[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BENEFITS AND ACCESS: THE
NECESSITY FOR MULTIPLE USE OF
WATER RESOURCES
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND
FISHERIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, March 8, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-8
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
51-504 WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member
oug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
CLIFF BENTZ, OR, Chairman
JEN KIGGANS, VA, Vice Chair
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Mike Levin, CA
Garret Graves, LA Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Kevin Mullin, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Val T. Hoyle, OR
Daniel Webster, FL Seth Magaziner, RI
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Debbie Dingell, MI
Jerry Carl, AL Ruben Gallego, AZ
Lauren Boebert, CO Joe Neguse, CO
Jen Kiggans, VA Katie Porter, CA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL Ed Case, HI
John Duarte, CA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
----------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, March 8, 2023......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 1
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Keppen, Dan, Executive Director, Family Farm Alliance,
Klamath Falls, Oregon...................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Guyas, Martha, Southeast Fisheries Policy Director, American
Sportfishing Association, Tallahassee, Florida............. 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Questions submitted for the record....................... 31
Cordalis, Amy, Legal Counsel, Yurok Tribe, Klamath,
California; and Co-Founder, Ridges to Riffles Indigenous
Conservation Group, Sacramento, California................. 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Corwin, Scott, Executive Director, Northwest Public Power
Association, Vancouver, Washington......................... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submission for the Record by Representative Bentz
American Public Power Association (APPA), Letter dated
March 8, 2023.......................................... 64
Submission for the Record by Representative Luna
NOAA Fisheries, Poster titled ``Where does our seafood
come from?''........................................... 51
Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman
Recreational fishing organizations, Letter dated March 7,
2023................................................... 67
Ocean Conservancy, Letter dated March 10, 2023........... 70
Oceana, Statement for the Record from Connor Fagan,
Federal Policy Manager................................. 78
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON BENEFITS AND
ACCESS: THE NECESSITY FOR MULTIPLE USE OF WATER RESOURCES
----------
Wednesday, March 8, 2023
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:16 p.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Bentz
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bentz, McClintock, Graves,
LaMalfa, Gonzalez-Colon, Carl, Kiggans, Luna, Duarte, Hageman;
Huffman, Levin, Peltola, Hoyle, Porter, and Case.
Mr. Bentz. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and
Fisheries will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Good afternoon, everyone. I want to welcome Ranking Member
Huffman and our new and returning Members to the first
Subcommittee hearing of the 118th Congress. The Subcommittee is
meeting today to hear testimony on Benefits and Access: The
Necessity for Multiple Use of Water Resources.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that all other
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Bentz. Let me begin by saying how much I appreciate
Chair Westerman giving me the opportunity to lead the Water,
Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee. I spent much of my life
preparing for the opportunity to positively address issues of
wildlife, fish, water shortage, and water allocation. And there
is no better place to realize on this opportunity than right
here in this Subcommittee.
It is my hope that the conversations we will have with the
many excellent witnesses that will appear before us, such as
those we have here today, will lead to solutions which help
resolve the hugely challenging problems that face us across the
United States when it comes to water and in our oceans.
These problems include crashing aquatic populations, lack
of flexibility in the application of regulation, the forest
return to desert of vast amounts of agricultural lands, water-
starved but still ever-expanding cities, declining aquifers,
unresolved tribal claims to water, wildfire destruction of
watersheds, overallocation, and, of course, the massive impact
overgrown forests have on water supplies, to name but a few.
It is also my hope that our discussions, while direct, will
focus on solutions rather than why one water user is most
deserving or why one approach is most scientific. Anyone who
has had anything to do with water allocation knows that a set
of veritable Federal and state laws, engineering, culture,
environment, agency ambition, money, and even the weather, to
name but a few of the normal ingredients of a water discussion.
So, it is easy to dredge up arguments supporting any
position, but we really don't have the luxury of time. We
absolutely must focus now on encouraging states to increase the
sustainable supply of water, to stop using water in ways that
irreversibly deplete groundwater resources, and we can't avoid
taking on the incredibly difficult question of what we do when
there simply isn't enough water.
Do we rely on the markets? Do we rely on regulation? Do we
rely on the courts? Do we rely on Congress? Do we rely on
technology? These are water-related issues that we will be
talking about over the next 2 years.
Of course, this Subcommittee has far more than water within
its jurisdiction, and I look forward to hearings on the
essential part that hydropower plays in the Western United
States, the consequences of reintroduction of various species,
including wolves, compacts between states, dams, the treaty
with Canada, the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, aquaculture, oversight over
the Bureau of Reclamation, and oversight over power marketing
administrations such as the BPA, the dams that produce the
energy they market, and of course review of U.S. Fish and
Wildlife, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Indian water rights settlements, and investigation where the
new--some $15 billion under reclamations authority is being
spent.
Obviously, we have a lot to do. But today, we will be
talking about the importance of the multiple uses of water and
ocean resources.
A poster child for such warnings is California. After 3 dry
years in that state, 2023 began with a series of historic
atmospheric river storms. While some of this rain was captured,
a significant amount of the water was wasted into the ocean.
This week, another strong winter storm brings multiple feet of
snow with major impacts expected once again, as I speak, over
the foothills and mountains of California.
As of Monday, California's statewide snow water content is
192 percent of average, yet how much of this water will be put
to beneficial use? If history is any indication, much of it
will go to waste. This is a cycle that we have seen before. The
2016-2017 water year was one of the wettest years in California
history and was preceded by 5 dry years. Yet, can we point to
any long-term water solutions that resulted in the last decade?
The previous administration tried by approving long-awaited
feasibility studies on storage. Our witness, Dan Keppen, will
discuss the implications of these policy decisions to our rural
communities addressing food supply. As stated on our water
infrastructure, hydropower is the critical use of water as it
generates clean, renewable baseload energy.
The Pacific Northwest has benefited from the development of
hydropower. In fact, Oregon and Washington are the highest
hydropower-producing states in the nation, yet far too often
narratives are being pushed that implore the removal of this
critical infrastructure. This is a knee-jerk reaction to meet
environmental slogans without regard to real-world impacts of
these decisions, impacts like a reliable energy grid.
Our witness, Scott Corwin, will speak to the importance of
hydropower. Just like water management of the ocean resources
can only be as good as their data, unfortunately, instead of
utilizing the best available science in the case of data on the
red snapper, for example, NOAA insists on converting the
state's data into inferior data management program.
Our witness, Martha Guyas, will share with us the firsthand
experience of what happens when a Federal agency fails to
utilize best available science.
With that, I am sure that each of you will have ideas to
share regarding the dangers to our environment, our
communities, our economy, and our way of life, should we
inappropriately limit our water resources to single purposes.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority Member for
any statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. Good morning. Good afternoon,
rather. And congratulations, Chairman Bentz. I wish you well.
As your Chairmanship of this Subcommittee begins, I want to
pledge the good faith and cooperation of my colleagues and I in
some work that hopefully we can do together.
Last Congress, this Subcommittee was very productive. We
held hearings on 63 bills, 41 of which were bipartisan, 16 were
led by Republicans. In all, at least 25 bills related to this
Committee's work were signed into law last Congress. That
doesn't include impressive wins in the American Rescue Plan,
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the Inflation Reduction Act,
where a lot of our work became law.
Today, we are focusing on the extensive use of Federal
water and ocean resources, and I hope we all can agree that
these are resources owned by all Americans, and they should,
therefore, be stewarded in a responsible, sustainable way that
promotes the well-being of people, wildlife, and ecosystems.
The topic of today's hearing is very broad. I would suggest
each of these issues--Western water, hydropower, and
fisheries--might merit their very own hearing if we had
adequate time, but there are a few overarching themes that I
would like to touch upon in these areas, starting with water
and fisheries.
The Chairman asked the hypothetical question whether we
have done much in the space of water and water supply. I think
a better thing to say, in light of everything we have done in
the last Congress, would be thank you. And even though that
wasn't said, I will go ahead and say you are welcome, because
during the 117th Congress, Democrats enacted real, sustainable
solutions that improve water access for American households,
the environment, fishermen, and the agricultural industry.
We passed the most significant climate change investment in
history, and that included $4 billion for drought mitigation,
$550 million for tribal drinking water projects, $2.6 billion
for habitat resilience and fisheries science. That was all
through the Inflation Reduction Act. We also passed legislation
to fund water access through the NDAA, through the Omnibus,
through several standalone bills, and of course through the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which included $8.3 billion to
address Western water needs through the Bureau of Reclamation
and $2.5 billion for tribal water settlements. And these are
huge investments, the biggest in the history of our nation in
this space.
And, sadly, although we would have loved for this to be
truly bipartisan, we did not have the support of most
Republicans on this Committee.
But there is more. Legislating, updating, and reauthorizing
the Coral Reef Conservation Act, making improvements to the
Fishery Disaster Program, strengthening enforcement against
illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing, phasing out the
use of drift gill nets off the coast of California, these are
things that will help the needs of fishermen and fisherwomen
and improve habitats that are so important to our fisheries.
We also enacted legislation to advance innovative and
modern water solutions to stretch our water supplies while
enhancing our aquatic ecosystems across the West.
When you talk about climate, because our water challenges
and shortages in the West are not driven by the Endangered
Species Act, radical environmentalists, or the deep state--in
fact, the principal driving force is climate change. That is,
of course, the case with the historic drought in the West and
other threats to our water supply. Climate change elevates the
need for drought-proof water supply projects, including water
recycling, modern desalination, investments in modern water
storage and groundwater recharge, water conservation, and water
use efficiency, and watershed health and ecosystem restoration
projects.
These are all things that we, again, enacted record
investments in in the last Congress, and these are things that
are going to make a real difference for water managers in the
years ahead.
On the fisheries side, we are seeing the real and immediate
impacts of climate change with no end in sight. Last fall,
Bristol Bay Red King Crab Fishery and the Bering Sea Snow Crab
Fishery were closed, in part due to climate change impacts.
Just last week, the West Coast salmon groups called for the
closure of the 2023 salmon season, again, due to drought and
poor water management.
Climate change is directly affecting access to fishery
resources, and this is why my legislation to reauthorize the
Magnuson Act included provisions for climate-ready fisheries.
And then, third, we must be wary of using themes like water
access and natural climate solutions as cover for just
attacking NEPA and eroding the Endangered Species Act, the
Magnuson Act, the Antiquities Act, and other important laws.
We are seeing this with hydropower projects. Hydropower can
be a very useful energy source when it is administered
consistent with our nation's environmental laws and with
safeguards to protect tribal resources, fish, wildlife, and
recreational opportunities.
But attempts to waive legal requirements under current laws
so that specific hydro projects can move forward are the wrong
way to go. We need to protect fish populations and the
communities that rely on them.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I very much look forward to
hearing from the witnesses. And, again, I wish you lots of
success and productivity as our new Chair.
I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you for your kind remarks.
I will now introduce our witnesses. First, Mr. Dan Keppen,
Executive Director of the Family Farm Alliance. Second, Ms.
Martha Guyas, Southeast Fisheries Policy Director for the
American Sportfishing Association. Ms. Amy Cordalis, Legal
Counsel for the Yurok Tribe, and co-principal of the Ridges to
Riffles Indigenous Conservation Group. And Mr. Scott Corwin,
Executive Director of the Northwest Public Power Association.
Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules,
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their
entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin
your testimony, please press the ``On'' button on the
microphone. We will use timing lights. When you begin, the
light will turn green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will
turn red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member
questioning.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Keppen for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAN KEPPEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FAMILY FARM
ALLIANCE, KLAMATH FALLS, OREGON
Mr. Keppen. Good afternoon, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. It is nice to be back
in person with you all again.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify today.
There is a passage in John Steinbeck's East of Eden that
does a pretty good job describing California and much of the
West's hydrology. ``The water came in a 30-year cycle. There
would be 5 to 6 wet and wonderful years, then would come 6 or 7
pretty good years, and then the dry years would come. During
the dry years, the people forgot about the rich years, and when
the wet years returned, they lost all memory of the dry years.
It was always that way.''
And it is still that way today. Just last fall,
California's reservoirs had dropped to dangerously low levels.
A record number of wells in the Central Valley had run dry.
Nearly 700,000 acres of the most productive farmland in the
world were fallowed. People were told to stop watering their
lawns. California was headed for a fourth year of drought. And
then, just in time for the holidays, we were blessed with a
series of atmospheric rivers.
Just in the past 2 weeks, more than a dozen feet of snow
fell in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. California's statewide
snowpack report last Friday was 190 percent of normal. The
state's record snowpack was set 40 years ago. This week we
could actually break that record in Northern California.
Reservoirs across the state are filling, and there is a
year's worth of snow melt stored in the Sierra Nevada right
now.
After several critically dry years requiring severe
cutbacks, many people are asking the obvious question. Does
this mean the California drought is over? The answer of course
is no. California's water management system was designed
specifically to manage this volatile hydrology to store wet-
year water to be used in dry years.
But, currently, even our amazing system of dams and canals
can't meet the state's water demands. Our population in
California, of course, is a factor. But even more remarkable,
decades after it was built, the government will no longer allow
our existing water infrastructure to operate the way it was
intended. More and more, multiple uses of our water resources
are ignored in favor of just a few.
Starting in the 1990s, as a result of state and Federal
laws, regulations, lawsuits, and agency decisions, reservoirs
in California and the Klamath Basin are not allowed to convey
the water stored for their intended purposes. Instead, a large
percentage of water must now be sent to the ocean.
Each year, this problem is getting worse. Unelected
government officials are allowed to divert more and more water
away from homes, communities, wildlife refuges, and farms. We
have yet to see them demonstrate accountable results showing
the promised benefit to endangered fish. Taking 100 percent of
once reliable surface water away from Western agricultural
communities, which has happened more than once, takes
productive Ag land out of production. It also seriously
stresses once reliable groundwater resources, imparts
tremendous damage on national wildlife refuges in the Pacific
Flyway, and destroys the economies of rural farming
communities.
While most pronounced in California, Central Oregon, and
Klamath Basin, similar experiences are happening in other parts
of the West. For those of us who live in those rural
communities, it is almost impossible to understand. Many of the
farmers and ranchers I work with feel like our government is
about to throw away the best food production system in the
world at a time when our country and the world will need that
food more than ever.
The single species approach to fishery management has
steadily ramped up for decades. We have yet to see a
correlation that shows a positive response from water directed
away from irrigated agriculture and toward targeted species
protected by the Endangered Species Act.
Adding insult to injury, farmers and ranchers across the
West have been targeted and attacked in traditional and social
media. Legions of reporters, documentarians, and bloggers
choose to advance narratives that demonize American farmers who
toil to make a living growing food for the country.
Fortunately, we know that farmers, local communities,
constructive conservation groups, tribes, other stakeholders,
and government agencies can work together. It is possible to
develop water solutions that reconcile the needs of waterfowl
and fisheries in a way that multiple species can thrive in
harmony.
Solutions can be reached that address the true stresses on
fish in a way that doesn't take away water supplies from
farmers and ranchers. My written testimony includes examples of
those success stories. For the time being, this nation needs
our farmers and ranchers to produce food and fiber. Laws and
regulations need to be updated to mandate accountable and
transparent results from diverting water away from Western
farms and creating man-made droughts.
There has never been a more important time to maintain our
country's food productivity. Rising food prices and global
hunger are linked to the war in Ukraine, extreme climate
events, and other global stressors. Still, our own government
has chosen to voluntarily withhold water from rural class food
producers in the Central Valley, Central Oregon, and the
Klamath Basin. The list would continue to grow if we don't do
something soon about these misdirected policies.
The hour is growing late. We look forward to working with
you to immediately right this ship.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keppen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan Keppen, Executive Director,
Family Farm Alliance
Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman and Members of the
Committee: Thank you for this opportunity to share observations with
you on the importance of managing water for multiple uses. The Family
Farm Alliance (Alliance) is a grassroots organization of family
farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts, and allied industries in 16
Western states. We are committed to the fundamental proposition that
Western irrigated agriculture must be preserved and protected for a
host of economic, sociological, environmental and national security
reasons--many of which are often overlooked in the context of other
national policy decisions. The American food consumer nationwide has
access to affordable fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains and beef
throughout the year largely because of Western irrigated agriculture
and the projects that provide water to these farmers and ranchers.
OVERVIEW
Managing water for multiple benefits has long been a top goal for
water managers across the West. For many years, a primary purpose of
Bureau of Reclamation projects was to capture mountain snowmelt, store
it, and distribute it during the long, dry summer months of the West,
primarily to irrigated lands that produced food and fiber. Then,
starting in the late 1960s, for a variety of reasons, water stored for
agricultural use had its importance diminished in many watersheds. In
recent years, we've actually seen large Western water projects that
were originally authorized and constructed to supply farms with
irrigation water receive zero allocations for agriculture, with
available supplies solely used for environmental uses. In those areas,
the pendulum has unnecessarily swung too far with no effort toward
compromise. The purpose of my testimony today is to explain why that is
happening in certain areas, and underscore the importance of restoring
irrigation as a top priority in multipurpose water management.
Water is of key importance to the American West. Food security is
as vital to our homeland security as our nation's other strategic
interests, and the domestic production of food and fiber, especially on
Western irrigated lands is critical to our nation's ability to feed
itself in an affordable and safe manner.
In the U.S., a set of forces appears to be aligned against keeping
domestic agricultural lands in production, even as our country is now
importing more agricultural products than it exports.\1\ Arizona and
California are paving over and losing productive farmland at the
fastest rate in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The USDA forecasts the U.S. will again run a deficit in 2023
for the third time since 2019. (Politico Pro DataPoint).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. last year faced yet another record-breaking drought year
in the West. Undoubtedly, the drought reduced the amount of water for
many users, including irrigated agriculture. However, in places like
California and Oregon, much of the water that once flowed to farms and
ranches was re-directed by the federal government for environmental
purposes, mainly for perceived fishery needs. In other words, federal
water policy withheld water for hundreds of thousands of acres of
productive farmland. In the Colorado River Basin, competing water user
interests have mounted a sustained campaign against agricultural water
use in the Basin, often pointing to alfalfa as an example of one crop
that uses too much water and should no longer be produced. The same is
true in the Rio Grande Basin, plagued for more than ten years with
Supreme Court litigation among the states where the primary focus has
remained on agriculture and ``high water use'' crops, fueled by
misinformation put forward by other, more junior water uses.
At a time when the future of Ukraine and other countries' ability
to help feed the outside world is at risk, our ability to increase
productivity is being further curtailed--due in part, to our own
government and increased competition from other demands for the same
water supply. The grim global hunger conditions we once expected to
encounter in 2050 may very well hit us sooner.\2\ This testimony seeks
to explain this critical issue further, and provides recommendations
intended to protect irrigated agriculture as a growing number of
faraway critics minimize the importance of using water in the West to
produce affordable and safe food and fiber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ To sustainably produce food and agricultural products for more
than 9 billion people in 2050, agricultural productivity must increase
an average of 1.73 percent annually. From 2011-2020, global
agricultural productivity grew at an average of just 1.12 percent per
year, a significant drop from the average growth rate of 1.99 percent
from 2001-2010 (USDA ERS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIORITIZING ENVIRONMENTAL WATER USE OVER FOOD PRODUCTION
Historically, the Bureau of Reclamation has been the federal agency
partner to step up and assist with the construction and initial
financing of water projects that continue to serve agricultural water
users in the Western United States. The Reclamation Act of 1902 is the
federal law that funded irrigation projects for the arid lands of 20
states in the American West. The language of the Reclamation Act of
1902, before subsequent amendments, provided wide discretion to the
executive branch to withdraw land, and to study and construct projects.
Many of these projects were constructed with the primary purpose of
supplying water to agricultural water users, building communities in
the West, and feeding the nation and the world.
However, the failure of Teton Dam in Idaho, the emergence of the
environmental movement, and the announcement of President Jimmy
Carter's ``hit list'' on water projects profoundly affected the
direction of Reclamation's programs and activities in the United
States. Reclamation projects provide agricultural, household, and
industrial water to about one-third of the population of the American
West.\3\ Reclamation is a major American generator of electricity.
Today, with more than 120 years of additional Congressional direction
on top of the 1902 Act, the current mission of the Bureau of
Reclamation is ``to manage, develop, and protect water and related
resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the
interest of the American public''. The word ``irrigation'' isn't even
mentioned in Reclamation's mission these days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.usbr.gov/history/borhist.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For many reasons--political, economic, and social--the priority of
serving reliable water supplies from federal water projects to Western
agricultural irrigators has significantly diminished in recent decades.
Certainly, enactment of well-intended federal laws like the Clean Water
Act, Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Environmental Policy
Act along with the effective litigious action taken by critics of
irrigated agriculture employing those laws in Western courts has slowly
chipped away at the once-reliable stored water supply irrigators have
depended on for decades. The federal government has effectively
redirected that use, primarily for fisheries protection under the ESA,
many times with little if any scientific justification or positive
results. Perhaps the most dramatic legislative action taken to move
towards multipurpose management of federal water was the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), signed into law in 1992, which
mandated balancing competing demands for a limited supply of water, a
balance that included meeting the requirements of fish and wildlife;
agriculture; and municipal, industrial and power contractors.
1. Regulatory Focus of California's Bay-Delta Environmental Challenge
Starting at around the time that CVPIA was signed into law, between
1990 and 2014, a number of regulatory and policy decisions have been
enacted, the results of which reduced the average water supply for
Central Valley Project (CVP) South of Delta agricultural water service
and repayment contractors (farmers and ranchers in the San Joaquin
Valley who receive water from the CVP) from 100% of their contracted
deliveries, except in the worst drought in California's history in
1976-77, to an average of 35% of contracted supply. Last year, south-
of-Delta ag service contractors located on the west side of the San
Joaquin Valley received a 0% water allocation. That was the fourth time
in a decade those water users received a 0% allocation, resulting in
the fallowing of hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland in one of
the most productive agricultural regions in the world.
In short, state and federal regulations have reduced water supply
availability. With each subsequent policy decision, more water was
allocated to in-stream use and away from other uses, such as municipal
and agricultural uses. From the 1952-1990 time period, farmers had a
sense of reliability and certainty regarding their CVP water contracts
and annual water deliveries. But those water deliveries have decreased
over time as policy and legal actions were taken to crush that
certainty for farmers.
While reduced snowpack over the last several years is certainly
contributing to the water crisis in California, the imbalanced
application of environmental laws and policies has undermined one of
the primary uses of the CVP, supplying water for agriculture, with
little apparent benefit to the environment that can be demonstrated. A
large portion of the water in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers is
left in stream to flow to the ocean to provide specific conditions in
the rivers for salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon, species protected by
state and federal policies and laws. The San Joaquin Valley farms and
communities, including major industries in Silicon Valley, use fresh
water pumped from the San Francisco Bay-Delta to supplement their
needs; however, over the past several decades, exports via those pumps
have been reduced through a layering of state and federal policies in
order to meet specific water quality standards in the Bay-Delta and to
address the decline in the delta smelt population, another protected
species. These pumped exports from the Delta are used as key indicators
of policy decisions throughout the state regarding agricultural water
allocations and fisheries management. Presently, agriculture in
California does not have a reliable supply of water, which undermines
the industry's ability to make long term decisions regarding adaptation
and resilience.
The frustrating fact to agricultural producers is that the severe
water cutbacks that have already occurred are not increasing the
populations of salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, or the delta smelt,
species listed for protection under the federal ESA. The National
Research Council (NRC) in 2012 suggested that reducing pumping for
agricultural water does not significantly impact fish populations;
whereas other stressors along the systems, such as wastewater
contaminants, lack of productive habitat, and competing non-native
aquatic species, do have a more significant impact on the health of the
ecosystem and the biological functions it supports. Protected fish
populations could be more effectively managed and recovered by focusing
on other stressors to the Bay-Delta system while also providing a
reliable water supply for agricultural use.
2. The Failure of Single Species Management in the Klamath River
Watershed
The Klamath Project in southern Oregon and northern California is a
leading example of the imbalance in federal water policy. Farms,
communities, and wildlife are being sacrificed in order to provide more
water to ESA-listed fish species, but after 30 years of this policy,
there has been no identifiable benefit for the listed fish populations,
which are two species of Upper Klamath Lake dwelling suckers in Oregon,
and coho salmon in California downstream of that lake in the Klamath
River.
In 1903, federal engineers investigated the feasibility of a
reclamation project in the area we now know as the Klamath Project.
They reported that, unlike other areas, in Klamath, the engineering
challenge was not to transport water to arid land. Rather, there was a
need to get rid of water. Well over 100,000 acres of open water and
marsh was reclaimed. The water that once spilled from the Klamath River
during spring snowmelt was instead held back in reservoirs for
beneficial use during the irrigation season on world-class soils known
for the quality of their food and habitat production. The agricultural
lands and neighboring national wildlife refuges supported millions of
waterfowl, amphibians, and terrestrial animals.
A water supply that was reliable for nearly a century has become a
guessing game at best, and severe shortages rule the day. The water
stored in reservoirs is not allowed to go to the land for which it was
stored. Instead, it is held to provide increasing depths in Upper
Klamath Lake for endangered suckers or released to the Klamath River to
augment flows for coho salmon. In fact, during each of the past three
irrigation seasons, the amount released to the Klamath River has been
considerably greater than the inflow to Upper Klamath Lake during the
same period.
Leaders in the Klamath agricultural community have observed that
water management has become more of a competition among regulatory
agencies over who can get the most water for one species or the other.
For some regulators and others, ``winning'' has become the goal instead
of actual success for species and communities. Food production suffers,
communities and wildlife suffer, and the agricultural community feels
targeted and devalued. Producers are struggling to explain to their
children why raising food has become a thing to be ashamed of, and why
the downsizing of the Klamath Project has become a trophy to be won by
the opponents of irrigated agriculture in the Basin.
3. Proposed Flow Experiments at Glen Canyon Dam
Decisions made by federal administrators regarding allocation of
our water resources during this drought must rely on proven
technologies, not experiments. Operations of Glen Canyon Dam on the
Colorado River is one such example. Currently, Reclamation is
evaluating experimental stored water releases at the expense of
hydropower generation, in an attempt to stop the potential
establishment of smallmouth bass populations below Glen Canyon Dam.
Unfortunately, not only is the scientific underpinning of these
additional releases unproven, Reclamation's analysis to date has not
evaluated any potential non-flow measures to address this concern.
Instead, Reclamation is evaluating only flow-related measures, all of
which to varying degrees, bypass hydropower generation. All this comes
at a time when Reclamation, in fact, has been attempting to use
extraordinary measures, like demand management and water purchases
affecting farmers in the Basin, to protect hydropower production by
keeping water storage levels behind Glen Canyon Dam as high as possible
and avert predicted water levels crashing to dead pool as water
continues to be withdrawn for deliveries to the Lower Colorado River
Basin.
The end result of this will be the cost of purchasing expensive
replacement power being passed on to power customers, many of which are
small municipal, agricultural and tribal providers whose customers are
unable to afford these price increases. But this is not just a
financial issue alone. Reclamation has also failed to acknowledge there
is not a readily available supply of replacement power available for
purchase--even though Western Area Power Administration has identified
this as an issue of concern in previous comments on this proposal. We
understand there is an environmental need, but again, other uses are
being impacted by this narrowly focused proposal. Decisions like these
must be grounded in sound science and the financial and technical
impacts of these decisions must be fully addressed.
WESTERN WATER AND LANDSCAPES CAN BE MANAGED FOR THE BENEFIT OF
AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Many of our members in the West--particularly in California and the
Pacific Northwest--know that our water management system isn't helping
anyone as fish continue to struggle, farmers fallow land, businesses
and residents face continuing restrictions. That's because it's based
on decade-old siloed scientific hypotheses embedded in a top-down
regulatory system that lacks the ability to incorporate new science as
it becomes available. Fortunately, there are examples in California,
Oregon, Washington State, and other parts of the West that suggest
other paths might be taken that lead to true multi-purpose management
of water resources that yields benefits to agriculture and the
environment.
1. Scientific Study + Proven Results = Smarter Water Management
Science has been telling us for some time that fish need more than
water to survive--habitat restoration and improvement, predator control
and food supply are also critically important. In California's
Sacramento Valley, on-the-ground projects have generated results to
prove this approach works.
Partnerships to Implement New Science on Butte Creek Turned 100
Salmon into 10,000--Working together, farmers, urban water users and
conservationists made improvements to fish passage, fish food
production and habitat for juvenile salmon as well as providing more
water at the time when fish needed it the most. The result has been a
dramatic increase in returning salmon from as low as 100 to an average
of 10,000 annually. Other species have also benefited. http://
westerncanal.com/butte-creek-fish-passage-project
Operation FatFish--Scientists Teamed Up with Farms to Produce a New
Food Supply for Fish--If salmon are malnourished, they're not strong
enough to make it through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to
reach the Pacific Ocean and populations decline. Partnering with
scientists at UC Davis and CalTrout, farms have been flooding fields in
the winter in order to grow bugs (which growing fish depend on for
food) and then re-connecting these floodplains to the river. Results
from Operation FatFish have shown an increase in growth and health of
juvenile salmon inside and outside seasonally flooded rice fields. In
addition, these managed wetlands support millions of waterfowl,
shorebirds and other waterbirds along the Pacific Flyway. https://
caltrout.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Nigiri.pdf
Boulders & Branches--Experiments with Fish Habitat Have Produced
Improving Salmon Populations--River Garden Farms created 25 fish
habitat shelters made of almond trunks and walnut tree root wads. These
were bolted to 12,000-pound limestone boulders and dropped into the
river. The roots and branches are designed to help juvenile winter-run
chinook survive by serving as a shield against swift river flows and
predators. A survey conducted by wildlife biologists revealed a large
school of juvenile salmon had taken to the tree roots. Salmon were
finding refuge and populations were improving. https://
www.rivergardenfarms.com/environment/salmon-shelter-project/
Painter's Riffle--Biologists Urged Restoration of Spawning Grounds,
Leading to Successful Collaborative Projects--Over time some
traditional salmon spawning grounds have been filled in. One example is
Painter's Riffle, a side-channel that successfully produced fish nests
resulting in up to 750,000 young salmon since the 1980s. When a major
storm filled in the channel, farms, water districts and government
agencies partnered to open it again. Speaking of a similar project U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation Biologist John Hannon said, ``These projects are
an important part of helping our local fish populations weather the
drought conditions and recover in the future.'' https://
norcalwater.org/wp-content/uploads/PaintersRiffleFact-Sheet-FINAL.pdf
On-Demand Water--Focus on Providing Water for Fish in the Right
Place at the Right Time--Obviously, fish need water, but what science
has discovered is that we should focus on providing it at key junctures
in time and in combination with other non-flow measures such as those
discussed here. These ``functional flows'' are more productive than
simply flooding the system with water. A 2015 study by the Delta
Independent Science Board recommended more study on the concept of
functional flows, which may promote fish and wildlife health by closely
considering time, space and parameter scales relevant to biological
processes. https://ceff.ucdavis.edu/articles
Several new projects are being constructed this winter in the
Redding area to promote recovery of Chinook salmon by providing
additional spawning and rearing habitat. The projects are implemented
through a collaboration of Sacramento River Settlement Contractors,
conservation organizations and state and federal agencies. These
efforts are part of the comprehensive Sacramento Valley Salmon Recovery
Program and help to implement the National Marine Fisheries Service's
Recovery Plan for the Sacramento River, the California Natural
Resources Agency's Sacramento Valley Salmon Resiliency Strategy and
Healthy Rivers California (Voluntary Agreements). By following the path
that science has laid out, collaborative efforts can improve the
environment while increasing water availability and reliability for all
water users.
