[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

CALIFORNIA WATER CRISIS AND ITS IMPACTS: THE NEED FOR IMMEDIATE AND
LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS

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

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING

before the

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

Wednesday, March 19, 2014, in Fresno, California

__________

Serial No. 113-63

__________

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 PUBLISHING OFFICE

87-181 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member

Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Louie Gohmert, TX Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Rob Bishop, UT Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rauul M. Grijalva, AZ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
John Fleming, LA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Glenn Thompson, PA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Niki Tsongas, MA
Dan Benishek, MI Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Tony Caardenas, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Steven A. Horsford, NV
Rauul R. Labrador, ID Jared Huffman, CA
Steve Southerland, II, FL Raul Ruiz, CA
Bill Flores, TX Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Jon Runyan, NJ Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Markwayne Mullin, OK Joe Garcia, FL
Steve Daines, MT Matt Cartwright, PA
Kevin Cramer, ND Katherine M. Clark, MA
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO
Vance M. McAllister, LA
Bradley Byrne, AL

Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------

CONTENTS

----------
Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, March 19, 2014........................ 1

Statement of Members:
Costa, Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California................................................. 5
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wyoming....................................... 8
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 7

Statement of Witnesses:
Beland, Janelle, Undersecretary, California Natural Resources
Agency, State of California................................ 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Chavez, Hon. Sylvia V., Mayor, City of Huron, California..... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Coleman, Tom, President, Madera County Farm Bureau, Madera,
California................................................. 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Delgado, George, Delgado Farming, Firebaugh, California...... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Denham, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 14
Knell, Steve, P.E., General Manager, Oakdale Irrigation
District, Oakdale, California.............................. 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
McCarthy, Hon. Kevin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 13
Murillo, David, Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region, Bureau
of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior............ 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Nunes, Hon. Devin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Starrh, Larry, Co-Owner, Starrh and Starrh Farms, Shafter,
California................................................. 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Upton, Kole, Chowchilla, California.......................... 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 56
Valadao, Hon. David G., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 16
Watte, Mark, Tulare, California.............................. 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20

Additional Material Submitted for the Record:
Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, April 2, 2014,
Response to House Committee on Natural Resources field
hearing question on South-of-Delta Water Supply Deficit.... 75

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON CALIFORNIA WATER CRISIS AND ITS IMPACTS: THE
NEED FOR IMMEDIATE AND LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS

----------

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Natural Resources

Fresno, California

----------

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Fresno
City Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street, Hon. Doc Hastings
[Chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representative Hastings, McClintock, Lummis, and
Costa.
Also Present: Representatives Nunes, Valadao, Denham, and
McCarthy.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
The House Committee on Natural Resources meets today to
hear testimony on a hearing called the ``California Water
Crisis and Its Impacts: The Need for Immediate and Long-Term
Solutions.''
By way of introduction, I am Congressman Doc Hastings, and
I have the privilege of representing the Fourth District in
Washington State, which is very similar to the valleys here in
California, although not as large. We have a tremendous amount
of irrigated agriculture in my area, and I was down here 3
years ago when we had a subcommittee hearing. So, it is nice to
be back in Fresno.
By way of introduction, before we get started, I just
wanted to let you know, for those of you who aren't familiar as
to how committee hearings are set, at least in my committee in
the U.S. House, it is set up exactly this way, meaning that
Democrats sit to my left and Republicans sit to my right. That
is the way it is set up, and so I just wanted to let you know.
I should also note, too, that I sent a letter out to all
members of the California delegation on both sides of the aisle
to attend this hearing because we thought it was that
important.
So, with that, there are a number of Members that are
members of the House Committee on Natural Resources, but there
are some Members that are not. So this is the procedure that we
have to go through, and I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Nunes
and Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Denham, who is on his way, and Mr.
Valadao be allowed to sit at the committee, and without
objection, they will be seated at the committee.
And with that, let me turn it over to my good friend and
colleague from this area, Mr. Valadao, for the purposes of the
opening ceremonies.
Mr. Valadao, you are recognized.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman Hastings. Thank you for
taking the time to come out and visit us here in the valley.
This is obviously a very important hearing, and this issue has
been something that a lot of Members have been fighting before
my time in Congress, and I am lucky enough to be able to join
them in this fight this past year as I have served in the House
of Representatives.
Being that this is a congressional hearing, we are going to
begin, as we do with every session of the House of
Representatives, with a prayer, the posting of the colors, and
the Pledge of Allegiance.
So I would like to recognize Reverend Gaspar Baptista to
offer a prayer.
[Prayer.]
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Father.
Please stay standing.
I would like to recognize Selma High School Marine Corps
Junior ROTC to present the colors.
[Colors presented.]
Mr. Valadao. As a token of our appreciation, I would like
to present the Selma High School Marine Corps ROTC with a flag
that was flown over the capital for their service today.
And to do our pledge, I want to invite my friend, Mr.
William Bordeaux, retired U.S. Marine Corps veteran, to lead us
in the Pledge of Allegiance.
[Pledge of Allegiance.]
The Chairman. The procedure that we will follow now will be
that each Member will have up to 5 minutes to make opening
remarks, and then we will go to our panel to hear their
testimony. Following that, each Member will have some time to
follow up on questions with any of the panelists that they
desire.
So, with that, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for my
opening statement.

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

The Chairman. As I mentioned, it is a pleasure for me to be
back here in Fresno because my regions that I have the
privilege to represent are very much the same as the Central
Valleys of California in that they are deserts, but they were
transformed into the most productive soils on earth after our
Nation wisely realized that the deserts would bloom if they had
water and the necessary infrastructure of multi-purpose dams,
reservoirs and canals.
Entire agriculture economies and ways of life grew around
our ability to irrigate these once-dormant lands. In our
regions, respective regions, food grows where water flows.
Conversely, communities wither and die when the water spigot
stops. As many of you know, this is an all-too-familiar
occurrence here in the San Joaquin Valley. And, if it can
happen here, it can happen anywhere in the Western United
States, including my home area.
As Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, I
have painfully watched the cycle that has gone on over here for
the past several years. In 2009 and 2010, a man-made drought
brought this region to its knees, where communities experienced
40 percent unemployment and food lines handed out Chinese-
produced carrots to the victims of senseless regulatory
drought. That followed, then, with two good years of water.
During those relatively good times, the House passed a
comprehensive bill--and, I might add, every Member on this dais
voted for that bill--that was intended to ensure that man-made
drought never returned. Unfortunately, that bill fell on deaf
ears in the Senate and by this administration. And so now we
are back yet with another drought, and this one could be far
more catastrophic than the previous one. History is once again
repeating itself.
It doesn't have to be that way. As a matter of fact, had
the bill that we passed out of the last Congress passed and
been signed into law, we wouldn't be in this particular
situation today because of the solutions that were embodied in
that law.
But in the long term, we have an opportunity to right the
wrongs of what has gone on here and to learn lessons from the
past. First, let's stop the deliberate diversion of billions of
gallons of water to a 3-inch fish where the science has not
demonstrated that the fish is being helped by diversions. When
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals validated the delta smelt
Biological Opinion last week, it said that the species have
been, and I quote, ``afforded the highest of priorities by law
even if it means the sacrifices of the anticipated benefits of
the project.'' The opinion went on to say, and I quote again,
``Resolution of this fundamental policy question lies with the
Congress.'' I concur, and that is why we are here today. The
Endangered Species Act needs reform, and we plan on our
committee to begin that process in the next several weeks.
Second, let's reinvest in new water storage to capture
water in wet times so that we can deliver it in dry times. The
West is what it is today because of storage projects, and we
are literally throwing that legacy away by thinking that
conservation alone can resolve water shortages, because it
can't.
There is a demonstrated willingness from non-Federal
interests to invest in storage. The problem is that a maze of
Federal Government regulations, including the Biological
Opinion of the delta smelt, will continue to make it a
difficult process for these projects to become a reality. I
note that feasibility studies on three storage projects here in
California have gone on for over a decade. I would just remind
you, our country put a man on the moon in less time than that.
This administration must stop getting ready to get ready for
new storage. The California water bill that recently passed in
the last Congress and this Congress immediately authorizes
construction of storage by eliminating bureaucratic paralysis-
by-analysis and by tapping into private investments.
And third, parties on all sides must have the political
will to find common-sense solutions. To only resolve this
situation in the short term is simply kicking the can down the
road. I only wish that more of our California colleagues were
here today. As I mentioned, I had invited them to be here
today.
I also want to say that Mr. Valadao's recently passed bill
that we passed, which is similar to the bill that passed last
time, is a long-term solution to our problems that we face. And
I might add again that all Members sitting in front of you
voted for that legislation.
So now it is truly the time for the Senate to act. We
cannot enact law in our country unless both houses act. We have
acted in two Congresses in a row. It is now time for the Senate
to act.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman, Committee
on Natural Resources
It's always a pleasure to be back in Fresno.
Our regions have a lot in common. They were once deserts, but they
were transformed into the most productive soils on earth after our
Nation wisely realized that the deserts would bloom if they had water
and the necessary infrastructure of multi-purpose dams, reservoirs and
canals. Entire agricultural economies and ways of life grew around our
ability to irrigate these dormant lands.
In our regions, food grows where water flows. Conversely,
communities wither and can die when the water spigot stops. As many of
you know, this is an all-too-familiar occurrence here in the San
Joaquin Valley. And, if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere in
the Western United States.
As Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, I have
painfully watched the cycle that has gone on here over the past few
years. In 2009 and 2010, a man-made drought brought this region to its
knees, where communities experienced 40 percent unemployment and food
lines handed out Chinese-produced carrots to the victims of senseless
regulatory drought. This followed with 2 good water years.
During those relatively good times, the House passed a
comprehensive bill intended to ensure that man-made drought never
returned. That bill fell on deaf ears in the Senate and the
administration. Now, we are back to yet another drought and this one
could be far more catastrophic than before. History is once again
repeating itself.
It doesn't have to be this way. We have an opportunity to right the
wrongs of what's gone on here and to learn lessons from the past.
First, let's stop the deliberate diversion of billions of gallons
of water to a 3-inch fish when the science has not demonstrated that
the fish is being helped by the diversions. When the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals validated the delta smelt Biological Opinion last
week, it said that species have been quote ``afforded the highest of
priorities by law even it means the sacrifices of the anticipated
benefits of the project'' unquote. The opinion went on to say that
quote ``Resolution of these fundamental policy questions . . . lies
with Congress.'' Unquote. I concur. The Endangered Species Act needs
reformed and we plan to begin that process in the next few weeks.
Second, let's re-invest in new water storage to capture water in
wet times so we can deliver it in dry times. The West is what it is
today because of storage projects and we are literally throwing that
legacy away by thinking that conservation alone can resolve water
shortages.
There is a demonstrated willingness from non-Federal interests to
invest in storage. The problem is that a maze of Federal environmental
regulations--including a Biological Opinion on delta smelt--will
continue to make it a difficult process to make these project a
reality. I note that feasibility studies on three storage projects here
in California have gone on for over a decade. Our great country put a
man on the moon in less time. This administration must stop getting
ready to get ready on new storage. The California water bill recently
passed by the House immediately authorizes construction of storage by
eliminating bureaucratic paralyses-by-analyses and by tapping into
private investment.
Third, parties on all sides must have the political will to find
common-sense solutions. To only resolve this situation in the short-
term is simply kicking the can down the road. I only wish that more
California House and U.S. Senate Democrats, all of which I invited,
could be sitting here to listen to the long-term solutions posed today.
Mr. Valadao's recently passed bill is a great start to bringing
short and long-term help. Long-term solutions must be part of the
equation or we will repeat this destructive drought cycle once again.
We must not be short-sighted. I hope that the Senate can do its part so
a meaningful but rapid negotiation can truly happen. The Senate is
entitled to its solution, but the next step is to pass their solution
and if there are differences, get together to work differences out.
In closing, I want to thank Mr. Valadao for his leadership on his
bill and in asking for this hearing. The people of the San Joaquin
Valley have asked for and deserve nothing less than their water. We are
here to listen and to bring your message back to Washington, DC.
______

With that, I recognize the distinguished Member who is
serving as the Ranking Member of this committee, Mr. Costa, for
5 minutes.

