are. Maybe this research laboratory already has those answers.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With that, although I have other questions, I am going to recognize Mr. Dooley for his questions.
Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the point I want to stress, I think that one of the greatest responsibilities that all of us have that have been following this process, as well as, I think, the Federal and the State administrations have, is to, you know, exercise our influence in keeping this CALFED process on track, because I do believe that regardless of, you know, what constituency that we might represent, this is the best alternative for us to resolve some of these long-standing problems we faced with California water issues.
And my first question to both Secretaries is a very general one. Is that one of the critical issues, then, is to ensure that we can offer a process, whether you're in an environmental community or agricultural community or municipal community, is that this is a process that allows us all to perhaps get better together? And is this, you know, an accurate depiction, I guess, of what you think the CALFED process offers, Secretary Babbitt?
Secretary BABBITT. I believe Secretary Nichols and I would give exactly the same answer, Congressman, and that is yes. These processes must proceed in parallel. Now, what I would emphasize is that doesn't mean there isn't a mathematical formula to determine that. And there—certainly I think it's misleading to think of it as some kind of equivalence in which the subvention grants are given a label of fisheries, agriculture, water quality, and judged by the relative level—the relative amounts of funding are driven by the scheduling of events. Some have lead time, some have virtually no lead time, others have 5 or 10 years' worth of lead time.
Congressman, if I might, I would just like to interject one more thing that I think relates to this. There is something, I think, quite new in water management and development that arises out of this, and that is that this Committee and the energy and water appropriation committees are now in the business of making block grants to the Interior Department, and most—and indeed virtually all of which is then awarded on a competitive, peer-review basis to an enormous variety of Federal and predominantly State organizations. The money that gets appropriated in turn is subvented out in this process.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'm very comfortable with that, because I think the day in which the Bureau of Reclamation sort of shows up in town and says, clear out of here while we do everything, are gone. But it is quite different, and I would respectfully suggest that it is working and acknowledge that it puts a very important burden on us to be reporting back and setting benchmarks so that you can judge the efficacy of this process.
Ms. NICHOLS. Maybe I could just add a word or two. The phrase ''getting better together'' was part of what launched CALFED, and at the end of the day, unless the stakeholders who have given so much of their time to this process all feel that they've gotten something that has made them better as a result, I think we will not have succeeded.
The thing that I'm most optimistic about is that the projects that have been funded to date through the mechanism that Secretary Babbitt alluded to are projects that really have multiple benefits. And one of the great accomplishments, I think, of the process and the learning that people have engaged in together is that people are seeing that projects that might have fallen into just one category in the past really will have benefits for other people's agendas as well, and that's what we need to be looking for in the future.
Mr. DOOLEY. Great. And I guess—that's where I think many of us are very pleased in the message that the Governor is sending to the agricultural community and the municipal community in terms of the commitment in moving forward with the ISI as well as on specific sites, too. Certainly that is important in terms of the water supply and water quality.
And, Secretary Babbitt, I appreciated your comments in the past on that issue, too, and that's important in terms of sending the message to users that this process still holds a lot of promise and opportunity to resolve some of their issues.
I guess also moving to the CVPIA side, on a similar question is that part of the CVPIA in 3406, the (d)(5), dealing with the refuge water supplies, also had a provision in it that requested or required the Department to look for alternative supplies to those water amounts that were provided and taken from contractors to the refuges. And I guess what is in terms of the state of affairs and progress the Department has made in terms of identifying those alternative supplies?
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. Congressman, the major innovation that has begun to emerge out of this intense negotiations and discussion is what CALFED is now calling an environmental water account, which is a way of looking at a variety of different water sources and sort of setting it up the way you would put, you know, capital in a bank, ready to be drawn down as a part of this process. It's still under way, and there is—and I'll be frank with you, there is an ongoing discussion which we should acknowledge about what we mean when we say ''acquiring water.'' Does it mean purchasing water? Does it mean the added increment of benefit from efficiencies that are driven by pricing structure or by that kind of thing? To what extent are water transfers involved? I think these are all legitimate issues.
Mr. DOOLEY. Just one last question on that line. The recent court decision that was dealing with the (b)(2), does the Department—and part of the basis of that decision was a determination that there was some uncertainty in terms of how the Department was accounting for water and how they were making up for water. Do you see this as being—well, do you acknowledge that the Department needs to do a better job there, and do you also view, perhaps, this environmental water account as also being a component of that to provide greater transparency to both the environmental community as well as the water-user community in terms of, you know, what water is being utilized for what purposes and how is it being adjusted in terms of the contractor's interest, I guess?
Secretary BABBITT. Congressman, it's not about whether or not the Department has done a good job. We have done our normal peerless, unparalleled effort. Seriously. It is about a continuing difference about the best way to deal with (b)(2) water and other water accounts.
