[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATUS OF FEDERAL WESTERN WATER RESOURCES
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
March 27, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-352 WASHINGTON : 2001
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
ADAM SMITH, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
Richard W. Pombo, California George Miller, California
George Radanovich, California, Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Vice Chairman Calvin M. Dooley, California
Greg Walden, Oregon Grace F. Napolitano, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Hilda L. Solis, California
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 27, 2001................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Brophy, Michael J., Chairman, Western States Water Council... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Burgess, Dr. Philip M., Senior Fellow for Technology and
Society, Center for the New West........................... 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
Hirsch, Dr. Robert M., Associate Director for Water, U.S.
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.............. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Malloch, Steven, Counsel, Trout Unlimited.................... 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
McDonald, J. William, Acting Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior............... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Salisbury, Jennifer, Secretary, New Mexico State Department
of Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources, on behalf of
the Western Governors' Association......................... 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Young, Ronald E., President, The WateReuse Research
Foundation Board........................................... 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
Additional materials supplied:
Purkey, Andrew, Executive Director, Oregon Water Trust,
Statement submitted for the record......................... 69
Walcher, Greg, Executive Director, Colorado Department of
Natural Resources, Statement submitted for the record...... 71
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE STATUS OF FEDERAL WESTERN WATER RESOURCES
----------
Tuesday, March 27, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. The oversight hearing by the Subcommittee on
Water and Power will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting
today to hear testimony on the status of Federal Western Water
Resources.
Under Committee Rule 4(g), the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member can make an opening statement. If any members
have statements, they can be included in the hearing record
under unanimous consent.
Mr. Calvert. Our Subcommittee is in a unique position this
Congress to take action on two issues that have dominated media
headlines this year--energy and water. As we have seen in
California and other Western States, healthy economies and
healthy communities depend on reliable supplies of each.
Water and power are intimately tied to the history of the
western United States. During the 19th and early 20th
centuries, Federal water projects made irrigated agriculture
viable and the creation of cities possible.
Federal hydropower electrified the West and then fueled the
rise of manufacturing and industry during World War II. Today,
Federal water and power supports one of the world's most
productive agricultural regions while providing the electricity
needed to run our information-based economy.
We have come here today to do two things--first, to
evaluate the status of our Federal western water resources; and
second, to explore how they may be better managed to meet our
changing needs.
The western U.S. is the fastest-growing region in the
country. By 2025, the 17 Western States will add another 33
million people. In addition, seven of the ten fastest-growing
U.S. cities are located in the West. With this growth comes new
economic prosperity and new opportunities in balancing water
supply and demand.
The Western States must plan for their future as a region.
Water and power resources are not created and used in a vacuum.
As we have seen with our current energy crisis and potential
drought, resource supply challenges affect us as a region. They
will not and do not remain isolated.
As we listen to the testimony presented here today, our
focus should be on the future direction of water resource
planning. What are our priorities, and where will they take us
in the West in the next 20 years?
I would like to thank our witnesses for coming here today
and look forward to hearing from them on this important issue.
If the Ranking Member arrives shortly, we will certainly
recognize him for any opening statement he may have, and if
not, any opening statement may be placed in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water
and Power
Our Subcommittee is in a unique position this Congress to take
action on two issues that have dominated media headlines this year...
energy and water. As we have seen in California and other western
states, healthy economies ... and healthy communities ... depend on
reliable supplies of each.
Water and power are intimately tied to the history of the Western
United States. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, Federal water
projects made irrigated agriculture viable ... and the creation of
cities possible. Federal hydropower electrified the West and then
fueled the rise of manufacturing and industry during World War II.
Today, Federal water and power supports one of the world's most
productive agricultural regions, while providing the electricity needed
to run our information-based economy.
We have come here today to do two things. First ... to evaluate the
status of our Federal western water resources. And second ... to
explore how they may be better managed to meet our changing needs.
The western U.S. is the fastest growing region in the country. By
2025, the 17 western states will add another 33 million people. In
addition, 7 of the 10 fastest growing U.S. cities are located in the
West. With this growth comes new economic prosperity ... and new
opportunities in balancing water supply and demand.
The western states must plan for their future as a region. Water
and power resources are not created and used in a vacuum. As we have
seen with our current energy crisis and potential drought, resource
supply challenges affect us as a region. They will not, and do not,
remain isolated.
As we listen to the testimony presented here today, our focus
should be on the future direction of water resource planning. What are
our priorities? And where will the West be in 20 years?
I would like to thank our witnesses for coming out here today, and
look forward to hearing from them on this important issue.
______
Mr. Calvert. I would certainly like to thank the panels of
witnesses who are here with us today and would like to call the
first panel forward for their testimony: Mr. J. William
McDonald, Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation; Dr.
Robert Hirsch, Associate Director of Water, United States
Geological Survey; and Mr. Michael Brophy, Chairman of the
Western States Water Council.
I would like to now recognize Mr. McDonald to testify for
five minutes. The timing lights are on the table and will
indicate when your time has concluded when the red light comes
on. All witness statements will be submitted for the record, if
they are longer, after the hearing.
With that, Mr. McDonald, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF J. WILLIAM McDONALD, ACTING COMMISSIONER, BUREAU
OF RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Bill McDonald, and I am Regional Director of the
Bureau of Reclamation's Pacific Northwest Region, and I am also
serving as the Acting Commissioner of Reclamation.
I have here a map that shows how we are distributed
geographically and organizationally, and I will take this
opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to briefly describe that we have
five regions in reclamation, and I am privileged to have with
me in the audience some of my colleagues, if I could just
acknowledge them, and we look forward to working with you and
the Subcommittee.
Rick Gold is Acting Regional Director of the Upper Colorado
Region; Bob Johnson is Regional Director of the Lower Colorado
Region; and finally, Lowell Plass is the Deputy Regional
Director for the Mid-Pacific Region, and I believe you met
Lowell a couple of weeks ago when you toured the project.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to
summarize my prepared remarks and simply have the written text
entered in the record.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
Mr. McDonald. Thank you.
You have asked that we address the capacity of reclamation
to meet the water needs of the Western States in both the long
and the short term. Let me begin by giving you just a very
brief background on reclamation.
We are the largest water resource management agency in the
West, operating 348 reservoirs and 58 hydroelectric power
plants. We provide one out of five Western farmers with
irrigation water. We deliver water to more than 31 million
people throughout the 17 Western States. We are the second-
largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States,
with our plants on an average annual basis generating enough
electricity to serve 14 million people; and that electricity,
of course, is marketed by the Bonneville and Western Power
Administrations.
Finally, our reservoirs accommodate 90 million visitors
each year at over 300 recreation sites as the American public
enjoys the flatwater recreation and associated opportunities
that are presented by our facilities.
Our ability to assist in meeting the West's future water
needs both in the short and the long term must begin, in our
view, with the continued operation of our projects in
accordance with all applicable Federal laws, State water rights
and interstate compacts and judicial decrees, our contractual
commitments to our irrigators and other project water users.
And when applicable, of course, the operation of our projects
must also fulfill the Secretary of the Interior's Tribal Trust
responsibilities and the United States international treaty
obligations to Mexico and Canada on certain of our river
systems.
In this day and age, needless to say, balancing water
supply and hydro power demands with environmental and other
obligations is an increasingly complicated and difficult task
which at times requires some reductions either in the supplies
available to our contractors or in the power which we are able
to generate. More often than not, however, we believe that we
are able to find a middle ground which enables us to fulfill
all needs.
Having dependable supplies of water power in the future
also requires, besides the continued operation of our projects,
that they, of course, be properly maintained. To put that
maintenance responsibility in context, approximately 50 percent
of Reclamation's dams were built prior to 1950, and about 90
percent were constructed before state-of-the-art design and
construction practices for dam construction were in place.
Given the age of that infrastructure, sustaining an appropriate
level of annual maintenance and making safety of dams
modifications as required and on a timely basis are critical to
protect public safety and property and to ensure that the
benefits of our projects can continue to be realized.
Let me take this opportunity in the context of the
operation and maintenance of our projects, Mr. Chairman, to
assure you and the panel that Reclamation is doing everything
it can to generate electricity at this particular time in light
of the West Coast electrical power marketing problems. While we
presently have some generating units down for planned
maintenance at certain of our power facilities, that in no way
has affected our ability to generate, the reason being that
there is only so much fuel--that is to say, water--in our
reservoir systems, and we are able to fully run all of the
available water through existing generators even though some
are out for planned maintenance.
On a different subject, my colleague, Bob Hirsch, from USGS
will discuss general water supply conditions in the West, so I
will not repeat those here; but not unexpectedly, we are
experiencing drought, as we do from time to time, in sections
of the West. It is particularly severe, as Bob will point out,
in the Pacific Northwest this year.
Pursuant to the authorities of the Reclamation States'
Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991, I would point out to the
Committee that Reclamation does have some authority to
construct temporary facilities, but only temporary facilities,
and to implement management plans in the case where a drought
occurs.
The third area that I would emphasize as important to the
future is voluntary transfers of water from existing to new
users. Keeping in mind that approximately 85 to 90 percent of
the water consumed in the West is devoted to agriculture, it is
Reclamation's view that in the face of rapid urbanization, the
changing economics of farming, and the need to strike a balance
with appropriate protection of environmental values, voluntary
transfers of water from willing sellers to willing buyers is
very much a part of the future management of the Western water
supply. In that context, Reclamation also supports the use of
excess capacity in our physical facilities to store and convey
non-project water supplies when, again, there are voluntary
transactions between willing sellers and buyers who would like
to make such a change in the use of water.
Finally, we would observe that dams and reservoirs will be
developed in the West in the future probably on a limited
basis. Only, accordingly, the increased efficiency of use of
the water supplies which have already developed is in our view
a vital part of the West's water future.
Reclamation has two major programs in that regard, and we
believe we are a leader in these fields. First, through our
Water Conservation Field Services Program and other activities,
we provide water districts with technical and financial
assistance to develop effective water conservation plans to
stretch the use of those already existing developed supplies;
and secondly, recycling and reuse of wastewater along with
desalinization for agricultural and landscape irrigation,
groundwater recharge, and industrial cooling holds very great
potential for the future. Reclamation's Water Use Program
assists Western cities in enhancing their supplies by providing
funds for 25 projects that have been authorized by Congress at
what is estimated to be a total ultimate cost of $600 million.
To date, approximately $205 million has been made available to
Reclamation for this Federal assistance, and upon completion of
these projects, we would expect a yield of an additional
500,000 acre-feet for beneficial use for the cities that are
moving forward in that way.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, finding ways to meet water
needs presents a great challenge for Reclamation, to the
States, to the Western communities and to other stakeholders.
We look forward to working with the Subcommittee and with all
water users and the interested public to find ways to meet
competing demands in the future.
Thank you very much. I would be glad to respond to
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McDonald follows:]
Statement of J. William McDonald, Acting Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior
My name is Bill McDonald. I am the Regional Director of the Pacific
Northwest Region and also am serving as Acting Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I appreciate the opportunity to be
here today to discuss the state of western water resources.
The Subcommittee has asked for an assessment of the capacity of
Bureau of Reclamation facilities to meet the water needs of the Western
States in the short and long term. Let me begin with a short overview
of the facilities which Reclamation has developed and the benefits
which they yield.
Background
As the largest water resources management agency in the west,
Reclamation administers or operates 348 reservoirs with a total storage
capacity of 245 million acre-feet, 58 hydroelectric powerplants with an
installed capacity of 14,744 megawatts, and more than 300 recreation
sites in the 17 western states. These facilities enable Reclamation to
meet important needs and provide numerous benefits:
LWe provide one out of five western farmers with
irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland that produce 60
percent of the nation's vegetables and 25 percent of its fruit and
nuts.
LWe deliver water to more than 31 million people in the
west, the most rapidly urbanizing region of the country.
LOur powerplants generate an average of more than 42
billion kilowatt hours of energy each year, making Reclamation the
nation's second largest producer of hydroelectric power and the 11th
largest generating utility in the United States. Reclamation produces
enough electricity to serve 14 million people. Reclamation's Central
Valley Project in California generated more than 6.5 billion kilowatt
hours of energy in 1999 and serves approximately 2 million
Californians. All power generated by Reclamation facilities is marketed
by the Bonneville Power Administration and the Western Area Power
Marketing Administration.
LOur projects support habitat with water for wildlife
refuges, migratory waterfowl, anadromous and resident fish, and
endangered and threatened species.
LOur reservoirs accommodate 90 million visits a year at
more than 300 recreation sites.
All indications are that this year is shaping up to be a very dry
year in many regions of the west, particularly in the Pacific
Northwest. A below normal water inflow to Reclamation facilities means
that water deliveries, power production and environmental requirements
will have to be carefully balanced to satisfy to the greatest extent
possible multiple project purposes.
Project Operations
In addressing future water needs Reclamation must continue to
operate and maintain our projects, in accordance with all applicable
Federal laws and regulations, state water rights and interstate
compacts and judicial decrees, and our contractual commitments to
irrigators and other project water users. At the same time the
Secretary of the Interior must fulfill tribal trust responsibilities
and the United States international treaty obligations with Mexico and
Canada,.
Balancing water supply and hydro power demands with environmental
and other obligations is an increasingly complicated and difficult task
which at times requires some reductions either in the water supplies
available to our contractors or in the power which we are able to
generate. More often than not, however, we are able to find middle
ground which enables us to fulfill all of our obligations.
Enhancing the Efficiency of Use of Already Developed Water Supplies
New dams and reservoirs will probably be developed in the West in
the years ahead only on a limited basis. Accordingly, increasing the
efficiency of use of the water supplies which have already been
developed will be a vital part of the West's future. I would like to
highlight a few of the ways in which Reclamation is contributing in
this regard.
Water Conservation. Water conservation is a key tool in expanding
existing water supplies. As the 1998 Report of the Western Water Policy
Review Advisory Commission said, Water conservation, or improved
efficiency of use, can have many benefits and should be the first
approach considered for extending or augmenting available supplies.
The Reclamation Reform Act directs Reclamation to encourage water
conservation and directs water districts receiving irrigation water to
develop conservation plans. Some districts have employed state of the
art conservation technology, including drip irrigation. Drip systems
deliver water directly to individual plant roots, thereby eliminating
evaporation and saving water and energy.
Through our Water Conservation Field Services Program, we provide
water districts with technical and financial assistance to develop
effective water conservation plans. While Reclamation has a role to
play in water conservation, there also are opportunities for state and
local entities to offer incentives through rate restructuring, low
interest loans for farmers to install more efficient irrigation
facilities, and rebates for installation of efficient appliances,
landscaping retrofits, and toilets.
Water Reuse. Recycled water is used for a variety of purposes,
including agricultural and landscape irrigation, ground water recharge,
and industrial cooling. Reclamation's water reuse program assists
western cites in enhancing their water supplies by providing funds for
the 25 projects authorized under Title XVI of Public Law 102-575, as
amended. Since 1992, the Congress has authorized water reuse projects
in the states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Arizona,
and Oregon. Non-Federal cost sharing partners pay at least 50 percent
of the feasibility study costs and 75 percent of the construction
costs. Total Federal costs for the 25 authorized projects is estimated
at $600 million. To date, approximately $205 million has been made
available in Federal assistance.
These projects are in various stages of planning, design and
construction but all are estimated to be completed by 2012. Upon
completion, they are expected to yield an additional 494,000 acre feet
water for beneficial use.
Addressing an Aging Infrastructure
Having dependable supplies of water and power also requires that
the infrastructure which Reclamation has developed over the past
century be properly maintained. Approximately 50 percent of
Reclamation's dams were built prior to 1950 and about 90 percent were
constructed before current state-of-the-art design and construction
practices were in place. Given our aging infrastructure, sustaining an
appropriate level of annual maintenance of existing facilities, and
making safety of dams modifications as required and on a timely basis,
are critical to protect public safety and property and to ensure that
the benefits of Reclamation's projects can continue to be realized.
As with our dams and water delivery systems, Reclamation's
powerplants must also be maintained in a constant state of readiness.
Again, sustained maintenance, and replacement and modernization of
equipment and machinery over time, are critical to the readiness of our
hydro power system.
In the face of the energy problems being experienced on the West
coast, I would like to assure the Subcommittee that Reclamation is
generating all of the electricity which it possibly can at this time.
While we presently have some units down for planned maintenance, this
is not affecting our ability to generate. This is because we have only
enough water in our various reservoir systems to run the generators
which are on line.
Facilitating Voluntary Water Transfers
Approximately 85 to 90 percent of the water consumed in the West is
devoted to irrigated agriculture. In the face of rapid urbanization,
the changing economics of farming, and the need to strike a balance
with the appropriate protection of environmental values, voluntary
transfers of water from willing agricultural sellers to willing buyers
is one means by which the future water needs of the West will be
addressed.
The Assistant Secretary for Water and Science approved Principles
Governing Voluntary Water Transactions That Involve or Affect
Facilities Owned or Operated by the Department of the Interior (the
1988 Principles) on December 16, 1988. Within the framework provided by
the 1988 Principles, Reclamation has been, and continues to be,
supportive of voluntary transfers and conversions of project water in
accordance with State and Federal law from existing to new uses. In
this regard, Reclamation has issued polices which supplement and expand
upon the 1988 Principles insofar as those principles pertain to
transfers of project water.
The 1988 Principles also pertain to the use of excess capacity in
Reclamation projects for the storage and conveyance of non-project
water. Within the framework provided by the 1988 Principles,
Reclamation has issued policies which address making excess capacity
available under appropriate circumstances to assist in improving the
management of the West's water resources.
Conclusion
Finding ways to meet water needs presents a great challenge for
Reclamation and western communities. We look forward to working with
the Subcommittee and with all water users and the interested public to
develop ways to meet competing demands. Thank you for the opportunity
to participate in today's hearing.
______
Mr. Calvert. Our next witness is Dr. Robert Hirsch, the
Associate Director for Water for the U.S. Geological Survey.
Dr. Hirsch, you may begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. HIRSCH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR WATER,
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hirsch. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to report on the status of
water conditions in the Western United States as monitored by
the USGS.
I would like to summarize my written testimony at this
time.
The USGS Water Resources Program provides reliable,
impartial, and timely information about the Nation's water
resources. We work closely with local, State, tribal, and
Federal agencies and the private sector to provide them with
the information they need to make informed decisions. In
particular through our Cooperative Water Program, we partner
with over 1,300 non-Federal agencies to carry out our data
collection and hydrologic studies missions.
For over a century, the USGS has played the key role in
monitoring the flow of our Nation's rivers. Currently, we
operate about 7,000 streamgages, and we freely provide the data
to a wide range of users. This information is used for a
multitude of purposes, including water supply planning and
operations, flood risk assessment and warning, water quality
management, and recreational safety. We are in the process of
modernizing this network, and at this time, about 5,000 of the
streamgages have satellite telemetry that enables us to provide
near-real-time data to all users via the Internet.
Using these data, I will describe the current Western
surface water situation and changes that have occurred in
recent weeks and also place this in a national context. The
illustration I have here gives an indication of that.
I will rely on this illustration, which is one that we
create daily and place on the USGS web site. It is based on
conditions for the preceding week at all USGS streamgaging
stations that have 30 or more years of record and have
telemetry systems--about 2,300 stations nationwide. Each dot on
the map represents an individual streamgage. They are color-
coded, with red indicating where the flows for the week were
the lowest ever recorded for that time of year, brown
indicating flow that was below the 10th percentile, orange
between the 10th and 25th percentile, green indicating normal,
light blue the 75th to 90th percentile, dark blue above the
90th percentile, and black representing record high flows for
that time of year.
The map that you see in front of you is current as of
Sunday night of this past weekend.
Hydrologically, conditions in the West are quite varied at
the present time. The Southwest is having relatively normal
conditions, a pattern that we have been observing since last
November. Most of the Great Plains from the Dakotas to Texas
are experiencing normal to above normal streamflows; in fact,
in Eastern Texas, a number of rivers and streams have recorded
new daily high flows during the past month.
In contrast, the Pacific Northwest is experiencing below
normal streamflows in response to winter season precipitation
that has averaged only 25 to 75 percent of normal.
The most serious low-flow conditions are occurring in
Washington and Oregon. Notably, below normal streamflows were
recorded at 90 percent of our real-time streamgages in Oregon
last week, and at 75 percent of the streamgages in Washington.
Conditions have moderated slightly in the last week but not
enough to be anything close to an end to this drought
situation.
The snowpacks in river basins in these States is generally
less than 60 percent of average this year. The low seasonal
precipitation and the currently low reservoir storage have
resulted in spring and summer stream flow forecasts of less
than 70 percent of average for most areas in Washington and
Oregon. The outlook for Idaho is even worse, with forecasted
spring and summer flows of less than 70 percent of average.
Nearby States, such as Montana and Wyoming, are also
experiencing low streamflows, snowpack and soil moisture,
although the dryness is less severe than in the Pacific
Northwest. Northern California, particularly the Northern
Sierra Nevada, had relatively dry conditions and low streamflow
earlier in the winter but has recovered considerably during the
past month. Currently, reservoir contents are about normal
across California, as are daily and weekly average streamflows.
It is worth noting that unlike the current situation in the
East, in Florida and particularly Western North Carolina, where
drought has persisted for more than two years and enormous
moisture deficits have accrued, the dryness in the Northwest is
only about four months old. Admittedly, it came at the worst
possible time of year since the region depends on winter season
precipitation and snowpack to meet the spring and summer water
demand. Even so, the current situation would have been much
worse had there not been normal to above normal precipitation
during the preceding 18 months.
The streamgaging network measures the pulse of the Nation's
rivers and enables us to produce a snapshot of conditions such
as I have used here. We have worked closely with the Congress
over the last three years on issues relating to the
modernization and stability of the network, and with the
support of Congress, we have been able to reverse the decline
in the network. We are in the process of adding 37 new stations
and reactivating 73 others this year.
Modernization of our ground water level monitoring has not
progressed to the point where we can provide the same kind of
synoptic view of ground water conditions as we presented here
today for surface water. However, we believe that the science
of ground water hydrology is crucial to water management in the
West and nationwide. Conjunctive use of surface and ground
water has great potential for making water supplies more
drought-resistant. Ground water is crucial to sustaining
streamflow and temperature conditions for habitat and for water
supply. We believe that ground water technologies such as
artificial recharge, aquifer storage and recovery, and recharge
of reclaimed wastewater, are pivotal parts of the water
management equation.
The science to support the use of these new technologies is
a part of our strategic plan for the future of USGS ground
water science.
I thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify
and look forward to answering your questions today and working
with you over the coming months and years.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hirsch follows:]
Statement of Robert M. Hirsch, Associate Director for Water, U.S.
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to report on the status of water conditions in
the Western United States as monitored by the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). Because this is the first appearance of the USGS before this
Subcommittee in the new Congress and before you as Chairman, allow me
to start with a few preliminary thoughts about the role of the USGS.