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

Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Chairman Doc Hastings, for
holding this hearing, and my colleagues for being here today.
Obviously, this devastating drought is impacting our
valley, but I think it is reflective of the water problems our
entire State is going to have. No people, though, will bear the
brunt of this drought's effects more than the people in this
room today and many who are outside of this room who are part
of the farmers, the farm workers, and the farm communities that
have made our valley what it is today.
We see its effects in lost jobs, in families standing in
food lines to provide for their meals, and in the incredible
burden that mothers and fathers have trying to provide the
basic needs for their families while fertile ground beneath
their feet lies dry and fallow.
I believe that this drought and the comments that I have
made reflect the sentiment that every person in this valley
has. And like many of you, I am angry. I am angry that we have
failed to capture the water that lies available to us in times
of plenty so that we can use it in years like these. I am angry
that we have failed to invest in our water system that was
designed by our parents and our grandparents. And unfortunately
today, California's needs have become over-burdened because of
the greater population increase, and the water supply is
stretched thin, and therefore we have a broken water system.
I am angry that in face of the devastation, we continue to
point fingers and play the blame game, and it does not bring us
one additional drop of water.
To understand my anger, we must first place this drought in
perspective. Like many of you, my family and I today have
farmed for generations. We went through this from 2008 to 2010,
as the Chairman noted. It was terrible. From the drought, we
learned many things, but the biggest lesson we should have
learned is that we can simply not continue to do nothing. We
must act and we must act now to resolve this problem, and we
must do it in a bipartisan fashion. We must forge compromises
that ultimately result in successful legislation. That is the
only way you ever get successful legislation.
Every day, I work with everyone to bring more water to our
valley, and no one is more committed to doing that than the
folks that are here on this dais. I certainly am. And we have
had success when we work together: the Intertie Project; water
bonds that in the past and today are being considered for
additional storage in Sacramento; carryover storage. Just this
week, the State board order has been changed to relieve the
pressure on the exchange contractors and other water users.
In 2011, I introduced H.R. 1251, more water for our valley
after the 2010 drought which provided more direction on how the
pumps should operate while still being in compliance with the
Endangered Species Act. Now, I think we ought to change the
Endangered Species Act, but I also believe that the likelihood
of that occurring in the Senate is not good.
Had this bill been in place, though, it is estimated that
we would not have lost the 800,000 acre feet of water last
year. Unfortunately, that bill was never brought for a hearing,
let alone a vote.
But when we work together, we can have success. The most
recent success was when the colleagues, many here at this
table, pushed the Bureau of Reclamation and Director Murillo
that the carryover water that had been saved last year by
farmers, 360,000 acre feet of water, must be made available for
those farmers who saved that water. That was a success.
But we need to have more of this type of cooperation to
craft legislation that can successfully pass in the House of
Representatives as well as in the U.S. Senate that could be
signed by the President.
We all know what the solutions must include: more storage
in the long term so we can save water in wet years; an improved
conveyance system that doesn't cause the collapse of the delta
so that we can move water through the Sacramento San Joaquin
River Delta system; and legislative flexibility, legislative
flexibility to provide the operations under the State and
Federal projects. That is why this year I have introduced and
supported bills to provide authorization of more storage.
Congressman McClintock, who chairs the subcommittee, he has
introduced H.R. 937, and I am a co-sponsor of that to raise the
spillway gates at Exchequer Dam that would provide 70,000 acre
feet of additional water. We passed that bill in the House; it
is now in the Senate. We should act on it. H.R. 4125, which
would authorize the expansion of Exchequer Dam that I
introduced last month, 600,000 additional acre feet of water;
H.R. 4126, which would enlarge San Luis Reservoir in my
district that would provide 130,000 acre feet of additional
water; and Temperance Flat Dam that we share here that would
provide us the ability to move water north and south that would
provide 1.3 million acre feet of additional storage.
However, we must be able to supply more water for our farms
and for our cities. And as I close, I want to suggest that
legislation that has been introduced this year, H.R. 4039,
would provide direction on how we can operate the systems that
capture water that we need so much.
In closing, let me say that none of us can make it rain. If
we could, we would have done it already. But our valley is our
home. We love it dearly. And my heart goes out to all of those
who have been impacted, as my family and your family has. I
look forward to listening to the testimony, Mr. Chairman, of
the witnesses, and continuing to work with you and members of
the committee to solve our drastic water drought that is facing
the people of this valley and California.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his statement.
I recognize the gentleman, another gentleman--in fact, I am
going to recognize every gentleman from California that I will
recognize will be from California.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. That will not be the case. After Mr.
McClintock, it will be somebody from Wyoming.
So I will recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
McClintock.

