[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

WATER FOR OUR FUTURE AND JOB CREATION: EXAMINING REGULATORY AND
BUREAUCRATIC BARRIERS TO NEW SURFACE STORAGE INFRASTRUCTURE

=======================================================================

OVERSIGHT HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

of the

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

__________

Serial No. 112-92

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-805 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member

Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Mark Amodei, NV

Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, CA, Ranking Democrat Member

Louie Gohmert, TX Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Jeff Denham, CA Jim Costa, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Paul A. Gosar, AZ John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio

------

CONTENTS

----------
Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, February 7, 2012........................ 1

Statement of Members:
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, Oral statement of........................... 10
Denham, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Prepared statement of................. 81
Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Tipton, Hon. Scott R., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 14

Statement of Witnesses:
Bettner, Thaddeus, P.E., General Manager, Glenn-Colusa
Irrigation District, Willows, California................... 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Brown, Jerry, General Manager, Contra Costa Water District,
Concord, California........................................ 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Gabaldon, Michael, Director of Technical Resources, Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver Technical Center, U.S. Department of
the Interior, Denver, Colorado............................. 51
Prepared statement of.................................... 53
Gardner, Hon. Cory, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
O'Toole, Pat, President, Family Farm Alliance, Savery,
Wyoming.................................................... 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Semanko, Norman M., Executive Director and General Counsel,
Idaho Water Users Association, Boise, Idaho................ 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 46

Additional materials supplied:
Guy, David J., President, Northern California Water
Association, Statement submitted for the record............ 82
Keiser, Austin M., President, Grand Mesa Water Conservancy
District, Cedaredge, Colorado, Letter submitted for the
record..................................................... 12
Midcap, Bill, Director of Renewable Energy Center, Rocky
Mountain Farmers Union, Denver, Colorado, Letter submitted
for the record............................................. 6

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``WATER FOR OUR FUTURE AND JOB CREATION: EXAMINING
REGULATORY AND BUREAUCRATIC BARRIERS TO NEW SURFACE STORAGE
INFRASTRUCTURE.''

----------

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Committee on Natural Resources

Washington, D.C.

----------

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom McClintock
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McClintock, Tipton, Gosar,
Labrador; Napolitano, Costa, and Garamendi.
Mr. McClintock. The hour of 10:00 has arrived, and the
Subcommittee on Water and Power will come to order. I would ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Gardner, be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee and
participate in the hearing.
[No response.]
Mr. McClintock. Hearing no objections, so ordered. We will
begin with five-minute opening statements by myself and the
Ranking Member of the Water and Power Subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. McClintock. The Subcommittee on Water and Power meets
today to consider what steps need to be taken to remove
government-imposed impediments to the construction of new dams
and reservoirs.
The need for action can be summarized quite succinctly: The
Bureau of Reclamation has built over 600 dams and reservoirs in
the last century, but two-thirds of them were built in the
first 60 years of its existence--more than 50 years ago. With
one exception, Reclamation has not built any major dams or
reservoirs in the last generation.
And now, under this Administration, the Bureau of
Reclamation is actually moving to tear down perfectly good dams
to placate the most extreme elements of the environmental left.
This shift of purpose is fast becoming a direct and imminent
threat, not only to the prosperity of the West, but to our very
ability to support our population. For example, California's 37
million people now rely on a water system built to support a
population of just 22 million.
Last year, this Subcommittee focused on the release or
diversion of billions of gallons of desperately needed water to
meet absurd environmental regulations. But that's just part of
the man-made drought that is gripping the West. The other part
is the panoply of Federal regulations that makes the
construction of new storage cost prohibitive.
Last year, California had one of the wettest winters on
record. So far this year, it has had one of the driest. Last
year, billions of gallons had to be released simply because we
had no place to store the surplus water. If the drought
continues for another year, we will rue the decisions that
denied us the additional storage capacity that would have saved
that water.
As we will hear, major projects have been hamstrung because
of litigation and regulatory excesses stemming from 1970's-era
legislation. Three years ago, this Subcommittee traveled to
Colorado, which was in the grips of a chronic water shortage.
There we learned that if the Two Forks project had not been
blocked in this manner, they would have had no water shortage
at all.
Apologists for the status quo tell us the dams are too
expensive. They blissfully ignore the fact that it is precisely
these excessive regulations--having nothing to do with dam
safety--that have needlessly and artificially driven up the
cost.
It is true that dams impede the migration of certain
species of fish, a problem that is easily and economically
addressed through down-stream fish hatcheries. Yet hatchery
fish are often not included in ESA population counts, despite
the fact there is no more genetic difference between hatchery
fish and fish born in the wild than there is between a baby
born in the hospital and a baby born at home. Indeed, it was
the construction of dams that made possible the year-round
cold-water flows so conducive to thriving fish populations. The
dams tamed the environmentally devastating cycle of floods and
droughts that once plagued these habitats.
Nor will conservation measures such as recycling or
rationing address our needs. As we will hear, there are limits
to what conservation alone can do to address this shortage, and
handing out taxpayer grants for toilet exchanges and rock
gardens isn't going meet the next generation's needs. Title 16
recycling legislation in the last Congress cost twice as much
as imported water to the same regions.
Conservation is what you do to manage a shortage. It is the
government's responsibility to alleviate and prevent that
shortage. That means that this generation must summon the
common sense and resolve that the greatest generation used to
build the infrastructure that we still rely upon today. That
means returning to the sound principles of finance that
produced this infrastructure: hard-nosed cost-benefit analysis
and restoring the beneficiary pays principle that the actual
users of these projects pay for them in proportion to their
use.
We have squandered enormous amounts of money and precious
time proving that the policies of the 1970's do not work, and
we are now facing devastating water shortages as the cost of
that lesson. It is a generation whose folly resembles Edward
Gibbon's description of ``decent easy men, who supinely enjoyed
the gifts of the founder.'' Those days need to end now.
It is time to open a new chapter in the history of the
West, that a new generation recovered and restored the vision
of abundance of its forebears and finished the job described by
the founder of the Bureau of Reclamation as ``making the desert
bloom.''
With that I yield to the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Tom McClintock, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Water and Power

The Subcommittee on Water and Power meets today to consider what
steps need to be taken to remove government-imposed impediments to the
construction of new dams and reservoirs.
The need for action can be summarized quite succinctly: The Bureau
of Reclamation has built over 600 dams and reservoirs in the last
century, but two-thirds of them were built in the first 60 years of its
existence--more than 50 years ago. With one exception, Reclamation has
not built any major dams or reservoirs in the last generation.
And now, under this Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation is
actually moving to tear down perfectly good dams to placate the most
extreme elements of the environmental left.
This shift of purpose is fast becoming a direct and imminent threat
not only to the prosperity of the West, but to our very ability to
support our population. For example, California's 37 million people now
rely on a water system built to support a population of just 22
million.
Last year, this Subcommittee focused on the release or diversion of
billions of gallons of desperately needed water to meet absurd
environmental regulations.
But that's just part of the man-made drought that is gripping the
West. The other part is the panoply of federal regulations that makes
the construction of new storage cost prohibitive.
Last year, California had one of the wettest winters on record. So
far this year, it has had one of the driest. Last year, billions of
gallons of water had to be released simply because we had no place to
store that surplus water. If the drought continues for another year, we
will rue the decisions that denied us the additional storage capacity
that would have saved that water.
As we will hear, major projects have been hamstrung because of
litigation and regulatory excesses stemming from 1970's era
legislation. Almost two years ago, this Subcommittee travelled to
Colorado which was in the grips of a chronic water shortage. There, we
learned that if the Two-Forks project had not been blocked in this
manner, they would have had no water shortage.
Apologists for the status quo tell us that dams are too expensive.
They blissfully ignore the fact that it is precisely these excessive
regulations--having nothing to do with dam safety--that have needlessly
and artificially driven up the cost.
It is true that dams impede the migration of certain species of
fish--a problem that is easily and economically addressed through down-
stream fish hatcheries. Yet hatchery fish are often not included in ESA
population counts despite the fact there is no more genetic difference
between hatchery fish and fish born in the wild than there is between a
baby born at the hospital and a baby born at home.
Indeed, it was the construction of dams that made possible the
year-round cold-water flows so conducive to thriving fish populations.
The dams tamed the environmentally devastating cycle of floods and
droughts that once plagued these habitats.
Nor will conservation measures such as recycling and rationing
address our needs. As we will hear, there are limits to what
conservation alone can do to address this shortage, and handing out
taxpayer grants for toilet exchanges and rock gardens isn't going meet
the next generation's needs. Title 16 recycling legislation in the last
Congress cost twice as much as imported water to the same regions.
Conservation is what you do to manage a shortage. It is the
government's responsibility to alleviate that shortage. And that means
that this generation must summon the common sense and resolve that the
greatest generation used to build the infrastructure that we still rely
upon today.
That means returning to the sound principles of finance that
produced this infrastructure: hard-nosed cost-benefit analysis and
restoring the beneficiary pays principle that the actual users of these
projects pay for them in proportion to their use.
We have squandered enormous amounts of money and precious time
proving that the policies of the 1970's do not work, and we now face
devastating water shortages as the cost of that lesson. It was a
generation whose folly resembles Edward Gibbon's description of
``Decent easy men, who supinely enjoyed the gifts of the founder.''
Those days need to end now.
It is time to open a new chapter in the history of the West: that a
new generation recovered and restored the vision of abundance of its
forbearers and finished the job described by the founder of the Bureau
of Reclamation as ``making the desert bloom.''
______

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I apologize; I
have a full-blown cold, so stay away.
I look forward and I really enjoy today's hearing. I have
no objection to the hearing, because it is based on storage.
Evidently, from the testimony I read, the hearing only
looks at one side of the coin, which is the new surface
storage. It, as you pointed out, doesn't look at groundwater
conservation, the efficiencies like low-flush toilets,
recycling, desalination, and of course, one major component,
education.
If we are looking for solutions to our water problems, and
for certainty for our communities, we must have the full
consideration of all options. All of them must be on the table.
That includes storage and other alternatives, including
increase of recycled water projects.
The Bureau has constructed most of its nearly 200 projects
prior to World War II, you are right. No argument about the
impact Reclamation projects have had in the West. A combination
of changing national priorities and local needs and the
development of prime locations for surface storage projects
have led us to look at different alternatives. Times have
changed.
The Majority will argue that the environmental regulations
have hindered construction facilities in the West. That may be
so. But then the world has changed. There is a bigger issue
here, from moving from study to construction. I don't hear as
much about public-private partnerships or other areas. Even if
you move from study to construction, how can we guarantee these
communities the billions of Federal-appropriated dollars that
are necessary for construction, when of the $22 billion
Reclamation has spent on major projects in the decades, only 25
percent--or 5.2 billion--has been repaid? You are talking about
40-year loans interest free at taxpayer expense. You are asking
the taxpayer to subsidize additional burden.
Any authorization of new storage projects will have to
compete for funding in Reclamation's limited budget and add to
the Federal debt associated with the water projects. The
biggest impediment to dam construction is limited Federal
funding.
Again, I don't hear much on public-private partnerships or
the bonding at the local levels, nor of other areas, Native
American rights, the aquifer studies for recharge--we only hear
the overdrafting wastewater treatment upgrades,--farm water
runoff cleanup, and some of those areas that are of great
concern to me.
Water managers have already realized they cannot wait to
compete for the limited--very limited--Federal dollars or the
decades it will take to construct the facility. They need to
solve their problems now. For some communities, the surface
water storage, like Contra Costa Water District's Los Vaqueros
Project, or the Metropolitan Water District Diamond Valley
Reservoir, done at their own expense. Los Vaqueros 60,000 acre-
feet expansion will be on line this spring, project completed
on time, on budget, with no litigation. Mr. Brown can speak
more to the details of the Los Vaqueros Project.
Water managers are looking for projects that involve
limited Federal involvement. Less government, ladies and
gentlemen, that can produce water on a faster, more timely
scale. This can also be seen in the 53 water recycle projects
Congress has authorized since 1992. And they have yielded
approximately half-a-million acre-feet. New storage, when
appropriated, is not impossible. And California alone has added
5.6 million acre-feet in new groundwater and surface water
storage in the last 20 years. And I will repeat, we have cut
water usage in the Southern California area by conservation,
recycling, and all of the above, using the same amount of water
that we used three decades ago with three million more people.
In this environment not all of the water needs in the West
can or should be met by new dams or bigger dams. New storage is
not always the answer. And the same can be said for water
recycling or desalination. What works for one community may not
work for others, and we must select the most effective and
affordable solutions.
The threat to our water supply is real. We face many
challenges like climate change, decreased snowpack, increased
demand, and the development of alternative water-intensive
fuels like oil shale, and their need for water. To know the
right solution for communities is to have all options on the
table. Looking for just one surface storage does not provide
our water managers with the baseline data they need to serve
our communities.
And for the record, Mr. Chair, I have a letter from the
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union regarding the need to fund and
prioritize aging infrastructure, and also the draft
environmental impact statement on the Shasta expansion released
yesterday.
Now, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I look forward to this----
Mr. McClintock. I assume you asking unanimous consent----
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, sir, I am.
Mr. McClintock. In the record, without objection.
[The letter submitted for the record by Mrs. Napolitano
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2805.003

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, I see in
one of the statements that there is a reference to
establishment of banks such as TIFIA. I have said that several
times, I think we need a water infrastructure bank in the
future to be able to do these projects.
So with that I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Napolitano follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources

Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I look forward and have no objection to this hearing, with its
emphasis on storage. This hearing, however, only looks at one side of
the coin-it only looks at new surface storage. It does not look at
groundwater storage, not efficiencies, not water recycling or
desalination.
If we arere looking for solutions to our water problems and for
certainty for our communities, then we must have a full consideration
of all options--including storage or other alternatives like water
recycling.
The Bureau of Reclamation constructed most of its nearly 200
projects prior to World War II. There is no argument about the impact
reclamation projects have had on the west. A combination of changing
national priorities and local needs, as well as the development of
prime locations for surface storage projects, has led us to look at
different alternatives.
The majority will argue that environmental regulations have
hindered construction of new facilities in the west. There is a bigger
issue here--from moving from study to construction--and that is cost.
Even if you move from study to construction, how can you guarantee
these communities the billions of federal appropriated dollars that is
necessary for construction??
It is also important to note that of the 22 billion dollars
Reclamation has spent on major water projects, only 25% or 5.2 billion
has been repaid to the federal government.
Any authorization of new storage projects will have to compete for
funding in Reclamation's limited budget AND add to the federal debt
associated with water projects.
The biggest impediment to dam construction is limited federal
funding.
Water managers have already realized that they cannot wait to
compete for the limited federal dollars or the 10 or 20 years it will
take to construct a facility. They need to solve their problems now.
For some communities that includes surface water storage, like Contra
Costa Water District's Los Vaqueros project, or the Metropolitan Water
District's Diamond Valley Reservoir. The Los Vaqueros' 60,000 acre-feet
construction is expected to be completed this spring, on time, on
budget and no litigation. Mr. Brown can speak to more details of the
Los Vaqueros project today.
Water managers are looking for projects that involve limited
federal involvement that can produce water on a faster scale. This can
also be seen in the 53 water recycling projects congress has authorized
since 1992.
New storage when appropriate is not impossible, California has
added 5.6 million acre-feet in new groundwater and surface water
storage in the last 20 years.
In this environment not all of the water needs in the west can or
should be met by new dams or bigger dams. New storage is not always the
right answer, and the same can be said of water recycling or
desalination. What works for one community may not work for others, and
we must select the most effective AND affordable solution.
The threat to our water supply is real. We many challenges like
climate change, decreased snowpack, increased demand and the
development of alternative water intensive fuels like Oil Shale.
To know the right solution for the community is to have all the
options on the table. Looking at just surface storage does not provide
our water managers with the baseline data they need to serve our
communities.
______

Mr. McClintock. Thank you. The Committee is joined by the
Chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, Congressman Doc
Hastings of Washington, who I am told is celebrating his
birthday today. For some very good reasons, we do not allow
singing in this Committee.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McClintock. However, I do believe I speak for all of us
when I extend the Committee's warmest best wishes to the
Chairman, and recognize him for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this meeting, and for the Ranking Member, I would
suggest you take some hot water and honey and something else.
That really does help.
Mrs. Napolitano. I would like to have something else.
Mr. Hastings. The something else is very good.
Water supply certainty has a profound and direct impact on
Central Washington, where the economy is heavily dependent on
irrigated agriculture. This region, which I have the honor to
represent, is home to two large Federal water projects, one
anchored by the Bureau of Reclamation's Grand Coulee Dam.
Together, these two projects irrigate more than a million acres
of farmland, provide numerous recreation and flood control
benefits, and provide over 21 billion kilowatt hours of carbon-
free, renewable hydroelectric power to customers throughout the
West.
Before these projects were constructed, this area was arid
land where little but tumbleweeds would thrive. Today, it is
one of the most productive and diverse agricultural areas in
the world, providing more apples, pears, cherries, mint, and
hops than in any other part of the country. Despite the
successes of these projects and others in the West, they have
been under constant assault from those with extreme agendas.
Regulations and associated litigation have hijacked these
projects, to the point where their very purposes have been
compromised and the construction of new water storage to
continue to meet the needs of those regions is nearly
impossible to achieve.
Water users throughout the West have been forced to stand
by and watch powerlessly as increasingly burdensome Federal
rules based on questionable science and never-ending litigation
make it more and more difficult to continue to receive the
water they need. Today we will hear from several witnesses who
will describe a regulatory system gone awry. They will outline
a painfully long permitting process that often takes longer to
complete than actual project construction. In one example,
permitting process required the examination of 52 project
alternatives. To me, that sounds like more than a bit
excessive.
Our existing water supply is under strain and the demand is
likely to increase. As bad as things are now, they are only
going to get worse if the Obama Administration moves forward
with their initiative to modify the Principles and Guidelines.
The Principles and Guidelines provide standards that are
critical in determining how Federal water infrastructure
decisions are made and developed. Water users are justifiably
concerned about this Administration's efforts to elevate non-
structural and environmental elements over economic and safety
benefits in the planning phase of project development. This
could undermine efforts to build new and rehabilitate old water
infrastructure.
My district is representative of much of the West; where
water goes, jobs follow. On the flip side, when water does not
reach farmers' fields or orchards, jobs are destroyed.
Agriculture is Central Washington's leading employer, and is
heavily dependant on a reliable water supply.
According to the Washington State Department of Ecology,
Washington's 1.7 million acres of irrigated crop land generate
approximately $5 billion in crops sold each year, crops that
feed America and the world. It is an area that is one of the
most productive agricultural regions in the nation.
It is this generation's turn, as the Chairman noted, to
recognize our growing water needs and take steps to meet it.
Conservation will undoubtedly continue to play a role to meet
our future water needs, but it alone will not be enough. We
must also embrace other water supply options, including
building additional water storage. What America really needs an
all-of-the-above-water supply strategy.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy,
and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources

Water supply certainty has a profound and direct impact on Central
Washington where our economy is heavily dependent on irrigated
agriculture. This region, which I have the honor to represent, is home
to two large federal water projects in the West, one anchored by the
Bureau of Reclamation Grand Coulee Dam.
Together, these two projects irrigate more than a million acres of
farmland, provide numerous recreation and flood control benefits and
provide over 21 billion kilowatt hours of carbon-free, renewable
hydroelectric power to customers throughout the United States.
Before these projects were constructed, this area was an arid
desert where little but tumbleweeds would thrive. Today, it is one of
the most productive and diverse agricultural areas in the world,
providing more apples, pears, cherries, mint and hops than in any other
part of the country.
Despite the successes of these projects and others in the West,
they have been under constant assault from those with extreme agendas.
Regulations and associated litigation have hijacked these projects, to
the point where their very purposes have been compromised and the
construction of new water storage to continue to meet the needs of
these regions is nearly impossible to achieve.
Water users throughout the West have been forced to stand by and
watch powerlessly as increasingly burdensome federal rules based on
questionable science and never-ending litigation make it more and more
difficult to continue to receive the water they need
Today, we will hear from several witnesses who will describe a
regulatory system gone awry. They will outline a painfully long
permitting process that often takes longer to complete than actual
project construction. In one example this permitting process required
the examination of 52 project alternatives. To me, that sounds more
than a little excessive.
Our existing water supply is under strain and the demand is likely
to increase. As bad as things are now they are only going to get worse
if the Obama Administration moves forward with their initiative to
modify the Principles and Guidelines.
The Principles and Guidelines provide standards that are critical
in determining how federal water infrastructure decisions are made and
developed. Water users are justifiably concerned about this
Administration's efforts to elevate non-structural and environmental
elements over economic and safety benefits in the planning phase of
project development. This could undermine efforts to build new, and
rehabilitate old, water infrastructure.
My district is representative of much of the West; where water
goes, jobs follow. On the flip side, when water does not reach farmers'
fields or orchards, jobs are destroyed. Agriculture is Central
Washington's leading employer, supporting 160,000 jobs statewide, and -
is heavily dependent on a reliable water supply.
According to the Washington State Department of Ecology,
Washington's 1.7 million acres of irrigated crop land generate
approximately $4.8 billion in crops sold each year--crops that feed
America and the world. It is an area that is one of the most productive
agricultural regions in the nation.
It's this generation's turn to recognize our growing water needs
and take steps to meet it. Conservation will undoubtedly continue to
play a role to meet our future water needs, but it alone will not be
enough. We must also embrace other water supply options, including
building additional water storage. America needs an all-of-the-above-
water supply strategy.
______

Mr. McClintock. Thank you. And it is the custom of this
Subcommittee to receive opening statements from other Members
who wish to make them.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Costa.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing. I think it is appropriate, given the challenges
we face in the West and in California about our near-term and
long-term water needs, and surface supply is one, as I have
said for many years, of the many water tools that we have in
our water management toolbox to solve our long-term water
needs. It is how we have historically solved our water needs.
There is not one magic solution. It is a combination of
solutions.
And I would like to keep my comments for the purpose of my
opening statement somewhat focused on California, which I know
best, having chaired the Policy Committee in the State
Legislature, and having worked on water for almost 30 years.
In California, we have what many of us believe is a
somewhat broken water system. And many of the new Members who
are not from California will hear more about that. The problem
is that we have a water system that was designed for about 20
million people. Today we have 38 million people. Estimated by
the year 2030 we could have 50 to 60 million people living
within the state. Our current water system is insufficient to
satisfy our water needs for our urban cities, our agricultural
communities, and to balance the needs to ensure that we can
maintain healthy fisheries in an environment and an ecosystem
that allows future Californians to enjoy it.
I sense a common thread here. I mean all three of the
opening statements talked about the need to use all the water
management tools in our water toolbox. What gets difficult as
we talk about surface storage supply this morning is where do
we get the best bang for our buck.
In California we have attempted to try to make efforts to
assess which projects give us the best bang for our buck. The
Bureau of Reclamation, under two Administrations now, President
Bush's Administration and now President Obama's Administration,
has studied three surface projects in California. Shasta
actually--which was released today to be very feasible,
economically, or to be a very positive potential, raising the
dam 18 feet that would provide an additional 150,000 acre-feet
of supply annually, plus the economic benefits at a cost of
about $1 billion seem to be very favorable.
We have also looked at enlarging Los Vaqueros, which is an
offstream reservoir, for a second time that would extend its
capacity.
Temperance Flat, which the Bureau has been studying now for
over 10 years, I think needs to do further investigation in the
sense that I think the Bureau is limiting the potential
benefits of this important reservoir. Because it is not just
the water supply, but the ability to move water north and south
that Temperance Flat affords.
There are other benefits to this project that I don't think
have been fully examined. I urge the Bureau to do a better job
in looking at them.
But let's talk about an assessment of needs. Clearly, we
know that if we are going to maintain our agriculture economy,
be able to provide more water for our cities, and deal with the
other needs that are critical in California and in the West, we
have to make an assessment of how much additional acre-feet of
water do we need in California over the next 30 years. And then
what is the most cost-effective way to get there?
If we used common sense in that fashion, I think we would
be better. Let's be realistic. Some projects are--
notwithstanding the cost factors, have more political
opposition than others. I supported Diamond Lake that was
mentioned in Southern California that has been constructed and
built. I supported Los Vaqueros that has been built in Contra
Costa County. Those are all good surface storage projects.
Auburn Dam, that the Chair of the Committee supports, has a lot
of opposition. There are reasons why some projects can deal
with the permitting and the regulatory process easier than
others.
However, the permitting and regulatory system is
burdensome. We ought to look at ways in which we can do a
better job. Frankly, people who don't want a project for the
sake of not wanting a project have lots of opportunities to
hold up a project. And clearly, I hope this Committee will look
at all of the aspects and factors as we look at surface storage
supply being a part of our long-term solutions to providing
water for not only California, but for the West. Clearly, we
need to make the same kind of investments that our parents and
our grandparents made in the 20th century. And I think that is
the challenge we face today.
I look forward to listening to the witnesses' testimony.
Thank you very much.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Tipton of Colorado.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT TIPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
particularly thank you for convening this important hearing
today in terms of something that, for the West, is of critical
importance since it is the lifeblood of our communities, and
that is our ability to be able to store water.
And I would like to be able to submit for the record a
letter that I received from the Grand Mesa Water Conservancy
District in Cedar Ridge, Colorado, that actually speaks to some
of the issues that the Ranking Member had talked about, in
terms of being able to work with existing structures.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
[The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Tipton
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2805.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2805.002

------

Mr. Tipton. I would like to note in particular on this
letter that they do point out that it has been bureaucratic
interference out of Washington, D.C. that is driving up costs,
slowing up projects with a limited amount of time to be able to
actually rehabilitate some of these reservoirs.
And in this one particular case, we are putting at risk
better than 3,800 acre-feet of water storage, and it is being
lost mainly due to the cost of repairs being driven by the
bureaucracy that simply make no sense. So I thank you for
submission of that.
Mr. Chairman, water storage is the precursor for multiple-
use water management in arid regions such as the Third
Congressional District of Colorado that I represent. Achieving
improved water storage meeting growing populations is met not
only by best management practices, but also by the development
of new water infrastructure.
Prudent water storage can help aid agriculture, residential
use, hydropower production, and environmental protection. The
natural cycle of rivers in the West is one of boom and bust,
surplus and drought. But with proper water storage, economic
cycles do not have to be boom and bust. Recreational
opportunities can be reliably provided, and water can be
allocated where it is best needed to meet environmental species
protection goals, and support our farm and ranch communities.
As such, there is no need to see water storage as a
partisan issue, or one that divides the interests of water
users, but as the means by which the greatest good for the
greatest number of water users can be met.
It is my hope that today's hearing will be a productive
step in highlighting some of the shortcomings of the existing
water storage regulatory framework, and how it can be
streamlined to better support jobs and communities that depend
on the availability of water.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tipton follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Scott Tipton, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Colorado

Thank you Mr. Chairman for convening today's hearing, and thanks to
the panelists for being with us today to examine this very important
issue. Water storage is the precursor for multiple use water management
in arid regions such as the Third Congressional District of Colorado.
Achieving improved water storage to meet growing populations is met not
only by best management practices but also by the development of new
water infrastructure. Prudent water storage can help aid agriculture,
residential use, recreation, hydropower production, and environmental
protection. The natural cycle of rivers in the West is one of boom and
bust, surplus and drought. But with proper water storage, economic
cycles don't have to be boom and bust, recreational opportunities can
be reliably provided, water can be allocated where and when it is
needed to meet environmental and species protection goals, and we can
support our farm and ranch communities. As such, there is no need to
see water storage as a partisan issue, or one that divides the
interests of water users, but as the means by which the greatest good
for the greatest number of water users can be met.
It is my hope that today's hearing will be a productive step in
highlighting some of the shortcomings of the existing water storage
regulatory framework, and how it can be streamlined to better support
jobs and communities that depend on the availability of water.
______