The USGS is a science agency within the Department of the Interior
with a history of 122 years of providing scientific information needed
for the wise management of our Nation's natural resources. The study of
water goes back to our very early years and the work of our second
Director John Wesley Powell who focused much attention on the
availability of water resources for the economic development of the
West. The USGS of today consists of four major program areas: Geology,
Mapping, Biology, and Water. The USGS strives to combine these four
disciplinary areas to provide a more complete data and analysis of the
resource and environmental issues that our Nation faces today.
The USGS water resources program provides reliable, impartial,
timely information that is needed to understand the Nation's water
resources.
It is crucial to note that the USGS provides unbiased science to
resource and regulatory decision makers. We work closely with local,
State, tribal, and Federal agencies, and the private sector to provide
them with the information they need to make informed decisions. Of
particular interest to the Committee may be our Cooperative Water
Program, through which we partner with over 1300 non-Federal agencies
to carry out data collection and hydrologic studies.
For over a century the USGS has played the key role in monitoring
the flow of our Nation's rivers. We operate about 7000 streamgages,
which monitor the flow of water in our Nation's rivers and streams, and
we freely provide the current and historical data to a wide range of
users. This information is used for purposes that include: water supply
planning, flood risk assessment, water quality management (including
calculation of Total Maximum Daily Loads), water supply operations,
streamflow forecasting (done primarily by the National Weather Service
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service), habitat assessments,
and personal planning of river-based recreational activities.
Currently, we are in a process of modernizing this network. At the
present time, about 5000 of these stations have satellite telemetry
that enables us to provide near-real-time data to all users via the
Internet.
Using these data, and information from other agencies, I will
describe the current Western surface-water situation, variations and
changes that have occurred in recent weeks and also place this in a
national context. To do this I will rely on an illustration that we
create daily and place on the USGS website. It is based on conditions
for the preceding week at all USGS streamgaging stations that have 30
or more years of record and have telemetry systems. Each dot on the map
represents an individual gage. They are color coded with red indicating
that flows for the week were the lowest ever recorded for that time of
year, brown indicating that flow was below the 10th percentile, orange
was between the 10th and 25th percentile, green indicates normal (25th
to 75th percentile), light blue is 75th to 90th percentile, dark blue
is above the 90th percentile, and black represents record high flows
for this time of year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1352.003
Hydrologically, conditions in the West are quite varied at the
present time. The Southwest is having relatively normal conditions, a
pattern that we have been observing since last November. Most of the
Great Plains, from the Dakotas to Texas are experiencing normal to
above-normal streamflows; also a persistent pattern during recent
months. In eastern Texas, a number of rivers and streams have recorded
new daily high flows during the past month, while flood flows have been
observed at many others.
In contrast, the Pacific Northwest is experiencing below-normal
streamflows in response to winter season precipitation that has
averaged only 25 to 75 percent of normal. Currently, 75 percent of USGS
real-time streamgages in this region are reporting below-normal flows.
The most serious low flow conditions are occurring in Washington
and Oregon. Notably, below normal streamflows were recorded at 90
percent of our real-time stations in Oregon last week and at 75 percent
of the gages in Washington. The snowpack in river basins in these
States is generally less than 60 percent of average. There are also
significant deficiencies in reservoir storage. Statewide, the useable
contents of reservoirs in Washington are about 50 percent of average,
while those in Oregon are only slightly better at 75 percent of
average. The low seasonal precipitation and the currently low reservoir
storage have resulted in spring and summer streamflow forecasts of less
than 70 percent of average for most areas in Washington and Oregon. The
outlook for Idaho is even worse, with nearly the entire State forecast
to have spring and summer flows of less than 70 percent of average.
Nearby States, such as Montana and Wyoming are also experiencing
reduced streamflows, snowpack, and soil moisture, although the dryness
is less severe than in the Pacific Northwest. Indeed, although the
useable contents of reservoirs in Montana are about 60 percent of
average, those in Wyoming are actually above average. Still, more than
60 percent of the real-time streamgages in both States are reporting
below-normal flows. Northern California, particularly the Northern
Sierra Nevada, had relatively dry conditions and low streamflows
earlier in the winter, but has recovered considerably during the past
month. Currently, reservoir contents are about normal statewide, as are
daily and weekly average streamflows.
It is worth noting that, unlike the current situation in Florida
and western North Carolina where drought has persisted for more than
two years and enormous moisture deficits of more than two feet have
accrued, the dryness in the Northwest is only four months old.
Admittedly, it came at the worst possible time of year since the region
depends upon winter season precipitation and snowpack to meet the
spring and summer water demand. Even so, the current situation would
have been much worse had there not been normal to above-normal
hydroclimatic conditions during the preceding 18 months.
The streamgaging network, that measures the pulse of the Nation's
rivers (and enables us to produce a snapshot of conditions such as I
have used here), is a high priority for the USGS. We have worked
closely with the Congress over the last three years to explore the
issues relating to the modernization and stability of the network.
I should also briefly mention the importance of ground water as an
indicator of drought and as an important aspect of the mechanisms
available to communities, agriculture, and industry as insurance
against drought. While our ground-water level monitoring networks have
not been modernized to a level where we can provide the same kind of
synoptic view of ground-water conditions as we presented for surface
water, we anticipate improvements in the next few years. We believe
that the science of ground-water hydrology is crucial to water
management in the West and nationwide. Conjunctive use of surface and
ground water has great potential for making water supplies more drought
resistant. Ground water is crucial to sustaining streamflow for habitat
and for water supply. More and more we find that our partners are
interested in the role that ground water plays in maintaining adequate
flow and temperature conditions in rivers.
We also find that emerging technologies such as artificial
recharge, aquifer storage and recovery, and recharge of reclaimed
wastewater are pivotal parts of the water management equation. The
science to support the use of these new technologies is a part of our
strategic plan for the future of USGS ground-water science.
I thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify and I look
forward to answering your questions today and working with you over the
coming months and years.
______
Mr. Calvert. Our next witness is Mr. Michael Brophy,
Chairman of the Western States Water Council.
Mr. Brophy, you may proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. BROPHY, CHAIRMAN, WESTERN STATES WATER
COUNCIL
Mr. Brophy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee.
My name is Mike Brophy, and I am Chairman of the Western
States Water Council. I have with me here today Mr. Tony
Willardson, who is on the Council staff.
The Council is comprised of representatives appointed by
the Governors of 18 Western States. The Council is charged with
fostering interstate cooperation in water resources and
protecting vital State prerogatives with regard to the
management of water resources in the West.
While necessarily expressing my personal views in this
testimony, I will rely heavily on positions that the Council
has taken consistent with the request by the Subcommittee, and
with the leave of the Chair, I will summarize my written
testimony.
The Subcommittee has asked that I address the current
situation of water in the West, particularly from the
perspective of the Council. This invitation is appropriate
because States play the pivotal role in both water quantity and
quality allocation in the Western United States.
I wish to begin by emphasizing that in the arid West,
providing adequate water supplies to meet current and future
demands continues to be the priority. This priority is
underscored by the current extent of drought in many areas of
the West. Streamflows in much of the West are expected to be
less than 70 percent of average, with the entire Columbia River
Basin expected to prove the second driest year in recorded
history.
These drought conditions are a major factor in the current
energy crisis. Western States are particularly cognizant of the
water needs of rural communities. They also remain concerned
about the claims being asserted by Indian tribes to water
resources and the potential of such claims to disrupt existing
rights in non-Indian communities, underscoring the desirability
of cooperative efforts with the tribes and their Federal
trustee in addressing tribal needs. In this regard, the Council
has acted with other members of the so-called Ad Hoc Group on
Indian Water Rights in encouraging the settlement of Indian
land and water rights claims, particularly with regard to
identifying an alternative funding mechanism for funding such
settlements. A recent letter from the Ad Hoc Group further
explaining this effort is attached to my written testimony.
The Federal Government also has claims to substantial
amounts of water in the West on its own behalf given the extent
of Federal land ownership. These claims are most often
presented within the context of State general stream
adjudications, where the water rights of all claimants in a
given stream system are ascertained. In this regard, this
Congress should address the inequity that now results from
exempting the Federal Government from paying any filing fees or
costs associated with these adjudications. I have attached the
Council's position which explains our support for a remedy, now
before Congress in the form of H.R. 705.
There is significant need for the Federal Government to
work with States and others in providing reliable water data.
In particular, as Congress considers the budget, we urge you to
recognize the serious need for adequate and consistent Federal
funding to maintain and restore NWCC's SNOTEL System and USGS's
Cooperative Streamgaging Program, with a primary focus on
coordinated data collection and dissemination. I have appended
a position recently adopted by the Council explaining the
Western States' position in support of these programs. They
provide vital data necessary for water management and the
protection of human life and property. The snow measuring
program and the streamgaging programs are important national
infrastructure which must be maintained.
Finally, I wish to reiterate the importance of the long-
held congressional policy of deference to States regarding
water management. States are moving to address the challenges
they face in water resources. Federal preemption of State
authority is not the way to address the complex challenges
associated with water management in the West. Rather, what is
necessary is encouraging partnerships between the State and
Federal agencies in the development and implementation of key
policies, supporting the pivotal role the States must play in
addressing these challenges, and affording flexibility for
ongoing innovation at the State level in order to effectively
carry out this role.
Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brophy follows:]
Statement of Michael J. Brophy, Chairman, Western States Water Council
My name is Michael Brophy. I am Chairman of the Western States
Water Council. The Council is comprised of representatives appointed by
the governors of eighteen western states. The Council has been charged
with fostering interstate cooperation in water resources and protecting
vital state prerogatives with regard to the management of water
resources in the West. While necessarily expressing personal views in
my testimony, I will rely heavily on positions of the Western States
Water Council consistent with the request by the Subcommittee. To my
written testimony, I will also append for the record positions of the
Council for your reference.
The Subcommittee has asked that I address the Current Situation of
Water in the Western United States from the Perspective of the Western
States Water Council. This invitation is particularly appropriate,
because states play the pivotal role in both water quantity allocation
and water quality protection in the West. Further, a recent survey of
our member states provides a basis for my remarks.
I wish to begin by emphasizing that in the arid West, providing
adequate water supplies to meet future demands continues to be a
priority. This priority is underscored by the current extent of drought
in many areas of the West. Streamflows in much of the West are expected
to be less than 70% of average, with the entire Columbia River Basin
expected to produce the second driest year in recorded history. These
drought conditions are a major factor in the current energy crisis.
Western states are particularly cognizant of the water needs of rural
communities. They also remain concerned about the claims being asserted
by Indian tribes to water resources and the potential of such claims to
disrupt existing rights in non-Indian communities, underscoring the
desirability of cooperative efforts with the tribes and their Federal
trustee in addressing tribal needs. In this regard, the Council is
active with other members of the so-called Ad Hoc Group on Indian Water
Rights in encouraging the settlement of Indian land and water right
claims, particularly with regard to identifying an alternative
mechanism for funding such settlements. A recent letter by the Ad Hoc
Group further explaining this effort is attached to my written
testimony.
The Federal Government also has claims to substantial amounts of
water in the West on its own behalf, given the extent of Federal land
ownership. These claims are most often presented within the context of
state general stream adjudications, where the water rights of all
claimants in a given stream system can be ascertained. In this regard,
this Congress should address the inequity that now results from
exempting the Federal Government from paying any filing fees or costs
associated with these adjudications. I have attached the Council's
position which explains our support for a remedy, now before the
Congress in the form of H.R. 705.
While virtually every western state needs additional supplies to
meet growing consumptive use demands, western states also recognize the
need for existing water infrastructure rehabilitation. Further, they
also recognize as a significant challenge, the need to sustain instream
values generally, and specifically for maintaining and enhancing water
quality, and for protecting endangered species. The West is often
subject to wide swings in water supply. Thus, states identify drought
planning and response as a priority problem, and similarly flag flood
planning and response. Overlaying many of the above challenges are
legal and institutional conflicts facing western states, involving
Federal/state relationships, conflicts between states, and disputes
among water users, among others.
To meet these increasing demands, several states are considering
additional surface reservoirs, which, for the most part, will be
smaller in scale than the large projects of the past, more innovative,
environmentally sensitive, and financed primarily from state and local
resources. The reallocation of water from existing uses to other uses
will likely accelerate, chiefly from agricultural uses to other uses,
primarily municipal. While states will often facilitate such transfers
to meet specific water supply and environmental challenges, in some
cases they may restrain market transfers, not only to protect third
parties, but also the public interest in general.
While recognizing the limits of water conservation in providing new
water and additional caveats relating to the site-specific impacts of
water conservation measures, states are carefully considering
opportunities to stretch existing supplies of water through more
efficient use, reuse, and reservoir reoperation (prior to the
development of new storage facilities). States are further exploring
opportunities to cost-effectively manage ground water recharge,
recognizing it as a potentially significant storage alternative, and
some states are further pursuing the potential of desalinization and
weather modification to augment existing supplies.
As the emphasis on the importance of water conservation increases,
states are developing and adopting a number of programs to encourage
such measures as low water-use landscaping, and water rates that
encourage conservation in urban areas, and development of conservation
plans and incentives and leak detection programs in rural/agricultural
settings. The reuse of wastewater effluent is also increasing. Many
communities are currently reusing effluent for landscape and
agricultural irrigation. To facilitate a reallocation of existing uses
to augment supplies in areas of relative scarcity, some states have
established water banks, while others have adopted measures to
streamline the transfer process.
Western states have made innovations in their laws and institutions
in order to augment and protect instream flows and to incorporate
consideration of the public interest in their water right application
and transfer processes. States are also endeavoring to incorporate
innovations in their water quality programs, particularly regarding
non-point source pollution. States have adopted various measures to
deal with the problem of ground water depletion. States have also
strengthened their capacity to deal with floods and drought.
Innovations to improve information on water availability and use are
common.
States in the West have recognized and moved to enhance the
potential value of local watershed coordination initiatives. As
conflicts over water use intensify in an era of both increasing and
changing demands, states are also addressing the need to deal more
effectively with these disputes. For a variety of reasons, states are
also increasing their emphasis on maintaining and enhancing the
environment. These reasons include, but are not limited to, Federal
mandates such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.
Given the diminishing Federal resources available to carry out the
requirements of these and other Federal acts, and the concurrent
increase in the state burden for environmental protection, states urge
that increased flexibility be given regarding their implementation, so
that states and others can tailor programs and prioritize resources to
meet real needs. Streamlining Federal permit processes is also
important. The Federal Government should encourage innovations, which
frequently involve market incentives and non-regulatory tools, as they
have often been found to work more effectively than top-down
regulation. The Council has, for example, urged flexibility in
implementing the Total Maximum Daily Load program under the Clean Water
Act. Further, the Federal Government continues to have an important
role with regard to disaster response and other mitigation associated
with droughts and floods.
There is a significant need for the Federal Government to maintain
and rehabilitate its existing water storage infrastructure, and to work
with states and others in providing reliable water data. In particular,
as Congress considers the budget, we urge it to recognize the serious
need for adequate and consistent Federal funding to maintain, restore,
modernize, and provide for targeted expansion of NWCC's SNOTEL System
and Soil and Climate Analysis Network (SCAN), and USGS's Cooperative
Streamgaging Program and National Stream Information Program, with a
primary focus on coordinated data collection and dissemination. I have
appended a position recently adopted by the Council explaining the
western states position in support of these programs.
Finally, I wish to reiterate the importance of the long-held
Congressional policy of deference to states regarding water management.
States are moving to address the challenges they face in water
resources. Federal preemption of state authority is not the way to
address the complex challenges associated with water management in the
West. Rather, what is necessary is encouraging partnerships between the
state and Federal agencies in the development and implementation of key
policies, supporting the pivotal role states must play in addressing
these challenges, and affording flexibility for ongoing innovation at
the state level in order to effectively carry out this role. Thank you.
Position No. 231 (See also No. 219) adopted November 14, 1997
resolution of the western states water council regardingfederal non-
tribal fees in general adjudications
Grand Junction, Colorado
October 20, 2000 (revised and reaffirmed)
WHEREAS, states must conduct lengthy, complicated and expensive
proceedings to establish the relative rights to water in water rights
adjudications; and
WHEREAS, Congress recognized the necessity and benefit of requiring
the United States claims to be adjudicated in these state adjudications
by adoption of the McCarran Amendment; and
WHEREAS, those claiming and establishing their right to water,
including Federal agencies, are the primary beneficiaries of
adjudication proceedings by having the states officially quantify and
record these water rights; and
WHEREAS, the courts have determined that under the McCarran
Amendment the United States need not pay fees for processing Federal
claims; and
WHEREAS, the Federal claims are typically among the most
complicated and largest of claims in state adjudications; and
WHEREAS, if the United States does not pay a proportionate share of
the costs associated with adjudications, the burden of funding the
proceedings unfairly shifts to the state and other water users and
often delays completion of the adjudications by depriving the states of
the resources necessary to complete them; and
WHEREAS, delays in completing adjudications result in inability to
protect private and public property interests or determine how much
unappropriated water may remain to satisfy important environmental and
economic development priorities.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Western States Water Council
again ask the Congress to recognize that requiring states and private
users to fund processing of Federal, non-tribal claims in water rights
adjudications unfairly shifts the burden of funding these proceedings
away from the parties who derive the greatest benefit from the
proceeding and effectively establishes an unfunded mandate; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council continue urging Congress to
pass legislation narrowly tailored to establish that the United States,
when a party to a general adjudication shall be subject to fees and
costs imposed by the state to conduct the proceedings to the same
extent as private users.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1352.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1352.002
Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your testimony.
We will now begin questions, and we have a 5-minute rule. I
will begin the questioning, and we will alternate between
majority and minority.
Mr. McDonald, currently, the Bureau is facing a $5 billion
backlog and potentially up to $7 billion in new project needs
in the next several years. How are you proposing to move these
projects forward with your limited budget?
Mr. McDonald. It is true, Mr. Congressman, that there is a
considerable number of authorized new projects, particularly in
the last two or three years, as you noted. We certainly
evaluate carefully as we put our budget request together what
we think the relative priorities of funding needs are.
I can assure you that our first priority is to maintain and
operate the existing infrastructure along the lines that I
testified to and then, within the budget constraints we face,
to identify the priorities for additional work that might be
possible. Obviously, the particulars await the release of the
President's budget request in a couple of weeks.
Mr. Calvert. You mentioned in your testimony that the
Bureau's infrastructure is aging.
Mr. McDonald. Yes, sir.
Mr. Calvert. In what ways will the dams, canals, and other
waterway delivery systems be affected by this and our future
reliability for water?
Mr. McDonald. Our view, Congressman, is that as long as we
invest in the appropriate operation, maintenance, and
rehabilitation of these facilities, they will be reliable for
decades to come. There is no reason for them to ever arrive at
a physical condition where they are not reliable in providing
sustainable supplies.
Mr. Calvert. Are there any specific projects out there that
show any potential for problems in the immediate future?
Mr. McDonald. There certainly are projects that we have
lined up in our respective operation and maintenance priority
systems and in our dam safety program that we are looking 2, 3,
4 years down the road for funding requirements in order to
carry out the appropriate level of activity.
Mr. Calvert. Specifically, are any of these threatening the
immediate water supply in the next several years?
Mr. McDonald. Not that I am aware of, no, sir.
Mr. Calvert. Last year, the Bureau sent legislation to
increase funding for dam safety, which we passed, but the
Senate did not act on, which is not surprising around here.
What is the status of dam safety legislation, and will the
Bureau be sending it again to Congress?
Mr. McDonald. In our judgment, Mr. Chairman, we have an
adequate authorized ceiling with the amount that was included
in the appropriations bill for this year to handle our dam
safety program through this fiscal year; but it is our judgment
that we will need additional authority before the end of this
calendar year so that we can continue on into Fiscal Year 2002.
The four projects that would be affected in Fiscal Year 2002
are Deadwood Dam in Idaho, Grassy Lake, and Glendo Dams in
Wyoming, and Warm Springs in Oregon, and we will need an
increased ceiling to proceed in Fiscal Year 2002 with those.
Until we have a new commissioner, I do not know that the new
administration will have an opportunity to entertain dam safety
legislation proposals, but certainly it is a matter that we
will bring to the attention of the new commissioner at the
earliest opportunity.
Mr. Calvert. This is one of my last questions to you, and
you could probably take the rest of the day to answer it, but
in what ways is the Bureau of Reclamation planning for meeting
the growing water demand in the West?
Mr. McDonald. I think that to conserve time, I will
emphasize three things. First, as I testified to, we think
there is a place in the future of water management in the West
for voluntary transfers between willing sellers and buyers.
Secondly, we are certainly working with States, watershed
organizations, local districts, Indian tribes and others in
planning activities, particularly in a watershed ecosystem
context, that deal with the whole range of competing water
supply needs.
Finally, I would emphasize that investing in applied
science and technology to develop products that enhance water
user flexibility to address future challenges is very much part
of that planning process.
Mr. Calvert. How about surface water storage sites--did you
mention any of those?
Mr. McDonald. We certainly have an authorization from
Congress for the Animas-La Plata project and would hope to move
forward with that. Beyond that, I cannot think of any new
authorizations that we have.
Mr. Calvert. Are you looking at identifying future
potential storage sites in the West?
Mr. McDonald. I am aware of some of our planning studies
that do identify new sites, yes, sir.
Mr. Calvert. In what areas has the Department of
Reclamation coordinated with State and Federal agencies to plan
for droughts?
Mr. McDonald. Our authorities for drought, Mr. Chairman,
are under the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act
of 1991. It essentially provides us with two authorities--first
of all, an authority to provide financial and technical
assistance for development of drought contingency plans. We
have had agreements and done that with Arizona, Hawaii, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and a number of Indian tribes, and then
in the face of a natural drought, we have some limited
authority to construct temporary facilities and to deal with
management practices through the duration of the drought.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I will have another round and will
be coming back to you all.
Ms. Solis, would you like to ask some questions?
Ms. Solis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was curious--you mentioned that there were some plants
that were down, but it was not affecting hydroelectricity in
the State of California. Which plants were you talking about,
specifically?
Mr. McDonald. In the course of normal maintenance,
Congresswoman, we have two units out of 26 in the Upper
Colorado Region system. One of those is at Glen Canyon Dam, one
is at Blue Mesa in Colorado. In the Lower Colorado Region, we
have six units out of 28 units down; three of those are at
Hoover, a couple more upcoming at Hoover--they are not down
right now, but they are scheduled for maintenance in the next
few weeks--and then, there is a unit down at Davis and one up
for testing.
We will have all of those back up on line, generally
speaking, between the 5th of April and the 31st of May, and
again, the fact that those units are down has in no way
affected generation and capacity, because the ones that are up
and running can take more than the water that is available to
run through them at this current time.
Ms. Solis. It still does not solve our problem.
Mr. McDonald. It does not; I understand.
Ms. Solis. Just a last question. In reading your testimony,
I know you did not read everything, but regarding the
Reclamation Reform Act and trying to encourage water
conservation, how far along would you say we are with actually
advancing that technology? You mentioned drip irrigation,
conservation technology. How far along are we, and what do we
need to do to help move those farmers along?