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

Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, long before the current drought, the Central
Valley suffered from the deliberate diversion of billions of
gallons of water promised to it under the Bay Delta Accord.
Instead, that water was dumped into the Pacific Ocean for the
amusement of the delta smelt. This wanton act caused the loss
of a quarter-million acres of the most productive farmland in
America. It threw thousands of families into unemployment. It
economically devastated this region.
Well, now a natural drought has compounded the regulatory
drought, and here is the simple truth of the matter. Droughts
are nature's fault; water shortages are our fault. Nature
produces 45,000 gallons of fresh water every day for every man,
woman and child on this planet. The problem is that water is
unevenly distributed over both time and distance. We build dams
to transfer water from wet times to dry times. We build
aqueducts to transfer water from wet areas to dry areas. We
don't build dams and aqueducts to dump that water into the
ocean.
[Applause.]
Mr. McClintock. Water is very good at flowing downhill on
its own. It doesn't need our help. We build dams and aqueducts
so that surplus water isn't lost to the ocean but is rather
retained for human prosperity.
Unfortunately, in the last generation, a radical and
retrograde ideology has insinuated its way into our public
policy. It holds that human needs need to be subordinated to
the goal of restoring Earth to her prehistoric condition. In
pursuit of this goal, this movement has obstructed the
construction of new dams by attaching so many conditions and
restrictions as to render them economically infeasible. Mr.
Costa just referenced bills that ostensibly authorize new dams
at sites and Temperance Flats, but only if judged feasible
under these unobtainable standards. Translation, that means
these dams will not get built.
We have been unable to get the spillway raised just 10
lousy feet on the Exchequer Dam that would add 70,000 acre feet
of additional storage to Lake McClure. Self-described
environmentalists oppose it because it would require a minor
boundary adjustment to the wild and scenic river boundary that
overlapped with the preexisting FERC boundary. Indeed, this
movement has not only obstructed the construction of new dams,
it has actively pursued the goal of tearing down existing ones
such as the four hydro-electric dams on the Klamath.
If anything good comes of this drought, it will be that the
public is finally awakening to the enormous economic and
environmental damage that these policies have done.
The House has acted twice on legislation to address both
the regulatory drought caused by the unnecessary water
diversions and to begin removing the regulatory hurdles that
block new dam construction. Mr. Valadao's H.R. 3964 is an
important first step. It strengthens water rights, it stops the
massive loss of water required by the Biological Opinions on
smelt in the San Joaquin River Restoration Act, it opens up
additional storage for local agencies at New Melones, it
expands capacity at Lake McClure, it allows local water
districts to partner with the Federal Government to expedite
expansion and construction of reservoirs.
But there is a problem, and the problem is that the Senate
has not acted on this legislation, and progress cannot be made
between the two houses until the Senate either passes the House
bill or sends its own bill to the House so that the conference
process can proceed to a conclusion.
We are at a crossroads, and it is time to choose between
two very different visions of water policy. One is the
nihilistic vision of increasingly severe government-induced
shortages, higher and higher electricity and water prices,
massive taxpayer subsidies to politically well-connected
industries, and a permanently declining quality of life for our
children who will be required to stretch and ration every drop
of water and every watt of electricity in their bleak and dimly
lit homes.
The other is a vision of abundance, a new era of clean,
cheap, and abundant hydro-electricity, great new reservoirs to
store water in wet years, to assure abundance in dry ones, a
future in which families can enjoy the prosperity that abundant
water and electricity provide and the quality of life that
comes from that prosperity. It is a society whose children can
look forward to a green lawn, a backyard garden, affordable
air-conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter,
brightly lit homes and cities, and abundant and affordable
groceries from America's agricultural cornucopia.
I yield back.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his opening
statement.
I now recognize my colleague and a member of the Natural
Resources Committee from Wyoming, Mrs. Cynthia Lummis, for 5
minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to my
colleagues from California for inviting me here to discuss the
dire water situation in the San Joaquin Valley.
What is happening to the people of the San Joaquin Valley
strikes at the core of what western communities share in
common. Like you, water is our lifeblood in Wyoming. Without
it, people suffer. People are suffering in California right now
because of the water shortage, job losses, unemployment, and
fallowed farmland.
I say with great regret that some of the factors
contributing to the water shortages are man-made. The Congress
can't control the weather, but the Congress can act to strike a
responsible balance between the needs of people and the needs
of fish, instead of letting taxpayer-funded lawsuits determine
the fate of the San Joaquin Valley.
The livelihoods of people are being held hostage by groups
who sue over and over to get their way whenever Fish and
Wildlife officials disagree with them. After hundreds of
millions of dollars spent on the delta smelt, there is still no
scientific consensus as to why it is declining. Nonetheless,
using the courts and tax dollars to pay their attorney fees,
environmental litigants like the NRDC have managed to choke off
water supplies to the valley, all for uncertain benefit to the
fish.
Together with Chairman Hastings and Representative Valadao,
we formed a working group to study the Endangered Species Act
and examples like this where the law simply has not worked as
intended. We will be pursuing legislation in the months ahead
to improve the law and make it work better for both species and
people. The hope is to re-focus the law on actually recovering
species and prevent it from being abused like it has been here
in the San Joaquin Valley.
But in the meantime, the people in the valley need
immediate relief. That is why the House of Representatives
passed Mr. Valadao's bill, H.R. 3964. The legislation is
designed to restore long-term water supplies to farmers and
communities that right now are looking at zero or near-zero
percent allocations of water. The bill will also promote more
water storage to meet the needs of California's growing
population, and of farmers who are feeding more than half our
Nation with vegetables, fruits and nuts. California's
agricultural community has taken water conservation to a new
level over the last decades. They have never been more
efficient, and their techniques are being duplicated across the
country.
But when you have a water storage and delivery system built
for 22 million people and a population of 38 million people,
and growing, no amount of water conservation is going to
completely solve your problem. California and the people of the
San Joaquin Valley need more water storage, period. These are
the good people of agriculture who perform a noble task, who
feed their families and mine, who love and nurture the land and
the culture of our Nation.
I am here from Wyoming today to honor these families and to
support their goal of continuing this honorable and important
work of providing food and fiber, the cornerstones of our
Nation's security, to all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, that is enough for me. The real story will be
told by the impressive panel of California witnesses before us.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the Members of the
California here today, both on the dais and in attendance, and
I yield back.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. I thank the gentle lady for her testimony.
Now I will recognize somebody that you are all very
familiar with, Mr. Nunes from California.
Mr. Nunes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEVIN NUNES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your
continued pursuit of policies that make sense in the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, the environmental lobby and its allies
attribute the current water crisis to historic drought induced
by global warming, but they have it wrong. Central Valley
farmers are fallowing their lands not because of low levels of
rainfall, our communities are restricting water usage not
because the world is getting warmer, and our water districts
are receiving a fraction of their allocations but not because
of greenhouse gases. The problem is not that the Central Valley
is lacking water, it is that we are being deprived of it.
Our forefathers blessed this State with an amazing
irrigation system that could withstand 5 years of drought. The
principle was simple: water was captured during the wet years
for use in the dry ones. We are still capable of doing that,
but we are not allowed. For decades, preposterous environmental
regulations have put more and more water off limits to people.
Before these regulations began taking hold in the early 1990s,
water districts routinely received 100 percent of their water
allocations. Since then, they have hardly ever received 100
percent. And today, this year, many will receive zero.
For the sake of supposedly persecuted fish species, the
salmon and the most precious of all, the 3-inch bait fish
called the delta smelt, government authorities have diverted
enormous supplies of water from human usage. How much water has
been lost? Consider this: in the past 7 years, nearly 4 million
acre feet of water that could have been used by families and
farmers has been flushed into the ocean. That is not a result
of global warming or drought. It is the result of a government
run amok.
Altogether, the diversion of water from farms and
communities to environmental causes has created an average
annual water shortfall of roughly 1.75 million acre feet on the
west side of this valley, and 250,000 acre feet on the east
side of the valley, plus an additional east side groundwater
overdraft of 400,000 acre feet. That leads to a total average
shortfall of nearly 2.5 million acre feet.
What does this mean? If nothing is done, around 800,000
acres of productive farmland will be forced permanently out of
production.
The House of Representatives passed a bill 6 weeks ago and
a similar bill in 2012 that would eliminate this shortfall
completely. If the new bill had been in effect for the last 7
years, about half the water flushed into the ocean would have
been kept for use.
More recently, after years of total inaction on this grave
problem which destroyed thousands of jobs for farmers and farm
workers, the Senate finally introduced a bill that would
alleviate some of the water shortfall. It would supply around
300,000 acre feet. This leaves a deficit of 2.1 million acre
feet.
Of course, simply introducing a bill doesn't achieve
anything. The Senate needs to pass it so that the House and
Senate can go to conference and hammer out a compromise bill.
But it must be crystal clear to everyone: if a compromise bill
provides anything less than 2.4 million acre feet, then the
State of California counties, cities and irrigation districts,
not the Federal Government, will be responsible for overcoming
the remaining deficit.
What many people don't realize is that the fallowing of
farmland and the uprooting of entire communities is not a side-
effect of the radical environmentalists' actions. It is their
goal. For extremists who view human settlement and productive
economic activity as a blight on nature, it is a good thing
that water-deprived families are abandoning their farms and
homes. These extremists won't uproot themselves from their
comfortable homes in San Francisco and other coastal cities,
but they are more than willing to use the Central Valley
communities as a guinea pig to see if our lands can be restored
to some mystical state of nature.
These radicals never tire of battle and they never give up.
You see the results of their relentless fight in the new
dustbowl that has overtaken the valley. They are using all
their influence to oppose the House-passed water bill that
would permanently end the crisis, and they recently imposed
their will on the Metropolitan Water District of southern
California.
Meanwhile, many of our Ag groups' lawyers and lobbyists
that are supposed to be representing the valley are acting to
protect their own self-interests with high-paying jobs,
pensions, and unwillingness to actually call a spade a spade.
When a government can't provide water to its citizens, the
government has failed. Victims of its policies have two
options, to rise in protest until these policies are changed or
watch helplessly as their communities are destroyed. The
leftists who have engineered this crisis understand this. To
try to keep their victims from protesting, they have offered up
a scapegoat of global warming, and to buy them off, they have
offered programs and bills that don't provide water but do
provide sums of money, essentially giving welfare to people who
really only want water.
By passing two comprehensive bills, the House of
Representatives has already shown that it is on the side of the
people of the valley, but that is not enough to restore their
water. As shown by the Ninth Circuit Court last week in favor
of the delta smelt, even during an historic water crisis, the
radical environmental agenda advances remorselessly. The smelt
may have won another victory, but the struggling farmers and
thirsty families and shattered communities of this valley are
paying the price.
I have been fighting these extremists for more than a
decade in Congress, and as long as I am elected I will continue
to keep up this fight. The most important thing is to give a
voice to the people who will not sit idly by while their
livelihoods are stolen away from them and the hopes and dreams
of their children and grandchildren are grinded into dust.
I yield back.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nunes follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Devin Nunes, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
The environmental lobby and its allies attribute the current water
crisis to a historic drought induced by global warming. But they have
it wrong. Central Valley farmers are fallowing their lands, but not
because of low levels of rainfall. Our communities are restricting
water usage, but not because the world is getting warmer. And our water
districts are receiving a fraction of their allocations, but not
because of greenhouse gases.
The problem is not that the Central Valley is lacking water, it's
that we're being deprived of it.
Our forefathers blessed this State with an amazing irrigation
system that could withstand 5 years of drought. The principle was
simple--water was captured during wet years for use in dry ones.
We're still capable of doing that, but we're not allowed. For
decades, preposterous environmental regulations have put more and more
water off-limits to people. Before these regulations began taking hold
in the early 1990s, water districts routinely received 100 percent of
their water allocations. Since then, they've hardly ever received 100
percent, and today many actually receive 0 percent.
For the sake of supposedly persecuted fish species--the salmon, the
steelhead, and the most precious of all, the 3-inch baitfish called the
delta smelt--government authorities have diverted enormous supplies of
water from human usage. How much water has been lost? Consider this: in
the past 7 years, 3.9 million acre feet of water that could have been
used by families and farmers have been flushed out into the ocean. That
is not a result of global warming or drought--it's a result of
government run amuck.
Altogether, the diversion of water from farms and communities to
environmental causes has created an average annual water shortfall of
1.75 million feet on the westside and 250,000 acre feet on the
eastside, plus an eastside groundwater overdraft of 400,000 acre feet.
That leads to a total average annual shortfall of 2.4 million acre feet
in the Central Valley. This means if nothing is done, around 800,000
acres of productive farmland will be forced out of production.
The House of Representatives passed a bill 6 weeks ago, which
followed a similar bill passed in 2012, that would eliminate this
shortfall completely. If the new bill had been in effect for the last 7
years, about half the water flushed into the ocean would have been kept
in usage--and some might say we could use an extra 2 million acre feet
of water right now.
More recently, after years of total inaction as this grave problem
destroyed thousands of jobs for farmers and farm workers, the Senate
finally introduced a bill that would alleviate some of the water
shortfall--it would supply around 300,000 acre feet, leaving a deficit
of 2.1 million acre feet. Of course, simply introducing a bill doesn't
achieve anything--the Senate needs to pass it, so that the House and
Senate can go to conference and hammer out a compromise bill.
It must be crystal clear to everyone, however, that if a compromise
bill provides anything less than the 2.4 million missing acre feet,
then the State of California, counties, cities, and irrigation
districts--not the Federal Government--will be responsible for
overcoming the remaining deficit.
What many people don't realize is that the fallowing of farmland
and the uprooting of entire communities is not a side-effect of the
radical environmentalists' actions; it is their goal. For extremists
who view human settlement and productive economic activity as a blight
on nature, it's a good thing that water-deprived families are
abandoning their farms and homes. These extremists won't uproot
themselves from their comfortable houses in San Francisco and other
coastal cities, but they're more than willing to use Central Valley
communities as guinea pigs to see if our lands can be restored to some
mystical state of nature.
These radicals never tire of the battle, and they never give up.
You see the results of their relentless fight in the new dustbowl that
has overtaken the Central Valley. They are using all their influence to
oppose the House-passed water bill that would permanently end this
crisis, and they recently imposed their will on the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California. Meanwhile, Ag groups, lawyers, and
lobbyists who are supposed to be representing valley farmers are
primarily acting to protect their own high-paying jobs and pensions.
When a government cannot provide water to its citizens, that
government has failed. Victims of its policies have two options--to
rise up and protest until these policies are changed, or watch
helplessly as their communities are destroyed. The leftists who
engineered this crisis understand this. To try to keep their victims
from protesting, they have offered up the scapegoat of global warming.
And to buy them off, they have offered programs and bills that don't
provide water, but do pay out large sums of money, essentially giving
welfare to people who just want to work.
By passing two comprehensive water bills, the House of
Representatives has already shown that it's on the side of the people
of the Central Valley. But that is not enough to restore their water.
As shown by the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling last week in favor of the
delta smelt, even during a historic water crisis, the radical
environmental agenda advances remorselessly. The smelt may have won
another victory, but the struggling farmers, the thirsty families, and
the shattered communities of the Central Valley are paying the price.
I have been fighting these extremists for more than a decade in
Congress, and as long as the people of this valley entrust me as their
representative, I will continue fighting. I will give a voice to people
who will not sit idly by while their livelihoods are stolen away from
them and the hopes and dreams of their children and grandchildren are
grinded into dust.
______