2. Certainty for Water Users and Water for Endangered Species on the
Deschutes
Farmers in the Deschutes Basin of Central Oregon have been dealing
with risks and uncertainties to their water supplies for years. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the bull trout and the Oregon
spotted frog (OPS) as ``threatened'' under the ESA, while the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Mid-Columbia steelhead as
``threatened'' under the ESA as well. All three species are present in
the Deschutes Basin. These ESA listings ultimately culminated in a
lawsuit, whereby environmental groups sought a court order to
effectively end all irrigation storage in the Deschutes Basin. The
water users fought back and defeated the environmental groups' motion
for injunctive relief that would have put at risk the water supplies
for some 150,000 acres of irrigated farmland in the Basin. The water
users and their irrigation districts took matters into their own hands,
as they developed a long-term plan that would both provide certainty
for agricultural water supplies, while at the same time, providing a
plan that would provide water for and benefit the listed species.
The Deschutes Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was the product
of 12 years of scientific study, hard work, and collaboration between
irrigators, federal and state agencies, the Confederated Tribes of the
Warm Springs Reservation, cities, counties, multiple non-governmental
organizations, and the general public in the Deschutes Basin. Finalized
in 2020, the HCP sets the course for conservation efforts in the
Deschutes Basin for the next 30 years. It provides the eight irrigation
districts in the basin (organized as the Deschutes Basin Board of
Control, ``DBBC'') with both a pathway and time for modernizing their
water delivery systems through canal piping and other projects.
In exchange for the commitments made by the DBBC districts under
the HCP to conserve water over time, the DBBC districts are authorized
to continue to access their water supplies without running afoul of the
ESA, even when those water supplies are limited during times of
drought. In this way, the HCP provides a level of certainty with
respect to the DBBC district's obligations under the ESA, as well as
some level of certainty with respect to their water supplies. At the
same time, the ongoing effort to implement the HCP is not without
challenges. Districts and irrigators face endless court battles from
potential lawsuits brought by national groups who will never be
satisfied with the irrigators' commitments to conservation, and
routinely argue that irrigated agriculture should take an even harsher
hit in the basin than it already has.
Meanwhile, as required under the HCP, the DBBC districts and
irrigators are making significant financial investments to implement
conservation measures, such as canal piping. Individuals and third-
party citizen groups are threatening to prevent open irrigation canals
from being replaced with buried pipe, arguing among other things that
open ditches flowing with irrigation water amount to water feature
``amenities'' for their subdivision homes. These challenges are
intended to create roadblocks and prevent the districts from
implementing solutions for both stabilizing irrigation water supplies
and meeting fish and wildlife habitat needs. Despite these ongoing
challenges, the Deschutes Basin irrigation districts and their partners
remain committed to implementing the HCP, as it is the only real option
for trying to keep the agricultural community in the basin intact and
in control of its own destiny while providing and protecting habitat
for listed and other wildlife species in the Basin.
3. Water 4: Conservation that Provides Multiple Benefits to People and
Wildlife
Irrigated lands comprise over 60 percent of wetland habitat in the
snowpack-driven systems of the Intermountain West. These lands provide
vital habitat for migratory birds, sustain floodplain function, and
recharge aquifers, but are at risk of fragmentation from rural
subdivision, competing water demands, and the ongoing impacts of
climate change. We work closely with the Intermountain West Joint
Venture (IWJV), a leader in utilizing science and technology
advancements to link agriculture, hydrology, and wildlife habitat
conservation. The IWJV's Water 4 Initiative is focused on the
importance of maintaining agricultural land for habitat conservation
and landscape resiliency within western states. The rapid fragmentation
of agricultural wildlife habitat, as well as crop conversions and
changing irrigation practices, have implications that reverberate
beyond agriculture and begin to impact local water availability for
people and wildlife. Integrating agriculture, science, technology, and
ecology can lead to improved understanding of key linkages related to
the importance of agricultural irrigation and the need to invest in
modernizing irrigation infrastructure. Such investments also have
collateral benefits for landscape resiliency including groundwater
recharge, habitat enhancement, and conservation of fish and wildlife.
Spatial analysis combined with detailed water bird population
information has allowed IWJV to begin to quantify the exact number of
agricultural acres that need to be enhanced/protected in the Klamath
Basin in California and Oregon (among other locations) to provide
habitat to sustain water bird and waterfowl populations. This has
critical implications for the broader agricultural community in the
Pacific Flyway. If habitat is not maintained in the Klamath Basin,
migrating birds will likely move south, to California's Central Valley,
earlier in the season. This earlier migration means birds may arrive
before rice is harvested, resulting in potentially devastating impacts
to rice production.
Conserving irrigated wet meadows contributes to system-wide
resiliency by providing key habitat for migratory birds, sustaining
floodplain function, recharging aquifers and supporting agricultural
communities.
There are proven examples of where food producers, water managers
and conservationists can work together in a way that benefits
agriculture and the environment. We must continue to do more of this
type of work, where environmental objectives can be reached without
taking water away from farmers and ranchers. As will be described in
the next section of this testimony, it has never been more important to
provide affordable and safe food for our country and the world.
4. Yakima River Basin Integrated Plan
The Yakima River Basin (WASHINGTON) supports a $4.5 billion-dollar
agricultural economy and historically produced significant salmon and
steelhead runs. The Yakima Basin Integrated Plan (YBIP) is a
collaboratively developed 30-year plan developed and implemented by
YBIP partners such as the Yakama Nation, irrigation districts, cities
and counties, conservation groups, the federal government and the State
of Washington, among others. The YBIP has provided opportunities in the
Yakima River Basin for local, state, and federal partnerships to allow
our member irrigation districts, including the Sunnyside Valley
Irrigation District, the Roza Irrigation District, the Yakima Tieton
Irrigation District, the Kittitas Reclamation District and others to
work aggressively on a drought resiliency strategy to modernize their
water delivery systems to conserve water to the benefit of both fish
and farmers. Modernization of these important irrigation water delivery
systems is providing the means to ensure reliable and consistent
irrigation water delivery to basin farmers. And, the YBIP has embraced
a new drought emergency water storage project at Kachess Reservoir, as
well as new fish passage, habitat, water and groundwater supply, and
headwaters restoration projects in the Yakima River Basin that benefits
and promotes healthy fish, farms and communities.
One YBIP partnership between the Kittitas Reclamation District,
Reclamation, the State of Washington and NGOs has been able to
establish a more normative summer flow regime in the Yakima River
tributaries that typically dried up in the summer months. The Kittitas
Reclamation District is also working to increase their canal capacity
to carry cool storage water to streams for fish while at the same time
making more consistent irrigation water deliveries to agricultural
lands in their service area. This resiliency strategy is an integral
part of the YBIP collaboration that is working toward increasing salmon
and steelhead population abundance and productivity and at the same
time provide for a consistent supply to the farmers growing our
nation's food.
5. Forest Management Impacts on Upper Watershed Water Supplies
It is hard to overstate the importance of snowmelt as a source of
fresh water in parts of the Rocky Mountain West, and great attention is
paid to ecosystem water cycles in this region. Some of the snow that
falls in the mountains goes directly from crystalline snow to water
vapor, bypassing the liquid water phase. This phenomenon--sublimation--
accounts for the loss of a large portion of the snowfall during the
winter months in the Rocky Mountains. Snow intercepted by tree branches
sublimates the fastest, often disappearing within a few days of a
snowfall. Recently published work by the Rocky Mountain Research
Station \4\ (RMRS) teases apart how the loss of spruce canopy affects
the sublimation rates for snow both in the canopy and on the ground in
these ecosystems. These findings have some important implications to
snow interception and retention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Beetle Outbreaks in Subalpine Forests and What They Mean for
Snowmelt, May 2021. Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Forest
Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three years ago, Alliance President Pat O'Toole, whose family owns
and operates a cattle and sheep ranch on the Colorado-Wyoming border,
testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. A
study he referenced in his testimony relates to research \5\ conducted
by the Forest Service on the Upper North Platte River in 2000 and 2003.
It shows that management restricting timber harvest had already
severely impacted the watershed and water yield to the tune of a
minimum of 160,000 AF \6\ per year. His testimony included other
examples of models for ways of quantifying the amount of water removed
from Wyoming's water supply by dying forests and invasive species like
the bark beetle, and also references other anecdotal reports from
around the West of water yield increases resulting from clearing pinon
and juniper stands.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Estimating Additional Water Yield From Changes in Management of
National Forests in the North Platte Basin, May 12, 2000, C.A. Troendle
& J.M. Nankervis (Note: This is an independent report prepared for the
Platte River EIS Office).
\6\ 160,000 AF of water would cover all of Chicago, Illinois with
over one foot water.
\7\ Vegetative response to water availability on the San Carlos
Apache Reservation, Roy Petrakis, Zhuoting Wu, Jason McVay, Barry
Middleton, Dennis Dyem, John Vogel. July 2016. U.S. Geological Survey,
Western Geographic Science Center, Flagstaff, AZ 86001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last June, Mr. O'Toole testified again before the Senate ENR
Committee, where he referenced the North Yuba Forest Partnership
(CALIFORNIA), which developed a strategy to treat 20 million acres on
national forest lands and up to an additional 30 million acres of other
federal, state, Tribal, private and family lands over the next decade.
The partnership is using the latest science to integrate multiple
stakeholder priorities into projects with the objective of
accomplishing forest restoration and wildfire risk reduction at a
landscape scale. Partnership activities include meadow restoration,
ecological thinning of forest density and prescribed fire.
Mr. O'Toole's own family is helping to lead an effort to design a
comprehensive, multistakeholder, large landscape initiative to restore
two severely degraded (non-functioning) 50,000-acre watersheds; one in
the Medicine Bow National Forest in Wyoming and a second in the Routt
National Forest in Colorado. Their vision is to restore two forested
rangelands to a resilient state that filters and stores water, produces
protein, sustains wildlife and fisheries, sinks carbon, produces
renewable energy feedstocks and enables economically viable rural
communities to thrive.
A PERFECT STORM: WESTERN DROUGHT, INFLATION, WAR IN UKRAINE AND GLOBAL
FOOD INSECURITY
Western irrigated agriculture is criticized by some because of the
amount of water that is required to grow food and fiber. It is not the
farmers that are ``consuming'' the water. It's the customers who
consume the products that farmers and ranchers provide. Farmers and
ranchers only grow crops and raise livestock that other people buy as
their food source. Current vegetable and value-added farm and ranch
products are subject to the same supply and demand rules of American
manufacturers. With the current backdrop of severe drought conditions
in the West, significantly inflated food costs, global food supply
challenges, and a looming global famine, the importance of Western
agricultural production has never been greater and should be carefully
and thoughtfully valued. Now is the time to focus on the critical
importance of maintaining our country's food security and locally
sourced foods. Reliable water for Western irrigated agriculture is a
critical component in that equation.
The multiple-year drought we have recently faced in many parts of
the Western U.S.--coupled with other domestic and global developments--
is already affecting the availability and price of food for many
Americans. Rising food prices and global hunger are linked to the war
in Ukraine, extreme climate events like the Western U.S. drought, and
other global stressors. All of these factors have combined to cause
significant inflation and global food shortages that loom on the
horizon.
1. Rising Cost of Growing Food = Rising Food Prices
Those Western producers who do have water have seen production
costs increase by as much as 25%, because of rising fuel prices and
transportation costs. Rising input costs (fuel, pesticides,
fertilizers, equipment repairs), combined with the ongoing energy and
supply chain crises, continue to impact food supply and demand.\8\
Since January 2021, many fertilizer types have tripled or quadrupled in
price and remain high (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Steve Benson, Family Farm Alliance Director, Testimony Before
the U.S. House of Representatives Republican Forum--``Skyrocketing
Energy Costs are Hurting Americans''--June 24, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inflation was higher in 2021 and 2022 than in any other years of
the previous four decades, as measured by the price index for personal
consumption expenditures. In 2005, Americans paid about 6.2% of
disposable income on food and non-alcoholic beverages. That means that,
for every $1,000 of disposable income, only $62 is being spent on food.
That frees up tremendous additional capital for other needs, like
buying a new car, investing in your children's education, or going on
vacation. Globally, people paid roughly 10.2% on the same products.
Now, due in part to factors discussed previously in this testimony, the
U.S. average has increased to 10.3% with other countries following
suit. This is concerning for our national economy since less domestic
food production means more global competition and higher prices for
American consumers.
Our economy depends on an affordable high-quality food supply for
which we spend less of our disposable income than any country in the
world. This leaves much more disposable income available for other
needs and wants which also fuel our economy. This small investment in
food for our families is made possible because farmers and ranchers
have made significant changes in water use practices and investments in
technological water efficiency tools. While some say growing crops in
the arid West is not ``sustainable,'' available land, growing
conditions, workforce and access to transportation have proven this
region to be a prosperous agricultural and economic engine.
2. Global Hunger Crisis
At the global level, hunger is on the rise, and the world community
is not prepared to address this looming crisis. The 2022 State of Food
Security and Nutrition in the World report \9\ prepared by the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization found that an unprecedented
count of up to 828 million people went hungry in 2021, an increase of
46 million from the previous year, and a leap of 150 million people
since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even before the latest
inflationary woes hit us and after years of seeing global hunger
numbers drop, global hunger is back at record levels and rising.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://data.unicef.org/resources/sofi-2022/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our organization has been tracking the Global Agricultural
Productivity (GAP) Report since 2010, when it first quantified the
difference between the current rate of agricultural productivity growth
and the pace required to meet future world food needs. That report
predicted that total global agricultural output would need to be
doubled by the year 2050 to meet the food needs of a growing global
population. The 2022 Global Agricultural Productivity (GAP) Report was
released last October by the Virginia Tech College of Agriculture and
Life Sciences. The 2022 GAP Index found that total factor productivity
(TFP), which increases when producers increase their output while using
the same or less inputs, is at its lowest level of growth to date. The
overall message of the GAP report is that vulnerable agricultural
systems rest on fragile foundations. Reversing the downward trajectory
of global agricultural productivity growth, the report says, demands
urgent action from policymakers, leaders, donors, scientists, farmers,
and others in the agri-food system. In short, the 2022 GAP report found
that current efforts to accelerate global agricultural productivity
growth are inadequate.
Just in the past month, we've seen ``under the radar'' media
coverage of vegetable rationing in Great Britain, famine in the Horn of
Africa, prolonged drought in France, Italy, and other parts of Europe,
and farmers pushed to brink due to Argentina's drought. But, sadly--and
as is likely to be expected--the story most people are clicking on is
``Will climate change upend tequila production?'' This issue is no
laughing matter. According to the February 21, 2023 edition of
POLITICO's Weekly Agriculture (``Russia's war pushes food crisis to its
most dangerous stage''), this year, 2023 will be the biggest test.
Russia is continuing to weaponize food, holding back some of its
fertilizer exports while cutting off Ukraine, a major grain and food
exporter, from its normal global trading routes--most notably to Africa
and the Middle East.
We've also seen increased reports of world leaders sharing fears
that global price spikes in food, fuel and fertilizers will lead to
widespread famine, prompting global destabilization, starvation and
mass migration on an unprecedented scale. Sri Lankan President Gotabaya
Rajapaksa fled the country last summer, just days after thousands of
protesters stormed his residence over the nation's crippling economic
crisis. Sri Lanka for months had grappled with severe food and fuel
shortages and skyrocketing inflation. Domestic food production also
took a hit by the government's April 2021 decision to ban the
importation of fertilizers and agrichemicals, in an apparent shift to
organic agriculture. By the time the ban was partially reversed in
November, farmers reported a 40 to 50% loss in rice production.
3. War in Ukraine
When war first broke out in Ukraine in early 2022, world leaders
feared that sanctions and destroyed ports could take nearly 30% of the
world's grain supply out of production or off the market this year.
Ukraine is a breadbasket for Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Now,
global grain stocks are pushing toward a decadal low. Shipments out of
the Black Sea ports were too few, and harvests from other major crop
producers (U.S., France, and China) were smaller than initially
expected due to poor weather in key agricultural regions. These factors
are shrinking grain harvests and cutting inventories, heightening the
risk of famine in some of the world's poorest nations. The bleak global
economic outlook, coupled with higher fertilizer and other production
costs, ``pose serious strains for global food security,'' Maximo
Torero, the Chief Economist for the U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization said last August.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.N. News, August 5, 2022. ``Major fall in global food prices
for July, but future supply worries remain''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2022, the U.N. sought a record $51.5 billion for world
hunger aid needs, as more than 4% of the world's population needs
hunger assistance. The U.N. aid system is being ``tested to its
limits'', according to the U.N. aid chief. This represents a 25%
increase in aid over the previous year; over five times the amount
sought a decade ago.\11\ Hunger-stricken African countries are
struggling with reduced wheat imports due to Russia's war in Ukraine.
However, one country--Zimbabwe--is looking to build a small strategic
reserve for the first time in its history. Zimbabwean President
Emmerson Mnangagwa in April described Russia's war in Ukraine as a
``wake-up call'' for countries to grow their own food (Associated
Press).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Reuters, December 1, 2022. ``From Ukraine to Yemen, U.N. seeks
record $51.5 bln for `shockingly high' aid needs''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Vanishing American Farmland
Closer to home, the American Farmland Trust (AFT) reported in
``Farms Under Threat 2040: Choosing an Abundant Future'' earlier this
year that Americans are paving over agricultural land at a rapid pace.
From 2001-2016, our nation lost or compromised 2,000 acres of farmland
and ranchland every day. ``Farms Under Threat 2040'' shows we are on
track to convert over 18 million acres of farmland and ranchland from
2016-2040--an area the size of South Carolina. If recent trends
continue, 797,400 acres of California's farmland and ranchland in 2040
will be converted to uses that jeopardize agriculture. The latest study
from AFT shows that Arizona and California are paving over and
compromising productive farmland at the fastest rate in the U.S.
According to the AFT report, Maricopa County, Arizona is losing
farmland at a faster rate than any other county in the nation. Fresno
County in California's Central Valley, the nation's leading
agricultural county by gross value, is the 17th fastest in the nation
in terms of farmland lost to other uses.
According to recent and alarming USDA data, foreign ownership and
investment in U.S. agricultural land has nearly doubled over the past
decade, 2010 through 2020. As of December 31, 2020, this represents 2.9
percent of all privately held agricultural land in the United States is
held in foreign ownership. One of the largest groups of foreign
investors is renewable energy companies, causing some to raise concerns
that farmland will be further removed from production to meet renewable
energy goals.
5. The U.S. Agricultural Trade Deficit
The Western U.S. is a critical part of what has long been a proud
national agricultural powerhouse, where our country consistently has
run an agricultural trade surplus. But in 2019, for the first time in
more than 50 years, the U.S. agriculture system ran an agricultural
trade deficit, importing more than it exported. The USDA forecasts the
U.S. will again run a deficit in 2023 for the third time since 2019.
This growing deficit is driven primarily by our dependence on imported
Mexican fruits and vegetables (Politico Pro DataPoint). Increased
reliance on foreign food has never been, and should never be a policy
our Nation has intentionally embraced.
6. Farmland Fallowing Due to Drought
The U.S. last year faced yet another record-breaking drought year
in the West. Farmers and ranchers in some of these areas received
little to no water from federal water projects this past summer. Major
reservoirs in California and along the Colorado River and Rio Grande
reached or approached historic lows. As discussed earlier in this
testimony, the government has also regulatorily withheld water from
producers in places like the Central Valley of California, Central
Oregon and the Klamath Basin. Our farmers and ranchers that are largely
responsible for keeping the nation's grocery store aisles stocked were
forced to leave fields fallow or reduce livestock herds. Nationwide,
the U.S. red winter wheat crop was the worst since 1963. Ranchers
didn't have enough grass, hay and corn to feed cattle and other
livestock, and were forced to sell off herds early or purchase
extremely expensive feedstocks. Oregon and Texas herds were down 30-
50%, which will spike beef prices over the next 2-5 years.
Of course, California last year faced another year of punishing
drought. A research team from the University of California (U.C.)
Merced, studying the California drought, found that the 2022 water
shortage in the Central Valley was 2.6 million acre-feet, which
resulted in 695,000 idled acres of farmland, with additional acreage
impacted. The ravaging drought left hundreds of thousands of acres of
Sacramento Valley farmland unplanted this year, causing dramatic harm
to people, fish, waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wildlife. Researchers
at U.C. Davis published a report entitled ``Continued Drought in 2022
Ravages California's Sacramento Valley Economy'', which projected that
the 2022 drought impacts on farm production are likely to cause a loss
of about 14,300 jobs and about $1.315 billion in economic value lost in
the Sacramento Valley. California rice production was down 50% in 2022.
Most of the tomatoes consumed in the U.S., fresh, canned, and
otherwise, come from California. Factors like the ongoing drought and
rising fuel prices made the fruit harder and more expensive to grow,
which will materialize in terms of scarce availability and higher
prices on grocery shelves in the coming months. While critics of
California agriculture suggest that increasing agricultural production
in other states is a solution, the reality is that other states simply
cannot replace California's lost fruit and vegetable production.
Irrigated land in California is disappearing for a variety of other
reasons. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires
groundwater users to bring their basins into balance over the next two
decades. In the San Joaquin Valley, this will likely mean taking more
than 500,000 acres of agricultural land out of intensive irrigated
agricultural production.\12\ SB 100 (2018) requires 100 percent of the
electricity sold to California customers to be derived from renewable
or zero-carbon resources by 2044, which will put more pressure on
finding room for new solar farms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Public Policy Institute of California Report, September 2022.
``Solar Energy and Groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Arizona Project (CAP) irrigators--due to operating
guidelines on the Colorado River--expect about 100,000 acres of
farmland will be fallowed in 2023. Most of these lands (approximately
40,000 acres) currently produce cotton, but roughly 20,000 acre--
according to CAP producers--will be alfalfa fields.
Undoubtedly, the Western drought has reduced the amount of water
for many users, including irrigated agriculture. However, in places
like California and Oregon, much of the water that once flowed to farms
and ranches is currently being redirected by the federal government for
environmental purposes. In other words, federal water policy is
shutting down water availability for hundreds of thousands of acres of
productive farmland. At a time when the future of Ukraine and other
countries' ability to help feed the outside world is at risk, our
ability to increase productivity is being further curtailed--due in
part, to our own government.
HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN HELP
Americans are facing rising food costs and the potential for global
famine looms on the horizon. The recent national infant formula
shortage has further underscored the importance of a strong national
domestic food supply system. Meanwhile, our own government has
regulatorily withheld water from producers in places like the Central
Valley of California, Central Oregon and the Klamath Basin. Many
producers in the Southwestern U.S. are bracing for yet another year of
severe drought and unprecedented water shortages.
There are things that the federal government can do to alleviate
this disaster and better prepare and manage for future droughts.
Federal investments in improving and building new water supply
infrastructure--partnering with the Western states and non-federal
water users--can help prevent or reduce the impacts of future droughts.
Moving away from flow-based single species management to collaborative
watershed-based approaches that respect and protect all uses will help
prepare Western water stakeholders for a more predictable and secure
future. We need to act, and act now, to accomplish these tasks.
Western irrigated agriculture has been dealing with changes in
climate and hydrology for over a century. But the prognosis for water
supplies in the future is not positive and will continue to negatively
impact this important source of our Nation's food supply, the economic
engine for most of our rural Western communities. Coupled with the
growing demand for existing water supplies from burgeoning cities and
the environment, irrigated agriculture is fast becoming a target for
one thing--water. We must look to several solutions in order to
maintain food security for the nation and economic wellbeing of the
Western landscape.
1. Improve Regulatory Processes at the Federal Level
The economic, environmental, and national security implications of
Western irrigated agriculture must be assessed and incorporated into
federal water management decisions. These critically important issues
must be treated with the same priority that federal agencies currently
place on climate change and environmental values. For example, food
security impacts must be properly assessed. Policy makers need to
understand the direct and indirect linkages to the economy derived from
a low-cost food supply, making available large blocks of disposable
income to the consumer spending economy, as well as the availability of
high-quality food sources provided by Western irrigated agriculture.
Federal decision making must consider more than single species
management of water resources, which has shown it can destroy anything
and everything else in its path with little to no benefit to a listed
species nor accountability by federal agency officials making those
choices.
In January, I spent four days in Reno, Nevada at the 55th Annual
Mid-Pacific Water Users Conference. This event is organized through a
unique partnership between the Bureau of Reclamation and its water user
customers in California, Western Nevada, and the Klamath Basin. Much of
the discussion at the conference dealt with the juxtaposition of the
recent multi-year drought with the series of ``atmospheric rivers''
that swamped much of California in late December and early January. The
conference attendees also had plenty of stories to tell about the
recent drought, which showed that water management in the West is
becoming too inflexible. Even during times of flooding, state and
federal regulations can prevent that water from being held over time to
support human uses.
In Reno, I moderated a panel of five CVP water authority and
district managers who all emphatically stated that we need a new way of
looking at how we manage environmental demands for our limited water
resources. One of those speakers, Jason Phillips, the CEO for Friant
Water Authority, explained that, even in times when water is plentiful,
California's magnificent dams and canals still cannot meet the state's
water needs. As discussed earlier in this testimony, starting in the
early 1990s, as a result of state and federal laws, regulations,
lawsuits, and decisions, (both by elected and unelected officials),
reservoirs are not allowed to convey the water stored for the intended
purposes, and instead a large percentage of water must now be sent to
the ocean.
``This is because decades after they were built, the government
will no longer allow our water infrastructure to operate the way it was
intended,'' Phillips said. ``Each year this problem is getting worse,
and unelected government officials are allowed to divert more water
away from homes, communities, and farms.''
We need a broader view of how water is used to meet environmental
needs, one that considers state water laws, science, population growth,
food production and habitat needs.
For those of who live in rural communities that have been impacted
by these government decisions, it's almost unfathomable to understand.
Many of the farmers and ranchers I work with feel like our government
is about to throw away the best food production system in the world, as
a time when our country and the world will need them more than ever . .
. for what? So agency fishery biologists can sleep better at night?
My friend Ben DuVal, a Klamath Project farmer, shared his
frustration last year, after NMFS told Reclamation to release over
400,000 acre-feet of water down the Klamath River, 190,000 acre-feet
more than the projected inflow into the storage system.
``If we farmers failed as badly as the federal agency biologists
who are controlling water policy, our bankers would have foreclosed on
us 20 years ago,'' he said. ``NMFS's regulatory demands are neither
fair nor effective.''
The ``zero'' allocation announced in May 2021 for the Klamath
Project was unprecedented. The reason for the absolute curtailment of
irrigation water was to provide increased water for competing
threatened and endangered fish species in Upper Klamath Lake and the
Klamath River and a species of whale that eats salmon in the Pacific
Ocean, hundreds of miles away. But there is no evidence that any
species benefited from this management. Not in 2021. Not in other
recent years where irrigation has been shorted in the name of the ESA.
``It's the world's worst-kept secret that NMFS is using Klamath
Project water to try to mitigate problems not caused by the Klamath
Project,'' added Paul Simmons, executive director of the Klamath Water
Users Association. ``And when that doesn't work, they just do it again,
and then again.''
Lots of pain. No gain.
Adding insult to injury, the Klamath Project was targeted and
attacked in traditional and social media. Legions of reporters,
documentarians, and bloggers chose and perpetuated narratives that
demonize farmers and ranchers who make a living in irrigated
agriculture growing food for the Nation.
Our farmers and ranchers need protection, and the government needs
to be held accountable. Biological opinions are being written by
unelected agency staff that have grave implications for farmers and
ranchers living hundreds of miles away. We don't even know who is
authoring these recipes for disaster. There is no accountability or
transparency, and it sometimes seems as if they are crafting a grand
experiment--consequences, reality and costs be damned. Just last week,
the FWS announced the availability of the draft recovery plan for the
Oregon spotted frog and the opening of a 60-day public comment period.
The estimated cost for recovery of the OSF (on page 12 of the draft
plan) is $2.78 BILLION over 40 years.
We need to manage our Western fisheries in a more coordinated
manner. The Alliance since 2017 has supported various versions of H.R.
3916, the ``Federally Integrated Species Health (FISH) Act.'' This
legislation would amend the ESA to vest in the Secretary of the
Interior functions under that Act with respect to species of fish that
spawn in fresh or estuarine waters and migrate to ocean waters
(anadromous fish), and species of fish that spawn in ocean waters and
migrate to fresh waters (catadromous fish). We believe that by
combining the ESA implementation responsibilities of both NMFS and FWS
under one federal Department, we would promote more efficient,
effective, and coordinated management of all ESA responsibilities for
anadromous and freshwater fish in Western watersheds, from the highest
reaches of our headwaters to the Pacific Ocean. Merging the NMFS ESA
duties with those of FWS and tapping into the ``constructive center''
will lead to practical solutions that fit for ranchers, farmers, and
other landowners, as well as fish and wildlife and tribal and local
communities.