Mr. McClintock. Mr. Garamendi?
Mr. Garamendi. I would like to hear from the witnesses, so
I will forgo my opportunity.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Gosar.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Mr. Gosar. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for convening
today's hearing and providing me the opportunity to make a few
remarks. While I would prefer the friendly confines of rural
Arizona, I am glad to be back here in Washington, D.C. and
building on our successes in this Committee.
The Colorado River is a fundamental component of our
regional economy. The over 20-plus major dams built on the
Colorado serve multiple purposes such as maintaining a year-
round steady flow of water and a stable water supply; producing
an abundance of clean, renewable hydropower production;
providing recreational opportunities; and facilitating many
environmental protections.
Hydropower facilities like the Hoover Dam, the Parker Dam,
and the Glen Canyon Dam are vital power resources for consumers
in the Western states, keeping our electrical bills low and the
economy growing.
The Central Arizona Project delivers water to 80 percent of
my state's population. The $10.3 billion agricultural industry
in my state would not exist without the irrigation of over
800,000 acres of agricultural land via our state's water
infrastructure. Additionally, recreation and tourism industry
related to the river supports nearly 800,000 jobs in the seven
Colorado River states, including 82,000 jobs in Arizona. In
other words--this infrastructure is our lifeblood and we need
more of it throughout the West.
Given the overwhelming benefits, one would think that the
Federal Government would be focused on maintaining our current
infrastructure and expediting the development of new surface
storage. Instead, the Obama Administration is taking actions
that compromises existing infrastructure and is standing in the
way of development.
For example, the Glen Canyon Dam, located in Northern
Arizona, lost a third of its hydropower generation--over 400
megawatts, or enough power for almost half a million homes--due
to an environmental experiment. This experiment had an average
economic cost of nearly $50 million per year, totaling more
than $435 million for the 9-year study period. The cost of
replacing that power the dam could have produced is borne by
the customer, not my constituents.
Last summer, this Committee held an oversight hearing on
the potential job loss and economic impacts of proposed EPA
mandates on the Navajo Generating Station. Beyond the thousands
of good-paying tribal jobs, the Navajo Generating Station is
critical to Arizona's water supply because it provides 95
percent of the power for the Central Arizona Project, that
infrastructure that delivers more than 500 billion gallons of
Colorado River water to 80 percent of the state's population.
By the Obama Administration's own report released last
month, its mandates on the NGS would increase water rates for
millions of Arizonans, ranging from 16 percent increased rates
for agricultural users and Indian tribes to a 7 percent
increase for municipal and industrial users. These estimates
are all based on the assumption that the mandates will not
force the plant to shut down, which is contrary to testimony
heard directly from the plant owners in the House Natural
Resources Committee.
All these devastating economic impacts would be imposed on
our weak economy for an uncertain environmental impact, per the
Administration's own report. It is clear the Administration
should abandon these nonsensical regulatory mandates and focus
on policies that will stimulate our economy, not further damage
it. The Federal Government needs to get back to working with
people, not working against them.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses. These
hardworking Americans, the people on the ground dealing with
the regulations and the bureaucrats that prevent them from
doing their jobs to the best of their capabilities. And they
have an important story to tell.
I am committed to pushing policies that reduce the planning
time, the regulatory permitting costs associated with the
development of new Federal and non-Federal dams and reservoirs,
and fighting unnecessary regulatory actions that compromise
existing infrastructure. These efforts will reduce U.S.
dependence on foreign energy production, ensuring a safe and
stable water supply, and facilitating badly needed local job
growth in communities throughout the West.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gosar follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Paul A. Gosar, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Arizona

First, I would like to thank Chairman McClintock for convening
today's hearing and for providing me the opportunity to make a few
remarks. While I much prefer the friendly confines of rural Arizona, it
is good to be back here at the Subcommittee on Water and Power in 2012.
I look forward to building on our subcommittee's successes from last
year.
The Colorado River is a fundamental component of our regional
economy. The over twenty-plus major dams built on the Colorado River
serve multiple purposes such as maintaining a year round steady flows
of water and a stable water supply; producing an abundance of clean,
renewable hydropower production; providing recreational opportunities;
and facilitating many environmental protections.
Hydropower facilities like the Hoover Dam, Parker Dam, and Glen
Canyon Dam are vital power resources for consumers in the Western
states--keeping our electrical bills low and the economy growing. The
Central Arizona Project delivers water to 80 percent of my state's
population. The $10.3 billion agricultural industry in my state would
not exist without the irrigation of over 800,000 acres of agriculture
land via our state's water infrastructure. Additionally, recreation and
tourism industry related to the river supports nearly 800,000 jobs in
the seven Colorado River states, including 82,000 jobs in Arizona. In
other words--this infrastructure is our lifeblood and we need more of
it throughout the West.
Given the overwhelming benefits, one would think that the federal
government would be focused on maintaining our current infrastructure
and expediting the development of new surface storage. Instead, the
Obama Administration is taking actions that compromises existing
infrastructure and is standing in the way of development.
For example, the Glen Canyon Dam, located in Northern Arizona lost
a third of its hydropower generation--over 400 megawatts or enough to
power almost half a million homes--due to an environmental experiment.
This experiment had an average economic cost of nearly $50 million per
year, totaling more than $435 million for the nine-year study period.
The cost of replacing that power the dam could have produced is borne
by the customer, my constituents.
Last summer, this committee held an oversight hearing on the
potential job loss and economic impacts of proposed EPA mandates on the
Navajo Generating Station. Beyond the thousands of good paying tribal
jobs, the NGS is critical to Arizona's water supply because it provides
95% of the power for the Central Arizona Project (CAP)--the
infrastructure that deliver more than 500 billion gallons of Colorado
River water to 80% of the state's population.
By the Obama Administration's own report released last month, its
mandates on the NGS would increase water rates for millions of
Arizonans, ranging from a 16 percent rate increase for agricultural
users and Indian tribes to a 7 percent increase for municipal and
industrial users. These estimates are all based off on the assumption
that the mandates will not force the plant to shutdown, which is
directly contrary to testimony heard directly from the plant owners in
the House Natural Resources Committee. All these devastating economic
impacts would be imposed on our weak economy for an uncertain
environmental impact, per the Administration's own report.
It is clear the Administration should abandon these nonsensical
regulatory mandates and focus on policies that will stimulate our
economy, not further damage it. The federal government needs to get
back to working with the people, not against the people.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses. These hardworking
Americans--the people on the ground, dealing with the regulations and
bureaucrats that prevent them from doing their jobs to the best of
their capabilities--have an important story to tell.
I am committed to pushing policies that reduce the planning time
and regulatory permitting costs associated with the development of new
federal and non-federal dams and reservoirs and fighting unnecessary
regulatory actions that compromises existing infrastructure. These
efforts will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy production,
ensuring a safe and stable water supply, and facilitating badly needed
local job growth in communities throughout the West.
Thank you.
______

Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
The Subcommittee welcomes Mr. Gardner of Colorado, and is
recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CORY GARDNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. Gardner. I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to
join the Committee in this important hearing, and thank Ranking
Member Napolitano as well for the opportunity to be here.
I represent Colorado's Fourth Congressional District, which
is just the opposite end of the state from my colleague, Mr.
Tipton, from Western Colorado. It is a district that was once
represented by Wayne Aspinall, who served as Chairman of the
House Insular Affairs Committee for a number of years, and
whose passion it was to add additional water storage to
Colorado and to the West. In fact, many of the projects that we
utilize today to their full extent were created by this
Congress and Wayne Aspinall, the U.S. Congress and Wayne
Aspinall. And the work that we are continuing to rely on today
is work that happened several generations ago under the
leadership of people like Wayne Aspinall.
By 2050, my home state of Colorado will need an additional
one million acre-feet of water to meet all of our agricultural
and industrial municipal demands. Conservation alone cannot
meet these demands. We have an obligation to prepare this
country's future generations by storing more water. This
hearing is critical to understanding the Federal barriers that
inhibit local communities and states from developing new dams,
reservoirs, and storage systems.
If you walk into the capital at Colorado, right in the
middle of the rotunda there is a poem written on the wall. And
to paraphrase the beginning of the poem, it says something to
the effect of, ``Here is a land where history is written in
water.'' And that is so true of all of our western states. If
we are going to continue to thrive as a western economy,
though, whether it is business or agriculture, every industry
depends on an ample water supply. And if our economy is going
to expand and create additional jobs, then we are going to need
more water.
The Fourth Congressional District of Colorado is 11th
highest producing agricultural district in the U.S. Congress.
Farmers and ranchers know the importance of water. Lack of
supply has caused thousands of wells to be shut down, hundreds
of thousands of acres to be dried up, and water to become
increasingly more expensive. Many of the projects that have
been on the books over the past several years could have
avoided, if they had been built, some of the shutdowns that
Colorado has experienced over the past several years.
One project in particular that I would like to bring to the
attention of the Committee is the Northern Integrated Supply
Project, or NISP.
NISP would construct a water storage reservoir off stream
of the Poudre River in Colorado. This proposed project would
ensure the river flows year round by diverting water to a
reservoir during periods of high flow, and sending water back
to the river during periods of low flow. The project is popular
with the majority of those in Northern Colorado and
Northeastern Colorado, but it is still stuck in the permitting
process, the Federal bureaucracy. It has received a barrage of
attacks from outside interests who think that it would harm
agriculture. And yet, every single group in agriculture in
Colorado supports the project.
The opportunity we have with conservation cannot be
understated. Conservation is an important part of our water
needs. But it cannot complete the picture. We also need and
will require additional water storage.
I believe there is a three-pronged solution to our water
needs in the West: storage, conservation, and partnership, that
partnership that can exist between the Federal Government and
the state and local governments. But that partnership should
never be driven by the Federal Government, but instead driven
by local water users and local solutions. But conservation
cannot take the place--cannot replace--the need for additional
water storage.
And so I thank the Chairman for this hearing today. I thank
the witnesses for being here today, and certainly appreciate
the opportunity to participate in today's hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gardner follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Cory Gardner, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Colorado

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Chairman McClintock,
Ranking Member Napolitano, and my other colleagues on this committee
for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this hearing.
The issue before this committee today presents many challenges to
all members of Congress and especially members from the west. Water is
arguably our most valuable resource. By 2050, my home state of Colorado
will need an additional 1 million acre-feet of water to meet all of our
agricultural and municipal demands. Conservation alone cannot meet
these demands. We have an obligation to prepare this country's future
generations by storing water. This hearing is critical to understanding
the federal barriers that inhibit local communities and states from
developing new dams, reservoirs and storage systems.
Water is an economic driver. In order to attract more growth to the
western United States--either in business or agriculture--every
industry depends upon an ample water supply. If our economy is going to
expand and create jobs, it is going to need more water. As we work to
attract more jobs to the West, the people who work those jobs are going
to need water. If agriculture is to remain vibrant, it too must have
water.
My congressional district is the 11th highest producing
agricultural district in the United States. Farmers and ranchers know
the importance of water. Lack of supply has caused sales and leases to
become increasingly more expensive. The additional water storage that
Colorado requires can only be realized by rethinking the way the
Federal government works. Whether through adverse permitting
requirements, the NEPA process, ESA restrictions or costly litigation--
the federal government keeps pushing the problem down the road and
inhibiting our states from doing what they need to do. If we do not act
fast, many farms will suffer from agricultural dry-up costing jobs and
ruining our communities. Throughout the West there are periods of
dismal precipitation and prolonged drought. New water storage
infrastructure can alleviate the burden placed on agriculture during
these periods.
One project in particular I would like to bring to the attention of
the committee is the Northern Integrated Supply Project or NISP. NISP
would construct a water storage reservoir off stream of the Poudre
River in Colorado. This proposed project would ensure the river flows
year round by diverting water to a reservoir during periods of high
flow and sending water back to the river during periods of low flow.
The project is popular with the people of the Front Range of Colorado.
Yet, NISP is still stuck in the permitting process at the Army Corp of
Engineers and continues to be delayed because of the regulatory
barriers that water projects go through. Not to mention, NISP has
received a barrage of attacks from outside interest groups. One of the
most recent attacks was the rumor that it would hurt agriculture in
Northern Colorado, yet every major agricultural organization in the
state supports NISP moving forward. This hearing today will shed light
on the misinformation that is circulating regarding water storage
projects. Misinformation often leads to costly delays that
simultaneously hurt our economic growth and deprive our people of the
water they so desperately need.
There is truly enough water for everyone and we can meet both our
agriculture and municipal usages. I am tired of seeing farmers sell
their water rights because of the scarcity in our water supply. We need
to rethink the Federal government's role in water storage and redefine
the missions of the various agencies from the Army Corp of Engineers,
to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation.
If the state of Colorado was to build every water storage project on
the books today, the state would still fall short our of expected
future water needs. This needs to change. I am ready to get to work on
this issue. I thank the committee for allowing me to participate, and I
thank the witnesses for being here. I yield back the balance of my
time.
______

Mr. McClintock. Great, thank you very much. If there are no
other opening statements, thank the witnesses for their
patience, and we will now proceed with their testimony.
That testimony in writing will be incorporated in full in
the hearing record, so I would ask that the witnesses keep
their oral statements to five minutes, as outlined in the
invitation letter pursuant to our rules.
We use timing lights here, as you may have noticed. When
you begin to speak, you will have five minutes. It will be
showing a green light. And, just like driving, when you get
down to that yellow light, speak very, very fast, and at--when
the red light hits we will take your picture and send you a
ticket.
I will now recognize Pat O'Toole, President of the Family
Farm Alliance from Savery, Wyoming to testify.

STATEMENT OF PAT O'TOOLE, PRESIDENT,
FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE, SAVERY, WYOMING

Mr. O'Toole. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Napolitano. Thank you very much for this opportunity.
And I have to tell you that this is such a great opportunity
for all of us to look at one of the most crucial issues that
there is, not only in the West, but for our country.
We have submitted--the Family Farm Alliance, we represent
farmers and ranchers in the 17 Western states. And our
reputation is being problem solvers. We have listed a lot of
what we think are solutions to this issue. But if you would
allow me to just talk personally about some of my experience,
our family ranches on the Colorado-Wyoming line. The fellow
that--the great-grandfather that started the ranch in 1881 was
right on the state line. And so I graze cattle and sheep in Mr.
Tipton's district and feed lambs in Mr. Gardner's district. But
I am a Wyoming resident, and I spent some years in the Wyoming
Legislature.
Our community had two--still has two--authorized projects
that were on the--what was called the Carter Hit List in 1972,
or in the early 1970s, and those projects were never built. The
State of Wyoming and our community worked very hard to build
storage, and we have so far built 25 percent of that original
100,000 acre-feet. It saved us during the end of the last
drought cycle, later water for irrigators. But we also created
25 miles of fishery.
And I think that the testimony that you all have made about
the multiplicity of benefits for water is exactly where we need
to go. And I don't--really, water is a non-partisan issue that
we have to figure out, the great challenge that we have in our
generation.
I have been asked to participate in several processes on
policy. One is called AGree. It is an eight-year project on how
are we going to deal with food policy issues. And it has been
chilling to have the best scientists and the best analysts tell
us that we have to produce at least 70 percent more food in the
next 40 years for a growing world and national population. It
is the economic engine of our country.
I know we all remember the debate about could we allow our
manufacturing to go overseas. We allowed that to happen. If we
don't gear up on infrastructure and a long-term vision, we can
allow our agriculture to go the same way. And I think it is so
crucial that committees like this, with all of the incredible
expertise that you all represent take advantage of the
opportunity to look at multi-use facilities that are strategic
all over the West. Those of us in rural communities know they
are there.
And I have spent an awful lot of time working with our
community on permitting issues. Our--in our testimony we talk
about the 19-year permitting of the 25 percent of those
authorized projects. It was a devastating process. And I would
tell you, from a solution-based and experience base, we have to
get all of the Federal permitters and all the state permitters
in rooms together and solve these problems one by one and go
forward, because what happens in the process is you have a
round table of Federal and state agencies that permit
individually without any kind of unification.
In Wyoming, there was a visionary atmosphere 30 years ago
where we came up with the philosophy of using non-renewables to
fund renewables. That meant that oil, gas, coal, uranium, all
the things that are produced in the great bounty of Wyoming
funds renewables, which is water, wildlife--if you go to a
Wyoming high school and graduate, you get a free ride to the
University of Wyoming, because of those dollars being put into
renewables.
Water--we have our funding mechanisms, and yet we found
ourselves--and still find ourselves--in the same situation,
where we cannot move forward as quickly as possible. And those
are state dollars. You know, they are used for years and years
and years of permitting. I myself have sat in some of those
meetings, and it was so frustrating, because it was obviously
an intent to be an impediment.
In Colorado, for example--and those of you that are from
Colorado know that John Stulp, who was Commissioner of
Agriculture, has spoken very articulately about the 500,000 to
700,000 acre-feet of ag water that could go from ag to other
uses in Colorado. That story is all over the West. And I would
just tell you that when we made these decisions--and the
Chairman referred to the Two Forks Decision--that meant that
agriculture was the reservoir for growth for Denver. And that
is what has happened, and that is what will continue to happen,
unless we have the courage to go forward.
I am here because my kids are working today. You know, I
represent real people in a real situation that know about water
storage and its benefits. And I applaud you all for having this
very bold hearing. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Toole follows:]

Statement of Patrick O'Toole, President, Family Farm Alliance

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to examine
regulatory and bureaucratic challenges that delay or halt the
development of new water supply enhancement projects in the Western
United States. My name is Patrick O'Toole, and I serve as the president
of the Family Farm Alliance. The Alliance advocates for family farmers,
ranchers, irrigation districts, and allied industries in seventeen
Western states. The Alliance is focused on one mission--To ensure the
availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to
Western farmers and ranchers.
Water users represented by the Family Farm Alliance use a
combination of surface and groundwater supplies, managed through a
variety of local, state, and federal arrangements. For the most part,
however, our members receive their primary irrigation water supplies
from the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). In essence, we are
Reclamation's customers. Western family farms and ranches of the semi-
arid and arid West- as well as the communities that they are
intertwined with--owe their existence, in large part, to the certainty
provided by water stored and delivered by Reclamation projects.
My family operates a cattle, sheep and hay ranch in the Little
Snake River Valley on the Wyoming-Colorado border. I am a former member
of Wyoming's House of Representatives and I served on the federal
government's Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission in the
late 1990's. I currently serve on the Advisory Committee for AGree, a
new initiative that brings together a diverse group of interests to
transform U.S. food and agriculture policy so that we can meet the
challenges of the future. I also served over the past two years on a
Blue Ribbon Panel intended to provide leadership for a project to
support the development of the Natural Resource Conservation Service's
(NRCS) Program and Policy Statement as a part of the process mandated
by the Resource Conservation Act (RCA). The topic of this oversight
hearing is not only tremendously important to the Family Farm Alliance,
it also is immediately relevant to me and other Wyoming water users,
and to farmers, ranchers and rural communities all over the West. I
would like to start my testimony with an overview of the big-picture
challenges Western farmers and ranchers face as they strive to feed our
country and the appetite of a rapidly expanding world population. I
will explain why it is preferable to develop new water infrastructure
to protect our diminishing farm population over policies that encourage
competing demands to transfer water away from agriculture. Certainty in
Western Water policy is essential to the farmers and ranchers I
represent, and that is why a suite of conservation, water transfers and
other demand reduction mechanisms must be balanced with proactive and
responsible development of new water infrastructure. This testimony
will acknowledge the environmental impacts that can accompany new
storage projects, but also point out that typical Westerners are
strongly supportive of new projects, especially if those projects can
minimize moving water away from farmers and ranchers. And finally, I
will conclude with a discussion that suggests the proper role for the
federal government to play- particularly the Bureau of Reclamation--
when it comes to participating in new storage projects in these cash-
strapped times.

Western Family Farmers and Ranchers Support Water Supply Enhancement
Projects
Family Farm Alliance members rely on traditional water and power
infrastructure to deliver irrigation supplies. Our membership has been
advocating for new storage for over twenty years, and we have provided
specific recommendations to Congress and the White House on how to
streamline restrictive federal regulations to make these projects
happen. Water conservation and water transfers are important tools for
improving management of increasingly scarce water resources. However,
our members believe these demand-management actions must be balanced
with supply enhancement measures that provide the proper mix of
solutions for the varying specific circumstances in the West.
Supply enhancement should include rehabilitation of existing
facilities and construction of new infrastructure. Rehabilitation
measures should focus on maximizing the conservation effort through
increased delivery efficiencies, construction of re-regulation
reservoirs to minimize operational waste, and construction of new dams
and reservoirs in watersheds with inadequate storage capacity to
increase beneficial use and provide operational flexibility. Additional
groundwater supplies should also be developed, but in a manner where
groundwater use falls within the safe yield or recharge parameters of
the aquifer. Conjunctive management of surface and groundwater supplies
should be encouraged.
The Board of Directors of the Family Farm Alliance in 2005 launched
an aggressive and forward looking project that pulled together a master
data base of potential water supply enhancement projects from
throughout the West. Our goal was to gather together ideas from around
the West and put them into one master data base. The types of projects
contained in the resulting Western Water Supply Enhancement Study
database are not imposing dams like China's Three Gorges project.
Instead, they are supply enhancement projects that range from canal
lining and piping, to reconstruction of existing dams, to integrated
resource plans. There are also some very feasible new surface storage
projects. The benefits from these projects include providing certainty
for rural family farms and ranches, additional flows and habitat for
fish, and cleaner water and energy.
Along with basic information included on a CD-ROM, the database
that was generated from the compilation of the survey has a Global
Information System (GIS) element and includes pictures, maps and a
description of up to 500 words for each project or proposal. GIS format
technology is embedded that permits viewers to see a map of 17 Western
states and then ``drill down'' to see map details of a project area.

The Importance of Protecting and Enhancing Reliable Agricultural Water
Supplies
Agriculture holds the most senior water rights in the West and is
considered a likely source of water to meet growing municipal and
environmental demands. Unfortunately, severing water from agricultural
land makes the land less productive. Period. Policy makers should be
wary of putting additional, focused emphasis on agricultural water
transfers, particularly in the context of growing domestic and global
food security and scarcity concerns.
Right now, we are in danger of losing a generation of farmers.
Nationally, the median age of active farmers in America has never been
higher, with the percentage of farmers under 50-years-old continuing to
plummet. More than half of today's farmers are aged between 45 and 64,
and only 6 percent of our farmers are younger than 35.
Further, the number of farms is declining throughout the West. USDA
attributes the decline in the number of farms and land in farms to a
continuing consolidation in farming operations and diversion of
agricultural land to nonagricultural uses.
Meanwhile, Americans are paying a substantially lower amount of
their disposable income on food. According to the World Bank, families
in 28 other high-income countries pay 10.2 percent of their disposable
income on food compared to 6.2 percent for families living in the
United States. For the average American that's a difference of $3,820
per year and represents real dollars that are available to purchase
consumer goods other than food. A 2011 report by Cardno-ENTRIX examined
the relative affordability of food in the U.S. as compared to 28 other
high-income countries. That report found, on a percentage basis, other
high-income countries spend about 64 percent more in disposable income
on food and non-alcoholic beverages compared to the U.S.
At a time when average Americans are feeling the pinch in their
pocket books, the foundation of our country's ability to provide safe
and affordable food and fiber is at risk. Ironically, it is because
Western irrigated agriculture has been so adaptive and successful at
providing plentiful, safe and affordable food that it is now
jeopardized--nobody believes there can be a problem. The last Americans
to experience food shortages are members of the Greatest Generation and
their parents. For the most part, they have left us, taking with them
the memories of empty supermarket shelves. When the issue has never
been personalized, it's easy to be complacent.
The U.S. needs a stable domestic food supply, just as it needs a
stable energy supply. The post 9/11 world of terrorist threats makes
the stability of domestic food supply even more pressing. Outgoing
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson put it bluntly
when he said, ``I cannot understand why the terrorists have not
attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do.'' Further,
Thompson said he worries ``every single night'' about threats to the
American food supply.
This isn't just a matter of domestic security; it's also a global
concern. Last year, the Global Harvest Initiative (GHI) released its
Global Agricultural Productivity (GAP) Report, which measures ongoing
progress in achieving the goal of sustainably doubling agricultural
output by 2050. For the first time, the GAP Report quantifies the
difference between the current rate of agricultural productivity growth
and the pace required to meet future world food needs. The report
predicts that doubling agricultural output by 2050 requires increasing
the rate of productivity growth to at least 1.75 percent annually from
the current 1.4 percent growth rate, a 25 percent annual increase.
When water tied to domestic agricultural lands is transferred
elsewhere, those lands will no longer be as productive. Policy makers
need to understand how this limits our ability to feed the world.

The Argument for Emphasizing New Infrastructure, Not More Water
Transfers
We often see bold general statements of water transfer proponents
about the potential for agricultural water use efficiency to free up
water that can be used for in-stream flows. However, those statements
are usually followed up by a list of the factors that make it a
difficult proposition. Those include re-use deficiencies when water is
removed upstream in the system, water rights that protect water users
from water being taken away if they conserve water, and transactions
that move water between presumably willing buyers and willing sellers,
but have the effect of taking land out of production. All of those
issues are dealt with directly in a major report released last year by
the Center for Irrigation Technology (CIT) at Fresno State. The report,
``Agricultural Water Use in California: A 2011 Update'', refutes some
long-standing beliefs about agricultural water usage and confirms
others. The full report is available at http://www.californiawater.org.
The CIT report and others have reached a similar conclusion: the only
large potential for moving water from agriculture to other uses will
come from fallowing large swaths of farmland.
There is growing recognition that states and local governments must
consider the impacts of continued growth that relies on water transfers
from agriculture and rural areas and to identify feasible alternatives
to those transfers. For example, a 2006 report released by the Western
States Governors Association (WGA) states ``there is understandable
support for the notion of allowing markets to operate to facilitate
transfers from agricultural to municipal and urban use as a means to
accommodate the needs of a growing population. While such transfers
have much to commend them, third party impacts should be taken into
account, including adverse effects on rural communities and
environmental values. Alternatives that could reasonably avoid such
adverse impacts should be identified.''
The Family Farm Alliance is working with Western Governors
Association and the Western States Water Council to develop a report on
successful and unsuccessful agricultural-to-urban water transfers to
determine how transfers can be accomplished in a manner that avoids or
at least mitigates damage to agricultural economies and environmental
values, while at the same time avoiding infringement on private
property rights.
There will be nothing done with water in the West without there
being winners and losers. Cities may expect to buy water from farms,
but that is not a long term solution as global food shortages make
farming a crucial national need.
A multitude of unique solutions exist for Western communities
wrestling with growing urban water use. The Northern Colorado Water
Conservation District is currently seeking to develop new offstream
storage to protect agriculture as urbanization sweeps into Northern's
traditional service area. Farmers in the Klamath Irrigation Project
(CALIFORNIA/OREGON) are paid through an environmental water bank to
temporarily fallow land or pump groundwater in place of using Klamath
River water. On the other hand, unsuccessful implementation of Central
Valley Project Improvement Act water transfer provisions in California
suggests that water markets cannot be legislated.
If we don't find a way to restore water supply reliability for
irrigated agriculture through a combination of new infrastructure,
other supply enhancement efforts, and demand management--our country's
ability to feed and clothe itself and the world will be jeopardized.
Improved conveyance and storage projects provide the best
flexibility to manage and move water in the West. The retention of
existing water supplies and the development of critically needed new
supplies are of the utmost importance. Drought and population growth
have accelerated the arrival of inevitable water shortages. Supplies
are already inadequate for the growing demands, but very few plans
exist to develop supplies to meet increasing needs. At the federal
level, we are told that the big dam-building era is over. This may
indeed be true, but it is also plainly and painfully true that there
isn't enough water to meet the needs of agriculture, urban growth and
the environment. Increased conservation and efficiency can help, but
they are only part--a small part--of the solution. And buying and
bullying water away from farmers isn't the solution either. Meeting the
current and future water needs of the West will require a thoughtful
combination of means, not the least of which is the creation of new
storage.

Demand Management vs. Supply Enhancement
Water conservation (i.e. ``demand management'') is often seen as
the solution to water supply issues. In fact, in the past fifteen
years, tremendous agricultural conservation efforts have been
undertaken throughout the West, from installation of high technology
drip irrigation systems in California's Central Valley, to tens of
millions of dollars spent on improving on-farm water use efficiency in
the Klamath Basin. On the other hand, relatively little progress has
been made on the ``supply management'' end of things. While development
has occurred on conjunctive management and groundwater banking
projects--which will be discussed in more detail by some of my fellow
witnesses--development of new surface storage projects have virtually
ground to a halt in the past 30 years, especially if any sort of
federal nexus exists for proposed projects.
Western farmers and ranchers have long taken a progressive approach
to water management. Farmers are already investing in upgraded
irrigation systems. For example, between 2003 and 2010 San Joaquin
Valley farmers invested almost $2.2 billion in upgraded irrigation
systems on over 1.8 million acres of farmland. Those investments helped
improve water use efficiency and food production and helped fuel
portions of the rural economy at a time when water supply cuts were
increasing unemployment. And, these sorts of efficient farm practices
have led to increased economic value and production. A report by the
California Department of Water Resources \1\ shows that the value of
California farm products doubled during the 40-year period from 1967
and 2007 while at the same time, applied water decreased by 14 percent.
Other research by the California Farm Water Coalition showed that the
volume of farm production between 1967 and 2000 rose approximately 89
percent with only a two percent increase in applied water per acre.
These indicators support assertions that farmers in general are
improving water use efficiency in significant ways over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The DWR report is available at: www.farmwater.org/
DWR_Econ_Efficiency.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While conservation is surely a tool that can assist in overcoming
water supply problems, it cannot be viewed as the single answer to
water shortages. For example, conserved water cannot always
realistically be applied to instream uses, as it will more likely be
put to beneficial use by the next downstream appropriator or held in
carryover storage for the following irrigation season. Also, in urban
areas, further tightening of water conservation measures, in essence,
``hardens'' those urban demands. Some degree of flexibility must be
embedded in urban water conservation programs to allow these areas to
employ more restrictive water conservation measures during drought
periods. Without having the ability to save water during drought
periods via drought conservation measures, the resulting hardened
demand will force urban water managers to more quickly look to secure
water from other areas; namely, agriculture and the environment. So,
clearly, mandated or ``one size fits all'' conservation programs are
doomed to failure in light of the drastically different circumstances
of water users across the West.
Farmers and ranchers will continue to do all they can to save
water. However, water saving cannot be expanded indefinitely without
reducing acreage in production. At some point, the growing water
demands of the West--coupled with the omnipresent possibility of
drought--must be met. The members of the Subcommittee must understand
that in the West, the water needed to meet these demands will either
come from developing new water supplies. . ..or it will be taken from
agriculture.