The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his statement.
I will now recognize the majority whip from Bakersfield,
Mr. McCarthy.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEVIN McCARTHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, thank you all for turning out. And I want to thank
the committee for being here. You know, this isn't the first
time the committee is here. We were here 3 years ago, we were
here 4 years ago, because we knew today would come, and we
wanted to be better prepared.
The sad part is the House has done the work. The Senate
just stood there defensively in the face of the drought. I am
here to tell you that is not a noble gesture.
Just yesterday I was reading The Wall Street Journal,
headline, front page. Because of the drought in California and
Texas, prices are rising. We know from the valley what we grow
is already affecting the economy. We see it right here, right
now.
Where will we get our food? Do you ever question about food
safety? There is no better place to do it than grow our own.
There is no better place to grow it than here.
The challenge is, do we have to be where we are today? We
know some years will be dryer than others. On record, this is
one of the driest. Three years ago we had 170 percent of snow
pack, just 3 years ago. What was the State allocation then?
Eighty percent. Eighty percent in a year of 170.
Devin has led this charge when many people thought it was
just a valley issue. He has been able to grow it into a
national issue, because it is. The policies that are affecting
this Nation aren't just going to affect California but will
affect the entire country, and it holds us back.
David has led the charge this time in Congress to actually
pass legislation. The Senate has done nothing.
The challenge is, in 1994, something unique happened.
Republicans, Democrats, environmentalists, water users all got
together and made an agreement. They made an agreement, and in
that agreement it said in the wet years we would let water come
down from the delta. We would be able to store it for years
like today. But court cases, Federal regulation and others have
made that different, so we are in a different place.
My wife and I, we have two children. Like you, our greatest
fear in the future is what the future will look like for them.
What are the opportunities that they will have? And when they
are growing up, you want to teach them lessons of history and
the past, and you study history. Are there tales, are there
fables you can teach them to teach them the lessons?
Have any of you ever studied Aesop, the ancient Greek? He
was a slave. He would tell these fables to teach a lesson for a
moral history in the future. And there is a famous one that we
would always--we would read it and he would tell it--about the
ant and the grasshopper. It is really quite simple. It is a
little story of an ant and a grasshopper in the summertime.
What did the ant do? The ant went and stored the food, took it
down, afraid that there might be a cold winter, when others
would say, oh, no, nothing will happen. The grasshopper enjoyed
the summer, afraid nothing ever will come.
Well, you know what? A cold winter came. Who was prepared?
This would have been a great year to be an ant. We had a
great opportunity. But government is pushing us into being
grasshoppers, a challenge we do not have to be.
Our Chairman is from Washington State. Earlier this year
they were at 60 percent of their snow pack. The President came
out here, brought our two Senators, to talk about the water
crisis of California. He thinks it is a different issue. In
that time we had that little bit of rain, Washington had 40
percent more of their snow pack. I think the President is on
the wrong path that he thinks it is just global warming.
Washington is not far from California.
But do you know, during that little bit of rain, in these
type of years it is very important. I just heard a report back
that projected from a water district that 445,000 acre of feet
went out to the ocean because of State and Federal regulation.
State quality says it needs to be 8-to-1. The fish get 8; we
get 1.
It kind of goes back to the old fable. It is not that
difficult. We need more storage, we need the ability for the
water to come down, not into the ocean, and we need a plan for
the years ahead. We were here 3 years ago to make that plan. We
were very fortunate in a process that most States don't have.
Both our Senators are committee chairs. Do you know how
powerful it is to be a committee chair in the Senate? But there
still has not been a vote in the Senate on water legislation
for California.
This country was created with a House and a Senate. One
House passes a bill, the Senate passes a bill, and you go to
conference and you solve the problem. We have been waiting two
Congresses now. We have gotten the entire Congress together to
vote on where to move, just focused on California. Very seldom
does that ever happen. The question now is, will the Senate
even act?
We can't wait any longer. We are now in that place that we
did not want to be, and I believe there is a better
opportunity. I look forward to hearing from all, and I yield
back.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.
Now I will recognize another representative from the
Central Valley. Mr. Denham is recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEFF DENHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
yet another hearing here in the valley, and certainly one more
of many hearings that we have held in Washington, DC on our
water crisis.
I start by apologizing for being late, coming from the
northern part of the valley. If we had been spending the last 5
years' stimulus dollars on shovel-ready transportation projects
rather than high-speed rail, I would have been here earlier.
[Laughter.]
[Applause.]
Mr. Denham. And I only bring up high-speed rail in this
context in a water hearing. If California had its priorities
right, we would be building water storage instead of a train
that may never come.
[Applause.]
Mr. Denham. Two years ago, the House passed legislation
seeking to address the imbalance in the State's water system,
and it was only met with criticism and dismissal. Criticism
from our Senate counterparts was met with no solutions and no
legislative proposals at the time.
Now the State finds itself in the midst of a drought. The
Speaker of the House came to the valley to witness the
devastation, and the House again acted swiftly.
The President visited recently, bringing news of help for
food banks and discussing the ills of climate change.
Even the Senate finally placed ideas into legislative text,
but the scope is short-term and focuses on the authority
regulatory agencies already possess.
Unfortunately, the President needs to ensure we don't end
up in this great crisis once again.
A bigger problem facing the valley is the outlandish
approach the California State Water Resources Control Board has
taken in the last year on required flows for the Tuolumne
River, and most recently with the threat of overtaking the
Central Valley project and throwing out over 100 years of water
rights history.
Added to this list is the State board's most recent idea of
cutting off all of agriculture for 2 years.
Over a year ago, the State board proposed to send over 35
percent of unimpaired flows on the Tuolumne River out to the
ocean with no scientific evidence proving it would even help
the fish species. If this proposal is implemented, water years
like this would render New Don Pedro Reservoir empty, empty,
with no water for fish at all. I fail to understand how this
approach actually helps the fish.
Now the State board is threatening to do away with over 100
years of water rights history without even understanding the
impacts to our reservoirs; and worse, what it would do to the
people of the valley that will suffer from these short-sighted
policies.
What this State needs is more storage, and we need it now,
not after a few more years of study, but right now. Provisions
in the House bill I authored allow for construction of millions
of acre feet of new water to begin immediately. I included a
provision to allow for more storage at New Melones Reservoir at
no cost to the taxpayer. I also included a provision seeking to
do a pilot study on the impacts predator fish have on listed
species.
It is all very disappointing because while I am offering
solutions to assist our State's water problems, all of my
common-sense provisions have been met with either resistance
and dismissal by the Senate or the President and the Governor.
Instead of offering assistance to solve our problems long term,
all I hear about is global warming and short-term fixes that
should have already been implemented to lessen the blow in
future years.
To further exacerbate an already difficult water year, I
continue to hear from water managers that the last few storms
that have brought needed rain to the valley has not been
captured, and the State and Federal projects continue to miss
important opportunities to store more water. On March 10, the
Delta Vision Foundation urged, and I will quote, ``the State of
California and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to reach agreement
immediately on an emergency order to allow increased pumping to
capture needed water for agriculture, industry and
communities.'' It goes on to state that, ``regulators missed
the opportunity during the last series of big storms to export
more water when there are high levels of water flow in the bay
delta ecosystem.''
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
the very real and predictable impacts that we are facing, what
the State and Federal Governments are doing to improve water
supplies, and ideas for short- and long-term solutions to
protect California from facing this problem next year and year
after year.
I yield back.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his statement.
And last but certainly not least, I want to recognize the
newest member of the California delegation from the valley, Mr.
Valadao, who is the author of the legislation that many of us
have supported that has passed that provides long-term
solutions to the California water problems.
Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID G. VALADAO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, and thank you
for taking the opportunity and the time to come out here and
spend some time with our constituents here in the valley, and
Congresswoman Lummis from Wyoming. I really enjoyed driving her
around yesterday and pointing out some of the issues that we
are facing here in the valley.
As many of you know, I am a farmer here still in the
valley. I farm just south of Hanford. And in those years that I
farmed, as I still do today, we have had years that we get
extra rain, and we will get calls from our water district
begging us to take water onto our rain-soaked and flooded
fields. Yes, and it really happens, and it is something that
people forget about.
When we had those really bad rains a few years back, we
were getting calls, and my fields were literally flooded with
water. Our crops were on the verge of dying, but they are
begging us to take water. That is a situation where water
infrastructure makes a difference, because that water, instead
of being forced upon us, could have been held back for a year
like now. And then the water that we did have in storage was
wasted, slowly. You hear about releases up in McClintock's
district and other parts of the State where water is being
released during the winter; or there is water, just like
earlier this year, that was released out into the ocean and not
captured and stored.
In a year like today, when we are literally at zero percent
allocation, where the well drillers in our area are tied up for
at least a year-and-a-half, where some farmers are even getting
to the point of buying their own drilling rigs, we have water
flowing out into the ocean, water just being wasted for
absolutely no good reason, because of law.
What needs to be done? A bill was passed a few years ago,
H.R. 1837. A bill was passed again, H.R. 3964. Yes, everybody
has been saying it is my bill. My name is at the top of the
list, but I had every single Republican in the delegation sign
on to that bill. Chairman Hastings sat down with all of us and
said what do you need to do, how do we make you guys get
something through this House again? He said as long as we work
together, I am there.
We put a bill out. We made a few changes at the request of
some of the Members. We introduced it. In a few weeks it was
off the House Floor and it was delivered to the Senate.
How does the legislative process work now? The Senate has
to act, either take up our bill or pass the bill that was
introduced not too long ago by our two Senators here in
California.
As far as how this group up here has handled the situation,
we have reached out, we are continuing to reach out, and we are
going to continue to meet with and help in any way we can to
either pass our bill through the Senate or pass their bill. But
at the end of the day, until we get something to the
President's desk for his signature, we cannot solve this
problem.
So having hearings like this helps bring more attention to
what is going on in the valley to make sure there is a face
with the situation that we have here. When we go back to
Washington, it is a fight because we can't afford to fly all of
you back there and help us bring that message. And you do see
those rallies on TV, and those are helpful, and that is why
people do that.
So the fact that we packed this place like we have today,
standing room only, and the national attention on this issue,
it helps us push this issue forward. The sad thing is, people
look at this from other parts of the State. I have made a lot
of friends in other States, and they always point to us and say
if we don't fight, if we don't do what is right today, we are
going to end up like California, and they are where our food
comes from, and it is sad. It is something that--I don't want
to be their bad example. I don't like watching our Members, or
even parts of our State, the representatives from parts of our
State, not want to help, not want to be part of the solution.
And it is a challenge, but we have a great team up here. I
have had the opportunity as the new guy--and that is why I am
sitting on the end----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Valadao [continuing]. But as the new guy, to be part of
the solution and to work with them and push this forward, and
we are going to continue to fight. We are not giving up, and we
are going to keep doing everything we can to bring something to
the President's desk and get his signature.
So thank you, and thank you, and I yield back.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
We have a panel here of 10 people that had been invited,
and I will just briefly introduce them, and then I will take a
little bit more time to introduce where they are all from.
We have Mr. Mark Watte from Tulare; Ms. Sylvia Chavez from
Huron; Mr. Larry Starrh from Shafter; Mr. George Delgado from
Firebaugh; Mr. Tom Coleman from Madera; Mr. David Murillo from
Sacramento; The Honorable Felicia Marcus from Sacramento; we
have Ms. Janelle Beland from Sacramento; Mr. Steve Knell from
Oakdale; and Mr. Kole Upton from Chowchilla.
Now, let me, for those of you who have not testified in
front of the committee, we ask you with the invite to submit a
written testimony. Your full testimony will appear in the
record. However, because of time constraints, we try to keep
the oral remarks within the 5-minute rule, as we call it.
Up here is a light that has a green light, a yellow light,
and a red light. That is really, really significant in
committee hearings, I will tell you, because what it says, when
the green light is on, you are just doing swimmingly well. But
when the yellow light comes on, that means you are within a
minute of your 5-minute time. And then when the red light comes
on--well, we just don't want to go there, OK?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. And so what I would like all of you to do is
keep your oral remarks obviously within the 5 minutes. But if
your thought goes farther, we will obviously be somewhat
flexible.
So I would now like to introduce Mr. Mark Watte from
Tulare, California.
Mr. Watte, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MARK WATTE, TULARE, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Watte. Good morning, Chairman Hastings and members. My
name is Mark Watte, better known now I think as the
cheeseburger man.
My grandfather emigrated from Belgium in 1909, share-
cropping in southern California for 50 years. After World War
II the ranch was developed into housing, and my father and
uncle moved to Tulare County in 1958. They started with 560
acres, successfully farmed and split their partnership in 1984.
My brother and I bought the business from our father in 1986,
and we have grown significantly since then. Together with my
brother Brian, nephew Matthew, and son-in-law Jason, we milk
1,000 cows, raising 18,000 calves, and we farm 4,500 acres,
which is about 7 square miles, of diversified row crops and
have recently started planting pistachio trees. The downside to
that growth is we are like Norm and Cliff at Farm Credit, they
know our name.
For the last two decades, as a result of an onslaught of
over-reaching rules and regulations spurred on by environmental
activists, we have lost and continue to lose huge amounts of
our potential surface supply for, in many cases, no tangible
results. Overall, the fish populations are no better off and
perhaps worse. The activist answer is just to flush more water.
Here are a couple of examples of what I am talking about.
Hundreds of thousands of acre feet of water flows to the
Sacramento Delta to improve water quality, quality degraded by
neighboring cities dumping low-quality sewage into the river.
Solution by dilution is not an answer. By the way, the water
coming from Hetchy-Hetchy reservoir that supplies San
Francisco, home of Senators Boxer and Feinstein and
Congresswoman Pelosi, does not contribute any water toward this
effort, and today that reservoir has one of the highest percent
of capacity in the whole State.
Pumping water through the delta is one of the key
components of our statewide system. These pumps are severely
restricted ostensibly to protect a 3-inch bait fish that isn't
even indigenous to the delta. This is only a ruse used by these
same activists. They don't care about fish. They just don't
want us to get our entitled water. If any of these groups
really cared about fish, they would be talking about a huge
stressor on salmon and smelt population, the striped bass.
Another big chunk of eastside water is now being lost to
support a river restoration effort that after several years is
failing miserably. I believe another presenter will be
discussing this in more detail.
In 1992, CVPIA committed 1.2 million acre feet a year for
environmental uses that anyone today would be hard pressed to
show any tangible results. Also, none of that water used for
any of these environmental programs were paid for or held
accountable for any benefits.
These are but a few of the leaks on our developed water
supply in California. These, coupled with a 3-year drought, has
brought us to where we are today. President Obama, Governor
Brown, and Senator Feinstein have put forward initiatives to
spend hundreds of millions of dollars to mitigate drought
damage. We don't need money; we need water. It is preposterous
to offer billions of dollars to combat climate change, global
warming, whatever name you want to put on it, and think that
will help the California water supply.
Any meaningful, substantive progress in improving our
situation has to begin with some common sense injected into the
entire endangered species discussion. We need to look at where
ESA has worked. There are many cases of this. But where is the
law being used for reasons other than species recovery? Without
some reasoned middle ground in the debate, no real progress
will be achieved.
Another significant aspect relative to the overreach of the
ESA is the huge increased cost of building any water-related
projects. We have totally lost our sense of balance between
making significant positive advances with minimal effects.
Case in point. I am Thomas Edison. I just invented
electricity. I am now filing my EIR. Part of it is going to
read something like this. I have invented an energy that will
revolutionize the way we live. But to transmit this energy, we
will need to build transmission lines along our roads. To do
this, we will have to cut down a tree, make a pole, and they
will be about every 300 feet. The bottoms of the poles are
going to need to be treated with something so they don't rot
and fall over in a couple of years. Distracted drivers could
run off the road and cause themselves a lot of harm. The
overhead wires will not be very attractive, and once in a while
an endangered Swainsons hawk will touch two of the wires and we
will have a barbecued hawk.
Would we have electricity today? And if we did, at what
cost? Ask yourself if having power is worth it. Of course it
is. So is having an abundant, affordable, and safe food supply.
In conclusion, Congressman Nunes and I were recently
featured in a far-reaching article in The Wall Street Journal
that pointed out many of the absurdities of farming in
California. The response to the article has been overwhelmingly
positive. This country still has many commonsense people. It
makes me hopeful that perhaps there is a realization that the
pendulum of extremism needs to be moderated.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and all of the Members, for taking
time to listen to our concerns. And I would like to submit the
mentioned Wall Street Journal article into the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Watte follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Watte, Tulare, California
Good Morning Chairman Hastings and Members.
My grandfather emigrated from Belgium in 1909, share cropping in
southern California for 50 years. After World War II it was developed
into housing and my father and uncle moved to Tulare County in 1958.
They started with 560 acres and eventually split their partnership in
1984. My brother and I bought the business from our father in 1986 and
have grown significantly since then. Today with my brother Brian,
nephew Matthew, and Son-in-Law Jason; we milk 1,000 cows, raise 18,000
calves and farm 4,500 acres (7 square miles) of diversified row crops
and have more recently started planting pistachios. We are like Norm
and Cliff at our Farm Credit office, they all know our name.
I currently serve on seven boards and commissions, of which five
are directly related to water. Married for 41 years, 3 married
daughters and 10 nearby grandchildren.
I don't know of anyone that is more committed or passionate about
our area and way of life than myself.
For the last two decades, as a result of an onslaught of over-
reaching rules and regulations spurred on by environmental activists,
we have lost and continue to lose huge amounts of our potential surface
water supply, for, in many cases, no tangible results. Overall, the
fish populations are no better off and perhaps worse. The activist
answer is to flush more water. Here are a couple of examples of what I
am talking about.

1. Hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water flows to the
Sacramento Delta to improve water quality-quality degraded
by the neighboring cities dumping low quality sewage into
the river. Solution by dilution is not an answer. By the
way, the water coming from Hetchy-Hetchy reservoir that
supplies San Francisco, home of Senators Boxer and
Feinstein and Congresswomen Pelosi, does not contribute any
water toward this effort and today that reservoir has one
of the highest percent of capacity in the entire State.
2. Pumping water through the delta is one of the key components of
our State wide water system. These pumps are severely
restricted ostensibly to protect a 3 inch bait fish that
isn't even indigenous to the delta! This is only a ruse
used by the same activists. They don't care about fish,
they just don't want us to get our entitled water. If any
of these groups really cared about fish they would be
talking about a huge stressor on salmon and smelt
population, the striped bass.
3. Another big chunk of east side water is now being lost to
support a river restoration effort that after several years
is failing miserably. I believe another presenter will be
discussing this in more detail.
4. In 1992 CVPIA committed 1.2 million acre feet to environmental
uses that anyone today would be hard pressed to show any
tangible results. Also, none of the water used for any of
these ``environmental programs'' were paid for or held
accountable for the benefits achieved.

These are but a few ``leaks'' on our developed water supply in
California. These coupled with a 3-year drought has brought us to where
we are today. President Obama, Governor Brown, and Senator Feinstein
have put forward initiatives to spend hundreds of millions of dollars
to mitigate drought damage. WE DON'T NEED MONEY-WE NEED WATER! It is
preposterous to offer to billions of dollars to combat climate change/
global warming and think that will help the California water supply.
Any meaningful substantive progress in improving our situation has
to begin with some common sense injected into the entire endangered
species discussion.
What we need to look at is what has worked--there are many cases of
this--but where is the law being used for reasons other than species
recovery. Without some reasoned middle ground in the debate no real
progress can be achieved. Another significant aspect relative to the
overreach of the ESA is the huge increased cost of building any water
related projects. We have totally lost our sense of balance between
making significant positive advances with minimal negative effects.
Case in point. I'm Thomas Edison and just invented electricity. I
am now filing my EIR, which will include among many others State and
Federal fish and game, NEPA, CEPA. It would read like this--I have
invented an energy source that will revolutionize the way we live. But
to transmit this energy we will need to build a transmission line along
our roads. To do this we will need to cut down a tree to make a pole
and they will be every 300 feet along our roads. The bottoms of the
poles will need to be treated so that they will not rot; distracted
drivers could run off the road and kill themselves running into a pole.
The overhead wire will not be attractive and once in awhile an
endangered Swainsons Hawk will touch two of the wires and we will have
a BBQ'd hawk. Would we have electricity today, and at what cost? Ask
yourself if having power is worth it? Of course it is. So is having an
abundant affordable food supply.
In conclusion, Congressman Nunes and I were recently featured in a
far-reaching article that pointed out many of the absurdities of
farming in California. The response has been overwhelming positive.
This country still has many common sense people. It makes me hopeful
that perhaps there is a realization that the pendulum of extremism
needs to be moderated.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and all of the members for taking time to
listen to our concerns.
______

The Chairman. Without objection, it will be part of the
record.
Mr. Watte. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Watte.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. Next I will recognize Ms. Sylvia Chavez, who
is the Mayor of the city of Huron.
Mayor Chavez, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SYLVIA V. CHAVEZ, MAYOR, CITY OF HURON,
CALIFORNIA