Finally, given the $12 billion+ that the Bureau of Reclamation will
be spending over the next four to five years on Western water
infrastructure (see below), we need to expedite permitting and get
these new water projects to construction within a reasonable period of
time at a reasonable cost, as well as create collaborative partnerships
between federal, state, tribal, and local entities interested in
finding solutions to our water-climate problems through adaptive
strategies that can work on the ground.
2. Actively Manage and Restore our Federal Forests
Drought brings less snowfall in many areas. The snow that falls in
some upland areas melts off up to 45 days earlier and runs off
downstream on frozen ground. The snowpack no longer functions as a
reservoir delaying the release of water in a timely manner. However,
the forest floor can be restored through thoughtful management. A
responsible level of continuous fuels reduction includes a combination
of robust mechanical thinning and prescribed fire. This can be employed
to significantly reduce evapotranspiration, tree stress, disease, and
pest infestation, preserve healthy forest conditions, and protect
species and habitats.
This is not only good stewardship--it is good economics. Failure to
employ this approach will continue the downward, accelerating spiral of
fuel accumulation, drought, disease, and invasive insects. This will
lead, inevitably, to additional high-intensity and costly fire events
in the future.
We believe active forest management can increase water yield,
improve water quality, provide for jobs, and reduce the cost of
firefighting, while increasing forest resiliency. This can be done, in
part, by increasing the productivity of national forests and
grasslands; employing grazing as an effective, affordable forest and
grassland management tool; increasing access to national forest system
lands; expediting environmental reviews to support active management;
and designing West-wide studies to quantify water yield.
3. Invest in Technology
We must manage our water supplies better through more efficient and
effective use of technology to improve the modeling and predicting of
weather patterns, snowpack, and runoff forecasting, as well as using
technology to manage our water storage and distribution to improve
efficiencies in utilizing our precious water resources.
4. Invest in Western Water Infrastructure
Planning for water shortage in the West must look to the long-term
in meeting the needs of agriculture, energy, cities and the
environment. The federal government should partner with Western water
users in promoting collaborative solutions, more flexibly implement
environmental laws to meet multiple uses and species and use existing
funds to efficiently and effectively invest and partner in Western
water infrastructure. This will give farmers the tools necessary to
deal with these complex challenges and still grow food for a hungry
nation. We must be thinking in terms of ``Re-Reclaiming the West'',
with a focus on adapting our existing infrastructure to meet new
hydrologic challenges, now that we know our water comes into our
systems in different ways than it did historically. Creativity,
thinking outside the box, and the federal government's recognition of
the national interests at stake must all converge to create a new path
forward for western irrigators who feed our Nation.
New infrastructure and technologies can help stretch water for all
uses and boost the economies of Western rural communities. We urge
Congress to maintain priority funding and in the new Farm Bill allow
more flexible utilization of the Watershed and Flood Prevention
Operations Program (WFPO)--administered by the USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and also known as P.L. 566--for watershed
enhancements. This funding could be used for a variety of critical
drought response and resilience projects including irrigation
modernization, development of rural water supply sources, erosion and
sediment control, and fish and wildlife habitat enhancement. It is also
critical for supporting the modernization of irrigation water delivery
infrastructure at scale. This is a program that Alliance members have
put to use to replace leaking, open canals with pressurized pipes, and
overall improving agricultural water security. The program's funding is
becoming increasingly competitive because of the scale of need in
modernizing agricultural infrastructure.
The NRCS awarded all $500 million that the IIJA allocated to WFPO
in two rounds of announcements in 2022. The NRCS' announcement
recognized that ``[t]he amount provided to protect our watersheds is
historic and highlights the priorities set by Secretary Vilsack to
address the effects of climate change, ensure equity, and create a path
toward climate resiliency.'' Unfortunately, the ``path toward climate
resiliency'' created by the funding awards is overwhelmingly dedicated
to feasibility studies (94% of awards) for small dam construction (59%
of feasibility studies) to address flooding concerns in the eastern
U.S. This decision raised two concerns with our membership: 1) Several
Western irrigation modernization projects which have already developed
watershed plans and are in the cue, moving toward implementation, were
not funded; 2) It is uncertain how many of the feasibility studies for
the new projects will ultimately be implemented. If those feasibility
studies ultimately support implementation of small new dam projects,
the available funding for a program that is already oversubscribed and
underfunded will become even more strained.
5. The Western Drought's Silver Lining
Perhaps the only silver lining is that this unprecedented drought
crisis is that it drew public and political attention to Western
agriculture's critical role in providing a safe and reliable food
supply, boosting the national economy, and continuing the country's
stature as the world's premier food basket. Certainly, the drought
helped drive Congressional action in the past year, where the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act signed into law in November 2021
by President Biden included $8.3 billion for Western water
infrastructure. The Inflation Reduction Act signed into law last year
included another $4 billion to address the Western drought, with
priority placed on Colorado River challenges. We can only hope that
further political attention leads to necessary, reasonable policies
that support farmers and investment in rural communities, including
water infrastructure and increased water-storage capacity. The Family
Farm Alliance and other Western agriculture and water organizations
believe the drought--followed by the recent series of ``atmospheric
rivers'' that have largely restored California's mountain snowpack--
underscores the urgent need to take immediate action to help better
manage impacts to water resources from drought in the West.
CONCLUSION
In order for irrigated agriculture to exist into the future, we
need to look to enhance management of water supplies and delivery and
we must maximize the benefits from the water we have available to meet
multiple needs. Growers across the West are stepping up, at their own
expense and in partnership with federal funding programs, to provide
solutions for the viability of their basins and the communities those
basins serve. In many cases, that means senior water rights holders are
voluntarily making water supplies available to junior water users,
preventing cuts otherwise required. There are other collaborative
efforts underway to fund on-farm conservation projects that are helping
reduce demand. Urban, agricultural, and environmental water users would
all benefit from such efforts in the short and long term.
What does not help is the relentless finger-pointing by non-
agricultural water agencies and critics of agriculture, saying that
farmers aren't doing enough and what they are doing is killing fish.
Critics of irrigated agriculture continue to shame farmers for growing
crops, such as alfalfa, saying they should fallow their fields or
switch to crops that use less water, which fixes nothing. The Western
agricultural system was built on local supply of feed and food.
Shifting production to other states adds additional food delivery
miles, greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, and ultimately
higher costs and/or emptier shelves at the grocery store. Locally grown
food for humans, dairy and animal proteins results in lower costs to
producers and consumers.
Many agricultural regions of the West do not have an economic base
that can absorb additional unemployment, business closures, and the
loss of tax revenue that come with fallowing. Agricultural regions,
such as the central valleys of California and Arizona, are facing a
future of dwindling and unsustainable groundwater supplies as they look
to replace potential shortages from traditional sources like the Bay-
Delta and the Colorado River. Entire communities are at risk of
closing, bankrupting their populations.
Are we going to wake up and realize the world has drifted far from
the stability we have known for our lifetimes and make required course
corrections? Or do we remain committed to our own demise and continue
on a crash course with what may likely be the greatest food shortage in
global history? We have some decisions to make. Fallowing Western
farmland means increased reliance on food production in other countries
with lower or non-existent production standards. Fallowing any land
during a time of crisis should be temporary, or we risk losing control
of our ability to provide a reliable and safe U.S.-grown food supply.
Agricultural production in the West is an irreplaceable, strategic
national resource that is vital to U.S. food security, the ecosystem,
and overall drought resilience. The role of the federal government in
the 21st century should be to protect and enhance that resource by
doing whatever it can to ensure that water remains on farms. At a time
of unprecedented change, one certainty holds firm and true--our
nation's most valuable natural resource must be preserved. The Alliance
looks forward to working with you to address the issues we have
identified in this testimony and those we have not.
Thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony today. I
stand ready to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Guyas for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARTHA GUYAS, SOUTHEAST FISHERIES POLICY DIRECTOR,
AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
Ms. Guyas. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and
members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the American
Sportfishing Association, I am honored to testify regarding the
importance of sound Federal policies to support the economic,
social, and conservation benefits recreational fishing provides
the nation.
In 2021, 52.4 million people went fishing in the United
States, supporting 826,000 jobs and contributing $129 billion
to the economy. In addition to its economic benefits, fishing
connects people to the outdoors and provides substantial
funding for conservation. Fishing participation is dependent on
access and healthy fisheries.
My testimony today will focus on important issues impacting
saltwater recreational fishing access and conservation in my
region of the southeastern United States.
The first issue I would like to talk about is Gulf red
snapper. The Great Red Snapper Count, which was funded by
Congress, indicates that there are three times as many red
snapper in the Gulf of Mexico as previously estimated.
Unfortunately, the path to integrating this groundbreaking
science into management and assessment has not been
straightforward. As the stock assessment for Gulf red snapper
proceeds, we ask for your oversight to make sure that the Great
Red Snapper Count results are meaningfully incorporated to
better inform future management of this fishery.
Our recent success with Gulf red snapper is state
management, which provides reasonable angler access while
improving recreational catch monitoring. Unfortunately, NOAA's
insistence on calibrating state data collection programs to
MRIP has created unnecessary strain on Gulf red snapper state
management.
The calibrations fail to account for the data collection
improvements made through the state programs, documented issues
with using MRIP for harvest monitoring, and drivers of
differences between the state programs and MRIP. Mississippi
and Alabama will experience severe and unnecessary cuts in
catch limits starting this year due to calibration.
Quickly resolving the differences in state programs and
MRIP should be a priority, so that more appropriate calibration
methods can be developed. ASA asks Congress to continue to stay
engaged on this issue.
South Atlantic red snapper has rebounded so much that the
stock is at record abundance and biomass. However, rebuilding
success has not translated into successful management that
provides reasonable harvest access, and serious questions have
been raised about the latest stock assessment, which indicates
that the stock is overfished and undergoing overfishing.
NOAA has advocated for bottom fishing closures for all 55
species of snapper grouper to address overfishing of red
snapper. Meanwhile, anglers struggle to avoid catching red
snapper because the stock is so abundant. The frustrating
disconnect between Federal management and reality is posing
dire economic and social implications for fishermen, the
recreational industry, and our coastal communities.
Thankfully, the South Atlantic Red Snapper Count funded by
Congress will provide much needed independent data on this
fishery. ASA supports taking a science informed approach and
holding off considering drastic bottom fishing closures until
this new science is incorporated into the next assessment.
Another major access challenge is the proposed rule to
broaden the current 10 knots speed restriction intended to
protect North Atlantic right whales from vessel strikes, to
include vessels 35 feet and larger, and expanded speed zones
that essentially include the whole Atlantic coast out as far as
90 miles, with these restrictions lasting up to 7 months a
year.
Regrettably, NOAA did not engage with stakeholders during
development of this proposed rule, which has significant flaws
that overestimate risk to whales from small vessels,
underestimate the number of recreational vessels that would be
affected, underestimate the negative economic impacts of this
rule, and fail to consider how the rule would reduce human
safety.
While we strongly dispute that the proposed rule is a
commensurate response to the level of risk posed by 35- to 65-
foot vessels, we recognize that the recreational fishing
community has a responsibility to help protect right whales.
Right whales deserve better protection, but vast blanket speed
restrictions that are not based on the best available science
are not the solution.
Our industry is eager to work with NOAA and offers whatever
expertise and assistance we can provide to ensure the success
of the near real-time monitoring and mitigation pilot program
for North Atlantic right whales that Congress included in the
recent National Defense Authorization Act. We urge Congress to
fully fund this program and believe this approach offers our
best hope of saving right whales from extinction.
The last issue I would like to bring to your attention is
shark depredation, which is when a shark consumed a hooked fish
before it is landed. Because human conflicts with sharks are
expected to further increase as shark populations continue to
improve, fishery managers and scientists should collaborate
with the recreational fishing community on solutions to
depredation focused on management, policy, education, and
research.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide the
sportfishing industry's perspective on challenges impacting
fisheries in the Southeast. We look forward to working with you
on legislation that impacts the recreational fishing industry.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Guyas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Martha Guyas, Southeast Fisheries Policy
Director, American Sportfishing Association
On behalf of the American Sportfishing Association, I am honored to
have been asked to testify before the House Committee on Natural
Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries regarding the
importance of sound federal policies to support the economic, social
and conservation benefits recreational fishing provides to the nation.
The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) is the sportfishing
industry's trade association committed to representing the interests of
the sportfishing industry as well as the entire sportfishing community.
We give the industry and anglers a unified voice when emerging laws and
policies could significantly affect sportfishing business or
sportfishing itself. ASA invests in long-term ventures to ensure the
industry will remain strong and prosperous, as well as safeguard and
promote the enduring economic, conservation and social values of
sportfishing in America. Recreational fishing is truly an all-American
activity. Our fisheries resources, which are held in the public trust
and conserved through sound laws and policies, are envied the world
over. In 2021, 52.4 million people went fishing in the U.S., supporting
826,000 jobs and contributing $129 billion to the economy. Fishing is
the third most popular outdoor recreation activity, behind only running
and hiking.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Outdoor Foundation. 2021 Participation Trends Report. Available
online at: https://outdoorindustry.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2021-
Outdoor-Participation-Trends-Report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of this fishing activity supports the economy, connects people
to the outdoors and provides substantial funding for conservation.
Through fishing license purchases, excise taxes and direct donations,
the recreational fishing community contributes approximately $1.7
billion toward aquatic resource conservation each year. I am confident
in saying that no other user group contributes nearly as much toward
ensuring our nation's waterways and fisheries are healthy and
accessible to the public.
Our community is also working hard to ensure that the sport
continues for generations to come. After about a decade of steady
growth in participation, the number of recreational fishermen in the
U.S. surged dramatically in 2020, increasing from 50.1 million
Americans in 2019 to 54.8 million Americans in 2020.\2\ As the COVID-19
pandemic disrupted work schedules, travel plans and many in-person
activities, Americans turned to the outdoors in record numbers for
their physical and mental health, and to pass time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation and The Outdoor
Foundation. 2022 Special Report on Fishing. Available online at:
https://www.takemefishing.org/getmedia/155fcbd1-716a-41e5-ad5b-
1450b76b9162/2022-Special-Report-on-Fishing.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With COVID-19 vaccines available and life returning closer to
normal, fishing participation declined by 4 percent in 2021 to 52.4
million anglers, a number still greater than pre-pandemic. With the
return of other activities, we now have more competition for peoples'
time, so must work to remind and educate people of why they took up--
and hopefully enjoyed--fishing to begin with.
Some of the largest increases in participation have come from
Hispanics (increasing by 7 percent from 2019 to 4.7 million in 2021)
and females (increasing by 8 percent since 2010 to 19.4 million in
2021). In addition, participation among youth ages 6-17 increased by 14
percent from 2019 to 12.9 million in 2021, providing hope that fishing
will continue for generations to come.
Fishing participation is dependent on two primary factors--access
and healthy fisheries. Access can take several forms, including
physical access to water (e.g., boat ramps, piers, public shorelines)
and regulatory access (e.g., seasons, bag limits, size limits,
closures). While simply being outdoors and wetting a line is a large
part of the enjoyment of fishing, at some level, most people want to
actually catch fish too. There are many more effective ways of catching
fish than a rod, reel and hook, so for recreational fishermen to have a
decent probability of encountering a fish, there have to be a lot of
fish in the water.
Decisions that affect fishing access and fisheries conservation are
made at every level of government all across the country. While fishing
itself can be relaxing and carefree, fisheries policy is generally the
opposite. Fisheries management is carried out in a wide range of
regulatory and legislative arenas, following complicated processes that
often arrive at contentious outcomes.
In the southeastern U.S., where I work, the issues also get more
complicated and contentious the further offshore you go. The federal
government, via NOAA, manages fisheries in the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ), which for the purpose of fisheries management is 3-200 miles off
the South Atlantic coast and from 3 or 9 miles out to 200 miles in the
Gulf of Mexico.
While there are many important issues affecting marine fishery
access and conservation, my testimony today will focus on what I
believe are the top four issues currently impacting the recreational
fishing community in the southeastern U.S.
Gulf Red Snapper
Red snapper is arguably one of the most valued recreational
fisheries in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and certainly the
most contentious. The fishery is not considered overfished or
undergoing overfishing but is in a rebuilding plan.\3\ Thanks to state
management, Gulf red snapper recreational harvest opportunities have
improved in recent years, but challenges remain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NOAA Fisheries. Status of Stocks 2021: Annual Report to
Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries. Available online at: https://
media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-05/2021%20Status%20of%20
Stocks%20RtC_051022_FINAL.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Red Snapper Count
Results of the Great Red Snapper Count (GRSC), which was funded
with a $10 million appropriation from Congress to provide an
independent estimate of abundance of Gulf red snapper, indicate that
there are more than 118 million red snapper in the Gulf as of 2019.
Abundance was previously estimated to be about 36 million fish. The
wide disparity in estimates is explained by the GRSC finding a
surprisingly large biomass of red snapper over uncharacterized bottom
that was not considered in previous stock assessments. Although the
GRSC improves our knowledge of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, the
path to integrating this groundbreaking science into red snapper
management and assessment has not been straightforward.
Effective January 1, 2023, NOAA implemented regulations that use a
percentage of the baseline GRSC estimate of abundance to increase the
overfishing limit (OFL) for Gulf red snapper from 15.5 to 25.6 million
pounds (mp). This increase accounts for the abundance of all red
snapper over structure and 13% of the abundance from the
uncharacterized bottom since most red snapper fishing occurs on
artificial reefs, natural reefs, and other structures. The same
rulemaking increased the allowable biological catch (ABC), which is
equal to the overall annual catch limit (ACL) for red snapper, by
300,000 pounds using the National Marine Fisheries Service bottom
longline (NMFS BLL) survey rather than the GRSC. This results in the
ABC being an unprecedented 60.1% below the OFL, whereas the previous
ABC was 2.6% below the OFL. I'm not aware of any other fishery, at
least in the southeast, with such a massive difference between the ABC
and OFL. In frequently asked questions issued regarding the final rule,
NOAA cites a declining trend in the NMFS BLL survey and uncertainty in
the Great Red Snapper Count estimates as reasons for the large
difference between the OFL and ABC. Increasing the OFL by a significant
margin based on the GRSC, yet only providing a modest increase to the
ABC and ACLs for red snapper is confusing to most fishermen,
considering the GRSC increased the estimate of red snapper in the Gulf
of Mexico by threefold.
After recommending NOAA implement these new limits, the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) requested catch advice for
red snapper be reconsidered using new studies and revised estimates
from the GRSC. The GRSC results, revisions to the GRSC estimate for
Florida based on a post-stratification analysis, and incorporation of a
separate study that estimated red snapper abundance off Louisiana, were
then used by NOAA to arrive at a Gulf wide red snapper abundance
estimate of 85.6 million fish. This estimate was then used to generate
catch advice scenarios for consideration by the GMFMC's Scientific and
Statistical Committee (SSC). Ultimately, the SSC and GMFMC recommended
an OFL of 18.9 mp and ABC (and overall ACL) of 16.31 mp. This latest
round of catch advice sets a much lower OFL than that implemented by
NOAA, seemingly discounting the findings of the peer reviewed GRSC, but
increases the ABC based on the same information, thus making more fish
available for harvest. This change in catch limits is currently under
review and pending implementation by NOAA. Although the GRSC results
indicate there are roughly three times as many red snapper in the Gulf
than previously estimated, if this proposed rule is implemented, the
overall Gulf ACL will increase by a modest 8% compared to the ACL in
place before the GRSC was complete. This situation is difficult for
experts, let alone the angling public, to understand and explain.
A new research track stock assessment for Gulf red snapper is
underway and will be followed with an operational assessment that will
provide information about stock status and be used to generate catch
advice. On a recent stock assessment webinar, NOAA staff tentatively
proposed using 2018 GRSC data as regional indices of abundance in the
assessment. We are hopeful that GRSC results can be meaningfully
incorporated into the stock assessment to better inform red snapper
management moving forward.
State Recreational Data Calibrations
After two years of testing the concept of state management under
exempted fishing permits, in 2020, NOAA delegated each of the Gulf
states the ability to set red snapper seasons, bag limits, and size
limits for their anglers in adjacent federal waters. State management
has been a game changer by providing reasonable private angler access
to red snapper harvest that is tailored to local needs while improving
recreational catch monitoring compared to the federal Marine
Recreational Information Program (MRIP), which provides general trends
in recreational catch and effort but was not designed for tracking
harvest relative to ACLs. Prior to state management, the federal Gulf
red snapper season got shorter every year and was down to just a
handful of days. Last year, private recreational angler red snapper
seasons set by the states ranged from 57 to 128 days.
Under state management, each state must monitor and constrain
harvest relative to their allocated portion of the private angler
component of the recreational ACL. To do this, each state uses their
own data collection program that is designed to meet the needs of their
state and its anglers. For example, Louisiana's program, called LA
Creel, replaced MRIP in 2014 to provide more precise, localized, and
near real time data on all saltwater recreational fisheries, including
red snapper. Alabama and Mississippi designed programs that also
provide red snapper harvest estimates independent of MRIP. Florida's
program, called the State Reef Fish Survey, was designed to provide
more precise and more timely catch and effort data on 13 species,
including red snapper, by supplementing MRIP. The surveys from Florida,
Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana are ``MRIP certified'' by NOAA,
which means they have been peer-reviewed and determined to be
statistically valid for monitoring recreational catches.
In the final rule to implement state management, NOAA noted that
calibrations that adjust for differences in the state data collection
programs and MRIP would be necessary so that 1) landings from each of
the different programs can be directly compared and 2) each state's
ACLs could be adjusted such that each state's landings and ACL are in
the same ``currency.'' NOAA implemented these calibrations effective
January 1, 2023. Unfortunately, calibration has created unnecessary
strain on Gulf red snapper state management, which has successfully
resulted in improved data collection, sustainable access, and until
now, minimized the friction between the angling community and fishery
managers.
ASA believes the simple calibration ratios that were finalized in
this rulemaking calibrate the states' recreational red snapper data to
MRIP using methods and data that are not the best available science.
Indeed, at their February 2022 meeting, the Gulf of Mexico sub-group of
the MRIP Transition Team acknowledged the limitations of the simple
calibration ratio approach and recommended that alternative approaches
be explored and used in the long term. While the proposed simple ratio
calibrations achieve NOAA's goal of converting state data from four of
the Gulf states into MRIP ``currency'' for easy comparison (Texas has
never participated in MRIP, therefore did not require calibration),
they fail to account for the data collection improvements made through
the various state programs, the documented issues with using MRIP for
ACL monitoring of Gulf red snapper, and drivers of the differences
between the state programs and MRIP. In essence, although state
programs like Alabama Snapper Check and Mississippi's Scales and Tails
were designed to improve upon and replace the use of MRIP for red
snapper monitoring, the ACLs for these states are still derived using
problematic MRIP data. The calibration ratios will result in
Mississippi and Alabama experiencing severe 50-60% ACL cuts starting
this year, which will result in fewer harvest opportunities for
anglers, and in turn, have negative economic impacts on the
recreational fishing industry and disenfranchise the angling community
that has supported and benefited from the data collection and
management improvements realized under state management. Given that the
GRSC shows a more robust population than previously believed, these
cuts will be especially difficult for anglers to swallow.
When the GMFMC approved these red snapper recreational data
calibrations, they recommended postponing implementation of calibration
to allow the Gulf states and the NOAA Office of Science and Technology
time to resolve the differences in the state data collection programs
and MRIP, as recommended by both the Council's SSC and a 2021 National
Academy of Sciences report to Congress. Unfortunately, these
differences have not yet been resolved, even with encouragement and
appropriations from Congress. Although a multi-year plan has been
developed, the slow progress in resolving this critical need is
perpetuating a climate of mistrust and a lack of confidence, and
results in anglers being unfairly penalized.
Just two months after NOAA implemented these calibrations, the
GMFMC initiated a new action that would update the calibration ratios
for Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi based on recommendations from its
SSC and concerns that adjustments to the calibration ratios may be
warranted. These updates would change the years and/or MRIP waves used
in the calibrations implemented by NOAA, but do not address the need
for an alternative long-term approach. Quickly resolving the
differences in the state data programs and MRIP should be a priority of
NOAA and the Gulf of Mexico sub-group of the MRIP Transition Team so
that more appropriate calibration methods can be developed as needed.
We encourage NOAA to work collaboratively with the states on this so
that both anglers and states trust the calibration process and
outcomes.
South Atlantic Red Snapper
In terms of rebuilding, Atlantic red snapper is a success story.
The fishery has responded to strong regulatory measures taken by the
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) to rebuild the stock.
Since 2010, South Atlantic red snapper have rebounded so much that
scientists and fishermen both agree the stock is at record abundance
and biomass, such that there are now more red snapper in the South
Atlantic today than any living person has ever seen. Recruitment of
young fish into the population has also been consistently high for
nearly a decade. However, success in rebuilding has not translated into
successful management that provides reasonable harvest opportunities.
The recreational fishery has largely been closed for the past 13 years
except for a few weekend openings. Last year's season was two days.
Successful rebuilding also has not affected the status of the
Atlantic red snapper stock; the latest stock assessment indicates the
fishery is undergoing overfishing and is overfished. Although red
snapper are abundant, the fishery is considered overfished because most
of the fish in the stock are young, and it is believed that older fish
are the key to a healthy population. The stock assessment points to
discards from the recreational fishery as the cause of overfishing. As
red snapper have become more abundant, fishermen are catching more and
are forced to release them when they are fishing for other species
outside the red snapper closed season.
Questions have been raised by the SAFMC, scientists, and the public
about whether the data and assumed reference points in the stock
assessment are leading us to the wrong conclusion about this fishery
being overfished and undergoing overfishing. The overfishing
designation hinges on discard estimates that are unvalidated, very
uncertain, and generally considered unreliable and unsuitable for
fisheries monitoring. In addition, much of the fishery independent data
used the assessment are from relatively recent studies that do not
provide us with a good historical perspective of the fishery, which is
problematic for understanding the population dynamics of a fish that
can live to be nearly 50 years old. How can red snapper be considered
chronically undergoing overfishing when so much progress in rebuilding
has occurred that the stock is at record abundance and biomass? Is this
record biomass fueling the trend of continuously high recruitment of
young fish? What about recruits coming over from the Gulf stock? Are
more old fish truly necessary to sustain a healthy fishery, or is it
possible that a stock with a lot of young fish can be just as
productive as one with a broader range of ages? Better data and a fresh
look at the measures of success that are used to assess and manage this
stock are needed. Luckily, thanks to $5.1 million in appropriations
from Congress, the Atlantic Red Snapper Count will provide independent
data on Atlantic red snapper to inform the next stock assessment.
Despite the serious questions about the reliability of the data and
stock assessment, NOAA has informed the SAFMC that they are required to
act to end overfishing immediately. At the June 2022 SAFMC meeting, the
NOAA Southeast Regional Administrator noted that discard mortality
needed to be reduced by 65% to end overfishing and advocated for the
SAFMC to consider seasonal and/or area-based bottom fishing closures
for all 55 species of snapper grouper as a way ``to keep people off the
fish.''
Thankfully, the SAFMC has thus far rejected this approach. Large
area and/or seasonal closures to all bottom fishing would be
devastating to the recreational fishing industry and South Atlantic
offshore anglers and would sacrifice the ability to achieve optimum
yield for the other 54 species in the snapper grouper complex. The
remarkable rebuilding progress Atlantic red snapper has made in recent
years raises serious questions about the need for extreme and draconian
measures to end overfishing of red snapper, especially given the dire
economic and social implications for fishermen, the recreational
industry, and our coastal communities. ASA supports taking a science-
informed approach to red snapper and holding off considering seasonal
and/or area-based bottom fishing closures and other significant
measures until the South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count and other
data that will improve our understanding of the stock are incorporated
into the next assessment, which is slated to begin in 2024. ASA also
supports taking a fresh look at the red snapper stock assessment
assumptions and reference points before considering significant
restrictions so that NOAA, SAFMC, and the public can be confident that
they are making the right choice about the future direction of red
snapper and the snapper grouper fishery as a whole.
ASA supports reducing dead discards of red snapper, but snapper
grouper bottom fishing closures are not the way to get there with a
stock that by all measures is historically abundant and has rebounded
at an astonishing pace. Soon, the SAFMC is expected to take a final
vote to recommend that NOAA reduce the ACL for red snapper and prohibit
use of more than one hook per line in the recreational snapper fishery
as steps toward ending overfishing of red snapper. ASA supports these
measures and the SAFMC's efforts to educate fishermen on use of
descending devices and best fishing practices that help released fish
survive. Moving forward, we are hopeful that states will obtain
exempted fishing permits to test other ways to manage this fishery,
improve data collection, and provide harvest opportunities that reflect
rebuilding success.
North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Speed Restrictions
On August 1, 2022, NOAA announced a proposed rule to broaden the
current 10-knot (11.5 mph) speed restriction intended to protect North
Atlantic right whales from vessel strikes to include vessels 35 feet
and larger (down from 65 feet) and expand the speed zones from discrete
calving areas to essentially the whole Atlantic Coast out as far as 90
miles, with these restrictions lasting as long as seven months a year.
These speed restrictions will severely impact offshore recreational
fishing in the Atlantic, making fishing grounds that previously took at
most a few hours to reach now impossible to get to and from in a single
day. Rather than traveling slower, many offshore fishermen will forgo
trips entirely, resulting in fewer expenditures and economic activity
in coastal communities. Inevitably, many boat owners will question why
they own, or would want to purchase, a boat that can't effectively be
used for half the year.
To be clear, ASA recognizes that the recreational fishing community
has a responsibly to help protect North Atlantic right whales. As
America's original conservationists, recreational anglers and boaters
proactively support science-based efforts to conserve our marine
ecosystems. In many cases, our industry has offered constructive input
that was ultimately used to develop management solutions, including
sacrificing recreational access for long-term benefits, that meet
conservation goals and allow for the continued contributions our sector
provides to the nation.