Environmental Impacts of Storage Projects
Obviously, there will be environmental concerns associated with any
new surface water storage projects. However, we believe it is possible
to address those issues and move forward with storage projects that
will ultimately have broad support from a number of different
stakeholders. Individual surface storage proposals must be evaluated
and the associated benefits and risks must be viewed in a net,
comprehensive manner. While some storage critics focus on perceived
negative impacts associated with new facility construction (e.g. loss
of habitat, disruption of ``natural'' stream flow patterns, and
potential evaporative losses), these perceived impacts must also be
compared to the wide range of multi-purpose benefits that storage
projects can provide. Also, although water is lost to evaporation in
surface reservoirs that serve agricultural, environmental and urban
uses, there is very little ``wasted water'' associated with moving and
applying irrigation water. Water not directly consumed through evapo-
transpiration often serves other purposes, such as replenishing
groundwater, buffering soil salinity and supporting riparian
vegetation.
Properly designed and constructed surface storage projects provide
additional water management flexibility to better meet downstream
urban, industrial and agricultural water needs, improve flood control,
generate clean hydropower, provide recreation opportunities, and--
create additional flows that can benefit downstream fish and wildlife
species.
Some people and organizations oppose dams and Reclamation's proud
history of dam construction as a matter of dogma. They have no
flexibility in their position when it comes to surface storage. But
experience teaches us that solving complex problems requires a great
deal of flexibility. It also requires the collective efforts of
reasonable, well intentioned people who may come at the problem from
entirely difference perspectives. Surface storage isn't the solution in
all cases, but dismissing it out of hand serves no good purpose by
eliminating potential solutions to some vexing water supply issues.
Creative, successful solutions can be found by motivated,
unthreatened parties. The holders of water rights approach the Western
water supply problem with much at risk, and with much to offer in the
form of practical experience managing the resource on a daily basis.
Incentives that create reasons to succeed will do more good for the
environment in a shorter period of time than actions that rely on
threats of government intervention.

Political Support for New Water Projects
Colorado State University (CSU) in 2009 completed a West-wide (17
states) that found--throughout the West--strong citizen support for
water going to farmers and also strong support for building new water
infrastructure. The report provides very interesting findings that
underscore Western householders support for water storage projects and
irrigation over environmental and recreational water needs in times of
shortage. Three focus groups were used to develop a multi-faceted
questionnaire. An Email invitation to an internet survey yielded 6,250
municipal household respondents in 17 Western states.
Among Western respondents to the CSU poll, the most popular
strategies for meeting long-term needs are to build reservoirs and
reuse water, whether it is on private lawns or public landscapes. The
least popular alternative is to buy water from farmers. When addressing
long-term scarcity, respondents preferred reservoir construction and
reuse systems over other acquisitions and, in particular, are not in
favor of water transfers from agriculture.
This new information flies in the face of arguments made by some
environmental activist groups and editorial boards of certain Western
urban newspapers, who insist that the public shares their view that
dams are outdated, monstrous aberrations that should be destroyed. The
findings in this report should further convince our political leaders
to ignore the naysayers and stand up for farming and new water supply
enhancement projects.

Appropriate Role of the Federal Government in These Endeavors
The federal government should adopt a policy of supporting new
efforts to enhance water supplies and encouraging state and local
interests to take the lead in the formulation of those efforts. Local
interests have shown enormous creativity in designing creative water
development projects; my fellow witnesses on this panel will provide
you the best sense of the range of creativity that can be generated at
the local level. While onstream storage should not be seen as
unacceptable, offstream storage, groundwater banking, and countless
other forms of water development should be encouraged as a matter of
federal policy and law. Local problems call for local solutions.
The existing procedures for developing additional supplies should
also be revised to make project approval less burdensome. By the time
project applicants approach federal agencies for authorization to
construct multi-million dollar projects, they have already invested
extensive resources toward analyzing project alternatives to determine
which project is best suited to their budgetary constraints. However,
current procedure dictates that federal agencies formulate another list
of project alternatives which the applicant must assess, comparing
potential impacts with the preferred alternative. These alternatives
often conflict with state law. Opportunities should be explored to
expedite this process and reduce the costs to the project applicant.
The example of the permitting history of the Little Snake River
Irrigation Water Supply Project, High Savery Dam and Reservoir--
attached to this testimony--best illustrates this matter.
In addition, the current mitigation procedure for federal agencies
should be reviewed to determine the feasibility of clarifying and
standardizing mitigation requirements. Currently, requirements for one
project become the standard for all subsequent projects. Since no two
projects are the same, federal agencies tend to impose increasingly
severe mitigation requirements on new projects. The end result is that
applicants end up spending tremendous amounts of money for potentially
uncertain mitigation.
The example of the city of Buffalo, Wyoming,--attached to this
testimony--illustrates the point. For 8.8 acres of wetlands impacts,
the cost of mitigation amounted to approximately $1 million. This is in
excess of $100,000 per acre. The primary reason for these costs was
that the United States Army Corps of Engineers required a 5:1 ratio for
wetland mitigation. The 5:1 ratio is not a scientifically based figure,
but rather an arbitrary figure developed by the agency. After 3 years
and significant expense, the city finally was forced to accept this
ratio in order to proceed with the project.
Another possible solution is the creation of mitigation banking.
Under such an approach, applicants faced with excessive mitigation
costs would be allowed to pay a reasonable sum per acre to a regional
mitigation bank or set aside mitigation lands as a condition to
implementation of their project. The federal government should
encourage the creation and use of public and private mitigation banks.

1. The Bureau of Reclamation's Recent Role Relative to Advancing New
Storage Projects
The Bureau of Reclamation's once active role in building new dams
and reservoirs has diminished significantly over the last three
decades. Construction of large dams, in general, has become virtually
impossible in recent decades due to new societal environmental
priorities, and related passage of numerous federal laws that create
litigious uncertainty and tremendous regulatory obstacles for
proponents of new dams.
Shortly after the Alliance's data base was released (and submitted
to the Congressional record in April 2005), the Bureau of Reclamation
did submit a report to Congress that identified nearly one thousand
potential hydroelectric and water supply projects in the Western United
States that have been studied, but not constructed. The report was
required by the Energy Act of 2005. The 2005 Alliance and Reclamation
efforts show that, in most areas of the West, water resources are
available to be developed. Environmentally-safe and cost-effective
projects exist. They await the vision and leadership needed to move
them to implementation.

2. Why the Bureau of Reclamation and Other Federal Agencies Need to
Improve Regulations and Streamline Permitting of New Projects
The Family Farm Alliance believes that without new sources of
water, increasing urban and environmental demands will deplete existing
agricultural supplies and seriously threaten the future of Western
irrigated agriculture. The often slow and cumbersome federal regulatory
process is a major obstacle to realization of projects and actions that
could enhance Western water supplies. Here are just a few reasons why
Reclamation and other federal agencies (particularly fisheries
agencies) need to find ways to streamline regulations and permitting
requirements:
Planning opportunities and purposes for which a
project may be permitted are restricted, which narrows the
planning horizon, and makes it impossible to plan for projects
with long-term benefits;
The alternatives proposed for assessment by the
National Environmental Protection Act regulators are frequently
inappropriate, unrealistic, difficult-to-implement, and often
in conflict with state law. The permitting process stalls, and
costs increase to the project applicant;
Federal regulators take a long time making decisions
on projects, and at times they seem unable to even make
decisions. As a result, projects are postponed and money is
wasted as additional studies and analyses are conducted;
Applicants end up spending tremendous amounts of
money for potentially uncertain mitigation;
Rather than doing things concurrently, conflicting
agency permit requirements can add time to the project planning
and implementation process and increases greatly the potential
for last-minute surprises that could endanger the proposal or
require significant additional work.
We pledge to continue our work with federal agencies and other
interested parties to build a consensus for improve the regulatory
process.

3. Future Federal Funding of New Water Supply Enhancement Projects
Even before the advent of the challenging economic times we now
live in, we witnessed a progressive cutback in federal water supply
funding. We understand that those who benefit from new water supply
infrastructure should help pay for that infrastructure. However, policy
makers need to understand that, for the most part, new water supplies
are not being proposed to meet the expanding needs of agriculture. On
the contrary, we are seeing a move in the opposite direction, where
agricultural lands are going out of production and being lost to
expanding urban development. Water that was originally established for
agriculture and the communities it supports is now being reallocated to
meet new growing urban and environmental water demands. The growing
number of urban water users in the West and the public interest served
through improved environmental water supplies should naturally be part
of equitable financing schemes.
Most water supply entities are willing to make investments to meet
human and environmental needs, but they need to know up front that the
federal government will honor its part of the bargain. This means that
the federal government should enter into meaningful contracts that
protect the expectations of the non-federal parties, and concepts like
the ``No Surprises Rule'' under the Endangered Species Act must be
validated and expanded.
The President and Congress will prioritize whatever federal funds
are available to meet existing and future needs. As for the rest of the
capital, it must come either from state and local governments or from
the private sector. If the federal government cannot fund the required
investments, it should take meaningful steps to provide incentives for
non-federal entities to fill the void, and remove barriers to the new
ways of doing business that will be required.
Local and state interests have shown enormous creativity in
designing creative water development projects. For example, my home
State of Wyoming has initiated its Dam and Reservoir Program, where
proposed new dams with storage capacity of 2,000 acre-feet or more and
proposed expansions of existing dams of 1,000 acre-feet or more qualify
for state funding. Wyoming water managers and policy makers recognize
that dams and reservoirs typically provide opportunities for many
potential uses. While water supply is emphasized in the Wyoming
program, recreation, environmental enhancement, flood control, erosion
control and hydropower uses are also explored as secondary purposes.
In this time of tight budgets and huge overseas spending, the
federal government must adopt a policy of supporting new projects to
enhance water supplies while encouraging state and local interests to
take the lead in the implementation of those projects.

Conclusion
Family farmers and ranchers require certain water supplies as a
base condition of their existence. We cannot continue to wish away the
reality that there is not enough water to meet our needs in drought
years, and 20 years from now, if something is not done, every year will
essentially be a drought year. We cannot continue long-term
hypothetical processes that focus primarily on continued conservation
and downsizing of Western agriculture.
We believe that it is possible to meet the needs of cities and the
environment in a changing climate without sacrificing Western irrigated
agriculture. To achieve that goal, we must expand the water supply in
the West. There must be more water stored and available to farms and
cities. Maintaining the status quo simply isn't sustainable in the face
of unstoppable population growth, diminishing snow pack, increased
water consumption to support domestic energy, and increased
environmental demands.
Modern, integrated water storage and distribution systems can
provide tremendous physical and economic flexibility to address climate
transformation and population growth. However, this flexibility is
limited by legal, regulatory, or other institutional constraints, which
can take longer to address than actually constructing the physical
infrastructure.
The Family Farm Alliance wants to work with this Administration,
Congress, and other interested parties to build a consensus for
improving the regulatory process. The real reason the Alliance
continues to push for improved water storage and conveyance
infrastructure is not to support continued expansion of agricultural
water demand (which is NOT happening in most places). Instead, we seek
to mitigate for the water that has been reallocated away from
agriculture towards growing urban, power, environmental and
recreational demands in recent decades. If we don't find a way to
restore water supply reliability for irrigated agriculture through a
combination of new infrastructure, other supply enhancement efforts,
and demand management--our country's ability to feed and clothe itself
and the world will be jeopardized.
We need to clearly determine how much new water is needed for new
uses, and then find ways to support those uses in a sustainable way
that doesn't hurt irrigated agriculture. New infrastructure is one such
way; the construction of additional water supply infrastructure may
allow more efficient management and enable greater cooperation between
traditional and non-traditional water users.
Western irrigated agriculture is a strategic national resource, and
the role of the federal government in the 21st Century should be to
protect and enhance that resource. Federal agencies have a role to play
in infrastructure development, but interference with or duplication of
state authorities must be minimized.
Attachment List:
1. Permitting History of the Little Snake River Irrigation
Water Supply Project, High Savery Dam and Reservoir
2. City of Buffalo, Wyoming Case Study

Attachment 1: Permitting History

of the Little Snake River Irrigation Water Supply Project

High Savery Dam and Reservoir

Introduction
Permitting is a major step in any project that requires federal
agency action; it can be the most perplexing and confusing step in
project development. Projects requiring federal actions must go through
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assessment process, which
in itself is not a permitting process but is of utmost importance
concerning whether required permits will eventually be issued. Due to
extensive/thorough NEPA screening requirements and alternative
evaluations, projects often lose direction and focus during this
process.
NEPA was enacted in 1969 to promote informed decisions and public
disclosure of federal actions. Through NEPA assessments other laws such
as the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act come into
play. These laws and acts require permits or clearances from a number
of agencies, and make coordination of the NEPA process the driving
force for project permitting. This was especially true for the Little
Snake River Irrigation Supplemental Water Supply Project.
The following sections discuss major events that occurred during
permitting of the Little Snake River Irrigation Water Supply Project
and present conclusions and lessons learned from this process. The
history and conclusions presented are a compilation of information from
legislative reports, project studies and personal recollections.

History
The Little Snake Irrigation Water Supply Project began as the
Sandstone Dam Project and now is commonly referred to as the High
Savery Dam and Reservoir Project. The Sandstone Dam Project began as
mitigation for the Cheyenne Stage I, II and III projects and to provide
additional water storage for industrial development. The Wyoming
Legislature authorized the Cheyenne Stage I and II projects in 1979 and
1980 and also instructed the Wyoming Water Development Commission
(WWDC) to look at the feasibility of developing storage in the Little
Snake River Basin to address in-basin agricultural, recreational and
municipal needs.
Studies were initiated to evaluate dam and reservoir sites in the
basin and the Sandstone site was selected as the preferred site. In
1984, the legislature authorized a project in the Little Snake River
Basin to mitigate and alleviate any water supply shortages caused by
the Cheyenne Stage I and II projects. Sandstone Dam was to impound
52,000 acre-feet of water behind a 200-foot high structure. The
reservoir would have had a 32,000 acre-foot annual yield with 12,000
acre-feet allocated for irrigation and 20,000 acre-feet allocated for
future industrial development.
After several years of study, the permitting process for the
Sandstone Project was initiated in 1986. An application for a Clean
Water Act, Section 404 Permit (404 Permit) was filed with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps), which initiated the NEPA assessment
process. The project was of a scale that an environmental impact
statement (EIS) was necessary; the Corps was the lead agency for the
NEPA review and for preparation of the EIS. The draft EIS and
biological assessment (for assessment of impacts to endangered species)
were published in January 1988. Six action alternatives and the no
action alternative were evaluated. The six action alternatives included
four reservoirs, a ground water development alternative and a water
conservation alternative. The preferred alternative, for the state and
the sponsor, was the Sandstone Dam and Reservoir Project. All of the
alternatives were sized to allow storage of 12,000 acre-feet of
irrigation water and 20,000 acre-feet for future industrial
development. A supplement to the Draft EIS was published in April 1989
to support need for storage of 20,000 acre-feet for future industrial
use. Work continued on the EIS process during 1989 and 1990.
On December 14, 1990, the WWDC received notice from the Corps'
Omaha District Office that they were recommending denial of the 404
Permit for the Sandstone Project. Their denial was based upon the lack
of an acceptable federal ``purpose and need'' for the 20,000 acre-feet
of water reserved for industrial purposes. The WWDC and then Governor
Sullivan disagreed with the decision and requested that the permit be
issued. The decision was elevated to the Corps Division Engineer. In
1991, the WWDC was notified that the Division Engineer upheld the
District Engineer's recommendation that the 404 Permit be denied for
the 52,000 acre-foot project. However, the Corps noted that it would be
prepared to reopen consideration of the application if use of the
reservoir yield could be clearly defined.
During 1991, the Little Snake River Basin Planning Study was
authorized by the WWDC and legislature. This study was completed in
October 1992. One task of the study was to evaluate potential reservoir
sites to determine whether any were capable of meeting the supplemental
irrigation water needs in the Little Snake River Basin. At the request
of the Savery-Little Snake Water Conservancy District (District), a
downsized version of the Sandstone Project was included among the
alternatives.
The Commission recommended construction funding for a smaller
Sandstone Dam and Reservoir project; this downsized version would
possess a water storage capacity of 23,000 acre-feet, which would yield
12,000 acre-feet per year of supplemental irrigation water. Legislation
was approved during the 1993 session to provide $30,000,000 to
construct the project. The project purpose, as defined by the
legislature, was to serve as an agricultural, municipal and domestic
water supply; the project was to also increase recreational
opportunities, provide environmental enhancements, and serve as
mitigation water for shortages caused by the Cheyenne Stage I, II, and
III trans-basin diversion water supply projects.
Additional studies were conducted in 1993 to determine the
suitability of the Sandstone site. The report concluded dam
construction at the Sandstone site was technically feasible. In 1994,
the WWDC began the permitting process for construction of a smaller
project, including a downsized Sandstone Dam and Reservoir project and
several other potential alternatives. The downsized Sandstone Dam was
the preferred alternative. Since the scope of the project had changed,
the results of the draft EIS published in 1988 could not be used. The
WWDC entered into an agreement with the Corps and contracted with Burns
and McDonnell to complete a new third party EIS.
The Corps advised the WWDC, District and valley residents in
January 1995 that a 404 Permit could be issued only for the least
environmentally damaging alternative. That summer the Corps indicated
that the least damaging practicable alternative was a combination of
two alternative reservoirs (Dutch Joe and Big Gulch); therefore, a 404
Permit would not be issued for the Sandstone Dam alternative. The Corps
had narrowly defined the purpose and need for the project as
supplemental late season irrigation water supply. The Corps' definition
conflicted with the Wyoming legislation that authorized funding for the
project; the Wyoming Legislature stipulated that recreation,
environmental enhancement, municipal water supply, supplemental
irrigation, and mitigation for past and future trans-basin water
projects were all legitimate purposes for the project.
In August 1995, the WWDC director and project manager explained to
the WWDC and Select Water Committee of the Wyoming Legislature reasons
why the EIS was stalled, which was largely attributable to the lack of
support for alternatives other than the Sandstone site. The WWDC and
the Select Water Committee concluded that alternatives to the Sandstone
Dam and Reservoir should be considered if there was a clear consensus
of support for other alternatives. Public meetings were held in the
Little Snake Valley in August, October and December 1995 for the
purposes of discussing project alternatives. It was apparent that a
majority of those attending the meetings preferred the construction of
Sandstone Dam, since they believed that the Sandstone site would
provide more multiple use benefits than the other alternatives. This
majority also disagreed with the Corps decision not to include other
project purposes, which were mandated by the legislature, within the
Corps' purpose and need analysis.
The WWDC supported the position expressed by a majority of the
Little Snake Valley residents and directed the WWDC staff to further
pursue changing the purpose and need section of the EIS to include
state legislature's mandated purposes, particularly recreation. The
lack of agreement between the state and the Corps, concerning the
project's purpose and need, resulted in further delay of the project.
In 1996, The WWDC contracted with Burns and McDonnell to complete
an analysis of need for additional flat-water recreation in the Baggs,
Wyoming area. The study concluded that there wasn't a need for
additional flat-water recreation in the area. Other studies were
commissioned to keep the project moving forward; but study results also
did not support the Sandstone alternative. The Corps reaffirmed their
position that the project purpose could only be for supplemental
irrigation water supply. Further, the Corps indicated verbally and in
writing that the project should provide 12,000 acre-feet of water on a
firm basis 8 out of 10 years. The Savery-Little Snake River Water
Conservancy District had requested a firm 12,000 acre-foot yield 10 out
of 10 years.
Adding to other problems, the Sandstone Dam alternative was the
most costly project (about $48 million). The Dutch Joe alternative was
nearly $10 million less costly. The High Savery alternative was the
least costly at about $30 million. Environmental impacts were greatest
at Sandstone but appeared to be significant at the Dutch Joe and High
Savery sites as well. A meeting to discuss the project, attended by
representatives of the Corps, other federal agencies, several state
agencies, the Governor's office, representatives from the District,
other representatives from Carbon County, the WWDC, and the Select
Water Committee, was held on November 19, 1996. The Corps stated that
given the available data, the Sandstone site could not be permitted
because the Dutch Joe site was the least environmentally damaging
alternative. They indicated that the High Savery Project might be
permitted if it could be shown that impacts to big game winter range at
Dutch Joe were more environmentally damaging than the wetland and
stream channel impacts at High Savery. A meeting was held in Baggs on
December 5, 1996 and the irrigators and Little Snake Valley residents
supported a motion to change the project name from Sandstone to the
Little Snake Water Supply Project. Work completed in 1995 and 1996
resulted in a delay to the project but set the stage for the eventual
construction of the High Savery Dam and Reservoir alternative.
The permitting process was put back on track in 1997 and three
alternatives were selected that would meet the specified need for the
project, which was to supply 12,000 acre-feet of supplemental
irrigation water to the users in the Little Snake River Valley 8 out of
10 years. The alternatives studied were a downsized Sandstone Dam and
Reservoir, Dutch Joe Dam and Reservoir, and High Savery Dam and
Reservoir. High Savery became the preferred alternative. The final
studies were completed during 1997 and 1998 and the Draft EIS was
published in August 1998. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report
was also released in August 1998.
Public meetings were held and comments were taken on the draft EIS
in the fall of 1998. Disagreements between the WWDC, the WGFD, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps on how best to address the DEIS
comments delayed the completion of the Final EIS until October 1999.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued the Biological Opinion in
July 1999 to satisfy the consultation requirements of Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act. In order that a Record of Decision (ROD) could
be issued, work began in earnest in 1999 to mitigate the project's
adverse environmental impacts. Numerous meetings were held with the
Wyoming Game and Fish Department, WWDC, USFWS, Savery-Little Snake
Water Conservancy District and Corps to resolve differences and
finalize the plan.
The Final EIS, completed in October 1999, identified the High
Savery Project as the preferred alternative. Several comments were
received but none were significant. These few comments were eventually
addressed in the Corps' Record of Decision (ROD). However, the project
was further delayed because the Corps was concerned about issuing the
ROD and 404 Permit before cultural resource preservation and management
issues were resolved.
Efforts to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act,
which protects cultural resources, were also underway at this time. A
number of site visits, conference calls, and meetings were conducted to
discuss cultural resource issues with interested Native American
Tribes, the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), WWDC and
the Corps. There were a variety of tasks undertaken to satisfy the
requirements of the Tribes and SHPO. Several cultural sites had to be
evaluated and protection plans developed. One site required excavation
and interpretation. This work was conducted during 1999 and 2000. A
final Programmatic Agreement to protect and manage cultural resources
on the High Savery Site, which took over a year to negotiate, was
eventually signed in early December 2000.
The plan to mitigate the adverse impacts to wetlands, uplands and
riparian areas proved to be extremely controversial, which further
delayed the project. Three drafts of the plan were completed and
debated by all parties involved. In October 2000 a final draft plan was
presented to the Corps by WWDC. This plan was finally approved in
December 2000 after a meeting with the Corps at their District
headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska.
The ROD was issued December 14, 2000, approximately one-year and
two months after the final EIS was released. The 404 Permit for High
Savery Dam and Reservoir was signed December 20, 2000. These steps
completed the permitting portion of the project and advanced the High
Savery Project toward construction.

Conclusions and Lessons Learned
It could be concluded from the Little Snake Supplemental Irrigation
Supply Project (High Savery Project) history that 14 or more years
might be required for permitting reservoir projects. However, that may
not be correct. During the time the High Savery Project was being
permitted several other reservoir projects within Wyoming were
designed, permitted and constructed. Sulfur Creek Reservoir Enlargement
near Evanston was initiated in 1984 and constructed in 1986. Design of
the Twin Lakes Enlargement for the Sheridan water supply was started in
1988, permitting was begun in 1992, and construction started in 1996
and was completed in 1998. A 404 Permit application was submitted for
the Tie Hack Dam and Reservoir Project above Buffalo in February 1994,
the permit was issued in March 1996 and the project was completed in
1997. A 404 Permit application was filed in November 1996 for the
Greybull Valley Dam and Reservoir. The permit was issued in June 1998
and the project was completed in 2000.
We often learn more from mistakes than we do from successes; in
this regard there are a number of lessons that can be gained from the
Sandstone/Little Snake Supplemental Irrigation Water Supply Project/
High Savery Dam and Reservoir permitting process. The determination of
purpose and need under federal guidelines restricts planning
opportunities and purposes for which a project may be permitted. The
state's acceptance of a project that yields less than a firm supply
should be questioned. This acceptance results in less utility for the
state and for the project's beneficiaries. A better approach would be
to maximize the basin's available hydrology or at least meet the firm-
yield requirements of the sponsor. If the basin hydrology cannot
provide the firm yield, the decision to construct the project should
rest with the state and sponsor and should not become a reason for
permit denial by the Corps. Further, the state should encourage its
Congressional delegation to sponsor legislation that would allow the
state's legislative and planning process to be considered in
establishing purpose and need for construction of dam and reservoir
projects.
If Congress is unwilling to expand the state's role in establishing
the purpose or need for a project, the project sponsor and the state
must work within existing guidelines to maximize opportunities. Working
within either existing or expanded federal guidelines would facilitate
the NEPA analysis, from which all other permitting processes will tier.
The 20,000 acre-feet of water storage for future industrial development
that couldn't be definitively described in the early Sandstone Project
was a permitting problem. There was no specific purpose or need
described for the 20,000 acre-feet of industrial water. Therefore, the
Corps felt that justification for building a reservoir having this
extra capacity and additional adverse environmental impact was
unwarranted. However, it is incumbent on the state and potential
project sponsors not to lose sight of future demands for water that may
only be addressed by constructing new dam and reservoir projects. The
challenge will be to convince regulators, during the permitting
process, that the benefits of constructing a proposed future project
outweigh the adversities; consequently, there is a justifiable
``purpose and need'' for the project.
Developing a reasonable range of alternatives is also very
important in project planning and the NEPA process. Alternatives must
meet the need and purpose for the project and must be capable of being
implemented. It is important to use the NEPA process to help determine
the most appropriate alternative from the set of reasonable
alternatives. Although the Sandstone Project started with a set of
alternatives the one seriously considered was the Sandstone Dam and
Reservoir alternative. When the Corps determined that the Sandstone
alternative could not be permitted, the permitting process stalled
because other alternatives had not been seriously considered. Even
after the project was downsized to match the need, the State, District,
and valley residents wanted to maintain the Sandstone alternative as
the preferred alternative. This caused permitting delays.
The permitting process did not proceed until a reasonable range of
alternatives was developed. Once a reasonable range of alternatives,
including the High Savery alternative, was developed, the project moved
forward to a conclusion within an acceptable timeframe. In other words,
the alternative site and project evaluations undertaken in 1996 put
permitting back on track in 1997. The state successfully secured the
permit to construct High Savery in December 2000.
Cooperative efforts are important for moving projects through the
NEPA and permitting processes. The WWDC and local sponsors should
become cooperating agencies in the NEPA process if possible and if not,
should be allowed to serve on the project EIS interdisciplinary team.
The Corps wasted a great deal of time making decisions on the project
and at times seemed unable to make decisions. These delays not only
postponed the project, they resulted in wasted money. Disagreements at
the state and local level also contributed to delays, and led to
additional costly studies and analyses.
Establishing working relationships with the agencies involved in
the NEPA process and permitting is important to keep the project on
schedule and to avoid costly delays and disagreements. It is impossible
to eliminate all problems associated with permitting dam and reservoir
projects, but good cooperation and communications between agencies and
groups, with an understanding of each participant's expectations, will
help in problem resolution.
Dam and reservoir projects are complex and often controversial, a
dedicated local sponsor or project proponent and a documented ``purpose
and need'' are minimum requirements for success. The primary reason the
High Savery Dam was permitted and constructed is the persistence and
perseverance of the Savery-Little Snake Water Conservancy District and
the residents of the valley. The sponsor's and the state's staying
power prevailed in the end.

Attachment 2: City of Buffalo, Wyoming Case Study

The example of the city of Buffalo illustrates the enormous
difficulties and expense associated with obtaining federal regulatory
clearance requisite for constructing even small and non-controversial
water projects. The mitigation associated with this project illustrates
the unreasonable approaches being taken by federal agencies as a
condition of obtaining needed federal permits. Within Wyoming there are
rarely two projects which have the same or equivalent mitigation
imposed on them. Rather, it appears that as time passes, each new
project has more severe mitigation imposed on it that then becomes the
standard for all subsequent projects. This mitigation ``ratcheting''
creates enormous costs and tremendous uncertainty as has been the city
of Buffalo's experience.
The Buffalo Municipal Reservoir Project is developing a small
municipal supply storage reservoir in the Clear Creek Basin west of
Buffalo. Buffalo's existing water supply is diverted from Clear Creek
about 6 miles west of the city. After project completion, releases from
the reservoir will supplement Clear Creek flow when the direct flow
cannot fulfill Buffalo's water supply requirements. The project is
being funded in part by the Wyoming Water Development Commission, a
state agency.
A Level 11--Phase I report was completed in March 1989. The report
concluded that the preferred development option included a dam and
reservoir at the Lower Tie Hack site on South Clear Creek, a tributary
of Clear Creek. The recommended reservoir size is 2,425 acre-feet and
the estimated cost of the dam and reservoir is $10,650,000. The
reservoir will inundate approximately 60 acres in total, including 8.8
acres of wetlands. In addition, the report indicated that installation
of a $975.000 hydropower generation unit at the downstream end of the
city's water supply pipeline could be economically advantageous. The
hydropower unit is addressed as a separate project, but construction of
both components is required if the total project is to be economically
feasible. The report also noted that the feasibility of the project
would depend on the successful transfer of Buffalo's existing 1933
water right filing for 1,640 acre-feet from Little Sourdough Creek to
the dam site. This transfer was accomplished in 1990.
The process of permitting this facility began in the early summer
of 1992. The arduous and expensive process of obtaining final permits
was not completed for nearly 4 years. The Forest Service special use
permit was issued on February 23, 1996, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Section 404 permit was issued on March 5, 1996. During the
course of the nearly 4-year long ordeal, nearly $1 million was spent in
efforts directly related to obtaining the necessary federal permits.
The mitigation for the 8.8 acres of wetlands has cost in excess of
$1 million. The primary reason the costs for mitigation to the City of
Buffalo were so high is that the US Army Corps of Engineers required a
5:1 ratio for wetland mitigation. The 5:1 ratio is not a scientifically
based figure, but rather an arbitrary figure developed by an individual
within the agency. The City agreed to accept the ratio so that they
might proceed with their project.
______

Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
We will now hear from Mr. Thad Bettner, General Manager of
the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District from Willows, California.
Welcome.