Mayor Chavez. Mr. Chairman and Members of Congress, good
morning and welcome to the Central Valley. Thank you for coming
today to learn about the impacts the drought is having on our
communities.
The Chairman. Speak more closely into the mic. There you
go.
Mayor Chavez. I hope when you leave today you will take a
better understanding that for our communities in the Central
Valley water is jobs and water is life.
My name is Sylvia V. Chavez and I am the child of farm
workers, as were my parents before me. As a child, I worked in
the fields during my summer vacations to earn extra income. My
mother and father worked in the fields out of necessity to
provide a better life for our family. Their hard work showed
our eight siblings and me what work ethic is truly all about.
Today, I am the Mayor of the city of Huron. Huron has a
population of just under 7,000 people and is located 60 miles
southwest of Fresno. Our population is 97 percent Hispanic. The
majority of our residents are connected to agribusiness either
directly or indirectly. Because our city is so far away from
Fresno and the other population centers, many times we are
forgotten. Yet, like many other small valley towns, when it
comes to putting food on the dinner table, it is communities
like ours that fill our Nation's stomachs with many of the
everyday foods Americans take for granted.
You see, my city, like many valley towns, is surrounded by
agriculture. Local farmers plant, irrigate, and harvest their
crops with the help of Huron's residents. Then, the people of
Huron pack and transport valley commodities to market. If you
did not grow up in the valley or have not traveled here before,
you may be unaware that the lettuce and tomato in your garden
salad or the toppings on your McDonald's hamburger come from
here in the San Joaquin Valley.
Our region was blessed with fertile farm land. What we grow
is not simply transported to other parts of our Nation. Our
commodities are shipped across the globe. The next time you put
sauce on your spaghetti, remember that 95 percent of the
processing tomatoes in the United States are grown in Huron.
Let's face it, in Huron, we feed the world.
As much as our community is tied to agriculture, we are
equally tied to water. In 2009, when water allocations reached
as low as 10 percent, Huron's unemployment rate climbed to
almost 40 percent. Businesses who normally hired as many as
3,500 farm workers in previous years needed less than 600
because of the drought. As a result of the 2009 drought, many
in my community were forced into food lines just to feed their
families. The drought we face today is by far more serious. In
fact, the drought we face today has put my community's ability
to turn on its faucets in jeopardy.
In the city of Huron, we purchase our water from the Bureau
of Reclamation. This year we were notified that Huron will
receive an allotment of 649 acre feet for fiscal year 2014-
2015. For my city, whose historical usage is 1,125 acre feet
per year, this year's allotment represents a shortage of 476
acre feet. Because of record drought conditions, my city is
already tapping into its water allotment. Our local water
managers have become concerned enough that the Huron City
Council recently passed a resolution restricting water use on
residential and industrial properties. Our community truly
understands the value of water, and the council is confident
the city's residents will conserve all the water they can, but
will it be enough?
Today, I am calling on you, the Members of Congress
gathered here today, to provide a solution to the man-made
drought that is crippling my community. If the drought is not
dealt with quickly and appropriately and actions are not taken
to better balance the needs of our community, and communities
like it, with the needs of the delta fish, the inaction will
truly threaten my community's existence. I fear continued
drought and water diversions will make our agricultural
community a thing of the past. Our residents will be without
jobs and incomes, and our city will suffer the consequences. In
short, our economy will fail.
Solving the water crisis is so urgent to my city that when
I told my friends and neighbors that I was coming here today to
testify, many in my community wanted to share their stories as
well. They wanted to tell you, their elected representatives in
Congress, how the water crisis is impacting them. Today I have
brought with me letters from many of my neighbors who wanted to
have their voices heard. I hope you will take these letters
with you, listen to their stories too, and use the knowledge
they share to inform your decisionmaking in Washington.
For many, the unemployment in the town of Huron may be
forgotten once we leave here today, but it shouldn't be. For my
community, water is about jobs and the opportunity to thrive.
But what about you and your communities? To that we say, what
about your dinner table? Congress must act soon to provide
drought relief. Remember, it is communities like Huron,
California that feed the world.
In ending, I wanted to state something that my
granddaughter told me last night. As I was speaking with my
husband about this----
The Chairman. Quickly, quickly. Go ahead, please.
Mayor Chavez. As I was speaking to my husband about this,
my granddaughter stated, ``Grandmother, you need to make them
hear. You need to make them understand. My friends are afraid.
Their parents have been talking about losing their jobs because
of no water, no jobs for them, and they are thinking of
moving.'' She was very serious, and this is coming from my 10-
year-old granddaughter.
She understands. She is 10 years old, and she understands
the impact this is having on our community and her friends and
their families and how to provide food on the table. And she
said, ``Papa and you and mama put food on our table, but our
friends are worried about how they are going to be fed this
summer.''
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Chavez follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Sylvia V. Chavez, Mayor, City of
Huron, California
Mr. Chairman and Members of Congress, good morning and welcome to
the Central Valley. Thank you for coming here today to learn about the
impacts the drought is having on our communities. I hope that as you
leave today you will take with you a better understanding that for many
communities in the Central Valley water is jobs and water is life.
My name is Sylvia V. Chavez and I am the child of farm workers, as
were my parents before me. As a child, I worked in the fields during my
summer vacation from school to earn extra income. My mother and father
worked in the fields out of necessity and survival to provide a better
life for our family. Their hard work showed my eight siblings and I
what work ethic is truly all about.
Today, I am the Mayor of the city of Huron, California. Huron has a
population of just under 7,000 people and is located 60 miles southwest
of Fresno. Our population is 97 percent Hispanic. The majority of our
residents are connected to agribusiness either directly or indirectly.
Because our city is so far away from Fresno and the other population
centers, many times we are forgotten. Yet, like many other small valley
towns, when it comes to putting food on the dinner table, it is
communities like ours that fill our Nation's stomachs with many of the
everyday foods Americans take for granted.
You see, my city, like many valley towns, is surrounded by
agriculture. Local farmers plant, irrigate, and harvest their crops
with the help of Huron's residents. Then, the people of Huron pack and
transport valley commodities to market. If you did not grow up in the
valley or have not traveled here before, you may be unaware that the
lettuce and tomato in your garden salad or the toppings on your
McDonalds hamburger burger come from right here in the San Joaquin
Valley. Our region has been blessed with fertile farm land. What we
grow is not simply transported to other parts of our Nation. Our
commodities are shipped across the globe. The next time you put sauce
on your spaghetti, remember that 95 percent of the processing tomatoes
in the United States are grown in Huron. Let's face it, in Huron,
we feed the world!
As much as my community is tied to agriculture, we are equally tied
to water. In 2009, when water allocations reached as low as 10 percent,
Huron's unemployment rate climbed to almost 40 percent. Businesses who
normally hired as many as 3,500 farm workers in previous years needed
less than 600 because of the drought. As a result of the 2009 drought,
many in my community were forced into food lines just to feed their
families. The drought we face today is by far more serious.
In fact, the drought we face today has put my community's ability
to turn on its faucets in jeopardy. In the city of Huron, we purchase
our water from the Bureau of Reclamation. This year we were notified
that Huron will receive an allotment of only 649 acre feet for fiscal
year 2014-2015. For my city, whose historical usage is 1,125 acre feet
per year, this year's allotment represents a shortage of 476 acre feet.
Because of record drought conditions, my city is already tapping into
its water allotment. Our local water managers have become concerned
enough that the Huron City Council recently passed a resolution
restricting water use on residential and industrial properties. Our
community truly understands the value of water and the Council is
confident the city's residents will conserve all the water they can,
but will it be enough?
Today, I'm calling on you, the Members of Congress gathered here
today, to provide us a solution to the manmade drought that is
crippling my community. If the drought is not dealt with quickly and
appropriately and actions are not taken to better balance the needs of
my community, and communities like it, with the needs of delta fish,
the inaction will truly threaten my community's existence. I fear
continued drought and water diversions will make our agricultural
community a thing of the past--our residents will be without jobs and
incomes and our city will suffer the consequences. In short, our
economy will collapse.
Solving the water crisis is so urgent to my city that when I told
my friends and neighbors I was coming here today to testify many in my
community wanted to share their stories as well. They wanted to tell
you, their elected representatives in Congress, how the water crisis is
impacting them. Today I have brought with me letters from many of my
neighbors who wanted to have their voices heard. I hope you will take
these letters with you, listen to their stories too, and use the
knowledge they share to inform your decisionmaking in Washington.
For many, the unemployment in the town of Huron may be forgotten
once we leave here today, but it shouldn't be. For my community water
is about jobs and the opportunity to thrive. But, what about you and
your communities? To that I say, ``what about your dinner table?''
Congress must act soon to provide drought relief. Remember, it is
communities like Huron, California that FEED THE WORLD!
______

The Chairman. Ms. Chavez, thank you very much.
You referenced some letters. Would you like to have those
letters part of the record?
Mayor Chavez. Yes, please. I gave them to Congressman
Valadao's office.
The Chairman. OK. I will recognize Mr. Valadao.
Mr. Valadao. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
letters Mayor Chavez brought with her today and the letters of
my constituents on the impacts of the current drought be
entered into the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, they will be part of the
record.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you.
The Chairman. Now I recognize Mr. Larry Starrh, who is co-
owner of Starrh----
[Applause.]
The Chairman. Mr. Larry Starrh, who is co-owner of Starrh
and Starrh Farms in Shafter, California.
Mr. Starrh, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF LARRY STARRH, CO-OWNER, STARRH AND STARRH FARMS,
SHAFTER, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Starrh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Members
of the House.
I don't know that I should say anything. I mean, you all
got it. Everything that you said here at the dais needs to
happen. So you know what to do, and you are doing it, so I
don't know if what I can add is going to be much help, but I am
going to read it anyway because I wrote it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Starrh. But seriously, you know what needs to happen.
We need the water, and you know how to get it done. So I wish
you well, and get it done.
My name is Larry Starrh, and I am a partner in Starrh
Family Farms. Our farm is located in Kern County, and my
partners include my father Fred Starrh, my brother Fred Starrh
II, and my brother-in-law Jay Kroeker. Our office and all our
bookkeeping is run by my two sisters, and most recently my
niece. My oldest son is now farming with us and is excited by
the opportunity for a future in farming. Good luck. My youngest
son is also looking forward to being a farmer and has said so
since he was a toddler. God bless him, right?
We employ 46 full-time employees, with an average time of
service to our ranch of over 20 years, good men who have
dedicated years of their life to provide for their families and
to help make our farm successful, and we are grateful to them.
I tell you this so you can get a glimpse of who and what I
represent. I am not alone when I sit here.
We farm close to 9,000 acres, primarily almonds and
pistachios. The bulk of our ranch is located in the Belridge
Water Storage District, which lies on the west side of Kern
County, and it is completely reliant on the State Water Project
for providing water.
I know this hearing is about water, and my family has been
farming for over 80 years, and according to what I have been
told by the experts, this is the driest year on record in
California. Due to the lack of water this year, my family and I
had to make the hard decision to dry up and let die close to a
thousand acres of producing almond trees. As well, we will
continue to keep fallow another 2,000 acres of open ground,
ground that we have had to keep idle for close to 8 years
because of water shortages, shortages that were created and
sustained by regulations, regulations that have been imposed
and brandished like weapons, weapons that are built on myths
and hyperbole.
In the last 12 years, our farm hasn't received 100 percent
allocation of entitlement water once. But every year we have to
pay for 100 percent of that water even though we don't receive
it. Every year the State Water Project takes water out of the
system for environmental needs. Every year the State bills us
for that water, and we have to pay it. The people who have to
pay it are the water users it is taken from, and the government
recognizes that word. It is a taking, and it is OK. I don't get
it.
As a grower, the challenges get even greater. Reliability
of contracted water is non-existent. You can't make crop
decisions. You can't make labor decisions. You can't make them
until the last minute, or ever. And on top of that, we have to
try to source dry-year water, if it is even available, to buy
at who knows what the cost will be. And the cost can double or
triple. This year we paid $1,250 an acre foot for water, and
that was at a bid price. We had to bid for that water. And
until we did it, we said we have to do it because we have to
keep our trees alive, the rest of our trees alive.
We can't sustain this way of doing business. The water
system in California is crippled and needs to be repaired.
Two weeks ago at our water district meeting, it was
reported that the Sacramento River was running at flood stage,
flood stage, right? But we couldn't move the water because the
San Joaquin River was low. I don't get it. I really don't get
it.
Last year, 800,000 acre feet of State Water Project water
was released to the ocean instead of being stored. Last year we
bought dry-year water, and we purchased it, and it was almost
stranded in Oroville because of mismanagement. Had it rained
this year as normal, we would have lost it.
The water system in California is crippled and needs to be
repaired.
In my naive world, water is life. Water creates life. Water
sustains life. Sadly, in the real world, I think water is about
power. Water is a weapon. Water is a hostage. Our water system
is battered and broken and has been hijacked by the
unreasonable, and we need help.
This year we are in a drought caused by nature. I know
that. But in the years prior to this, the droughts we have
suffered were imposed on us by the illogical and the senseless.
And I know that you folks understand this, and I know that I am
just reiterating things, but we do need to look at this
seriously. Three years ago I sat in the audience and I listened
to a lot of these same things, and I thought, wow, we are on
the road, we are going to fix this. Here we are again. We are
on the same road.
I know you understand this, so I don't know how you get any
further. I thank the Lord that you are doing it, and I
appreciate your time here today, and I appreciate you allowing
me to testify in front of you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all I have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Starrh follows:]
Prepared Statement of Larry Starrh, Co-Owner, Starrh and Starrh Farms,
Shafter, California
My name is Larry Starrh, I am a partner in Starrh Family Farms. Our
farm is located in Kern County and my partners include my father Fred
Starrh, my brother Fred Starrh II, and my brother in-law Jay Kroeker.
Our office and all our book keeping is run by my sisters and recently
my niece and my oldest son is now farming with us and is excited by the
opportunity for a future in farming. My youngest son is also looking
forward to being a farmer and has said so since he was a toddler. We
employ 46 full time employees with an average time of service of over
20 years. Good men who have dedicated years of their life to help make
our farm successful and we are grateful to them. We farm close to 9,000
acres primarily almonds and pistachios. The bulk of our ranch is
located in the Belridge Water Storage District and is completely
reliant on the State Water Project for providing water.
This meeting is about water. My family has been farming for over 80
years, and according to what I have been told by the experts this is
the driest year on record in California! . . . Due to lack of water
this year my family and I had to make the decision to ``dry up and let
die'' close to a thousand acres of producing almond trees, as well as
keeping fallow another two thousand acres of open ground. Ground that
we have had to keep idle for close to 8 years because of water
shortages. Shortages that were created and controlled by regulations,
regulations that have been imposed and brandished like weapons! On the
State Water Project water has been ``taken'' out of the system to
protect environmental needs, to add insult to injury the bill for that
water is paid for by the people who the water was taken from. Our farm
hasn't received a hundred percent allocation for water in 18 years but
we have been charged and have had to pay for 100 percent every year. We
pay for water we don't get. Then we have to try and source ``dry year
water'' to buy which can cost double or triple, or like this year 10
times more than the base price. We can't sustain this way of doing
business, the water system in California is crippled and needs to be
repaired.
In my world water is life. Water creates life, water sustains life.
Sadly in the real world water is about power, water is a weapon, water
is a hostage. Our water system is battered and broken and has been
kidnapped/hijacked by the unreasonable, and we need help! This year we
are in a drought caused by nature, I know that, but in the years prior
to this the droughts we have suffered were imposed on us by the
illogical and senseless. Thank you! Thank you for your commitment and
your understanding that water is life! And thank you for trying to find
a reasonable solution!
______