While this proposed rule had been in development for more than a
year, NOAA's Office of Protected Resources did not conduct any formal
engagement with stakeholders. This lack of engagement helps partially
explain, though does not justify, the significant flaws within the
rule, including:
An analysis of NMFS data found approximately 5.1 million
recreational fishing trips were taken in this region by
vessels 35-65 feet in length since 2008. Assuming all five
right whale strikes during that time were from recreational
vessels, and that all these vessels were on fishing trips,
the chance of a 35-65 foot recreational vessel striking a
right whale during an offshore fishing trip is at most
0.000098%, or less than one-in-a-million. Attempting to
predict risk on a one-in-a-million chance of a vessel
strike is simply not an effective management strategy and
highlights the futility of expanding the Seasonal Speed
Zones (SSZs) to address such a small possibility of vessel
strike interactions.
NMFS is using unrepresentative whale density values in
their risk modelling, thereby creating a significant bias
that may overestimate risk to whales from small vessel
strikes. NMFS' own technical memo states that, ``the high
densities predicted along the mid-Atlantic may not be
realistic.''
The model assumes 10-meter draft depth criteria when
calculating vessel strike risk. However, recreational
vessels in this size class rarely have a static draft that
exceeds 2 meters. This also creates bias that may
overestimate risk to whales from small vessel strikes.
NMFS underestimates the number of recreational vessels
that will be impacted by the proposed rule at 9,200
vessels. However, based on 2021 vessel registration data
analyzed by Southwick Associates, there were more than
63,000 registered recreational saltwater vessels measuring
35-65 feet in states across the proposed SSZs.
NMFS estimates the positive economic output from whale
watching in the northeast at $95.1 million. In contrast,
NMFS estimates $46.2 million in negative impacts for all
vessel size classes and regions combined. It is difficult
to understand how the economic benefits of whale watching
operations in the northeast exceeds the proposed rule's
economic harm to all recreational vessels.
A sportfishing vessel and a shipping container vessel pose
different threats to right whales based on vessel
characteristics (e.g., length, draft, traffic patterns).
However, instead of developing management options based on
known differences in vessel characteristics (mainly traffic
patterns), NMFS estimates risk is uniform across all
vessels greater than 35 feet which is inconsistent with
best available science.
Enforcement of the proposed rule using Automatic
Identification Systems (AIS) would be impractical and could
lead to significant human safety risk. AIS is mandatory for
certain vessels over 65 feet to improve the navigational
safety of the vessel and other vessels operating in the
area. AIS is not required on recreational vessels 35-65
feet although many boat owners voluntarily carry and
operate AIS for the added safety-at-sea benefits. It is a
very real concern that operators of boats less than 65 feet
may decide to turn off their AIS systems in fear of
triggering a speed restriction enforcement action. This
would have the unfortunate consequence of reducing
navigational safety, boater safety and hampering efforts
during search-and-rescue operations.
Vessel speed is a significant safety feature on a
recreational boat. Most recreational boats lack high
displacement hull design that often provides ocean-going
and commercial vessel stability and the ability to operate
safely in significant sea states. The 10 knot speed limit
would force recreational boaters to operate in conditions
that would compromise safety of the passengers and vessel.
While we strongly dispute that the proposed rule is a commensurate
response to the level of risk that 35-65' vessels pose to right whales,
we acknowledge that there is some risk, no matter how minimal. Right
whales deserve better protection, but vast, blanket speed restrictions
that are not based on the best available science are not the solution.
Among the many flaws with this regulatory approach is the high
level of non-compliance with existing vessel speed restriction.
According to Oceana, non-compliance within existing seasonal management
areas ranged from 32.7% to 89.6% over three seasons.\4\ It is illogical
to take a regulatory approach that has shockingly low compliance among
a relatively small number of professional shippers, apply it to a much
larger area and to tens of thousands of non-professional vessel
operators, and expect success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Oceana. July 2021. Speeding Toward Extinction: Vessel Strikes
Threaten North Atlantic Right Whales. Available online at: https://
usa.oceana.org/sites/default/files/4046/narw-21-0002_
narw_ship_speed_compliance_report_m1_digital_singlepages_doi_web.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than rely on blanket speed restrictions that will have
devastating impacts to the marine economy and offer little realized
benefit to right whales, we believe the focus needs to be on technology
that can deliver real-time monitoring of individual right whales. It is
feasible to gather real-time location information on a significant
portion of the right whale population and disseminate information to
mariners and other vessel operators, which would apply empirically-
based, targeted precaution instead of excessively severe measures that
do not accurately reflect actual risk nor can be adequately enforced.
To that end, ASA is grateful that Congress included in the recent
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 the
authorization of a near real-time monitoring and mitigation pilot
program for North Atlantic right whales (Sec. 11303 of Public Law 117-
263). We urge Congress to fully fund this program. Our industry is
eager to work with NOAA, and offers whatever expertise and assistance
we can provide, to ensure the success of the near real-time monitoring
and mitigation pilot program. We believe this approach offers our best
hope of saving right whales from extinction.
Shark Depredation
Imagine hooking the fish of your lifetime, enduring a long, hard
fight to get it to the boat, and at the last second before landing the
fish, a shark emerges and engulfs your catch. Few experiences can match
the highs and lows of fishing as shark depredation, and unfortunately
it is becoming an increasingly common occurrence.
Shark depredation occurs when a shark eats or damages a hooked fish
before the fish can be landed. These interactions can be frustrating
for anglers when they result in damage to or loss of fish, bait, and/or
fishing gear. There are also concerns that increasing levels of shark
depredation on hooked fish and scavenging of released fish is reducing
fish survival, negatively impacting fisheries, and will eventually
contribute to stricter regulations intended to offset or avoid shark
interactions. The sportfishing community cares about conservation of
all marine life, and the escalating issue of shark interactions with
recreational fishing must be addressed for the benefit of all fisheries
and the fishing public.
A recent study found that, ``77% [of anglers surveyed] had
experienced depredation in nearshore and pelagic fisheries in the last
five years, with depredation more commonly reported in the southeastern
United States.'' \5\ 87% of charter guides surveyed said they
experienced depredation with clients, resulting in a negative business
impact. This research underscores the economic burden and negative
attitudes generated from shark interactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Grace A. Casselberry, Ezra M. Markowitz, Kelly Alves, Joseph
Dello Russo, Gregory B. Skomal, Andy J. Danylchuk. When fishing bites:
Understanding angler responses to shark depredation, Fisheries
Research, Volume 246, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the United States, sharks are managed at state, interstate, and
national levels and through international treaties. Historically, shark
populations were significantly reduced primarily due to overfishing.
Over the past few decades, management under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act has focused on rebuilding
overfished stocks and maintaining sustainable shark fisheries. As such,
the United States has achieved increases in populations of many shark
species.\6\ Despite this progress, several shark species are expected
to be in rebuilding plans for decades because they are slow to grow and
reproduce; prohibited from harvest for conservation purposes; and/or
listed under the Endangered Species Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Peterson et al. 2017. Preliminary recovery of coastal sharks in
the south-east United States. Fish and Fisheries (18):845-859.
\7\ NOAA HMS, 2021. 2021 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation
Report for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species. National Marine Fisheries
Service, Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Division. 250 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although this multi-layered management framework has contributed to
the success in rebuilding shark stocks, it also presents constraints in
how fishery managers can respond to increasing shark interactions.
Human conflicts with sharks are expected to further increase as shark
populations continue to improve. This will require fishery managers and
scientists to collaborate with the recreational fishing community on
solutions, while considering the complexities of shark fishery
management and science.
We support a variety of methods to protecting sharks across four
pillars: Education, Management, Policy and Research.
Education
Given the apparent increase in the frequency of shark interactions,
ASA believes educating anglers on how to avoid and respond to them
should be a priority in the short term. Guidance should include
information on the following strategies:
Relocation
Teaching the best methods for landing a fish quickly.
How to avoid depredation when releasing fish.
Use of shark deterrents, such as magnetic technology, that
can redirect sharks away from boats.
As we learn more about shark interactions and how to address them,
ASA expects educational messaging to evolve. We look forward to
engaging with fishery managers and other organizations on developing a
public messaging campaign surrounding shark encounter education.
Management
We urge NOAA and other fishery managers to consider how shark
management measures can impact fisheries and vice versa. NOAA should
consider several strategies to manage shark and fish interactions,
which could include designing a more holistic management approach that
accounts for and balances species interactions, allowing anglers to
turn discards into retained fish and allowing anglers to retain fish
damaged by sharks.
Harvest increases for shark stocks that are considered healthy and
contribute to depredation should also be considered if supported by
sound science. However, we caution against expanding the use of
indiscriminate commercial fishing gear on sharks, which can create
increased bycatch of important recreational fisheries, sea turtles and
other protected species.
Policy
It appears that shark depredation of targeted and scavenging of
released fish may not be simply opportunistic, but a learned behavior.
For example, shark dive tours in which sharks are attracted to dive
sites by feeding may teach sharks to associate humans and their vessels
with food. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSA) currently prohibits shark feeding off Hawaii and the Western
Pacific because of such concerns. ASA supports amending MSA to end the
practice of shark feeding nationwide.
Research
ASA supports ongoing and future research to better understand the
occurrence and causes of shark conflicts with fishing vessels. Specific
shark research needs include the following:
The species involved, locations and seasonality of shark
interactions.
Prioritizing shark stock assessments to evaluate harvest
opportunities.
Physiological cues, which may have led sharks to become
habituated to people and environmental cues.
How angler behaviors and regulatory frameworks influence
shark interactions.
Additional techniques and strategies for limiting shark
interactions, including the use of deterrents.
Lastly, ASA recognizes that there is a wide array of government and
non-government entities that are affected by and should be involved in
addressing this challenge. Unfortunately, coordination across the
fishery management community on how to tackle shark depredation has
been severely lacking. ASA supports the establishment of a multi-
disciplinary task force to encourage coordination and communication and
identify priorities and funding opportunities for research and
strategies to address shark interactions.
Increasing shark depredation is negatively impacting fishing
experiences, threatening the safety of sharks and humans, and
negatively impacting the sustainability of targeted fish populations.
ASA believes that fishery managers need to move beyond identifying the
challenges with shark interactions and begin working collectively on
solutions.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide the sportfishing
industry's perspective on some of the top challenges impacting marine
recreational fishing in the southeastern U.S. We are grateful for the
ongoing work of the House Natural Resources Committee to advance
legislation that will strengthen the management and conservation of the
nation's public lands and waters. We look forward to working with the
Committee on legislation that impact the recreational fishing industry
and America's 52 million anglers.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Martha Guyas, Southeast
Fisheries Policy Director, American Sportfishing Association
Ms. Guyas did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Dingell
Our nation's water resources are a vital part of our environmental
heritage. As we discuss access to U.S. water resources, we must
remember that keeping America's fisheries sustainable is critical in
keeping fisherman on the water, rebuilding overfished stocks, and
securing our seafood supply.
Every angler knows that big fish need little fish to eat, that is
why robust forage fish populations are vital for the overall health of
the marine ecosystem.
Forage fish are smaller fish that support other recreationally and
commercially important species such as tuna, salmon, and cod. However,
many of these fish species have declined dramatically in recent years,
while demand for these fish species has only continued to grow.
Question 1. Ms. Guyas, as I recall, the Morris-Deal report, which
articulated a vision for management of recreational fisheries and was
endorsed by the American Sportfishing Association, included the need
for improved forage fish management as one of its key policy pillars.
Ms. Guyas, how important are forage fish for healthy recreational
fisheries?
Question 2. Ms. Guyas, last Congress, I introduced the bipartisan
Forage Fish Conservation Act, which was passed out of this committee as
part of the broader MSA reauthorization. The Forage Fish Conservation
Act would implement science-based management approaches to ensure we
have enough forage fish in our oceans for a healthy marine ecosystem.
It also earned the support of 10 Republicans and 11 Democrats as co-
sponsors, underscoring the broad consensus for strengthened fisheries
management. Ms. Guyas, but left unaddressed, how will declining forage
fish stocks affect the overall marine environment?
Question 3. Speaking of bipartisan efforts to promote healthy
fisheries and help sustain fishery access for anglers, American
Sportfishing Association has also supported the Recovering America's
Wildlife Act. Ms. Guyas, why would RAWA be transformational for
wildlife conservation and sportsmen's access to water resources?
______
Mr. Bentz. I thank the witness for the testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Cordalis for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF AMY CORDALIS, LEGAL COUNSEL, YUROK TRIBE, KLAMATH,
CALIFORNIA, AND CO-FOUNDER, RIDGES TO RIFFLES INDIGENOUS
CONSERVATION GROUP, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Cordalis. [Native language spoken] Subcommittee
Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Amy Cordalis. I am a member of the Yurok Tribe,
Legal Counsel for the Tribe, and also the co-founder of the
Ridges to Riffles Indigenous Conservation Group, a non-profit
dedicated to the protection of tribal cultural and natural
resources.
Unfortunately, there are few better examples of the
challenges associated with multi-use water resources than my
home waters, the Klamath Basin in Southern Oregon and Northern
California.
The Klamath supports Tribal Nations, a Federal irrigation
project, a wildlife refuge, a hydroelectric project, recreation
and commercial and offshore fisheries. Historically, when the
Klamath was healthy, it could support all these interests. But
now the Basin is in ecological, cultural, and economic crisis.
No one is thriving.
The Federal Government, working through the Departments of
the Interior and Commerce, often work at cross purposes trying
to appease the interests of diverse groups rather than serving
the public interest through policies that support ecosystem
resiliency and equitable access and use of waters.
There is no harsher example of the risk created by Federal
agencies working at cross purposes than the 2002 Klamath River
Fish Kill. That year, over 78,000 adult Chinook salmon died on
the Klamath River within the boundaries of the Yurok
Reservation. It was the largest fish kill in American history.
It was caused by the Bureau making deliveries to
agriculture that led to historic low flows on the Klamath River
at the same time a healthy run of adult Chinook salmon returned
to the river. A fish disease called ich spread through the
salmon run and killed them.
The fish kill was caused by the Bureau's mismanagement of
the Klamath. It led to closures of the entire West Coast salmon
fishery in 2004 and harmed endangered whales and was a
violation of the Yurok Tribe's water and fishing rights and a
breach of the Federal Government's trust responsibility to us.
2023 poses yet again a difficult year in which there may
not be enough water to meet the needs of endangered fish and
agriculture despite all of the hydrology coming in in other
parts of the area.
So, it is not because this is a dry year, but because the
Bureau is once again mismanaging the Klamath. The Bureau
allowed too much water, including illegal diversions, from
Upper Klamath Lake to be used last year. And as a result, lake
levels are now low. The Bureau claims there won't be enough
water to meet ESA needs and decided to violate the NMFS Coho
BiOp by cutting river flows 16 percent below those required by
the BiOp from January through April.
Salmon redds are at risk of being dewatered. And as we move
further into March and April, tens of thousands of salmon fry
are at risk of dying because there won't be sufficient habitat.
These 2 years illustrate that conflicting demands on water
often leads to poor management that drives ecosystems and the
cultures and economies dependent upon them further into crisis.
Making matters worse, the Federal Government continues to
ignore the Yurok Tribe's water rights. No water is provided to
protect the Tribe's interest, despite decades of harm to our
fishery and community water supplies.
We haven't had a viable commercial fishery in over 10 years
because salmon populations are at 1 to 5 percent of their
historical size. Failed Klamath stocks leads to commercial
fisheries' closures throughout the West Coast because salmon
country is all connected.
Commercial and subsistence fisheries are important and are
likely to collapse under current management regimes. This
mismanagement is happening under Republican and Democratic
administrations. The Federal Government would do better to
serve the Klamath by recognizing water management is a
bipartisan issue, because every American deserves equitable use
and access to water resources.
The path forward in the Klamath is taking this fundamental
approach and supporting local solutions that rebuild
ecosystems, cultures, and economies.
Klamath dam removal embodies this approach. Klamath dams
don't impact water supplies, generate a very small amount of
power, and are old and require significant investments. And
they destroy the Klamath River ecosystem and tribal rights.
PacifiCorp made a business decision to remove those dams
that were supported by the local stakeholders.
And, Chairman Bentz, in your remarks you asked, who do we
rely on? And I urge this Committee, the Subcommittee, to rely
on the American people, because time and time again we have
always met the challenges of the day, and we will find local
solutions to these problems as well.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cordalis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Amy Cordalis, Yurok Tribal Member, Legal Counsel
for the Yurok Tribe, and Co-Founder of the Ridges to Riffles Indigenous
Conservation Group
Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today at the hearing on Benefits and Access: the Necessity for Multiple
Use of Water Resources. My name is Amy Cordalis, and I am a Yurok
Tribal member, legal counsel for the Yurok Tribe, and co-founder of the
Ridges to Riffles Indigenous Conservation Group, a non-profit dedicated
to the protection of tribal cultural natural resources. I submit this
testimony on behalf of the Yurok Tribe and Ridges to Riffles Indigenous
Conservation Group.
I. USE AND ACCESS TO WATER SHOULD REFLECT THE RICH DIVERSITY OF THIS
COUNTRY BY ENSURING THAT EVERY AMERICAN HAS EQUITABLE ACCESS TO
WATER RESOURCES
Across the Nation, there are powerful watersheds that support life
on this planet. Iconic watersheds--like the Mississippi, Colorado,
Columbia, and the Klamath--carry water and resources from mountain
headwaters through forests, plains, deserts, and valleys to the Ocean
as a part of this planet's hydrologic cycle.
All life requires water. Accordingly, the United States has
developed watersheds to maximize their benefit to the nation.
Watersheds support multiple uses, such as providing water for domestic,
industrial, commercial, municipal, tribal, fisheries and wildlife,
agriculture, hydropower, and recreation. Over the last one hundred
years, watersheds were vastly altered through massive federal
reclamation and hydropower projects. The buildup of western dams and
irrigation projects changed the western landscape and allocated water
to consumptive uses for large agricultural, industrial, and municipal
needs. The legacy of that development has been the impairment of tribal
rights, fisheries, and ecosystem health--but it does not have to be
this way.
Multiple federal agencies--subject to complex, often conflicting
statutory and regulatory directives--are responsible for managing these
diverse watersheds. Climate change and drought further complicate
matters by reducing the amount of water available and drastically
changing hydrological patterns. Now, many major watersheds in the
United States are sick and weak. Overworked and compromised by decades
of habitat destruction, too-high water diversions, and pollution.
Several west coast fisheries, including the Klamath River, have
collapsed and many species are on the verge of extinction. Incredibly,
every major river on the west coast has been in prolonged litigation
for decades over collapsing fisheries impaired by historic development.
Our current western water conflicts, which are many, arise not from
a lack of ingenuity or a failure of its water users to engage in
solutions; rather, the conflicts are created by ecosystem collapse
caused by inadequate instream flows, polluted water, degraded habitat,
over allocation of water, aging infrastructure for reclamation and
hydroelectric projects, and conflicting regulatory directives. Congress
and federal agencies should support equitable access to water,
incentivize ecosystem restoration, and champion regulatory and physical
infrastructure modernization to be sure that the multiple beneficial
uses of our water resources meet the needs of the public in the 21st
century.
Further, use and access to water should reflect the rich diversity
of the country by ensuring that every American has equitable access to
water resources. This can be achieved by supporting laws and policies
that equally value human interests (including Indigenous), business
interests, and ecological interests in multiple-use waters. This can be
accomplished by:
1) restoring ecological health of major watersheds;
2) empowering stakeholders -- tribes, states, businesses, and NGOs
-- to co-manage water resources;
3) updating or removing aged and inefficient infrastructure;
4) engaging in better water use planning based on the best available
science and law, for drought, tribal rights, and
agriculture deliveries;
5) upholding the Nation's duties to Indigenous peoples.
II. WATER USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE BASED ON 20TH-CENTURY ETHOS AND
TECHNOLOGY
Much of the Country's water resources were developed in the early
1900s. The development was based on laws, policies, and technologies of
the era when little was known about ecosystem function or health. At
that time, the nation was ending a war with Indigenous nations and the
country was moving westward, developing an agrarian and extractive
economy that incentivized inefficient water usage of few over wise use
for many.
The nation prioritized the development of water resources to
support energy and food production at any cost. Rivers were dammed
without fish passage. Ecosystems were altered by wetland draining,
flooding of other lands, and rerouting of waterways to construct
federal reclamation projects. In most cases, water resources were
developed without regard for ecological implications. Tribal treaty
rights to water, fish, hunt, and gather were either terminated,
removed, or flat-out ignored.
Today, we witness the implications of past water resource
development. Many water-based ecosystems across the country are sick--
polluted and weak. Some species, including salmon, are close to
extinction and we have lost many species already. Tribal water rights
remain unrecognized. Of the over 574 federally recognized Tribes, less
than 45 have had their water rights quantified.\1\ Moreover, these
unquantified, and usually senior, tribal water rights remain ignored or
contested, like the Yurok Tribe's water rights on the Klamath and many
tribes in the Colorado River Basin. Further, much of the hydropower and
reclamation project infrastructure built in the 1900s has aged and is
in poor condition and in need of significant investment to become
efficient and consistent 21st-century technology. Power companies often
refer to these projects as ``legacy assets'' that no longer bring value
to the company and are burdens on company portfolios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making matters worse, the federal agencies involved in managing
multiple-use waterways responsible for protecting farmers, tribes, and
species seem to work at cross purposes failing to implement multiple
statutory requirements. This results in poor natural resource
management that further plunges water ecosystems and communities
relying on water diversions into crisis.
Climate change and drought make water resources management even
more difficult by reducing the reliability of modeling necessary to
support water and species management. Climate change is also causing
changes to hydrology patterns in ways that we cannot predict, making
management of federal reclamation projects even more unreliable and
risky.
III. ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL CRISIS IN MANY WATERSHEDS--
CLIMATE CHANGE EXACERBATES CRISIS: THE KLAMATH BASIN EXAMPLE
Unfortunately, there are few better examples in the Country of the
challenges associated with multi-use water resources than my home
waters, the Klamath River Basin in Southern Oregon and Northern
California.
The Klamath River Basin is a mighty basin. Its headwaters are in
southern Oregon which flow into Upper Klamath Lake, home to the Klamath
Tribes, the Klamath Reclamation Project, and the Klamath National Bird
and Wildlife Refuge. The waters then flow into the Klamath River and
downstream through the Klamath Hydroelectric project, into California
and through Karuk Tribe Country, the Yurok Reservation, and finally
into the Pacific Ocean. The Klamath supports tribal nations, a federal
irrigation project, wildlife refuges, a hydroelectric project,
recreation, and commercial and offshore fisheries.
a. Klamath Basin Development
For millennia the Indigenous peoples of the Klamath Basin managed
the natural resources of the Klamath Basin. The pillar of their
management was balance: never take more than what was needed to support
family and tribe, reflecting respect and honor for the ecosystem that
provided life. Indeed, the people and the species of the Klamath
Basin--including the now notorious endangered coho salmon and suckers--
evolved and co-existed in the Basin together. The success of this
approach is proved by the fact that the historical Klamath salmon runs
were the 3rd largest in the continental United States.
This was disrupted by colonization in the mid 1800s and early
1900s. In 1855, the Yurok Reservation was created through Executive
Order on the lower 45 miles, one mile on either side of the Klamath
River, reserving for the Yurok people its inherent sovereignty, and
aboriginal water, fishing, hunting, and gathering rights.\2\ The
Klamath Reclamation Project was authorized in 1905, setting in motion
the draining of the Upper Klamath Basin wetlands and lower Klamath Lake
to make over 200,000 acres available for agriculture, the removal of
the river channel from the Upper Klamath Lake to the Klamath mainstem,
and the construction of over a hundred miles of canals to carry Klamath
water to agricultural fields.\3\ This work forever changed the
ecosystem of upper Klamath lake by dramatically altering its natural
state and disrupting critical ecological functions necessary to keep
the ecosystem healthy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ www.yuroktribe.org.
\3\ https://www.usbr.gov/mp/kbao/aboutus/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While construction on the Klamath Reclamation project was still
happening in the Upper Klamath Basin, construction on the Klamath
Hydroelectric project began in 1912 and continued with the development
of four dams by 1962. Built without salmon ladders, these dams block
salmon from accessing over 400 miles of spawning habitat which has
nearly annihilated the wild salmon stocks in the Klamath River. Making
matters worse in 1955, Congress authorized the development of the
Trinity River Diversion (``TRD'') to divert water from the Trinity
River, one of the largest tributaries to the Klamath and one of the
most important for salmon, into the Central Valley Project. In 1980, an
Environmental Impact statement reported an 80% decline in chinook
salmon and a 60% decline in steelhead populations since the
construction of the TRD and reported that lack of instream flows as the
primary cause.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Biological Opinion for the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery
Restoration EIS and Its Effects on Southern Oregon/Northern California
Coast Coho Salmon, Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon, Central
Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon, and Central Valley Steelhead, at 2.
See, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/
bay_delta/california_ waterfix/exhibits/docs/PCFFA&IGFR/part2/
pcffa_109.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through this, the federal government's trust responsibility to the
Indigenous peoples of the Klamath Basin, including the Yurok Tribe,
remained to protect tribal homelands, fishing, and water rights. Yet,
as for Yurok, the Tribe's hard-fought-for federally reserved fishing
and water rights have been ignored. The Tribal commercial fishery has
been closed for almost 10 years and the subsistence fishery has been
dismal due to nearly collapsed Klamath salmon stocks. The Tribe's water
supply is not sufficient to support economic development, housing, or
government services on the Reservation.
Today, the federal government working through the Department of
Interior--the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation--and the Department of
Commerce--through NOAA fisheries--often works at cross purposes trying
to appease the interests of these diverse groups rather than serving
the public interest through policies that support ecosystem resiliency
and equitable access and use of waters. There are dismal runs of fish
and an insufficient water supply on the Yurok Reservation because the
federal government manages the Basin to appease competing needs rather
than following congressional direction established in the law of the
Klamath River through Tribal treaties, the Endangered Species Act, the
Reclamation Act and other sources. These important laws establish a
priority in the Klamath Basin to satisfy tribal treaty rights and
Endangered Species Act needs prior to other interests in the Basin.
Yet, the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau or Reclamation) continues to
ignore the Yurok Tribe's water rights and fails to manage the Klamath
project to ensure sufficient water for Endangered Species Act listed
species.
b. 2002 Fish Kill and 2023 Temporary Operations Plan; the Federal
Government at Cross Purposes
There is no harsher example of the risk created by federal agencies
working at cross purposes than the 2002 Klamath River fish kill. In
2002, over 78,000 adult chinook salmon died on the Klamath River within
the boundaries of the Yurok Reservation. This was the largest fish kill
in American history. The fish kill was caused by the Bureau of
Reclamation allocating water for agricultural deliveries that dropped
river flows below 800 cubic acre feet per second at Iron Gate Dam. The
result was some of the lowest flows the Klamath River has ever
experienced at the same time a healthy run of adult chinook salmon
returned to the river. The low flows reduced the habitat available for
salmon causing overcrowding, increased water temperatures to almost
lethal warm temperatures, and polluted water quality. This created
river conditions that spread a fish disease called Ich, a fatal and
extremely contagious fish disease that spread through the entire salmon
run that year.
The fish kill was man-made; the Bureau of Reclamation diverted
water to support agriculture, cut river flows, and the fish died as a
direct result. It impacted tribal fisheries, ocean fisheries, and ocean
species dependent on salmon. In 2004 west coast salmon fisheries were
closed down due to the low levels of Klamath River stock which was the
same class of fish killed in the 2002 fish kill. Further, southern
Oregon orca whales are now listed on the Endangered Species Act due to
population loss caused by insufficient food supplies, mostly salmon
from the Klamath River. The Yurok Tribe hopes the salmon did not die in
vain. Instead, may their deaths teach us that we must equally value the
rights and needs of ecosystems with those of people and businesses on
multipurpose waters.
This year, 2023, poses yet again a difficult water year in which
there won't be enough water to meet conflicting needs of Endangered
Species Listed species of coho salmon and sucker fish, and agricultural
needs. The Bureau of Reclamation's mismanagement of the Klamath
Reclamation Project is exacerbating these problems. In 2022,
Reclamation provided a second agricultural allocation and allowed
illegal water diversions for agriculture through late summer, fall, and
winter which drained the Upper Klamath Lake to low levels. In January
the Bureau adopted a 2023 Temporary Operations Plans (TOP) which
adopted a system wide priority of making an Upper Klamath Lake level of
4142.4 to improve sucker spawning habitat in the lake and the USFWS
issued a new Sucker Biological Opinion that reinforced the lake level
as a system priority.\5\ Because of the extra agricultural deliveries,
there is not enough water in the lake now to meet 4142.4 while also
allowing releases of water to the river to meet the minimum flows
required by the NMFS Coho Biological Opinion (Coho BiOp).\6\ As a
result, for the first time since 2005 when the 9th circuit in Pacific
Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations v. U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, 426 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2005), declared Coho BiOp minimum
flows in the Klamath essential to salmon survival, the Bureau cut river
flows to 800-834 cfs, 16% below those required by the NMFS Coho
BiOp.\7\ The Bureau is now in violation of the Coho BiOp because it is
not maintaining minimum flows required by the BiOp, it has not
consulted with NMFS on the impacts of dropping flows, and it will cause
take of coho which is a violation of the Endangered Species Act. The
results have been disastrous. Salmon redds have been stranded. As we
move into March, both coho and chinook salmon fry will migrate
downriver and there will be insufficient habitat which will cause high
mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https : / / www.usbr.gov / mp / kbao / docs / klamath-project-
january2023top01262023.pdf; https://www.usbr.gov/mp/kbao/docs/
20230113final-2023-klamathproject-biological-opinion-fws-wcover-
signed.pdf.
\6\ https : / / www.fisheries.noaa.gov / resource / document /
biological-opinion-effects-proposed-klamath-project-operations-may-31-
2013.