Mr. McDonald. I think that in the last 5 or 10 years, there
has been considerable progress. Organizations like the Western
States Water Council, which is here to testify in the form of
Mr. Brophy, are working with other Federal agencies, working
with individual districts, we have had some very successful and
innovative programs in the last several years, and I am
personally finding a lot of excitement in the irrigation
community because a lot of these improvements make financial
sense to the farmer--that is what their interest in it is--as
well as all the environmental and agricultural benefits that it
has.
Ms. Solis. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Ms. Solis.
Mr. Osborne?
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here today. I appreciate it.
I have a fairly general question. I notice that with our
current situation, it appears that perhaps additional storage
is needed in the West; yet I also know that there are certain
interests that would do away with dams altogether. I was
interested in where you feel the equilibrium is. Is there a
possibility of increasing storage at this point, or is the
political climate such that it makes it difficult to do
anything new?
Mr. McDonald. My personal view, Congressman, is that it is
certainly not out of the realm of possibility that there will
be new dams and storage reservoirs constructed in the future. I
do not think there is any doubt that that will happen. I think,
however, that it will be done on a very selective basis, and it
will be done as a suite of water management activities not to
the exclusion of improvements in efficiency of use, transfers
among existing users, and that kind of thing.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you.
I have a question for Mr. Hirsch. There were a couple of
terms in your testimony that I was not aware of. You mentioned
``artificial recharge'' and ``aquifer storage.'' Could you
amplify on those a little bit, because they caught my
attention, but I did not know exactly what they were.
Mr. Hirsch. Yes. Artificial recharge is any attempt by
humans to increase the rate at which water enters the ground
water system, enters into an aquifer. This can involve
spreading water on the surface; it can be putting water into a
streambed that might otherwise be dry. This may be wastewater,
it may be water collected in some manner to supplement water
supply.
Aquifer storage and recovery is one very specific
technology of artificial recharge where one in fact injects
water into an aquifer--at times when there is a lot of water
available and a rainy season, let us say--injects it into the
aquifer and then withdraws it from the very same well during a
dry period.
These technologies are widely in use in Southern
California, in Florida, in Arizona, and in a number of other
very arid parts of the country, although I think their use is
spreading. There is a whole host of scientific questions about
their efficacy, and it is an area that we have been working on,
but it is of interest to note that particularly in places like
the Everglades or in CALFED, two major ecosystem restoration
programs around the country, these technologies have been
proposed as a major aspect of the restoration plan.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you.
Mr. McDonald, I have a question regarding your statement
that 85 to 90 percent of the water consumed in the West is
devoted to irrigation, and with the needs of municipalities and
other needs, there might be transfers of water. Do you see the
amount of irrigated acres eventually decreasing, either
voluntarily or involuntarily, or do you feel that we can
maintain the present amount of irrigation that we now have and
still maintain the municipal needs that are developing?
Mr. McDonald. My personal judgment would be that the
economics of irrigated agriculture are such that there will be
a small decline over time. I think relatively speaking, though,
that what we need to keep in mind is that a very small
reduction in the agricultural sector can support a vastly
increased population, so I think they are relatively minor
marginal changes, and I think they are going to be ones which
are accommodated in the context of State law and willing
sellers who desire to go out of business.
Mr. Osborne. Is there any difficulty transferring water--
are you talking about from one drainage to another, or simply
water within a drainage allocated to different usages?
Mr. McDonald. Throughout the West, I have seen examples of
both, where the proposed retirement of agriculture would result
in a diversion from one basin to another basin. I have also
seen examples that are within a basin. All, of course, are
subject to State law; that will be the principal guiding
institutional mechanism under the State's water rights systems.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you very much. No further questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Osborne.
Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly
thank you for bringing the agencies here to speak to such a
great and pertinent issue for California--water.
I have several questions. First of all, the U.S. Geological
Survey Water Resources Division has a monitoring tool which is
vital in drought prediction. I want to be sure that we get a
copy of something of that nature. I am not quite sure who has
it, and I would like to see what it says, because in
California, we went through a drought 8 or 10 years ago, and it
was not a nice thing. So I think we need to be sure that we are
living up to some of the things that were recommended and that
we are doing the best that we can. I am not sure if I can get
it, and I am sure other members would be interested in seeing
that--
Mr. Calvert. We will ask for any documentation like that to
be submitted to us, and we can distribute that to the members.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. The other question of Mr. Hirsch
is on the streamgaging network. Do you feel that the
Administration is going to continue to support adequate funding
for the program itself to at least give the communities warning
outlooks across the Nation?
Mr. Hirsch. I think we have to wait for the President's
budget to come out to see what the status of that is.
Ms. Napolitano. What is going to be your proposal, or what
has it been?
Mr. Hirsch. The Administration needs to come forward; we
need to simply see what the Administration's proposal is, which
will come out in the next two weeks.
Ms. Napolitano. Okay, but you are not proposing either full
funding or anything of that nature?
Mr. Hirsch. We have been interacting with many, many
stakeholders on the issue of streamgaging, which has been of
great interest. We have had requests for congressional reports
to the Congress by the Appropriations Committee. So we have
gone on record a number of times describing what we think is
needed for the Nation from a flood warning and water management
and scientific standpoint and have had a series of stakeholder
meetings, including one just recently out in the West with some
of the State engineers, where we have described our long-term
plans and objectives for a national streamgaging program. We
would be happy to share that information with you.
Ms. Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, may I ask that that
information be submitted to the Committee?
Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
Ms. Napolitano. Mr. McDonald, what is the status of the
Southern California Regional Water Recycling Study? That is of
vital interest to me and others because of the great amount
that has already been done in recycling with the different
entities that I serve. If we had the study--I do not know when
it is coming out, I do not know the status of it--I would like
to have your answer to let us know when we can expect it.
Mr. McDonald. Off the top of my head, Congresswoman, I am
sorry that I do not remember the particulars. I would be glad
to respond promptly through the record within a day or two, if
I may.
Ms. Napolitano. I would also like to have that submitted to
this Committee.
Mr. McDonald. That is fine; I would be glad to.
Ms. Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, that is a recycling study
that has been pending for a while.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
[Information furnished by Mr. McDonald follows:]
The Southern California Comprehensive Study is being finalized and
will be transmitted to Congress as soon as it receives approval from
the Secretary of the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget.
______
Ms. Napolitano. And the last point that I wanted to ask
about was on the Desalinization Act of 1996, which is going to
be ending, or at least, that is my report--authorization for
the program expires at the end of the fiscal year. Are we going
to see any implementation of something that will take care of
the desalinization, especially on Government lands? Are we
expecting that it will be reestablished, refunded, reenacted--
anybody?
Mr. McDonald. It is correct, Congresswoman, that the
authorization for the program is expiring. Again, that is the
kind of thing that Reclamation will be bringing to the
attention of the new commissioner and new assistant Secretary
as soon as they are appointed.
Ms. Napolitano. And the refunding is going to be one of the
recommendations?
Mr. McDonald. I am not in a position to comment as to what
we will recommend or not, but it will certainly be on the list
of expiring authorizations that we will bring to the attention
of the new administration.
Ms. Napolitano. In other words, you do not have an answer.
Mr. McDonald. We do not have a position yet; that is
correct.
Ms. Napolitano. Mr. Chair, I am not quite sure where we
stand on desalinization or on the extension of that. I
certainly would like to have the Committee take a look at it
and see if it warrants our support to be able to urge the
Administration for either a new enactment or an expansion of
that Act.
Mr. Calvert. It is something that I am certainly interested
in, and I will be happy to work with the gentlelady on that.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Otter?
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me include my voice in the choir thanking you for
bringing these issues before us today.
I would like to start my questioning with Mr. Brophy from
the Western States Water Council. Mr. Brophy, we in Idaho have
been struggling with the permitting process. After we get a
permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on certain
adjudication of water permits in the Upper Snake in Idaho, we
turn around and have to go through another permitting process
with the National Marine Fisheries Service, or vice versa--it
depends. And then we find ourselves having to go through
another process with FERC.
Does your organization have any enthusiasm for trying to
streamline this process, perhaps having a single agency to go
to and perhaps time period within which they have to respond?
Mr. Brophy. Thank you, Congressman Otter.
Western States Water Council has been very interested in
streamlining the various permitting processes that States have
to go through. It is a constant complaint from State engineers
and from water rights holders and others that they are put
through one permitting program and then another. We have never
taken a position on actually putting all permitting programs
together, but we have consistently supported streamlining
permitting processes and looking for innovative ways to get
through the permitting process.
Mr. Otter. As a follow-up question, in your estimation, if
I were to introduce two bills, one using the legislative
oversight to repeal the authority given to all other Federal
agencies, and another giving one agency the authority to issue
an across-the-board permit on water use and adjudication, whom
would that surviving agency be? Do you have an opinion on that?
Mr. Brophy. My personal opinion would be that it would be
the Bureau of Reclamation, but I am sure there would be many
others who would have other opinions.
Mr. Otter. We will get to those opinions later.
Mr. Hirsch, do you think that irrigation is in fact a way
to recharge the aquifers?
Mr. Hirsch. Indeed irrigation does recharge aquifers in
most cases. In the High Plans, for example, after a decade or
two, if time elapses between the application of the water, that
water does in fact reach the water table. Now, that does not
mean there is not a continued decline, but in fact it does
reach the water table, and we find that in many, many areas
that receive surface area irrigation, those aquifers are being
recharged in that process.
Mr. Otter. And, in fact, haven't we seen a decline in
recharging the aquifers from surface irrigation as a result of
sprinkler and high-technology irrigation, like drip systems and
those sorts of things as opposed to gravity flow?
Mr. Hirsch. I think that that is correct. We certainly see
that as the amount of water applied gets more and more
accurately tailored to the amount of evapotranspiration
required to growth the plans, there is less and less recharge
to the aquifer.
Mr. Otter. Thank you very much, Mr. Hirsch.
Mr. McDonald, have we had some major failure problems at
Arrowrock Dam?
Mr. McDonald. No, sir. Nothing has failed, although the
five sluiceways at the bottom of the dam have, due to
cavitation problems downstream from the gates, been inoperable
since 1987, and of the 10 ensign valves that are in the middle
of the dam, we have three locked down because we are concerned
about their operational safety.
Mr. Otter. Have you had a failure?
Mr. McDonald. Nothing has failed as such in the sense of
blowing out or being knocked out.
Mr. Otter. In fact we have not had a loss on pressure or
water, or it has not become dangerous?
Mr. McDonald. It is a situation that is not safe,
Congressman. We are in a position where the ensign valves, were
they to get stuck either in the open position or in the closed
position--
Mr. Otter. Have they been stuck?
Mr. McDonald. They have, yes, sir.
Mr. Otter. How many times?
Mr. McDonald. I do not know for sure, but--
Mr. Otter. Yet since 1987, we have not used them?
Mr. McDonald. No--we have operated the ensign valves.
Mr. Otter. Successfully?
Mr. McDonald. Some of them successfully, some of them not;
that is why three are locked down.
Mr. Otter. So tell me why the Bureau of Reclamation chooses
a drought here, in a year when we already know that Arrowrock
and the south fork of the Boise River and Anderson Ranch, that
we are now going to draw down those dams in order to fix those
valves?
Mr. McDonald. Actually, ironically, a drought is the best
time to do the work at this dam, because we would otherwise
have to waste the water and draw the dam down so we could get
at the valves. As you may understand, Congressman, they are on
the upstream face of the dam, that is to say they are
underwater, and to repair them, we would have to pull the dam
down.
Mr. Otter. So we are not going to have to pull it down?
Mr. McDonald. We will not have to pull it down to
wastewater; it is going to automatically get pulled down in
this drought year so that we can deliver our contract supplies.
Mr. Otter. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Otter.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
assembling this panel and holding this hearing today on such an
important issue.
I confess that jurisdictionally, I am still sort of sorting
through who is in charge of what when it comes to water. I know
there are lots of hands involved in terms of regulations and
permitting process and all that. But since you three are here,
I will ask you.
As has been discussed here, we have quite a problem with
our water supply in the Pacific Northwest this year,
exacerbated by a number of factors; and beyond that, we have
the energy problem, since we are so dependent on water to
generate power. As I said, I think it is a real shame in the
Pacific Northwest that this is the year that we do not have a
surplus of energy. With California needing it so badly, we
could do quite well; as it is, we are going to have a hard time
just keeping up.
What I am really interested in, though, is the Endangered
Species Act and how it will affect all of this. There will be a
number of decisions that EPA is primarily going to have to make
in terms of how to use the water that may adversely affect
salmon. I do not know what your knowledge is of the law--I am
sure there are some environmental groups that will protest
that--I am wondering how you foresee that coming out in the
Pacific Northwest this year when we have a situation where, if
we do not use more water, we may have a rolling blackout
situation in the BPA region, but on the other hand, to use the
water could potentially violate the 4(d) rule and some of the
existing regulations on salmon.
How does that come out, and how much flexibility do we
really have to use that water this year with the ESA hovering
over us?
Mr. McDonald. I would be glad to try to respond, Mr. Smith,
since I am the Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation
in the Pacific Northwest and intimately involved in those day-
to-day decisions.
Fundamentally, of course, we are operating in the Federal
Columbia River power system, which is 12 dams of the Corps of
Engineers and two of the Bureau of Reclamation, under the
current Biological Opinions issued in December of 2000. In a
drywater year like this, we are operating under the provisions
in the Biological Opinion that provide exceptions to the
requirements of the opinion for emergencies. It is the view of
the Bonneville Power Administration, Corps of Engineers and
Reclamation that we face such an emergency due to the financial
uncertainty of the market and the fact that we have less
capacity available than we should for a reliable system.
Since approximately the 1st of January, we have essentially
been operating to produce power. Up until the last week or so,
that power operation has fortunately matched the requirements
of salmon, driven principally by the fact that the chum is the
first salmon species to come back into the mainstem and start
spawning in November and December. They do so below Bonneville
Dam and in a couple of the small tributaries below Bonneville.
They lay their eggs at high water in November, because we were
generating power at the time, and we have maintained those high
levels because of power.
The problems essentially are from this time forward. Under
the Biological Opinion, we should have refilled reservoirs to
certain targets by April 10th. The point of those targets for
refilling is to balance flood control with water in storage so
that we can have water to release for flow augmentation in the
spring. We are going to be far, far short of being able to
refill to the April 10th targets. That will then bring the next
major issue about which decisions have not been made, and that
is going to be how far short of the spring flow targets are we,
and do we spill any water over the Corps of Engineers'
facilities as opposed to running all water through the turbines
for power generation.
The tradeoff fundamentally will then be between spring flow
targets and summer flow targets. The closer we get to spring
flow targets, the more we sacrifice storage now, which would be
to the benefit of power, confidentially; but then we will have
that much less water in storage come July, and we need summer
flows commencing about the 20th of August going into and
through most of September.
So that is the basic tension in the system. The other
thing, frankly, from a water operator and power generator
perspective as we balance our ESA obligations and our tribal
trust obligations that we are concerned about is that the
drought is so serious this year that we are putting a very
large hole, if you will, in the reservoir system, and it will
take an average year or better to recover next year. So we are
going to skate into the winter power season on thin ice this
year from the power generation perspective.
Mr. Smith of Washington. I guess the question in that
situation is who trumps whom. If the ESA and the tribal
concerns do not want the water to be released, but the BPA says
we need to do it for power, is there any clear idea of who wins
that argument?
Mr. McDonald. We are kind of operating a week at a time,
Congressman, and doing our very level best to consult with all
the interested parties to find what the balance is.
Mr. Smith of Washington. So no, basically, at this point;
it is kind of unknown.
Mr. McDonald. Yes.
Mr. Smith of Washington. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I think it probably could be said that
California cannot look forward to a lot of excess power over
the next year, I suspect.
Mr. McDonald. We have noticed that in the last few months.
Mr. Calvert. Okay.
Mr. Walden?
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McDonald, I want to go back to a comment that you made
about two or three projects that might need additional funding
authority under Federal legislation. One of them that you
mentioned was Warm Springs Dam. I am trying to figure out which
dam that is. Is that the Wickiup Project?
Mr. McDonald. I confess that I am drawing a blank; I am so
new to the region that I do not quite have every dam name put
with the project. I apologize. I will have to check.
Mr. Walden. If you could get back to me on that, because I
know there is some restoration and dam safety work going on at
Wickiup, which is in the general area.
Mr. McDonald. Okay--that refreshes my memory. It is not the
Wickiup project. I am still not remembering the name of the
project, so I will double-check.
Mr. Walden. All right. If you could get back to me on
that--
Mr. McDonald. They are on different tracks; they are
different dams.
[Information furnished by Mr. McDonald follows:]
Part of the Vale Project, Warm Springs Dam is located on the Middle
Fork of the Malheur River in east-central Malheur County, in
Southeastern Oregon. The upper portion of Warm Springs Reservoir
extends into Harney County.
______
Mr. Walden. Last week, when we were both over on the Senate
side on the Klamath project issues, one of the people who
testified released a report about how to improve water quality
in Klamath Lake to help with the suckers there, and he spoke
about the oxygenation proposals that he had.
I wonder if you have had a chance in the intervening time
to take a look at that report, or people in your agency--and
perhaps anybody at this table--if you are familiar with these
proposals to literally put oxygen into the bottoms of some of
these lakes to improve the quality of the water?
Mr. McDonald. The Reclamation staff, Congressman, has been
looking at that report last week and literally over the
weekend. It was a subject of discussion yesterday at the
meeting we organized at your request and the Senators' request
yesterday in Klamath. When I leave here, I will have a
conference call with my staff to be brought up to date. But I
do know that it was specifically considered. I do not know that
the consultant was there, but the water users were there, and
talking through the science brought forth by that report was
one of the agenda items.
Mr. Walden. Are either of the other of you familiar with
these projects to pump oxygen into the bottoms of these lakes
to improve the quality of the water?
Mr. Hirsch. USGS is involved in the Klamath Lake water
quality issues and has been for many years, and we certainly
have looked at various places around the country where oxygen
or simply air has been pumped into water bodies to improve
their condition. We would be happy to provide you with some
feedback on that once I touch base with my staff in Oregon. We
would be happy to do that.
Mr. Walden. Okay, that would be good. As you know, time is
of the utmost concern in the Klamath Basin this year. Today is
the 27th, so in four days, basically, a report has to come out
about whether those farmers are going to get any water or not.
The concern I have dates back to legislation that we were
able to pass last year, authorizing this study for additional
storage. Mr. McDonald, as I reread some of your comments from
last week over the weekend, I found myself wanting to ask more
questions, and lo and behold, here we are with that
opportunity.
The question I have--and you do not have to do it right
now--but if you could get more specific about where your agency
is on a time line with these studies.
Mr. McDonald. Okay.
Mr. Walden. It seemed kind of vague in terms of what I was
reading, and I really want to know dates and times. Where are
we in assessing, and what is the time line that we need to be
one to increase water storage in that basin, because so much is
at stake. People are literally going broke.
I can tell you that my field director was at the meeting in
Klamath yesterday. From his report, it was not a very
productive meeting. People walked away feeling they had gotten
no answers and were very, very frustrated. Emotions were
running high; apparently, more than 300 people were outside
protesting one way or another.
We have got to get on this, and I want to be in a position,
given the flow of legislation here, to make sure that we do not
miss any deadlines here to move forward on storage.
Mr. McDonald. I will be glad to respond on the record,
Congressman.
[Information furnished by Mr. McDonald follows:]
Public Law 106-498 authorized Reclamation to conduct a number of
feasibility and other studies related to the Klamath Project.
Reclamation estimates that the Section 2 studies will be completed as
follows:
Raising Upper Klamath Lake--Fiscal Year 2003
Gerber Reservoir--Fiscal Year 2003
Long-term Demand Reduction Program--Fiscal Year 2003
Long-term Water Acquisition Program--Fiscal Year 2004
Water Quality Improvement Program--Fiscal Year 2004
Ground Water Development--Fiscal Year 2005
In addition, Reclamation will enter into a partnership with the
Oregon Water Resources Department to review potential studies on water
supply needs of non-project lands in the Upper Klamath Basin, as
authorized in Section 3.
______
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Walden.
Ms. Solis, do you have any additional questions?
Ms. Solis. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. Napolitano. Yes, Mr. Chair.
One of the things that concerns me is that we have looked
at many of the water issues for the Western States, and of
utmost concern to me, especially in California, is storage and
recycling. I do not see storage as a local issue, other than a
storage dam under the underground rivers or the aquifers. I am
looking to find out if any of the agencies are looking at
support to the local municipalities for underground or above
ground storage of water that they can purchase in winter when
it is cheaper and then be able to use for their own
communities, as opposed to relying strictly on the water in
California from the aqueduct or from the Colorado or from other
sources.
Beyond that, there is the issue of being able to help
reopen water wells that have been closed for whatever reason,
whether because of maintenance or because they have perceived
contamination and are not tied into any water mains that will
help meld the water or break it down in order to make it
potable.
Those are issues that have not even begun to be discussed,
and yet they can be answers for some of the issues in
California as well as other States, because we are not looking
beyond; we are looking only at the traditional things that we
are used to.
On recycling, a lot of the problems are with the small
municipalities that cannot afford to bring a recycling
infrastructure into the community. Are we looking at assisting
them so they can then use pure water rather than recycled water
for commercial, industrial, and municipal uses?
Mr. Hirsch. Let me comment a little bit from the
perspective of the U.S. Geological Survey. We have a program
and have had it for over 100 years called the Federal-State
Cooperative Water Program in which we cooperate with
communities, and we have many, many municipalities, counties,
et cetera, as well as State agencies that we undertake work
with. They bring half the money, we bring half the money, and
we undertake particularly hydrogeologic studies of many of the
basins throughout California to look at their potential as
sites for long-term storage, aquifer storage and recovery,
recharge, and the reuse of reclaimed wastewater--Orange County,
Antelope Valley, just to name a couple of places where we have
been extremely active working with and assisting those
communities to identify long-term solutions in terms of
underground water storage.
Ms. Napolitano. I want to just pick up on that one point,
because the sanitation district is now utilizing runoff after
the first 24 hours of water to be able to replenish the
aquifers. Well, they claim to have great space for storage, yet
we are not looking at being able to use the existing storage to
put in the additional water that we may need eventually; it is
just running through the rivers and into the ocean.
Another issue that has come up recently is that EPA is
forcing sanitation to do not tertiary treatment of water that
is going to the ocean, but a fourth treatment which is going to
cost billions of dollars to the taxpayers to set up a new
facility to do the fourth treatment.
I am not sure what they are basing that on--that is another
story--but to me, if we were able to use that water in
refurbishing the aquifers, we would be better off, or if we
could find a way to have it go through the natural system and
put it back into use in the aquifers.
Mr. Hirsch. I am not familiar with the details of the
examples that you are talking about, but we would be happy to
come and visit with you and get some more details and see if we
can be of any help.
Ms. Napolitano. I would appreciate it, sir, because that
goes for most of Southern California.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
I will go ahead and ask a couple of questions, and Mr.
Pombo will be back shortly.
A question was brought up earlier by Ms. Napolitano on the
Streamgaging Program, and I am wondering if USGS is cooperating
with other Federal agencies that may have some technologies
that might assist in that--specifically, the National Weather
Service, with some of our satellite imagery data, that type of
thing. Are you exploring new technologies to be able to do this
type of information-gathering?