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Starrh.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Starrh.
I will now recognize Mr. George Delgado, owner of Delgado
Farming in Firebaugh.
Mr. Delgado, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE DELGADO, DELGADO FARMING, FIREBAUGH,
CALIFORNIA

Mr. Delgado. Delgado.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I knew I would mess that up.
Mr. Delgado. Chairman Hastings and members of the
committee, I thank you for the opportunity to come here to
testify before you today on one of the most important issues
facing my community.
My name is George Delgado. I am a farmer on the west side
of the Central Valley in Firebaugh, a small community in
western Fresno County where I have lived my entire life. My
experiences in agriculture on the west side began long before I
started farming. As a young man, I learned to work in the
fields, whether it was chopping weeds, picking cotton or
tomatoes by hand. My father told me that if I didn't want to
work in the fields the rest of my life, I should get an
education, so I did. I attended Fresno State. I earned a degree
in agricultural science.
I continued to work weekends and summers for west side
farmers who gave me an opportunity to work so that I could pay
for my college education.
In 1978, I leased some land near Firebaugh and began
farming on my own. A few years later, I leased an additional
300 acres on the historic Sam Hamburg Ranch, where I continue
to farm to this day. Presently, I own and farm several hundred
acres of almonds, cherries and cantaloupe in the San Luis Water
District, Pacheco Water District, and Westlands Water District.
Each of these districts receives water from the Central Valley
Project and has been greatly affected by the drought and the
environmental restrictions.
The heart of the Central Valley Project is the Sacramento
San Joaquin River Delta. Water naturally flows to the delta
from reservoirs in northern California, where it is pumped into
both the Central Valley and State Water Project man-made canals
and aqueducts. Unfortunately, water conveyance through the
delta has presented significant challenges to State water
systems.
Besides water quality in the delta, the environmental laws
and continuous litigation brought largely by environmental
special interest groups have constrained California's water
system. The Federal Endangered Species Act has been the major
environmental driver in water supply litigation. Efforts to
protect species such as the delta smelt have created a
tremendous amount of uncertainty in our annual water supply.
Over the last decade, millions of acre feet of water have been
diverted away from human use to save these species.
Environmentalists have repeatedly blamed the operations of the
delta pump for causing the delta population decline. Yet, they
have ignored other proven factors, including predation by non-
native fish such as the striped bass and the discharges of
toxic sewage into the delta from the cities.
The pumping has been stopped even in wet years to protect
fish, yet the delta ecosystem continues to be in decline. Water
that could have been stored for use in dry years such as the
current year has been lost forever. Unfortunately, protection
of the delta smelt is not the only reason water has been taken
away from Central Valley Project water users. When I began
farming, west side farmers could expect to receive 100 percent
of their contracted water supply each year, except in the years
of the most extreme drought conditions.
However, since the passage of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act of 1992, over 1 million acre feet of water each
year has been taken away from irrigated agriculture and
dedicated to fish and wildlife uses. As a result, in an average
water year, most farmers on the west side receive less than
half of their contracted water allocation.
The CVPIA has had a devastating effect on our communities,
especially in years of below-average rainfall. Hundreds of
thousands of acres have been fallowed. Unemployment and crime
rates have dramatically increased. Here in the San Joaquin
Valley, water equals jobs, not just farm jobs but off-farm
jobs. It is sad to see, here in the Nation's food basket, so
many people forced into food lines to receive food that is
likely grown in China or other parts of the world.
As farmers, a natural occurring drought is an acceptable
risk of our chosen profession. But a drought caused by
restrictive legislation is very difficult to understand. The
CVPIA was enacted while California was experiencing the effects
of a long-term drought, and it was intended to encourage water
conservation, increase the use of water transfers, and to
provide additional water for fish and wildlife. However, it has
amounted to little more than legally stealing water from the
farmers to dilute discharges of sewage, metals and chemicals
dumped into our rivers, the delta, the San Francisco Bay; and
on the west side, we have invested millions of dollars in
installing state-of-the-art irrigation systems to improve water
quality and conserve our diminishing water supply, yet we are
blamed for the continued decline of the delta and our
waterways, not the polluters who refuse to live by the laws
that they impose on us.
Much can be done to improve our situation here in the
Central Valley. The Endangered Species Act must be reformed to
strike a reasonable balance between people and fish. The CVPIA
must be amended to encourage balance between the needs of our
cities, farmers, and the environment.
I thank you for the opportunity to share my story with you
today. Only a united Congress and a President can make the
necessary changes and enact legislation to give us short- and
long-term solutions to our water issues. Please take what you
learn here today back to Washington and, working together, use
it to help provide the relief that the valley needs.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Delgado follows:]
Prepared Statement of George Delgado, Delgado Farming, Firebaugh,
California
Chairman Hastings and members of the committee, I thank you for the
opportunity to come here to testify before you today on one of the most
important issues facing my community.
My name is George Delgado. I have lived on the west side of the
Central Valley all my life in Firebaugh, western Fresno County. I
attended local schools in Firebaugh, California and completed my
education at Fresno State University earning a degree in Agricultural
Science.
My experiences in agriculture on the west side go back to well
before I started my first farm. As a young man, I picked cotton and
tomatoes and chopped weeds by hand. Working summers and on weekends in
the fields for west side farmers gave me the opportunity to work as I
attended school and helped me earn the money I needed to complete my
education. My career as a farmer started in 1978 when I leased my first
field near Firebaugh. Later, I leased an additional 300 acres on the
historic Sam Hamburg Ranch, first cultivated in 1936. Presently, I own
and farm almonds, cherries, and cantaloupes in Westlands Water
District, San Luis Water District and Pacheco Water District, all of
which receive their water from the Federal Central Valley Project.
The hub of California's Central Valley Project is the Sacramento-
San Joaquin River Delta. Here, water from reservoirs in the northern
portions of the Central Valley and State water projects is conveyed
through natural channels to pumps that feed the man-made canals and
aqueducts that carry water to the west side and down toward the
southern portions of our State. Unfortunately, using the delta's
natural channels to convey water through the system has shown itself to
be the equivalent of using an unimproved dirt road as an interchange on
our Federal interstate system and it has imposed significant challenges
on the State's water systems.
Environmental statutes and litigation, brought largely by
environmental special interests, have led to serious water conflicts in
California. The Federal Endangered Species Act [ESA] has been the major
environmental driver in water supply litigation. Of the over 1,300
species listed under the Endangered Species Act in the United States,
over 300 are in the State of California. During the past 10 years,
trillions of gallons of water have been diverted away from human use to
environmental purposes to ``save'' these species.
Recent litigation on protecting delta smelt, a 3-inch fish native
to California's Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, has taken hundreds
of thousands of acre feet away from our communities each year.
Environmentalists have consistently blamed the delta pumps as the cause
for smelt population decline. Yet, they continue to ignore numerous
other factors, including predation by nonnative fish such as the
Striped Bass and the discharge of toxic sewage into the delta, all of
which have been shown to contribute significantly to smelt decline.
Unfortunately, the delta smelt is not the only reason water has
continued to be taken from the valley.
When I started farming on the west side, farmers could expect to
receive 100 percent of their contracted water supplies year-in and
year-out, except in years of the most extreme drought conditions.
However, since the passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act of 1992, more than 1.2 million-acre feet of water annually--enough
to irrigate over 340,000 acres of farmland--have been redirected away
from irrigation to fish and wildlife uses. As a result, in an average
water year, most farmers on the west side expect to receive less than
40 percent of their allocation from year to year.
Agriculture in my part of the valley has been devastated by the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act. As farmers, we can accept
natural droughts as a risk of our chosen profession but a drought
caused by legislation that takes away our water is very difficult to
understand. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act was enacted
while California was experiencing the effects of a long-term drought
and many of the provisions in the act were aimed at conserving water,
increasing the use of water transfers, and providing additional water
for fish and wildlife purposes.
As someone who makes his living off the land, I am all too aware of
the need for all of us to be good stewards of the earth. However, part
of being a good steward is ensuring that scarce resources are allocated
in the most efficient and effective means possible, striking careful
balances. That means ensuring there is enough water available for both
fish and families. The continued decline of threatened and endangered
species in the State in the face of CVPIA's water reallocation has led
me, and many others who make their livings on the west side, to ask
whether taking away our water for fish and wildlife has had a
meaningful impact on our environment.
Growing up, I was taught that the purpose of our Government is to
help farmworkers, those in agriculture related professions, and farmers
as they struggle to grow America's vegetables, fruits, nuts and other
food products. Those of us who farm in the valley are proud to say we
feed the world. However, the continued manmade drought has left many
families in communities up and down the valley unable to feed
themselves.
Here in the San Joaquin Valley, water equals jobs. In 2009 during
the last water crisis, hundreds of thousands of acres were fallowed,
leaving many thousands unemployed. Our communities saw unemployment
rates reach well over 40 percent and crime rates hit record highs.
Here, in the Nation's food basket, many of our friends and neighbors
were forced into food lines to receive Chinese produce.
Like many of my friends and neighbors, I am afraid the CVPIA is
doing little more than legally stealing water from farmers. Here in the
Central Valley, we work every day to conserve every drop of water that
is delivered to us and protect our precious and quickly diminishing
ground water resources so we can continue to feed the world. Although
we are on the cutting edge of irrigation technology and we feed the
world with the minimum water necessary, each year more water is taken
from us to help clean up sewage, metals and chemicals dumped into the
Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, the delta, and San Francisco Bay
by polluters who refuse to keep up with the times.
Much can be done to improve our situation here in the Central
Valley. California's farmers cannot continue to give up their water for
``environmental purposes''. The Endangered Species Act must be reformed
to strike a reasonable balance that puts families first and the CVPIA
has to be amended to help bring a compromise between the needs of
wildlife, cities and food producers.
Thank you for the opportunity to come here today and share my
story. Only a united Congress and President can work together to make
these changes and enact legislation necessary to give short and long
term drought relief to our communities. I hope you will take what you
learn here today back to Washington and, working together, use it to
help provide the relief our valley needs.
______