\7\ In more detail, going below the minimum flows violates the ESA
in three ways. First, Reclamation has not completed consultation with
the National Marine Fisheries Service (``NMFS'') on going below the
minimums, which have been treated by Reclamation and NMFS as inviolate
ever since the Ninth Circuit held in 2005 that the minimum flows had to
be met throughout the life of Klamath Project operations plans.
Reclamation is, therefore, in violation of its duty to consult with
NMFS before it takes actions that are likely to adversely affect SONCC
Coho Salmon and Southern Resident Killer Whales by depleting their
Chinook Salmon prey base. Second and related, Reclamation set into
motion the conditions it now asserts necessitating going below the
minimums when it increased agricultural water deliveries in the summer
of 2022. Reclamation established the water allocation in the spring in
keeping with the 2019 Biological Opinion and Interim Operations Plan,
but then allocated an additional 57,000 AF to agriculture when water
availability exceeded the spring forecasts. Just as the 2019 Biological
Opinion never analyzed the effects of going below the minimums, so too
it did not assess the effects of providing more water to agriculture
than allocating in keeping with the parameters set out in the
operations plan. The past two years have underscored how important it
is to ensure adequate water is in Upper Klamath Lake at the end of the
water year to ensure water availability to meet the needs of the
endangered fish in both the lake and the river. Third, going below the
minimums will cause the take of SONCC Coho Salmon in violation of ESA
Section 9 by dewatering salmon redds, reducing spawning habitat
availability, and reducing juvenile salmon habitat availability. If the
flows continue to be below minimums into the spring, salmon fry and
juveniles will experience reduced rearing habitat and the impacts of C.
shasta infections to young salmon will be exacerbated. In order to
avoid such take, Reclamation must not allocate more water to Ag after
the water allocations are set in the spring and must not go below the
minimum instream flows required to protect ESA-listed species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The loss of this class of salmon impacts the overall health of the
Klamath salmon stocks by reducing stock population and genetic
diversity. Only 1-5% of the Klamath salmon stocks remain. Only once in
the last eight years have the Klamath chinook salmon made the
escapement goal and only 20 times out of the last 44 years.\8\ Taken
together the future is grim for Klamath salmon stocks and the people,
like the Yurok Tribe and the Commercial fishermen who depend on them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/documents/
ContextDocs.aspx?cat=KlamathTrinity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, Yurok's senior water rights remain unrecognized, and
no water is provided to protect Yurok's tribal trust resources. A grave
miscarriage of justice provided that Yurok's water rights are some of
the most senior in the Basin and include flows for fisheries purposes
that would provide water to help restore Klamath salmon stocks and
ecosystem resiliency.
2002 and 2023 illustrate the challenges of managing multi-purpose
watersheds: ecological collapse, harm and failure to recognize tribal
rights, conflicting species needs, over allocation of water resources,
lack of water to support agriculture and wildlife refuges, and aging
inefficient infrastructure. There are too many conflicting demands on
too little water in the Klamath Basin. There will be no fish, birds,
farmers, or Indians in the Basin if the status quo continues. The
Klamath ecosystem will simply collapse.
c. The Future of the Klamath Basin
The future of the Klamath is investing in habitat restoration to
make the ecosystem more resilient. Species will recover not by
providing minimum lake levels or river flows as required by the
Endangered Species Act but by improving water quality, restoring
habitat, and attempting to restore the Basin closer to its original
condition to enable natural ecosystem functions. Agriculture should be
made sustainable. Power companies should be allowed to terminate legacy
dams and assets. The recent investments in the Klamath Basin through
President Biden's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction
Act funding will support critical restoration projects that will begin
the process of healing the Klamath ecosystem.
As for the role of the federal government, the Klamath Basin would
be better served by a recognition that water management is a bipartisan
issue because every American, including those in the Klamath Basin,
deserves equitable use of and access to water. The best approach is one
that empowers local Indigenous people, farmers, power companies,
recreation industries, and fishermen to comanage the resources that
impact their livelihood. Drought can be managed through planning.
Tribal rights can be acknowledged through planning. Agriculture can be
managed through planning. The federal government, including Congress
and the Administration, should empower this process by investing and
supporting locally driven solutions such as a management council that
would allow tribes, farmers, NGOs, and the federal government to
determine annual water allocations and regulatory compliance.
IV. RESTORE ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE BY INVESTING IN WATERSHED RESTORATION
AND LOCAL CO-MANAGEMENT AND SOLUTIONS
To maximize the public value by supporting multiple uses of water
resources, the nation should support ecological resilience by investing
in our waters with the goal of ensuring that every American has
equitable access to water resources. This can be achieved by supporting
laws and policies that equally value human (including Indigenous),
business, and ecological interests on multiple use waters, empowering
local stakeholders to co-manage water and investing in ecosystem
restoration to build watershed resiliency.
Any recent success on the Klamath has come through this fundamental
approach of equality in access and use of federal waters. Klamath dam
removal represents a model for updating water resource infrastructure
to restore ecosystems, improve equitable water use and access while
advancing business interests.\9\ Klamath Dam removal is contemplated
according to the terms of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement
Agreement (KHSA). The KHSA is signed by California, Oregon, Karuk
Tribe, Yurok Tribe, Pacificorp, and several NGOs. Klamath dam removal
is scheduled to be completed by December 2024. Four dams will be
removed to restore volitional fish passage and allow salmon to return
to over 400 miles of spawning habitat. Dam removal will provide several
benefits to the entire ecosystem by improving the overall ecosystem's
health and resiliency, allowing the river to heal and flow naturally.
This will improve water quality, lower water temperatures, and reduce
fish disease. This will improve conditions for all species on the
river, not just salmon, and will restore important tribal trust
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://klamathrenewal.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dam removal does not reduce or impact the amount of water available
in the system for sucker fish, coho salmon, or agricultural needs.
Importantly, PacifiCorp, owner of the Klamath hydroelectric project,
chose to support dam removal based on the best interests of the
corporation and their ratepayers because it was more affordable to
remove dams than it was to install fish ladders as would have been
required by the Federal Power Act. Finally, the Klamath dams generated
a very small amount of energy. On the Klamath, dam removal worked
because it equally served tribal, ecosystem, and business interests.
Some question removing dams while the country is moving toward
renewable energy, arguing hydropower is a clean green energy source.
However, no energy source is ``clean or green'' if it ignores tribal
treaty rights, leads species to extinction and causes ecological
collapse, which is sadly the case for many hydroelectric projects in
the Country. Further, in many cases, a decision on whether to remove
aging infrastructure or a legacy asset that no longer serves ratepayers
and the public should be left to the power companies and local
stakeholders. It should not be influenced by political party positions.
V. CONCLUSION
``Conservation means development as much as it means protection. I
recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the
natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to
waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after
us''
Theodore Roosevelt, Osawatomie, Kansas, 1910
Our Nation developed some of the world's most powerful multiple
purpose water resources in the 20th century. Much of this development
was supported by President Roosevelt, who believed equally in the
development and protection of natural resources. As we enter the 21st
century, the Nation should once again follow the leadership of
President Roosevelt by encouraging protection, rather than unencumbered
development, as the guiding principle of multiple uses of water
resources management.
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you for your testimony.
And with that, I recognize Mr. Corwin for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT CORWIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST PUBLIC
POWER ASSOCIATION, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
Mr. Corwin. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, members
of the Committee, I thank you for this opportunity. I love
talking hydropower.
I am Scott Corwin, Executive Director of the Northwest
Public Power Association, comprised of consumer and electric
utilities across the West, many in communities where clean,
renewable hydropower plays a prominent role.
Hydropower has a rich history as a critical part of
multiple use river systems. When much of the West was still
without electricity in the early 20th century, the dams brought
light, economic opportunity, and a new way of life. Dams are
also critical to transportation, irrigation, flood control,
recreation, and have a multitude of mitigation measures for
fisheries and endangered species protection.
Although it makes up only 7 percent of energy capacity
nationally, hydropower provides almost 60 percent of the
capacity in the Northwest, and almost 90 percent of the
capacity used by many of our members who have contracts with
Federal power marketing administrations.
There is a lot of great potential for new hydropower at
existing dams where there isn't generation yet and at sites
where pumped storage is possible. Federally owned hydropower is
subject to congressional oversight through this Committee and
has a distinctly different regulatory regime than non-Federal
hydropower. Utility consumers with first right to Federal power
pay for those costs of the operations and maintenance of
projects and rates set by those four Federal power marketing
administrations, or PMAs. Proper allocation of costs to various
power and non-power purposes is an important principle.
Non-Federal hydropower is subject to an often arduous and
lengthy licensing and permitting process involving multiple
Federal agencies and other interests. The average time to
relicense a project is 7 years and costs $3.5 million in
paperwork, not counting any new environmental, or safety, or
other upgrades.
It took less time to renew Energy Northwest's license for
their 1,200-megawatt nuclear plant than it did for their 27-
megawatt hydro project. Without change to these unpredictable
timelines and costs, there is serious risk of abandonment of
projects. According to the National Hydropower Association, by
2035, there are 459 licenses up for renewal for about 9,076
megawatts of hydropower and 8,380 megawatts of pumped storage.
So, we support the legislative proposals that would improve
the hydropower permitting process, and we also support creating
a level playing field in tax policy for existing hydropower to
receive the treatment similar to other renewable generation.
Another permitting challenge to hydropower involves areas
prone to wildfire where runoff from Federal lands creates rapid
buildup of sediment in reservoirs, which causes serious
problems at those projects.
The bottom line is we need hydropower because it is
efficient, clean, reliable, relatively low cost, and, most
importantly, because it is flexible. It can be adjusted quickly
to changes in demand.
Hydropower plays a critical role in the Western
interconnection for grid resilience. Though it is only 10
percent of the total generation for the California independent
system operator, it makes up 60 percent of the CAISO's spinning
reserves.
Hydropower was there when needed during last summer's
heatwaves in the Northwest and in California. The four lower
Snake dams provided over 1,000 megawatts of energy production
and reserve capacity while maintaining flows for juvenile fish
migration. And for reference, 1,000 megawatts is about the same
amount used by a city the size of Seattle.
A study conducted for the Public Power Council showed
losing generation from just those four dams would result in
increased annual CO2 emissions of over 4 million
metric tons per year and would increase the risk of shortage
events in the Western grid, which is already concerned about
resource adequacy and increased risk of rolling blackouts, and
would cost energy consumers about $790 million per year in
added costs. In other words, this is critical hydropower
capacity that is not easily replaced.
Hydropower is well positioned to play a lead role in our
energy future. It complements and enables other multiple uses
of our water resources and is one of the best, most flexible
tools that we have to achieve our energy goals and face the
challenges ahead.
Thank you for your leadership in holding this oversight
hearing today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Corwin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Corwin, Executive Director, Northwest
Public Power Association
Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
multiple use of water resources so vital to the economic and social
fabric of communities across our country. We appreciate you holding
this hearing and your support of water resources and specifically of
the hydroelectric power generation that our members rely on to energize
their communities.
The Northwest Public Power Association is comprised of over 150
consumer-owned electric utilities in the Western United States and
British Columbia. These are rural electric cooperatives,
municipalities, and public utility districts governed by the people
they serve and located in the states of Alaska, California, Colorado,
Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Our membership uses a wide mix of power generation resources
including coal, natural gas, hydropower, nuclear, wind, solar,
geothermal, biomass, and diesel. With many members relying on it to
meet a large portion of their demand, clean and renewable hydropower
plays a prominent role in many rural communities in the West that face
economic challenges from an array of other factors.
Background on Hydropower and Multiple Use of Water Resources
Hydropower has been the foundation of renewable power since the
earliest use of the waterwheel to grind corn. In many areas of the
country, and particularly in the West, hydropower is a critical element
of the multiple use river systems that are the lifeblood of these
communities. When much of the West was still without electricity in the
early 20th century, the dams brought light, economic opportunity, and a
new way of life as the nation emerged from the great depression.
A foundation of the West's energy supply, hydropower is a vital
component of our nation's clean energy generation portfolio. Although
it makes up only 7% of energy capacity nationally, hydropower provides
25% of the capacity in Alaska, almost 60% of the capacity in the
Northwest generally, and almost 90% of the capacity used by our members
who have contracts with the federal power marketing administrations
such as the Bonneville Power Administration and Western Area Power
Administration.
The dams lend not only a clean, continuing supply of power, they
are critical to transportation, irrigation, flood control, and
recreation as well. Just down the road from our office in Vancouver,
Washington, flood levels of the Columbia River in the late 19th century
and during the deadly flood of 1948 were measured at over 30 feet of
elevation where the river is usually between one and five feet. We now
have 37 million acre-feet of upstream storage reserved for flood
control. With respect to navigation, the Columbia and Snake River
System moves 51 million tons of international trade, including 60% of
all of the nation's wheat according to the Pacific Northwest Waterways
Association. Just one towboat with four barges replaces over 500 trucks
to haul those same commodities.
The benefits of hydropower pertain to most hydropower facilities,
whether produced at federal or non-federal dams. Non-federal hydropower
is subject to a lengthy licensing and permitting process by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in conjunction with various other
agencies. Federal projects are marketed by the federal Power Marketing
Administrations, are subject to Congressional oversight through this
committee, and have a distinctly different regulatory regime than the
non-federal hydropower. Most federal projects are owned and operated by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, but the
customers of community-owned utilities with rights to purchase that
power pay for the costs of operating and maintaining those projects.
There are four federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs),
which sell the electrical output of federally owned and operated
hydroelectric dams in 34 states. They are the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA), Western Area Power Administration (WAPA),
Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), and Southeastern Power
Administration (SEPA).
BPA, headquartered in Portland, Oregon, markets the power from 31
federal dams operated by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
Reclamation. BPA also owns 15,000 miles of high-voltage transmission
lines that tie together this large integrated system.
WAPA, headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, markets and delivers
power across 15 states from 10 rate-setting projects that encompass
both WAPA's transmission facilities and the power-generating facilities
owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) and the International Boundary and Water Commission.
These projects are made up of 14 multipurpose water resource projects
and three transmission projects.
SWPA, headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, markets hydroelectric power
in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas from 24
Corps multipurpose dams with a combined generating capacity of
approximately 2,213 MW. Southwestern operates and maintains 1,381 miles
of high-voltage transmission lines.
SEPA, headquartered in Elberton, Georgia, has the authority to
market hydroelectric power and energy from 22 reservoir projects
operated by the Corps in the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, and does not operate a
transmission system.
With their organic statutes linked to flood control and irrigation
as well as other governing laws and treaties which address navigation,
fisheries, recreation, and environmental stewardship, the federal
hydropower projects are prime examples (as are many non-federal
projects) of how the multiple uses of water resources fit together to
benefit a broad array of interests. It is also worth noting that power
customers pay via rates for the costs of power production and
transmission and that proper allocation of the costs of other project
purposes to the appropriate users is an important principle that
supports continued ability to market hydropower effectively.
Specific Benefits of Hydropower
Even though hydropower may fluctuate year to year, month to month,
or week to week, it is stable and flexible within short periods of
time. It has very important positive characteristics in addition to
deriving its source of energy from continuously renewable water: (1) it
is efficient in its conversion of energy; (2) it is clean in that it
does not have waste heat or external emissions; (3) it is reliable
since it makes use of basic and time-tested technology; (4) it is
generally low-cost; and, (5) it is flexible in that it can adjust
quickly to changes in demand.
While other forms of energy storage that exhibit some of these
characteristics may increase over time, the ability to store the energy
of falling water is serving us today and provides the fast response
needed on demand. Significant pursuit of development of pumped storage
hydropower projects will also serve to create even more capacity for
meeting peak demand, for avoiding reliability events, and for balancing
other resources.
Non-Emitting Flexibility--Hydropower's unique attributes add
stability to the grid and enable newer forms of generation. These
qualities include a high level of flexibility that very well matches
the increasing need to balance intermittent renewable generation
sources such as wind and solar. It lends system stability, reliability,
ramping capacity, resilience, and effective integration of other
resources that do not have this same level of capacity.
Grid Resilience--The threat of electric system outages, especially
during severe weather, is always a top concern to our members. Grid
resiliency is getting more focus at a national and hydropower is
particularly well suited to lend a hand with resilience as outlined in
a useful Department of Energy report from October 2021 called
Hydropower's Contributions to Grid Resilience (PNNL-30554). It noted
the critical role hydropower can play in the Western Interconnection
during extreme events causing unplanned large loss of generation.
Hydropower also has qualities very well suited to rapid restoration of
service. Even small-scale, run-of-the-river hydropower has potential
for adding resiliency in black start situations. In a demonstration
project with public power utility Idaho Falls Power, the Idaho National
Laboratory completed a series of tests to implement operational
controls in which they could restart generators individually and then
gradually add load to operate the system in islanded mode--in effect,
creating their own new microgrid during emergencies.
Another study from September 2022 by DOE's Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory is noteworthy in showing the benefits of regional
diversity in hydropower resources. The multiyear drought has had
devastating effects in some areas of the West. Each hydropower project
and electrical systems are impacted in different ways over various time
periods. PNNL found that even during the most severe droughts over the
last two decades, hydropower has sustained 80% of average power
generation to continue to help balance supply and demand on the grid.
(PNNL-33212)
Access and Challenges
Access to hydropower as a primary use of water resources is
critically important. Losing these assets would be devastating to many
communities relying on their multiple purposes and would threaten the
stability of our electric system.
For example, even though it is only 10% of total generation for the
California Independent System Operator, hydropower provides up to 60%
of CAISO's spinning reserves. For the Midcontinent Independent System
Operator it can provide up to 35% of spinning reserve requirements
according to DOE's Hydropower Value Study: Current Status and Future
Opportunities (January 2021 PNNL-29226). This is not capacity that is
easily replaced.
When hydropower was needed during last summer's heat wave it was
there to help. BPA noted during the heat wave in late June 2022, that
the four lower Snake River dams provided 1,118 MW of combined energy
production and reserve capacity while maintaining flows for juvenile
fish migration. For context, a city the size of Seattle has an average
electricity consumption of about 1000 MW.
Two studies by consulting firm Energy GPS, analyzed the
operational, financial, and CO2 impacts of breaching the four lower
Snake River dams. One study conducted for Northwest RiverPartners
detailed why it would take five times as much new renewable generation
and battery storage to replace the clean, flexible power of the dams.
https://nwriverpartners.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/EGPSC_LSRD-
Power-Cost-Replacement-Study_6_29_2022_Final_1223.pdf.
Another study by Energy GPS conducted for the Public Power Council,
a well-respected organization that represents customers of BPA,
analyzed likely results from proposals for increased spill for fish
(rather than using the water to generate power) as well as breaching of
the four lower Snake River dams. The report showed both policies
combined would cost $790 million per year (based on 2023 prices) and
result in increased annual CO2 emissions of 4.2 million metric tons per
year. The analysis also reveals how a looming scarcity in generating
resources in the West is increasing the risk of shortage events,
``possibly including blackouts, higher carbon emissions, and higher
prices for consumers and businesses.'' Losing any additional hydropower
capacity would only exacerbate these concerns. https://www.ppcpdx.org/
wp-content/uploads/Cost-Carbon-and-Reliability-Impacts-of-Increased-
Spill-Requirements-and-LSRD-Removal.pdf.
Market Valuation--As capacity resources become scarcer, it is
evident that hydropower's flexibility is needed to address the resource
adequacy concerns arising from situations where renewable portfolio
standards and carbon policies create large amounts of variable
resources such as wind and solar that may not be available to the
system when needed most (for example during an evening peak in hot
weather). Traditional energy markets value some attributes of power,
such as energy, and are not designed to provide proper price signals
for capacity, ancillary services and other attributes. This failure to
adequately price hydropower's attributes puts reinvestment in these
resources, and reliability of the system, at risk.
Permits to Remove Sediment--Some of the challenges to hydropower
involve the regulatory process to simply maintain a facility in good
working order. A notable example of this is sediment removal when it
involves federal lands. In areas prone to wildfire, the run-off from
the cycle of fires and floods on U.S. Forest Service lands adjacent to
reservoirs creates rapid buildup, dramatically reducing generating
capacity, restricting water supply, and potentially causing safety
concerns at the dam. This sediment buildup limits storage capability,
degrades water quality, and reduces overall generation of a clean and
renewable resource. The USFS should accept relocated sediment onto
their lands for beneficial use in a timely, transparent, and efficient
manner. Federal permitting processes and laws must be reformed to
recognize and reflect the time-sensitive climate adaptation challenges
this presents.
Permitting for Vegetation Management--On another issue related to
wildfire, there is still room for improvement in the permitting process
for conducting vegetation management on lines crossing federal lands.
The benefits of hydropower are only available if the power can be moved
to where the demand exists. Ability to properly maintain power lines in
a timely manner is critical for stability of the grid, and for
prevention of fires caused when trees are blown into lines during
storms. There has been some progress on this issue resulting from a
federal law passed in 2018 and the follow-on work of a joint federal
industry task force. More consistency between federal agencies and
their various offices and more pervasive use of standardized agreements
that reduce unnecessary time and cost burdens is needed especially for
smaller utilities trying to implement critical wildfire mitigation
plans with limited staff and budgets.
Other Challenges and Solutions for Permitting
Existing or new hydropower projects navigate an arduous federal
permitting process that threatens continued access to these resources.
The laws around licensing are intended to address the impacts of
projects to the surrounding environment, and owners and operators take
their stewardship responsibilities and mitigation needs very seriously.
But often resources that could be invested in mitigation measures are
tied up instead to pay for lengthy processes and duplicative studies
that may or may not have a clear nexus to impacts of the project.
Energy Northwest, a public power joint operating agency in Richland,
Washington said that it took less time and process for them to renew
the license for their 1200 MW nuclear plant than it did for their 27 MW
hydro project. In describing how this could be the case, they highlight
the contrast between having a clear lead agency in the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission with authority to drive and manage the other
agency reviews versus an array of agencies without firm timelines for
their hydro project. FERC should be the clearly designated lead agency
for hydro license renewals with the ability to hold to firm schedule
discipline and exercise accountability to ensure timely coordination
among federal agencies.
We support various legislative proposals that would add more reason
to this hydropower permitting process. We also support bills to level
the playing field for existing hydropower from a tax perspective to
receive tax treatment similar to other renewable generation.
Without significant changes to this process there is risk of more
abandonment of projects because developers and investors have other
places to focus their resources and project sponsors cannot afford to
continue to pursue these projects at exorbitant cost on an
unpredictable timeline. According to the National Hydropower
Association, 40 licenses (275 MW) were surrendered between 2010 and
2019, and by 2035 there are 459 licenses up for renewal for 9,076 MW of
hydropower and 8,381 MW of pumped storage. The average time to
relicense a hydropower project is 7 years and costs $3.5 million in
paperwork, not counting any new environmental, safety, or other
equipment upgrades.
Once a license is in place, FERC should allow operating flexibility
to meet critical needs. As operators see changes to the hydrograph from
wildfire, landslides, flooding, and extreme weather that increases
uncertainty, variability, and demand, it would be helpful if FERC could
offer additional operating flexibility to support maintaining and
increasing hydropower capacity during certain conditions.
Conclusion
Thank you for your attention to the important issues surrounding
multiple use of our water resources. As one of those uses, hydropower
is positioned well to play a lead role in our energy future. Because of
its significant benefits to consumers and to the environment hydropower
should be preserved, encouraged, and enhanced where possible. Local
communities have benefited for decades from this resource and its
capability to provide clean energy, low impact transportation,
irrigation, flood control, and recreation. This safe, reliable, and
low-cost resource has the flexibility to enable other renewable
generation and meet the operational challenges of the energy evolution.
Hydropower can be one of the best tools in our industry to help achieve
our goals and is a technology too valuable to ignore considering the
challenges facing us in the days and years to come.
Thank you for your leadership in holding this oversight hearing
today.
______
Mr. Bentz. I thank the witnesses for their testimony.
The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes for
questions, beginning with Mr. McClintock for 5 minutes.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As has been
pointed out twice in the last decade, we have seen historic
droughts followed by record rainfall. But because we don't have
the capacity to store excess water from wet years, we approach
catastrophic shortages during the dry ones.
California receives about 200 million acre-feet of
precipitation annually. That is about 4,500 gallons for every
man, woman, and child in the state every single day. The
problem, of course, is it is unevenly distributed over time and
distance.
So, we used to build dams to move water from wet years to
dry ones. We built aqueducts to move water from wet regions to
dry regions. We did that through the beneficiary pays
principle, so that the taxpayers weren't on the hook. The
projects were paid entirely by the beneficiaries who use the
water and the power from those projects.
And in the 1970s we abandoned that model. Sometimes we
abandoned dams in mid-construction, and we began financing much
more expensive water projects with general taxpayer dollars,
which hides their true cost and burden.
A few years ago, the California Energy Commission estimated
that the price of water in the San Diego region, the most
expensive way to produce water they found was desalination at
the cost of $2,300 per acre-foot; water recycling, $1,500;
importing water, $925; groundwater storage, $737. Cheapest
source of water, according to the California Energy Commission,
was good old-fashioned surface storage, dams and reservoirs, at
about $600 per acre-foot.
So, put simply, surface water storage gives us nearly four
times as much water for the dollar as desalination. And I just
don't understand the logic behind less policy. And instead of
capturing freshwater before it is lost to the ocean, they
prefer to spend four times as much money to recover that water
after it is lost to the ocean.
A real life example. We could spend about $1.4 billion to
raise Shasta Dam by 18 feet or spend $1 billion for another
Carlsbad desalination plant. Shasta would yield as much as
630,000 acre-feet of water each year; Carlsbad, 56,000 acre-
feet. So, for 40 percent more than the cost of Carlsbad, we
could get about 1,200 percent more water.
And consider this, when water is drawn out of Shasta, it
generates enough electricity to supply about 710,000 homes.
When water is drawn out of Carlsbad, it consumes a quarter-
megawatt for every acre-foot of water. That is enough to power
25 homes for a year in a state that can't guarantee enough
electricity to keep your refrigerator running in the summer.
In fact, the state has made unprecedented subsidies for
wind power, but it has to shut down the electricity grid on
windy days. This is just lunacy.
California voters approved a purported water bond in 2014
with the promise it would be used for water storage, yet to
date it has failed to deliver a single major water project, but
$1 billion of these funds are slated to be used to tear down
the four dams on the Klamath.
Mr. Keppen, in 2021, the Bureau of Reclamation closed
Project A's canal, delivering zero water to irrigators in order
to meet the Endangered Species Act requirements. The Klamath
Water Users Association estimates the lack of irrigated water
led to the loss of $100 million in economic activity, a drastic
decline in farm income, and 700 regional jobs lost.
Can you describe what that means in human terms?
Mr. Keppen. Thanks for the question, Congressman
McClintock. Yes, so I actually moved to the Klamath Basin in
2001, that fall. That was the year that for the first time in
95 years that the water had been shut down in the project.
And in terms of what it does to a community, it is
devastating because some folks have the capability to take
advantage of the government programs and are able to sort of
scoot by. Others can't. So, it creates this tension between
neighbors. It really does fracture the community. And it is not
just the farmers and the ranchers and the workers that work for
them that are impacted. It is all of the other service
communities. It is the fertilizer districts or dealers. It is
the restaurants. There is a real impact that you see in the
community.
And it is pretty depressing because Klamath County, where I
live, agriculture is really the big driver in that county.
Mr. McClintock. Let me just round a point. The Iron Gate
Fish Hatchery depends on the Iron Gate Dam. That hatchery
produces 5 million salmon smolts every year; 17,000 return to
spawn in the Klamath River every year. What happens to the
hatchery if they tear down the dam? And what will that do to
salmon populations on the Klamath?
Mr. Keppen. Well, I am not really sure I am the one to
respond to that question as far as the fishery impacts,
honestly. I could definitely look into that and get back to you
after talking to Klamath water users and folks in Siskiyou
County and others.
Mr. McClintock. All right. Thanks. My time has expired.
Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Mr. Huffman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, my colleague from
California and I have gone back and forth on a number of things
you just heard, and a lot of it, frankly, is just stubborn
mythology. We have explained time and again over the years that
big Federal water projects were not paid for by beneficiaries.
There were massive subsidies that went into these projects.
And that is part of the problem. We built up an expectation
that that is how we do big water. We do massive Federal
subsidies, and that just doesn't work anymore.
The idea that desalination is scandalously expensive, well,
the folks in San Diego are not stupid. If there was cheap
surface storage alternatives for them to keep having water when
you turn on the taps in San Diego, they would have done it.
Desal made a lot of sense in San Diego, and it was a lot
cheaper than the other alternatives that they considered.
So, I don't begrudge them that. I think it has provided
them a lot of key resilience during really tough dry years.
That is a pretty good thing because desal really works even in
the worst drought.
Surface storage is not cheap. The idea that that is the
cheapest source of supply--the big controversial surface
storage projects that are being pushed in California are some
of the most expensive water, they make desal look like a
bargain.
And the idea that we haven't built storage projects since
the 1970s--we have listed them, we have explained this. We
have. They just haven't been big, massive, federally subsidized
storage projects.
So, back to the real world, Ms. Cordalis, in your view,
what are the key funding priorities in the Klamath Basin that
should be fully funded, so that we can try to get through these
long-standing water challenges that are affecting your tribe
and others?
Ms. Cordalis. Thank you for the question. First, I want to
respond in sharing with this Subcommittee the Yurok world view
about rivers. We look at rivers as comprehensive ecosystems
that have overall health, similar to our own bodies, right?
Right now, the Klamath is ill. It is sick. And because of
that, it is not performing well. And it is just like us; when
we are sick, we don't have as high of capacity to support all
of the things that we care and love about in our life. And that
is the status of the Klamath right now. It is sick.
So, I do want to thank you, I want to thank Congress, for
the investments that you all have made in the Klamath ecosystem
and restoration, because that is a critical step to healing the
Klamath and making it strong again. Already NOAA fisheries,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, are motivating, they are organizing
people, they are putting together projects that will gradually
restore the health of the Klamath ecosystem as a whole, which
will then in turn make it stronger and better able to support
all of these various needs.