STATEMENT OF THAD BETTNER, GENERAL MANAGER, GLENN-COLUSA
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, WILLOWS, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Bettner. Thank you, Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member
Napolitano, and members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure
to be here before you today. My name is Thaddeus Bettner. I am
the general manager of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, the
largest district in the Sacramento Valley, and one of the
largest districts in the State of California. I am also a
registered engineer in the State of California.
Notwithstanding the seniority of our water rights, which
date back to the 1880s, securing new storage is critically
important to GCID and all water users in the Sacramento Valley.
I want to focus on three issues in my verbal testimony today:
one, why we need additional storage; two, our experience in
working with the Sites Reservoir project; and three, going
forward, how the Federal Government could help advance new
storage projects.
New storage is vitally important because the Central Valley
Project, which we have one contract with, and our diversions
are closely intertwined. Both the CVP and the State water
project have lost storage capacity and yield, as well as
operational flexibility. That yield and flexibility has eroded
over time, due to increased contractual obligations, increased
water demands to meet both the needs of endangered species, and
also the Federal wildlife refuge system.
Currently, the CVP is looking at four projects, as
Congressman Costa said: Sites Reservoir, which I will speak of
today; Shasta Expansion; Temperance Flat; as well as Los
Vaqueros, all projects that we support.
We do not need much in the way of additional storage or
water supplies in the Sacramento Valley. But without new
storage, the pressure on our existing supplies will continue to
grow. The state's population, as already said today in
testimony by Members, continues to increase, as well as the
reallocation that the environment increases.
As far as Sites is concerned, GCID is one of 7 local
agencies that joined together in August of 2010 to form the
Sites Project Joint Powers Authority, which is a cooperative
agency, along with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department
of Water Resources. Growing concerns and the delays and costs
associated with the Sites Project, as well as a need for a
local voice, led to the formation of the Sites JPA.
Since Fiscal Year 2002, Reclamation has spent approximately
$12.7 million studying--Sites Reservoir study and feasibility
study, and DWR has spent millions more in addition to that.
Unfortunately, despite the significant expenditure of time and
effort, we find ourselves in a place where it is difficult to
articulate the benefits of the project and environmental
context, and how the costs and how the benefits would be
allocated within the project.
Nonetheless, we do know that Sites--the 1.8 million acre-
foot total storage project for Sites would generate an average
annual yield of 400,000 to 600,000 acre-feet of new water in
both the dry and critical year, and in addition will generate
nearly 900,000 acre-feet of additional storage in Shasta,
Orville, Folsom, and Trinity Reservoirs through system
integration. The slide that is up on your screen shows the
different types of benefits that would accrue. And this slide
shows, in the months through the months in October and
September. So this would be the end of storage, or additional
storage that would be added at the end of the water year to
those different reservoir projects. So we see system
integration as vitally important.
In terms of how we reduced regulatory and bureaucratic
barriers, I would like to highlight three. First, agencies with
the environmental review process for new supply projects should
be required to develop a simpler approach to alternatives
analysis. In the case of Sites, Reclamation DWR investigated 52
different project alternatives. However, we now have 3
configurations that we are currently looking at. And
incredibly, these were the same three configurations looked at
in the 1960s.
Second, NEPA should permit project costs to be considered
in open fashion before the environmental review process is
complete. We need to make certain that projects can make it
through the environmental review process, have beneficiaries
public and private, and someone can afford to pay for them.
And third, lead Federal agencies should determine very
quickly in the process how they are going to participate in a
project. Will they simply be a project participant, or will
they actually be constructing the project? In my mind, that is
one of the most vital decisions that needs to be made early on
in the process.
Finally, we need to look at--Congress should explore more
methods of highly leveraging limited Federal funding in order
to do more with less. Specifically, Congress should authorize
Reclamation to provide innovative financing similar to the
TIFIA program. Under TIFIA, the Federal Government helps
finance large-scale projects and helps to leverage local funds
to build those projects. The water infrastructure version of
TIFIA would greatly benefit a wide variety of large-scale water
supply projects like Sites.
I would encourage this Committee to give any such propose--
careful consideration to that proposal. And I will take any
questions. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bettner follows:]

Statement of Thaddeus Bettner, PE, General Manager,
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District

Thank you Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, and
Members of the Subcommittee; it is a pleasure to appear before you this
morning. My name is Thaddeus Bettner, and I am the General Manager of
the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID), the largest irrigation
district in the Sacramento Valley and the third largest irrigation
district in the State of California. GCID covers approximately 175,000
acres in Glenn and Colusa Counties, and is located about 80 miles north
of Sacramento. Our district contains a diverse working landscape
including a variety of crops such as rice tomatoes, almonds, walnuts,
orchards, vine seeds, cotton, alfalfa, and irrigated pasture. Just as
important, we convey water to three Federal wildlife refuges totaling
more than 20,000 acres, and also deliver water to more than 50,000
acres of seasonally flooded wetlands. GCID is a Sacramento River
Settlement Contractor and diverts water directly from the Sacramento
River through the largest flat plate fish screen in the world. GCID's
Settlement Contract was first entered into in 1964 and it resolved
disputes with the United States related to the seniority of GCID's
rights over those of the United States and, in fact, allowed the US
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to obtain water rights from the
State Water Resources Control Board for the Central Valley Project.
GCID's water rights originated with a filing in 1883 for 500,000
miner's inches under 4 inches of pressure, one of the earliest and
largest water rights on the Sacramento River. Other Sacramento River
Settlement contracts were also entered into among water right holders
on the Sacramento River and Reclamation.
Notwithstanding the seniority of our water rights on the Sacramento
River, securing new storage is critically important to GCID, Sacramento
Valley water users and the state as a whole. In this context, I want to
focus on three issues: (1) why we need additional storage in the
Sacramento Valley; (2) our experience working to advance Sites
Reservoir, an up to 1.8 million acre-foot capacity offstream north-of-
the-Delta reservoir; and, (3) going forward, how the federal government
can help advance new storage projects.

The Importance of Storage
New storage is vitally important to GCID and all of Northern
California because the federal Central Valley Project (CVP), which our
water diversions are intertwined with, and the State Water Project have
both lost water supply yield and operational flexibility. That yield
and flexibility has eroded over time due to increased contractual
obligations and increased water demands to meet the needs of endangered
species and the state and federal refuge system.
We do not need much in the way of additional water supplies in the
Sacramento Valley, but without new storage, the pressure on our
existing water supplies will continue to grow. The State's population
continues to increase and the reallocation of water to environmental
uses is expanding. This reality continues to play itself out,
especially given that no new investments in the development of
additional water supply or storage have occurred. For water users north
of the Delta, in the area of origin, the ever-increasing demand for
water, coupled with no new storage, represents a threat to the vitality
of irrigated agriculture in the Sacramento Valley, our local
environment including the protection of the Pacific Flyway, and our
groundwater system which sustains our rivers, creeks and streams. A
strong agricultural sector and healthy environment depend heavily upon
a certainty of water supply. Disrupt that certainty, allow the strain
on existing water supplies to persist, and investments in agriculture
will not be as readily forthcoming. That lack of investment translates
into a dim future for agriculture and continued instability in water
supplies, which will threaten the economic health of the state as a
whole.

The Sites Experience
The North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage (NODOS) investigation is a
feasibility study being carried out by the California Department of
Water Resources (DWR) and Reclamation, in partnership with local
interests. The study emanates out of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program's
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Report Record of Decision.
One of the alternatives under consideration includes three
configurations of a dam and reservoir located about 10 miles west of
the town of Maxwell, California, and otherwise referred to as Sites
Reservoir.
Since Fiscal Year 2002, Reclamation has spent approximately $12.7
million on the Sites feasibility study alone and DWR has spent many
millions more. Unfortunately, despite this effort and the many promised
benefits that would result from the Sites project, we still find
ourselves in a place where it is difficult to clearly articulate the
benefits of the project, the costs, and how the project will be funded.
The funding to date has allowed the agencies to complete a number of
important reports, such as a project scoping report produced in 2002,
an Initial Alternatives Information Report completed in 2006 and a Plan
Formulation Report finalized in 2008. The agencies are scheduled to
release a draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report (EIR/EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a draft Feasibility
Report in the summer of this year, if the Administration approves the
administrative draft in a timely fashion. However, the scheduled
completion date for the final EIR/EIS and Feasibility Report is another
year away, with a scheduled Record of Decision being issued by the end
of 2013. We are hopeful that these dates can be met, but they will
depend on funding to complete the work and the political will to make
key decisions, at both the federal and state levels.
While part of the delay is certainly due to the complexities
associated with multiple state and federal agencies being involved in
the project, other delays are attributable to shifting environmental
requirements. For example, delays in completing the Sites project
environmental review process are attributable in part to changes in
operational conditions described in the Central Valley Project
Operations Criteria and Plans (OCAP) Biological Opinions (BOs) in 2004/
2005 and then again based upon a Biological Opinion from U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service regarding the Delta Smelt issued in 2008. In both
instances, DWR and Reclamation had to go back and remodel the project,
based on the revised BOs. As Reclamation's Mid-Pacific Regional Office
noted in a letter to ``Interested Parties'' in May 2009, ``Changes are
continuing so rapidly that our studies and reports are not keeping
pace.''
This new information did not, in fact, change the fundamentals of
the project. The fundamentals of the project remained sound, but the
process stalled, in spite of the best efforts of Reclamation and DWR,
further increasing costs and further delaying the availability of the
many benefits a Sites Reservoir will provide.
Growing concerns about the delays and costs associated with the
Sites project as well as the need for a local voice, led to the
formation, in August of 2010, of the Sites Project Joint Powers
Authority (Sites JPA). The Sites JPA, which includes Glenn County,
Colusa County, Reclamation District 108, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation
District, the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority, Maxwell Irrigation
District and Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
was formed with the stated purpose of establishing a public entity to
design, acquire, manage and operate Sites Reservoir and related
facilities to improve the operation of the state's water system. The
Project would also provide improvements in ecosystem and water quality
conditions in the Sacramento River system and in the Bay-Delta, as well
as provide flood control and other benefits to a large area of the
State of California. The formation of local JPA's was included as a key
provision in the 2009 California Water Package Water Bond legislation
for the purposes of pursuing storage projects that could be eligible
for up to 50% of project funding for public benefits.
As the Sites JPA began working with Reclamation and DWR, the JPA
took a common sense approach. The JPA worked with Reclamation and DWR
to put together what we refer to as Foundational Formulation
Principles. In other words, first identifying the needs of the water
operations system and then designing the project that would meet those
needs. We conceived a project that would be integrated with the system
we already have, but one that would also operate effectively regardless
of future operational changes, such as conveyance to south-of-Delta
exporters. The JPA wanted to maximize the benefits associated with our
existing infrastructure, and provide as much benefit as possible to
both the existing state and federal water projects at the lowest
feasible cost.
We approached the Sites project with the goal of making the best
possible use of limited resources, and in the end, we believe we have
identified a project that is both affordable and will provide
significant benefits. It maximizes ecosystem benefits consistent with
the State water bond, which states that at least 50 percent of the
public benefit objectives must be ecosystem improvements. Other
benefits include water supply reliability, water quality improvements,
flexible hydropower generation, recreation and flood damage reduction.
In short, we approached the Sites project with the goal of generating
water for the environment while improving statewide water reliability
and regional sustainability in Northern California, and we believe we
have achieved that goal.
One of the greatest environmental benefits of the project is a
greatly expanded cold water pool that would be created in upstream
reservoirs. Flow modifications to manage river temperatures, habitat
conditions and flow stability would be greatly enhanced with a
constructed Sites Reservoir.
A 1.8 million acre-foot capacity Sites Reservoir, for example,
would generate an average annual yield of 400,000 to 640,000 acre-feet,
in dry and critical years, and in addition would provide nearly 900,000
acre-feet of additional storage in Shasta, Oroville, Folsom and Trinity
Lakes during the operationally important months of May through
September through the system integration and operation.
Our experience with the Sites project has revealed at least three
bureaucratic and regulatory challenges. First, the environmental review
process that Reclamation is forced to deal with through existing
federal law does not support the common sense approach that the JPA has
attempted to pursue on the Sites project. Under NEPA, a great deal of
time and money is expended on studies and analysis of multiple inferior
alternatives to the original purpose and need statement, only to use
the EIS process to eliminate these lesser alternatives and arrive back
at the project that you originally proposed as the solution with the
greatest benefit for the dollars expended.
In the case of the Sites project, Reclamation and DWR initially
investigated and considered 52 alternative reservoir sites before
identifying Sites Reservoir as the preferred location for an offstream,
north-of-Delta storage reservoir. That iterative screening process was
completed in 2008, yet some have recently suggested that even that
process was carried out too quickly and perhaps the agencies should
have taken even more time to examine still other sites before narrowing
the list to three separate storage configurations at the Sites
location. Ironically, the three configurations being evaluated today in
the EIR/EIS are very similar to the project originally envisioned in
the 1960's.
Second, although the Sites project would provide significant
benefits in any operational environment, the environmental review
process does not accommodate the real-world requirement that any new
water supply project be flexible in, and responsive to, a constantly
evolving regulatory environment. As noted above, any changes to the
operating criteria for the federal and state water projects resulted in
a requirement to develop new models to reflect those changes, when, in
fact, the Sites project benefits remained constant regardless of the
new demands for environmental water.
Finally, under NEPA, the costs of alternatives are not considered
until after the environmental review documents are completed. In our
view that is just not a practical way to develop a project. In the case
of water supply, you can end up with a project that no one can afford,
sacrificing any opportunity for even incremental storage benefits. The
process must consider project costs, both the total costs and how the
project is going to be paid for, earlier in the process.

Recommendations for Advancing New Water Storage Projects
Reduce Regulatory and Bureaucratic Barriers
In his 2011 State of the Union Address, and again in August 2011,
President Obama called for further steps to enhance the efficient and
effective permitting and environmental review of infrastructure
development ``through such strategies as integrating planning and
environmental reviews; coordinating multi-agency or multi-governmental
reviews and approvals to run concurrently; setting clear schedules for
completing steps in the environmental review and permitting process;
and utilizing information technologies to inform the public about the
progress of environmental reviews as well as the progress of Federal
permitting and review processes.''
All of these are worthy goals, but in water resources development,
at least in California, there is little evidence that these goals are
actively being implemented and turned into new practices.
Our experience with the Sites project suggests the following steps
to reduce regulator and bureaucratic barriers are worthy of
consideration:
1. Statutory Directives._Adopt statutory directives for all
relevant departments and agencies to work with the states and local
water supply agencies to make it a priority to improve the efficiency
of the regulatory and permitting processes associated with water supply
projects. Attitudes are important in the agencies, and even without
mandatory deadlines, statutory directives would encourage the agencies
to make it a priority to streamline the environmental review process.
2. Statutory Deadlines._Establish statutory deadlines where
appropriate for the completion of the environmental review process. For
example, federal agencies should expeditiously review and approve
administrative drafts that then can be publicly released as a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Once a draft EIS is released, the
agencies should be required to establish a timeframe within which the
EIS and even a Record of Decision will be finalized.
3. Greater Coordination._Require all federal agencies with a role
in preparing and reviewing NEPA documents for water storage or water
resources projects to coordinate their reviews concurrent with one
another. Earlier and better coordination is essential to resolving
conflicting standards and avoiding unnecessary project delays.
4. Alternatives Analysis._Agencies with a role in the
environmental review process for new water supply projects should be
required to develop a simpler approach to alternatives analysis.
Streamlining this process can save money and time without sacrificing
the legitimate need to thoroughly explore project alternatives or
project sites that will cause the least negative environmental impact.
5. Costs._NEPA should permit project costs to be considered in an
open fashion, before the environmental review process is complete.
Currently, Reclamation relies upon Feasibility Studies to examine the
costs and allocation of benefits. We need to make certain that the
projects that make it through the environmental review process have
beneficiaries, public and private, that can afford to pay for them.
6. Federal Role._Lead federal agencies should determine their role
in a project as soon as practicable. In water storage projects, as with
other major infrastructure projects, there is growing interest in
public-private partnerships and non-federal water supply development,
in general, that may rely upon a combination of public dollars, private
equity, government-backed financing and the like. If Reclamation is a
customer for the benefits of a project rather than the developer of the
project that should also create an opportunity to further streamline
the regulatory and environmental review processes.
7. Budgeting._Regulatory and environmental streamlining means that
more funding resources may be needed upfront to enable agencies to
accelerate the review process and establish realistic schedules. Our
experience with Sites suggests that Reclamation's relatively modest
budget requests over the years for the Sites study process, at a
minimum, did not permit the study to proceed on an optimum schedule.
This does not mean the agencies need to spend more overall, however.
Limited funds should be prioritized to support completing the study and
review process in a timely fashion.

Innovative Financing -Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(WIFIA)
Finally, Congress should explore methods of highly leveraging
limited federal funding in order to increase its impact and, in effect,
do more with less. Although federal funding for water infrastructure
projects is already leveraged in the form of local matching
requirements for federal grants, this leverage can be increased by
developing innovative, market-based financing tools that provide
significant financial savings for localities while shifting the bulk of
financial risk from the taxpayer to the private sector.
Specifically, Congress should authorize Reclamation to provide
access to long-term, low interest credit assistance modeled after the
highly successful Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act (TIFIA) program, which has been operated by the Department of
Transportation (DOT) since 1998. Under TIFIA, the federal government
helps finance large-scale and costly infrastructure projects by
leveraging each dollar of federal funding into $10 of credit assistance
and $30 of infrastructure investments. The $122 million authorized for
TIFIA, the level authorized in the last transportation reauthorization
bill, has allowed the program to provide $1.22 billion in credit
assistance and help finance $3.66 billion in transportation
infrastructure improvements annually.
The program provides eligible applicants with access to long-term,
up to 40-year, financing at low interest rates. Currently, the TIFIA
interest rate is 3.14 percent for a 35-year repayment period (the
program provides for a five-year window after substantial completion of
a project where no repayment is required). On large projects, like the
Sites project, which is currently estimated to cost $3.2 billion, every
saved tenth of an interest point would translate to millions of dollars
in local savings.
Under TIFIA, projects are selected by DOT for funding based upon
the extent to which they generate economic benefits, leverage private
capital, and promote innovative technologies, among other objectives.
Projects do not need to be congressionally authorized to be eligible
for TIFIA financing, however, under current law, TIFIA financing is
limited to no more than 33 percent of total project costs. Efforts are
underway to raise this ceiling to 49 percent of total project costs,
and that is something that we would support in any similar WIFIA
program authorization.
The TIFIA credit program offers three separate forms of financing
for eligible transportation projects. The program can offer direct
loans that offer flexible repayment terms to cover construction and
capital costs of a project. TIFIA can also provide loan guarantees to
enable institutional investors, such as pension funds, to make loans to
the project sponsor. Finally, TIFIA can offer lines of credit to
projects to represent contingent sources of financing, in the form of
direct federal loans, to supplement project revenues and make it easier
for the project to attract financing from the private sector.
Finally, I would simply note that TIFIA enjoys strong, bipartisan
support and it is noteworthy that both the House and Senate versions of
the transportation reauthorization bill, including the bill that was
released last week by Chairman John Mica, recommends increasing the
annual TIFIA authorization level from $122 million to $1 billion
annually. Both bills similarly recommend raising the ceiling on TIFIA-
eligible financing to 49 percent of total project costs. This will
allow the program to provide $10 billion annually in long-term, low
cost credit assistance.
Again, a water infrastructure version of TIFIA would greatly
benefit a wide variety of large-scale water supply projects, like
Sites, and I encourage the Committee to give any such proposal careful
consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
______

Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Jerry Brown, General Manager
of the Contra Costa Water District from Concord, California to
testify.
Welcome.

STATEMENT OF JERRY BROWN, GENERAL MANAGER,
CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT, CONCORD, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Napolitano, members of the Subcommittee. I would like to thank
you for this opportunity to discuss what it takes to build new
surface storage, and submit to you that my testimony can be
equally applied to building any large water supply project in
today's world.
My first message is that the 100,000 acre-foot Los Vaqueros
Reservoir completed in 1997 is a model for what it takes to
build new surface storage. Following severe drought years in
the 1970s and 1980s, the CCWD Board of Directors determined
that CCWD could not wait for the State and Federal Government
to solve its problems. In 1988, CCWD customers approved a $450
million bond measure to build Los Vaqueros Reservoir.
Even as an offstream reservoir, the project included
measures to protect sensitive Delta fish species. The CCWD
Board ensured that a net environmental benefit was provided to
the Delta with this project. As evidence of the success, only
one Delta smelt has been taken at Los Vaqueros in almost 15
years of project operation, and CCWD's intake is in the same
vicinity as the unscreened export pumping facilities.
My second message is that the 160,000 acre-foot Los
Vaqueros Reservoir expansion provides further evidence that the
model works. Studies on the expansion were initiated as part of
CALFED. In March 2004, 62 percent of CCWD customers voted in
favor of the measure and to move forward with the expansion
project.
Reservoir expansion alternatives up to 275,000 acre-feet
were examined in the final EIR/EIS, which was approved by both
the CCWD Board and Reclamation in 2010. The CCWD Board decided
to move forward on the initial phase of expansion up to 160,000
acre-feet, and construction began in 2011. The initial phase of
expansion is being funded by CCWD. The project also has the
potential to provide benefits to other local water agencies.
My third message, while there are added regulations and
constraints as compared to previous areas of dam construction,
successful implementation of large water projects is still
possible. For LV and LVE, comprehensive public and stakeholder
outreach was implemented. This goes way beyond websites,
newsletters, legally required public hearings. Over 65 public
meetings and hundreds of informal meetings were held with
stakeholders to provide project information and to identify and
address concerns. As evidence that issues were successfully
addressed, only 60 comment letters were received on the draft
EIR/EIS, and the final EIR/EIS was completed without legal
challenge.
Redirected impacts to others must be avoided, and affected
stakeholders, including fish and wildlife agencies, need to be
involved in the project development. CCWD and Reclamation
developed a coordination agreement that ensures that operation
of the expanded reservoir will not injure other CVP
contractors, and that ensures CCWD's objectives will be met in
a way that actually helps the CVP in its operations.
More recently, CCWD has worked closely with East Bay MUD to
jointly develop new drought supply solutions involving Los
Vaqueros as an alternative to enlargement of the onstream
Pardee Dam.
Like many projects, there were numerous options for the
expansion of Los Vaqueros, ranging from 160 to 500,000 acre-
feet. The sizes that moved forward were, one, affordable for
the need; two, allowed further expansion at reduced cost; and
three, avoided oversizing. There is no doubt that more is
better. But more right now is not always best for right now. A
275,000 acre-foot expansion for CCWD alone did not meet the
good business practices test. A lot of that storage would be
unused now, and it would be put--and it would put a financial
burden on ratepayers.
However, the 160,000 acre-foot reservoir was sized for
right now. It is affordable. Its capacity will be used. It
provides flexibility so CCWD can use some of that capacity to
help other Bay Area water agencies. And it is easily expandable
to 275,000 acre-feet. To be successful, a solid business case
must be made, even if it means staging the project to deal with
uncertainty.
December 2014 is the current schedule for preparation of
the Federal feasibility study for the reservoir expansion up to
500,000 acre-feet. Recent studies have identified greater needs
for surface storage, as well as opportunities for regional
cooperation. Future expansion of Los Vaqueros is consistent
with the co-equal goals of the Delta Plan. It meets the public
benefit requirement within the California water bond. And CCWD
is continuing to work with Reclamation and DWR to complete
analysis necessary to identify the most cost-effective
alternative for future reservoir expansion.
I would like to thank the Committee for this opportunity,
and I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

Statement of Jerry Brown, General Manager, Contra Costa Water District

Chairman McClintock and Members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), I would like
to thank the Committee for this opportunity to discuss what it takes to
build new surface storage and submit to you that my testimony can be
equally applied to building any large water supply project in today's
world.
CCWD serves water to over 500,000 people in eastern and central
Contra Costa County. Among CCWD's customers are a number of large
industries of national importance, including oil refineries, chemical
plants and steel mills. CCWD diverts all of its water supply from the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in Northern California and delivers it via
the Contra Costa Canal, which is owned by the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and was the first part of
the Central Valley Project (CVP) built by Reclamation in the 1930s.
CCWD is one of the largest Municipal and Industrial CVP water supply
contractors and operates the Contra Costa Canal under a contract with
Reclamation. CCWD has worked closely with Reclamation on both water
operations and capital projects for over seventy years.
Because CCWD is located in the Delta, at the hub of California's
water supply system, CCWD is intimately involved in state-wide water
planning, and has been an active participant in all the major Delta
activities of the last thirty-five years, including the 1976-77 and
1987-1992 droughts, the Bay-Delta Accord of 1994, the CALFED effort,
and into the present era of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan and the
Delta Stewardship Council's Delta Plan.
The experiences of CCWD over the past 20 years are evidence that
new surface storage infrastructure can be built. Almost one billion
dollars have been invested in new assets in the ground by CCWD during
this timeframe. Most significantly and with regard to the focus of this
hearing, in 1997, CCWD completed 100,000 acre-feet of new, off-stream
surface storage at Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and is currently
constructing the enlargement of that reservoir to 160,000 acre-feet. In
addition, CCWD completed several Delta water quality projects on behalf
of CALFED, and CCWD is replacing the four mile long, earth lined
portion of the Reclamation owned Contra Costa Canal with a large
diameter pipeline. That project will improve water quality, help
Reclamation meet Delta water quality standards, and reduce the risk of
floods in the Delta from a failure of the canal embankment that was not
designed to meet current levee standards for flood protection and
earthquake safety. Other projects successfully undertaken by CCWD
include constructing significant upgrades and expansions of our water
treatment plants, constructing two new Delta intakes with state-of-the
art fish screens that improve water quality and reliability for our
customers, and, together with Reclamation, constructing fish screens at
our oldest water intake to the Contra Costa Canal at the western end of
the Delta.
CCWD has undertaken all these projects during an uncertain period
when completing water projects in the Delta or its watershed has been
extremely difficult. CCWD did not complete all of these projects alone.
Our partnership with Reclamation, and with state agencies including the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB), has been instrumental in these
accomplishments. CCWD and Reclamation have worked closely to achieve
the construction and enlargement of Los Vaqueros Reservoir. CCWD and
Reclamation are continuing the feasibility study for a further
expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir, up to 500,000 acre-feet. A number
of Bay Area water agencies have expressed interest in Los Vaqueros for
their current and future drought storage needs. By building on these
partnerships, CCWD believes that future storage projects can be
successful.

The 100,000 acre-foot Los Vaqueros Reservoir was completed in 1997; it
is a model for what it takes to build new surface storage.
Following severe drought years and associated periods of very poor
Delta water quality in the 1970s and 1980s, the CCWD Board of Directors
determined that CCWD could not wait for the state and federal
governments to solve CCWD's problems. In 1988, CCWD customers approved
a local bond for $450 million to build the Los Vaqueros Reservoir.
Throughout development of the reservoir project, CCWD worked with other
Bay Area water agencies to explore partnership opportunities, but these
agencies were not able to commit to a partnership in the project
implementation and CCWD moved forward with securing new water rights
and constructing the 100,000 acre-foot reservoir on its own. As it
turned out, the need for storage did not diminish and at the time the
reservoir was being completed, CCWD, working with others in the CALFED
program, found that future expansions of the reservoir could be
accommodated.
Water conflicts were just as chaotic at the time the original Los
Vaqueros Reservoir was being planned and constructed as they are now.
California was in the midst of a severe drought, delta smelt and
winter-run salmon were being listed under the Endangered Species Act,
and processes were underway to require additional flows for fishery
protection in the Delta and San Francisco Bay. The primary purpose of
the original Los Vaqueros Project was to provide a consistent level of
high quality drinking water and adequate emergency storage in case of
earthquakes, Delta levee failures, and other disasters. CCWD was able
to turn that purpose into an asset during the permitting process. As an
offstream reservoir, the project purposes also included design and
operational measures to protect sensitive Delta fish species and the
CCWD Board of Directors ensured that a net environmental benefit was
provided for the Delta with this project. Since the reservoir has been
operational, CCWD customers have enjoyed consistently high quality
water and improved emergency readiness, all while CCWD contributes to
improved Delta fishery conditions. As evidence of the significance of
this point, only one delta smelt (a larva) has been taken at the Los
Vaqueros intake in almost 15 years of project operations, and CCWD's
intake is in the same vicinity as the unscreened export pumping
facilities. A key point here is to recognize that, to be successful, a
project must be developed to provide a net environmental benefit to
ensure sustainability, as opposed to maximizing extraction without
concern for impacts on the natural system.