Mr. Hirsch. First, just to comment on the National Weather
Service, we provide virtually all of the streamflow information
that the National Weather Service uses in making their
streamflow forecasts, and we work very, very closely with them
on our program.
From a technology standpoint, we had a workshop with NASA
and many of their funded entities and a number of parts of the
Defense Department, in fact, to talk about potential money-
saving or improvements in our streamgaging activities.
Over the last three years, we have had a program within the
USGS that we call Hydro 21, looking at radically new ways of
going about this process of streamgaging, and in fact have
conducted a couple of experiments in which we have used
helicopters and radar away from the stream in fact to make
measurements. We believe that this will in the long run lead us
to some abilities and some reliabilities that we have not had
in the past.
None of those have shown themselves to be technologies that
are ready for widespread deployment, but we are actively
pursuing that kind of--
Mr. Calvert. I was going to ask how accurate is that data?
Mr. Hirsch. In fact, the few experiments that we have done
have shown it to be quite accurate, really, in the same range
of less than 5 percent error as we would see with our current
meter-based measurement.
Mr. Calvert. That is using helicopters and other fixed-wing
aircraft?
Mr. Hirsch. Not fixed-wing, but helicopters. The
application of the helicopter technology, which in fact would
be quite expensive but has tremendous potential applicability
to large regional flood situations in which it is very
difficult to deploy our staff on the ground to safely make the
kinds of measurements that are needed.
The other application is from a couple of kinds of radars
that were developed for military application, one of which
senses the velocity of the water on the surface--a lot like a
police radar gun, essentially--and another kind of radar which
penetrates the water and defines the channel shape as it
changes over time, which is very important in a lot of Western
streams.
Those are the kinds of technologies that we are looking at,
and they do appear to be accurate and at the moment not more
cost-effective than the ones we use today. But we need to
explore that and look for savings from miniaturization and a
large market that might potentially develop.
Mr. Calvert. Back to developing water supply plans for the
West, do you guys in the water reclamation business and the
USGS work closely together to make sure we develop additional
water supplies for the West?
Mr. McDonald. We do indeed. Both of us can respond that
way. There are many cooperative programs between the two
agencies, Congressman. We in Reclamation often look to USGS for
technical expertise. We participate in their Streamgaging
Program, rely on their science in many instances, and I think
we have a long, literally decades-old, tradition of cooperation
and collaboration.
Mr. Calvert. Could you give us some examples on use of
groundwater and surface storage that can make the Western
States more drought-resistant? There was certainly some talk
about that earlier. Are there plans under way that you are
aware of that we do not know about?
Mr. McDonald. I would defer to Mr. Brophy if he has
examples among the Western States. I cannot think of anything,
Congressman, that Reclamation itself may have.
Mr. Brophy. Mr. Chairman, the State of Arizona is involved
in an extensive groundwater banking program where Colorado
River water is stored underground either by direct recharge
into the aquifer or by delivery of surface water to irrigated
fields, and they do not pump groundwater where ordinarily they
would. In that way, the State of Arizona is generating hundreds
of thousands of acre-feet a year additional storage in aquifers
in Central Arizona. That water is going to be used to firm up
our municipal supplies in Central Arizona and is also going to
be used to facilitate interstate water banking and help the
State of Nevada get over the next 30 years as they grow in
Clark County.
Mr. Calvert. I know that in California, this is extremely
important. As you are aware, we are going to have to be looking
toward the 4.4 million acre allocation in the next several
years, so we are looking for a lot of help in groundwater
management in California, certainly, to make sure we have
enough supply to get through the time when we are not able to
take over the 4.4 million acre-foot allocation. So we look
forward to working with both USGS and Reclamation and anybody
else to help us get to that point.
With that, Ms. Solis, do you have any further questions?
Ms. Solis. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. Napolitano. One thing that is puzzling me--there was
mention in one of the comments of the Indian water rights. I
had a conversation with a tribal chairman who indicated to me
that they had water that they did not use. What is it that
prevents us from being able to work out a cooperative
agreement? It is a different State than California, and I am
wondering if it is something that we need to look at, because I
had been given information from another agency that there was
no law that permitted it or that it was not legally feasible.
So I am wondering if there is an ability for us to dialogue--
and I am speaking specifically to the Colorado River water.
Mr. Brophy. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Napolitano, Indian
water rights claims throughout the West are a threat to non-
Indian water uses, and the Council has actively supported
negotiated settlement of Indian water rights claims throughout
the West. There are significant claims in Arizona, New Mexico,
Colorado, Montana, the State of Washington, and throughout the
West.
Typically, when claims are settled, it puts Indian
communities in a position to market water that they might
receive. Under the current state of the law, at least, many
people think that the Non-Intercourse Act prohibits Indian
communities from leasing water which they have rights to and
that they need congressional permission to be able to lease or
otherwise dispose of their water; that they need an exemption
from the Non-Intercourse Act.
Also, there is general opposition in many quarters in the
West to Indian communities marketing their water supplies if in
fact the water supplies that they are using are meant to
satisfy their reserve rights to water. The thought is that that
water should be used on reservations, so many interests in the
West will oppose the marketing of water that is in fact
reserved water.
Colorado River water in Arizona, for example, is marketed
by Indian communities that have achieved water rights
settlements, and it is done with the permission of Congress.
Ms. Napolitano. I see. That answers one question.
Now, another question that comes to mind is that land along
the Colorado River is Federal, and there is an issue of
salinity and what we can do to help clean up some of that
salinity before it gets down to the users in the other States.
Mr. McDonald. I will respond to the Congresswoman. Congress
has authorized something called the Colorado River Basin
Quality Control Program. It is administered principally by the
Bureau of Reclamation and involves a number of other agencies.
It is a program that was developed and carried out
cooperatively with the seven Colorado River Basin States and
has as its objective reducing salt-loading to the Colorado
River from both natural and manmade sources in a manner that
will allow the seven Basin States to continue to the
development of their compact-entitled waters. In Reclamation's
judgment, it has been a very successful program over the years;
it has been authorized and amended a couple of times by
Congress to streamline it and tailor-make it to the situation
faced in the Colorado River Basin, and I think that
Reclamation, working cooperatively with the States, has found
it to be quite a successful program.
Ms. Napolitano. I would request, Mr. Chair, that we get a
report on that salinity program so that we are aware of how it
is going to affect us.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
Mr. McDonald. We make regular annual reports to Congress,
and we would be glad to provide the most recent one.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you.
[Information furnished by Mr. McDonald follows:]
[The ``2000 Annual Report on the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program'' was too lengthy to be included and is retained in the
Committee's official files.]
______
Mr. Calvert. I just have a quick tag-on question before we
go back on the issue of Native American water rights. The Gila
River Indians are obviously interested in this. In the new
settlement agreement, Mr. Brophy, that is apparently being
negotiated, will the Gila Indians be able to market their
water?
Mr. Brophy. Mr. Chairman, the Gila River community will be
given statutory authority to market a portion of their Colorado
River entitlements.
Mr. Calvert. Within the State of Arizona or outside the
State of Arizona?
Mr. Brophy. Strictly within the State of Arizona.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Osborne?
Mr. Osborne. I have one question. Where I come from and I
think every place else, we are trying to get more water, and
one suggestion has been a revision of forestry practices where
undergrowth and dead timber is removed. I have heard estimates
of being able to save several hundred thousand acre-feet of
water.
Is this pie-in-the-sky in your estimation, or is this an
accountable and accurate way of solving some of the water
issues?
Mr. Hirsch. I assume we are talking about the trees that
grow in the areas near streams. That is one aspect of this
topic. In fact, we worked very closely with the Bureau of
Reclamation for quite a number of years, particularly in the
Gila River Basin of Arizona and a number of other areas, to
look at the efficacy of these approaches, and while I think the
general conclusion is that on a short-term basis, one can
increase water yields by changing the vegetation along the
riparian zone, it is very difficult to maintain that improved
yield over a period of time because of the need to repetitively
go in and modify the vegetation.
In general, yes, modifying the vegetation can have some
effect, but I am not familiar with any large areas where that
has been done to great effect.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Ms. Solis?
Ms. Solis. No questions.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Otter?
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back with Mr. McDonald one more time. I just
want to make it clear--so I can put my folks at home at ease--
we are not going to spill one drop of water to replace those
valves; we are not going to waste any water?
Mr. McDonald. If we maintain the construction schedule that
we are on now, because it is a drought and the reservoir would
be drawn down anyway to deliver water to irrigators, we will
have the happy circumstance, the ironic circumstance, of being
able to pull it down because we had to anyway to deliver water,
and we will not waste anything, and that will expose the valves
so that we can proceed to construction.
Mr. Otter. Great. So the stars are lined up, and we know
where we are going.
Mr. McDonald. In an unfortunate way, yes, the drought has a
silver lining in this particular case.
Mr. Otter. All right. We have all got to count our
blessings somewhere, and I would just as soon count mine there.
Mr. McDonald. As soon as you convince Scott Campbell, I
will appreciate it.
Mr. Otter. I would like to ask the panel as a whole if they
are familiar with the term 21,000 megawatts nationwide that
could be added to existing hydroelectric projects, that we
could actually add 21,000 megawatts of electricity to bricks
and mortar already in place.
Are any of you familiar with that figure?
Mr. McDonald. I am not, Congressman. I suspect it is a
figure that has come from an organization like the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission that licensed the private power
facilities throughout the country.
Certainly in Reclamation, it would be only a matter of
perhaps a few hundred megawatts that could be financially and
economically added to our existing power plants.
Mr. Hirsch. I am not familiar with it.
Mr. Brophy. Nor am I.
Mr. Otter. Finally, I would like to ask Mr. Brophy one more
time to make sure--I cosponsored with Congressman Simpson the
Act which would require the Government to pay its share of the
costs in adjudicating water and fighting for that adjudication.
Has your organization gone on record in support of the
Government paying for those costs in questions of adjudication
and water rights?
Mr. Brophy. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Otter, yes, we have;
it is attached to my testimony. We think that the United States
should pay its fair share in these adjudications.
Mr. Otter. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all I have.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Does anyone have additional questions?
Ms. Napolitano. Just a follow-up. I do not think I got an
answer about if there are any programs that are being looked at
to assist municipalities in doing either above- or below-ground
storage.
Mr. McDonald. Certainly, Reclamation as part of its overall
planning process is working with the water--
Ms. Napolitano. No--at the municipal level.
Mr. McDonald. At the municipal level, we are working with a
number, and I think the Title XVI Wastewater Reuse Program is a
good example. Many of those projects, as you know,
Congresswoman, being in Southern California, certainly we have
been deeply involved in both the California 4.4 Plan and the
CALFED process, which have a variety of structural arrangements
that deal with both surface and groundwater supplies.
Ms. Napolitano. But are you working through the cities
themselves, are you working with the counties, or are you
working with the water agencies themselves? That makes a big
difference.
Mr. McDonald. I see what your question is. I do not recall
the particulars in the context of the 4.4 Plan and CALFED. I
would be glad to get those particulars and respond for the
record.
Ms. Napolitano. It would be nice to know, Mr. Chairman, so
that the rest of the members will understand whether they can
tell their communities that they have access to programs that
will help them, or where they can go to get that assistance.
Mr. Calvert. We will obtain that information and distribute
it to the members.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Walden, additional questions?
Mr. Walden. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I have no additional questions, so I will
thank this panel for their testimony and for answering our
questions. We certainly appreciate your attendance and look
forward to having you back again in the future.
Thank you all.
Mr. Calvert. Our second panel consists of Ms. Jennifer
Salisbury, Secretary, New Mexico State Energy, Minerals and
Natural Resources Department; Mr. Steve Malloch, Counsel,
Western Water Project, Trout Unlimited; Dr. Philip M. Burgess,
Senior Fellow, Center for the New West; and Mr. Ronald E.
Young, President, WateReuse Foundation.
We thank the witnesses. We have a 5-minute rule, and you
have an indicator light on the witness table. When it is green,
you are fine; when it turns yellow, you have one minute to sum
up; and when it turns red, please attempt to conclude your
testimony in a timely way.
With that, Ms. Jennifer Salisbury, you may begin your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER SALISBURY, SECRETARY, NEW MEXICO STATE
ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Ms. Salisbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. It is really an honor to be here.
Although I am the Secretary of the Energy, Minerals and
Natural Resources Department for the State of New Mexico, a
department that has jurisdiction over most of the natural
resources in the State, including the 42 million acres of
forested land on which we are required to put out forest fires,
I am here to represent the Western Governors' Association this
afternoon. The Western Governors' Association is made up of the
18 Western States and also includes three of the Territories.
I would like to make three points if I may. First, as most
of you already know since you are in the process of
experiencing some level of drought, unlike other disasters,
drought moves very slowly. It takes months of below-normal
precipitation to create a drought and more than one good
rainfall to catch up.
While it may be slower or less dramatic than other natural
disasters, the effects are long-lasting and widespread and can
cause great misery. I just want to give you some examples of
the direct physical impacts that I know you are aware of.
In the 1995-1996 drought that New Mexico experienced, and
in our sister States of Arizona and Texas, Texas had in excess
of $1.2 billion in damages to its agricultural industry. Other
drought effects are that it can exacerbate forest fires. Last
year, as I am sure all of you know, New Mexico had one of its
worst fire seasons in history. The Cerro Grande fire in Los
Alamos burned up more than 40,000 acres as well as hundreds of
houses.
The fire season also burned across the State more than
500,000 acres and cost us about $60 million. Drought means less
water in our streams, soil, and resources. Drought results in
less water for livestock and for wildlife. The Northwest, as
was mentioned in the earlier panel, has been experiencing a
drought, and I think it is interesting that the effect might be
really bizarre down the road. Because there is less water in
the reservoirs, it may mean there is less water available for
electricity; that may mean that less electricity may be made
available to California this summer when it expects more
electricity from the Northwest, which could exacerbate the
rolling blackouts that they are expecting.
So drought may be slow to be recognized, but it can be
severe and cause incredible consequences.
The second point that I would like to make, which we
experienced in New Mexico in our 1996 drought, is that once
drought is over, it is very hard for the institutions to retain
or maintain any sort of memory. For the most part, we lose that
memory, we move on to whatever the next most important issue
is. Although intellectually, we would like to think that we can
continue on, what really happens is that you just forget, and
people move on.
So instead of being proactive, what we are most like is
what the characters were like in John Steinbeck's ``East of
Eden,'' and I would like to quote: ``And it never failed that
during the dry years, the people forgot about the rich years,
and during the wet years, they lost all memory of the dry
years. It was always that way.''
The third point that I would like to make is that be that
as it may, the Federal response to drought is uncoordinated, ad
hoc, and very difficult to get. The assistance that is provided
is primarily geared toward relief; very little is available to
help States plan for drought. Of the 88 drought-related
programs that have been funded by the Congress over the last
decade, only 47 of those provide for drought relief, and only 7
provide for drought planning.
Let me give you a couple of examples of what I mean by the
response being ad hoc and difficult to get. Farmers learned in
New Mexico during our drought that the documentation that was
acceptable to get assistance from the Department of Agriculture
under some of the programs that they have available may not be
sufficient documentation for other programs. In other words,
you may have to fill out more than one form or several forms to
actually get relief.
Obviously, all of these programs are dependent on
appropriations, and a lot of these appropriations are only
available through the supplemental process; they are not
regularly available. So relief may not be available, for
example, until a farmer has already experienced disaster.
Another example--the Secretary of the Army, the Corps of
Engineers, has authority to transport or haul water in
emergency situations to farmers and other localities. The
problem is that in the 20 years they have had this authority,
they have only exercised that authority one time that we are
aware of, and that was on an island on the East Coast
somewhere. The reason is because they have apparently over 20
pages worth of guidelines in the Federal Register, all of which
are very hard to overcome, so the bottom line is that it is
virtually impossible to get the Corps of Engineers to haul
water in an emergency.
How can this situation be changed? I think the Western
Governors would recommend to this Committee and the Congress
that we believe that a comprehensive, coordinated, and
integrated approach is needed to address future drought
emergencies. Western Governors would like to emphasize to the
Committee that the approach must include four elements.
First, the approach must provide for a monitoring system to
collect, analyze, and assess data. That has already been
mentioned in the previous panel. This is absolutely fundamental
to making good policy decisions. The problem is that the
existing system does not allow for a standardized format, and
it is not coordinated.
Second, this approach must provide a framework that
promotes planning and mitigating drought impacts. Over 30
States have drought plans already in existence. But having a
plan is of little value if it is not implemented. Successful
implementation obviously requires practice, particularly when
you are not in a drought situation which we are not in right
now, because if you do not practice, people move on and retire,
and you lose that institutional memory.
Third, the approach must enhance the response capability of
the Federal Government. At a minimum, we believe that the
Federal Government must improve the way that droughts are
managed, particularly by streamlining the processes and
programs and by providing some sort of coordinated relief.
And fourth, the approach must find a way to better
communicate to the citizens of our States that they are in a
drought. We believe that if citizens are given the tools to do
the right thing, they will do the right thing and conserve.
The Governors believe that these four elements--monitoring,
planning, response, and communications--are the keys to
ensuring that the devastating effects of drought are mitigated
if not minimized.
The Western Governors are in the process, Mr. Chairman,
members of the Committee, of putting together a comprehensive
piece of legislation which we hope we will be able to present
to this Committee and other members of Congress sometime in the
next month or so. It will contain all of these elements.
Thank you very much. I will be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Salisbury follows:]
Statement of Jennifer Salisbury, Secretary, New Mexico Department of
Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources, on behalf of The Western
Governors' Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss an issue of great
importance to the Western states -- Western water and specifically the
status of drought planning and response. My name is Jennifer Salisbury.
While I am the Secretary of the New Mexico Department of Energy,
Minerals, and Natural Resources, I appear today on behalf of New Mexico
Governor Gary Johnson, who is the Lead Governor for the Western
Governors' Association Drought Program. The Western Governors'
Association is an independent, nonprofit organization representing the
governors of 18 states, American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana
Islands. Through their Association, the Western governors identify and
address key policy and governance issues in natural resources, the
environment, human services, economic development, international
relations and public management.
Drought is a normal part of the climate for virtually all regions
of the United States, but it is of particular concern in the West,
where any interruption of the region's already limited water supplies
over extended periods of time can produce devastating impacts. Records
indicate that drought occurs somewhere in the West almost every year.
However, it is multi-year drought events that are of the greatest
concern to planners, natural resource managers and government policy
makers.
Water scarcity continually defines and redefines the West. The
steady growth that has been characteristic for much of the West today
creates increased demands for agricultural, municipal and industrial
water supplies. Furthermore, such competing demands as the public's
rising concern for meeting ``quality of life'' and environmental
objectives create water supply management challenges in times of normal
precipitation. Drought exasperates these challenges.
During the 1995-1996 drought, the Southwest and southern Great
Plains states, including New Mexico, which were hit hard by the
drought, were often frustrated in our attempts to provide drought
assistance to our citizens. In my own state, for example, the drought
exacerbated the fire season. In 1996, more than 85,380 acres burned on
state and private lands costing taxpayers about $7 million. What we
generally found was that most government agencies, at all levels,
lacked policy for planning and responding to drought, regardless of its
duration or impacts. In addition, this provides confusion and a lack of
understanding of roles and responsibilities among government entities.
The lack of state-wide preplanning for some states, plus the absence of
organizational structures and processes to identify and resolve issues,
facilitate networking and promote partnerships also hindered reaction
time and effectiveness.
At the Federal level, we found that droughts had historically been
treated as unique, separate events even though there had been frequent,
significant droughts of national consequences over the years. Actions
were taken mainly through special legislation and ad hoc action
measures rather than through a systematic and permanent process, as
occurs with other natural disasters. Frequently, funding to assist
states with related impacts was unavailable, or not available in a
timely manner.
In reaction to this disjointed national drought policy, Governor
Johnson worked with his colleagues in WGA to develop a policy
resolution. His efforts were successful as the Governors adopted a
resolution which stated in part: ``The Western governors believe that a
comprehensive, integrated response to drought emergencies is
critical...[and that] it is important to work together and
cooperatively with other affected entities to plan for and implement
measures that will provide relief from the current drought and prepare
for future drought emergencies.'' In addition, the resolution called on
western states to further study the issue and make recommendations on
how to improve Federal and state responses to drought.
The states' recommendations are contained in a 1996 report
``Drought Response Action Plan.'' Besides making suggestions on how to
improve responses to droughts, the report emphasized the need for
incorporating mitigation and preparedness measures in government
drought programs. One key recommendation called for the development of
``a national drought policy or framework that integrates actions and
responsibilities among all levels of government (Federal, tribal,
state, regional and local).'' With strong support of the Western
Governors, Congress enacted the ``National Drought Policy Act of 1998,
P.L. 105-109. The law established an ``advisory commission to provide
advice and recommendations on the creation of an integrated,
coordinated Federal policy designed to prepare and respond to serious
drought emergencies.'' The National Drought Policy Commission's report
was issued last year.
A second key recommendation in the 1996 WGA report called for the
creation of a regional drought coordination council. This
recommendation led to a Memorandum of Understanding between WGA and
several Federal agencies which was signed in early 1997. The MOU
resulted in the establishment of the Western Drought Coordination
Council (WDCC). Co-chaired by Governor Johnson and Deputy Secretary
Richard Rominger of USDA, the Council members concentrated their
efforts on improving drought preparedness, mitigation and response in
the West.
During the next two years, the WDCC worked to close some of the
gaps identified in the report. As examples, the WDCC generated such
products as: (1) a step-by-step guide for planners to help identify and
assess their vulnerability to drought; (2) the Catalog of Federal
Assistance Programs, which was an effort to identify all of the Federal
drought assistance programs and make them available in one catalog;
and, (3) the Western Climate and Water Status Report, which was an
effort to coordinate available monitoring data into quarterly reports
to alert officials to potential drought development.
Despite making significant strides in coordinating drought
programs, the WDCC recognized a critical piece was still missing:
Federal legislation articulating, indeed mandating, the coordination
and integration of drought programs. Consequently, in May 1999, the
Western Drought Coordination Council went into hiatus in order to focus
on providing assistance to the National Drought Policy Commission and
to avoid a duplication of effort.
In a 1999 policy resolution, Western governors reiterated their
call for a comprehensive, integrated response to drought emergencies,
including mitigation planning. Western governors view this as critical
to the social, environmental and economic well-being of the West.
In urging that Congress enact legislation, which provides for a
comprehensive, coordinated and integrated approach to future drought
emergencies, the Governors also recommended the following elements:
(1) LMonitoring/Assessment/Prediction -- Provides for the
development of a comprehensive monitoring system to collect, analyze
and disseminate available data and products in a useable manner so
citizens and businesses can make critical decisions based on credible
data.
(2) LPreparedness and Mitigation -- Provides a framework that
assists states, Federal agencies, tribes, local governments and water
utility agencies to assess vulnerabilities and therefore enable them to
reduce the economic, social and environmental impacts (i.e.
vulnerability) of drought; provides incentives for a variety of
preparedness actions, policies and mitigation options that will
facilitate improved cooperation among all levels of government and
promote individual responsibilities in planning for and mitigating
drought impacts; and provides policy to promote drought contingency
planning, emphasizing a more proactive, anticipatory approach to
drought management.