One school of thought, which I would call the bean-counting school, says you can go back and find a baseline and then start counting and showing precisely how all subsequent actions have added to or potentially subtracted from the—from this magical baseline.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, with all due respect to Congressman Miller and Senator Bradley and the other fathers of this Act, it ain't possible.
Mr. MILLER. I thought you were going to say supporters.
Secretary BABBITT. We are examining the court decision very carefully, and I will hasten to comply—add that we will comply with the
court's mandate. But there is—I think what the Department tried to do in the (b)(2) thing was say, let's get beyond the bean counting and look at the maximum efficient deployment of all these resources, and we're not quite at closure on that, frankly.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Calvert is recognized.
Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm from southern California, so I'm kind of interested in getting that water someday. And as you know, Mr. Secretary, we're having a problem down south. All our friends are moving to Arizona and Nevada, and they're wanting all the water from the Colorado River. And I'm kind of curious in that where our negotiations are, because this kind of all, as you know, relates to one another at one point in time, with the Imperial Irrigation District negotiation with the Cochelo Water District in San Diego on transfer of water to San Diego and how that's going to affect MWD for if we can get additional water.
I say that because that may be needed, it seems, sooner rather than later if, in fact, this—the progress on the California Bay-Delta, which we hope will continue until delivery is in effect or made down south to make up for some of these supplies that are being lost, not only from the Colorado River, but, as you know, from restoring Owens Lake, Mono Lake, and other environmental priorities.
And in that context, the President's fiscal year 2000 budget requested funding, as we know, $75 million for ecosystem restoration efforts and $20 million for nonecosystem restoration such as water use efficiency, water quality and groundwater storage. But, in fact, the administration requested $65 million—or, excuse me, $75 million and $20 million, whereas the California Bay-Delta Water Coalition was a 65/35. Where did the administration come in with the number of $15 million rather than the $20-?
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. Congressman, let me, if I may—first say a word about your southern California concerns. The parties to this issue have at my request been sequestered in Arizona where they are currently meeting with Dave Hayes of my staff to see if we can kind of coax people to see the light. I'm actually optimistic that we are getting together. That is the central and crucial issue for southern California. And with all respect, I would urge all of the southern California people to say to their constituents it is imperative that we close on this Imperial Valley transfer issue, and there should be no escape for any of the parties. We got to get it done.
Now, the legislature and the Governor have been very strong on this issue through both administrations. The legislature in Sacramento put up a couple hundred million dollars for the lining of the All-American Canal to help ease this transition. They put up $30 million to help the Met with feasibility studies for a conjunctive use site out in that area. And we need to squeeze the parties and say this is about the public good, and you got to emerge with an agreement.
Now, with respect to the 65, 75, 35, 25, whatever it is, really goes back to my earlier comments. These are judgment calls. And the original numbers came in from CALFED. There was some subsequent churning around, and the numbers came out a little different. I think what the administration will say—I have not cleared this with the Office of Management and Budget, and therefore everything I say from hereon is subject to immediate retraction and disciplinary action—but it's not important if everybody has come to an agreement on a slightly different allocation, that's fine, we'll support it.
Mr. CALVERT. Obviously from—we understand the work that has to be done on ecosystem restoration as far as part of the negotiations to put this agreement together, but I guess from our perspective is we want to make sure that there's water storage for times in need and that the availability and the quality of the water is not compromised and can be delivered. That's one of the reasons why we have this interesting coalition working together to get this thing funded.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. I understand. And in that spirit we agree.
Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Miller is recognized for his questions.
Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Mr. Secretary and Mary, to the Committee. Just quickly go back to the Trinity River decision. And I think that—I'm glad to hear we're getting to the point where—to make a decision there. I think the earlier that decision is made so that it can then be factored in to the rest of this process—I don't think it should be part of this process, and there's clearly no requirement, and the burden on you to make this decision is outside of this, outside of this process, but clearly it will have to be taken into account as we think about the resources available to us.
Let me, if I could, just make sure I have some clarification of what you said. The decision is made for the purposes of restoring the fisheries in the river; is that correct?
Secretary BABBITT. That's correct.
Mr. MILLER. That's the requirement and that's the burden?
Secretary BABBITT. That's correct.
Mr. MILLER. There is no requirement to minimize—I mean, to play that off against what the impact is on the CVP?
Secretary BABBITT. That's correct.
Mr. MILLER. I mean, I think it's rational that we would try to do that, but that is not a requirement of the law.
Secretary BABBITT. That's correct.
Mr. MILLER. And there is no requirement that—of mitigation for this decision?
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. That's correct.
Mr. MILLER. Okay. Because I think that's very important. You laid out how this water got into the system. It's not very pretty in terms of the political history, but just make sure that somehow we don't fall into the notion that there is some responsibility here to mitigate that or that this is a balancing act between the CVP and/or the fisheries.