The 160,000 acre-foot Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion will be
completed in 2012; it provides further evidence that the model
works.
Studies on the expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir were initiated
following the completion of the CALFED Record of Decision in May 2000
with funding provided by Reclamation and DWR. In 2001, CCWD entered
into the Los Vaqueros Memorandum of Understanding with several local,
state, and federal agencies participating in the expansion studies to
document the common understanding for open and transparent evaluation
of project alternatives. In March 2004, 62 percent of CCWD customers
voted in favor of Measure N and authorized the expansion project to
move forward.
While the reservoir expansion studies were ongoing, CCWD and
Reclamation prepared an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) to evaluate the stand-alone benefits of a
new CCWD intake in the Delta to further enhance water quality and
operational flexibility of an expanded Los Vaqueros Reservoir. The
Middle River Intake Project was approved and construction was completed
in 2010 with additional financial support from DWR and the SWRCB in
recognition of statewide benefits from the new intake. Like the Los
Vaqueros Project, CCWD's operations with this intake provided an
additional reduction in CCWD's impacts to Delta fisheries through
timing of operations that measurably reduced impacts and the screening
of local agricultural intakes. The addition of a new intake also
mitigated for impacts on CCWD water quality which would be incurred due
to a reservoir outage during a multiple year construction period while
the reservoir is enlarged.
Reservoir expansion alternatives up to 275,000 acre-feet were
examined in the Final EIS/EIR prepared jointly by CCWD and Reclamation
in 2010. The larger reservoir alternatives were determined to improve
water quality, provide drought supply, and protect Delta fisheries.
However, decisions on local agency partnerships continued to lag behind
statewide decisions on Delta conveyance solutions while local and state
funding remained limited. The CCWD Board of Directors decided to move
forward on an initial phase of expansion up to 160,000 acre-feet and
construction began in 2011. Although the initial phase of expansion is
being funded by CCWD to improve drought supply and water quality, the
project also has the potential to provide benefits to other local water
agencies. CCWD is continuing to work with potential local water agency
partners in the initial expansion project to explore short term and
long term opportunities to improve drought supply. As with the Middle
River Intake and the original Los Vaqueros Project, the operations with
the expanded reservoir also provide benefits to Delta fisheries.

What it Takes to Build Large Water Projects: listening to and adjusting
for the interests of partners and stakeholders, not redirecting
impacts, providing net environmental benefits, and having a
strong business case.
Over the past two decades CCWD has found that, while there are
added regulations and constraints as compared to previous eras of dam
construction, successful implementation of large water projects is
still possible. The hurdles may seem insurmountable, but it is possible
to get permits and approvals, identify funding, and construct projects
on schedule and within budget. Some of the key elements that have been
part of CCWD's ``recipe for success'' are described below.
Broad Stakeholder Involvement. CCWD developed comprehensive public
and stakeholder outreach plans at the early stages of project
development. The approach goes way beyond web sites, newsletters, and
legally required public hearings. For the Los Vaqueros Reservoir
Expansion Project, CCWD held over 65 public meetings and hundreds of
informal meetings with stakeholders to provide project information and
to identify and address concerns. It is not sufficient to simply hold
public meetings without addressing the issues raised: the meetings were
used to hear concerns and develop solutions that were then incorporated
in the project to address those concerns. CCWD formed both a Customer/
Stakeholder Feedback Group and an Agency Coordination Work Group to
keep key stakeholders and agencies informed well ahead of the release
of the Draft EIS/EIR. CCWD spent many hours developing relationships
with the media, legislative staff, water agencies, environmental
groups, and other stakeholders to resolve issues. The evidence that
issues were successfully addressed is that only 60 comment letters were
received on the Draft EIS/EIR for the project (a large fraction of
which concerned the desire for more bicycle trails in areas unrelated
to the project), significant opposition was avoided, and the Final EIS/
EIR was completed without legal challenge.
CCWD also focused on building and maintaining strong working
relationships with local, state and federal agencies throughout the
development of the reservoir and Delta intake projects. These
partnerships provided access to state and federal funding when possible
but they also enhanced coordination with the CVP and State Water
Project customers. As a result of the partnerships, CCWD and
Reclamation worked together to develop a coordination agreement that
ensures that operation of the expanded reservoir will not injure other
CVP contractors and that ensures CCWD's objectives will be met in a way
that actually helps the CVP in its operations. This agreement was
instrumental in building trust and creating a project that did not just
ensure no harm to others, but actually provides benefits to others.
More recently CCWD has worked closely with the East Bay Municipal
Utility District (EBMUD) to jointly develop new drought supply
solutions involving Los Vaqueros Reservoir that are included in their
December 2011 Draft Revised Program EIR for EBMUD's Water Supply
Management Program 2040 as an alternative to enlargement of the on-
stream Pardee Dam.
Avoidance and Mitigation of Environmental Impacts. CCWD found early
on that modern water projects need to go beyond avoidance of impacts
and basic mitigation techniques. CCWD develops projects that avoid
redirected impacts to others and invites the affected stakeholders to
review project analyses well in advance of publication of a Draft EIS/
EIR. This transparency and technical collaboration results in the most
creative and effective project design. Again, it is not sufficient to
simply show the analysis to others: listening to their concerns and
addressing them in a way that is satisfactory is essential. The
previously mentioned coordination agreement with Reclamation is an
example: it started as a way to directly address concerns of potential
harm but actually concluded as a way to provide mutual benefits. Where
impacts cannot be avoided, such as inundation of habitat due to
reservoir inundation, CCWD developed comprehensive mitigation
strategies to enhance regional habitat assets and provide habitat
corridors to maximize environmental benefits. CCWD worked closely with
the fish and wildlife agencies, independent environmental experts and
environmental and land use stakeholder groups to apply practical
experience as well as the latest scientific information.
Making a Strong Business Case. Like many projects, there were
numerous options for the expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir, ranging
from 125,000 acre-feet to 500,000 acre-feet. Each size range fit a
particular need or set of needs and had its own costs. The sizes that
moved forward 1) were affordable for the need; 2) allowed further
expansion at reduced cost to a higher level; and 3) avoided unused
capacity. These are important factors. There is no doubt that ``more is
better'' but ``more'' right now is not always best for right now. A
275,000 acre-foot expansion for CCWD alone did not meet the ``good
business practices'' test: a lot of that storage would be unused now,
although it would put a financial burden on ratepayers. However, the
160,000 acre-foot reservoir was perfectly sized for ``right now'': it
is affordable, its capacity will be used, it provides flexibility so
that CCWD can use some of that capacity to help other Bay Area water
agencies on a short or long term basis, and it is easily expandable to
275,000 acre-feet. The simple fact is that opposition to a project is
generated when a proponent cannot make a good business case, or a
project alternative that does the same job at lower cost with fewer
impacts is available but not selected. To be successful, a solid
business case must be made, even if it means staging the project to
deal with uncertainty.

Future Expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir up to 500,000 acre-feet
The Los Vaqueros MOU was recently extended through December 2014 to
coincide with the current schedule for preparation of a Federal
Feasibility Study for reservoir expansion up to 500,000 acre-feet.
Recent studies have identified even greater needs for surface storage
as well as additional opportunities for regional cooperation. Future
expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir is consistent with the co-equal
goals of the Delta Plan (it is included in the Draft Delta Plan) and it
meets the public benefit requirements of the proposed California Water
Bond currently planned for November 2012. CCWD is continuing to work
with Reclamation and DWR to complete engineering, operations,
environmental, and economic analyses necessary to identify the most
cost-effective alternative for future reservoir expansion.

What is Required to Move Forward on Future Reservoir Expansion
Moving forward with the next stage of expansion will require
adequate funding for completion of the Federal Feasibility Study,
decisions on Delta conveyance, regional cooperation and participation
in project development, partnership and cost share agreements,
continued outreach and stakeholder coordination, resource agency
engagement and support, and strong leadership and advocacy. Patience,
endurance, and hard work will continue to be required given the long
lead time for major surface storage projects.
______

Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you for your testimony. The
Chair is pleased to yield to the gentleman from Idaho, Mr.
Labrador, to introduce our next witness.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Napolitano, for convening this important hearing today. I want
to welcome my good friend, Norm Semanko, who is the Executive
Director and General Counsel for the Idaho Water Users
Association. And I welcome him today and thank him for
testifying at this hearing.
Today's topic is a high priority of our state. Reducing the
burdensome regulations that the Federal Government has imposed
is critical to the vitality of our nation. The American people
continue to be strapped by the bureaucracy and the many layers
of protocols and other hindrances that continue to cause our
Federal deficit to skyrocket. I commend the Chairman for
convening this hearing today so we can shed some light on
existing statutes that should be modernized. I believe that
protecting our environment can be done in a manner which
doesn't impede our economic growth. It is time that we improve
our regulatory structure so that we can continue to prosper as
a nation.
And I look forward to listening to your testimony today.

STATEMENT OF NORM SEMANKO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND GENERAL
COUNSEL, IDAHO WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, BOISE, IDAHO

Mr. Semanko. Thank you, Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member
Napolitano, members of the House Water and Power Subcommittee,
and certainly Congressman Labrador, thank you for the great job
that you continue to do representing Idaho, water users
included. And thank you all for the opportunity to be here.
When you look back in Western history, the Federal
Government was not a barrier to water development. It was a
catalyst. First came the Carey Act in 1894, encouraging private
investment in water storage and delivery projects. Then,
beginning in 1902, Reclamation commenced building water
development projects across the West. These water projects led
to homesteading and important developments in the West, and
promoted the economic development of the West.
Today, however, the emphasis in Reclamation projects has
shifted from construction of dams and reservoirs to the
operation and maintenance of existing Federally owned
facilities. Without new sources of water, increasing urban and
environmental demands will deplete existing agricultural
supplies and seriously threaten the future of Western-irrigated
agriculture drying up farmland and the rural communities
dependent on the agricultural economy.
Increasingly, state and local governments, as well as
private interests, are stepping forward to advance the
possibility of new storage projects. Unfortunately, Federal
environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act, the Endangered
Species Act, NEPA, and others continue to be used to threaten
previously developed water supplies and to prevent any future
water development for countless farms, ranches, and cities, and
not just in the West.
One key concern voiced by water users in the West relates
to the administrative policy-making occurring within EPA and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that will make it even tougher
to accomplish what is already a daunting challenge.
For example, EPA Region IV is implementing new guidelines
that focus on proposals that contemplate developing additional
storage capacity due to projected future demands. These
guidelines were developed to inform local governments and water
utilities of the actions EPA expects them to take ``in order to
eliminate or minimize the need for additional capacity before
consideration of a water supply reservoir project on a stream
or river.''
Before EPA considers a water supply reservoir as an
alternative to address the need for additional water capacity,
the water utility must take actions to ensure that, to the
maximum extent practicable, they are implementing sustainable
water management practices. While these guidelines have been
adopted only by Region IV, we don't know yet if similar
standards will be proposed for the Western United States.
The Endangered Species Act provides numerous barriers
significant enough to doom a water project. In most cases, only
the courts can intervene. And in the past, many have used the
courts for the very purpose of scuttling a particular project.
In the California Bay Delta, as well as the Klamath Project in
Oregon and California, the ESA was used to physically shut off
water to irrigated agriculture and other water users to protect
ESA-listed fishery resources, using science that has been shown
by the National Academy of Science in both cases to be
questionable.
In my home state of Idaho, 487,000 acre-feet of Federally
developed water supplies have been supplied annually in an
attempt to meet river flows downstream annually to comply with
Federal Endangered Species Act requirements with little if any
benefit to listed salmon stocks.
More Federal and state, local coordination is needed in
order to progress--for progress to be made on projects that
enhance water supplies to meet unmet demands. In settling the
cases of the past, there have been onerous requirements put on
water users. We are hoping for a different outcome in Idaho.
Our state is taking the leading role in pursuing the
possibility of new water storage projects in cooperation with
the Corps of Engineers. The Idaho Water Resource Board has
authorized studies of both raising Arrowrock Dam on the Boise
River and building a completely new dam, Galloway, on the
Weiser River, both tributary to the Snake River. The Arrowrock
raise, which would nearly double the existing storage space to
600,000 acre-feet, would provide additional water supplies for
the growing Boise region, as well as needed flood control space
and environmental enhancements. The Galloway Project, which
could provide as much as one million acre-feet of storage,
could provide important benefits for downstream fish, while at
the same time freeing up water in other parts of the Upper
Snake River Basin for other important needs.
Looming on the horizon for both of these Idaho projects is
the ESA. The Boise River includes a dubious designation for
bull trout critical habitat, all but guaranteeing a tricky
section 7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service. And
for the Arrowrock raise, downstream and fish listings will
require additional section 7 consultations with National Marine
Fishery Service.
For more than 100 years, Western water policy has stood out
as one of the modern era's great successes. Sound Federal
policies are needed going forward that will encourage and
enhance continued investment in new water supply enhancement
projects, rather than risking diminished domestic food
production and weakened urban and industrial growth. Western-
irrigated agriculture is a strategic and irreplaceable natural
resource, and we must continue to protect and enhance it.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Semanko follows:]

Statement of Norman M. Semanko, Executive Director & General Counsel,
Idaho Water Users Association, Inc., Boise, Idaho

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, and members of the
House Water and Power Subcommittee, my name is Norm Semanko and I am
here on behalf of the Idaho Water Users Association (IWUA). I am the
Executive Director and General Counsel of IWUA, and I appreciate the
opportunity to provide testimony today on the important topic of the
need for new water storage and the development of new water supplies in
the Western U.S. and the many regulatory challenges we face in trying
to build new water projects today.
IWUA is a statewide, non-profit association dedicated to the wise
and efficient use of water resources. IWUA has more than 300 members,
including irrigation districts, canal companies, water districts,
municipalities, hydropower companies, aquaculture interests,
professional firms and individuals. Our members deliver water to more
than 2.5 million acres of irrigated farm land in Idaho. We are
affiliated with both the National Water Resources Association and the
Family Farm Alliance.
When you look back in Western history, the federal government was
not a barrier to water development--it was a catalyst. First came the
Carey Act in 1894, encouraging private investment in water storage and
delivery projects, in exchange for the patenting of up to a million
acres of federal land in each state. This led to several successful
projects, including the construction of Milner Dam on the Snake River
and two other private dams that together provide water to approximately
400,000 acres of irrigated ground in the south central region of Idaho.
Then, beginning in 1902, the federal Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) commenced building water development projects across the
West. In Idaho, the early projects included Minidoka, Arrowrock and
Owyhee Dams, to name just a few. Most of the large water storage
facilities we currently depend upon for our water supplies in the West
came about as a result of Reclamation's construction years.
These water projects led to homesteading and important settlements
in the West, and promoted the economic development of the West.
Reclamation has constructed more than 600 dams and reservoirs including
Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia
River.
Today, Reclamation is the largest wholesaler of water in the
country, bringing water to more than 31million people, and providing
one out of five Western farmers with irrigation water for 10 million
acres of farmland, producing 60% of the Nation's fresh vegetables and
25% of its fruit and nut crops.
Reclamation is also the second largest producer of hydroelectric
power in the western United States. Reclamation's 58 powerplants
annually provide more than 40 billion kilowatt hours generating nearly
a billion dollars in power revenues and producing enough electricity to
serve 3.5 million homes.
The total Reclamation investment for completed project facilities
is approximately $11.0 billion. The Family Farm Alliance, a Western
irrigated agriculture advocacy organization whose Advisory Committee I
serve on, has estimated that over $60.0 billion in economic benefits
are provided to the U.S. economy annually as a result of the irrigated
agriculture and dependent rural economy developed in the West, with $12
billion of annual economic value provided by the initial $11 billion
investment in Reclamation projects.
Today, however, the emphasis in Reclamation programs has shifted
from construction of dams and reservoirs to the operation and
maintenance of existing federally-owned facilities. Reclamation's
redefined official mission is to ``manage, develop, and protect water
and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound
manner in the interest of the American public''.
Reclamation's efforts to develop and manage water today are
centered on water conservation and improved management in stretching
existing supplies to meet the many burgeoning water demands of growing
cities and environmental laws and regulatory requirements. Reliance on
our aging water storage facilities, many built at the turn of the last
century, has never been more acute. But shrinking federal budgets due
to efforts to reduce the national debt have and will continue to all
but eliminate the traditional federally-constructed water storage
project.
Yet, as a result of increased demands for existing water supplies,
interest in new storage projects continues to increase at the local and
state level to replace these lost supplies. Without new sources of
water, increasing urban and environmental demands will deplete existing
agricultural supplies and seriously threaten the future of Western
irrigated agriculture, drying up farmland and the rural communities
dependent on the agricultural economy. Increasingly, state and local
governments, as well as private interests, are stepping forward to
advance the possibility of new water storage projects.
Unfortunately, federal environmental laws such as the Clean Water
Act (CWA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have been, and continue to be, used to
threaten previously developed water supplies and to prevent any future
water development for countless farms, ranches and cities, and not just
in the West. Even in the Southeastern U.S., where significant droughts
have in some years all but dried up water supplies for cities, farms,
energy providers and the environment in the past, these federal laws
are being used to control, if not eliminate the construction of water
storage facilities vital to the economic and environmental survival of
the region.
We also understand that there can be significant barriers to local,
state and private development of additional storage in our Western
watersheds as a result of the implementation of federal laws and
regulations.
My testimony will focus on three major areas of concern on
potential barriers to the planning and development of new water storage
facilities in the West and how we can work to reduce or eliminate these
barriers:
Federal regulation under the Clean Water Act and the
Endangered Species Act;
Administration environmental policies and processes;
and,
The changing federal role in water infrastructure
development.

Clean Water Act
One key concern voiced by water users in the West relates to
administrative policy making occurring within the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
that will make it even tougher to accomplish what is already a daunting
challenge: the obvious need to develop new water supplies to meet the
growing water demands.

Anti-Storage Bias
For example--EPA Region 4 (which covers the Southeastern U.S.)--is
implementing new guidelines that focus on proposals that contemplate
developing additional storage capacity due to projected future demands.
These guidelines were developed to inform local governments and water
utilities of the actions EPA expects them to take ``in order to
eliminate or minimize the need for additional capacity before
consideration of a water supply reservoir project on a stream or
river.'' EPA will also use these guidelines to evaluate water demand
projections for new or significantly increased public surface water
withdrawals or public ground water supply wells which are being
reviewed through the National Environmental Policy Act or EPA programs.
The Clean Water Act permit process requires a clearly stated
project purpose, which for water supply reservoirs includes a projected
demand analysis to support additional water capacity needs, and an
analysis of alternatives. Before EPA considers a water supply reservoir
as an alternative to address the need for additional water capacity,
the water utility ``must take actions to ensure'' that, to the maximum
extent practicable, they are implementing ``sustainable'' water
management practices, which consist of effective water management,
water pricing for efficiencies, water use efficiency measures, and
watershed approaches.
According to EPA Region 4, these measures ``are designed to help an
applicant eliminate the need for, or reduce the impacts to aquatic
resources from future water facility expansions including the
construction of water supply reservoirs.'' The EPA guidance further
states: ``Any applicant for a reservoir project will be expected to
conduct an extensive analysis using this approach in developing their
water demand projections and alternative analysis and provide a
thorough discussion of reservoir needs after analysis of these
measures.''
While these guidelines have been adopted only by Region 4, we don't
yet know if similar standards will be proposed for the Western U.S. In
August 2010, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter sent a letter to EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson describing the cooperative/collaborative
efforts regarding the Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Project, which
involved numerous interests representing municipal, environmental and
agricultural entities and would result in an additional 20,000 acre-
feet of storage space for consumptive uses in the Denver metro area.
Although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers supported the proposed
reallocation plan, in June EPA Region 8 staff stated they would deny
it, and recommended that the ultimate decision be elevated to higher
levels in Washington, D.C., even though the preferred project
alternative was simply a reallocation of flood space to active storage
within an existing storage facility.
``I am greatly concerned that a disagreement between two federal
agencies could result in denial of a project so important to Colorado
and fifteen of our communities,'' Gov. Ritter wrote Administrator
Jackson. The governor also asked that EPA proceed with ``a thoughtful
and transparent process that does not prejudge a project but instead
balances important civic and environmental needs.''
In a turn of events during October of 2010, the EPA Region 8
Administrator announced that EPA was now ``comfortable with the
approach taken by the Corps in the preliminary draft CWA 404(b)(1)
analysis''. While this was good news for project proponents, it took
months of hard work and direct action by the Colorado Governor himself
before EPA stood down from their initial position of no new water
storage. Many projects with similar benefits may not be so lucky.

Water Quality Standard Setting
Setting water quality standards is usually a state responsibility,
and EPA should not usurp that important role. Updating water quality
standards, especially for nutrients, could prove both controversial and
costly, as ``numeric'' nutrient pollution standards have not been
universally used and/or accepted. Yet, EPA has shown a preference for
such standards in Florida and other states where they have taken a more
aggressive role, despite the absence, in many cases, of any proven
nexus between the regulated parameters and the identified designated
water body use being protected.
Significant progress has been made since enactment of the landmark
Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act almost forty years ago. The
enhanced quality of our surface waters and the greater safety of our
drinking water are testaments to decades of environmental protection
and investment. Of course, other challenges remain, and EPA has
indicated that it intends to ``work more aggressively'' to reduce and
control pollutants that are discharged from industrial, municipal,
agricultural, and stormwater point sources and nonpoint sources. Agency
actions along these lines could become significant impediments to any
new water resource development projects.

Endangered Species Act
The ESA provides numerous barriers significant enough to doom a
water project. In most cases, only the courts can intervene, and in the
past many have used the courts for the very purpose of scuttling a
particular project. In the California Bay Delta, as well as the Klamath
Project in Oregon and California, the ESA was used to physically shut
off water to irrigated agriculture and other water users to protect
ESA-listed fishery resources, using science that has been shown by the
National Academy of Science in both cases to be questionable.
In my home State of Idaho, 487,000 acre-feet of federally developed
water supplies have been supplied annually in an attempt to meet river
flows downstream annually to comply with federal endangered species
requirements, with little, if any, benefits to listed salmon stocks.
This water could have been used to produce crops, recharge our
aquifers, or provide for growing cities and industries.
While we need to develop more water storage in the areas of the
West where the ESA drives conflict, pitting competing demands against
each other for the same water source, that very statute could also be
used to prevent the development of water supplies necessary to meet its
own requirements for additional streamflows for listed species.
More federal, state and local coordination is needed in these
circumstances in order for progress to be made on projects that can
enhance water supplies to meet unmet demands. On the Santa Ana River in
Southern California, for instance, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
recently ``settled'' an ESA-driven court case challenging the Service's
decisions over critical habitat (habitat deemed necessary for the very
survival of a species listed by the ESA as threatened or endangered)
for the listed Santa Ana Sucker.
In settling the case with the environmental plaintiffs, the Service
greatly expanded critical habitat in the area of the river that
included many miles of essentially dry river bed located directly below
the Seven Oaks Dam, a Corps facility authorized to protect this area
from high river flows during flood periods. The water districts in the
area, which have seen reductions in water supplies imported from the
California Bay Delta due to ESA restrictions, have been developing
their own in-basin water supplies by perfecting water rights on the
Santa Ana River resulting during a flood event. The districts are
applying to the Corps for a change in release patterns from the Dam in
order to store flood waters in the groundwater aquifers under their
water right for later use in the basin.
According to the Service, the area was deemed critical habitat to
protect gravel recruitment to downstream spawning areas in the river,
again using science that is less than robust. In order to move that
gravel, streamflows would need to exceed levels that would cause
serious flood damage downstream on the Santa Ana River, where millions
of people live--Orange County, California--contradicting the very
purpose of the federal flood control project and negating the
development of crucial in-basin water supplies by flushing water away
from the water districts' water storage project.
In Idaho, our state is taking the lead role in pursuing the
possibility of new water storage projects, in cooperation with the
Corps of Engineers. The Idaho Water Resource Board has authorized
studies of both raising Arrowrock Dam on the Boise River and building a
completely new dam, Galloway, on the Weiser River, both tributary to
the Snake River. The Arrowrock raise, which would nearly double the
existing storage space to 600,000 acre-feet, would provide additional
water supplies for the growing Boise region, as well as needed flood
control space and environmental enhancements. The Galloway project,
which could provide as much as one million acre-feet of storage, could
provide important benefits for downstream fish while at the same time
freeing up water in other parts of the Upper Snake River Basin for
other important needs.
Looming on the horizon for both of these Idaho projects is the ESA.
The Boise River includes a dubious designation for bull trout critical
habitat, all but guaranteeing a tricky Section 7 consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Arrowrock raise, while
downstream anadromous fish listings will require additional Section 7
consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service for both
projects.
The heavy-handed approach taken by the Service on the Santa Ana
River, and the potential for similar confrontations across the West,
will continue to threaten water supply enhancement projects unless
cooperation and collaboration can be instituted as the new paradigm.
Many times, endangered aquatic species can be managed and protected
without resorting to the scientifically unjustified reallocation and
inefficient use of water originally developed for irrigation and urban
uses. Collaborative efforts such as habitat conservation plans or other
resource management tools can protect species and water supplies, but
it takes willing parties, and a cooperative attitude, to work together
outside of the courtroom to accomplish these goals.

Administration Policies
The often slow and cumbersome federal regulatory process is a major
obstacle to realization of projects and actions that could enhance
Western water supplies. We must continue to work with federal agencies
and other interested parties to build a consensus for improving the
regulatory process, instead of using administrative channels that
create new obstacles.

Watershed Planning
The EPA has included, through its strategic planning process,
provisions that drive the development of state watershed implementation
plans. We are concerned with how these plans may impact existing and
ongoing watershed planning efforts being conducted at the state and
local levels, many of which include plans for new storage facilities.
Thousands of watershed councils exist throughout the West and they are
engaged in a variety of water conservation and environmental
restoration projects which could be derailed or delayed by the
imposition of new federal planning requirements.
Water users are active participants in these efforts and have a
large stake in ensuring that these regional projects continue. It is
unnecessary and a waste of public resources for EPA to develop and
impose new watershed planning programs, especially if storage
components are affected by federal top-down planning efforts. In
addition, EPA needs to be cognizant of the difference between water
quality regulation under the Clean Water Act and water resource
management which is conducted pursuant to state law.
Also, the current process of rewriting the federal Principles and
Guidelines, now known as Principles and Requirements, by the
Administration through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) will
impact future storage projects by enhancing the ``value'' of
environmental impacts and mitigation. Many times, environmental process
and mitigation requirements already account for between 30% and 50% of
a water supply development project's total cost, and by adding
additional emphasis on environmental impacts these new ``requirements''
can drive a project's cost beyond affordable levels.
In a time when our nation is struggling to return to the path of
economic prosperity, we cannot support the creation of a new federal
watershed planning program, particularly for those states that have
existing, productive watershed programs in place. Federal participation
should be channeled through existing state programs, rather than
creating uncertainty through cumbersome new federal requirements which
threaten to derail important water quality and water conservation
projects already underway. And the principles for analyzing water
projects from the federal perspective must not inflate the costs of a
project by overvaluing environmental impacts.

NEPA Reviews
NEPA is used throughout the federal government whenever a federal
decision is made committing resources to a water project, including
awarding a CWA permit for construction under federal and state laws.
NEPA has traditionally been implemented in a very ``stove-pipe'' sort
of manner, with each federal agency addressing the process individually
for the same project, and with very little coordination or
communication.
In implementing NEPA in a manner that can allow water projects to
move forward, the federal agencies need to do a better and more
consistent job of defining and characterizing cumulative impacts for a
project. As it currently stands, the characterization used by agencies
to define cumulative impact is many times unreasonably subjective,
sometimes leading to superfluous challenges to the NEPA process that
can delay the process and increase costs.
These agencies must eliminate redundant environmental review
processes. Projects subject to NEPA analysis should only have to
proceed through the environmental review process once. For example, if
NEPA is completed on a water resources infrastructure project by one
agency (e.g., the Bureau of Reclamation) then a second process should
not be imposed by another agency on the same project (e.g., the Corps
of Engineers when they consider an individual Clean Water Act Section
404 permit). Many times the alternatives proposed for assessment by
federal NEPA regulators are inappropriate, unrealistic, difficult-to-
implement, and often in conflict with state law.
In addition, federal agencies not directly involved in a project's
NEPA process often end up attempting to ``veto'' the final analysis
Record of Decision at the eleventh hour, causing untold days and weeks
of delays and additional costs involved in resurrecting a defensible
project. This approach is inexcusable as these agencies are all part of
one federal government and should act accordingly, coordinating efforts
and concerns from the beginning of the process, not at the very end.
On December 7, 2011, CEQ released draft NEPA guidance that outlines
the following principles for agencies to follow when performing NEPA
environmental reviews:
NEPA encourages simple, straightforward, and concise
reviews and documentation;
NEPA should be integrated into project planning
rather than be conducted after planning is complete;
NEPA reviews should coordinate and take appropriate
advantage of existing documents and studies;
NEPA reviews should use early and well-defined
scoping to target environmental reviews to appropriate issues
and avoid unnecessary work;
Agencies should develop meaningful and expeditious
timelines for environmental reviews; and
Agencies should target their responses to comments to
appropriate issues raised.
While the overall philosophy embedded in the above principles seems
appropriate, it is difficult to see how the proposed guidance will
actually change the status quo. There appears to be nothing in the CEQ
draft guidance that is likely to have any impact on how agencies
approach their NEPA responsibilities. A more direct linkage to
``pilot'' NEPA efforts could give stakeholders and Congress a way to
set goals, track successes and showcase innovations in implementing
these principles, but short of clearly identified and coordinated
efforts that include benchmarks and outcomes, these principles may or
may not be heeded by the agencies.