What we need to do next is get funding to support resolving
some of these water challenges. There are funding venues
through the Department of the Interior that can support tribal
water rights, that can support collaborative agreements, and
working with neighbors in the Basin--farmers, tribes, NGOs--to
essentially come up with those community-based solutions that
are going to help solve these problems. So, those are critical
funding supports, sources of funding.
The other one I would add, too, is just looking at, how do
we improve efficiency of agricultural infrastructure in the
upper basin? We would really like to learn more from our
agricultural neighbors about how can we use those investments
to make sure that the existing infrastructure within the
Klamath project is as efficient as it possibly can be.
But you put that all together, and that is how we get out
of these annual plans.
Mr. Huffman. Right.
Ms. Cordalis. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. Do you want to say a quick word about the
importance of responsible permits for hydropower relicensing.
Mr. Corwin explained how long it takes and how difficult it is
to relicense a hydro project. A lot of these projects were
built before many of our modern environmental laws, before we
tried to make it something we do with tribal consultation every
time we do one of these things.
Now they are coming up for relicensing, and we hold them to
higher standards. Why is that important?
Ms. Cordalis. Well, and let me first start with, I will
assure you that it takes just as much time and regulatory red
tape to take dams out as it does to get them in, and the last
20 years on the Klamath has demonstrated that.
We learned a lot about dams through the last, what, let's
say 120 years in this country. And I think it is important to
recognize that throughout the West, in some places dams are OK,
in other places, they are simply not. So, I also think that
FERC is in a new era.
We heard Chairman Glick express that he wants to support
tribal rights through the relicensing, that he wants to take a
closer look at--the previous Chairman Glick, sorry--and that
FERC wants to take a closer look at the environmental
implications of these dams.
So, I think it is important that we, as a nation, when we
are thinking about hydro power, when we are thinking about
reclamation, when we are thinking about how to support farmers,
and also fisheries because commercial fisheries are important,
that we really engage in effective natural resource management,
that a value----
Mr. Bentz. Ms. Cordalis, if you could wind up, please.
Ms. Cordalis. Yes, sorry. I was just essentially going to
say we should really take a hard look at the circumstances on
the ground.
Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. The Chair now recognizes Congressman LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations
on your new seat there.
Mr. Corwin, you were speaking of the Snake River, lower
Snake River dams and the amount of electricity that they
produce, 1,100 megawatts is the figure I see here. So, this is
distributed through the Bonneville Power Administration, and
the surplus power is frequently used in California.
So, in light of California's power grid, on hot days, being
right on the edge, certain folks already have agreements to
shut down usage of power in manufacturing and other issues,
and, of course, the hell-bent direction they are wanting to
push and electrifying everything--stoves, and automobiles, and
leaf blowers, and generators. I don't know how you would turn a
generator into--I haven't figured that one out yet.
But where are we going to replace this power? Can the
intermittent wind and solar generation make up for 1,100
megawatts just on the lower Snake?
Mr. Corwin. Yes. Very difficult to replace. And right now,
to have the same attributes, both clean and that flexible, that
capacity that is so sorely needed, it is just not available.
Well, not available through renewable resources. Gas generation
has some of those same attributes, ability to follow load.
That is the study that I cited in my testimony, so----
Mr. LaMalfa. Plus, it is CO2-free power, right?
Mr. Corwin. Yes. CO2-free power. And the study I
cited shows it takes about five times as much of other
intermittent resources and needing some battery storage, which
is not available yet in that size either to replace that, and
that is at a lot greater cost as well.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. We have observed it is pretty difficult
for the folks actually wanting to build wind and solar farms,
as they like to call them, to get the permits to do so and the
land to put them on, the vast amounts of land.
Mr. Keppen, you talked about how water management decisions
have been pretty devastating toward long-time traditional users
of them, such as the Klamath project. For what reason was the
Klamath project built?
Mr. Keppen. Irrigation. To supply water to irrigators.
Mr. LaMalfa. Sorry?
Mr. Keppen. To supply water to irrigated agriculture.
Mr. LaMalfa. So, was it a multi-use water or was it
dedicated to agriculture?
Mr. Keppen. Initially, it was dedicated to agriculture, and
then as time has gone on, there has also been sort of a refuge
component as well, which the farmers work very closely with
trying to get water into the National Wildlife Refuges.
Mr. LaMalfa. So, how many acre-feet did that add to the
surface of Klamath Lake by building that project?
Mr. Keppen. Well, what it did is it allowed you to vary the
depth of the lake. The lake was backed up by a natural reef,
and when the Klamath project was built, it allowed you to move
that water around, and so there is more flexibility, so that
you can store water. Typically, it used to be around 400,000 to
450,000 acre-feet of water going to agriculture in the
summertime.
Mr. LaMalfa. So, about 400,000 acre-feet that wouldn't have
been existing or accessible before the project, which, again,
was dedicated to agriculture.
Mr. Keppen. Yes. That is probably right.
Mr. LaMalfa. So, how has the community been compensated for
the taking of the water from that agricultural project the last
20, 25 years? Has there been a water right that has been bought
by the Federal Government in order to rededicate this water
supply?
Mr. Keppen. There has been a water bank established that
helps, encourages people to leave their water in the system for
environmental purposes, and they will pay to pump groundwater
in exchange for that or to fallow the land. That is about the
only payment I see, and I don't think there has been an actual
compensation for the takings involved with the 2021
curtailments.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. To Ms. Cordalis, the water that has been
behind the link in the Iron Gate Dams has provided for
variability in running the river, for certain purposes
downriver of flushing or for particular ceremonies. With
removal of those dams, is there a concern that those water
levels will no longer be available to, especially in a dry
year, to have those flows or to be able to carry out those
rituals?
Ms. Cordalis. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa, for the question. So,
the Klamath Reservoir is behind the dams, doesn't actually
impact the amount of water available in the system. In previous
years, there had been a practice of borrowing water from
PacifiCorp, which essentially they would allow some of that
water to be released, but the Bureau had to pay it back. So, it
didn't actually increase the amount of water that was available
in the system.
And then, I would also like to clarify that the Klamath
Lake and the project didn't increase the amount of storage
water available in the lake.
Mr. LaMalfa. The 400,000 doesn't exist?
Ms. Cordalis. That was just a natural lake. And when they
built the project, it essentially just kept the amount of water
that was already there.
Mr. LaMalfa. Mr. Chairman, my time is over.
Mr. Bentz. The Chair now recognizes Congressman Case for 5
minutes.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have to admit, I have
been listening to this hearing and to the remarks, and I am,
frankly, searching for the central point of the hearing. I
don't think I have heard anything revelatory or anything like
that. It seems to me to be pretty obvious that water is a
finite resource. It is not infinite. It doesn't go on forever.
We clearly do and should make multiple uses of the water
available. It seems that when you get into a situation where
the water use is competing around sustainable, some choices
have to be made, some management regime has to be put in place,
and it seems to me that all of those situations are
increasingly complicated by increasing demand at the same time
that we see a decreasing supply, and we can argue over what the
causes are.
I mean, for me it is climate change and related to start
with, and drought is one indication of that. But also, just the
fact that we have increasing uses, and it seems obvious that in
that kind of a situation we also are drawn into debates over
short-term extracted uses of water versus long-term sustainable
uses of water.
I don't think anything along those lines is a surprise, and
everything that we are talking about here, whether it be hydro,
or family farms, or tribal rights, or saltwater fishing, seems
to all fit into that regime.
In Hawaii, I don't have too much of the water wars in the
sense of the West, so I am going to switch over to the ocean,
right, the middle part of this Subcommittee's name.
And I go back to you, Ms. Guyas. Let's take a little bit
more of your analysis here. The American Sportfishing
Association in my view seems to get it. You obviously worked
with us the last couple of Congresses toward implementation of
the 30x30 Initiative.
I think you recognized as a sportfishing alliance that
sustainability was really the only way to be able to maintain
some kind of a mutual use of the oceans over time. I think you
support some hyper-protected areas, and I think you support
some managed areas, and I think you support some fairly open
areas, and some combination of all of that.
First of all, is that correct? I mean, I am trying to give
you praise and all of that, so you can agree with me if you
want.
Ms. Guyas. Yes. I--yes.
Mr. Case. OK. Thank you. That was what is called a leading
question.
So, I guess the question is, where does this go out into
the future? I mean, you identified, for example, I think two or
three out of your top four concerns. Red snapper, OK, which
seems to be the poster child for what we are talking about
here, if you talk about the oceans, what lesson is to be
learned from our attempted management of multiple uses in the
ocean for recreational purposes, for food purposes, for pure
protection purposes? So, economic, environmental, natural
resources, and recreational.
Ms. Guyas. Yes. So, I mean, there are a lot of tools in the
toolbox that can be used, right? I guess in terms of
challenges, going back to my testimony today, looking at red
snapper, one of our challenges is making sure that we are using
best available science in our decisions.
And going back, you mentioned 30x30, right, we are glad to
see the Administration has recognized how important outdoor
recreation, recreational fishing, is in conservation. We are
waiting to see what the implications are for Federal waters
fisheries, of course. NOAA is working on their atlas, and there
is a Council Coordinating Committee also that is looking at the
existing protections that are in Federal waters, and they are
trying to also kind of calculate what have we already done.
So, I mean, yes, there are a lot of tools that we can use.
Mr. Case. And what are the friction lines coming up? I
mean, we still have total overfishing in many of the world's
oceans. We have pressure on our marine-protected areas in this
country for that matter. It is a constant discussion.
I mean, just, again, focusing on what I think is the
purpose of this hearing, which is to evaluate competing uses of
increasingly scarce resources in the ocean context, I mean,
what are the next generations of discussion? Are there any out
there? I mean, climate change is changing our oceans. That is
what our Ocean Climate Act of last Congress, which you helped
us with, was all about.
Ms. Guyas. Yes.
Mr. Case. That is the next generation. I mean, where do we
go from here?
Ms. Guyas. Well, I mean, with climate change, I can tell
you the East Coast councils, this is an issue that we are
already living in, right? We are seeing changes in fisheries.
In our case, in the Southeast, we don't always have the data to
tie it to climate change, but that is maybe we think is going
on.
And the councils on the East Coast have been going through
climate change scenario planning. I was fortunate to
participate in one of the workshops. And they are trying to
figure out how to address governance issues that are coming up
with climate change now, and a lot of that I think is going to
be collaboration across the councils as we see fish stocks
shift.
Mr. Case. So, a little bit more talking to each other
rather than just arguing for our particular slice of the pie.
Ms. Guyas. Yes. It is----
Mr. Bentz. Excuse me.
Mr. Case. OK. I am sorry. I was trying to wrap up there
because I was sensing our Chair about to cut me off.
Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman Luna for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you very much. The United States is a
global leader in fishery management with some of the most
highly regulated fisheries in the world. Our anglers are
required to follow a broad range of regulations, yet we
continue to outsource our fishing and seafood industries to
countries like China, making it harder for our domestic
fisheries to compete.
Before we discuss the importance of domestic fisheries,
please take a look at the impact of China on the global fishing
and seafood industry.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to submit this
graphic into the record.
Mr. Bentz. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1504.001
.eps__
Mrs. Luna. Thank you. China has taken advantage of
fisheries on a global scale by using large fleets to harvest
far from the Chinese shores. They are the biggest producer of
aquaculture seafood in the world, and with 70 percent of the
total production and 55 percent of the total value of
aquaculture seafood export worldwide.
If I could also note, I was able to actually pull an
article that had stated that farmers have coped with toxic
waters by mixing illegal veterinary drugs and pesticides into
food feed, which keeps their stocks alive, yet leaves poisonous
and carcinogenic residues in seafood. So, when we eat it, it is
obviously not good.
Like many other industries in China, companies are known
for using forced labor and have widespread food and safety
violations. These concerns have led agencies like the FDA to
put import alerts on Chinese products, mostly fish and seafood
products, to determine these imports upon arrival to the United
States.
My question is for Ms. Guyas. How does the management and
regulation of domestic fisheries compare to foreign fishery
operations in countries like China?
Ms. Guyas. Oh. I mean, absolutely, the United States is
undoubtedly a global leader in fisheries conservation. Hands
down. Head and shoulders above other nations like China.
Mrs. Luna. From this information, it is clear that our
domestic fisheries produce safer seafood, and honestly I would
probably prefer to eat American over Chinese any day of the
week.
Domestic fishery also has a significant impact on the
economy of the United States. In 2020, commercial and
recreational fisheries brought in an estimated $250 billion in
sales and employed about 1.7 million people. Many of these
industry professionals live in Florida, and some come from my
district, where harvesting of red snapper is an area of
concern, especially with the improvement of private
recreational data that is collected from anglers and vessel
permits.
Ms. Guyas, what sort of data is obtained from private
recreational anglers that receive vessel permits?
Ms. Guyas. Well, I can speak specifically to Florida, if
you would like.
Mrs. Luna. Yes, please.
Ms. Guyas. In Florida, we have a program called the State
Reef Fish Survey that is run by the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission. And what they do is they have enhanced
the Federal MRIP program that is used to collect recreational
data where they have really identified the universe of anglers
that fish offshore for reef fish, red snapper, grouper, those
types of things.
They do specialized surveys to the places where those
people fish, and they also target those anglers for effort
surveys as well, so that they get better information about
private angler catches.
Mrs. Luna. So, I guess that information could be gathered
to improve data that is received from private recreational
anglers?
Ms. Guyas. Yes.
Mrs. Luna. Rather than outsourcing fishing and seafood
products from a country like China where we know little about
the quality of the product we are receiving, we have
essentially strangled our fishermen in regulations and red
tape, and our food processors have turned to China to easily
and cheaply fulfill their needs.
I really think that we need to fix this issue.
And with that, Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the Congresswoman from Alaska,
Congresswoman Peltola, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a
question, honestly. I just want to give a shoutout to the
representative from the Yurok Nation. I really appreciate you
being here. I am also from a river which depends very much on
salmon and other marine resources.
Just as a little bit of background on Alaska, and how
important the fisheries are and the marine ecosystem is to
Alaska, last year the ex-vessel value statewide was around $2
billion, and it usually is about $2 billion in Alaska. It is
our second-largest industry in Alaska.
Salmon alone last year, in large part because of the
Bristol Bay reds, generated $720.4 million, and the total
economic output is about $5.7 billion.
But I just wanted to say that, and I don't have a question.
I don't want to waste your time with a question that doesn't
make any sense. But I do, Mr. Chairman, hope that I can yield
the rest of my time to Representative Huffman.
Mr. Bentz. Of course.
Mrs. Peltola. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. Which I greatly appreciate. I thank the
gentlelady.
And to my new colleague from Florida, I was delighted to
hear your remarks about the abuses of foreign fishing fleets. I
think you were contemplating the challenge we have with the
murkiness of our seafood supply chain. We don't know where a
lot of it comes from.
China is not the only bad actor out there on the high seas
and in other places doing all kinds of dubious things, but they
are the biggest and they are probably the worst in lots of
ways. So, you have come to the right place. And if you want to
work on this issue in an absolutely bipartisan way, Mr. Graves
and I did a lot of good work on this in the last Congress, and
we would be delighted to partner with you, because there is a
lot more good work we can do.
So, thank you for that.
I am glad I have a little bit of time now to come back to
Ms. Guyas, because while your testimony focused mostly on red
snapper, which we hear a lot about in this Subcommittee because
Mr. Graves is here, he is like Mr. Red Snapper, but you have
also supported efforts. You and your organization have also
supported efforts on the West Coast to protect salmon and their
habitats.
You have opposed efforts in Congress to undermine Federal
protections for salmon under the Endangered Species Act, under
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and other laws, and
I really appreciate that. I just want to commend you for that.
And you have thrown your support behind protecting Bristol Bay
from a really wrong-headed project called the Pebble Mine. So,
I appreciate your supporting the greatest salmon stronghold
left on Earth. I am sure Mrs. Peltola would not disagree with
that description.
And I just want to ask you, why is it important to anglers
that we protect these key salmon habitats?
Ms. Guyas. Well, I live in Florida where the salmon that we
have are raised in an aquaculture facility outside the Miami
airport, but I can speak more broadly, just not specifically to
salmon. Protecting marine ecosystems is essential to having
successful recreational fisheries, right? We need the fish to
have the fishing occur, the economic impacts, and the access.
Mr. Huffman. All right. Appreciate that very much and yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes. Let me begin by asking
Mr. Keppen a question. It seems odd, you mentioned that there
are literally hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water
stored in the mountains in California right now, but there
doesn't seem to be any race to try to figure out how to store
it.
I mean, I know that the governor has suggested or opened
the door to maybe 400,000, 500,000 acre-feet. And to put that
in perspective, if you value this water at $2,000 an acre-foot,
it is a huge number. So, thank goodness for the governor making
that motion toward recognizing the value of all the water that
is up in the mountains about to come out.
What is it going to take to build a fire under people to
make them go take advantage of the current situation as opposed
to just shrugging and going, oh, that is the way it goes?
Mr. Keppen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a great
question. I think there is a fire being lit right now in the
fact that Governor Newsom signed this Executive Order to sort
of provide a little bit more flexibility to store water over
these wet periods.
My understanding is that decision allowed 500,000 acre-feet
of extra water to be stored for when we need it when it is dry.
Even more of that potential is out there, and, I mean,
personally, our organization is going to be urging both the
Federal Government and the state government to do more of that,
look for opportunities to take advantage of this huge amount of
water, so that we can store it and use it in dryer years. And
that is going to take forms like, just regulatory flexibility
or management flexibility, so we can tackle these multi-benefit
goals.
And then, I think, again, it comes back to infrastructure.
If Sites Reservoir, which has been around for decades--I mean,
I was on the planning committee at DWR for that project in
1999, Mr. LaMalfa, and that project was already 10 years old.
But if that project was in place right now, just in the
last month or so, in the month coming into the future, I think
they said it could have saved us another 400,000 acre-feet,
which is enough water to cover Washington, DC, 10-feet deep. It
is a lot of water.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you for that. What I am trying to get at
here is every opportunity we have, people should be saying,
``We need to be storing this water,'' and we are not.
And I had the people from San Diego in my office just a few
days ago, and I said, ``How much is that desalinated water
costing you?'' $3,800. Not $2,000, $3,800 an acre-foot. Yet, we
are letting thousands of acre-feet go down the river.
And this is not a situation where we are trying to short
the fish. The fish would probably scream with joy if we weren't
washing them away with the huge floods that are about to
inundate California.
So, I will move on from that for just a moment. I want to
go back to the assertion, Ms. Cordalis, that was made regarding
the release of water from the Klamath Lake into the river.
There is a disagreement apparently over whether or not it is
actually stored water, but let's pretend for a moment that that
which is released, according to the Bureau, is stored water,
and the amount in 2020 in excess of the 400,000--there was
406,000 acre-feet of water released into the river, going down
to help the fish, and of that, 76,000 was deemed stored.
In 2021, there was 361,000 acre-feet released; 101,000 was
deemed stored. In just this last year, there was 385,000 acre-
feet released, and there was 125,000 of that deemed stored.
That is water in excess of what flowed into the lake that was
then released from the lake. That is how we qualify it.
If you take that number times just $2,000 an acre-foot,
that number is somewhere around $612 million.
Now, some would say, what have we done to repair the salmon
runs? And the first thing I would mention is, well, we are
taking out those dams apparently. That is about $500 million,
maybe $550 million. And if we want to add that to the $612
million of water that has been released, and that is in
addition to that which would be normally flowing down the river
because it is over and above that which flowed into the lake.
So, now we also have the $167 million that is going to be
spent over the next 5 years that is going to go for habitat
restoration, $32 million a year, or something like that, being
spent.
Lots of money is being spent on the climate to try to make
it work, and let's all hope it does. Now, having said that,
this is because I think it is time that we begin to put a
number on the amount that we are actually spending in the form
of the water allocated in stream. It is absolutely essential we
do it, because too often people talk a lot about that which is
taken out but hardly at all about that which is left in.
And I am sorry, but I am going to run out of time here. I
am not going to get to ask you a question, which is really very
sad. Because you were on the Water Commission in California,
you probably have the best ideas on how to store the water.
But, sadly, I am out of time, and that will have to remain a
secret for the moment.
So, with that, I am going to turn to Mr.--who is next?
Congressman Levin, there you are.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Bentz. You have 5 minutes.
Mr. Levin. Thank you. I want to personally invite you and
any Member interested to my district and to see the Carlsbad
desalination plant, which is named after the former Republican
Mayor of Carlsbad, Claude ``Bud'' Lewis. It is the largest
desal plant in the Western Hemisphere, provides about 10
percent of San Diego County's water, does so in an
environmentally responsible way.
And I am not here to say that desal is the end all and be
all for California's water needs or for any water needs. I can
tell you at 60 million gallons a day it is the largest in the
Western Hemisphere, but it only ranks 10th in the world. I was
just in Israel, and I saw a plant that was several times
larger. And the reality is that we can do both common-sense
water storage, and desal, and recycling, and conservation. The
reality is we have to do it all.
So, let's not scapegoat desal when we really need to be
doing desal among a number of other things. And, again, a
standing offer to come to our beautiful district anytime and to
see the desal plant for which we are very proud and for which
we have enjoyed broad bipartisan support for as long as I have
been involved in Southern California environmental law and
policy, which is pretty much my whole adult life. And the
project took many years to construct.
I support more desal, by the way, in Southern California
when it can be done in an environmentally responsible way. We
have gotten around $20 or $25 million in support for a plant in
Dana Point. And where we can do it and it makes sense for the
community, we should.
Let me turn to talk about the work of the last Congress
with regard to water resilience that I think will impact all of
us in the Western United States: $1 billion for water
recycling, $250 million for desal, and $4 billion to improve
the resilience of the Colorado River Basin, all accomplishments
of the last Congress.
So, let me ask, Ms. Cordalis, as funding starts to flow--no
pun intended--through the agencies, what do you think is
important for agencies to keep in mind as they engage with
Western stakeholders, identify projects, and provide technical
assistance?
Ms. Cordalis. Early and often communication and
transparency and ecosystem-wide restoration. Whether you are
looking at the Colorado, the Klamath, the Columbia, the
Sacramento, it is important to engage stakeholders, tribes,
NGOs, the various agencies, water users, in meaningful
discussions about how you can rebuild your ecosystems and
projects that provide systemwide benefits, because we have seen
that when you invest in ecosystem restoration, it helps us with
some of these water issues, because systems become more
resilient.
And I do want to express that I think the agencies are
already doing a great job with the IRA funding and the bill
funding. They are getting into the communities. They are
coordinating projects. And I think a lot of this is on the
local staff of these agencies, and they are doing a good job of
working with communities. We are all thankful for that.
Mr. Levin. Thank you for that.
Ms. Guyas, I want to turn to another bill that I have been
working on, the Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act, and I want
to thank the American Sportfishing Association and you for
endorsing that bipartisan bill. It was with Brian Mast of
Florida in the last Congress.
And our district, and Mr. Mast's and many others, would
really I think be well served with legislation like this with
lots of lagoons, estuaries, and so forth, really important for
a local ecosystem, and not to mention our economy, the coastal
economy, so vitally important to us.
The bill would reauthorize what is known as CELCP, the
Coast and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, and I am really
excited that we are getting a lot of support for this bill.
Can you talk about the importance of coastal and estuarine
conservation in ensuring continued access to healthy fisheries
in particular?
Ms. Guyas. Yes. Thank you for your leadership on that bill.
We do support it. And this program, what it does and how it is
helping fisheries, it is conserving those habitats. A lot of
those, especially in the Southeast, are also important fish
nursery sites, which that is where our healthy fisheries are,
literally, raised. So, thank you.
Mr. Levin. Thank you so much.
I am running short of time, but I want to again extend a
standing offer to any of my colleagues on either side of the
aisle, or anybody out there in the audience or watching at
home, to come and visit our desal plant. Again, desal is not
perfect, but it has gotten extraordinarily better over the
years. And I think our plant, again, is the largest in the
Western Hemisphere, is one that we can be proud of, and I hope
you can come see for yourselves.
And I will yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. Even Garret Graves is invited.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Levin.
I recognize Congressman Duarte for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duarte. Yes. Thank you to all of the witnesses here to
testify today. Appreciate it.
I live and represent the district that includes Westlands
Water District and the South Delta Water Users. I work in
agriculture. I know a lot of these guys. I represent many of
those communities.
Since the 1990s and the biological opinions and the
lawsuits that ensued afterwards, and the removal of water from
area to save the Delta smelt, the salmon from the Delta, we
have depleted groundwater resources. We have destroyed farms
and family farming operations.
I drive through my district and see almond orchards being
removed that haven't produced a crop or paid a nickel of bank
debt.
I have hospitals going bankrupt. The property tax revenue
in this district is eviscerating, evaporating. We have all
kinds of social ills. We have a man-made dustbowl in the South
Valley. We have spiking respiratory illness in children. We
have actually taken certain races of prisoners out of the
Coalinga Jail because they are particularly susceptible to
Valley Fever or respiratory illness.
We are actually destroying the infrastructure itself with
subsidence, as well as our freeways. We have sacrificed a lot
for the Delta smelt and the salmon through single species
management schemes that I hope have delivered tremendous
results for all the species or the salmon, the smelt, but maybe
not human so much.
Mr. Keppen, please update us. How have we done? How are the
smelt doing? How are the salmon doing?
Mr. Keppen. Well, I have been using this same sort of flow
centric approach for the last couple of decades, and we are not
seeing an impact. I mean, every year we are hearing about some
looming crisis that is occurring.
And I think as long as we focus on the single species sort
of approach, and until the Bureau and National Marine Fisheries
Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who all have sort
of their hands in the pie on Delta management, until they look
at the entire ecosystem and look at all of the stressors, in
addition to the stress the fish cause by flows, I think the
Central Valley project is going to continue to under deliver in
the Central Valley.
Mr. Duarte. Thank you very much.
Ms. Guyas, sportfishing, I grew up in San Diego for a while
and loved sportfishing. One of the stressors on the salmon in
the San Joaquin Delta is their predation by non-native bass.
Does the Sportfishing Association that you represent support
removing limits and season limits on sportfishing of non-native
bass species in the San Joaquin Delta?
Ms. Guyas. I live in Florida, so if it is OK, we can
provide a written response to that question, but I can't speak
specifically to that.
Mr. Duarte. I am very interested in it because removing the
bag limits, the caps, the season, on non-native bass in the
Delta has been shown through one scientific report after
another to very likely help the salmon, even more than the
human devastation we have brought into my district might. So,
we think that is a common-sense solution.
Mr. Keppen, flood plain restoration and feeding ground for
the salmon hatchlings to size up on. What can you briefly tell
us on that? I understand it is a far superior approach.
Mr. Keppen. Yes. That is one of the sort of the success
stories I use as an example in my written testimony. It is
happening in the Sacramento Valley right now. So, again, it is
one means of improving the health of the fish without
necessarily focusing just on flow. So, what they are doing is
moving water into the flood plains in the Sacramento Valley,
and it is a great collaborative effort between the university,
and NGOs, and the farmers, and the ranchers, and the agencies.
And, basically, what they are showing is these fish can get
into these flooded areas. I think some of this is in your
district, Mr. LaMalfa, where these fish can have sort of
shelter from predators in the river, and there is actually more
food in there.
I have a picture--I probably should have brought a slide--
but it shows on one of these projects where the salmon that are
getting into the rice fields, same age as the salmon that are
in the river, but they are about three times the size. So, they
are----
Mr. Duarte. Fantastic.
Mr. Keppen. Yes. It is really amazing. So, I think that
sort of thing can really help us out. And what is happening in
the Sag Valley might be mimicked even up in the Klamath Basin.
We are going to be bringing some producers down to----
Mr. Duarte. Thank you. While we are screening ahead and
with common sense, it is far less anti-human than what is
happening in my district. Tell me what you can about the Marine
Mammal Protection Act and why those wet furry creatures out on
the rocks in front of San Francisco Bay are more important than
the children in Coalinga, California.
Mr. Keppen. Yes. I am not a real expert on that, but all I
can say is I know that the sealions and seals are definitely a
stressor to salmon on the Columbia and on the Klamath.
Mr. Duarte. Thank you very much.
I yield back to the Chairman.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
With that, the Chair recognizes Congresswoman Hageman for 5
minutes.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The 1902 Reclamation Act was a
visionary piece of legislation that recognized that the future
of the United States required the development, management, and
use of our natural resources, including our water and our real
property.
Coming from Wyoming, I am especially cognizant of the
importance of the Reclamation Act and the prosperity that it
unleashed throughout the interior West as two of the very first
projects permitted and built were in Wyoming: Pathfinder Dam
and Reservoir, 1,160,000 acre-feet of water; Buffalo Bill, up
near Cody, Wyoming, 646,565 acre-feet. And the Pathfinder Dam
and Reservoir was over 1 million acre-feet. These are beautiful
facilities that together irrigate hundreds of thousands of
acres. They provide municipal water. They provide recreation,
fisheries, wildlife habitat, hydropower, and they are amenities
that are incredibly important to my state and our communities.
We have also learned of the incredible benefits that these
projects provide in relation to irrigation and what irrigation
has done in terms of creating the bounty that we have in the
interior Western United States.
With flood irrigation, we are able to replenish our
aquifers. We have the deep percolation and the runoff. And that
is what keeps our rivers alive in the West. We are a snowpack
state. And as a result, prior to the construction of our dams,
and prior to the construction of the buildout of these
facilities and the irrigation infrastructure, many of our
streams and rivers were dry during certain times, if not most
of the year.
The North Platte River, for example, ran dry pretty much
every year, as well as the Platte River. And why is that?
Because those rivers and streams were kept alive by snowmelt.
The water came through as runoff in the spring with spring
floods, and then was gone.
So, what do you think happened to the fisheries when the
rivers and streams went dry? They didn't exist. It is through
the creation of these types of projects that we have been able
to create--and I will use the word again--the bounty that we
have in the interior West.
In Central Wyoming, south of Casper on the North Platte
River, we have what is referred to as the ``Miracle Mile.''
Have any of you ever heard of the Miracle Mile? It is the No. 1
Blue Ribbon fishery in the North America.