And on the question that was raised on (b)(2), Mr. Secretary, the problem that the court has is with the ambiguity in the accounting system, as I understand that; that the law requires you take—you take 800,000 acre-feet and no more, no less, no more. And an accurate accounting system is sort of what the court is now telling us we need. Is that correct?
Secretary BABBITT. I'm tempted to refer that to counsel, but, yes, I think in simplified form that's correct.
Mr. MILLER. Essentially the court is affirming the law, but is saying you have got to be able to account for——
Secretary BABBITT. Yeah. That's right. Sure.
Mr. MILLER. Okay. On the—you all mentioned in your opening statement that the process on contract renegotiations under CVPIA is under way. Can you elaborate where you are in that process and what your expectations are?
Secretary BABBITT. Well, I think the important thing is that those negotiations, wrapping them up is explicitly tied to the completion of the PEIS. And I don't have the exact—I believe that we anticipate getting that wrapped up and going to a record of decision this fall, I think in the October-November time frame. Now, the negotiations obviously are going along in parallel, but we cannot close and make the final cuts until we have signed the record of decision.
Mr. MILLER. And your expectation would be what, then, after the record of decision, that we would start renegotiating and consummating new 25-year contracts?
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. Absolutely.
Mr. MILLER. If that doesn't happen, where do we go?
Secretary BABBITT. Well, I haven't thought about that. I mean, we intend to get it done.
Mr. MILLER. So your expectation at this point is that those negotiations will be for the long-term contracts, not one-year rollover contracts.
Secretary BABBITT. Not at all. It's time to bring this to closure. And I believe that we can do that in late 1999 and then on into the early part of 2000.
Mr. MILLER. The other—I think one of the basic tenets is we have—we discussed it when we were all in Senator Feinstein's office. I assume we're still operating under the theory that much of what comes out, what finally comes out of CALFED in terms of construction and costs is on a beneficiary pay. Is that still holding in this process as you understand it?
Secretary BABBITT. Yes. But, let me suggest, again, that that doesn't automatically translate into a bean-counting process, because the benefits of virtually every piece of this are distributed in—to multiple stakeholders, and there is also a factor here of the larger public benefits that accrue from all of this. So the documents, I think, in the CALFED process are quite clear; yes, beneficiary's pay is the guiding principle. There are going to be judgment calls on the margins of those decisions, and I absolutely think there should be.
Mr. MILLER. I assume there would be some delineation project by project or feature by feature as to what those beneficiaries and who those beneficiaries are. There would be—not all projects in the system would be treated the same.
Secretary BABBITT. Oh, yeah, I think, sure, it will go down to that level of analysis.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MILLER. Your first statement reminded me of a former Member of Congress from California on this Committee at one time—actually two of them who were actually very good at getting these resources, Mr. Sisk and Ms. Johnson. And when it came time that we were going to apportion out the costs for some of these expensive projects in California, they would put on their environmental hat and say, 89 percent of this project is for the environment, he says, and we—the fish don't have any mailboxes, there's nowhere to send the bill. We will have to send it to the public. We'll just write this off. And it worked, much to the chagrin of some of the taxpayers in some other parts of the country.
But I think it's very important in recognizing what you said, there clearly will be a general benefit to the State of California if we can iron this all out. And there will be benefits that flow into more than one direction, if you will; the environment, the water users, municipal, agricultural, what have you. But I think it's also very important that we keep in mind that where we can, we do have cost-sharing arrangements, we have asked others to do that, and that we would work to try and delineate how those—how those costs are borne. I know that there's been a number of suggestions, one by some rather large water users, that they are in no way prepared to pay, nor can they pay, for some of the projects that they want.
There has also been discussions in the State legislature—and correct me if I'm wrong, Secretary Nichols—but in the State legislature that some of this would just be covered by a bond issue. And the State is certainly free to make that decision, but at some point in this process I think we have to demonstrate to the public what the costs are going to be and where the burdens of those costs lie, and when—we get down to the end here. I take it there's no disagreement here.
Secretary BABBITT. Well, yes, I—I'm a little hesitant to subscribe to that eloquent monologue in every nuance. I think there might, in fact, be a—some space between us on how far you go in an attempt to count the beans. Now, let me just say that——
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MILLER. These are very, very significant dollars, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand that. I have been through these exercises before, and I'm just cautious. I have seen these cost allocations misused in many ways, and I've seen them become highly artificial. And I believe that it is an important point of departure to attempt to identify costs and benefits, but I do not believe that that can be a mechanical process.
And I believe that in the final analysis, that in this consensus process there will be judgments made as part of the consensus process. To the extent that you find that unsatisfactory, I hasten to remind you that I will be long gone from my job as Secretary of the Interior by the time this process starts. So my opinions——
Mr. MILLER. You're abandoning the Gore Administration? That can't be.