(3) LResponse -- Enhances the current drought response capability
of Federal agencies, states, localities and tribes through a variety of
appropriate policies and programs; provides needed policy to promote
regional drought response mutual aid; strengthens intergovernmental
response partnerships; and improves overall drought response management
and customer service.
(4) LCommunications -- Encourages the use of a variety of
communication tools to identify and use drought-related information.
As mentioned above, the National Drought Policy Commission issued
its report in May 2000. In recommending that comprehensive legislation
be enacted, the Commission found that ``this country relies on a patchy
approach to reduce the impacts of drought.''
Using the reports and recommendations of the Western Governors, the
Western Drought Coordination Council, and the National Drought Policy
Commission, WGA now has begun to develop draft legislation to turn the
recommendations into reality. We cannot emphasize enough that Congress
must engage this topic and act in order to develop national policies
which will organize and integrate the Federal drought preparedness
programs and improve the overall response to drought. Additionally, we
believe Congress should consider reviewing such programs and issues as
the prepositioning of fire fighting equipment, water hauling, crop
insurance, livestock feed assistance, drought planning, drought
monitoring programs, and the definition and use of Federal drought
program `triggers.' Finally, the legislation should provide the
appropriate authorization and funding. WGA anticipates forwarding a
draft bill to Congress for your consideration in mid- to late April.
The WGA drought bill will be comprehensive and likely require
review and consideration by a number of Congressional committees,
including this one. Nevertheless, given La Nina, El Nino, Global
Warming, and the normal occurrence of drought, we hope Congress will
meet the challenge and help prepare the nation for drought by enacting
legislation.
Again, on behalf of the Western Governors, thank you for giving us
the opportunity to provide testimony on Western Water Issues and in
particular drought policy. We look forward to working with you to
address the complex water issues that face our region and nation.
______
Mr. Calvert. The next witness is Mr. Steve Malloch, Counsel
for the Western Water Project, Trout Unlimited.
You may begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN MALLOCH, COUNSEL, TROUT UNLIMITED
Mr. Malloch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members
of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me here today.
I am Counsel for Trout Unlimited. TU's 130,000 members are
Teddy Roosevelt-style conservationists, working in their
communities and engaged in solving real problems affecting
trout and salmon.
The fundamental problem we face in the West is that the
Western water system established in the mining camps a century
and a half ago simply deferred gunfights. Today, we are in the
thick of those fights over competing uses. While once the
objective in the West was putting water to use, now we have a
much more complicated situation, with population growth and
very real environmental water needs.
In this testimony, I will touch on some of the innovative
water work in the West, the good; highlight some problems, the
bad; and suggest areas ripe for change, ugly but could be
better.
First the good. I would like to highlight three positive
forces. In collaborative watershed initiatives, irrigators,
urban water interests, and conservationists find that they in
fact have much in common and that crafting their own solutions
is much better than having solutions forced upon them--from
Washington, from the Federal courts, and from their local
courts.
Second, in maintaining healthy river flows, market force
are starting to work. In several States, notably, Montana,
Oregon, and Washington, private parties obtain water rights
through willing seller/willing buyer transactions, and they
manage to keep the fish wet.
Third, water quantity issues are going national. Public
interest in water issues is growing as Western-style quantity
problems spread from the Southeastern ACF and Everglades
systems to the main conflicts over Atlantic salmon flows. We
are no longer dealing with a strictly Western set of problems.
Now for the bad. I would like to highlight two of the
seemingly endless list of conservation problems. The most
fundamental conservation problem is in the decline of aquatic
ecosystems. We have already lost 20 complete species of Western
fish to extinction; 100 more are considered threatened,
endangered, or of special concern. That is about 70 percent of
the native fish species west of the Rockies. Add to that
hundreds of sub-species or, as the Fish and Wildlife Service
call them, ``ecologically significant unit,'' particularly
Pacific salmon and steelhead, have been extirpated or
endangered.
It is almost impossible to find a major water project
without an ESA problem. Of course, the ESA is not the problem;
it simply tells us how badly the aquatic ecosystems have fared.
We have heard a fair amount today about the growth in
demand for new water. There is a figure attached to my
testimony that shows that in much of the West over 85 percent
of the annual runoff is already used. There simply is not much
new water left. The inescapable consequence is that we will
have to shift water from existing uses to new uses and make
better uses of the water already developed.
Now for the ugly. There are really no shortages of creative
and innovative solutions. First, we clearly need to invest in
facility improvements. We should stop needlessly killing fish
and damaging aquatic ecosystems. A recent study at a Bureau
project on the Lower Yellowstone River found over 800,000 fish,
including two ESA candidate species, sucked into the irrigation
system in one season. Let us invest in fish screens and fix
this problem.
We also need to stop wasting water. Let us invest to
increase efficiency and devise mechanisms to put conserved
water to use meeting pressing urban environmental demands. In
much of the West, losing 30 percent of the diverted water,
wasting it before it ever reaches the farm, is normal. At a
Montana Bureau project on the Sun River, the system loses over
58 percent of diversions. At this same project, the Arctic
grayling, an ESA candidate species, lives in the irrigation
canals because the project sends over 1,500 CFS into the
irrigation ditches and leaves barely 100 CFS for the river. If
we fix the conveyance loss problem, there would be lots more
water left for the fish. We really need to invest in
conservation, both through the conveyance system and on the
farms.
We need to encourage market solutions, particularly those
that allow private interests to hold rights to river flows. We
need to promote the watershed initiatives. Federal agencies
need to be encouraged to engage in these initiatives and be
creative in using their authority to implement the solution.
Congressional guidance and encouragement to the agencies would
be very helpful there.
We need to base decisions on good science. We have already
heard a fair amount about the USGS Streamgaging System; let me
add my voice to that. Money and collaboration are worthless
without good science and good information.
Finally, we need to review the operations, facilities, and
uses of Federal water projects. In light of the growing need
for water in the West, we need to create an efficient and
collaborative mechanism to review Federal projects and to make
changes needed while respecting existing property and contract
rights.
Trout Unlimited does not advocate heavy-handed Federal
action, however, we do need changes to the Western water
system. We recognize valid property and contract rights in
water, community concerns, and the rights of States. There is,
however, a significant role for Federal investment and
engagement in solving the real problems before us.
Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Malloch follows:]
Statement of Steven Malloch, Counsel, Trout Unlimited
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me
here today. I was asked to testify about innovative ways to accommodate
environmental needs in western water resources. The problems with
western water are legion. Sometimes it seems that one cannot set foot
on a Bureau of Reclamation or western Corps project without endangering
another species. Yet many of the problems are solvable and there are
success stories when dealing with western water environmental issues.
I am Counsel for Trout Unlimited, Inc, (TU), where I focus on
western water issues. TU is America's coldwater fishery conservation
organization. Our mission is to conserve, protect and restore North
America's trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds. We are a
private, non-profit organization with 130,000 members in 500 chapters
nationwide. TU members are not stereotypical environmentalists we are
usually middle-aged, educated, Teddy Roosevelt-style conservationists,
engaged in solving real problems, rather than posturing. Our members
put substantial amounts of their personal resources and time into
restoring and enhancing their home Rivers.
The fundamental problem we face is that the water allocation system
established in the mining camps of the mid-1800's was not designed to
balance competing socially beneficial uses it was designed to award
rights and defer gunfights. Billions of Federal, state and private
dollars were then invested in projects built upon that poorly
engineered foundation. Today, in the 21st century, the gunfights
avoided a hundred years ago are breaking out. Just as diverting water
for irrigation, mining and municipal use is valuable and important, so
is water flowing in rivers for ecological, recreational and aesthetic
uses. Species conservation, human health, recreation, sustainable
economic development and quality of life all demand that rivers and
streams be treated as more than mere suppliers of commodity water.
There are positive signs that water in the West is being used in
more balanced ways and there are examples of how water policy is
changing as well. In this testimony, I will touch on some of the
problems, but focus on opportunities for protecting and restoring the
environment as well as meeting agricultural and municipal needs. There
are three main parts to my testimony a summary of some of the
innovative water resources work in the West; highlights of some of the
ecological and system problems; followed by suggestions for change that
is needed.
Positive Forces Around the West
Teddy Roosevelt's pragmatic style of addressing environmental and
conservation problems is making progress around the West. I want to
highlight three enormously positive forces in that style at work in the
West.
Watershed Initiatives
The first is that irrigators, urban water interests,
conservationists and others are finding that they often have much in
common if they manage to talk with each other rather than at each other
when faced with a serious problem. We also find that we would prefer to
negotiate our own solutions rather than relying on the courts or
regulatory agencies to make the decisions. The rise of hundreds of
collaborative watershed initiatives is a tremendously positive force,
in large part because it forces all parties to face real problems and
wrestle with real solutions. Here are a few of the many examples:
LIn some cases, such as on Idaho's Henry's Fork, the
conversation led to significantly improved operations that benefit
rivers below Bureau of Reclamation dams. For the Henry's Fork, perhaps
the premier destination trout stream in the country, flushing sediment
from the reservoir devastated the fishery; the reservoir operators now
know the problems flushing causes, both to the fishery and the
recreation-dependent local economy, and manage the project to avoid the
problem. Solving that issue led to a host of other collaborative
efforts in the watershed, some successfully completed, some still in
discussion, such as transferring ownership of the Reclamation project
to the irrigation district.
LWatershed groups are also wrestling with tough problems
such as responses to drought and integrating flow with quality problems
situations where the existing legal system typically fails to maintain
the ecosystem values of rivers. In Montana, watershed collaborations
have addressed instream use of water in serious and useful ways. For
example, during last summer's drought, Trout Unlimited, water users and
other water interests entered into voluntary agreements based on the
principles of shared sacrifice that led to innovative drought response
plans for the Big Hole, Jefferson and Blackfoot Rivers in Montana. The
collaborative drought plan avoided an environmental, recreational and
conservation catastrophe.
LThe Forest Service is effectively using a form of a
watershed initiative in joining collaborative negotiations over often-
contentious bypass flow provisions in Forest Plan revisions. Using
authority Congress granted several years ago, the Federal land
management agencies are finding that many of critical issues can be
most effectively addressed through collaborative processes.
Healthy River Flows
A second enormously positive force is the effort to maintain
fisheries and aquatic ecosystems faced with water shortages. Fish
cannot breath air maintaining wet streams and rivers is a huge problem
in the West. In a number of places, efforts are yielding significant
steps towards solutions. For instance:
LIn several states, notably Montana, Oregon and
Washington, private parties are obtaining water rights through willing
seller, willing buyer purchase or lease, and putting them to work
keeping fish wet. To the astonishment of those who oppose private
parties holding flow rights for conservation, the local economies are
not collapsing. Private land trusts provide a model for these water
trusts, which are a growing and promising partial solution to the flow
problem.
LThe Bureau of Reclamation is beginning to recognize that
it can shape river flows for purposes in addition to irrigation, flood
control and power. In a number of projects, adjustments are being made
in operations that improve river flows for fish and wildlife.
Public Awareness
The third force is public interest and awareness water quantity
issues are gaining an increasing amount of attention. This link between
healthy rivers, water quality, and the growing demand for water for
urban needs as well as irrigation and other commercial uses is gain
attention around the country. In the Southeast it is the Apalachicola/
Chattahoochee/Flint system that looks just like a western interstate
problem; in the Northeast it is the increasing conflict between
agricultural uses and flows needed for Atlantic salmon restoration;
while urban water districts vie with anglers and local communities for
the upper Delaware's water; and around the country it is in relicensing
of non-Federal, FERC licensed, hydropower plants where river flow is
often contested. The issues we face in the West are spreading to other
regions, and national public awareness of the problems is growing.
There are countless success stories around the West, solutions
shaped to fit the local conditions and accepted by the affected
stakeholders. Many are coming out of California, where despite bloody
and protracted water wars, and unresolved issues, many positive steps
have been taken. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For many California examples, see The Pacific Institute (1999).
Sustainable Use of Water: California Success Stories. Oakland. Pacific
Institute of Studies in Development, Environment and Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ECOSYSTEM PROBLEMS
The purpose of this hearing is not to explore the seemingly endless
list of problems in western water. However, the most acute of those
problems are what push us towards making progress on the other, less
urgent, problems. In discussing innovative solutions, it is important
to mention some of the most pressing issues for which those innovative
solutions are needed.
Decline of Aquatic Ecosystems
It is becoming difficult to work on any Bureau of Reclamation
project without stumbling over the Endangered Species Act. Members of
this committee will be familiar with the litany of wrenching ESA
problems the Bureau has faced in the last few years: Columbia-Snake
salmon and steelhead; Upper Colorado fish; Rio Grande silvery minnow;
Sacramento-San Joaquin salmon and other fish; Missouri sturgeon;
Trinity salmon and steelhead; the Platte whooping cranes and more. In
the news this month, Klamath Project irrigators request invoking the
God Squad to allow them access to water despite the risk of extinction
for salmon and suckers.
Of course the problem does not lie in the ESA the ESA simply tells
us that we have systematically degraded western aquatic resources
through the enormous investment in western water projects by Congress
and others over the last century. In fact, the ESA often provides the
impetus to address festering problems, and provides the tough problem
that finally brings all sides together in a settlement process.
In some cases the ecosystem problems are fundamental and can only
be solved by drastic solutions. The Lower Snake River is an example of
a problem caused by dams for which there is simply no good
technological or operational fix. An extreme solution removal is the
only alternative to extinction for a number of salmon runs there.
However, in many cases, projects constructed before the rise of
environmental consideration and regulation are simply unintentionally
destructive they were built using diversions that fish cannot pass and
intakes that pull fish into deadly irrigation ditches. A recent study
of fish entrainment at a Bureau project on the lower Yellowstone River
found over 800,000 fish sucked into the irrigation system at one dam
alone over the four-month irrigation season. 2 This
destruction of fish is not intentional; it is a result of fish
entrainment simply not being a design issue when the project was built.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Heibert, S., R. Wydoski and T. Parks (2000). Fish Entrainment
at the Lower Yellowstone Diversion Dam, Intake Canal, Montana, 1996-
1998. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall damage to western fish species has been extreme. We
have already lost 20 species of western fishes to extinction in the
last century. One hundred more fish species are considered threatened,
endangered or of special concern in total 70%, of all native fish
species west of the Rocky Mountain are at risk. 3 In
addition to extinction of full species, hundreds of subspecies or
ecologically significant units have been extirpated or endangered. The
American Fisheries Society surveyed Pacific salmon and steelhead stocks
several years ago: of over 400 stocks identified, 100 are already
extinct, 214 were considered to be at moderate or high risk of
extinction or of special concern, and only about 120 were considered
secure. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Minckley, W.L. (1997). Sustainability of western native fish
resources. In W.L. Minckley (Ed.), Aquatic Ecosystem Symposium (pp. 65-
78) Denver, CO. Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission.
Available at http://www.den.doi.gov/wwprac/reports/aaquatic.htm.
\4\ Nehlsen, Willa, J.E. Williams and J.A. Lichatowich (1992).
Pacific Salmon at the Crossroads: Stocks at Risk from California,
Oregon, Idaho and Washington. Trout Magazine, Vol.33, no. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Growth in Demand for Water
Demand for new, assured, water supplies is growing at a time when
essentially no unused water is available. In addition to relatively
stable irrigation water uses, demand for explicitly recognized instream
uses such as fish and wildlife, recreation, and aesthetics is greatly
increasing, and demand for withdrawal and consumption for the rapidly
growing western cities is climbing. Add to that demand the reality that
groundwater mining withdrawal in excess of recharge is both common and
ultimately unsustainable, and the problem is stark. In many western
basins, more water is claimed than is typically available.
The problem is shown graphically in the attached figure showing the
proportion of runoff already withdrawn from the water system. In much
of the central-west and southwest, over 85% of the annual runoff is
used. This level of water development leaves nothing for instream use
or for growth in urban use.
Energy
The West now faces energy woes that pose a whole series of problems
for the western and Federal water system. Demand for electricity in a
time of electricity shortage and drought has caused operations to shift
to maximum power production despite resource damage. The short-term
problem in the West is also leading to calls for permanently relaxing
natural resource and water quality protection in Federal and non-
Federal power production.
Power costs affect the western water system because so much power
is used in moving water around. Conservationists have urged use of more
efficient diversion technology for years. A diversion dam may block
fish passage and entrain fish into irrigation canals pumps are more
efficient and less damaging. In much of the West, fish screens and fish
passage on existing dams and diversions would be difficult to install
and costly; these fixes are best designed as part of the system rather
than being added later. In other cases, the screens and passage simply
do not achieve the goal. Shifting to pumps often makes the most sense.
But running pumps takes electricity and energy costs are skyrocketing.
In the years of cheap electricity, many irrigators were willing to
incur the cost of pumps and shifted to more modern, less damaging forms
of diversion. But now they are paying the price through higher
electricity costs.
Solutions
In your invitation, you asked for creative and innovative
solutions. There is no shortage of creativity and innovation in the
western water system. There is sometimes a failure to communicate and
understand perspectives, there is fear of the future, and there is a
need for investment. Congress has a role in all of these. Given rising
public attention to the problems, some of the solutions will have wide
acceptance we should work through those as quickly as possible. Other
solutions will require more careful crafting and conscious development
of support; the alternative to those difficult and painful steps is
continued degradation of aquatic ecosystems and ultimately extinction
for many species and stocks.
It should be understood, however, that western water issues are
fundamentally the problems of the states; states issue water rights,
are responsible for managing fish and wildlife, and are charged with
environmental protection. Even Federal water rights are typically
adjudicated in state forums and processes. In many cases the Federal
role will be to encourage, cajole, and support the states in taking
bold steps to solve the problems.
Invest in Facility Improvements
The first level of solution is very basic bring 19th century water
technology into at least the mid-20th Century, if not the 21st. Much of
the irrigation system we use in the West, and much of the Reclamation
system, is century-old technology. It was fine for its day, but it was
not designed to deal with endangered fishes, shortages of water and
competing demands on the system. We need significant upgrades in the
system many of those upgrades need not be divisive. Money is going to
be the answer for many of the problems facing us; however the money
should not be going into new water projects. Instead Federal funds
should be directed at enhancing the existing projects so that they are
more efficient and provide benefits to greater numbers of people, while
restoring affected ecosystems.
Fish Passage and Entrainment
We should stop needlessly killing fish when fish screens would
help. The last Congress enacted a law to support installing fish
screens in the Northwest. There is an appropriate Federal role in
technology development and advice, as well as funding, for installing
fish screens throughout the Federal and non-Federal water system. We
can avoid the wrenching ESA problems by ceasing to kill fish and other
aquatic organisms unintentionally through entrainment in irrigation
ditches.
Technology improvements are also needed for many diversions. Across
the West, diversion dams cut off access to habitat because there is
simply no way for fish to get around the dams. In some cases, fish
passage can be retrofit for existing dams. In others, the diversion
should be shifted to surface or groundwater pumping. Again, there is a
compelling Federal role for improving Reclamation dams and those on
Federal lands. There is also a role for aid to non-Federal projects.
I must note that fish screens and improved diversion structures are
not a total answer to all problems of fish entrainment and passage. In
some cases, the existing structures cannot be effectively modified, and
should be removed. Those situations, foremost among them the lower
Snake River hydropower dams, should not prevent application of
technological fixes where they are appropriate and effective.
Conveyance Efficiency
There is a huge need for increasing the conveyance efficiency of
existing projects and on-farm water use. The best general information
that gives an indication of how inefficiently water is used in the West
is from the USGS's five-year assessments of national water use.
5 In the Pacific Northwest, where flows are an enormous
problem because of salmon, the conveyance loss of irrigation water
withdrawn from rivers and the ground is 31% - almost a third of the
water is simply lost, usually through leaky ditches. In the Missouri
region, the figure is about the same 32%. Other regions are more
efficient, ranging from 28% loss in the Rio Grande to 6% in California.
From a hydrologist's perspective, much, but not all, of that water
finds its way back into the system, through runoff or groundwater
recharge. However, water returning to streams is changed in quality,
temperature and timing and simply removing water from rivers has
important ecological consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Solley, W., R. Pierce, H. Perleman (1998) Estimated Use of
Water in the United States in 1995, US Geological Survey Circular 1900.
Available at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/pdf1995/html/. Basin specific
information referenced available at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/
spread95.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual projects and basins may be significantly less efficient.
For instance in Montana on the Sun River, irrigation conveyance losses
amounted to 58.5% of freshwater withdrawals over half of the water
withdrawn from the Sun River was lost to leaky ditches. The Sun River
is a good example of the need for conveyance efficiency investment
because the 1920's era Reclamation project there sends over 1500 cubic
feet per second (cfs) into the irrigation ditches and leaves barely 100
cfs for the river. Yet more than half of that diversion never reaches
its goal. The result is that a population of arctic grayling that the
Fish & Wildlife Service has determined to warrant listing under the ESA
now lives in the irrigation canal because there is little water in the
river. Investment in conveyance efficiency, coupled with mechanisms for
leaving the water in the river, would go a long way towards preventing
listing of the grayling and improving the wild fishery in the Sun
River.
In addition to distribution system efficiency, on-farm conservation
is needed. While this is traditionally not within the Bureau of
Reclamation's realm, it is an important piece of the overall solution
to western water problems, quantity and quality. Appropriate ways to
provide incentives for on-farm efficiency must be developed.
Efficiency improvements are a much cheaper way of obtaining
additional water than either reuse and recycling efforts or building
new water projects. In most places in the West there is simply no
unused water available; additional traditional projects, even for
necessary goals such as settling Indian water rights claims or
forestalling ESA problems compound the problems.
Investments in fish passage and entrainment measures, efficiency
improvements, and recycling and reuse projects, are a terrific start on
many of the West's problems. TU does not advocate heavy-handed Federal
action in making facility improvements; we recognize valid property
rights in water and community concerns. Nor are we advocating simply
giving more money away to farmers already heavily subsidized through
the Reclamation and Federal farm programs. The quid pro quo for
efficiency improvements should be solving real problems.
Encourage market solutions
That markets for water must develop in the West is part of the
current conventional wisdom in water policy. Markets are growing
through water banks, drought action plans and outright sales. Congress
does, however, need to encourage western states, Federal agencies and
water users to use these approaches.
The growth of private water transactions to solve river and fishery
problems is one of the most promising developments in the West. While
the water trust movement is far from the scale of the land trust
movement that has swept the nation over the last decade, it is growing.
Three states are leaders Oregon, Montana, and Washington. In Oregon,
last year there were over 50 separate water rights transactions for
conservation purposes. In Montana 220 cfs were leased for fishery and
river conservation. The Montana program has been so successful that a
bill extending the 10-year lease program to 30 years to encourage
capital investments needed to improve efficiency swept through the
legislature without significant opposition--a sign that despite
significant differences between environmental and agricultural
interests, there has been enough progress to be willing to sit down and
find out what we can agree on, and act on that agreement.