Innovative Financing
As I indicated earlier in this testimony, the traditional federally
constructed and funded water supply project is no longer practical or
affordable, given the need to reduce the nation's debt. States, local
government and private interests are increasingly stepping forward to
fill the void. But that doesn't mean the federal government cannot be a
partner in supporting water supply projects in the future. State, local
and private entities can and will step up to pay for future water
development projects, but the cost of federal requirements for such
projects must be reduced to affordable levels.
If the federal government and Congress are no longer willing or
able to fund the construction of water supply development projects,
then they should not expect the local beneficiaries to pay for
expensive mitigation and environmental enhancement components usually
required by federal agencies in permitting construction of these
facilities.
Obviously, the federal laws that govern environmental oversight and
permitting will not be rolled back anytime soon; therefore, the federal
government should work to develop additional tools that can be helpful
in financing these projects to meet local, state and federal needs and
requirements. Innovative financing tools, such as longer-term, low or
no-interest loans and loan guarantees to enhance and leverage
additional private financing, can be useful in expanding the
availability of funding for water storage projects.

Conclusion
For more than 100 years, Western water policy has stood out as one
of the modern era's great successes. Water supply developments took
large areas of the West that were considered uninhabitable and made
them so, while producing an agricultural economy envied by the rest of
the world. Today, we still enjoy the fruits of the investments our
forefathers made in water storage and delivery infrastructure. Our
challenge will be how we meet the continuing challenges of maintaining
these aging facilities, the needs of growing populations (both water
supply and food production), and the ever-increasing environmental
requirements and restrictions of federal laws and regulations.
Sound federal policies are needed that will encourage and enhance
continued investment in new water supply enhancement projects, rather
than risking diminished domestic food production and weakened urban and
industrial economic growth. Relying on agriculture to be a ``shock
absorber'' to soften or eliminate impending water shortage is not smart
planning. Western irrigated agriculture is a strategic and
irreplaceable national resource, and we must continue to protect it by
developing additional sources of manageable water supplies to meet
future demands.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
______

Mr. McClintock. Great, thank you for your testimony.
Our final witness is Mr. Michael Gabaldon, Director of
Technical Resources for the Bureau of Reclamation from Denver,
Colorado to testify.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GABALDON, DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL RESOURCES,
U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DENVER, COLORADO

Mr. Gabaldon. Thank you, Chairman McClintock and Ranking
Member Napolitano, and members of the Subcommittee. I am
Michael Gabaldon. I am the Director of Technical Resources for
the Bureau of Reclamation out of Denver, Colorado. And thank
you for the opportunity to testify today. My written statement
has been submitted for the record, and I will summarize a few
points and emphasize others in my verbal testimony.
Reclamation is a water supply agency. We provide water,
irrigation water, to more than 10 million acres, and drinking
water to more than 31 million people on an average year. We
have 245 million acre-feet of storage, of surface storage, in
our inventory. And that is in about 350 reservoirs throughout
the West.
As stated in my testimony, Reclamation is still actively
studying surface water storage where it makes sense. In fact,
we have 19 storage feasibility studies going on right now
underway in the West, and those are in various stages of--in
the process. More are in the Pacific Northwest region, some are
at the appraisal level, not requiring congressional action.
Others are feasibility studies with long legislative history.
No one really knows how many of those are going to get to
actual construction; a lot of additional steps are still
required, are still ahead of those studies, not least of which
congressional action for the ones that are found to be
feasible. As stated on page two of my testimony, most of the
easy projects were built a long time ago.
And, as the Subcommittee is very aware, the bar has been
set pretty high for projects today, as we have already heard.
What is known is that Reclamation management and recreation
activities result in an annual impact to the national economy
of about $55 billion, which supports nearly about 416,000 jobs
every year. Not bad for an agency that only has $1 billion of
appropriated funds.
Reclamation is the largest water supplier in the country.
We are proud of the traditional mission, and we see it
continuing in the long term. Reclamation's mission today
includes many new priorities. To illustrate that fact I would
point out that since 1990 Congress has enacted just 13
Reclamation surface storage studies or construction projects.
But in the same period Congress has added to Reclamation's
assistance portfolio 53 locally owned water recycling projects,
12 rural water projects, 13 river restoration projects with
their own specific legislation, a national drought relief
program, and a national desalination program, and various other
authorities.
Reclamation is up to the challenge. But it is a testament
to the fact that real-world water managers and their
representatives in Congress believe in a number of different
ways to get water to people who need it. Surface storage is
just one piece of the puzzle. I know that some members of the
Subcommittee, as well as my fellow witnesses here today are
keenly interested in four large surface storage projects
underway in California. Several of them have been mentioned
already: the Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Project; Los
Vaqueros expansion north of the delta storage; and Shasta Dam
enlargement.
I have talked to staff at our Mid-Pacific region on those
projects, and have--some of our technical staff in Denver are
playing a very direct role on those studies. I will try to
answer as many questions about those studies as I can, but my
day-to-day job is in Denver.
I will also point out I am an engineer, I am registered
both in New Mexico and Colorado. I have worked as an engineer.
I started my career with the Bureau of Reclamation at Ridgeway
Dam as a construction engineer. I have been--I have designed
some elements of the Animas-La Plata Project. I have worked on
dams at Ochoco Dam in Oregon, and also the Minidoka replacement
powerplant. So I am very familiar and very aware of storage and
how important storage is to our portfolio. I am not a NEPA
process expert or a planning expert. So, in some cases, as
questions come up in those areas I may have to respond to
questions for the record.
To sum it up, Reclamation is committed to surface storage
where it is practical, where it is physical, legal, and
financial conditions make sense for that storage project. It is
part of our past, it is very much part of our past. It is very
much part of our present and our future. And we are happy to
talk to the Subcommittee today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gabaldon follows:]

Statement of Michael Gabaldon, Director of Technical Resources, Bureau
of Reclamation, Denver Technical Center, U.S. Department of the
Interior

Chairman McClintock, members of the Subcommittee, I am Mike
Gabaldon, Director of Technical Resources at the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) in Denver. I am pleased to provide the views of the
Department of the Interior (Department) on the role of new surface
storage in Reclamation's water resources planning.
Understanding what goes in to creating new Reclamation surface
storage requires an understanding of Reclamation's history. Reclamation
was authorized with the signing of the Reclamation Act of 1902 by
President Theodore Roosevelt. The Act's first words created a source of
funding within the U.S. Treasury, and declared its purpose to be ``the
examination and survey. . .and the construction and maintenance of
irrigation works for the storage, diversion, and development of waters
for the reclamation of arid and semiarid lands in the said States and
Territories. . .''. With the enactment of the Reclamation Act, the
United States set about the creation of dozens of projects that
ultimately did far more than just provide water for irrigated
agriculture. Power supplies, municipal water, new economies and
eventually whole cities grew up around Reclamation projects in places
like Boise, Idaho; Spokane, Washington; Las Vegas, Nevada; Casper,
Wyoming; El Paso, Texas and many other places.
For decades during the early 20th century, Reclamation surveyors
and engineers scoured the 17 western states for the best dam sites,
working to bring water to as many farms as possible. Wide distribution
of the public domain was a goal established earlier by the Homestead
Act of 1862, which had offered virtually free land to families in
parcels of 160 acres. The language of the Reclamation Act of 1902,
before subsequent amendments, provided wide discretion to the executive
branch to withdraw land, study and construct projects. With an emphasis
on rapid growth and development, Reclamation labor and contractors
built or modernized nearly half of our current dam portfolio in the
first 38 years of Reclamation's existence, with 231 dams complete or
under construction by 1940.
In Reclamation's early years, Congressional interest in projects
was intense and development proceeded briskly. However, limitations in
technical understanding and different societal priorities at the time,
resulted in little or no consideration being given to environmental
impacts, or the rights of native Americans. As a result, many of the
early Reclamation projects brought unintended consequences that would
be mitigated and litigated for decades, continuing into the present
day.
With enactment of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act in 1965
(Public Law 89-72), the process of authorizing and constructing large
Reclamation dams changed dramatically. Section 8 of the Act stated,
``Effective on and after July 1, 1966, neither the Secretary of the
Interior nor any bureau nor any person acting under his authority shall
engage in the preparation of any feasibility report under reclamation
law with respect to any water resource project unless the preparation
of such feasibility report has been specifically authorized by law. .
.''. The rate of Reclamation projects authorized had ebbed and flowed
over the years, but with enactment of PL 89-72, projects now required
more Congressional action before proceeding. Some began to think that
Reclamation's heyday was over, and with the enactment of the Recreation
Act, after 1966, all surface storage projects would require individual
Congressional authorization before proceeding, a requirement that
continues to remain in force.
Today, with more than 100 years of additional Congressional
direction on top of the 1902 Act, the current mission of the Bureau of
Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related
resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the
interest of the American public. Reclamation still studies, constructs
and maintains large surface storage projects, when authorized by
Congress, and in fiscal year 2012, Reclamation has a construction
budget of more than $180 million for a variety of projects. But surface
storage in the construction budget has been joined by dam safety, and
the modernization or repair of infrastructure built years ago. For many
reasons--political, economic, social--the construction of traditional
surface storage projects is undertaken on a much more limited basis
than in decades past. And new societal priorities and advancements in
scientific knowledge support increased focus on ecosystem restoration,
adverse impact mitigation, efficient management, rural water,
wastewater reclamation, and conservation. These priorities have become
central parts of the Reclamation mission today, and some of them yield
significant quantities of new water supply in a very cost efficient
manner.
There are roughly three dozen Reclamation dam projects
i, project features or other storage facilities across the
West that were authorized by Congress but, for one reason or another,
were never funded or constructed. The stories vary, but the most
frequent reasons center around economics or an inadequate potential
water market associated with the given facilities. In other cases,
environmental, safety or geologic challenges came to light during a
project's development, and rendered its construction, completion or
operation unfeasible. Political opposition often contributed, leaving
the facilities ``on the books'' awaiting further action, but with
external events and new priorities passing them by.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ Narrows Dam and Reservoir, Charleston Dam and Reservoir, East
Mesa Flood Detention Dike, McDowell Mountain Tunnel, Orme Dam and
Reservoir, Powerplant, Pumping-Generating Plant, and Canal, San Pedro
Aqueduct, San Pedro Pumping Plant, Lower Colorado River Water Salvage
Project, Moapa Valley-Muddy Creek Project, Virgin River Dam, Dikes, and
Reservoir, Auburn Dam, Folsom South Canal (not fully completed), County
Line Reservoir and Folsom-Malby Conduit not completed, Allen Camp Dam
and Resevoir, Lookout Diversion Dam, Swifts Corral Dam and Reservoir,
Paiute Dam and Reservoir, Paiute-Lead Lake Canal, Allerman Canal
Enlargement and Extension, Watasheamu Dam, Reservoir, and Powerplant,
Carson Canal, West Fork Dam and Reservoir, Palmer Lake, East High Canal
with regulating Black Rock and Michigan Prairie Dikes, Crooked River
Diversion Dam, Harper Dam and Reservoir, Yoder Dam and Reservoir, North
Side Unit Pumping, Sexton Dam and Reservoir, Teton Dam and Power and
Powerplant, Dayton Dam and Reservoir, Animas Mountain Dam and
Reservoir, Loma Extension Division, Norwood Tunnel, Larrabee Dam and
Reservoir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Washington State, Reclamation and the Washington Department of
Ecology studied the Black Rock Reservoir surface storage site for
nearly five years during the 2000s, with the aim of securing existing
irrigation supplies, improving fish habitat and meeting future
municipal and industrial needs. In the end, construction costs
approaching $8 billion, a poor cost benefit ratio, and concerns about
seepage that could mobilize contaminants at a nuclear waste facility
rendered the Black Rock Reservoir site infeasible. Reclamation, in
partnership with Washington State, continues to evaluate other water
supply strategies, including surface water storage options, in the
context of an integrated plan for the Yakima River basin.
In California, the Auburn Dam surface storage reservoir was studied
and actually entered construction, but has never been completed. It was
authorized in 1965 as a multi-purpose facility by Public Law 89-161,
and after the completion of studies and design, Reclamation commenced
construction in 1972. In 1975, a magnitude 5.7 earthquake occurred
about 50 miles northwest of the dam site near the state of California's
Oroville Dam. Reclamation halted construction and eventually concluded
that while the Auburn facility could be re-designed to withstand likely
seismic activity, the resulting costs exceeded the Congressional cost
ceiling, and dramatically changed the project's economics. As of this
date, Congress has not passed legislation to amend the project
authorization or increase the cost ceiling. And the California State
Water Resources Control Board cancelled Reclamation's water rights
permits for the project in 2008.
As indicated, not every proposal for new surface storage pans out.
Nevertheless, Reclamation has not abandoned surface storage proposals,
or the role of surface storage in a diverse portfolio of water
management solutions. We continue to study them in areas where
conditions are viable, and Congressional authorization exists, and
where the prospective environmental benefits outweigh the impacts.
In May of 2011, Reclamation's Mid-Pacific Region provided a
briefing to staff of this Subcommittee regarding four surface storage
studies underway in California which, as currently configured, could
provide 3.75 million acre-feet of new storage if they are authorized,
funded and constructed. They are a raise of the existing Shasta Dam;
expanding the existing Los Vaqueros Reservoir; construction of a new
off-stream facility north of the Delta (NODOS, known locally as Sites
Reservoir); and the construction of a new on-stream facility on the
Upper San Joaquin River. The studies, authorized under separate
legislation, were funded historically as part of the joint state and
federal CALFED Bay-Delta Surface Storage Investigations Program \1\and
federally under the California Bay-Delta Restoration Program in the
President's budget request for the past seven years. Work will continue
in the current fiscal year to bring the studies closer to completion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.water.ca.gov/storage/
CALFED%20Progress%20Report%202010/index.cfm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of the California studies is taking place in an environment of
relentless operational and environmental change, with new biological
opinions, litigation of those biological opinions and court-ordered
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, considerations
about climate change, and widely varying hydrologic challenges inherent
in California water. As of today, Contra Costa Water District has
nearly completed a small expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and
continues to study an even larger expansion for the future. In
addition, the Mid Pacific Region has just released a Preliminary Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Feasibility Study Report for
enlarging Shasta Dam. Public draft reports for a new off-stream storage
facility in Northern California are expected within the year. While
complex and time consuming, Reclamation believes that the expertise it
provides in these studies remain an extremely important contribution to
California's long-term water future. We are committed to seeing the
studies through to completion.
At the same time, Reclamation has underway 12 studies \2\ of major
river basins in the west under the WaterSMART Program, authorized by
the SECURE Water Act in Public Law 111-11. All of these major Basin
Studies will consider structural and non-structural options to supply
adequate water in the future. This will include consideration of
potential new surface storage needs, as directed in the Act at Section
9503(b)(4)(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.usbr.gov/WaterSMART/bsp/studies.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Reclamation surface storage has come on line in Colorado with
the filling last year of Ridges Basin Dam/Lake Nighthorse, built
pursuant to Public Laws 100-585 and 106-554. These laws adapted the
overall Animas-La Plata (ALP) project, envisioned years prior, into a
negotiated settlement of water rights claims by the Southern Ute Indian
and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes in southwest Colorado. The ALP is designed
to supply an average of more than 111,000 acre-feet of water to four
user entities including the tribes in Colorado, and three more in New
Mexico \3\ via a pipeline currently under construction that will supply
water around Shiprock, NM. The capacity of Ridges Basin Dam/Lake
Nighthorse is 120,000 acre-feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/animas/faq.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Reclamation surface storage is also online in southeastern
California, with completion in 2010 of the Drop 2/Warren H. Brock
surface storage reservoir about 30 miles east of El Centro. In 2005, in
cooperation with Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water
District, San Diego County Water Authority and Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (MWDSC), Reclamation completed a study
that identified several potential alternatives to improve system
efficiency on the Lower Colorado River, and this project was the
preferred option. In December 2006, Section 396 of Public Law 109-432
directed Reclamation to ``design and provide for the construction,
operation and maintenance of a regulated water storage facility...at or
near the All-American Canal.'' \4\ With funding provided by Southern
Nevada Water Authority, MWDSC, and Central Arizona Water Conservation
District, in exchange for water credits, work began in 2008 and was
finished on time and under budget. The 8,000 acre-foot facility
conserves previously non-storable flows estimated to be 70,000 acre-
feet per year on average. In 2011 it beat expectations, conserving
121,000 acre-feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/drop2reservoir.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, surface storage projects still happen, but many of the
best sites have been built. And as explained above, they compete for
funds with dozens of other Congressionally-mandated priorities. New
storage projects proceed to completion on a more limited basis than in
decades past. However, we believe that the diversity of 21st century
water challenges in the West calls for a diversity of solutions,
including surface storage projects, that are appropriate,
environmentally and economically sound, and in the interest of the
American public.
This concludes my written statement. I am pleased to answer
questions at the appropriate time.
______