The fact is that I agree with everything you just said, that very often, in fact, these allocations have been misused, inflated, speculated about and all the rest, and they've cut both ways. Sometimes it's hard on the taxpayer, sometimes it's hard on the user, and back and forth.
All I'm saying is that we use that kind of judgment and we provide—we use some transparency in this process, because I don't think we want to simply go out and make this kind of commitment of money and believe that we're going to let the guidelines of the old 1902 Reclamation Act tell us how we're going to do this or something. That's all I'm saying. I think there's an obligation here, because at some point CALFED is going to add up, you know, to a very substantial amount of money, and I just think that that transparency has to be there, the delineation has to be there. And it's not about, you know, goring somebody's ox, it's about laying out where, in fact, these burdens lie, and let the people of the State decide whether or not that's a reasonable alternative or not.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. Well, I think——
Mr. MILLER. I agree with you, but you don't agree with me.
Secretary BABBITT. I can come pretty close to that.
Ms. NICHOLS. I just wanted to add with respect to the water bond discussions that are going on in California right now, I think it's a good illustration of the principle that the two of you are sort of honing from your respective chairs here in that as we work on developing a potential water bond to go on the ballot, it's clear that projects that will be included in such a bond are projects where multiple beneficiaries can be identified and where people will come together and agree on how the allocations of those benefits should be viewed.
And I think that reflects the fact that while we do need to keep improving both the quantity and the quality of analysis that we're doing on costs and benefits, that there will be an element of political judgment that gets brought to bear in the end on whether anything actually gets done.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Pombo.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you.
Mr. Babbitt, I would like to get back to the storage issue. We've talked a little bit about on-stream and off-stream storage and what the administration's position both at the State and Federal level is on that. One issue I am curious about is the groundwater recharge issue in terms of water storage and environmental restoration on some of the overdrafted areas. I know that in some of the planning documents for CALFED, they have talked about doing groundwater recharge projects. I would like you to address that in terms of the support of the administration for those kind of projects.
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Pombo, groundwater recharge is one of the most underutilized, most efficient and effective ways of managing water systems for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is there is no evaporation losses. It has long-term flexibility. You are effectively refilling the lake.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are some really striking examples of the efficacy of groundwater recharge. Without waving the flag of localism, the best current example is in Arizona. The amounts of water that are being recharged into groundwater storage is now up in the hundreds of thousands of acre-feet per year.
Now, my sense in California is that it's difficult because there is not a regulatory framework that defines a meaningful approach to the rights to groundwater, and it's going to be much more complicated in California, and we're going to have to work that. But I believe that it's a vastly underutilized tool, and we should support it to the limits of its efficacy and economic viability.
Mr. POMBO. So we should expect support out of you and the administration on some of these groundwater recharge projects that have been discussed over the past several months?
Secretary BABBITT. Would you be referring to Madera Ranch by any chance?
Mr. POMBO. No. I'm waving the flag of locality as well. I have a couple in my district that I believe are very, very important for a number of reasons for the region.
Secretary BABBITT. Okay. Well, the reason I asked about Madera Ranch is because I think it's a—it's a case study in what happens when we get ahead of the process and start a debate which is not centered on the facts and the comparative analysis.
So the answer is yes, I support it. You should send your advocates to CALFED to make sure that this analytical process and the ISA process is looking carefully at your particular projects.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Snow and I have had a number of discussions on that, and I know that my local people have had a number of discussions with him on that. I would like to turn to a somewhat different issue and—involving the CALFED process. I have supported the CALFED process because I do believe that it is one of the only ways that we are going to have any kind of movement on water policy in California. But one issue that does concern me is the issue of land retirements. In my area it is a significant number of acres that would fit into the definition of CAL—within CALFED of lands to be retired, to the effect that the number of acres that would be retired would have a severe impact on agriculture in my area. I represent an area of California that is predominantly agriculture, that is its economy, whether you're looking at the city of Stockton or any of the neighboring communities is predominantly driven by agriculture.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If we had the numbers of acres of land retired from agriculture and into ecosystem restoration, wetlands, whatever they would be retired into, there would be a severe impact not only on the economy of my area, but also a severe impact on local government as a result of that. How would you and the administration propose that you mitigate the impact on local government and on the surrounding communities of retiring what would literally be hundreds of thousands of acres of land?
Secretary BABBITT. Well, I don't share that conclusion, and I would respectfully suggest that the hundreds of thousands of acres is nowhere to be found in the CALFED documents.
Mr. POMBO. If I could interrupt you there. That is taken directly from testimony from a previous hearing that up to 400,000 acres of land would be retired.
Secretary BABBITT. Well, it's not in the CALFED documents. The CALFED documents do contain some estimates. Now, there may be some confusion here as a result of other issues. There's a separate provision in the CVPIA legislation, for example, with respect to land retirement in the Westlands District. But that's a separate issue and that's a——
Mr. POMBO. That is a separate issue that has nothing to do with this particular issue.