We recognize the reluctance of many in the West to grant water
rights for healthy river flow to state or Federal Government. A
solution to that problem is to use third party intermediaries such as
the state water trusts, the Nature Conservancy and Trout Unlimited to
broker willing seller deals, and where appropriate, hold the water
rights, or allow the landowners to convert their consumptive use rights
to river flow right. But in many states this cannot be done. If the
Federal Government wants to create incentives for voluntary flow
restoration, Congress should reward the states that allow and encourage
such conversions.
Reclamation and the other Federal agencies are increasingly working
on habitat and flow protection and enhancement, both in response to the
ESA and in anticipation of ESA problems. We strongly urge Congress to
support these efforts, and suggest that wherever possible Federal funds
be channeled to states and third parties to efficiently complete
transactions that would be made more difficult by direct Federal
participation.
Promote Watershed Initiatives
Federal agencies are notoriously fickle actors in collaborative
efforts. Movement towards effective and successful collaborative
watershed initiatives is often impeded by Federal agencies unsure of
their authority to engage in the initiatives and unwilling to commit to
actions outside of standard procedures. Congressional support,
direction, and funding for active agency engagement in collaborative
watershed initiatives, and increased latitude in Federal agency actions
based upon these initiatives, would be helpful.
Although it is outside this Committee's jurisdiction, TU strongly
supports efforts to use incentives to address water quantity and
quality issues. A leading example of this approach is found in the
Fishable Waters Act of 2001, H.R.325. An amendment to the Clean Water
Act, the FWA would provide watershed councils the funding and
scientific and technical resources needed to design and implement
watershed measures for protecting and restoring fish habitat to meet
the fishable waters goal of the CWA. The state-established watershed
councils would include the major fisheries conservation and private
landowner stakeholders in the watershed, who will work together
cooperatively to prepare customized plans to meet local fisheries
habitat needs. Typical fish habitat conservation measures that the FWA
would yield, all done cooperatively with landowners and local
communities, would include controlling soil erosion and other forms of
non-point pollution, removing obstacles to fish migration, such as
obsolete dams, and providing additional flows.
Base Decisions on Good Science
All the money and all the collaborative effort in the world are
worth next to nothing if the facts that decisions are based upon are
wrong. Without reliable factual information upon which to base
decisions, the choices we face are risky gambles. The stakes are too
high the future of western growth, development, recreation and
biological heritage to base upon wishes, suppositions and inference
when facts could be had. We will face risks in any event, so we should
try to minimize them by using the best factual basis and best science
to make decisions.
Unfortunately the fundamental facts for water problems are at risk.
The US Geological Survey has long provided the fundamental information
about stream flows everyone uses for water management, flood control,
power generation, recreation and aquatic biological resource
management. But the streamgaging budget for the USGS has not kept pace
with the cost of the system and many gaging stations have been closed.
Unfortunately, hundreds of the most valuable stations the ones with
long records, most useful for scientific research and hydrological
analysis are gone. The streamgage system needs to be modernized and
expanded.
In addition to streamgage information, TU strongly supports
enhanced basic and applied science needed to manage the Federal lands
and the western aquatic ecosystems.
Review the Operations, Facilities and Uses of Federal Water Projects
One of the most striking recommendations of the recent World Bank-
sponsored World Commission on Dams was that facilities and operations
of large water projects should be periodically reviewed. 6
However, there is no mechanism short of an Act of Congress to review
the purposes, operations and facilities of Federal water projects. In
light of the growing need for water in the West, the time has come to
create an efficient mechanism to review Federal projects and to make
changes needed to bring the benefits in line with society's current
needs, while respecting existing property and contract rights. A
collaborative process, where all affected parties work together to
achieve consensus on changes needed is the best starting model for such
an effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Available at http://www.damsreport.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the suggestions above, there are issues that need to
be addressed that will be more controversial, and will take larger
leaps to accomplish. For instance, Congress has a history of
encouraging states to modernize state water laws in order to make
Reclamation projects more efficient or legally possible; it is time for
Congress to consider encouraging states to allow private rights for
healthy river flows, to develop water markets and to use water
efficiently, as a quid pro quo for needed investment in Federal
projects. The whole realm of Federally reserved rights, for Native
Americans as well as Federal land reservations, is politically charged,
but absolutely needs solutions; over 200 unresolved Indian claims
remain outstanding. Congress should work with states, tribes and
affected persons to establish clarity in Federal water rights and to
meet the Federal goals.
Thank you for your attention.
______
Mr. Calvert. Next, Dr. Philip Burgess, Senior Fellow,
Center for the New West.
Dr. Burgess, you may begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP M. BURGESS, PH.D., SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER
FOR THE NEW WEST
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a statement that I would ask be included in the
record.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
Mr. Burgess. My job today is to talk about the demographic
trends in the West. Let me say that 11 of the 12 public lands
States in the West headed the list of America's fastest-growing
States. With the exception of Wyoming, which grew 9 percent,
every Western State grew faster than the national average of
13.2 percent. Even California, which went into the decade with
a huge base, 29 million people, ended the decade with 33
million people and grew at 13.8 percent. So even the sixth-
largest Nation in the world grew faster than the national
average.
The punchline on the rates of growth is that the sparsely-
populated but rapidly-growing interior States of the Mountain
West are America's fastest-growing region. What we have here is
a huge, almost nation-State, California growing faster than the
national average, and another huge collection of States
surrounding California in the Inter-Mountain West that are
growing even faster, and the population base of both of them is
about equal.
Second, let us talk about absolute numbers. Of all the
growth in the West, about 10 million people of the Nation's 33
million growth, about 40 percent of that occurred in
California; the other 60 percent occurred outside California.
The growth in the West totalled 10.3 percent, and that accounts
for one-third.
The third point I want to make is about the urban-rural
distribution. Contrary to popular belief, the West is the most
urbanized area of the country--not if you talk about SMAs and
conventional Census definitions, because we have capitals out
there that do not meet the Census definition of a metropolitan
area--but if you talk about the percentage of people who live
in communities over 15,000 or 25,000 or 50,000, the West is at
the top of almost all of those lists. And that continues. The
West is about 80 percent of the people living in these
urbanized areas, four out of five people, whereas the national
average, depending on how you talk about urban, is more like
one out of two.
The second thing is that in the West, it is not just the
cities, it is also the rural areas. In other parts of the
country, this Census shows that we have had a tremendous return
to the urbanized areas. That has happened in the West. The
cities are growing very rapidly all through the West. But also
in the West, small towns and rural areas are growing, and that
is what sets the West apart very dramatically.
For example, all 29 of Utah's counties, both urban and
rural, gained population. All of Washington State's counties
gained population. All but six of Colorado's 63 counties gained
population. All but two Idaho counties gained population, and
28 of 44 Idaho counties topped the Nation's growth average.
So when we start looking at what is happening in the West,
it is not just growth in the metropolitan and urbanized areas;
it is also huge growth in the urban and small towns and rural
areas.
So it is a very important new development that just started
happening toward the very end of the 1980's and took off in the
early part of the 1990's.
The third thing is that the interstate corridors in the
West are magnets for growth. Much of Montana's growth is along
I-90. Much of the growth in Washington and Oregon is clustered
around I-5. Utah's rapidly growth Wasatch Front is bisected by
I-15. The 10 most populous counties in Colorado straddle the I-
25 corridor. In fact, the I-25 corridor in Colorado today has
more people than the entire State of Colorado had in the 1990
Census.
Another important new development in the West is the
emergence of what we call leapfrog counties. What we are seeing
is that people are jumping over the county adjacent to a
metropolitan area and going out two counties to live and work.
Why is this happening? We have gone out and interviewed a
lot of these people, and it is happening because with new
telecommunications technology, people feel free to move out
farther; they can come in later because they can work at home
in the morning; they can come home later at night; they can
work 4 days a week instead of 5 days a week and stay connected
to their office on the fifth day while they work at home.
In our view, the growth of these leapfrog counties at a
time when everybody is focused on reducing sprawl shows a
tremendous disconnect between where a lot of the policy debate
is and where people are voting with their feet.
Fourth is the growing diversity. Only the South and the
West benefited from domestic migration. The Northeast and
Midwest suffered a net out-migration, and very substantially in
the Northeast. On the other hand, all regions of the country
experienced substantial population growth from immigration,
although most of the new immigrants came to the South and to
the West, and to the West by a nearly two-to-one ratio.
So the biggest increase of immigration came to California,
Washington, and Arizona and are having a huge impact not just
on the economies but also on the populations.
Let me close by saying that I think one of the most
important changes in the West has been the economic
diversification of what were once monocultures relying on
agriculture or mining. Today, the new economy has moved full
force into the Inter-Mountain West with spillover from
California--computers, software, microprocessors, multi-media,
environmental control systems, medical instruments. Companies
are moving there because for the first time in history, we have
people-driven growth. In the past, growth was always driven
because of the availability of jobs. Today what is happening is
that high-end knowledge workers, the kinds of people these new
economies need, are moving to the West for other reasons, for
personal reasons, life-style reasons, quality of life reasons,
and now, companies are following them there in order to get
access to the talent, which is the crown jewel of the new
economy.
Thanks very much.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Dr. Burgess.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Burgess follows:]
Statement of Philip M. Burgess, Ph.D., Senior Fellow for Technology and
Society, Center for the New West
Mr. Chairman. My name is Phil Burgess. I am a senior fellow for
Technology and Society at the Denver-based Center for the New West. I
have been a student of the forces shaping the New West since 1975, when
I first moved to Denver to serve as executive director of the
Federation of Rocky Mountain States. I appreciate the opportunity to be
here to day to talk about the demographic trends that are shaping the
West today.
Census 2000 overview. Preliminary data from Census 2000 show
clearly that the 11 public lands states 2 of the American
West head the list of America's fastest-growing states and continue to
attract people both Americans looking for new opportunities and
immigrants in large numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The 11 public lands states of the lower 48 include Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, consider growth measured by the percent change, 1990 - 2000:
LAll 5 of the top 5 fastest growing states are in the
West: Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Utah and Oregon
LThe West also includes 6 of the top 10, 8 of the top 15,
and 10 of the top 20. Only Wyoming (rank 22) did not make the top 20
fastest growing states.
LPunchline: The sparsely-populated but rapidly-growing
Western states make the West America's fastest growing region.
Second, consider growth measured by absolute members, 1990 - 2000:
LTwo of the top 5 (California and Arizona) and 4 of the
top 10 (California, Arizona, Washington and Colorado) are located in
the West.
LAdding Nevada (13), Oregon (16) and Utah (21), 7 of the
top 25 are in the West.
LNew growth in the West totaled 10.2 million. Of this
total, 80% occurred in the top 7 including 40% (or 4.1 million) in
California.
LPunchline: 1 out of every 3 new persons in America
counted in Census 2000 is located in the Western US and nearly half of
those are in California with the rest distributed among the remaining
Western states.
Third, the West is become more diverse as many of the new
immigrants, especially Hispanic and Asian immigrants, are settling in
the American West.
Migration. Since World War II, the West and the South have been
America's fastest growing regions. This trend continued during the
1990s as more Americans migrate to the American West and as more of
America's new immigrants, especially those from Asia and Mexico, settle
in the West.
As a result, Westerners are younger, more ethnically diverse, and
better educated than the rest of the country. Examples: Washington
state has the nation's highest percentage of high school graduates;
Colorado the highest percentage of college graduates; New Mexico leads
the country in Ph.D's per capita.
Today, the West is also the destination of choice for the footloose
opportunity seekers including Americans who are moving in droves to
what Rand McNally calls America's ``mild and wild'' places and
immigrants from other countries, especially from Mexico and Asia, who
are major assets providing energy, connections and know-how to the
West's entrepreneurial and increasingly globalized economy and they
reinforce American idealism: They know why they are here.
Finally, because the West is attracting so many people from New
Economy knowledge workers to professional nomads and retirees we have
the phenomenon of population-driven growth as people move to the West
to provide services to the region's growing population. This is quite a
change
Urbanization. Zane Grey, Shane and Lonesome Dove, the solitary
cowboy riding fence on the open range these images come to mind when
you think about the West. Even today, the Big Sky, large ranches,
trekking or mountain biking in what Joel Garreau called the ``empty
quarter'' are common scenes of the West. Despite these gripping rural
images, however, the West is America's most urbanized region. More than
4 of 5 Westerners live in urbanized areas unlike the rest of the U.S.,
where nearly 1 of 3 lives in a rural setting.
Most of the West resembles an archipelago of urbanized areas
separated from each other by vast expanses of largely empty land.
Relations among these ``city-states'' and between these cities and
their rural hinter-lands increasingly define important fault lines in
the politics of the West.
Diversification. For most of its economic history, the West has
been a natural resource colony of the West. Western oil, gas and coal
fueled humming factories to the East. Western beef and grain fed their
workers. Western timber provided housing for their people.
The West is still the nation's natural resource treasure house and
extractive industries still play an important role in the culture and
economies of the West. But the relative importance of natural resource
industries has decreased with economic diversification especially as
the new knowledge-based industries on which America and the region's
economic future increasingly depend.
The nation's economic center of gravity is shifting west. Example:
Since 1983, trade across the Pacific has exceeded trade across the
Atlantic and is now more than double the Atlantic trade.
Another example is the growth of the West's manufacturing base. For
decades California and Washington have been the world leaders in
aerospace, America's principal manufacturing export. But few have
noticed that Los Angeles is now the center of the nation's apparel
industry, that one of America's most productive steel mills is in Utah,
that California is America's largest industrial state and its largest
agricultural state or that Western states are found among the top tier
in manufacturing job growth.
Western states especially California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado
and Arizona hold a disproportionate number of the Inc. 500 ``fastest
growing'' businesses in America. Midway through the decade, for
example, all of Forbes magazine's top 10 cities for starting New
Economy business were located in the West.
There are important changes that advantage the West and make it
attractive to the new migrants. Example: Entertainment now rivals space
exploration and defense as the driving force for the development and
application of new computing, software and multimedia technologies.
Metropolitan Denver has become a global hub for the communications
industry both cable and telecommunications and is the home of
CableLabs, the industry's R&D unit.
Many of the nation's most important New Economy companies are
located in the West: 11 of 14 semiconductor manufacturers listed by the
Business Week 1000, 14 of 22 manufacturers of computers and
peripherals, and 18 of 31 software firms including the two largest are
headquartered in the West. Of the top six biotechnology firms, the
three largest are in the West. And the West is home to the nation's
aerospace industry.
The West is a leader in these foundation industries of the New
Economy for several reasons. First, the region's social, political and
institutional atmosphere is more conducive to start-up industries.
Example: Expansion Management magazine consistently ranks the Western
states in the top categories of their business climate ratings.
Second, talented people are the crown jewels of the New Economy,
and talented people are in short supply. Hence, because we live in a
sellers' market for talent, New Economy industries are attracted to the
West because more of the entrepreneurs and knowledge workers on whom
these industries depend prefer lifestyles and the natural and cultural
amenities that are abundant in the West.
Globalization. International trade is America's fastest growing
commercial sector.
This pattern is also found in the Western states, where exports are
a major source of new jobs. Western exports come from both the
traditional resource industries (e.g., agriculture, coal) and from the
new knowledge-based industries. Examples: ``edu-tainment'' (computers,
software, entertainment, multimedia) and business and professional
services (telecommunications, management consulting, design and
construction, financial).
As global economic activity has shifted from the Atlantic to the
Pacific, Los Angeles is poised to be in the 21st century what New York
was during most of the 20th, London in the 19th, and Paris in the 18th
a ``world city,'' a dominant center of world commerce, culture and
fashion.
Seattle (like Atlanta and Miami in the South and Chicago on the
Great Lakes) is already an established global hub; Denver, Salt Lake
City, Portland and Phoenix are emerging global hubs. The coming Pacific
Century will also be an American Century and will draw even more people
to the region.
Gentrification. The revolution in telecomputing (computers plus
software plus high-speed, broadband networks) and rapid advances in
express mail are quickly eliminating most of the liabilities of the
West's remote location of many of the West's cities and towns. One
result: More entrepreneurs and freelance professionals writers,
brokers, software designers, analysts, engineering and management
consultants are migrating to the West's small towns and urbanized areas
where they use new telecomputing technologies to create new businesses
as they remain connected to the outside world by faxes, modems, express
mail and airplane tickets. We call these people Lone Eagles. Two or
three Lone Eagles can be a major economic boon to a small town.
As we enter the 21st century, the West has many assets that will
continue to attract people its geographical location, the richness of
its natural resources, the education and energies of its peoples, the
youthfulness of its population and openness of its political
structures. The West also has growing political clout, as shown by the
Electoral College, where the region accounts for one out of three votes
up from one out of five (16%) in 1952.
But the West's greatest advantage may be its culture. In the words
of the great Western writer Wallace Stegner, the West is ``the native
land of hope.'' And hope is a powerful magnet for people not just for
Americans, but for people from around the globe.
______
Mr. Calvert. The next witness is Mr. Ronald E. Young,
President of WateReuse Foundation.
You may begin your testimony, Mr. Young.
STATEMENT OF RONALD E. YOUNG, PRESIDENT, WATEREUSE RESEARCH
FOUNDATION
Mr. Young. Thank you. I am Ron Young, and I am from
Southern California, Mission Viejo. I am President of the
WateReuse Foundation, and I also serve on the Research Advisory
Board of the National Water Research Institute.
In my career, I have worked both in the public and the
private sectors, so I have had an opportunity to look at
environmental engineering and the water business from both
sides of the cup.
I have some descriptive literature on NWRI and WateReuse,
and I will submit that for the Committee's reference.
Mr. Young. I have been asked to talk today about the need
for research and technology improvements in water recycling and
desalination.
My rhetorical question is: What are the two greatest
drivers to creating new water supplies? The first answer to
that question is population growth. I feel like I wasted my
time putting this together after hearing all the other speakers
talk about it. We see the U.S. population projected to double
and then quadruple in the next 100 years. We see Southern
California being in a growth mode in the five-county Southern
California area, where in the next 20 years, they talk about
increasing the population by 6 million people in an area that
currently houses 10 million people. They will be doing that
without adding any additional land to the development area.
That 6 million people is the equivalent population of two
Chicagos, which would be 3 million people each that we see now.
The second answer to that question is threatened water
supplies. As you have heard, our water supplies have real
competition nowadays, and there are also issues of
contamination. One example of competition that we heard relates
to threatened or endangered species. That number of species has
risen from 300 to 1,200 in the last 20 years, and with that
rise is a need for environmental water to be able to satisfy
that progress.
Looking at a specific example, the CALFED Bay-Delta
process, they have identified an order of magnitude of water of
about one million acre-feet that will be required for
environmental needs. That happens to be the amount of water
that could supply the population of two Chicagos.
When we look at contamination, we know that that can come
from nature by adding salts to the ground water, making it
brackish and not fit for irrigation. We also know that leaking
tanks and drainage flows from livestock and agriculture can add
to contamination in areas like Riverside County, Ontario, Chino
Basin area, where the dairies have contributed, and solutions
are being worked out with desalination as we speak.
But how can water treatment technologies come to the
rescue? New technologies supported by applied research are
critical to providing safe and sustainable treatment for
recycling and desalting water to meet our future urban,
industrial, agricultural, and ecosystem needs.
The two key areas are wastewater recycling and water
desalting. Wastewater recycling is a common practice in many
States, but it needs to be more than just irrigating golf
courses and playgrounds. Florida, Texas, Arizona, California,
Oregon, and Washington all have such projects. We need to add
industrial and commercial uses such as cooling water, car
washing, and toilet flushing to that list of uses.
Recycling for potable use is also possible. As an example,
again putting numbers to some of the flows, the four major
wastewater outfalls in Southern California from L.A. City, L.A.
County, Orange County, and San Diego, discharge about a billion
gallons a day of fresh water to the Pacific Ocean. That is the
equivalent amount of water that could be used to supply water
to two Chicagos for 6 million people.
Desalting is also key. Recycling brackish water and other
water, desalting those waters, is important as a new source of
supply. A 1997 Bureau of Reclamation report reported that about
75 percent of the desalting is done on brackish water, and that
is carried out in California, Florida, the Virgin Islands and
Texas leading the Nation in desalting treatment plants.
Ocean desalting comprises only about 10 percent of the
desalting and is an area that needs more work. The Virgin
Islands lead the way there.
Applied research is needed to provide a scientific basis
for our country's engineers and water professionals to use new
technologies to facilitate development of future water
supplies. To that end--and I will also submit these to the
Committee--the National Water Research Institute has completed
national meetings where desalinization and water research
priorities have been put together by a panel of national
experts. They met for three days to study each of these
priorities, and those are the priorities that are in my
testimony. Because of the Committee's time requirements, I will
not go through all of that.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, with the rapidly growing
populations of the Sun Belt States of California, Arizona,
Texas and Florida, coupled with the multiple threats to water
supplies, there will be a continuing need to develop recycling
and desalination technologies to treat new sources of water in
a safe, sustainable, and economic manner.
Mr. Chairman, we know that applied research works. As an
example, research and applied technologies in the field of
personal computing have increased the power of PCs from 200 to
800 megahertz in the last four years, while reducing the cost
of those units from $4,000 to $1,500.
Reverse osmosis desalting costs have dropped due to changes
in technology from about $15 per 1,000 gallons in the 1950's to
about $2 per 1,000 gallons today.
The common thread in these two examples is power. The major
operating costs for desalting are chemicals and power. Better
membranes in desalting will reduce fouling, and that will
reduce chemical usage. Better membranes using lower pressures
will reduce power costs and requirements. Even with the
desalting costs reduced to today's levels, they are still above
the average cost of conventional treatment. Improving treatment
economics and the value of water through applied technology
could alleviate future water shortages.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we need the continued support of
your Subcommittee to allow applied technology research to
address the nationwide research priorities that I have outlined
here. To bring that research into production, we need Congress
to provide additional resources for Title XVI funding.
Therefore, as your Subcommittee deliberates on program
priorities, we ask that you consider ranking water technology
research and Title XVI at the very top of the priority list.
I thank you for this opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Statement of Ronald E. Young, P.E., DEE, President, WateReuse
Foundation
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Water
and Power for the invitation to discuss how water recycling and
desalination can increase water supplies in the arid West.
By means of a self-introduction, I am Ron Young, a resident of
Mission Viejo, CA. My professional career of 35 years is entirely in
the Environmental Engineering field. I am a Registered Civil Engineer
in CA and a Diplomate of Environmental Engineering with the American
Association of Environmental Engineers. I am a Senior Associate with
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., one of 1200 employees in this national century-
old exclusively environmental engineering consulting firm. My
background includes both private and public sector experience with 11
years as General Manager of the Irvine Ranch Water District, one of the
nation's leaders in water recycling. I serve as a member of the
Research Advisory Board of the National Water Research Institute and as
President of the WateReuse Foundation Board.
The WateReuse Foundation (WRF)
The WateReuse Foundation is a non-profit organization established
in 1993 by representatives of public and private sector organizations
to develop the science and technology necessary to support and enhance
the water recycling needs of the 21st century. The Foundation is the
only national organization dedicated to the research and educational
needs of the water recycling industry and ultimately the public.