Do you know why we have the Miracle Mile in Wyoming?
Because upstream we have Pathfinder Reservoir, Seminole
Reservoir, Alcova Reservoir. We are able to release 500 CFS of
water every day, 365 days a year, to keep that fishery alive.
And as a result, we have people who come from all over the
world to enjoy angling, and fishing, and hunting in Wyoming.
But it was all created because of irrigation. It was all
created because of the construction of reservoirs. It was all
created--and, again, it has provided us with a standard of
living that has created the irrigation infrastructure that we
needed to grow crops. We grow alfalfa, corn, sugar beets,
beans. We have created tens of thousands of jobs, and we
irrigate millions of acres in Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska.
We are able to produce food for our cattle producers. And as a
result, we are able to feed the United States.
So, when I come to a meeting like this or a hearing like
this and we talk about water, I think one of the things that is
incredibly important is that you have to understand that for
the interior West especially, without irrigation
infrastructure, without reservoirs, we don't have fisheries
that so many people love about Wyoming, and Montana, and
Colorado, and Utah, and Idaho. We don't have the production of
hydropower that keeps the lights on for millions of people
throughout the West.
So, Mr. Keppen, in your testimony, you touched a bit on
some of the shifting priorities in reclamation projects. And
the Reclamation Act was for irrigation. It was to create these
irrigation projects. How has that shift in focus affected our
ability to protect our water resources and all of the amenities
I have described?
Mr. Keppen. Well, first, I apologize for not knowing about
the Miracle Mile, even though you and I both went to the
University of Wyoming.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Keppen. But can you repeat the question again,
Congresswoman?
Ms. Hageman. The shift in focus of the Bureau of
Reclamation from irrigation to environmental, what are the
impacts of that?
Mr. Keppen. Yes. Well, it is like you say, where I live,
and also in the Central Valley to some degree, the water and
the irrigation project for the Klamath Basin provides an
important water fallow function, and it is part of the Pacific
Flyway. Same with Northern California and the Central Valley.
And when farms aren't getting water, the refuges are
impacted, because the birds aren't going to the refuges to get
food. It is the adjacent farmlands that provides them food. So,
I have talked to a lot of folks in the waterfowl community----
Mr. Bentz. Mr. Keppen, could you wind it up, please? We are
49 seconds----
Mr. Keppen. OK. One example, when irrigation is taken away,
it also has environmental impacts, especially to waterfowl.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Thank you for that, and I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Graves for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congressman Duarte, I want to invite you to Louisiana.
While you all struggle with your fishery, we have an abundance
and would love you to come and participate with the great
bounty of the Gulf of Mexico any time.
Ms. Guyas, I want to ask you a question. Over the past few
years, we have made a lot of progress in legislation, such as
the Modern Fish Act, which really brings recreational fisheries
up to the same level in terms of management regime, working
with Senator Shelby, received funding for the Great Red Snapper
Count, which I think is the most detailed analysis of a fish
stock in the country.
The Modern Fish Act not just brought up the sort of parity
with recreational and commercial fisheries, but it also
required that the best science be used to inform fisheries
management decisions.
Noting the findings of the Great Red Snapper Count, noting
that the Modern Fish Act requires the use of the best science,
do you believe that National Marine Fisheries Service has
properly managing the red snapper species in the Gulf of
Mexico?
Ms. Guyas. Well, I think we are still working toward
getting that best science incorporated into management and
assessment. So, it has been sort of a winding path to use the
Great Red Snapper Count results to inform quotas. It has been a
little bit of a struggle, and we are on now our second
rulemaking to adjust quotas based on the Great Red Snapper
Count.
At this point, there is a new assessment going on now for
Gulf red snapper, and the analysts are trying to figure out how
to incorporate Great Red Snapper Count into it. We will see how
that goes, but would love to see that, and then, also, the
state data programs as well.
Mr. Graves. Which Louisiana, our fishers decided to impose
a new fee on themselves to create the Louisiana Creel System to
collect better data, to inform decisions, and ultimately to
result in better fisheries management.
And I will tell you, I am very much bothered by the fact
that the Great Red Snapper Count determined that there was
effectively a tripling of the species, or I guess say it
differently, there were more than three times the fish in the
Gulf of Mexico as National Marine Fisheries Service believed
and as the management regime was operating under, which is
incredibly frustrating.
And, lastly, I just want to make note that the red snapper
off the coast of Louisiana are much better than those off of
Alabama.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carl. They are red because they----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Graves. I know you get to speak after me, but I am
going to leave before then.
I also wanted to ask, look, everybody agrees that we need
to make sure that we are carrying out the best practices to
manage the right whale species in the Atlantic and the Gulf of
Mexico. However, some of the proposals that have been put out
appear to impose restrictions on vessels that I think would
actually threaten safety of the vessels whenever right whales
may not be within 100 miles of that vessel. And I just didn't
know if you had any reaction to that.
Ms. Guyas. Yes. Thanks for the question. Vessel speed is an
important safety feature, actually, on recreational vessels.
They don't have the same stability as larger commercial
shipping vessels, so if you are caught in rough seas, being
able to go fast is really part of your safety plan to get back
home safely.
Mr. Graves. Get back home, but also to actually get over
the swells. Without that speed, without that momentum, you
actually threaten the safety of the vessels and the passengers
as well.
Last question. Can you talk about the benefits of
artificial reef structures for fisheries and whether, for
example, energy infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico provides
benefits to fishery stocks?
Ms. Guyas. Yes. Absolutely. I am sure you have fished on
plenty of oil rigs in your time. Fish love that structure, so
for oil rigs you have amberjack that love that, cobia. I am
sure you are catching some red snapper there as well. So, yes,
that structure is definitely fished by the recreational
fishery.
Mr. Graves. Thank you. Last question, Ms. Guyas. Did you
know that when Mardi Gras was celebrated in Mobile, did you
know that there were only two colors to Mardi Gras at that
time? It was only purple and gold, which happens to be the two
colors of LSU. It was only later that Louisiana added green as
well.
So, I yield my remaining time to my friend from Alabama.
Mr. Carl. A lot to ponder there.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carl. I don't know if I want to follow him or not.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Mr. Carl for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate my
friend from Louisiana. Obviously, we have a good time picking
at one another.
And, Ms. Guyas, I think my question is going to be more
targeted at you. Before I get to you, though, I would like to
counter Congressman Huffman. I would love for you to work with
us on the shrimping industry. Our shrimpers are a dying art,
between fuel prices, between foreign countries that are
catching our shrimp that are coming into our waters. I would
love for us to come up with a way to save our shrimping
industry in Louisiana, Florida, and Alabama, Mississippi,
obviously. So, thank you for your offer for all of us to join
together.
May I call you Martha? All right. I can remember Martha
pretty easy. Martha, like you, I am concerned that NOAA is
using the wrong data and issuing conflicting rules. Their
decisions hurt anglers, confuse anglers, and are harmful to the
local economy, which is my district that I am speaking of. And
it is no surprise that NOAA has prioritized its Federal catch
data over more accurate state data.
And that is the key. I think Graves referred to it there as
the Great Red Snapper Count as we all know it as. States on the
Gulf Coast, like Alabama, have done an incredible job of
monitoring red snapper. If you are not used to our red snapper
program, it is second to none, and I would encourage you to
look at it.
And it helps us monitor our red snapper population, and the
last thing state needs is more Federal Government, getting more
involved and imposing more regulations on our fishermen.
We need to get out of their way and let them fish. That is
what they are there for. That is what they came to do. It is
their weekend, their money. That is our profits, our tax
dollars.
Last year, the NOAA Administration testified in front of
this--sorry, they testified in front of the Senate Commerce
Committee and said it was crucial for NOAA to base its
management decision on the best scientific information
available. When the Administration later testified in front of
this Subcommittee, I told them I agreed with them 100 percent.
And the science he was looking at needs to be the science also
used in Alabama, the numbers that we use.
The science clearly showed that we had an abundance of red
snapper, and the population continues to grow. The bottom line
is, I support increasing the red snapper quota for everyone.
And I would love to hear from you about how we can better
manage our fisheries in a way that will help all of us.
Ms. Guyas. Thank you for your question. I think state
management has made a lot of progress. Alabama certainly has a
great program set up. All five of the Gulf states do. Going
back to our conversation with Mr. Graves, we need to get that
Great Red Snapper Count in the assessment, so that that is
helping to drive forward our management and setting our quotas
moving out here from here on out.
The Council of Scientific Advisors, when they have looked
at the Great Red Snapper Count, they have kind of struggled
figuring out how to incorporate it into management without
having it in the assessment. So, I think that is going to be
the key moving forward.
Mr. Carl. And for people who don't understand, I heard this
said, so I am assuming it is correct. I did read it on
Facebook, so it may be a lie. But Alabama has the most reefs of
any state. We have buses, we have tanks, we have bridge rubble,
you name it, we have it out. Chicken coops, they love chicken
coops.
I went out on a University of South Alabama group, and we
sent down the robotics, and chicken coops held the most fish of
all things in the world. And we are very proud of that, and we
have spent a lot of private money getting those reefs built.
So, there is a reason why we have more snapper out there,
and you are not going to count those snapper by dragging a net
and counting the fish in the net.
I appreciate your time. I appreciate everyone coming and
speaking before this Committee. It is important that our voices
be heard. It is important that we speak up for those that can't
be here to speak for us.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I give my time back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Carl.
And with that, I don't see any other witnesses. Is that
correct? I thank the witnesses for the valuable testimony and
the Members for their questions.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the
Committee must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5
p.m., Monday, March 13. The hearing record will be held open
for 10 business days for these reasons.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the hearing record
the letter from the American Public Power Association. Without
objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION
Arlington, VA
March 8, 2023
Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chairman
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:
The American Public Power Association (APPA) appreciates the
opportunity to submit a statement for the record for the House Natural
Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries
hearing, ``Benefits and Access: The Necessity for Multiple Use of Water
Resources.'' APPA supports and agrees with the testimony submitted by
Mr. Scott Corwin, the Executive Director of the Northwest Public Power
Association (NWPPA).
APPA is the voice of not-for-profit, community-owned utilities that
power 2,000 towns and cities nationwide. APPA represents public power
before the federal government to protect the interests of the more than
49 million people that public power utilities serve, and the 96,000
people they employ.
Hydropower Benefits
Hydropower is one of many uses of water resources. Making full use
of the nation's hydropower resources is key to ensuring that the
nation's grid remains reliable and resilient, and that utilities can
meet emission reduction goals. Hydropower is a source of emissions-
free, baseload power. Furthermore, hydroelectric generators can be
started or stopped quickly, which makes them more responsive than most
other energy sources for meeting demand for electricity at its ``peak''
or highest volume. Hydropower's ``black start'' capability makes it
especially valuable in restoring power when there are widespread
outages or disruptions on the system--this capability allows the
generating units to cycle back on quickly if they have been tripped off
in a power outage.
Federal Hydropower
The federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) \1\ provide
millions of Americans served by not-for-profit public power and rural
cooperative electric utilities with cost-based hydroelectric power
produced at federal dams operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and Bureau of Reclamation.\2\ The Corps and Reclamation are the largest
and second largest (respectively) generators of hydropower in the
country. The PMAs market federally generated hydropower, with a
statutory right of first refusal granted to not-for-profit entities,
including public power utilities and rural electric cooperatives
(called ``preference customers''), at rates set to cover all of the
costs of generating and transmitting the electricity, as well as
repayment, with interest, of the federal investment in these hydropower
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The four PMAs are: the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA),
Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), Southwestern Area Power
Administration (SWPA) and Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA).
\2\ Given the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee, this statement
focuses exclusively on federal hydropower. However, in addition to
buying hydropower from federally owned dams, many APPA members own and
operate their own dams, which are licensed by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with federal law, PMA rates are set at the levels
needed to recover the costs of the initial federal investment (plus
interest) in the hydropower and transmission facilities. The PMAs
annually review their rates to ensure full cost recovery. None of the
costs are borne by taxpayers. Power rates also help to cover the costs
of other activities authorized by these multipurpose projects, such as
navigation, flood control, water supply, environmental programs, and
recreation. The annual appropriations process is also important to the
PMAs. Although the customers pay all the PMA costs through their power
rates, as mentioned above, for the Western Area Power Administration,
Southeastern Power Administration, and Southwestern Power
Administration, those monies flow back to the U.S. Treasury and then
must be appropriated by Congress. (Bonneville Power Administration's
(BPA) governing statute, amended in the 1980s, allows for a ``revolving
fund'' so ratepayer money goes directly to BPA rather than to the
Treasury.) In addition, the PMAs must receive yearly funding levels
from Congress for purchasing and wheeling (transmitting) power in a
drought situation or when the water at the dams is used for purposes
other than for electricity production (i.e., recreation and
environmental mitigation). This money for ``purchase power and
wheeling'' will then be paid for by the PMA customers through their
rates.
Challenges Facing Federal Hydropower
Federal hydropower and the PMAs are critical, though often
overlooked, elements of the nation's power supply. Each PMA is unique
in its authorizing statutes and the challenges it faces. We would
welcome the opportunity to work with the subcommittee to address the
PMA-specific issues highlighted below.
Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA)--APPA strongly supported
S. 3719, the Southwestern Power Fund Establishment Act, introduced by
Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Roger Marshall (R-KS) in the last
Congress, and urges the reintroduction and passage of the legislation
this Congress. The current funding process for SWPA has increasingly
failed to provide the financial certainty necessary to ensure steady
power rates to customers during drought and other extreme weather
events. This legislation would move SWPA to a ``revolving fund'' model
where receipts from power sales would be deposited into a permanent
mandatory Treasury revolving fund and retained across fiscal years to
fund future expenses as necessary. Future annual discretionary
appropriations would no longer be needed. This change will provide SWPA
and its not-for-profit customers funding certainty for purchase power
and wheeling and other costs. This is a proven model of success for
federal utility programs with business-like functions. [See July 28,
2022, statement for the record submitted by APPA and NRECA to the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee].
Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)--The protracted drought in
the West has caused reservoir levels to drop precipitously, thereby
reducing the production of hydropower at several Bureau of Reclamation
projects that is marketed by WAPA. It is possible that reservoir levels
may drop so far that hydropower production is no longer possible. To
make up for this reduction or even loss of hydropower production,
WAPA's customers have long-term contracts for a fixed amount of power.
When that power is unable to be generated at hydropower projects,
replacement power must be purchased on the wholesale energy market.
This means that public power utilities and other WAPA customers are
paying twice: once for the ongoing capital repayment and operation and
maintenance of the Reclamation project that is unable to produce the
contracted amount of hydropower and again for the cost of replacement
power. As not-for-profit electric utilities, increased costs are
shouldered directly by public power customers at a time when the
country is already facing high inflation and energy prices.
Last Congress, Congressman Chris Stewart (R-UT) drafted legislation
to help address the declining hydropower production in the Upper and
Lower Colorado River Basins by providing a pro-rata credit to
customers' monthly invoices for service shortfalls in hydropower
delivered that are below the contracted amount. Senators Mark Kelly (D-
AZ) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) introduced similar legislation (S. 4233).
APPA urges the reintroduction and passage of this legislation. [See
November 10, 2022, letters to Congressman Stewart and Senate Energy &
Natural Resources Committee Leadership; APPA Resolution 22-11, ``In
Support of Colorado River Basin Drought Assistance''].
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)--The United States and Canada
agreed to the Columbia River Treaty in 1964 for the mutual development
of the Columbia River power and flood control systems. Under the
Treaty, the U.S. provides payments to Canada, called the Canadian
Entitlement (CE), in the form of returned power generation. The CE
amount is calculated using a formula from 1961, which was based on the
expected improvement to U.S. hydropower generation capability due to
Canadian storage. Today, these calculations exceed the actual benefits
of coordinated operations by an estimated 70-90 percent. An equitable
rebalancing of this problem is worth more than a billion dollars to
U.S. consumers at a time when many are already facing rising energy
prices. APPA urges Congress to press the State Department and the
entire negotiating team working under National Security Council
officials to move faster on renegotiating the treaty with a particular
emphasis on rebalancing the power provisions between the U.S. and
Canada. [See April 4, 2022, APPA letter to President Biden].
Making full use of the nation's hydropower resource is key to
ensuring that the nation's--and the Pacific Northwest's--grid remains
reliable and resilient, and that utilities can meet emission reduction
goals. APPA strongly opposes the removal of the Lower Snake River Dams
(LSRDs). It is difficult to overstate how critical it is to maintain
the LRSDs as the region--and the nation--seeks to lower emissions while
maintaining electric reliability and affordability over the long-term.
Moreover, recent extreme weather events have demonstrated that the
LSRDs are irreplaceable resources not just in the future but right
now--both in terms of energy, capacity, and other grid services key to
maintaining reliable electricity. [See APPA Resolution 22-12, ``In
Support of Hydropower, the Federal Columbia River Power System, and
Opposing Breach of the Lower Snake River Dams''].
Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA)--Since the 1990s, the
hydropower customers in the Southeast have witnessed the tug of war
between the states over the use of federal multi-purpose projects for
water supply. The water wars involving the States of Alabama, Florida,
and Georgia have engulfed Corps decision making on the execution of
water storage contracts, which would supplement water supply at Corps
projects. Inherent throughout the debate, the question has lingered
whether the Corps has adequately priced storage to compensate for the
benefits lost by the hydropower customers who have historically paid
for the projects.
With the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(P.L. 117-53) and the Disaster Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L.
117-43), the Corps revealed that the Southeast could be asked to repay
nearly $500 million in stimulus funds through hydropower rates. These
funds have been directed to support work at Corps multipurpose projects
on a variety of non-hydropower related projects. Yet, the Corps cost
accounting proposes to report to SEPA hundreds of millions in costs
that should be borne by other project purposes. For customers in the
Southeast, the threat to hydropower resources is not isolated to
changes in project operations and competing uses, but also within the
books maintained by the Corps.
APPA supports efforts to improve the transparency in accounting for
costs to ensure that hydropower customers are not asked to bear costs
unrelated to hydropower production.
Conclusion
APPA commends the subcommittee for examining the multiple uses of
our nation's water resources and looks forward to working on
legislative solutions to preserve and maximize our federal hydropower
assets.
Sincerely,
Desmarie Waterhouse,
Senior Vice President of Advocacy and Communications
& General Counsel
Attachments:
The following documents were submitted as attachments to APPA's letter
to the Subcommittee. These documents are part of the hearing record and
are being retained in the Committee's official files:
-- July 28, 2022, statement for the record submitted by APPA and
NRECA to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in support
of establishing a SWPA revolving fund;
-- November 10, 2022, letters to Congressman Stewart and Senate
Energy Committee Leadership on drought assistance to WAPA;
-- APPA Resolution 22-11, ``In Support of Colorado River Basin
Drought Assistance;''
-- April 4, 2022, APPA letter to President Biden on the Columbia
River Treaty; and
-- APPA Resolution 22-12, ``In Support of Hydropower, the Federal
Columbia River Power System, and Opposing Breach of the Lower Snake
River Dams.''
This letter with all attachments is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20230308/115450/HHRG-118-II13-
20230308-SD004.pdf
______
Mr. Bentz. If there is no further business, without
objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Huffman
Letter from Recreational Fishing Organizations
March 7, 2023
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Ranking Member Huffman:
The undersigned recreational fishing businesses, organizations, and
individuals write to you share our concerns about some of the
challenges facing recreational fisheries today. Saltwater recreational
fishing supports substantial economic activity in coastal communities
and is an important tradition that brings together generations of
Americans. In 2019, our industry of recreational businesses and anglers
supported 553,000 jobs and over $89 billion in sales impacts, in
addition to providing livelihood, recreation, and connection to one
another and to the ocean.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Fisheries Economics of the United
States 2019, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-229A (March 2022), at
14, available at https://media.fisheries. noaa.gov/2022-07/FEUS-2019-
final-v3_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saltwater recreational fishing relies on abundant fish populations
that are managed sustainably by fishery managers in accordance with the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
However, in recent years, some have cited the challenges of managing
recreational fisheries as reasons to weaken or roll back the
conservation measures in the MSA that we depend on. This is especially
troubling as, despite progress made under the MSA to rebuild stocks and
support sustainable fishing, there is more work to be done to create
resilience in our fisheries to ensure generations to come also have the
opportunity to fish.
Healthy and abundant fish stocks are an important part of ocean
ecosystems and provide opportunities for sustainable fishing now and in
the future, and the MSA is a vital part of achieving them. The MSA has
been transformative for U.S. fisheries and making them sustainable, but
many challenges remain. Despite the progress made through the MSA,
there are concerning signs that many stocks are struggling. For
example, 20% of stocks are currently overfished. Frankly, we believe
that managers could do more to ensure that the law is being implemented
as intended to support the resilience of fish stocks and fishing
communities.
To us, the greatest threats to the fisheries we rely on are
rollbacks to the sustainability and accountability of recreational
fishing, challenges with data collection, and our slow progress in
addressing the impacts of climate change.
As Congress continues to explore ways to steward our ocean
fisheries into the future, we look forward to working with you to
address the following serious challenges to the sustainability of
recreational fishing.
Sustainable Recreational Management and Data Collection
Just like any other fisheries sector, recreational fisheries have
an impact on fish stocks and to grow fishing opportunities, we believe
that management should be sustainable. That means it must be science-
based, uphold catch limits and accountability measures, prevent
overfishing, rebuild stocks, and conserve and restore habitat to
support healthy and abundant fish stocks. In the long run, abundant
fish stocks are what yields the greatest fishing opportunity, and
changes to management shouldn't come at the expense of the fish.
Good management relies on good data, and we know that collecting
recreational fishing data is inherently challenging. There are
opportunities to improve upon our data system in ways that will make
management more effective at supporting abundant fish stocks and
allowing for the most fishing opportunities for anglers. NOAA Fisheries
has made a number of improvements to recreational data over the years,
and data collection should continue to build upon this foundation. This
includes answering fundamental questions around the number of
recreational anglers, their effort and catch, their mode of fishing,
discards, and other questions. Improving data also means making
refinements to existing recreational fishing surveys and integrating
additional surveys in ways that ensure the quality of data is
maintained and can adequately inform management, such as by calibrating
new sources of data and maintaining consistency of supplemental data
systems. New approaches should foster the development of innovative
science-based solutions for recreational management. New data is useful
in addition to, not in place of, existing information that provides a
long-term view. We need to invest in obtaining more data and
modernizing our data systems to ensure that our management is
responsive and nimble to changes in biomass.
Addressing Climate Change Impacts
Climate change is making our ocean waters warmer, more acidic, and
lower in oxygen and disrupting where fish are found, what they can eat,
where they can live, and how many there are. As fishermen, we see these
changes every day on the water. These impacts are affecting
recreational fisheries and every part of the management system. There
is a lot that fishery managers can do through MSA to prepare our
fisheries to adapt to the impacts of climate change. However, the law
does not explicitly address climate, and we see opportunities to
incorporate climate into the law more fully. Action is needed now to
help fisheries adapt to changing conditions. Delaying action to address
the climate impacts on fisheries will have costs, such as lower
catches, less stable management, and more fisheries disasters. The
challenge of climate change shouldn't be a reason to throw up our hands
and do less management and less accountability for recreational
fisheries. Instead, fishermen, managers, and scientists need to work
together better to make sure we are considering climate in management
and making fish stocks as resilient as we can.
***
As recreational fishermen, businesses, and organizations, we deeply
appreciate the decades of leadership in Congress that have created a
sustainable fishery management system that supports substantial
recreational fishing activity. We encourage you to look for ways to
build on the successes we've seen, and avoid policy changes that might
weaken the foundations of our system. Instead, we hope to work with you
to tackle climate change impacts, enhance our data systems, and build
resilience and abundance in our fisheries.
Thank you for considering our comments on these issues.
Sincerely,
Steve Stracqualursi,
Product Director Todd Corayer
12wt Fishwrapwriter.com
Whitney Tilt, Executive
Director Tim Hardin
AFFTA Fisheries Fund Venturing Angler
Lucas Bissett, Executive
Director Rich Heffernan
American Fly Fish Trade
Association Angler/Former Board Narragansett
Surf Casters, RI
Rick Crawford, President Ned Bean
Fly Fishing Climate
Alliance Plum Island and Martha's Vineyard
Emerger Strategies Surfcasters Association, MA
Bake Merwin--Owner Eddie Doherty
Gig Harbor Fly Shop Author
Ross Purnell, Publisher/
Editor George Baldwin, President
Fly Fisherman Magazine Connecticut Surfcasters Assoc.,
CT
Kirk Deeter, Publisher/
Editor Patrick Cassidy, Owner
Angling Trade Magazine Cape Cod on the Fly and New
England Maritime
Michael DeJarnette,
Publisher Kyle Schaefer, Owner
/Editor Soul Fly Lodge, Bahamas Flats
Tail Magazine Soul Fly Outfitters, Maine
Jack Reis, Director of
Marketing Peter Auster, PhD,
Fishpond Research Professor Emeritus,
University of Connecticut
Senior Research Scientist, Mystic
Aquarium, CT
Chad Schmukler, Publisher/
Editor Abbie Schuster
Hatch Magazine Kismet Outfitters Tackle Shop/
Charter Fishing Guide,
Martha's Vineyard, MA
Dave McCoy, Owner Bruce Bain, President
Emerald Waters Anglers Narragansett Surfcasters, RI
Guy Fleischer, Science
Advisor David Monti
Wild Steelhead Coalition No Fluke Charters/RI Saltwater
Anglers Assoc./
Am. Saltwater Guides Assoc./RI
Marine Fisheries Council
Brook Scott Chris Hunt
Yellow Dog Community &
Conservation Foundation Hatch Adventure Travel
Brian Bennett Ted Upton, CEO
Moldychum Cheeky Fly Fishing
Shane Cantrell Peter Vandergrift, CMO
Galveston Sea Ventures Wingo Outdoors
Jonathan Ungerland,
President John Creighton, Trustee
Cape Cod Salties, MA Cape Cod Salties, MA
Chris Willi
Owner Block Island Fish
Works Outfitters/Charter
Captain, RI
______
OCEAN CONSERVANCY
Washington, DC
March 10, 2023
Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chairman
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Using and accessing federal water resources--Gulf of Mexico red
snapper
Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:
Ocean Conservancy\1\ offers the following perspectives on the
management of the private recreational sector of red snapper in the
Gulf of Mexico, as it was a featured topic in your subcommittee hearing
on March 8, 2023, entitled, ``Benefits and Access: The Necessity for
Multiple Use of Water Resources.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ocean Conservancy is working to protect the ocean from today's
greatest global challenges. Together with our partners, we create
evidence-based solutions for a healthy ocean and the wildlife and
communities that depend on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red snapper is a commercially and recreationally important fish
stock to the Gulf of Mexico region, and management of the fishery must
rebuild this stock while balancing efforts to allow fair and
accountable access to the resource. Decades of management innovations
have improved the health of the stock, increased the stability and
profitability of coastal businesses, and expanded recreational fishing
opportunity. However, recent management measures, particularly the
necessary refinements to the state management system for the private
recreational fleet and efforts to incorporate the Great Red Snapper
Count into the fishery management system, have been subject to
significant misunderstanding by the public. As many of the statements
made in the hearing regarding red snapper do not align with the facts
or the reality of the situation on the water, we offer these
perspectives on the management of Gulf red snapper.
In particular, we note the following key points:
Red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is a stock still
rebuilding to healthy levels after overfishing drove the
population to historically low biomass.
Every sector that targets or interacts with red snapper--
the shrimp trawl fleet, the commercial sector, the for-hire
sector, and the private recreational sector--has needed new
management measures to restrict catch to sustainable levels
as part of efforts to rebuild the stock.
The private recreational sector is the last sector to
experience significant management reform.
``State management'' is a management approach for the
private recreational sector that allows the Gulf states to
manage private anglers and their catch throughout the
Exclusive Economic Zone. As part of this approach, each
state must ensure catch stays under its allocated quota.
However, overfishing has continued to occur under state
management.
There are concerning signs that the red snapper population
is in decline in the Gulf.
In order to use the best scientific information available
to monitor catch levels in the private recreational
fishery, calibration ratios (``common currency'') were
collaboratively developed to allow state and federal data
systems to work together, as intended by their
complementary designs. These ratios have recently been
implemented and are necessary to ensure management complies
with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA).
State and federal surveys provide the most information for
management when their data are used in complementary ways.
Calibration ratios, like all scientific considerations in
fishery management, will continue to be refined and
improved over time. However, fishery management is required
to use the best scientific information available at the
time of the management decision being made, and so it is
appropriate for existing calibration ratios to be
implemented. Managers have ample opportunity to revise
calibration ratios for use in future management decisions
at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (`Gulf
Council').
The Great Red Snapper Count (GRSC) is being considered in
the next stock assessment process. This is the appropriate
venue for this new information because the abundance
estimate from the GRSC should not be considered
independently of the other biological factors of the stock.
For instance, a higher abundance estimate may mean that red
snapper is less productive than previously estimated.
Suggestions that catch levels should have simply been
multiplied based on the results of the GRSC fundamentally
misunderstand or misrepresent the considerations that go
into fishery population studies.
We note that the GRSC is already being used to set the
highest catch levels ever in the fishery.
Significant overfishing of red snapper led to management changes for
all sectors
The red snapper stock was first put into a rebuilding plan in 1990
after overfishing drove it to just 2% of its historic levels; the
rebuilding plan was revised in 2005 after insufficient progress was
being made to recover the stock.\2\ In order to rebuild the stock,
managers needed to address two key problems. First, they needed to
further reduce bycatch of juvenile red snapper in the shrimp trawl
fleets. This was accomplished in 2008 by implementing bycatch reduction
devices and establishing shrimp trawl fishing effort thresholds.\3\ And
second, managers needed to prevent overfishing from occurring in the
directed red snapper fishery; this remains an ongoing challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Rebuilding Plan,
70 Fed. Reg. 32266 (June 2, 2005).
\3\ Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Reef Fish Fishery and Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment
27/14, 73 Fed. Reg. 5117 (February 28, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The directed red snapper fishery is divided into two sectors for
management and allocation purposes: commercial, allocated 51% of the
quota, and recreational, allocated 49%. The commercial sector is
managed through an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program implemented
in 2007.\4\ Since IFQ implementation, the commercial sector has
complied with its catch limit every year. The recreational sector is
then further subdivided into two components: private recreational
anglers, who fish from their own private boats, and the for-hire
sector, who operate charter vessels and headboats that take paying
customers out into the Gulf to fish. This subdivision of the
recreational sector is referred to as ``sector separation,'' and since
its implementation in 2015, the for-hire sector has also stayed under
its catch limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 26, 71 Fed. Reg.