Secretary BABBITT. Good. Good.
So we go back to CALFED. The CALFED documents and discussions and the reality, the estimates are that we may be talking in the ecosystem restoration piece about impacts on about 30,000 acres, and of that 30,000, about 26,000 would not be taken out of agricultural production.
So the best estimates right now are that the ecosystem restoration issues would impact by taking out of production several thousand acres, 4 or 5,000 acres. The economic benefits that will flow from that will—to all the communities, I think, will overwhelm any conceivable argument that there's any detriment. I don't see it.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. POMBO. What you're testifying to today is in direct conflict to testimony we have received earlier in this Committee. It's in direct conflict to what a number of people have testified to in terms of what's included in the CALFED document. If we are talking about 4- to 6,000 acres of land that would be retired, I think that—although it would still concern me, I think it would be manageable in terms of an economic impact. But your numbers of 4- to 6,000 aren't even in the ballpark of what everyone else that has testified before this Committee has come up with. It's not even close.
Secretary BABBITT. Well, Mr. Pombo, I think you will be happy and satisfied because those are the numbers. They appear on either page 6 or 7 of my testimony, and I would be happy to back them up. I think you're going to be quite pleased.
Mr. POMBO. I would like you to do that. Because the—and I would provide to you—as a matter of courtesy, I would provide to you previous testimony that we have had before this Committee, and you can run it through your shop and——
Secretary BABBITT. Sure.
Mr. POMBO. [continuing] and try to see how you come up with so different figures.
But just—I know my time is up. Just in conclusion of that, if the numbers are what has been estimated by everyone else to be substantially higher than to what you are testifying, I would just like to say that has a substantial impact on my area; and the Department of Interior, the Federal Government and the State government are going to have to be very aware of what kind of an impact that is going to have on my particular area of the State. So I do want, as a matter of the record, to have that noted, that if everybody else that testified is accurate, it would have a severe impact on our region.
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Pombo, it may be—the discrepancy may in part be—I just want to acknowledge that I am talking about lands which have been impacted by specific site-specific plans that have been approved in the process. Now, I concede that there may be a variety of estimates about what the future holds.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. POMBO. I'm talking about long term in the future. I'm not talking about what's been approved up to this point.
Secretary BABBITT. Okay. I misunderstood you. And I guess what I would say is that the estimates about the future are pretty speculative. I understand your concerns and will be responsive to them.
Ms. NICHOLS. Mr. Pombo, could I add a comment on behalf of the State?
Mr. POMBO. Yes, please.
Ms. NICHOLS. I met with Secretary Lyons of the California Department of Food and Agriculture this week actually, and Mr. Snow, to discuss this issue and how we're going to reconcile the State's commitment to preservation of prime agricultural land, which is a policy of this administration as it has been in the past, and indeed we have significant programs in my agency that are designed to encourage preservation and protection of agricultural land. And we certainly don't want to be in any way suggesting that we're encouraging people to convert that kind of land to noneconomic purposes where it's productive.
I would just say that the environmental impact report is going to be spelling out how that—I believe the number that you gave is the extreme end of what I have heard as a worst-case assessment that will be looked at under the EIR/EIS for purposes of evaluating what could be the worst environmental possible case, if every person who had agricultural land chose to sell the water away from that land and to fallow it for purposes of selling their water for, you know, a higher economic use if that was what they chose to do.
I don't think anybody believes that that's a realistic scenario, but we need to clarify what our policies are in that respect. And I think it is clear that it's not something that CALFED is looking to—CALFED is not about the business of trying to encourage good agricultural land to be idled in California.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. POMBO. Well, and I realize you were not yet in office, but the testimony on the 400,000 acres was an official person who testified to that. The extreme end of that I believe was a million acres, was a different definition of what could be retired, that up to a million acres could be retired out of that.
Most of this would be within my congressional district, within the area that I represent. I would only tell you that there are only approximately 650,000 acres of irrigated land within my congressional district, and they're looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of 400,000 acres that would fit into the definition of what could be retired under CALFED. When we receive that kind of testimony, it's obviously going to be a huge concern to the people that I represent because that would have a severe impact on my region of the country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mrs. Christensen is recognized.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the only member here present who is not from California, unless you want to count my year of internship in San Francisco, I really don't have any questions. I just—I am here to listen. Because even in my small district that is surrounded by water, water supply and distribution is an important issue for us. And primarily I want to just welcome you, Secretary Nichols, and of course our Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Babbitt, good friend of my district and of all of our districts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, the PEIS that was supposed to be released almost four years ago, is now scheduled to come out in September, correct?
Secretary BABBITT. Yeah.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. So—and it's my understanding there have been some modeling problems——
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. That's correct——
Mr. DOOLITTLE. [continuing] which may result in further delay. Do you contemplate that it may delay it beyond September as you go through the modeling problems and then once you come up with what you think is the answer, is this going to be recirculated again? And finally, what's likely to be the possible impact of delay on this?