The WateReuse Foundation provides education and research to benefit
the environment, sustain agriculture, and meet the needs of urban and
industrial water users. It produces high quality research in the areas
of technological, social, and economic advancement designed to lead to
the creation of cost-effective, safe and reliable recycled water
supplies. I would like to submit for the record additional information
on the Foundation and the WateReuse Association that I believe may be
useful for this Subcommittee as you consider policy responses to meet
the needs of the west.
What are the two greatest drivers to create new water supplies?
The American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual
meeting in San Francisco last month presented a session on ``the
Collapse of Complex Societies''. The overriding theses presented by
speakers was that of all the factors contributing to the collapse of
Rome, Babylon and the Mayan empire,
Two stood out: too many people and too little fresh water.. Dr.
Vernon Scarborough, an archaeologist at the University of Cincinnati
pointed out that the Mayans ``suffered.from problems that are
startlingly similar to those today''.
First, Population Growth.
In a recent American Water Works Association Research Foundation
(AwwaRF) study to assess the future of water utilities, they cited a U.
S. Bureau of Census projection that the U. S. population would double
by 2100 using moderate fertility, immigration and longevity
assumptions. The same projections quadruple using aggressive
assumptions. On a more immediate timeframe, the Southern California
five County area population growth in the next twenty years is
estimated to increase by 6 million people or ``two Chicagos'' within
the same land area that the current 10 million residents occupy. This
growth is from the March 2001 report; Sprawl hits the Wall, Confronting
the Realities of Metropolitan Los Angeles, The USC Southern California
Studies Center and The Brookings Institutional Center on Urban and
Metropolitan Policy.
Second, Threatened Water Supplies.
Traditional water supply sources have real competition and
contamination issues that will reduce growth rates to match the
population increases. Water is a finite resource. Every school child
learns that 3/4 of the earth's surface is covered in water. What often
is lost in this fact is that only 5% of that volume is fresh water.
Seventy percent of the fresh water is locked in the frozen ice caps at
the tips of our planet. As the number of species listed as threatened
or endangered has risen from 300 to 1200 in the last 20 years, the
environmental needs for water have also increased. In California,
environmental water needs being examined as part of the Bay-Delta
environmental review process are in the order of magnitude of the water
needs of ``two Chicagos''. New environmental water would not be
available for urban or agricultural supply. In addition to this need,
we are beginning to witness international demands for ecosystem water
supplies that will affect our abilities to meet domestic demand.
Contamination of water supplies also threatens to reduce available
supply for growing needs. Sources of contamination can be from nature,
such as salts to create brackish water not fit for irrigation or man-
made drainage that can contain chemicals from leaking tanks, waste
flows from livestock/agriculture or small quantities of substances we
are only now able to detect using extremely sophisticated
instrumentation.
How can water treatment technologies come to the Rescue?
In that same AAAS meeting, speakers pointed out that previous
prophets of doom, such as the English politician economist T. R.
Malthus and the ``Club of Rome's'' report, entitled The Limits to
Growth, which in 1972 predicted the world's population would overwhelm
its resources, have been proved wrong so far by the rapid progress of
technology.
New technologies supported by applied research are critical to
providing safe and sustainable treatment for recycling and desalting
water to meet our future urban, industrial, agricultural, and ecosystem
demands. As pristine water is already used we will search for new
sources to meet society's needs. This search has already begun.
The recycling of wastewater is no longer an option just for
irrigation of parks and golf courses but is used for residential lawns,
toilet flushing in office and industrial buildings, cooling water in
industrial (refineries and power generating plants) and commercial
buildings, car washes and the replenishment of water sources used for
drinking water. These uses are underway in Florida, Texas, Arizona,
California, Oregon and Washington. Several communities around the Great
Lakes are also relying on reusing water supplies to comply with
restrictions on increasing lake pumping. While today's hearing focuses
on the West and its future water needs, the point that I would like to
add is that water demands and supply are increasingly becoming matters
of concern for areas without regard to the area's climate. For example,
Florida is now in the midst of a drought even though historically the
State receives 43-44 inches of rainfall annually.
We will also look to recycled wastewater discharged into the ocean
through outfall pipes as a source of drinking water. The one billion
gallons per day from the four major Southern California outfalls could
meet the needs of a little more than two million households or ``two
Chicagos''. This is a prime topic for research to prove the safety and
reliability of treatment given the histories of projects in Denver, San
Gabriel, Dublin San Ramon, Tampa Bay and San Diego.
We will look to desalting brackish water (too salty to drink but
not as salty as sea water) to blend into drinking water supplies to
optimize local sources. A 1997 Bureau of Reclamation Report No. 24
lists 178 potable water-desalting plants in the U.S. with about 75%
using brackish water. The plants were located in 21 states and
territories with Florida (90), California (17), Virgin Islands (14) and
Texas (11) having the majority. Most of the plants are small, less than
1 million gallons per day.
We will look to the ocean as a source that is close to coastal
growth areas. The 1997 survey listed about 10% of the desalting plants
using the ocean as a source. The largest are in St. Thomas and St.
Croix, Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority with a capacity of 8.1
million gallons per day. There has been only slight growth in ocean
desalting compared too brackish and membrane softening, which are
growing in double-digit percentages. Total U.S. desalting is about ``
3/5 of a Chicago''. The use of recycling and desalting has only
scratched the surface and needs more use to become accepted and
commonplace as a source of water.
Applied research is needed to provide a scientific basis to the
country's engineers and water professionals to use new technologies to
facilitate development of future water supplies. To that end the
National Water Research Institute has assembled two Research Workshops
of nationally recognized experts and leaders to develop Research
Priorities in the field of Non-Potable Water Recycling (May, 1999) and
Desalination (January, 2001).
WRF Research Agenda
The WateReuse Foundation's prioritized research agenda was
developed through a workshop held in May 1999 by the National Water
Research Institute on water recycling. Workshop participants developed
a list of 25 priorities with the top 10 plus one (salinity management)
becoming the research agenda of the WateReuse Foundation. The 11
research priorities are as follows:
1. LMicrobial risk assessment methodologies as a tool to help
establish water reuse criteria;
2. LIdentify reuse criteria that are both protective of public
health and enable maximum flexibility and efficient use of treatment
technologies;
3. LUnderstand the pathogen inactivation relationship and
performance parameters for various disinfection and treatment processes
to develop cost-effective public health protection;
4. LDevelop a program to quantify, measure, compare, and
communicate relative levels of safety of non-potable reuse to the
public and policymakers;
5. LDevelop water quality standards for chemical constituents;
6. LEstablish a rational basis for demonstrating equivalent
treatment with alternative processes for pathogen removal/inactivation;
7. LEnsure that recycled water is microbiologically safe;
8. LMaintain water quality in the reclaimed water storage/
distribution system;
9. LStandardize protocols for field-testing of recycling equipment
and practices;
10. LDevelop monitoring strategies to verify treatment and
disinfection reliability; and
11. LConduct salinity impact, source control, and treatment
studies.
These 11 research priorities form the basis for the Reuse
Foundation's research program in 2001; this program is being carried
out in partnership with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. This 11-point
research program will also act as the basis for the Foundation's Annual
Research Conference in Monterey, CA in June 2001.
Proposed Scope of Work and Research Agenda for 2001
The WateReuse Foundation's Research Committee convened a meeting on
February 23 to select an initial group of projects for funding in the
year 2001. After considerable deliberation, the Committee selected the
following projects for funding. The estimated cost of each research
project is shown in parentheses.
LInvestigate the Effectiveness of Treatment Technologies
to Eliminate Precursors or Destroy/Remove Nnitrosodimethylamine NDMA;
LDevelop and/or Refine Analytical Methods for NDMA;
LLong Term Edible Crop Irrigation Project;
LDevelop a Better Understanding of Political Opposition to
Potable Reuse Projects;
LInvestigate Removal of NDMA in Various Soil Types to
Expand the Knowledge of NDMA Fate and Transport; and
LInvestigate the Effectiveness of Low and Medium Pressure
UV to Destroy NDMA.
At its January 29 Board meeting, the WateReuse Foundation's Board
of Directors approved funding for two ongoing projects being led by the
AWWA Research Foundation:
LSalinity Impact and Source Control; and
LCharacterizing Microbial Water Quality in Non-Potable
Reclaimed Water Distribution Systems to Optimize End Uses.
The WateReuse Foundation also is contributing to two research
projects dealing with pharmaceutically active and endocrine disrupting
compounds being jointly funded by the Joint Water Reuse Task Force, a
coalition consisting of the AWWA Research Foundation, the Water
Environment Research Foundation (WERE), and the National Water Research
Institute (NWRI).
These 10 projects, in addition to several existing projects
initiated in previous years, constitute the WateReuse Foundation's
research agenda for 2001. The WRF is actively pursuing matching funds
to accomplish this agenda.
Desalination Priorities
The top ten priorities from the NWRI Workshop out of 18 issues
developed by a panel of 27 national researchers, utility, business and
consulting experts follow:
1. LResearch and Development to Improve Membrane Process
Technology;
2. LDevelop an Education and Public Relations Strategy to
Facilitate the Implementation of Desalination Projects;
3. LNational Desalting and Water Quality Improvement Act;
4. LDevelop a Comprehensive Framework to Guide the Decision-making
Process for Potential Desalination Users;
5. LConcentrate and Waste Management;
6. LEnergy Reduction for Desalination Plants;
7. LLook Outside-the-Box for Innovative Solutions;
8. LDetermine the Value of Water for Different Water Uses;
9. LImprove the Fundamental Understanding of Membrane Science;
l0. LEstablish a National Advisory Panel for Developing Water
Purification Technologies to Increase Water Supplies.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, with the rapidly growing populations in the ``Sunbelt
states'' of California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida, coupled with the
multiple threats to water supplies there will be a continuing need to
develop Recycling and Desalination Technologies to treat new sources of
water in a safe, sustainable, and economic manner.
Mr. Chairman, we know Applied Research works. As an example,
research and applied technologies in the field of personal computing
have increased the power of PC's from 200 to 800 MHz in the last four
years while reducing costs from $4,000 to $1,500. Reverse osmosis
desalting costs have dropped due to changing technological applications
from $15 per 1,000 gallons in the 1950's to $5.50 in the 60's to about
$2 in 2001. The common thread in these examples is power. The major
operating cost for desalting are chemicals and power. Better membranes
with reduced fouling will reduce chemical usage. Better membranes using
lower pressures will reduce power costs. Even with the desalting costs
reduced to today's levels they are still above the average costs of
conventional treatment. Improving treatment economics and the value of
water through applied technology research could alleviate future water
shortages.
Mr. Chairman, we need the continued support of your Subcommittee to
allow Applied Technology Research to address the nationwide Research
Priorities outlined herein. To bring that Research into production we
need Congress to provide additional resources for Title XVI funding.
Therefore, as your Subcommittee begins deliberations on program
priorities, we ask that you consider ranking 1) water technology
research and 2) Title XVI at the very top of the priority list. We also
request that you work with your colleagues on the spending committee to
ensure the appropriation of adequate budgetary resources for these
priorities.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the WateReuse
Foundation and the National Water Research Institute with you today.
Both organizations stand ready to assist you and the Subcommittee. I
would be pleased to respond to any questions the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
It has been excellent testimony from all the witnesses
today. I think you have covered the waterfront, so to speak, as
far as the various needs and potential solutions that may be
out there.
To start off, I will ask my questions, and then we will
rotate among the various Members who are here.
Ms. Salisbury, what do you think are the most important
actions that we need to take to mitigate drought conditions in
this country?
Ms. Salisbury. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the most
important thing the Congress could do is to try to provide for
a way for drought to be coordinated among the Federal agencies.
That would mean probably designating the lead agency as the
coordinating agency.
Mr. Calvert. Okay. That leads to another question. What
would be the relationship between water storage and
coordination with various agencies and drought preparedness--do
you think that that is handled very well?
Ms. Salisbury. I think it probably is not handled well, Mr.
Chairman, partly because we do not get the data that we need,
the appropriate data or enough data, to determine when we are
in a drought situation, to take those steps that we need to
take to conserve more.
I know that in my own State of New Mexico, we do not
coordinate with the Federal Government very well to know when
there are going to be drawdowns on the reservoirs. Right now,
we are talking about doing drawdowns on certain reservoirs to
provide more water downstream for the silvery minnow, which is
an endangered species in New Mexico. Luckily, we are not in a
drought situation, so that will not be exacerbated in any way,
but it could be.
Mr. Calvert. Do you have any recommendations to increase
water supply in the West and help coordinate not only with
Federal agencies but with the environmental community as far as
being able to in effect increase the amount of water that we
presently have in order to meet these various requirements--
ESA, urban uses, et cetera?
Ms. Salisbury. Mr. Chairman, there are probably a lot more
people in this room who are qualified to answer that question
than I am.
Mr. Calvert. I did not know if your Western Drought
Coordination Council had made any official recommendations for
the Congress.
Ms. Salisbury. We have made some recommendations, Mr.
Chairman, through conservation measures, to increase the amount
of water that may be available, and--
Mr. Calvert. Certainly, I think conservation is supported
by everybody, but I was thinking primarily of new supplies as
well. Any suggestions would be welcome.
Mr. Malloch, does Trout Unlimited support the removal of
dams in the Western river basins? Specifically, what is Trout
Unlimited's position on removal of four Snake River dams and
the Glen Canyon dam?
Mr. Malloch. The short answer is that we support removal of
a very small number of dams that have extreme problems. The two
sets of dams that you just mentioned are good examples. We do
support removal of the Snake River dams, because based on the
science as we understand it, there is no other alternative to
preserving the stocks of salmon on that river.
If I may just finish, on Glen Canyon, we have not taken any
position in support of removal of that dam.
Mr. Calvert. Do you think that you could work with various
groups to find an alternative to removal of dams, technology
being what it is? Have you looked into that at your
organization to find alternatives to dam removal?
Mr. Malloch. Absolutely.
Mr. Calvert. And you have found no other alternative other
than dam removal?
Mr. Malloch. Based on the science as we understand it now
and the actions that have been taken to date, removal of the
Snake River dams is the only alternative to extinction. Given
the decisions that have been made about removal, we are
actively working to implement the recovery plans and doing
everything we can to make sure that those are effective.
Mr. Calvert. You mentioned in your testimony that the
Forest Service is using a form of watershed initiatives in
negotiations over bypass flow provisions. Can you give an
example of that?
Mr. Malloch. Yes. In Colorado, there are three National
Forests where the Forest Service is using what I believe they
call the ``pathfinder process.''
We understand that bypass flows are often very
controversial. In Colorado, they are quite controversial. If
there is a way to achieve the goal of meeting the needs of the
natural resources without the Forest Service exercising that
bypass flow authority, we are all for it.
At the same time, I think it is necessary in the
negotiations for the Forest Service to have that authority in
case the negotiations, the watershed initiatives, do not work.
Mr. Calvert. You mentioned in your testimony that we have
already lost 20 species of Western fish. What is the source of
that information?
Mr. Malloch. That is Professor Minckley at University of
Arizona, and it is a report that he prepared for the Western
Water Policy Review Commission. The reference is in my
testimony.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Ms. Solis?
Ms. Solis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to also thank the Chairman for bringing this
panel together. I think it would have been very interesting to
see reactions by the previous panel to see how they might help
us address some of these issues.
I am very delighted to hear that the Western Governors'
Association has a proposed plan to put forward. Some of the
ideas are really great, but I would ask you what is it going to
cost us to do that.
Ms. Salisbury. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Solis, at this
point, the drafts that I have seen of the legislation would set
up a coordinating group and would try to streamline some of the
authorities that currently exist. I think that presupposed in
the legislation, however, is that some of these programs that
currently exist today would be funded. The way I understand how
some of them work, they are authorized but not necessarily
funded from year to year.
Ms. Solis. So we need to do a better job, then, of
bringing, as you said earlier in your testimony, folks
together, and there could potentially be a cost savings?
Ms. Salisbury. I would think so. I would hope so. And not
only that, it would be more seamless for the customer, for the
person out there trying to use some of the authorities that
currently exist. It can be mind-boggling if you are a farmer or
a rancher, and you are facing devastation, and you have no idea
or clue where to go, and the local agency that you are seeking
help from may not necessarily know what exists in other
agencies. It is a pretty daunting task.
Ms. Solis. Just one last comment for the last speaker
regarding the use of water reusage and programs there. I know
that the State of California has used and implemented many
programs to use gray water and reclaimed water, for example, on
some of their university campuses. I wonder if the Federal
Government has set any kind of example in moving that kind of
technology forward with our own public lands that we hold, or
facilities. I would be anxious to hear--maybe this is a
question for the other panel--if there has been any movement in
that way to kind of set the tone, so to speak, as to what kinds
of innovative technologies could be undertaken and their
usefulness.
Maybe you know of some of those that have been done by the
Federal Government. I do not have any knowledge of that.
Mr. Young. If I may, I know of no national policy for water
recycling or reuse of wastewater, although in California, as
part of the CALFED process, all the stakeholders did come
together and sign a common proclamation, which was all the
environmental and research agencies of the State of California
Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife, the Federal
Government, Bureau of Reclamation, EPA, Corps of Engineers.
They signed a supporting proclamation along with the WateReuse
Association, encouraging and supporting water reuse, so we can
plan to move ahead and take advantage of available
opportunities with Title XVI funds. But it was just at that
kind of umbrella level that it was moved forward.
Ms. Solis. It is interesting and may be something that this
Committee might want to ponder if there is such an inclination
to want to move in that direction to try to better utilize
technology and advance that.
Mr. Calvert. If the gentlelady will yield, we are going to
do exactly that, as a matter of fact, as we move forward on our
CALFED legislation. So we look forward to working with you.
Mr. Osborne?
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for coming today.
I am a trout fisherman and a salmon fisherman, so I am
interested in some of Mr. Malloch's testimony. This is a little
bit off the point, but what is the status of whirling disease
right now in the West?
Mr. Malloch. We are still in pretty bad shape. There is no
cure for whirling disease. There is some promise of resistant
strains of rainbow trout. But there is a lot of need for better
hatchery practices in the States that are stocking fish, and
there is a lot of need for trout fishermen to be really careful
not to spread whirling disease.
Mr. Osborne. So you do not feel that it has bottomed out
and is on its way back at this point?
Mr. Malloch. I hope it has bottomed out.
Mr. Osborne. Okay. What is the status of summer stream
flows in the West? Do you feel that it is going to be critical
in terms of temperature and flows given the current situation,
or do you feel that flows are apt to be adequate?
Mr. Malloch. Well, the West is a big place. In the Pacific
Northwest, it is going to be absolutely critical. In Idaho,
Montana, Washington, Oregon, parts of California, there are
going to be very large problems with maintaining existing fish
stocks.
In other parts of the West, water supply is not so much of
a problem.
Mr. Osborne. I have just one more question. In regard to
the question that was asked by the Chairman about the removal
of dams on the Snake River, I know they have tried fish
ladders, and they have tried trucking. Do you feel that there
is no viable alternative to knocking the dams out?
Mr. Malloch. The real problem is getting the smolts
downstream, and those dams are just big, hot lakes that kill
the fish on the way down. There seems to be a very depressing
trend in the population of the fish since the dams were built,
and I certainly hope that there are alternatives that will
work, but to date, the science does not appear to be very
promising.
Mr. Osborne. So there has been a steady decline in the
salmon stocks, then?
Mr. Malloch. There is a lot of noise in the populations;
you can get a better year or a worse year, but overall, a
steady decline.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you.
I have a question for Mr. Burgess. Is the infrastructure
used to store and transport water adequate to meet the needs of
the West's growing population?
Mr. Burgess. No--a quick answer. I think there is no
question that we will have major growth over the next decade.
America's economic center of gravity is moving to the West, and
there is no reason to believe that that is going to stop when
you look at the forces that are shaping that.
The new industries that are starting are also water-
intensive industries, water and energy-intensive industries. So
I think that contrary to popular belief again, the high-tech
community is a big user of water and a big user of energy both.
So we are looking at some major needs to build new
facilities, create new supplies, reallocate existing
resources--whatever the solution, there has to be more water
for M and I uses in the coming years.
Mr. Osborne. Say some more about new facilities. What do
you mean by new facilities--dams?
Mr. Burgess. Storage facilities, surface storage
facilities, recharging--all the things that the first panel
talked about I think should be on the table.
Mr. Osborne. So you and Mr. Malloch are not quite on the
same page here; is that correct?
Mr. Burgess. I do not think so. We are next to each other,
it looks like. I would like to minimize that right now.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you.
No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Given the information that we heard from the first panel,
what would be the ideal way that we could work together to
bring a solution to the surface so that we can all work
together, not only the trout organizations and the
environmentalists and the Bureau, as well as the users? What
would be the ideal solution? What can we look forward to--given
the fact that we know we have an increase in citizens in the
Western area of this country, given the fact that we in
California are going to have to face a 4.4 billion acre
restriction--given all the givens that we know, what would
help? What would be the thing that this Committee and the
Congress should be looking at?
Mr. Burgess. Could I comment on that? I believe that one of
the most overlooked facts in the current debate on energy--and
we are going to have one on water at some point unless we
change our ways--is that the debate always balances the
environment against energy supply or, as we have heard today
from some witnesses, the environment against water supply.
I have been working in the West for more than 20 years, and
I remember the Energy Mobilization Board in 1980; I remember
the oil shale installations in Colorado where we built towns of
30,000 people overnight; I remember the coal development when
we had 30 tons a year in 1975, and today in Wyoming, we have
one mine that produces over 200 million tons of coal a year.
I think the biggest threat to the environment is unstable
supplies of water and energy. The biggest threat to the
environment is an unstable supply of water and energy, because
when those supplies become unstable, people will do anything,
and Members here are driven to do things they would never have
done one year earlier as they did in 1980.
Ms. Napolitano. Which is why the question--what can we do?
Mr. Burgess. So what we do is give the highest priority to
solving the supply problem. Stable supplies are key to a good
environment.
Ms. Napolitano. How--we know that is the question, but--
Mr. Burgess. No, we do not. With all due respect, I think a
lot of people are saying that we have to balance these two, and
maybe they go together. I am suggesting they do not go
together.
Ms. Napolitano. No, I am not saying there is a balance. I
am really asking for answers from those people who are bringing
information to us and saying we know we have to work together--
that is a given--but how do we make it happen?
Mr. Malloch. We do sit next to each other. I do not think I
could agree with Dr. Burgess more that unstable supplies are a
real threat. But I would like to propose two very standard
answers to the Western water situation. The first is
efficiency. We have to use the water that we have in a much
more rational fashion; squeeze the good out of every drop that
we can. And the second is markets. We have to have markets to
reallocate the water from uses that may be an artifact of
history, that may still provide some economic benefit. But
compared to what Intel can pay for their water, perhaps there
are some ways that we need to change the use of water.
So I just do not see that there are going to be a lot of
new, standard-issue water projects built in the West. There
just is not that much water left to dam. There may be some
conveyance facilities that are needed, and there is an awful
lot of investment in efficiency that is required, and we really
need to figure out a way to reallocate the water. So efficiency
and markets.