67447 (November 22, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having successfully addressed key sustainability issues with the
shrimp fishery, commercial red snapper sector, and for-hire red snapper
sector, managers then turned to improving management of the private
recreational fleet. The private recreational sector faces several
management challenges: there are millions of individual anglers, they
can leave on fishing trips from anywhere in the Gulf (as opposed to
leaving from specific ports and marinas), it is difficult to collect
data on their activities, and estimating bycatch (discards) and the
mortality of those discards is difficult. Further, as the red snapper
stock began rebuilding from the combined efforts of the other fishing
sectors, recreational anglers regularly exceeded their annual catch
limits. This was driven in part due to the size of the fish they
caught, and also because long seasons in state waters allowed for
anglers to catch lots of red snapper before the federal fishing season
began. As a result, federal season lengths significantly contracted,
down to as few as three days in 2017.
To be clear, the vast majority of private recreational fishermen
are conservationists and are doing everything they can individually to
follow the rules--they fish when the season is open, they only keep as
many fish as they are allowed, and they try to carefully release fish
that can't be brought back to shore. However, the sheer number of
recreational fishermen in the Gulf and the challenges of accurately
accounting for their activities have led to persistent catch overages.
Managers needed to address these issues, and they have tackled it with
a combination of expanded data collection efforts and new management
approaches.
State management of private anglers contained a serious data flaw that
allowed overfishing
State management is an attempt to improve the fishing experience of
recreational anglers while finally implementing accountable,
sustainable management for the private recreational sector in the Gulf.
Under state management, each of the five Gulf states--Florida, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas--is authorized to manage a portion of
the total private recreational annual catch limit for federal waters.
The proportions of catch given to each state were decided by the states
themselves and implemented as fixed amounts in the fishery management
amendment that established state management, Amendment 50.\5\ With
Amendment 50, each state took on the responsibility for setting
management measures that would keep its catch under its quotas for
fishing both in state waters and out to 200 nautical miles (the limit
of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the U.S.). This includes the
responsibility to accurately monitor the red snapper catch of anglers
in state and adjacent federal waters throughout the year and ensure
that the landings stay below limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendments 50A-F, 85 Fed. Reg.
6819 (February 6, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, state management suffered from a major data problem:
separating out the reporting responsibility to the five Gulf states
meant that each was now using a different survey methodology to
estimate landings, and the data from these different surveys could not
be directly compared to each other or to their allocated federal quota.
In essence, managers couldn't compare landings to quota because each
one was calculated in a different ``currency,'' and there was no
methodology, or calibration, implemented to convert among them (a
problem akin to having multiple currencies used in different countries
with no currency exchange rate). As noted by NOAA Fisheries, ``Whenever
existing and new surveys produce estimates that are systematically
different from one another, calibration is an essential step that must
occur before the new estimates can be used in science and management.''
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ NOAA Fisheries, Statistical Calibration Overview, https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/recreational-fishing-data/statistical-
calibration-overview
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This lack of calibration between these different sources of data
has allowed excessive recreational fishing in each year since state
management was implemented. It was particularly notable in 2019, when
recreational fishing drove the combined Gulf red snapper fishery (all
sectors) over the overfishing limit (OFL) for the first time in over a
decade.\7\ This exceedance of the OFL put the rebuilding of the stock,
which benefits all fishermen, at risk. If fishery management measures
are set in a way that fails to restrain fishing below annual catch
limits, allows fishing to exceed the overfishing limit, and fails to
implement a rebuilding plan, as in this case, they are inconsistent
with the requirements of the MSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Landings. Tab B, No. 6a, August 25,
2020. https://gulfcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/B-6a-
SERO_RS_CouncilSlides082020updated.pdf, slide 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To fix the data issues in state management, a multi-year process
was initiated to develop the necessary calibration ratios that would
make appropriate comparisons between landings and quota possible. This
process is often referred to as developing a ``common currency,'' and
it involved the managers and scientists from each of the Gulf states,
NOAA Fisheries, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the
Gulf Council. In July 2019, NOAA Fisheries' Office of Science and
Technology (OST) released a white paper that identified a range of
acceptable methods to calibrate data across scientific surveys; they
concluded that without a calibration, comparison of state survey
landings with an ACL derived from the Marine Recreational Information
Program's (MRIP) survey would be ``statistically indefensible.'' \8\
The calibration ratios developed during this process are simple
calibration ratios (the ratio between catch estimates produced by
running the state and federal monitoring systems side by side), a
common approach that enables for calibrations to be developed more
quickly and allowed each state to use its own calibration method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ NOAA Fisheries Recommends Source of Recreational Catch
Statistics for Assessing Gulf Reef Fish Stocks https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/noaa-fisheries-recommends-source-
recreational-catch-statistics-assessing-gulf-reef, Published August 7,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2021, the Gulf Council formally adopted these calibration
ratios, which were approved for use by their Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC) (making them the best scientific information
available), to be implemented in January 2023.\9\ NOAA Fisheries
recently issued the final rule implementing these critical calibration
ratios, and they will go into effect for the 2023 fishing season that
starts for some states in May. With this rule, states can still manage
to meet the needs of their anglers while improving accountability for
the sake of the long-term sustainability of the red snapper resource
for all users. Implementing these calibration ratios will necessarily
rein in recreational fishing in some states, which can come at a cost
to local anglers. However, implementing common currency was required to
restore management that complies with the MSA, and these actions were
necessary to fairly and sustainably manage this public resource.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Data Calibrations
and Harvest Levels. 87. Fed. Reg. 74014 (Dec. 2, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refinements to calibration ratios are going to be an ongoing need
to ensure the successful implementation of state management. As long as
multiple surveys are being used to estimate red snapper landings, there
will need to be a way to scientifically convert between them. Ongoing
revisions and refinements to calibration ratios can occur, and should
occur in particular if new data become available or if changes are made
to survey methodologies. These refinements do not imply that existing
calibration ratios should not be used. The MSA requires that managers
use the best scientific information available to manage stocks and not
wait until some future, potentially more preferable scientific
information is available. It is necessary to implement the existing
calibrations, and managers can take further action to implement revised
calibration ratios once they are available. We should also expect
calibrations to be essential to the stock assessment process for red
snapper.
The red snapper stock is showing signs of decline
Currently, Gulf red snapper is more than halfway through its 27-
year second rebuilding plan, and it is critical to meet the deadline of
having a healthy stock by 2032 for fishermen and communities in the
region. During the course of this plan, the stock has improved and is
no longer considered overfished, but it has not yet rebuilt to a
healthy level. However, as noted above, excessive landings by some
states fishing under state management over the last six years have
caused red snapper to undergo overfishing in 2019.\10\ Most concerning
is that two of the most reliable data series (both fishery-independent
and fishery-dependent) are showing signs of decline. The bottom
longline survey data,\11\ one of the longest-running independent
surveys used to estimate the abundance of red snapper in the Gulf, has
shown that rebuilding progress has stalled, and worse, potentially has
started to reverse. In a troubling sign from another long-term fishery-
dependent indicator, catch rates in the for-hire sector appear to have
declined.\12\ Further, some fishermen in the Gulf are reporting
significant problems catching red snapper that they can keep,
suggesting that excessive fishing has noticeably depleted the fish
stock in certain areas. This is particularly notable off the coast of
Alabama, where anglers are catching only about a third as many fish as
they did just two years ago.\13\ With the for-hire and commercial
sectors fishing accountably, the private recreational sector is most
likely the root cause of these recent red snapper stock declines.
Should this level of fishing damage the overall health of the red
snapper stock, it is not just private recreational anglers that will
suffer--all sectors will end up taking cuts to their quota if the stock
declines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Landings. Tab B, No. 6a, August 25,
2020. https://gulfcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/B-6a-SERO--RS--
CouncilSlides082020updated.pdf. Slide 6.
\11\ NOAA Fisheries, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Southeast
Fisheries Science Center, ``Traditional'' Interim Assessment of Gulf of
Mexico Red Snapper, Meeting of the Gulf Scientific and Statistical
Committee, April 1-2, 2020, available at https://gulfcouncil.org/wp-
content/uploads/05a.-RS_Traditional_Interim.pdf.
\12\ NOAA Announcement of the 2022 Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper
Recreational For-Hire Season, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Bulletin (Apr. 25,
2022), https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/bulletin/noaa-announces-2022-
gulf-mexico-red-snapper-recreational-hire-season. (The most recent
season length announcement stated that ``[b]ecause the daily catch rate
was lower from 2019-2021 than it had been in the recent past, the
season length will increase to 79 days this year.'' A 79-day season
length computes to a catch rate of approximately 36,000 lbs/day (ACL
divided by days open). When compared to the 2017 average catch rate of
47,753 lbs/day, this indicates a 34% reduction in daily catch rates.).
\13\ Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 2022
Red Snapper Landings Summary, https://www.outdooralabama.com/2022-red-
snapper-landings-summary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and Federal data are designed to work together
Red snapper management works best when all available sources of
data are leveraged. A primary source of data in the Gulf is MRIP, which
is a state-regional-federal partnership and survey program that uses a
range of survey methods to estimate total recreational catch. Resulting
data from MRIP are used to inform assessment and management. The
development of MRIP, meant to address some of the inherent challenges
of collecting recreational fishing data, has, according to the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), ``resulted in
significant improvements to recreational catch and effort surveys.''
\14\ As part of these improvements, a review found that MRIP has ``an
implementation approach that incorporates the flexibility required to
address unique regional and state needs while at the same time
maintaining the standardization and national-level cohesion,'' and that
``the program has evolved to become a compilation of regionally based
data-collection programs and is better prepared to address data needs
at regional and state levels.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
2021. Data and Management Strategies for Recreational Fisheries with
Annual Catch Limits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/26185 at 1.
\15\ The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/
10.17226/24640 at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to better understand catch of red snapper in the Gulf,
supplemental state survey programs were designed to complement the
general MRIP surveys and address the unique needs of each state. In a
2021 review of MRIP and recreational fishing data, the NASEM
recommended that supplemental surveys can provide a number of benefits
to inform timely catch estimates when used in conjunction with
MRIP.\16\ Thus, the state supplemental surveys function best not as a
replacement to MRIP, but as a complement, enhancing the data available
to improve in-season management and stock assessments, which can
ultimately lead to better management of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
2021. Data and Management Strategies for Recreational Fisheries with
Annual Catch Limits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/26185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each survey has its own methods and inherent biases, which means
that results from different surveys can vary even when the surveys are
each appropriately designed and capable of producing statistically
robust data. The NASEM notes that, ``differences among estimates can be
moderate, or quite substantial,'' \17\ which necessitates calibration
among the various surveys to ensure consistency. Without a calibration,
the landings from state surveys stand alone and cannot be integrated to
assess a stock population as a whole.\18\ For instance, some state
surveys are intended to provide in-season data collection but do not
collect landings information outside of the directed season. These
differences in data collection mean surveys cannot be used
interchangeably, but they can be integrated together to better inform
our total understanding of red snapper catch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id. at page 5.
\18\ NOAA Fisheries Recommends Source of Recreational Catch
Statistics for Assessing Gulf Reef Fish Stocks https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/noaafisheries-recommends-source-
recreational-catch-statistics-assessing-gulf-reef, Published August 7,
2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though the state surveys in the Gulf have been certified by MRIP,
certification is not the same as calibration.\19\ MRIP certification of
a state survey does not presume landings estimates produced represent
the best scientific information available (BSIA) or imply that they are
suitable for in-season management. Rather, certification indicates a
data collection program meets a certain level of statistical rigor and
that it qualifies for technical and financial support from NOAA
Fisheries. After that, calibration is the process that accounts for
differences between surveys and standardizes the estimates to a common
currency, such as to a historical time series from MRIP. It is
important to note that calibration does not imply anything about the
quality of one survey over another; calibration merely offers a method
for estimates from different surveys to be put into the same currency
by reconciling differences. Calibration is important because in
converting estimates to the same currency, it preserves the continuity
of existing time series.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ NOAA Fisheries, Transitioning to New Recreational Fishing
Survey Designs, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/recreational-fishing-
data/transitioning-new-recreational-fishing-survey-designs
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Great Red Snapper Count should be incorporated into the stock
assessment
The Great Red Snapper Count (GRSC) was a congressionally mandated
and funded study to take a one-time snapshot of the total abundance of
red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. Abundance studies like the GRSC, if
done rigorously and used appropriately, can provide helpful information
about the stock and the fishery that can be considered in management.
However, there has been an enormous amount of confusion around the
appropriate uses of the GRSC for both science and management. With
Congress continuing to fund additional abundance studies, it is
critical that these misconceptions are addressed.
The GRSC included larger estimates of red snapper occupying
uncharacterized bottom (UCB, essentially describing areas that are not
obviously reefs) in the Gulf than had previously been estimated. These
areas have consistently been surveyed by the long-standing bottom
longline survey in the Gulf, which is used to track trends in stock
health over time. The preliminary abundance estimate calculated by the
GRSC for the total abundance red snapper in the Gulf was 118 million
fish, a number which was publicly celebrated prior to peer review of
the study (creating extreme confusion surrounding the scientific
process). After initial peer-review, the abundance estimate has since
been revised down to 85.6 million fish and has been integrated for use
in management. Though abundance estimates provide a useful indicator
for managers, attempts to frame this number as ``correct'' and previous
abundance estimates as ``wrong'' are deeply misguided. All factors
estimating the productivity, natural mortality, and recruitment of a
fish stock are interrelated. For instance, an outcome from the
abundance estimates of the GRSC is that scientists may need to
reconsider how productive the red snapper stock is, as it is very
possible that productivity may have been overestimated. In other words,
here is a plausible scenario: before the GRSC, scientists thought there
was a smaller, more productive red snapper stock; after the GRSC is
incorporated, it is possible there is a larger, less productive red
snapper stock. It is important to get this right because if managers
were to reflexively and dramatically increase catch levels based solely
on the new GRSC estimate and the stock were less productive than
estimated, the new fishing levels could quickly decimate the stock.
With this context, it is much easier to understand the challenges
faced by scientists on the Gulf Council's SSC in the two times they
have been asked to set catch recommendations based on preliminary GRSC
estimates before those estimates had been incorporated into a stock
assessment. The first time, the GRSC had not been formally peer
reviewed; an expedited peer review of the study occurred at the same
meeting where the SSC was asked to set catch limits using the GRSC
results. The three independent peer reviewers brought up notable
concerns about the methods used both in the study itself as well as in
the agency's application of the study through an `interim assessment,'
rather than through a full stock assessment within the Southeast Data,
Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process.\21\ SSC members were split on
how to incorporate the information, ultimately setting a high
overfishing limit (OFL) of 25.6 million pounds (raised from 15.5 mp)
but only marginally increasing the acceptable biological catch (ABC)
from 15.1 to 15.5 mp after considering that other sources of data also
available to them--namely a long-standing survey of UCB areas--showed
some concerning trends. The SSC was later asked to look at a revised
version of the GRSC and ultimately used that information (in
combination with all other best available science) to revise the OFL
back down from 25.6 mp to 18.9 mp and raise the ABC, from 15.5 to 16.3
mp. Once these new catch levels are implemented (they are open for
public comment now), catch levels for red snapper will be set higher
than they have ever been set. That means that the total mortality of
the stock annually will be higher than scientists estimate was
occurring back in the 1990s, when overfishing drove the stock to 2% of
its historical biomass, kicking off the entire rebuilding story told
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Meeting of the
Standing, Reef Fish, and Socioeconomic SSC, March 30-31, 2021, Agenda
item II.b, available at: https://gulfcouncil.org/meetings/scientific-
and-statistical-meetings/mar-apr2021/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although abundance studies provide important new information, it is
imperative that scientists, managers, and others involved in the
fishery management process clearly distinguish between the differences
in an abundance study and the stock assessment process in order to
avoid duplicating the substantial confusion and immense pressure to
ignore uncertainty associated with the GRSC preliminary estimate and
revise catch levels. In the case of Gulf red snapper, the new catch
levels set using the GRSC, done before the study was incorporated into
the stock assessment, combined with the catch overages that occurred
due to a lack of calibration for the first four years of state
management, significantly increase the risk that overall fishing effort
will be too high, and will damage both the stock and fishery.
Ultimately, abundance studies should be incorporated into our
overall understanding of a fish stock through the stock assessment--not
prematurely rushed into the management advice process. The MSA and the
regulations to implement the law have established clear and effective
processes around how information should be integrated for management
consideration. These established processes must be honored rather than
rushing to get data out the door if the results could yield a favorable
outcome. In addition, strong scientific integrity practices can reduce
the politicization of science and promote better oversight of large,
congressionally funded studies like the GRSC. These considerations are
important because new abundance studies modeled after the GRSC are
currently underway in other fisheries, and it is not yet clear how to
best quantify and integrate these studies into sustainable catch
recommendations. Future abundance studies should go through standard
peer review processes to ensure the management advice qualifies as best
available science and can be used in stock assessments.
Gulf red snapper provides important lessons for managers
Now that the implementation of calibrations for red snapper survey
data is underway, it is important to examine what lessons managers and
stakeholders can learn from this process. Based on our experience, we
suggest a few:
Sustainable management relies on accountability. To
rebuild our fisheries, sectors must be accountable to the
ACLs and accountability measures (AMs) set forth by
management. After an initial failed rebuilding plan, red
snapper started making progress toward rebuilding when
sustainable catch limits were implemented and
accountability increased--first with the shrimp bycatch
reductions, then commercial sector, and then the for-hire
sector. However, the private recreational sector was
allowed to exceed its ACL several years during the initial
implementation of state management, which led to the OFL
being triggered in 2019 for the first time in a decade, and
jeopardized rebuilding progress and the sacrifices made by
all sectors. Sustainability is a cornerstone of
recreational management, and new regulations should comply
with the requirements of the MSA, including through
upholding ACLs and AMs, preventing overfishing, rebuilding
stocks successfully, and conserving and restoring habitat
to maintain resilient and productive ecosystems that
support healthy and abundant fish stocks. We particularly
emphasize this point as there was discussion during the
hearing about delaying action to end overfishing and
implement the rebuilding plan for the red snapper stock in
the South Atlantic.
Fishery management should be informed by the best
available scientific information. Fisheries data is the
foundation of our science-based management system. As new
data systems and scientific studies are proposed or
developed (such as state surveys or the GRSC), the best
practice is to design these to complement and supplement
existing data programs and ensure appropriate methodologies
are used to integrate new data. As fishery science relies
heavily on long-term datasets, abrupt replacements or
dramatic shifts in datasets can increase uncertainty and
put fish stocks and fishing communities at risk. Advanced
planning, cooperative efforts, and transparent
communication about both the opportunities and challenges
posed with new data approaches is key to maintaining
manager and stakeholder trust as our scientific
understanding of stocks increases. Additionally, managers
cannot delay action in order to wait for more favorable
data. The MSA's mandate to use the best available science
is an important backstop against delaying needed management
actions. Fishery managers will always have to confront
situations where the news about the health of a stock is
not what people want to hear, and the requirements to act
on the best information available to end overfishing and
rebuild stocks are crucial for preventing near-term
pressures to delay needed management action.
Transparency and communication are critical for creating
trust in the management system. Fishery management is
complicated, and the intricacies of fishery data and
management actions can be difficult to communicate and
understand. A key stumbling block in recreational red
snapper management continues to be the ability for
scientists, statisticians and managers to communicate with
stakeholders about the data and science for the fishery.
Gulf red snapper management revealed failures to
communicate clearly to the public at key junctures,
including: failing to clearly set expectations about what
stock recovery in a rebuilding plan would look like on the
water for states and anglers; an unwillingness to
communicate about the challenges of using multiple data
sets for management; an egregious lack of transparency in
publicly tracking landings data (there is still no public,
transparent, and accurate tracking of private recreational
red snapper landings in comparison to state specific quotas
or the private recreational ACL); serious miscommunications
about the appropriate scientific methodologies for
including abundance study results in management; and
overall, an unhelpful and combative narrative pitting state
and federal scientists and managers against each other
rather than highlighting the cooperation necessary to
manage a public resource across large geographies, multiple
jurisdictions, and many users.
Fairness is paramount. Our marine fish stocks are a public
resource, and the law requires that they are managed for
the long-term benefit of the nation. This means that
current users of fishery resources have a responsibility to
the generations that will follow to steward these resources
and support healthy fish stocks and ecosystems. Fairness
also means that everyone who fishes the stock now shares an
equal burden in complying with science-based limits and
management approaches; it also means that all sectors
should have an opportunity to benefit from efforts to
rebuild stocks. When one sector continues to exceed its
limits, as has occurred in Gulf red snapper, it hurts the
overall health of the stock and can reduce fishing
opportunities for other sectors. Overfishing can lead to
stock decline and localized depletions and puts fishing
communities at risk. When fishermen see favoritism of one
sector over another, it erodes confidence and compliance
with sustainable management.
Plan for change. Our ocean fisheries are ever-changing.
They experience changes due to numerous factors, such as
fishing effort and ecosystem impacts. And now more than
ever, climate change is dramatically reshaping our ocean
and the communities that rely on it. Fishery management
must start incorporating more ecosystem and climate
information via adaptable management approaches to ensure
our ocean can support robust fishing opportunity even as
our oceans change. By working together, fishermen,
scientists and managers can chart a course to a sustainable
fishing future no matter what changes lie ahead.
Thank you for considering our comments, and we hope to work with
you in this Congress to ensure red snapper, and all U.S. fisheries, are
managed sustainably, equitably, and accountably.
Sincerely,
Meredith Moore,
Director, Fish Conservation Program
______
Statement for the Record
Connor Fagan
Federal Policy Manager, Oceana
Regarding the ``Benefits and Access: The Necessity for Multiple Use of
Water Resources'' and implications for the North Atlantic right whale
Thank you, Chair Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to submit testimony related to the
intersection of the North Atlantic right whale (NARW) vessel speed rule
with fisheries issues. Vessel strikes and fishing gear entanglement are
the two leading causes for the ongoing rapid collapse of the NARW
population.\1\ Vessel strikes cause close to half of all NARW deaths,
with 4 reported vessel strikes of North Atlantic right whales in the
last 3 years alone.\2\
\1\ S.M. Sharp et al., Gross and Histopathologic Diagnoses From
North Atlantic Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis Mortalities Between 2003
and 2018, 135 Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 1, at 1 (2019). https://
www.intres.com/articles/feature/d135p001.pdf (July 3, 2019).
\2\ Amendments to the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike
Reduction Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. 46,921 at 46928 (August 1,2022); S.M.
Sharp et al., Gross and Histopathologic Diagnoses From North Atlantic
Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis Mortalities Between 2003 and 2018, 135
Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 1, at 1.
The 2022 proposed vessel speed rule is based on the best available
science and evidence, and the National Marine Fisheries Service is
required under federal law to issue a strong final rule. Among other
federal mandates related to NARWs, the Endangered Species Act was
intended to allow federal agencies to issue rules that carry out the
Act's primary purpose of protecting endangered species. The Marine
Mammal Protection Act's ``major objective'' is to stop marine mammal
populations from declining and ensure that they remain a functioning
part of their marine ecosystems.\3\ For both statutes, NMFS is the lead
agency tasked with issuing regulations on marine mammals, including
NARWs.\4\ The proposed rule issued in 2022 is well within the agency's
authority and obligation to issue rules in holding with its
Congressional mandate to protect endangered species from injury, death,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and potentially extinction in this case.
\3\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531(c)(1); 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1361(6).
\4\ Id. Sec. 1361(2).
On August 1, 2022, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
released a proposed vessel speed rule that aims to reduce the risk of
vessel strikes to critically endangered North Atlantic right whales.\5\
NARWs have been listed as endangered under the ESA since 1970 and are
currently classified as critically endangered according to the
International Union for Conservation of Nature. The species has been in
nonstop decline for over a decade, with only about 340 NARWs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
remaining.\6\
\5\ International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List
categories and criteria, version 3.1, IUCN Species Survival Commission
(SSC) available at https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/7977 (Last
accessed March 6, 2023)
\6\ North Atlantic right whales' downward trend continues as
updates population numbers released (October 24, 2022) New England
Aquarium. https://www.neaq.org/about-us/news-media/press-kit/press-
releases/north-atlantic-right-whales-downward-trend-continues-as-
updated-population-numbers-released/
Collisions with vessels are one the leading causes of injury and
death for NARWs, which are dark in color and difficult to spot, swim
slowly at the water's surface, and lack a dorsal fin. Since 2017, there
have been 14 cases of confirmed NARW mortalities caused by vessel
strikes.\7\ The true impact of vessel strikes on NARWs may be much
higher, as scientists estimate that observed deaths only represent one
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
third of total NARW mortalities.\8\
\7\ 2017-2023 North Atlantic Right Whale Unusual Mortality Event
(n.d.) NOAA Fisheries. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-
life-distress/2017-2023-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-
event
\8\ Pace, R., Williams, R., Kraus, S.D., et al. (2021) Cryptic
mortality of North Atlantic right whales. Conservation Science and
Practice. 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.346
The original vessel speed rule was issued in 2008. The 2022 updated
proposed rule contains critical changes such as including vessels
greater than 35 feet in length (compared to the previous 65 feet),
expanding seasonal speed zones, and upgrading current voluntary speed
zones to mandatory in areas where whales are seen.
While Oceana supports the proposed rule, there is room for
improvement in an even stronger final rule on vessel speed regulations
for the U.S. Atlantic. The agency could improve the rule by removing
exemptions for government vessels, requiring use of Automatic
Identification Systems (AIS) devices for public vessel tracking, and
overall improving enforcement of speed limits.
While current speed regulations only apply to vessels larger than
65 feet, boats of all sizes can cause fatal injuries to NARWs. As
mentioned above, the agency points out in their proposed rule that
there have been 4 reported strikes in the last 3 years alone. Three out
of the four involved vessels were traveling more than 20 knots at the
time.\9\ Of the 12 known right whale-vessel collisions in U.S. waters
between 2013 and 2021, at least eight of the vessels involved were
confirmed or suspected to have been under 65 feet in length,
demonstrating the deadly risk of smaller vessels to NARWs.\10\ In
February 2021, a calf died from propeller wounds, broken ribs, and a
fractured skull after a collision with a 54-foot recreational fishing
vessel that was not subject to the speed requirements. Although the
captain was not operating illegally, this collision caused not only the
tragic loss of a critically endangered whale, but also resulted in
sinking the $1.2 million vessel and endangering all passengers on
board.
\9\ Amendments to the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike
Reduction Rule at 46298.
\10\ Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife,
Conservation Law Foundation, and Center for Biological Diversity v.
National Marine Fisheries Service and Wilbur Ross (2021). https://
www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/North_Atlantic_right_whale/
pdfs/WDC-v-NMFS-right-whale-vessel-strike-unreasonable-delay-
complaint.pdf
With so few whales left, every vessel strike is detrimental to the
potential recovery of this species. In fact, NMFS has determined that
less than one NARW can die from anthropogenic causes per year for the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
species to maintain its optimum sustainable population.
At high speeds, vessels cannot maneuver to avoid them, and they
swim too slowly to be able to move out of the way. Due to not having a
dorsal fin and their habit of spending much of their time at shallow
depths, NARWs are particularly susceptible to collisions with
vessels.\11\ Additionally, should a collision occur, studies have found
that slowing vessel speeds to 10 knots reduces their risk of death from
vessel strikes by 80% to 90%. Additionally, the experience and careful
tendencies of mariners are not enough to reduce risks to marine
mammals. A 2016 study showed that even trained observers and ideal
conditions require cannot properly protect against vessel strikes of
NARWs.\12\ By expanding the regulation to include boats less than 65
length, NARWs are better protected from these potentially fatal
interactions.
\11\ Julia A. Dombroski, Susan E. Parks, & Douglas P. Nowacek, Dive
behavior of North Atlantic right whales on the calving ground in the
Southeast USA: implications for conservation, 46 ENDANG. SPECIS. RSCH.,
at 43 (2021)
\12\ Wiley, D.N., C.A. Mayo, E.M. Maloney, et al. 2016. Vessel
strike mitigation lessons from direct observations involving two
collisions between noncommercial vessels and North Atlantic right
whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Marine Mammal Science 32(4):1501-1509.
Since the release of the proposed rule, there has been pushback
from the recreational boating and fishing industries, as well as the
pilot operator sector, citing concerns of safety and economic harm.
NMFS recognizes that mariner safety is extremely important and has
included safety deviation provisions since the initial rule in 2008.
The new proposed rule only improves these provisions, including
expansion of exceptions to include emergency situations that present a
threat to the health, safety, or life of a person; allowing vessels
under 65 feet in length to transit at speeds greater than 10 knots when
certain weather conditions are detected; and updated reporting
protocols. Overall, the proposed regulatory changes continue to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
emphasize mariner safety.
When discussing the economic impact, some groups pushing back
against this rule have claimed that this new rule would be devastating
for businesses. However, the proposed seasonal speed zones would only
impact boat traffic for the months of the year while the whales are
migrating to protect mothers and calves in the Southeast during calving
season and when the whales are aggregated in New England. While
implementing speed limits on recreational vessels may add some travel
time to trips, these zones do not prohibit fishing, boating, or other
activities and still allow mariners to utilize the areas.
Saving this species from extinction will take a collective effort
from the fishing, boating, and shipping industries to effectively
reduce the risk of deadly collisions. The federal government has an
obligation to protect these whales from this clear threat by
implementing stronger regulations and enforcement procedures.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this testimony,
Conservation Law Foundation Defenders of Wildlife
Earthjustice Oceana
Whale and Dolphin
Conservation (WDC)
[all]