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, I think the modeling issue has been resolved to the satisfaction of all of the participants. So that's already been factored in.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Okay.
Secretary BABBITT. I think we'll be okay.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. So are you quite confident, then, you would be able to get that done and get the timetable for these—renewing the contracts under the long-term renewal would be—was it December of this year you were saying?
Secretary BABBITT. Well, my estimate in response to Congressman Miller's question was that I believe we move to a record of decision approximately November.
Am I okay on that?
Hearing no dissent, it's November.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Okay.
Secretary BABBITT. Now, what I would like to do is—what we're aiming at is to get those long-term contracts finished up before the beginning of the next water year, which means early on in the year 2000.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Okay. Mr. Secretary, you won't be here for the third panel's testimony, but that is written testimony submitted, and it will be oral testimony when we get there. Could I just read you a paragraph from Daniel G. Nelson's testimony, who is the Executive Director of the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority? I would like to get your response to it, if I might. It's on page 5 of his testimony.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It says, ''Now the most recent PEIS data suggests that even before full implementation of CVPIA, the CVP is so inflexible that water available to contractors will be decreased to zero in all water years that are less than normal years. The wide discrepancy between this data and earlier information contained in a draft PEIS threatens to derail the current work plan schedule. That is, the new PEIS data appears to indicate that the assumptions that have guided the PEIS give the fish and wildlife obligations of the CVP significant priority over contractual obligations, contrary to the CVPIA's purpose of achieving balance between project purposes.''
Could you comment on that?
Secretary BABBITT. Sure. I have great regard for Mr. Nelson and his advocacy and his judgments. But he is an advocate, and even Dan Nelson can get a little bit overheated from time to time. And, you know, the mandate of CVPIA is to put wildlife restoration on parity as a project purpose. And——
Mr. DOOLITTLE. But not superiority.
Secretary BABBITT. No, parity. Now, that's what this process is all about. And we will in due course have a document out in the light of day for everyone to judge the quality of our efforts.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, do you share Mr. Nelson's conclusion that the water available to contractors will be decreased to zero in all waters years that are less than normal years?
Secretary BABBITT. Well, I would have to go back and look at it, but I'm a little skeptical of that sweeping a conclusion.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, even if it weren't zero, it's likely to be substantially reduced, right?
Secretary BABBITT. Well, implicit in CVPIA is some water reallocation. I mean, that's the whole premise of the exercise. And our job is to see if we can do that in a reasonable way, consistent with the statutory mandate.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Dooley, are you ready to begin your questions?
Mr. DOOLEY. Yeah. I just wanted to revisit this issue in terms of, you know, the CVPIA and the actions that are supposed to be undertaken to provide for offsetting the yield that might be lost for environmental purposes. And I guess I go back to the 3408-I where it basically states that in order to minimize adverse effects, if any, upon existing Central Valley Project contract water contractors resulting from water dedicated to fish and wildlife under this Title such and such, the Secretary shall, not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Title, develop and submit to Congress a least cost plan to increase within 15 years after the date of enactment of this Title the yield of the Central Valley project by the amount dedicated to fish and wildlife purposes under the Title, which would seem to be a pretty specific, you know, mandate that the Secretary and the Department determine, you know, how we do increase the yield offset allocations that might be lost to the environment.
I guess, you know, what progress has the Department made in terms of identifying these, you know, opportunities for enhanced yield?
Secretary BABBITT. Congressman, that really takes us back into the CALFED process inevitably it seems to me. Because that's the purpose of this exercise, is to find ways to reoperate the system, to store water, to find efficiencies, to—precisely this purpose for all users, including CVP users.
Mr. DOOLEY. And I appreciate that. But the point I guess I want to clarify is that there is a mandate within the CVPIA for the Department in which you are now using the CALFED process as a way to achieve that outcome to identify ways in which we can increase yield to offset water that has been utilized for the environment. And you would agree with that.
Secretary BABBITT. Congressman, I hear you. I agree. I think we owe you a response that is specific to the mandate of the statute, even if the major part of the response is a discussion of the CVPIA impacts.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am also advised by my loyal staff that that report was done 3 years ago and is now under consideration by CALFED. My previous answer is inoperative.
Mr. DOOLEY. If we could move on. There's been some discussion in terms of the renewal, long-term renewal of the contracts; and I share those concerns because the PEIS has not been completed.
You know, the first draft had some modeling assumptions in it which I think were determined by all parties to be flawed, and we put in place some new modeling that is going to be embodied in the PEIS. But I'm a little concerned that that is going to be released, and I have to believe it's going to be subject to some controversy and discussion. And yet we're expecting that we can get through that exercise and have a final rule on this thing accepted and then be able to get the long-term contracts renewed prior to the next water year. And as being involved in this, you know, in previous years, I'm very, very cautious about and not necessarily optimistic we can achieve that.