Ms. Napolitano. How about speeding up the process for the
research on recycled water?
Mr. Young. Terrific. May I?
Ms. Napolitano. I am talking your language.
Mr. Young. Thank you. I think that that is absolutely
paramount to start that process and fully engage the process,
not in a part-time way but in a full-time way, so that we can
look at research, so that we can look at supplies.
I think that what we have heard today is that pristine
water is being used about to its maximum and that we are going
to have to look to alternate supplies to be able to find those
new sources of water. That billion gallons a day of fresh water
that is going out into the ocean out of the outfalls needs to
be scalped or recycled and reclaimed so that it can be put to
appropriate uses. There are small agencies individually
applying themselves to do that, but it needs to be done on a
much larger scale, and to do that and accomplish that
threshold, we need a public confidence and/or approval that
says this is a tack that we approve of going on. And I think
research brings the credibility and the science to the
technology so that the practicing engineers can put that
infrastructure in place. As we all know, if you go down to the
wastewater plant, that flow comes 24-7-365, so that is pretty
darn reliable, and I think that if we use that in appropriate
ways, we can release some of that water upstream for the fish
or the growing smaller communities that are in the watersheds
away from the growing metropolis areas.
Ms. Salisbury. And if I could segue--and this is sort of
intuitive and probably very obvious--but to ensure the stable
supplies and efficiency and perhaps markets requires planning
and coordination. Those are key.
Ms. Napolitano. By all agencies.
Ms. Salisbury. Absolutely--and States and localities and
tribes as well.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Burgess, you made an excellent point and one that I
agree with, obviously. When I was Chairman of the Energy and
Mineral Resources Subcommittee, I used to argue that if we do
not move toward finding resources and delivering those
resources, we may come to a day when we may try to obtain
resources from folks who normally would be opposed to that may
find themselves in favor of something that they were opposed to
in years past.
When I was Chairman of the Energy and Environment
Subcommittee, I would make the same argument for nuclear power,
that we ought to look at nuclear power and develop nuclear
power if we want no CO2 in the atmosphere, et cetera.
Now we are here today with water, and we have heard great
testimony from all of you and certainly you have testified that
our population will continue to increase in the West. We have
had this mentality--do not built it, and they will not come. Do
not build the freeways, do not build the power plants, do not
build the infrastructure, do not build additional water
delivery systems.
And I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Malloch that
there are ways to add to water supplies, either offstream
storage, which obviously has more acceptance to the
environmental community, and some additional onstream storage
by expanding additional reservoir capacity and potentially
several other reservoirs that could be used also for
flexibility and for environmental mitigation and that we can
offset some of these things.
So my question to Mr. Burgess would be if we did not build
any of this, if we do not build any additional infrastructure
for water specifically, will people come to California and to
Idaho and to Oregon and everywhere else, anyway? Will the
population continue to increase?
Mr. Burgess. Dick Lamm, the former Governor of Colorado,
had that theory on building highways, and he did not build the
highways because he thought that would help manage growth; and
what it did was create traffic jams. People kept coming--as I
said, we have more people living in the front range of Colorado
today than the entire State.
So I think that as long as we have a Constitution that
guarantees the free movement of people and goods across State
lines, you are going to see people moving to the West.
Mr. Calvert. We saw this mentality, what we refer to as
``growth inducement''--if you build an infrastructure project
that induces growth, growth will come. I have found that it
comes anyway, that if you do not build the infrastructure, it
comes anyway.
I think everyone on the panel agrees that reclamation is a
good thing; that developing water sources and reutilization of
existing water is a good thing and certainly something that I
support. My area, obviously, Riverside, California and
certainly Orange, California, is trying to undergo probably the
largest reclamation project in the country where you are from,
wanting to reclaim about 100,000 acre-feet of water to recharge
aquifer and reutilization of that water through the community.
That is a significant project, and certainly, I am hopeful that
legislation could support that. That lessens demand for other
uses.
I would like to ask a couple of other questions also
regarding urbanization in the West. In California specifically,
obviously--since I am here, I will go ahead and ask the
question--we have certainly seen urbanization, as you
mentioned. I guess it is not a very well-kept secret that Los
Angeles is a big city, and we will see that city continue to
grow. It is probably the fastest growing city in the West, I
suspect, not only percentage-wise but just with actual numbers
of individuals; is that a correct statement?
Mr. Burgess. Yes. The whole Southern California area is now
the world's leading agricultural area and the world's leading
industrial area.
Mr. Calvert. How many people live in the Los Angeles Basin
right now?
Mr. Burgess. More than 12 million.
Mr. Calvert. I was going to say it is more than that,
actually, but it is certainly an area that is going to need a
lot of water, and we are going to need to build the structures
for it. And in the West, certainly, that has the same effect--
Phoenix; certainly Idaho has significant growth. I guess Idaho
is the fastest growing State in the Union; is that correct?
Mr. Burgess. Nevada is, but Idaho is in the top five.
Mr. Calvert. So it is right up there; okay.
For WateReuse, how many acre-feet of water is currently
being recycled nationally, Mr. Young?
Mr. Young. I do not know that number exactly. I know that
California and Florida are kind of neck-and-neck at about 300
million gallons a day.
Mr. Calvert. So in the next 20 years, if there is adequate
funding and we have the right program in effect, do you believe
we can expand that dramatically?
Mr. Young. Absolutely.
Mr. Calvert. Certainly the technology is there to do that,
and that would certainly lessen the urban demand for water to
some degree.
What should be the role of the locals and States in funding
such a recycling program? Do you think that they should take
that on by themselves, or do you think that Federal assistance
is necessary in order to kickstart this?
Mr. Young. It depends on the level of recycling that the
water agencies themselves are involved in. Part of my
background is with the Irvine Ranch Water District in Orange
County, and we had one of the Nation's largest dual
distribution systems where we recycled 80 percent of all of our
wastewater and used it as an irrigation source throughout the
open space, parks and schools, and used it at every possible
location that we could, and that was totally funded by local
funds.
Mr. Calvert. Getting beyond the so-called gray water--
because I know that in their heads, people have toilet-to-tap
mentality--how do we start changing the perception of people
that water reutilization is necessary? Do you start educating
children at a young age about the importance of conservation
and water reutilization in the schools, and that this water is
sometimes actually cleaner than the water they are using in the
first place?
Mr. Young. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. It happens through an
education process with children in schools. It is also a very
important education process with the professionals in the field
and with the policymakers and decisionmakers at the local,
State, and Federal Government to have that support.
National Academy of Sciences has done work on it, and they
raise issues, and I think the issues need to be answered
through a research mode so that we can have that level of
academia supporting not only the technologies but also the
process that is gone through in making those decisions.
Mr. Calvert. That is certainly important.
Mr. Walden, do you have any questions?
Mr. Walden. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being in and out.
There have been a few crises, some related to the very issue we
are discussing, especially as it relates to my district.
Mr. Calvert. You can probably expect more of those crises
in the future, I suspect. That is what we are talking about.
Mr. Walden. Yes, I think so, Mr. Chairman. As we have seen
in this hearing and as I have seen over in the Energy and
Commerce Committee, not only are we facing this extraordinary
energy crisis, but also in the Pacific Northwest a water crisis
of epic proportion, unfortunately, and that is putting huge
stress on our hydro system and on our economy as well as on our
crops and on the environment.
I would say that I reject the notion and would reiterate it
again to remove the Snake River dams. I do not think that is a
short-term solution by any means, and I am not convinced that
it would be that successful long term and it would certainly
have an incredible impact on the region out there, both in
terms of transportation and the economy of the region as well
as our access to power; it is enough power to light the city of
Seattle, and even the city of Seattle has backed off from their
original support of that concept. I think most of us have.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I have another meeting I have to
go to.
Mr. Calvert. We are going to leave the Columbia dam up
there, too.
Mr. Walden. There are several right up the Columbia River
system. But having said that, there are clearly some things
that we are doing in the watersheds. I noticed in some of the
testimony positive comments about the work that is being done
on the ground and in the streams. I think that too often, I
have seen good work on the ground for which we get no credit in
the big national debate over this.
It is unfortunate, because the watershed councils, the
basin projects, the Dechutes Resource Conservancy--a lot of
effort is going on. Clearly, down at the Klamath Basin, one of
the solutions down there to the problem of over-application of
the water is added storage, which could be done fairly
reasonably at both Klamath Lake and I believe it is either
Gerber or Clear, where you could add the storage, which will
help fish, both the salmon and perhaps the suckers as well, and
provide more water for all of us to fight over for these
competing needs.
But right now, I think we have a Federal Government that,
over time, has appropriated that water about three different
times, and in this drought situation, it is coming to the
``perfect storm'' down there, only it is a dry lightning
storm--there is no water.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. It is a big problem. Thank you.
Mr. Osborne, do you have any additional questions?
Mr. Osborne. Yes, just a couple. Obviously, water is
necessary for human consumption, animal consumption and
irrigation, I guess for crop consumption, but it really does
not have to be there for power generation.
I think the Chairman earlier alluded to nuclear power, and
of course there is wind power, solar power, and alternative
sources of energy. Have any of you thought extensively about
some solution to the water dilemma along those lines?
[Pause.]
Mr. Osborne. Do you understand my question? What I am
saying is that we obviously have to have power, and we are
using huge amounts of water right now to generate power, and it
seems to me that there are other ways to generate power besides
running it through a hydroelectric dam. It would seem that one
very obvious way to conserve water would be to look at
alternative sources, and yet there are a lot of environmental
concerns about nuclear power. I do not imagine there has been a
lot done on the West Coast in nuclear power for some time. I
know there is some wind generation. I do not know much about
solar power. But I just wondered if any of you have tried to
put a pencil to the possibility of relieving some of our water
demands by using alternative sources for power generation.
Mr. Young. Mr. Congressman, it is a good question, and I
think one of the answers is that because a lot of the research
in the water-derived industry has been lacking, we have not had
the opportunity for the great minds at the universities to sit
back, take a pencil, and just start noodling those very highly
philosophical questions--like is there a better way; can we be
innovative and think outside the box of streams and dams to
supply water, and is there a way to break the link, as you
suggest, between water and power, because they historically
have been linked together just absolutely hip-to-hip.
I guess I would reiterate my point that if we have
congressional funding that can get the research at a much
higher level and at a much broader level, there might be
opportunities for that.
I know that the power industry, EPRI, the Electric Power
Research Institute, has a tremendous funding source and looks
at it from their side, but we have not had similar parity in
looking at it from the water side. The nuclear power plants do
require a tremendous volume of water because they still have
the same cooling cycle that is required in the generation
process because of the heat that is generated by nuclear
instead of using coal or gas-fired burners, and the plants
along the ocean then become--and we have seen this happen in
Tampa Bay and in other locations where desalting of the ocean
water can synergistically be collocated with power plants
because the water is warmer, the water is able to be reused,
the brine from desalting is able to be mixed with the discharge
water without actually adding any new salt to the discharge
stream or to the ocean to minimize or completely negate any
environmental effects.
So there are some opportunities, I think, in that field if
we are able to more fully explore what we can do with what we
have. And I think, as pointed out earlier by the panel, if you
do it in a nonthreatening atmosphere where the populace is
screaming down at you, ``We have to have this problem solved
tomorrow,'' it would be a much better way to go to be able to
establish those solutions.
Mr. Malloch. If I could briefly answer the question, Trout
Unlimited did not do this report, but I am aware of a report
done by NRDC looking at where the power would come from if you
removed the Snake River dams. Their conclusion was that a
relatively feasible amount of new wind generation, which is one
of the most rapidly growing of the renewables, coupled with
some conservation, could fairly painlessly and in fact
economically efficiently replace the power generated at the
Snake River dams.
I have a copy of that report, and I would be happy to
provide it to you if you would like it.
Mr. Calvert. That would be fine. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I want to add one editorial comment, since I
used to chair the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, so I
have some knowledge on some of the so-called renewable energy
uses.
I think that a good point was made about the utilization of
nuclear or any power source in order to reutilize that hot
water to make desalinization less costly; you could do it for
about $700 an acre-foot rather than $1,500 an acre-foot. But
the reality is that we become less dependent on hydroelectric,
because as the population has grown in the West, we have not
built additional dams, so the amount of capacity and percentage
of the total amount of demand has diminished. But it has great
spiking capability because those turbines come on immediately
when we need that power.
So it would be very difficult in the West to meet our
energy requirements--or anywhere, quite frankly--without
hydroelectric without a long time of creating new energy
sources. But certainly wind is important--we use a lot of it in
Riverside County; we are the largest wind farm in the country,
I think, down the Banning Pass--and we are doing a lot on solar
energy. Those are great ways to get additional energy, but it
is going to take a while to replace hydroelectric, which is
still a significant source for electric power, especially in
the West. But we need to change the mentality of a lot of
people, especially on nuclear, because that is really the only
way we can go without resolving some of the environmental
problems. We are doing to hear from New Mexico and maybe
Wyoming here now.
Ms. Salisbury. Yes. I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman,
that we have plenty of natural gas that we would be happy to
provide.
Mr. Calvert. Built a couple more distribution lines out to
California; we would be very happy if you would do that.
Are there any additional comments from the panel?
Mr. Burgess?
Mr. Burgess. One thing that concerns me is that looking
forward, not only do we need more water, but also more energy
in the West, and yet on the other hand, we are having lively
public debate about decommissioning dams. We will soon be
decommissioning nuclear power plants because they are coming to
the end of their useful lives. We now have proposals to tax
fossil fuels that were defeated back in 1993, but they are
coming forward again under the Kyoto Treaty.
So it seems to me that the lively debate is about getting
rid of energy sources in the midst of an energy crisis.
Mr. Calvert. I can fairly say that this administration is
not going to move toward taxing energy sources relative to the
Kyoto Accord. I suspect they do not have very many votes for
the Kyoto Accord in the Senate. But your point is well-taken--
we have to start resolving these issues now.
I am going to close this hearing because I have to go back
to the office. I want to thank this panel for your excellent
testimony and for answering our questions. You certainly
pointed out that water is the crisis right now, and we need to
start working toward resolve it.
With that, thank you for your testimony and for answering
our questions.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material supplied for the record follows:]
[The following statement was submitted for the record by
Andrew Purkey:]
Statement of Andrew Purkey, Executive Director, Oregon Water Trust
The Oregon Water Trust (OWT) is a private, nonprofit organization
established in 1993 and governed by a Board of Directors which reflects
the diversity of water interests in Oregon. OWT uses a voluntary,
market-based approach to enhance streamflows by acquiring consumptive
water rights from willing sellers and converting them to instream water
rights under Oregon state water law.
OWT appreciates the opportunity to submit written testimony to the
House Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power. OWT
believes that its approach to streamflow restoration should serve as a
model for other states attempting to address this ecological problem.
OWT is interested in exploring opportunities for the Federal Government
to encourage and support private, voluntary, ``willing buyer/willing
seller'' exchanges that improve water quantity and quality, consistent
with state water law.
Background
Despite Oregon's reputation as a perpetually rainy place, for many
months of the year in many parts of the state the water in our rivers
and streams is over-appropriated-more rights to divert water have been
issued than there is water in the stream. When periods of naturally low
flows coincide with withdrawals, many streams suffer from inadequate
streamflows and some are dewatered entirely. When natural streamflows
are modified by diversions, the ecology of the stream system,
watershed, and basin are affected as well. The altered flow may no
longer be sufficient to provide habitat for anadromous or resident
fish; as water temperature rises, sediment accumulates and water
quality diminishes. When all water is siphoned from a stream making
passage impossible, fish may be unable to reach their productive
habitat areas. Every plan for recovery of salmon and steelhead runs
recognizes the importance of water quantity and streamflow enhancement
for restoring and preserving aquatic habitat, fisheries and ecological
systems.
OWT specializes in reallocating water to instream use by acquiring
previously allocated water rights and transferring them to instream
use. OWT acquires water rights with relatively senior priority dates,
and uses existing laws and water markets to accomplish voluntary
transfers to put water back into Oregon's rivers and streams to enhance
streamflow, restore habitat, and improve water quality.
Oregon Water Law
In Oregon, it was not until the 1987 passage of the Instream Water
Rights Act (ORS 537.348) that instream flows were legally recognized as
being a beneficial use of water. The Instream Water Rights Act allows a
water right holder to donate, lease or sell part or all of their
existing water right to become an instream water right, which retains
the same priority date of the original right. Acquiring instream water
rights with relatively senior priority dates is the most certain way of
restoring streamflows, since senior water rights are less likely to be
shut off in dry years and summer months when there are more rights to
withdraw water than water in the stream. It is also the fairest way of
restoring streamflows as it respects existing water rights that have
been issued by the state.
OWT converts existing water rights to instream flows using the
Instream Water Rights Act by first negotiating a private, ``willing
buyer/willing seller'' agreement with a water right holder, and then
applying to the Oregon Water Resources Department for approval of a
lease or transfer of the water right to instream use.
The 1987 amendments to Oregon's water laws also provided the first
incentives for water right holders to conserve water resources through
more efficient use of water. The Conserved Water Program (ORS 537.455)
makes it possible for a water user who voluntarily increases irrigation
efficiency to reallocate the saved water to instream use, use it to
irrigate additional lands, or lease or sell the water to another
irrigator.
OWT's Tools
Given Oregon's water laws, water right holders may voluntarily
choose to work with OWT to create short-term leases, long-term or
permanent transfers, and conserved water for instream use.
LShort-term Instream Leasing Program: For temporary
agreements of one or two years, OWT applies to the Oregon Water
Resources Department's (OWRD) instream leasing program. Leases are a
temporary way for landowners to restore streamflows and still retain
the option of irrigating in the near future. A lease is considered by
the state to be a beneficial use of water and thus protects a water
right from forfeiture due to non-use.
LPermanent or Long-term Instream Transfers Program: For
permanent and long-term transfer agreements, including a permanent sale
or donation or a long-term lease, OWT negotiates a private agreement
with the water right holder. OWT then files a transfer application with
OWRD.
LConserved Water Program: OWT helps finance and implement
projects to conserve water through increasing irrigation efficiency,
usually converting from less efficient flood irrigation to more
efficient sprinkler irrigation. In exchange, the landowner then agrees
to reallocate his share of the saved water to an instream 1water right
through OWRD.
OWT's Results
Since its founding in 1993, OWT has pioneered the use of Oregon's
Instream Water Rights law and Conserved Water Program statute,
negotiating the first lease and first purchase of water rights for
transfer to instream use and completing the first conserved water
project.
In 1994, OWT completed 4 one-year leases that restored about 2
cubic feet per second (cfs) of flow. By 2000, OWT had completed 57
deals involving over 100 water right certificates that restored 35 cfs
of flow to instream use.
Current Federal Support for OWT
OWT receives acquisition funds from a variety of private and public
funding sources, including local, state and Federal agencies. OWT has
received funding from the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation (Bureau) to restore streamflow to an important tributary of
the Snake River. The Bureau has also supported OWT's acquisitions in
the Deschutes Basin of central Oregon.
OWT has also received funding from the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA), under is anadromous fish recovery program. BPA
funds support OWT's acquisition work throughout the Oregon tributaries
of the Columbia River. For example, OWT purchased an 1860 priority date
water right on Fifteenmile Creek, an important winter steelhead
tributary of the Columbia River near The Dalles, Oregon.
Finally, OWT and the Applegate River Watershed Council worked with
Oregon's congressional delegation last year to secure a $500,000
appropriation from Congress to help support the Farmer's Ditch project
on the Little Applegate River in southwestern Oregon.
The $1.5 million project will restore approximately 14 cfs of flow
(7000 gallons per minute) to the Little Applegate and allow for the
removal of two diversion structures that serve as passage barriers for
fish. Project funds will be used to switch participating landowners to
pump and sprinkler irrigation systems with water being diverted from
the mainstem Applegate River to irrigate approximately 700 acres. The
Applegate River has a U.S. Corps of Engineers storage facility at its
head, with the Bureau allocating water for downstream irrigation use.
Other finders of this innovative project include the state of Oregon,
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Orvis Company and the
World Wildlife Fund.
Conclusion
Again, OWT appreciates the opportunity to submit this written
testimony to the House Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Water
and Power. We look forward to working with members of the committee to
evaluate appropriate opportunities for the Federal Government to
encourage and support the work of OWT and similar private organizations
across the United States, consistent with each state's water law.
______
[The following statement was submitted for the record by
Greg Walcher:]
Statement of Greg Walcher, Executive Director, Colorado Department of
Natural Resources
Mr. Chairman, the State of Colorado thanks you for holding this
important hearing on drought and the need for water storage in the
West. We may have grown complacent about water supplies over the recent
decades of abundance, but last summer's hot, dry conditions provided a
sobering reminder of cyclic drought and devastation.
In December of 1999, Colorado Governor Bill Owens convened a state-
wide conference on flood and drought preparedness. There, we learned
the question is not ``if'' butt ``when'' we will enter another severe,
long-term drought like the dust bowl of the 1930s or the drought of the
1950s. Only water storage provides adequate protection against these
natural disasters, so it was encouraging that a recent survey of
Coloradans found 90% believe we should build reservoirs to conserve
surplus Colorado River water.
The first Europeans to explore what is now Colorado labeled it an
arid wasteland. In this century, water storage and irrigation
transformed the State. Cottonwoods and willows dot the once-treeless
plains. Rivers that dried up in the summer months now provide drinking
water, irrigation, recreation and wildlife habitat year-round.
However, last year, Colorado suffered a dry spring and record-
breaking summer heat which led to drought conditions. South Platte
River flows were lower than ever in recorded history and demand for
irrigation water drained several key reservoirs. Nearly two dozen
counties were forced to seek Federal drought disaster relief. Several
other communities placed restrictions on lawn watering, showers and
even toilet flushing.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board recently surveyed communities
to judge state-wide preparedness for drought and found that less than
half of cities surveyed have done any kind of drought planning. If dry
conditions persist, we could be in serious trouble.
In a sustained drought, farmers and ranchers would lack water
required to produce food. Many could be forced to sell their land or
water, thereby encouraging development of open space and loss of
wildlife habitat. Even farms with senior water rights could be gobbled
up by municipalities thirsty for drinking water. The impact on rural
communities could be devastating.
Conservation measures help stretch limited supplies, but
conservation alone may not be enough. Some water users are
collaborating to stretch supplies through innovative new measures such
as conjunctive use and water reuse. These efforts, which examine how to
recharge aquifers in wet years and reuse municipal water for irrigation
and industrial use, hold real promise. But the most certain drought
protection is a long-term water supply through storage.
At Governor Bill Owens' flood and drought conference, the Army
Corps of Engineers calculated reservoirs have saved Coloradans $19.8
billion from natural disasters like floods and droughts. That equates
to a six dollar savings for every dollar spent on reservoirs for flood
control and drought mitigation. Water storage also provides resources
for recreation and wildlife.
Across the West, our future is forever linked to our water. Our
challenge is to bring together diverse interests to find common goals
for the benefit of local communities and the environment. Without
adequate planning, innovative measures and new water storage, the West
could once again resemble the hostile and arid wastelands disparaged by
early travelers.