Mr. McClintock. Thank you for testimony. We will now begin
with questioning, and I will yield five minutes to myself to
begin.
Mr. Semanko, we heard from the Ranking Member that the
problem isn't excessive regulation in building new dams, it is
simply lack of money. What is your view of that?
Mr. Semanko. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman--thank you for the
question--I think it is a combination both. Certainly in Idaho
we have seen leadership from the Idaho Resource Board working
with our Federal partners. And I think both the Ranking Member
and Mr. Gardner talked about public-private partnerships and
about Federal-state-local partnerships. And that is what we
need, going forward. We have always had that in the West. That
is why I wanted to point out the Carey Act, because originally
Congress's goal was to encourage the private sector to invest,
then the Federal Government stepped in----
Mr. McClintock. Isn't that the way we used to finance dams?
There would be a revenue bond either issued by the state or by
a local entity, or money would be funded by the Federal
Government, and then that money would be repaid by the users of
these facilities in proportion to their use?
Mr. Semanko. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. And over the years,
the----
Mr. McClintock. Do you think we need to get back to that
process? For example, the Ranking Member rightly criticized the
use of taxpayer funds to subsidize these projects. Again, they
used to be paid for entirely by users. In fact, Title XVI is
paid entirely by taxpayers, which is probably the reason why we
see these projects coming in, averaging twice the cost of
imported waters, because the people that are actually using
that water aren't actually paying for it, it is being paid for
by general taxpayers.
Mr. Gabaldon, you said that there are 19 studies moving
forward right now of dam sites. How many are you actually
building right now?
Mr. Gabaldon. Those are--the 19 that I mentioned are
studies.
Mr. McClintock. How many are you actually building?
Mr. Gabaldon. We are not building any of those 19.
Mr. McClintock. You are not building anything right now.
That is the problem, is you guys spend countless dollars and
endless time studying, and you are now spending absolutely no
time or funding to actually construct these facilities.
But let me ask you this. How many dams are you studying
currently for removal?
Mr. Gabaldon. We are--as far as the original question, we
are recently finished a couple of projects, of storage
projects, the Animas-La Plata that I mentioned. We filled that
last year----
Mr. McClintock. Yes, that is the only one this generation
that is a major reservoir built by the Department of
Reclamation. Now, answer my question, please. How many dams are
you currently studying for removal?
Mr. Gabaldon. For removal we are looking at Klamath
removal. The other project that I am aware of that is looked at
for removal purposes is the one up in the Olympic Peninsula,
Elwha Dam.
Mr. McClintock. And, by the way, are either of those for
safety purposes?
Mr. Gabaldon. The one--no, no.
Mr. McClintock. No, of course not.
Mr. Gabaldon. No----
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Bettner, California currently has one
of the lowest precipitation levels on record, which is quite a
change, as I mentioned, from last year, when we had one of the
wettest years on record. During that period, did Reclamation
spill a lot of water, simply because of a lack of capacity?
Mr. Bettner. Yes. The answer is yes. I can't give you a
definite amount from the last two years. I know for one example
this year, even though it is dry, Reclamation is currently
releasing about 100,000 acre-feet to provide water to--for
temperature control, for winter run. That water is being lost
to the ocean right now. If we had a project like Sites, we
could actually pick up that water and we would be reusing it in
this dry year. So we see some benefits, even in a dry year, for
new reservoirs and system reoperation.
Mr. McClintock. If the current drought continues, what do
you--how do you anticipate this lost water to impact the people
of your region?
Mr. Bettner. Our region, there will be--some of our water
users will experience a cut on the west side of the Sacramento
Valley, and it would probably mostly accrue to users south of
the delta.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Semanko, I know that Idaho is studying
several new water storage projects. How is the Endangered
Species Act going to affect those projects?
Mr. Semanko. Terribly, I am afraid. We have a--I don't know
how else to say it--a bogus designation of critical habitat on
the Boise River. The bull trout are not really threatened. Our
Governor is leading the way in working with Fish and Game and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to see if we can get those fish
delisted. But if that critical habitat designation stays in
place, we are going to have a hard time.
And also, the downstream flow requirements for fish make it
very tricky, and section 7 consultations will be required for
both the Galloway And the Arrowrock raise, so they will be
very----
Mr. McClintock. And don't these dams also provide an
enormous array of environmental benefits?
Mr. Semanko. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. Recreational,
environmental, fisheries, local fisheries, wetlands--if you
took those projects out, you would eliminate Lake Lowell, all
of the recreation that is throughout the Boise and the Payette
Basin. So, yes, absolutely.
Mr. McClintock. Great, thank you. The Ranking Member is
recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Mr. Gabaldon,
in a recent news article it was mentioned that the--with the
exception of Animas-La Plata, a project in southwestern
Colorado, Rec has not built any large dams and reservoirs over
the last generation. Is this accurate?
Mr. Gabaldon. As I stated before, the Animas-La Plata, we
also have the Drop Two Reservoir on the Colorado River. That is
another project, and that is a project that we worked with the
Sierra, Nevada Water Authority along with metropolitan----
Mrs. Napolitano. And while you are at it, will you tell us
what--I am sorry to interrupt, but my time runs--what is the
water savings and what was the Federal expense on that one?
Mr. Gabaldon. Federal expense? The funding was put up by
those entities I was just mentioning, Southern Nevada, Central
Arizona Project.
Mrs. Napolitano. So zero to the taxpayer.
Mr. Gabaldon. Zero to the taxpayer in that case, yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. And the savings in water?
Mr. Gabaldon. Savings of water, we anticipated about 80,000
acre-feet, 70,000 to 80,000 acre-feet per year. Last year it
actually yielded about 100,000 acre-feet of water.
Mrs. Napolitano. And compared to traditional dam projects,
how does that compare?
Mr. Gabaldon. Compared to traditional----
Mrs. Napolitano. Cost versus yield.
Mr. Gabaldon. Animas-La Plata is 120,000 acre-feet of
water, and that cost half-a-billion dollars. So, I mean, just a
comparison there.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Then the third question would be if it
produces that much, what message should we get from the
comparison of one project locally without Federal money, versus
a Federally funded project? What is the takeaway message on
that?
Mr. Gabaldon. As I stated in my testimony, I think the
takeaway message is that the Bureau of Reclamation, we are
still in the business of looking at everything we possibly
could do to get water, conserve water, stretch water--new
technology to storage, to conservation, to water conveyance. It
is all part of that----
Mrs. Napolitano. All of the above.
Mr. Gabaldon [continuing]. As was mentioned earlier.
Mrs. Napolitano. All of the above?
Mr. Gabaldon. All of the above.
Mrs. Napolitano. And how much water has been brought
online, due to the Reclamation's various conservation actions?
And how does this compare to a traditional dam project? And I
am talking about WaterSMART.
Mr. Gabaldon. WaterSMART? The Secretary's goal for
WaterSMART is 490,000 acre-feet of water for 2012. So, just to
put that in perspective.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Brown, Los Vaqueros Reservoir was also
one of the projects identified in CALFED, And is currently
being studied by Reclamation. Recently you have moved forward
to expand the facility yourself. Why?
Mr. Brown. Well, primarily because the 160,000-foot raise
is what we needed to meet our customer needs And provide Bay
Area reliability.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK, but you are moving forward to--was it
the funding issue, also?
Mr. Brown. Well, the amount of money was $100 million for
the extra 60,000 acre-feet, and that is what we were able to
afford with our rate payers paying.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. To any of you, I have not heard
anybody mention Native American water rights, and how that
would affect anything concerning this topic.
Mr. Semanko. I might--Ranking Member, I might offer that
not very many years ago, in 2004, Congress approved the Nez
Perce Water Rights Agreement. And a key part of that was
assuring that there were water rights available both for the
Native American tribes and for other folks. And, as part of
that agreement, there was a recognition that we may need
additional storage going forward, and that additional storage
may actually provide supplies for everyone across the board.
You don't have to fight over the pie if you have other pies and
cakes and cupcakes for everyone. So that was a key part of that
agreement approved by Congress in 2004.
Mrs. Napolitano. But many of the traditional tribes do not
get to be at the table, unfortunately, and that is what I am
finding out.
Now, the percent of recycled water, I agree, to us in
California--to me in California it is very critical. Does
anybody figure out how much percentage it may take to put at
the table with the rest of the other efficiencies to be able to
create more water? And I am talking about real water, not paper
water.
[No response.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Anybody?
Mr. Brown. In our service area, about 10 percent of our
demand is met with recycled water. And we are an advocate of
cost-effective recycling. Not all recycling is good recycling.
There is some that--discharges that are already being
beneficially used by their downstream users. So it just depends
on the project, and it depends on the use.
Mrs. Napolitano. And also--and one of the things I have
learned is sometimes the water runoff from the farms is also
contaminated with pesticides and fertilizers, which does more
damage to the rivers and areas.
Mr. Semanko, the Nez Perce Settlement also allows for more
waterflows for fish, not just ESA?
Mr. Semanko. Ranking Member, that is exactly right. The
487,000 acre-feet was the agreement to settle their claims in
the Snake River Basin adjudication and to provide some
assurances under the Endangered Species Act. That was the
subject of the consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation And
NOAA fisheries. Yes, very much so.
Mrs. Napolitano. So it wasn't just ESA. Thank you, Mr.
Chair----
Mr. McClintock. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr.
Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
Ranking Member bringing up the Animas-La Plata Project. And,
Mr. Gabaldon, when that project was built, that is probably one
of the last--it was stated to be one of the last big projects
to be built. Wasn't that fulfilling the commitment that we had
made to fulfill Indian water rights in the State of Colorado?
Mr. Gabaldon. Yes, it was. It was a settlement agreement.
Mr. Tipton. To be able to do that. Wasn't that project
downsized?
Mr. Gabaldon. It was downsized.
Mr. Tipton. Significantly to Animas-La Plata Lite.
Mr. Gabaldon. Yes.
Mr. Tipton. In your estimation, for Animas-La Plata, the
McPhee Project over Montezuma County, being able to store that
water, wasn't that beneficial, in terms of some of the
commentary that we have heard in regards to the Endangered
Species Act, to be able to actually maintain river flows?
Mr. Gabaldon. I don't know. I am trying to think of the
plumbing in my head. I am not sure how that would have affected
the river flows, so I would have to answer that question for
the record.
Mr. Tipton. Some of the releases--I live there. That has
actually been the case, in terms of what we have been able to
see.
I am a little curious, Mr. Gabaldon, in regards to the
Bureau of Rec had partnered with CSU, Colorado State
University, spending $229,000. And the objective of the study
was to provide information to our state agencies and water
users about the potential of agricultural water transfers to
address increasing urban needs.
I am just--it seems to me that is common sense. We saw
Denver growing, as Mr. O'Toole noted. Why were you spending
money on such a study?
Mr. Gabaldon. I am not familiar with that study. Again, I
will have to answer that one for the record. We often spend
money just to study to look at what the best alternatives are
in some situations. That is probably the case here. But, like I
said, I will have to get that for the record.
Mr. Tipton. OK. And would it be unreasonable--and, Mr.
O'Toole, you might want to jump in on this as well--1950, 1960,
the U.S. Census noted that we had 130 million Americans. Mr.
O'Toole had spoken to the need to have increased agricultural
production to the tune of 70 percent to meet the growing
worldwide population. But just in our country we have grown
from 130 million Americans to better than 300 million Americans
right now. Every one of them probably wants to take a bath, or
going to need one. And we are going to have to be able to have
water to be able to grow those crops.
Wouldn't it be a sensible solution, when we have, as the
Chairman had noted, great snowpack years in California like we
had last year, and even in Colorado, to be able to store more
of that water, just to be able to plan for the future?
Mr. Gabaldon. Absolutely. It would be fantastic if we could
do that. As I stated earlier, we would need congressional
authorization to build those projects, to raise dams, et
cetera. So--and I stated earlier I am an engineer, I have built
dams. So I would more than--would like to see more of those.
Mr. Tipton. You are an engineer. And a lot--you build
things, you want to be able to make them work. Do you see ways
to be able to streamline this process? Because we heard a
variety of testimony that was going on in terms of redundant
regulations, road blocks that are being put up, increasing
costs.
I have a great concern in my district for our farm and
ranch community, for senior citizens on fixed incomes. We are
unnecessarily increasing water costs, which becomes a back door
tax increase on struggling Americans that are trying to be able
to provide for their families. Do you have some recommendations
on how we can streamline this process?
Mr. Gabaldon. There is--the processes are founded in law,
founded in regulations. It has been mentioned earlier the
Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, NEPA, et cetera.
Those are the law, that is the law of the land. We need to
comply with them, just as----
Mr. Tipton. But as you noted, there are regulations in
there that can certainly be addressed from administrative
levels.
So, Mr. O'Toole, would you like to jump in on this?
Mr. O'Toole. Yes, sir. And let me say in the last month I
took a trip through the Navajo Nation from Cortez, Colorado
down through--into Arizona, and have met with the head of
farming for the Navajo Nation. They have now the capability to
go from 70,000 to 110,000 acres of irrigated land. It is all
infrastructure.
And I think a hearing like this is so important to
understand that we have to make a recommitment to that
commitment we made generations ago. It is important to have
rural infrastructure. The light--the Animas-La Plata Lite that
you referred to, sir, that would have had the ability to expand
many acres in Colorado, if the original vision had been
completed.
And I think we went through a period where we kidded
ourselves that we could live without infrastructure. We can't.
The Platte River Dams were built during the Roosevelt
Administration, not Franklin. They are 100 years old.
Mr. Tipton. OK----
Mr. O'Toole. The infrastructure has to be dealt with, and
we have to have new storage to be able to complete our vision.
And the numbers in this think tank thing that I have been
asked to participate in went from--in the year that I have been
there--from 9.2 to 9.6 billion----
Mr. McClintock. I am sorry, Mr. O'Toole, I am going to have
to cut you off.
Mr. O'Toole. Yes----
Mr. McClintock. Time has expired, plus. Mr. Costa?
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Toole,
your family has been farming for generations. My family has
been farming for three generations. I farm today. We both
obviously support additional surface storage supply.
But let me ask you, as a farmer--I mean I--all my farmers
look very closely at the bottom line, to stay in business. And
per acre-foot on how much we pay for our water is part of the
bottom line. There is an old proverb that says--goes something
like this, that, you know, you don't care what color the cat
is, as long as the cat catches mice. We know we need additional
water. Do you care so much about this project versus that
project, or do you care most about what the cost per acre-foot
is to the farmer?
Mr. O'Toole. Let me give you two answers. One is that
Family Farm Alliance, from a perspective of our over 17-state
look at the West, we think that storage that may not be for
agriculture but keeps water from being transferred from
agriculture is one critical part. But clearly, the cost of
water is--the bottom line is if you are a farmer, the guy that
rules your world is the bankers. And you have to make that
payment----
Mr. Costa. No, I know. But I mean getting back to the cost
of water is what my farmers care the most about.
Mr. O'Toole. Yes, sir.
Mr. Costa. Mr. Bettner?
Mr. Bettner. Yes?
Mr. Costa. The cost per acre-foot, since this is what I am
talking about right now, on Sites would be approximately how
much on the current funding plan that you have?
Mr. Bettner. Right now it is estimated--well, at least the
Bureau has estimated--about $300 per acre-foot.
Mr. Costa. $300 per acre-foot.
Mr. Bettner. Right.
Mr. Costa. And when you blend that with existing water
supplies, it makes it more affordable when you look down the
road, I guess.
Mr. Bettner. That is true. But the other things we are also
looking at is, is the project properly designed, are the most
recent construction techniques And cost involved in that
estimate, have you looked at the right financing mechanisms?
Mr. Costa. Right.
Mr. Bettner. And so, really, you know, what it costs, how
you pay for it----
Mr. Costa. And this innovative funding methodology you
think would go a long ways toward getting you to a more cost-
feasible project?
Mr. Bettner. Exactly. I mean you have to know how--what
it--how much it costs, and who can afford to pay----
Mr. Costa. Mr. Brown, for the expansion of Los Vaqueros,
the additional from 100,000 acre-feet to 275,000 acre-feet, how
much per acre-foot are you talking about?
Mr. Brown. It is about $300 an acre-foot.
Mr. Costa. About the same as Sites. Mr. Gabaldon, I want to
ask you. You talked about the projects that we are looking at.
But has there been an attempt to assess how many acre-feet of
water we will need in California or in other parts of the West,
in terms of just a total to sustain the population growth and
to maintain an agriculture economy?
Mr. Gabaldon. We haven't studied that aspect of it. But
that is certainly information that is out there, widely
available.
Mr. Costa. Let me get a little more local. I will come back
to that with a letter. But the Bay Delta Conservation Habitat
Program that I am very hopeful will get to some decision points
this summer, under the conveyance program assessment I am told
that part of the hangup with your study of Shasta being raised,
Sites, Los Vaqueros, And Temperance is talking about whether or
not the conveyance program assessments have to be complete.
What does that mean, in your view?
Mr. Gabaldon. The conveyance assessments, we are studying
the conveyance--the operational side of that conveyance
process. We now have some experience under our belt on that. We
have now been in operations for a few years with that
conveyance. So with that information we are taking another look
at it, reformulating----
Mr. Costa. Well, I think you have to take another look. Why
is it the Bureau can't determine the feasibility of Temperance
Flat or Sites until there is certainty in the Delta? I mean I
think both of those projects, frankly, stand alone but could
enhance issues with regards to environmental restoration.
Mr. Gabaldon. I agree with that, that there is a whole lot
of components you need to look at there. And there are some
situations where they stand alone. In this situation we are
looking at all those together. And perhaps they could be
separated and looked at separately, so----
Mr. Costa. Much has been talked about in the studies, and I
said in my opening statement these studies have gone through
two and sometimes three Administrations. What is the shelf life
of a study?
Mr. Gabaldon. Something this complex, with relentless
operational, environmental issues associated with them, they
could go for 10 years, 20 years.
Mr. Costa. So if you completed something--and I know my
time has expired, Mr. Chairman, but just----
Mr. McClintock. Yes, it has.
Mr. Costa. If you completed something in 2005, how long is
it good for, 10 years? Fifteen years?
Mr. Gabaldon. That is probably a decent estimate.
Mr. Costa. Great.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Bettner, I am a dentist by trade, so I am a
poor impersonation of a politician. But I understand business,
and that is where I want to go with this one. The
Administration has talked about most of their money has been
allocated for upkeep and stuff like that. So I want to look at
the private equity markets, and how we get them involved here.
In the current environmental process, how do you see this
working? You know, time to me is money. So give me an outline
of how do you see us working this through.
Mr. Bettner. Well, I think we work it through the same way
we actually do our local projects. You know, a lot of it is
trying to figure out what do we need, what can we afford, how
are we going to pay for it, how does that affect our rate-
payers, in terms of recollecting those costs? And then, from
there, we actually do the environmental documentation, based on
that project, looking at alternatives. And then, if we need to,
we may have to mitigate for those--that project.
So, we set up--that way we actually address the financial
side up front, versus right now the way it is set up is you
have to do all the environmental work up front, and you never
really get to how do you pay for it. And if you do, sometimes
it becomes unaffordable. So you have lost all that time, you
lost all that money.
And then, when we have talked to the private markets about
how to finance a project like Sites, they want to know, well,
is this going to--can this project go or not? And if you can't
give them, you know, the say of, yes, we can get this thing
built, they are going to take their money and go somewhere
else. And so, trying to keep them interested in a project is
vitally important.
Mr. Gosar. So it is a time variable, right? The longer the
time variable, there is a cost. Right?
Mr. Bettner. Exactly. I mean, yes, from not only just
trying to get the investors to invest in the project, but they
are also holding their money out while you are trying to get
studies done, design, and construction. So the more you can
shorten up that window, the more you can get more people
willing to invest in the project.
Mr. Gosar. So, you know, from the environmental aspects of
these studies, I know what Mr. Gabaldon said, that these
studies are good for 10, 20 years. But they are really not, are
they?
Mr. Bettner. No. I mean they are not. I mean the other big
concern is not just the time, but the problem is if you go into
the project from an environmental review standpoint saying,
``This is a way you may operate and build it,'' but in the end,
once you decide what your financing is, and what beneficiaries
want the water--including the environment, if you have a
different project that comes out of that financial look, you
may have to redo all your environmental documentation because
your project has changed.
Mr. Gosar. So how much of your cost would be, you know, a
typical project cost for mitigation for environmental
permitting?
Mr. Bettner. Well, I can go back to, for example, one of
our recent projects. We put a flat-plate fish screen on our
diversion structure about nine years ago. It was a $40 million
project. We spent $15 million in all the environmental work,
permitting, and mitigation. So almost a third of the project.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Semanko, could you give me an idea of what
your cost would be, environmental aspects and permitting?
Mr. Semanko. Yes, Mr. Gosar, I will have to get that to you
for the record. It is substantial, though. It is almost a show-
stopper for our projects.
Mr. Gosar. And it is an ever-evolving door, is it not?
Mr. Semanko. Absolutely. The longer the permission process
goes on, the permitting process, the higher the cost scope,
particularly given the favorable costs we have right now.
Mr. Gosar. So, going back to you, Mr. Bettner, in your
opinion, what type of reforms to the existing law do we in
Congress need to implement to streamline this? We need rules.
Don't get me wrong. We need rules and regulations and hold them
accountable. But what kind of streamlining do you see us
needing?
Mr. Bettner. I mean I think first, really--and, you know, I
think Reclamation needs to define its role. I think you have a
staff of employees at Reclamation we work with that do a good
job, but they are also bound by existing law. And if they went
into a project, for example, not as ``We are going to build
this project,'' if they went in versus ``We are going to help
support this project, we may help with permits, but we are not
going to be the builder, financier, operator of the project,''
that changes their role dramatically. And from there you
actually can get to construction feasibility, in my mind, a lot
quicker.
As far as permitting goes, the other thing we like to have
is right now you almost have to go consult individually with
each agency through your process. There is really no joint
consultation set up, unless----
Mr. Gosar. So you highlight for me--this process is linear.
You got to do point one first, then the next one, then the next
one. Why can't we have a project manager doing them all at the
same time?
Mr. Bettner. Yes, I mean, to--in my mind, that would be a
great role for Reclamation, if they could be the one that
actually went out and did a joint consultation on it. That is
part of their role, but maybe that is the role that they should
fulfill. Giving them congressional direction like that would be
very helpful.
If they are not in the business of wanting to build
projects, finance them, let's construct the right role for
them, and they have the staff to get it done.
Mr. Gosar. Imagine that, multi-tasking. Last question. We
really need to have litigation reform, do we not? Particularly
in the----
Mr. Bettner. You know what? I can't--I am an engineer. I
try not to--if my attorneys--if I start talking, my attorney,
he will get mad at me. So I am not going to--I can't answer
that one.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Semanko?
Mr. Semanko. Yes.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you. My time is up.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Garamendi?
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing. And
for the witnesses, thank you for your presentations.
Mr. O'Toole, in your written testimony you said there would
be nothing done with water in the West without being winners
and losers, and therein lies the problem. Most everything that
occurs, there are winners and there are losers. And the task at
hand is to find a way in which there are winners and winners.
It becomes very, very complex. I would like to try to get to
some solutions here.
One of the issues, it seems to me, is funding at every
level. At the Federal level, the Bureau of Reclamation has a
very limited budget, and it stretches that budget out among
projects across the entire West, the result of which is that
they are unable--I should ask this as a question.
Let me make the statement and then put a question mark at
the end. It seems to me that they are unable to focus
sufficient attention on individual projects so that things can
move forward rapidly. Is that the question, Mr. Gabaldon?
Mr. Gabaldon. That is correct. There is competing projects,
competing issues that we have to deal with in our budget. We do
get, as I mentioned earlier, about $1 billion average in the
appropriations. And with that, within that, we have a lot of
safety of dams issues, we have a lot of competing issues there.
Mr. Garamendi. Now, one of the reasons you have so many
issues to deal with is that we tell you to deal with so many
issues.
Mr. Gabaldon. That is right.
Mr. Garamendi. I mean these are congressional directives.
We say, ``Do this,'' ``Do that,'' and then we don't give you
enough money to get it done rapidly. And so, this is something
that we should be paying attention to, both in projects, as
well as with the appropriations.
And associated with that, the question has been
appropriately raised here as to coordination. Now, this is
something that we could do here, with regard to directive. We
could set priorities. Instead of all of us having our own
individual priorities and telling the Bureau of Reclamation,
``Get them all done,'' we could set priorities and we could
require coordination. We don't. And, therefore, don't be
surprised that it doesn't exist. Insufficient money,
insufficient direction, and too many things to do with too
little money. That is our problem, and we create it, and we
could change that.
Second, Mr. Bettner, you raised, I think, a very
interesting point about financing. For some 15 years there has
been before the Congress an infrastructure bank which could
finance cash flow projects such as Sites Reservoir. You did
come up with a different proposal which you call a water
infrastructure financing innovation act. I would like you to
expand on that. You did it in about 15 seconds. Could you take
a little longer? Because this too is a challenge that could be
ours, if we chose to solve problems instead of just ruminating.
Mr. Bettner. Sure. Thank you. Yes, and I apologize, I was
running out of time there. But, you know, we have looked at
what has been done under the Transportation Infrastructure and
Finance Act, and that was really kind of what we looked at as
really the outline, potentially, of how it could work for
water.
But under that system, you know, you have basically about
$10 of credit assistance--for every $10 of credit assistance
you get $30 of investment in infrastructure. And what we are
saying is that we don't think it is likely that, you know, if
we come to Congress with a $3 billion project in 7 years, that
potentially you are going to say, ``We found money and we are
going to fund it.''
So, we have taken the approach of, you know, really it
needs to be--we need to go to the private side, we need to look
to them to help finance the project. But if there was some
Federal mechanism to basically provide some backing to those
long-term investments, that would allow them to come forward
and be more willing to make investments to the project at a
potentially lower interest rate, as well.
Mr. Garamendi. Essentially a loan guarantee program?
Mr. Bettner. Exactly, exactly.
Mr. Garamendi. Now, you know, if we want to do something
besides just yak back and forth across these various hearings
we could focus on innovative solutions such as this one that
you have just recommended.
The other issue that I really would like to get to is how
we are going to finance all of these projects. The loan
guarantee program is a way, but it will not sufficiently
address every project, because there are multiple uses of a
project, and therefore, multiple payers. This is one of the
problems that holds up most every project, is who is going to
pay for it.
Now, that gets to be a very complex situation. But at the
outset, you don't know that until you know what the project is
going to look like and where the beneficiaries might be. We
need to turn our attention to that mechanism of how to
determine who is going to pay for it early on in the project.
I will let it go at that, as a challenge for us----
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman's time has expired. He will
have to let it go at that. But we will have another round.
Mr. Labrador?
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Semanko, Norm,
you discussed the proposed Boise River Arrowrock, which would
increase storage space, water supplies, and provide
environmental enhancements. I understand that you are concerned
that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services designation of the
Boise River as a critical habitat for the bull trout may impede
the project's progress. How serious of an impediment is the
Fish and Wildlife Service's critical habitat designation for
the project? And what steps can be taken to alleviate it?
Mr. Semanko. Well, Congressman Labrador, it is a serious
potential impediment. Arrowrock is an early generation
Reclamation project. And interestingly, the Corps of Engineers
is the one that has the feasibility study authority on the
Boise River, and who the Idaho Water Resource Board has been
working with.
Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, any time
there is a proposed Federal action there has to be
consultation, both with regard to the impact on the fish that
are listed themselves, and the critical habitat that has been
designated. So the inquiry with the fishery service will be
what kind of impact would inundation of an additional 3,000
acre-feet have, another 5 or 6 miles of riverine habitat
inundated have. And that is a serious consideration.
As I mentioned briefly, Governor Otter is not impressed
with the critical habitat designation. The water user community
certainly is not. This has been an ongoing saga for 20-some
years. The Boise River was not included in critical habitat a
few years ago. And then there was a lawsuit that was
conveniently settled, And the new critical habitat designation
included this, notwithstanding the fact that there are
significant economic impacts associated with the critical
habitat designation that, under the Endangered Species Act--
that is one of the few places in the Act where economics come
into consideration. The Service certainly could have found that
the critical habitat designation was not necessary.
So, we have reserved the opportunity to litigate that
issue, frankly. But, more importantly, the Governor, working
with the Fish And Wildlife Service hopefully, And certainly
with our Idaho Department of Fish And Game, are beginning the
assessment through the recovery planning process of whether
these fish have, in fact, been recovered, whether they can be
delisted. And if they are delisted, then there would be no more
critical habitat designation.
So, that would be a roundabout way of eliminating that
consideration. But, absent that, we would have to work through
the Idaho Water Resource Board and the Federal agencies would
have to work through the consultation process under section 7,
which is, of course, subject to potential citizen lawsuits, as
well.
Mr. Labrador. Considering that Idaho is one of the few
states in which the state doesn't have the authority to issue
permits, what avenues will users have to object or challenge a
permit?
Mr. Semanko. With regard to the Clean Water Act, that is
certainly a concern. I know that the Legislature--I believe
today at a hearing, which you are very familiar with that
process, as a former legislator--is considering taking over the
Clean Water Act permitting program, the MPDS program. Really,
it is very difficult. We--you are basically--your resort is to
challenging EPA in the Federal district court, and that is no
cake walk. So it is a very difficult process. Even our DEQ in
Idaho has very limited influence on the process.
Mr. Labrador. How much do environmental permitting and
mitigation add to project costs?
Mr. Semanko. Congressman, as I mentioned to Mr. Gosar, I
would have to get exact figures. But it can be a deal breaker.
It depends on whether a categorical exclusion can be
identified, whether EA is sufficient, or whether you have to go
through the full-blown EIS process. If the section 7
consultation is involved, all of those different variables add
to the cost. So it can be astronomical. In all cases it is
going to be significant enough to be a potential show-stopper.
Mr. Labrador. I am going to ask you a question that may
throw you off a little bit, and you may not have an answer for
this.
But I don't know if you have watched on MSNBC there has
been a series of ads where some of the political talkers talk
about projects like the Hoover Dam and, you know, you have one
of the political talkers are talking about how America is so
great because we could do projects like the Hoover Dam. And
every time I see that ad I think of the hypocrisy of some
people. And I think. Could we build the Hoover Dam today? And
would there be any impediments to building the Hoover Dam if--
in today's environment? I don't know if you have an answer to
that, but----
Mr. Semanko. If you ask the gentleman to my left whether we
could build Hoover Dam again today, I haven't seen one built
lately.
But I can tell you that one of my favorite sayings from
former Commissioner John Keys is, ``We are building new dams
all the time. We are replacing and existing dams.'' And that is
the one thing that we have to make sure that we continue to do,
in addition to looking at additional storage.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Gardner?
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Gabaldon,
what is the number one priority of the Bureau of Reclamation?
Mr. Gabaldon. Our--I go back to our mission. That is to
deliver water and generate power. That is what we are about.
Mr. Gardner. And what is the number one way that you are
able to deliver water?
Mr. Gabaldon. Through working with irrigation districts,
working with our stakeholders, and conveying water from point A
to point B, from where it is abundant to where it is needed,
i.e., storage, i.e., Central Arizona project comes to mind. We
are also doing new technology, we are also doing conservation,
all of those, to get to what our main priority is, of
delivering water.
Mr. Gardner. In terms of delivering water and finding new
water, what is the number one way in which you accomplish that?
Is it--how would you rank, say, water storage as compared to
conservation?
Mr. Gabaldon. I would have to go back and look at the
portfolio, as far as how much water we have, conservation-wise,
how much water we are yielding from those projects. Right now I
would rank storage pretty high up there, if not at the top.
That is what we did----
Mr. Gardner. As in----
Mr. Gabaldon [continuing]. Dams in the western----
Mr. Gardner. You believe the number one focus of Bureau of
Reclamation to meet--what you said in the mission statement--is
water storage?
Mr. Gabaldon. I would hate to rank those, but I mean, if--
that is where we have a lot of our water right now.
Mr. Gardner. If that is the case, then how can we help
encourage the Bureau of Reclamation to push water storage even
more?
Mr. Gabaldon. I think----
Mr. Gardner. In an expedited fashion?
Mr. Gabaldon. Yes. The feasibility studies we are doing now
in California, the projects we mentioned, we have several of
those through every region, except Great Plains Region, we
don't have any there.
But in upper Colorado we are looking at El Vado Reservoir.
In New Mexico we are looking at some projects in----
Mr. Gardner. How do we get from looking at them to doing
them?
Mr. Gabaldon. We need a congressional authorization.
Mr. Gardner. Congressional authorization? That is the only
thing that is holding you back?
Mr. Gabaldon. Not--I mean we have all the requirements that
gets to that--i.e., feasibility studies, feasibility reviews,
complying with the laws, NEPA, et cetera, that are part of the
feasibility of the planning projects. So, yes, all those get to
the process of getting a project authorized.
Mr. Gardner. And the reason I ask that question, that
series of questions, is in my conversations with Colorado water
users, it seems that the one thing they come back to me and
they say is it feels like the Administration is no longer
following--the Bureau of Reclamation is no longer following the
desires of local water users, the desire of local conservation
district conservancy offices, but instead is pushing a
mentality that is more toward conservation only, and away from
water storage. And that is throughout all of the departments in
government or agencies that are working with the western water
agencies, whether that is the EPA or Bureau of Reclamation or
the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. O'Toole, in your experience, do you think the agencies
that you work with, your members work with, see the focus on
water storage that was mentioned by the Bureau of Reclamation?
Mr. O'Toole. Actually, I think that it has been years since
we have really had the debate that is beginning here. We
indicated in our testimony that the Family Farm Alliance asked
seven years ago for Bureau of Rec potential projects. We have
that on a database.
You know, I think we are reinvigorating because we
understand the multiple needs for more storage. And so that
debate has been reinvigorated. But I think over the last few
years--the last few decades, really--we diminished our
appetite, to our demise, to our--you know, really, not to the
benefit of both farmers and growth in the West.
Mr. Gardner. Mr. Gabaldon, I believe in Mr. O'Toole's
opening statement, in his written statement, he mentions
several different regulations or practices that are interfering
with the ability to streamline permitting, or that are blocking
new projects. I would really be interested in getting the
Bureau of Reclamation's take on those.
And I am sure you may not have had time to study it, but it
is on page 10 of his written testimony under heading 2, where
it talks about the 5 different points that they have identified
that are impediments to new projects. And if you could get back
to me, Bureau of Reclamation get back to me on your opinion of
these five points that he raises, I would certainly appreciate
it, and then perhaps share that with the other members of the
Committee.
And then, Mr. O'Toole, you mentioned that--in your opening
statement, that the easiest way for municipal, industrial, and
others to find the water that they will need is through the
buy-up and dry-up of agricultural land.
Do the others on the panel agree with that statement? Mr.
Bettner?
Mr. Bettner. Yes. I would say if things don't change, it
looks like the problems are going to be solved on the back of
agriculture. That seems the direction that it is going.
Mr. Gardner. Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. I think balance is the key.
Mr. Gardner. But do you think--I agree with you, balance is
the key. But I mean, do you think that the easiest way to
achieve water now is the buy-up and dry-up of agricultural
land?
Mr. Brown. I think there is a market of willing sellers out
there. And if they are willing to sell, then there are buyers
that will buy the water.
Mr. Gardner. I will take that as a yes. Mr. Semanko?
Mr. Semanko. The willing sellers in Idaho are very limited,
and that is why you are seeing a progression toward looking at
building additional storage, not so much for agriculture, but
for the municipal demands.
Mr. McClintock. Great, thank you. I am going to have to cut
you off there, but we are going to do another round, starting
right now.
Mr. Gabaldon, I want to get the record clear on this. The
New Melones Dam was completed in 1979. It was 2.4 million acre-
feet of storage capacity. Animas-La Plata was 120,000 acre-
feet, about 5 percent of the capacity of the New Melones. Has
the Bureau of Reclamation, since the New Melones, constructed
any dam with a capacity of more than a million acre-feet?
Mr. Gabaldon. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Has it constructed any dam with capacity
more than 500,000 acre-feet?
Mr. Gabaldon. Not since then, Mr.----
Mr. McClintock. Has it constructed a dam with a capacity
above 250,000 acre-feet?
Mr. Gabaldon. Animas-La Plata was the last one, and that
was 120,000.
Mr. McClintock. Five percent of the capacity of New
Melones. So I will correct my statement of in this generation,
from 1979, Reclamation has not completed a single major dam, if
you define that as over 250,000 acre-feet of storage capacity,
which would be about one-tenth the capacity of the New Melones.
Mr. Gabaldon. I don't know if the numbers are accurate. I
assume they are. I can say that, had we had the authorization
to do those, we would certainly be building.
Mr. McClintock. No, I think you would certainly be studying
them, which is the problem, and I think that gets to the crux
of this matter.
The cost of Sites, Mr. Bettner, was estimated at 300 acre-
feet?
Mr. Bettner. The cost or the yield? I am sorry, what----
Mr. McClintock. No, for yield. The cost was 300----
Mr. Bettner. Oh, yes, about $300 per acre-foot, correct.
Mr. McClintock. OK. And your estimate was that, generally
speaking, about a third of the project cost is regulatory in
nature?
Mr. Bettner. Well, I was talking about projects that we--
our fish screen project. I can't speak to right now what we
think the regulatory cost----
Mr. McClintock. Just the actual construction. What would
the cost be of--just for the actual construction of that dam?
Mr. Bettner. The dam itself is only about half-a-billion
dollars--or about $500 million. But then you have other
facilities that go along with it, a couple pipelines----
Mr. McClintock. OK, that is exactly the question I was
getting at. Half-a-million--or half-a-billion dollars, you
said--actually to build the dam.
Mr. Bettner. But there are other parts of the project, the
pipeline----
Mr. McClintock. Exactly--oh, no, no, I understand.
Mr. Bettner. Parts of the infrastructure--right.
Mr. McClintock. The conveyance and infrastructure is one
thing.
Mr. Bettner. Right, right.
Mr. McClintock. But how much, in addition to that, to meet
all of the regulatory requirements?
Mr. Bettner. Well, we--one of the positives about the
project is we haven't identified a lot of environmental issues
with the site itself. So we are expecting, actually, the cost
of mitigation to be fairly low. Where we see the permitting
action is we have a project that is going to meet multiple
benefits, including the ecosystem. And part of that is we have
to get permits from the wildlife agency.
So, if they see the project as a benefit, we hope that our
permitting process goes fairly----
Mr. McClintock. Would you consider a project that costs
$1,600 per acre-foot to be economically attractive?
Mr. Bettner. No.
Mr. McClintock. Would it surprise you that this Congress,
in the prior session, approved a bill that came in at exactly
that cost, a Title XVI recycling bill?
Mr. Bettner. I am not familiar with that, but--I can't
speak to that.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Semanko And Mr. Bettner, with respect
to the Endangered Species Act, both of you said that that is a
major cost amplifier of these projects. Suppose we simply
required that a hatchery fish be included in the ESA counts.
How would that affect your projects?
Mr. Bettner. For our project, we are actually trying to
enhance existing wild runs of fish. So we have four different
runs on the Sacramento River, and so we see this--our project
is trying to enhance the existing runs. Some of those are
hatchery fish. But we see the wild runs as being just as
significant.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Semanko?
Mr. Semanko. We would, Mr. Chairman, potentially see the
fish that we are concerned about delisted, the salmonids, in
particular.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Semanko, you mentioned the categorical
exclusions being a cost saver of--it is my understanding the
Administration, through the Council on Environmental Quality,
is proposing new EPA guidelines for implementation of
categorical exemptions. How would that affect your projects?
Mr. Semanko. Mr. Chairman, we have not had a chance to look
at that. I will tell you that categorical exclusions, in my 18
years of practice, are more something that I read about during
law school than I have seen practical application of on the
ground. It is very difficult to find a categorical exclusion
that works, from my experience. So I am hopeful this will
improve that, but I have had not had a chance to look at that.
Mr. McClintock. OK, thank you. I will yield back and
recognize the Ranking Member.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really was looking
at my Blackberry, because it was a mention of the use of water
to develop oil shale. And----
Mr. McClintock. Excuse me for interrupting. Will the Clerk
please reset the clock? Sorry.
Mrs. Napolitano. And the--I will mention the comment from
the Director of Renewable Energy Development for the Rocky
Mountain Farmers Union, who states, ``We are really concerned
about the impacts on water. We cannot gamble away our water on
oil shale speculation. We cannot risk our farm economy.'' That
is another component to be able to take--to keep in mind as we
are moving along and trying to, how would I say, remove a lot
of the regulations by government on water. This is one other
one that I am very concerned about.
Mr. Semanko, on the Arrowhead Project in Idaho, you
mentioned the critical habitat impact as an impediment. But
isn't it true there is a state designation, the Boise River,
that it is a natural river? So both Federal and state regs
apply?
Mr. Semanko. Madam Chair, that is correct. And the Idaho
Water Resource Board is the one that made that designation.
And, fortunately, it is not a Federal Wild Scenic designation,
so the Idaho Water Resource Board can change that, and is
looking at changing that.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Then one of the other things that I
would like to ask Mr. Gabaldon, the CALFED storage studies
take--have taken a long time. Why?
Mr. Gabaldon. There is a--I mentioned some of those
earlier.
Mrs. Napolitano. Quickly.
Mr. Gabaldon. Relentless operational and environmental
changes. We constantly are getting hit with litigation there.
There is new biological opinions that go into litigation. So
every time one of those happens, we need to take another look
at those things.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr.----
Mr. Gabaldon. That is just one reason.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Brown, how important was the
cooperation with other agencies--and I am talking about state,
local, and Federal--to the success of the expansion? How did
you attain that cooperation?
Mr. Brown. It is very critical, particularly the Bureau
provided significant support in getting permits and approvals
from the various agencies, as well as state Department of Water
Resources, the state Control Board.
How did we achieve that cooperation? Largely through
working to secure the funding that was needed to support the
staff that would provide those resources.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. O'Toole, on page 11 you
indicate that those who benefit from new water supply
infrastructure should help pay. And you go on to state, ``In
the country we are seeing a move in the opposite direction,
where ag lands are going out of production, and being lost to
expanding urban development.''
Are you implying that we have to look at ag versus people?
Because cities cannot control who moves into their city. And
most of them do not set any parameters for builders to say,
``OK, you can only build five units or five homes.''
Mr. O'Toole. I really think that pitting each other against
each other is not what is happening. The reality is there is a
limited supply, and the money goes to the highest bidder in
many cases.
My thought process, Madam Chairman, is that the discussion
about the need to produce food, and the importance of rural
communities, has to be integrated into our long-term vision of
what America we want. And we believe that storage can help
ameliorate those pitting against each other.
Mrs. Napolitano. Right. And I totally agree. But storage is
only part of the portfolio that we need to look at, especially
if it is above ground, where you have the evaporation rate only
15 to 20 percent. And if we have more warm weather and drought
conditions, that is going to be worse.
Mr. O'Toole. Absolutely. And, Madam Chairman, I understand
this Committee is the Natural Resources Committee. One of the
other huge inputs is the energy development in the West. And I
saw where the State of Utah just released 59,000 acre-feet for
some--nuclear fracking has a water cost. Every part of the
Western economy has a water cost. Our message is that it seems
to be always agriculture who is giving up water for those other
needs.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for that answer. And, Mr.
Chairman, I take a little exception to your comment about
comparing the fish, the wild fish versus hatchery fish, to
children born at home versus the hospital. You are not a
mother. I yield back.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McClintock. Whereas I am eternally grateful of that
every day.
Mr. Tipton?
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Gabaldon,
just from a Colorado perspective, could you maybe speak to the
importance a little bit in terms of recreation and water
storage?
Mr. Gabaldon. Recreation? What--recreation?
Mr. Tipton. Yes. How many people recreate from Reclamation
facilities in Colorado each year? Do you have any----
Mr. Gabaldon. I don't----
Mr. Tipton [continuing]. Estimates on that?
Mr. Gabaldon [continuing]. Know in Colorado. Certainly you
build a reservoir--you build a dam, you have a reservoir, you
are going to have ample opportunities for recreation, from
boating to fishing to----
Mr. Tipton. So it is positive.
Mr. Gabaldon. Yes.
Mr. Tipton. And that is part of Reclamation's core
mission----
Mr. Gabaldon. It is.
Mr. Tipton [continuing]. As well?
Mr. Gabaldon. Very positively.
Mr. Tipton. And with--and I am going to go back to a
question I had asked earlier, just as a point of clarification.
Does the Bureau of Reclamation facilities, do those help
stabilize water flows to be able to make rafting possible?
Mr. Gabaldon. Yes. We are not in the business of releasing
water for----
Mr. Tipton. Specifically for that----
Mr. Gabaldon. Right.
Mr. Tipton [continuing]. But it does help stabilize it
during a season, which----
Mr. Gabaldon. It would.
Mr. Tipton [continuing]. Probably also helps endangered
species for instream flows and----
Mr. Gabaldon. Absolutely, absolutely----
Mr. Tipton [continuing]. Those sorts of things, as well.
Mr. Gabaldon. Yes.
Mr. Tipton. Great. You know, one thing I would like to be
able to speak to--and Representative Napolitano And I visited
on this a little bit--when it comes to some of the fracking
issues, when you get into Colorado, at least, you have to be
able to own your water. We have a priority-based system that is
regulated by the State. It is not a freeflow free grant that
actually exists in that. So that ought to give you a little bit
of comfort, I think.
And, Mr. O'Toole, I would like you to maybe address
something that I think is critical. When we are talking about
conservation for water, are you seeing it in the farm and ranch
community, that they are making efforts to actually conserve
and make highest and best use of the water that they have
available?
Mr. O'Toole. Well, when our community is--still looking at
some other storage. And we integrate--as I said, we created 25-
mile fishery hatching for Upper Colorado endangered fish in the
reservoir. We did build--those are integrated into our long
term.
I would tell you that I--in a relationship I have on
migratory birds with a committee that works on those, it is
interesting to know the highest bird count since 1955 is now.
And when you dig down on why, it is because of irrigated
agriculture. And whether it be the Central Valley or Klamath or
the rice----
Mr. Tipton. Right.
Mr. O'Toole [continuing]. North of San Francisco, it is an
integrated process. And our bountiful wildlife populations have
an awful lot to do with agriculture.
Mr. Tipton. You bet. Now, and is it your observation that
our farmers and ranchers are trying to get the highest, best
use out of their water as well, using some different practices
in irrigation?
Mr. O'Toole. Well, in our family's ranch, we integrated our
irrigation and our fishery. We have a fishery that my daughter
manages. It is another income source. We have created an
important bird area in our White Heron area, which is--you
know, I can tell you that with elder birder, don't get in front
of them when they see a new bird.
But there is all kinds of opportunities to integrate what
we all know, and that is the most valuable resource is water.
And if done right, it is a multiplicity of opportunities.
Mr. Tipton. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I
would just like to hear your opinion. And Colorado and probably
elsewhere, you know, there is an old saying that money doesn't
follow water, water follows money. And that lends itself to
your comment that we are seeing more water being directed into
urban areas.
When I look at my district right now, Las Animas County,
Otero County, we have literally seen areas dried up, in terms
of farms that are going to have to be able to produce the food
to be able to feed the people that choose to live in those
cities.
Would it be a fair representation of your views that in
order to be able to create a win-win, to be able to feed the
people, to be able to grow the cities, that it is in our best
interest to be able to store more water?
Mr. O'Toole. The one example I would say quickly is South
Park, that transferred its water to the urban areas and the
Eastern Slope in 1998. Storage would have been much preferable
to that just transfer.
And I think we reduce our viability by not looking at the
whole picture. And for a couple of decades we haven't looked at
the whole picture. I think that is why this hearing, I think,
is so important. We are going to expand our opportunities to
look at a whole variety of ways to do all the things that we
think are valuable.
Mr. Tipton. Well, thank you. I appreciate your comments.
And I noted you had said it has been years since we have had a
debate, the debate that is beginning here today. And, Mr.
Chairman, I again want to applaud you for holding this hearing.
Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. Well, I want to thank you for suggesting
it. Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Toole, I
want to thank the Family Farm Alliance for the work you do on
an ongoing basis as it relates to our water resources
throughout the West. And you play an important role.
Mr. Bettner, I want to go back to where my line of
questioning was before. Do you think that we need to have all
the answers with regards to the Bay Delta Conservation Plan
before we can decide whether or not Sites or Temperance Flat
are feasible?
Mr. Bettner. Well, I mean we think, obviously, the Bay
Delta Conservation Plan and some form of conveyance to the
Delta is important for California.
Mr. Costa. So do I.
Mr. Bettner. And I think what we need to do is--and what we
have done for Sites, and I am sure our friends are looking at
Temperance Flat, as well--is you should be able to have a
scenario where those projects can work with or without
conveyance. And we have looked at Sites. We have
configurations----
Mr. Costa. OK.
Mr. Bettner [continuing]. Of tradeoff for benefits that can
work under----
Mr. Costa. All right.
Mr. Bettner [continuing]. Scenario.
Mr. Costa. Yes, that is good. Mr. Brown or Mr. Bettner, is
there anything you would recommend to the Committee in a short,
concise statement, as to where we ought to focus our efforts on
a bipartisan basis?
Mr. Brown. I think one of the keys is just recognizing that
the Bureau's role is changing in the development of surface
storage, and they are going from an agency that builds dams to
one that helps locals build dams. And that is the most critical
focus, I think.
Mr. Costa. And so we ought to try to facilitate that
process and make it work better?
Mr. Brown. Yes. And another point I want to make is that,
you know, this ag versus urban issue, it is not really an ag
versus urban issue in California. We are trying to capture
surplus flows. It is the flows that the Chairman spoke about in
his opening remarks that we are trying to catch before it goes
out to the----
Mr. Costa. Yes. Well, I think agriculture and the urban
water users have worked closer in the last several years--and I
have been working with them for 20-plus years--than they have
in the past.
Mr. Gabaldon?
Mr. Gabaldon. Gabaldon.
Mr. Costa. Yes. I want to go back to the studies. Your time
lines for--and I want to commend the Bureau for--and Mr.
Connor--for getting the report out this week on Shasta. When is
the time line for the completion of the Shasta study? Because,
as I look at this right now, between 2002 and 2008, you have
spent--2001, excuse me--$130 million on your studies through
those fiscal years. What is your time line for completion?
Mr. Gabaldon. I don't have that date with me, that time
line.
Mr. Costa. Would you get that to the Subcommittee?
Mr. Gabaldon. I will be glad to do that----
Mr. Costa. I think we all want to know that. All of us from
California sure want to know that.
With the interim report out this week on Shasta, when do
you look for the completion of the one on Shasta? Do you know
the answer to that question?
Mr. Gabaldon. I will provide that for the record.
Mr. Costa. OK. And also then with Sites, as well as with
Los Vaqueros And Temperance Flat.
Mr. Gabaldon. We will be glad to provide the whole----
Mr. Costa. All right. I am curious. You know, I mean we
have a sort of a ongoing debate around here for 10 years or
longer about what the causes of climate change are. I hope no
one debates, though, that climate does change. It has
historically changed for millions of years, going back to the
Ice Ages.
I am wondering with the transition, what seems to be a
transition--last year 174 percent above average snowpack in the
Sierra, and December of last year and one of the lowest
recorded rainfalls in California in history since we have been
keeping records, and January hasn't been much better--although
we are getting some rain today--with these wide swings, does
that change how we manage our reservoirs? And to ensure--
because most projects that are built out of either a
combination of water supply, flood control, hydroelectric
power, and with these wide variations, I am wondering. Can we
realize a supply that historically these reservoirs have
provided?
Mr. Gabaldon. We definitely look at those from an
operational standpoint. The climate change could be debated,
yes, it has been debated.
Mr. Costa. Yes, I don't want to go there.
Mr. Gabaldon. From a water----
Mr. Costa. But it is--it does change.
Mr. Gabaldon. From a water manager and from an engineer's
perspective, we know that the water is coming off earlier, off
the mountains, off the snowpack. So we are adjusting our
operations to meet that change, if you will.
And also, there is more demand. On the demand side there is
more--the agricultural season is a little bit longer. So we are
making all those and--factoring all those into our day-to-day
operations.
Mr. Costa. And to be able to forecast. I mean, as Mr.
O'Toole said, farmers go to their bank for their annual crop
loans. Unless you can depend upon a water supply, the banker is
not going to loan you money. It is that simple.
Mr. Gabaldon. Yes, that is right. So we are looking at
those operations.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Gosar.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Chair?
Mr. McClintock. If you--the Subcommittee is pleased to
welcome Mr. Salazar back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Secretary of Agriculture.
Mr. Salazar. How are you, sir? Good to see you. I wanted to
say hello to all my great colleagues. Keep up the good work.
Mr. McClintock. And now, sorry, Mr. Gosar. Please restart
the clock.
Mr. Gosar. Well, I want to go back to my friend and
colleague, Mr. Tipton. The real adage is, ``Whiskey is for
drinking, and water is for fighting over.'' That is the real
thing about the West, and that is how important it is.
I also want to underscore about the conservation that
ranchers and farmers do. I mean we have been proactive about
that. You know, from the farmers that use low--infuse tape
emitters, you know, in growing crops down in the South, in
Arizona. It is absolutely incredible. To the innovations that
Arizona has spearheaded, to even go further with storage,
underground storage. We actually have water banking. We work
with California and Nevada. It is very integrated, and it is
very proactive.
And that is where the other thing I want to go with, is
that, you know, the needs for agriculture are very different in
some cases than they are for drinking. You know, for our
recycled gray water. You know, we need to put more influence on
recapture and cleaning, to utilize that as a resource in
reclamation. Plants need things like phosphates and calciums
that we particularly don't want, but they help grow plants.
You know, Mr. Gabaldon, can you tell me, as a percentage,
what the cost of your studies is when you look at litigation?
Mr. Gabaldon. You mean the impacts of litigation on----
Mr. Gosar. On your studies.
Mr. Gabaldon. Well, that is going to vary dramatically,
depending on the nature of the litigation. And I can certainly
get some information to you on what--maybe some technical
projects and what the litigation costs were associated with
that.
I know I was area manager in Albuquerque, and I was
actually named in a lawsuit, an endangered species, and the
lawsuit cost not just to reclamation but to stakeholders like
the Rio Grande Conservancy District, to the State of New
Mexico, to the City of Albuquerque, to Santa Fe, et cetera,
were significant. I don't know what exactly those numbers were,
but it is going to vary from project to project.
Mr. Gosar. And it is rising over time, the further we go
down 2000 to 2010, the costs are increasing. Right?
Mr. Gabaldon. I don't----
Mr. Gosar. So, with your experience, could you tell Mr.
Bettner that he is kind of dreaming, if he is going to expect
the kind of streamlining process with the environmental aspects
in his project?
Mr. Gabaldon. I--from my experience in Albuquerque, front
and center in the middle of that, all I can say is that there
were some costs associated with that litigation.
Mr. Gosar. So, if we--and Mr. Semanko, if we go to these
categorical exclusions, you know, for the managers, do you see
that opening up more opportunities for litigation, more
opportunities for litigation to hit from that perspective?
Mr. Semanko. You know, I am not sure, Mr. Gosar, if it
would open up more opportunities for litigation. I think it
would provide more certainty if you knew, up front, as a
project manager, that something may fit into a categorical
exclusion. I think it would be better for the agency folks if
they knew that something could fit into a categorical
exclusion.
Unless you changed the underlying citizen sue provisions
and the incentive for folks to bring lawsuits because they get
awarded attorneys fees, et cetera--you know the story--you
won't eliminate that dynamic. But categorical exclusions could
provide an avenue, a safe harbor, if you will, more certainty
for folks moving forward with projects if they knew that there
would be a more streamlined NEPA process.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Bettner, what would you say?
Mr. Bettner. Well, you know, in California we have
categorical exemptions that we have that may be akin to what
you may be talking about from a Federal level. And we call--
when you do that through a state process, you can do what they
call a ``notice of exemption.'' But you still have to file
that, you still have to put it out for public review. And
somebody can still challenge you on the assumptions you made,
as to whether that--you actually complied with the exact
exemption or not.
So, it could hold some hope, but I am not sure it
necessarily shortens the potential for somebody, you know,
filing a lawsuit that you didn't do it correctly.
Mr. Gosar. How do you feel about that, Mr. O'Toole?
Mr. O'Toole. Many of the farmers that were impacted by the
Delta smelt decisions in the process on endangered species,
that was a very troubling time for us. What is--our family has
won awards on sage grouse management and other conservation
issues. And I am proud of that.
But I can tell you that looking down the road at the
settlements that Interior has made with Center for Biological
Diversity, for example, on expansion of more endangered
species, I don't see how we move forward unless we have
resolved that, philosophically. We--many projects aren't being
done, not because they aren't the right ones, but governments
are looking and saying, ``We just can't afford the time. We
have to try to do things that aren't as efficient.'' That isn't
the right way to run a business.
Mr. Gosar. Yes. It is the same thing we find in our
forests. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. All right, thank you. Mr. Garamendi?
Mr. Garamendi. This hearing and the debate going on here
is, I don't know, the 27th year, the 30th year of it. And it is
not going to get resolved. But we do have an opportunity, it
seems to me, to make some significant progress, at least in
California. And my familiarity with some of these other
projects, we could also.
It is going to come down to, in my view, the Federal
Government deciding how it wants to spend money. Many of these
projects are simply held up for lack of Federal funding and,
discussed earlier, the issue of the Bureau of Reclamation being
stretched thinly across many, many projects, and stretching
things out because of that. We ought to set some priorities.
We do know that in California, with the recent completion
of the initial investigation of the Shasta Dam, that it is a
viable project, at least as we know it today. We also know that
the Sites Reservoir is a viable project. What is going to hold
us up a long, long time is figuring out who is going to pay for
it. How much is environmental down the river? How much of the
benefit goes to the exporters? That is the Delta exporters. How
much goes to north of the Delta? And that is going to take a
long time for both of these projects.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if you really want to build dams, these
are two viable dams that are ready to go. But we will be held
up for lack of funding through process everything from the
detailed engineering to ultimate financing of it. So if you
have $4 billion sitting somewhere and you want to appropriate
it and you want to build dams, you can build these dams
probably very quickly, and you can get past the litigation and
all of those issues. But if we are going to continue to cut
Federal budgets on infrastructure projects, which is what we
have been doing, then don't expect these projects to move
swiftly forward.
And, by the way, I believe the New Melones Dam was built by
the Army Corps of Engineers. Is that correct, Mr. Gabaldon?
Mr. Gabaldon. Yes.
Mr. Garamendi. It was not a Bureau project. Maybe your
point still remains. But for the record, let us get accurate.
With regard to moving forward, it comes down to what we do
here. We could set up a financing mechanism--actually, the
infrastructure bank would probably be somewhat cheaper than the
loan guarantee program that Mr. Bettner has proposed, but
either one could move projects more quickly forward.
Now, how do we score that here? We would probably score it
at the potential total risk, total loss, not as to what the
actuarial loss might be. So, we also have the potential for an
infrastructure bank. These are ways we can fund projects. We
can sit here in Committee and talk forever. But if we want to
really do something, we need to find the money.
Both of those are viable ways of dealing with it, a loan
guarantee or an infrastructure bank. We ought to move forward
with legislation on both of those if we want to build projects.
If we want to build projects beyond that, then we are going to
have to come up with Federal money. Or not. And we are out of
that game. If the Federal Government wants to get out of the
way, as happened in the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, OK. But let's
not go around and around and around and leave the Bureau of
Reclamation out there, not knowing whether it is going to go
left or right or build or not build.
So, Mr. Chairman, as you move this Committee forward,
please try to get to the heart of the matter. Please try to get
to the heart of the matter. Is the Majority in this House
willing to put the money up to build the projects? Last year
you cut the budgets. You cut the budgets. You can't expect
these projects to go forward without the money to support the
projects. If you want the Federal Government out of it, then
state so and let the local governments, state And irrigators
And so forth, move it forward. But you got everybody caught
between Never Never Land.
So, we are going to deal with the budget very shortly, $4
billion and you will build some great dams in California. Do
you have $4 billion lying around?
[No response.]
Mr. Garamendi. I guess I will just not ask questions of the
gentleman down there, but rather to state the case as I see it
from here. I yield back my time.
Mr. McClintock. If the gentleman will yield before he
yields back his time, I would answer by suggesting that he read
the full written testimony, in which the witness has provided
many cases where funding was available but the project was held
up because of regulatory excesses.
And I would also commend to the gentleman consideration of
restoring the beneficiary pays principle to these projects, at
which point we could free up enormous amounts of money. That is
the way it ought to be done. Your constituents should not be
paying for water projects in my district, nor vice versa. The
projects should be paid for by the users of the water in
proportion to their use. And I thank the gentleman for
yielding----
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, that is a--exactly what we
ought to be talking about. We ought to be talking about exactly
that issue, of the beneficiary pay issue. And because we go
around and around on that, and because we are unwilling to come
to a definitive decision early in the process, projects go
around and around. It happens every day. It is happening to the
projects that are out there. I will guarantee it is going to
happen with the Shasta.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman has correctly stated the
history of the last 30 years, but I am afraid we are out of
time.
Mr. Garamendi. Well, it seems to me that the discussion you
and I are having here is the central issue. And to spend time
on that central issue is well worth----
Mr. McClintock. Again, I would warn the gentleman that the
testimony that we--the Subcommittee has received goes far
beyond that, and points to the regulatory excesses that are
actively blocking these projects, even when they are funded.
That is also a central part of the issue.
And with that, I am afraid we are going to have to
conclude. I want to thank the Members for their time, I want to
thank the witnesses for some extraordinarily helpful testimony
to the Subcommittee's work. And if there is no further
business, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Denham follows:]

Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Jeff Denham,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California

My state of California is known around the world for having
``good'' weather year round. That may be true for San Diego, but my
district is in Northern California where seasons do exist in the
weather patterns. There are times when California is in a drought and
water resources are scarce. And, then there are times, like this past
year, where sufficient water falls from the skies and down to the
lakes, rivers, wells, and onto the farm land.
It will prove evident this year, and especially next year in
California that our need for increased water storage is long overdue.
As my district annually endures hot summers, it is critical to have
water resources available. The ability to store more water when it is
plentiful in the winter is the only way to avoid severe drought
conditions in the Central Valley when the temperatures rise through the
summer.
Over the years and partly due to the drought periods and the need
to provide water to a rapidly growing population and farms led to an
innovative and complex water storage and delivery system. As a result,
the state of California and the federal government jointly operate two
water projects to capture and convey water from where it falls to where
it is in demand.
My district depends on this water for farming and the
sustainability of local communities. As water becomes scarcer in the
Central Valley, the unemployment numbers rise to extreme levels.
To begin to resolve some of the unacceptable unemployment issues in
my district, I have introduced a bill, H.R. 1604, that can increase the
reliability of water resources and renew an investment in water storage
and conveyance infrastructure. H.R. 1604 would streamline redundant
environmental review processes that waste time, money, and deters
investment in water projects.
When the cost of the environmental review alone makes a water
storage project a bad investment for the welfare of human life, the
regulations have reached an extreme point that stifles our ability to
provide for future generations. We can begin to provide better security
in water supply and electrical generation if we commit to these
infrastructure projects.
Lest we all forget, that a tangential benefit to developing more
water storage is the ability to produce and generate more renewable
electricity. So, in an effort to go ``green'' the pursuit of more
storage, conveyance, and hydroelectric power is only prudent.
Now there are uncompromising environmental regulations that do not
recognize the renewable aspect of hydropower to its full potential in
favor of other, more costly technologies. These costs are always borne
by the consumer; further stretching already thin family budgets during
this economic down turn.
If we can start to streamline regulations and remove burdens on
necessary water storage projects, we will not only create construction
jobs but also farming, scientific, and engineering jobs.
The creation of jobs today through these projects is very
important, but I do not want to completely overshadow the benefits that
come from pursuing and completing infrastructure projects that will
benefit generations to come.
Everyone likes to point out that Hoover Dam is a project that
America once strived for, and I agree. However, I believe that we still
strive to develop infrastructure for the future and the biggest hurdle
that we have to overcome is our own regulatory overreaches.
______

Statement of David J. Guy, President,
Northern California Water Association

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is David Guy.
I am the President of the Northern California Water Association (NCWA),
which represents water suppliers and local governments throughout the
Sacramento Valley--the northern part of California's Great Central
Valley.
NCWA and water resources managers throughout the Sacramento Valley
are committed to advance the economic, social, and environmental
sustainability of the Sacramento Valley by enhancing and preserving its
water rights, supplies, and water quality for the rich mosaic of
farmlands, refuges and managed wetlands, meandering rivers that support
fisheries and wildlife, and cities and rural communities in the region.
These ongoing sustainability efforts advance the new California policy
in Water Code Sec. 85021 ``to improve regional self-reliance for water
through investment in water use efficiency, water recycling, advanced
water technologies, local and regional water supply projects and
improved regional coordination of local and regional water supply
efforts.''
We appreciate the Subcommittee convening a hearing on the important
topic ``Water for our Future and Job Creation: Examining Regulatory and
Bureaucratic Barriers to New Storage Projects.'' We associate with and
fully support the testimony provided by the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation
District at the hearing, and we offer the following testimony to
highlight the Sacramento Valley and the related opportunities presented
by the Sites Reservoir.
The ability to view the Sites Reservoir in a manner different from
traditional projects presents a unique opportunity for the State of
California to meet important (albeit elusive) policy objectives around
the Bay-Delta and the Central Valley and to accomplish these objectives
in a way that will provide water supplies to enhance California's
economy and the environment.

The Foundation for New Water Storage
Water resources managers in the Sacramento Valley are undertaking
aggressive efforts to foster regional sustainability in the Sacramento
Valley with respect to water supplies; yet they are continually facing
greater operational constraints in managing these supplies.
To better understand these operational constraints in the
Sacramento Valley, water resources managers in the region have joined
together to commission various technical studies and reports focused on
hydrology, salmon life-cycles, and models for water operations in the
region. For purposes of today, we recommend Efficient Water Management
for Regional Sustainability in the Sacramento Valley, which is
available at www.norcalwater.org. The report builds upon decades of
continually improving water use efficiency in the Sacramento Valley at
the farm, refuge, district, and basin level. The technical report
provides a foundation to further evaluate improved water management
opportunities in the Sacramento Valley and the trade-offs that will
need to be considered in making future management decisions. The report
highlights many of the operational constraints that water resources
managers face every day in making management decisions in the flow-
through system in the Sacramento Valley, as well as the challenges in
serving water for all the various beneficial uses--farms, refuges,
fisheries, recreation and cities and rural communities.
In this light, what has become apparent over the years is that with
each advance in water use efficiency technology and the implementation
of a new water use activity or program, the marginal potential
efficiency in the region diminishes and the likelihood for adverse
consequences--primarily for environmental values--increases. While
water use efficiency is an integral part of a water resources
portfolio, responsible and sustainable water management increasingly
requires more sophisticated consideration of the various trade-offs
resulting from water use efficiency actions or programs and an
acknowledgment that increased efficiency in certain situations may
adversely affect water supplies for beneficial uses. As a result, water
resources managers are dedicating tremendous resources to better
understand and thus manage water resources in the Sacramento Valley to
assure that the region remains in balance with respect to its water
resources.
At the same time, the two major projects in the region--the Central
Valley Project and State Water Project--have both reduced their water
supply yields and operational flexibility due to increased water
demands and more regulatory constraints. This in turn has further
constrained the ability to manage water within the Sacramento Valley
for the various beneficial uses. It is these constraints and a better
understanding of these constraints by water resources managers that
provides the backdrop for the importance and need to further explore
surface storage in the Sacramento Valley.

Integrating Sites Reservoir into the Central Valley
The Sites Reservoir is a proposed off-stream storage project
located approximately ten miles west of Maxwell in the Antelope Valley.
The proposed reservoir would have a storage capacity of 1.8 million
acre-feet. The ability to view Sites differently stems in part from its
location within or adjacent to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
(GCID) and districts within the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority. This
allows the reservoir to be filled during peak flow periods by conveying
water into the reservoir through wheeling arrangements involving
existing facilities.
As such, Sites Reservoir can be integrated with local interests
within the Sacramento Valley so that it is operated and managed in
conjunction with various direct diversion rights, other surface water
resources (including Shasta Reservoir) and groundwater resources.
Proceeding with integrated water management will provide direct and
indirect benefits that include reliable and certain supplies of
irrigation, municipal and industrial and environmental water of
suitable quality for beneficial uses in the Sacramento Valley. This
also includes flexible hydropower generation, recreation and flood
damage reduction.
This integrated management, in turn, will provide greater
flexibility in managing the system for the benefit of the Bay-Delta and
areas that rely upon water from the Delta. Sites Reservoir integrated
into the Sacramento Valley thus provides the ability to operate the
existing water system in the Central Valley in a more flexible manner
to maximize system-wide benefits.
Moreover, when looking at the Sites Reservoir in tandem with other
facilities and groundwater management in the Sacramento Valley, the
water supply benefits are compounded. For example, a 1.8 million acre-
foot capacity Sites Reservoir would generate an average annual yield of
400,000 to 640,000 acre-feet, in dry and critical years, and in
addition would provide nearly 900,000 acre-feet of additional storage
in Lakes Shasta, Oroville, Folsom and Trinity during the important
months of May through September through the system integration and
operation.
In sum, Sites Reservoir will generate water for the environment,
while improving statewide water reliability and regional sustainability
in Northern California. This additional water supply upstream of the
Bay-Delta during these critical times will thus provide significant
benefits to the State of California.

Achieve Co-Equal Goals
The California Delta Reform Act in 2009 declared the over-arching
policy to ``achieve the co-equal goals of providing a more reliable
water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing
the Delta ecosystem.'' Many of the agency proposals in California to
solve the Bay-Delta favor one of the co-equal goals over the other or
they create, either directly or indirectly, clear winners and losers
with respect to the allocation of water supplies. By its location
upstream of the Delta, Sites Reservoir, as part of the integrated
management described above, can provide direct benefits to the Delta
ecosystem by maximizing the amount and timing of water available for
the Bay-Delta, including improvements in Delta water quality. With
respect to the co-equal goal of a more reliable water supply, water
will be available for the mosaic of water uses in the Sacramento
Valley, and there will be a more reliable water supply for water users
within the Delta, as well as water users south of the Delta. Sites
Reservoir thus provides an opportunity to change the dynamic in the
Bay-Delta debate and provide management flexibility in the system in
such a way that can truly achieve the co-equal goals.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for
convening this hearing and for the opportunity to provide this
testimony. If you have any questions, please call me at 916-442-8333.