And, in part, my concern on this is that I'm not convinced that we have given adequate consideration to some of the issues that are going to be a part of the long-term contract renewals. And with specific issues there is that, as I understand it, the Department of Interior is involved in a process to determine the basis of negotiations, which I think is appropriate, but what I'm concerned about is how can you make a determination what the basis of negotiation is for an issue such as tiered pricing when there hasn't necessarily been that dialogue and interchange between users and the Department that can really allow us to come to some level of consensus on tiered pricing.
And what I would also say, that that has a direct impact in the earlier discussion we had on underground recharge, which you've acknowledged is one of the best alternatives for water storage. And yet if we're not careful to how we structure this tiered pricing, we are in fact putting one of the, you know, the greatest, you know, disincentives in place for water contractors to engage in conservation measures and storage measures that utilize the underground.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I'm a little concerned that the Department hasn't engaged in a process to allow us to address some of these critical policy issues prior to identifying a basis of negotiations that will have a significant impact on how the long-term contracts are negotiated and renewed.
Secretary BABBITT. Congressman, I hear your concerns; and I'll do my best to factor them into this process. I do think that we are ready to proceed to conclusion on that time frame, and I will do my best to make sure we deal with these issues in a, you know, public or in a stakeholder communication process that gives everybody a chance to be heard.
Mr. DOOLEY. I guess my specific concern again on this tiered pricing, though, is, if I understand the Department's process, if you do in fact determine a basis of negotiations as it relates to tiered pricing, you are setting the parameters there. And it's an arbitrary decision by the Department to set the parameters in negotiation as it deals with tiered pricing. I'm a little concerned that the Department makes a decision like that before—on a difficult policy issue such as this which has ramifications on water conservation as well as utilization that—before we really have had this dialogue. And I'm hopeful that the Department would have a process to allow us to engage in a discussion on this issue prior to that finalization of the basis of negotiation and prior to us entering into the negotiations on long-terms contracts.
Secretary BABBITT. I will do my best to do just that.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Secretary, I assume from your testimony and responses to questions you believe that CALFED's cooperative approach to problem solving is better than the traditional government command and control approach that's been used in the past to solve these problems.
Secretary BABBITT. I do.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Can you commit to having your department using its discretion to minimize the negative impacts on water users when attempting to reach the goals of water management in California?
Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that this afternoon if you question the stakeholders as to my involvement in this issue, you will hear answers that reassure you on that score. Of course. Of course.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. There's so many things here, as you pointed out, about the Trinity River and so forth in your answers to Mr. Miller's questions. I mean, we've got so many laws involved in all of this that—in fact, that's the whole reason we had the Bay-Delta Accord and CALFED, is to resolve the apparent conflicts in managing for single purpose objectives and trying to coordinate the whole thing.
But to a certain extent we still have this tension because of what happens in the Trinity River, as you and others have acknowledged, is going to impact what happens in the whole Central Valley. So while there may be no legal requirement, there may never not have been a legal requirement dealing with the Trinity, but at least it's reassuring I think to hear your commitment to try and minimize any adverse impacts to the extent that that's possible within the parameters.
Secretary BABBITT. That is certainly my intention.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I think this has been a very useful hearing for us. I'm going to call on Mr. Dooley one more time if he would like to—okay. You're set.
I am sure we may have further questions by way of follow-up. I appreciate and express to our distinguished guests our appreciation for their appearance here, and the length of the questioning so forth has been useful to this Subcommittee as we seek to make progress in this most important issue of the Central Valley water management. So we will now excuse this panel, and thank you again for your appearance.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary BABBITT. Chairman, thank you very much. I do very much appreciate the spirit in which this hearing has been conducted. Thank you.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
Ms. NICHOLS. Thank you for your support.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. We'll call up the second panel and ask them to assemble themselves at the table. And just to announce, just for everybody's information, there is supposed to be a vote in 5 or 10 minutes. So at that point we will take a 15-minute recess. If that vote doesn't happen, I think at least by 1:30 or so we'll take a recess anyway for that time. But I'm anticipating that everybody can get a break at the time the vote happens.
So do we have everybody assembled up there? I think we do.
Okay. Let me ask you gentlemen, please, who are forming Panel II, if you would rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let the record reflect each answered in the affirmative.
Gentlemen, we welcome you as our second panel on this hearing today. And in the first go-around we were a little liberal in how we ran the lights. I think just because of the time of the afternoon and the size of the panel we'll try and adhere a little more strictly to it. But don't cut off in mid-sentence if the light goes on and you're not finished. We want to hear your testimony. And appreciate your making yourselves available to the Committee.
We'll begin this panel with the testimony of Mr. Stan Sprague, who is General Manager of the Orange County Municipal Water District from Fountain Valley, California. Mr. Sprague. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF STAN SPRAGUE, GENERAL MANAGER, ORANGE COUNTY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SPRAGUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee.
As you already mentioned I am from the Municipal Water District of Orange County. I am here today as a representative of the Bay-Delta Urban Coalition, which consists of the 11 major urban water supply agencies in California, providing over 22 million people with their water supplies in California. I would also mention if I were just here representing the municipal water district solely from Orange County my comments would not be much different.
The Coalition really represents a unified voice of both southern and northern California urban water agencies. In fact, we've moved to the concept that we are urban water agencies and we don't in our discussions even depict where we come from. Northern California now is in Redding for the purposes of our urban discussions.
The basic urban message regarding the CALFED process is supportive and optimistic. We believe that CALFED continues to have the highest potential of any alternative for achieving a comprehensive plan for restoring the Delta and establishing a long-term management plan which balances all interests which depend on water from the Bay-Delta region.
During the last part of last year the Federal agencies, under the leadership of Secretary Babbitt and under former Governor Wilson, moved forward with a significant effort of investing time in what was called the so-called Phase II report, which is essentially a draft preferred alternative for a long-term plan. A completion of the Phase II document should be considered as a significant accomplishment.
Our positive views about CALFED programs, however, are not without qualification. One of the principal reasons it was possible to get closure on this document was that many of the toughest Bay-Delta issues simply were not decided. These include several issues which relate to the single most important objective to urban water suppliers and the improvement of drinking water quality. Urban agencies accepted this deferral of decision on the basis that these programs would be resolved shortly into the beginning of this year. We have not seen that significant closure on those particular issues at this time.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Following the release of the report, however, promised action on water quality issues have not been forthcoming, as I mentioned. As a result, the urban agencies are deeply concerned that the draft EIS/EIR will not adequately address the process to solve water quality issues in the long term and will not initiate a substantive step, steps essential to improving drinking water quality.
To assist the Committee in understanding our concern, let me remind you that as a drinking water source the Delta is a very poor quality compared to the national average. Poor quality source water increases public health risks and requires more costly treatment without the safeguards of source quality protection.
In addition, natural components in the Delta when treated create products that are potential hazards in themselves. In plain terms, treatment has defined limitations both chemically and in terms of costs. We have no choice but to judge the success of CALFED program on its ability to resolve the water quality issues.
To hold the continued support of the urban communities, CALFED agencies must begin making some of the key decisions on water quality. The key elements can simply be stated as follows:
Increased commitment from EPA and other key agencies to help urban agencies achieve drinking water quality goals; timely achievement of a long-term target for bromate or bromates for total organic compound and for total dissolved solids through a combination of higher source quality protection and new treatment technology; the creation of a Delta Drinking Water Council, a Delta Ecosystem Restoration Authority and an overall CALFED management entity with fair and balanced stakeholder representation on each; keeping the dual conveyance option on the table for further study; completing feasibility studies and beginning construction of a North Delta diversion to mitigate environmental actions detrimental to water quality.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The urban agencies have made it clear in the CALFED process that these are the water quality issues that must be addressed. We remain helpful and optimistic this will be done.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I have also included in my written testimony an additional list of issues which relate to those elements of concern to urban California and that is water supply reliability. And I will only respond to those if you ask for additional comments.
I would like to thank you and your Committee for the continued support for holding this hearing and to indicate the urban support for continued funding and the continued oversight of this CALFED activity. Thank you very much.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sprague follows:]
STATEMENT OF STANLEY E. SPRAGUE, GENERAL MANAGER, MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE BAY-DELTA URBAN COALITION
Representatives of the Bay-Delta Urban Coalition(see footnote 1) have been active participants in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to develop a long-term, broad-based consensus agreement for improving the California Bay-Delta Estuary. Our Coalition, consisting of 11 urban water agencies, collectively supplies water to over 22 million people in urban communities around the State of California; communities that form a cornerstone in the state's thriving economy.
The Urban Coalition remains supportive and optimistic about CALFED, and continues to believe that this process retains the highest potential for resolving the complex issues surrounding the Delta. We commend Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, former Governor Pete Wilson, and the Federal and state participants of CALFED for extraordinary efforts in 1998 to gain closure on the draft preferred alternative (outlined in the Revised Phase II Report released in December, 1998). We believe the draft reflects progress on a number of policy issues affecting the Delta and that CALFED remains committed to achieving continuous improvements in the four interrelated problem areas affecting the Delta (ecosystem restoration, water quality, water supply reliability and levee system integrity) and to measurable milestones to be used as indicators of this continuous improvement.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our positive view about the program, and the results thus far, however, are not without qualification. First, it should be recognized that one of the principal reasons it was possible to get closure on the Revised Phase II Report was that many of the toughest issues were not decided. Among those issues were several wh