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Delgado. I was trying to put
an ``R'' in your name by way of introduction, and I don't know
why. I didn't see an ``R'', but I tried to put an ``R'' in
there, so thank you for correcting me.
Now I want to recognize Mr. Tom Coleman. Mr. Coleman is the
President of the Madera County Farm Bureau from Madera.
Mr. Coleman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF TOM COLEMAN, PRESIDENT, MADERA COUNTY FARM BUREAU,
MADERA, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Coleman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, thank you for providing me the opportunity to
testify today on the subject that is of great importance to so
many. I appear today not just representing myself but thousands
of people who rely on agriculture to sustain their livelihoods.
It is not just growers and farmers who are affected by this
situation but their employees, bankers, businessmen, and the
entire community.
We have heard about the horrific effects the drought has
caused in the Central Valley, and I am sure we will continue to
see far-reaching consequences into the future. It is important
that these effects not be minimized. But as President of the
Madera County Farm Bureau, I would like to focus on one
solution that has the potential to solve so many of these
problems, the construction of a reservoir in the Upper San
Joaquin River called Temperance Flat.
Temperance Flat is a project that has been on the books
since the 1950s, first authorized by Congress in 2003 and in
2004, now only to be introduced in several pieces of
legislation that have gone before or are pending in front of
this committee. This storage project is unique as it is
designed to be a flood storage facility only and would not
impede San Joaquin River flows during normal rain years. It is
also exceptional in that this project does not touch the delta
directly, which makes it a prime candidate for less
controversy.
Temperance Flat accomplishes multiple objectives, all of
which will bring major relief to the problems described today
in the following ways: increased water supply reliability and
system operational flexibility for agriculture, MNI, and
environmental purposes, regardless of who gets the lion's share
of the water; enhanced environmental benefits through better
temperature flow conditions along the San Joaquin River. The
water from Temperance Flat can flow north or south as the
conveyance facilities are in place already to do so. If
ecosystem restoration ultimately remains impossible due to the
current arrangement on the San Joaquin River, the construction
of Temperance Flat Reservoir will provide a major relief for
all of the system.
Finally, the local cost share associated with Temperance
Flat will be generous, if not the highest available. Farmers
want this project and are willing to pay for it. We don't
necessarily need the Federal Government or the irrigation
districts to bear the cost.
Madera County Farm Bureau's main objective is to protect
its vast membership throughout Madera County. Even though all
of these people's water needs are different, everyone would
also benefit from having more water in the system regardless of
who gets it.
The Farm Bureau appreciates the community's efforts to
highlight this important issue in Congress, but we would
appreciate your continued assistance and dedication toward
providing a major, sweeping solution to this crisis so that it
never has to happen again. Thank you.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coleman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Coleman, President, Madera County Farm
Bureau, Madera, California
The Madera County Farm Bureau [MCFB] is a representative member
body composed of 1,200 members, 550 agricultural operations, and 170
agri-businesses. Madera County's top agricultural commodities include
almonds, grapes, milk, pistachios, and cattle livestock operations. The
2013 gross agricultural value of Madera County agricultural commodities
was $2,739,411,000.00--ranking the county as the 10th largest
agricultural producing county in the State of California, and the 16th
largest agricultural commodity sector in the world.\1\ Madera County
has an agricultural production acreage exceeding 2 million acres; 1.5
million of those acres belong to irrigable agricultural practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Madera County Ag Commissioner's 2013 Annual Crop Report (online
at www.madera-county.com).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, Madera County agricultural production has been rooted
in arid rangeland grazing to the east, along with permanent crops
throughout the Central Valley floor, including vines and orchards. Due
to rising crop values of permanent crops since 2003 however, Madera
County is now largely dedicated toward permanent crop production,
including almonds, pistachios, and grapes as of 2014.\2\ This
transition to a high percentage of permanent crops--in some places
triple plantings taking place, has occurred at an extremely rapid rate,
increasing in the County's irrigation demands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Central Valley Farmland Trust 2014 Central Valley Review pp.
244-258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water usage for this shift in planting activities has been
significant in contributing toward the need for a conjunctive use
basin; the use of groundwater as well as surface water, and has nearly
doubled the amount of surface water required for irrigation of these
permanent crops and tripled the amount of groundwater required to
sustain the deep root bases these commodities have. A significant
amount of farmed areas in Madera County are entirely dependent on
groundwater--to which is in a serious overdraft condition. It is
estimated that by 2017, Madera County groundwater will be overdrafted
by 200,000 acre feet (AF).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Madera Irrigation District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural conversion--land being taken out of production and
dedicated toward residential or municipal purposes, has also not only
slowed, but by 2013 had been reversed in Madera County. Land that was
zoned for residential housing purposes in the Madera County General
Plan has now been placed back into Agricultural Zoning.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Madera County General Plan Update 2013 pp. 89-145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This new water burden associated with these agricultural practices
in creating the critical groundwater overdraft condition is called
subsidence in the most extreme cases. In the case of Madera County,
this phenomenon occurs when so much groundwater has been pumped out
that the physical sea level of the land is dropped. The upper aquifers
that wells typically rely on have been depleted and growers are
therefore drilling deeper--sometimes as much as 500 feet, to locate
water. At this level, there is significant disruption to the Corcoran
Clay layer, ultimately causing the land to succumb to a vacuum-like
activity. Last year, Madera County saw an average drop of over 1 foot
in land levels--with subsidence occurring at a rate of 18" per year on
the County's West side.\5\ It is important to note that typical
groundwater aquifers are recharged once a significant rain event
occurs, but subsided land does not. It can be compared to a plastic
bottle literally being vacuumed sucked dry--but unable to be refilled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Central California Irrigation District [CCID] and San Joaquin
Exchange Contractors, 2013 Merced and Madera Subsidence Study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madera County is the top part of the Friant Water System, managed
largely by the Madera Irrigation District [MID] and second to that the
Chowchilla Irrigation District. The Friant Division is the central
piece of the Central Valley Project plan and irrigates more than 1
million acres on the valley's east side. Beginning at Millerton Lake
and dammed by Friant Dam, water is diverted through the Friant-Kern
Canals to southern counties including Fresno, Kings, and Kern.
Diverting water west toward the dryer eastern Madera and Fresno areas
is the Madera Cross Canal.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Friant Water Users Authority, Friant Division Facts 2014
(online www.friantwater.org).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Central Valley Project [CVP], managed by the Bureau of
Reclamation (Bureau), provided for the construction of Friant Dam in
1944. This Project set up the current system of exchanged water
deliveries between the Sacramento and the San Joaquin Rivers. The
Friant system's current practices of classification deliveries were
also born from the CVP, specifically Class 1 and Class 2 water. Under
normal conditions, 840,000 AF of northern California water is delivered
to the Mendota Pool via the Delta-Mendota Canal for use by west side
agencies with historic San Joaquin water rights \7\--known as the
exchange contractors. As a result, 800,000 AF of water may be diverted
for the Friant water users on the eastern valley floor--which is
classified as Class 1 water. An additional 140,000 AF of water is
available for Friant contractors if and when it becomes evident that
the needs of the Class 1 water will be met by that year's water supply.
This 140,000 AF is designated as Class 2 water. This year, the Bureau
of Reclamation has determined that the supply for Class 1 water is
zero, and therefore, zero is also available for the Class 2 water
users. This designation of zero is unprecedented and greatly impacts
the future prosperity of not just Madera County agriculture, but the
entire Central Valley. In addition, the Bureau's Operation and
Maintenance costs have sky-rocketed to the local irrigation districts--
as there is less water moving through the system bringing the cost per
AF to astronomically high levels.\8\ Even though the Friant users are
receiving a zero allocation this year, they will be bearing a major
portion of the O&M fees associated with the Central Valley Project in
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See above.
\8\ Madera Irrigation District 2014 O&M Charges and Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madera County Farm Bureau's membership is largely composed from
Class 2 water users to the Friant system--to a much lesser extent Class
1. But it's a forgone conclusion at this point that most of our
membership has been or is on the books to drill deeper wells in
anticipation of this crisis. The waiting list for a well drill is over
13 months from the time of booking, and can exceed costs of $1 million.
This figure--although staggering, is a far cheaper investment than
losing highly productive almonds or pistachio orchards.
In addition to the raw economic affects this zero allocation of
northern California/delta water brings to agricultural operators, the
rural farming communities and labor services that go along with
agriculture have been hit hard. Finishing the first quarter of 2014,
due to lack of rain and available irrigation practices, nearly half of
Madera County's temporary work force was left out of work or placed on
temporary leave.\9\ With no weeds to spray and any trees or vines to
prune, Madera County faced a staggering increase in unemployment--from
11 percent on average to 26 percent.\10\ Madera County's rural
communities of Firebaugh and Mendota are slated to run out of municipal
water by July this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Madera County Economic Employment Department, 1st Quarter
Economic Outlook, pp. 13-18.
\10\ See above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the effects of the zero allocation to the Friant system by
the Bureau of Reclamation have such far reaching consequences, the
Madera County Farm Bureau is concerned that a full accounting of water
supplies by the Bureau has not been made available. Some water
continues to be made available to small rural towns that rely solely on
Friant water for municipal purposes, understandably by way of a reserve
called ``Health and Safety Water,'' that was produced by shortening the
restoration flows dedicated in the San Joaquin River Restoration
Program.\11\ The MCFB was pleased that restoration activities were
curbed in January 2014;\12\ however it is critical that the amount of
water saved and the Bureau's dedication of its uses be published as
soon as possible, least a request demanding such information from the
Bureau and the Department of the Interior be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Madera Irrigation District Friant System pp. 89, San Joaquin
River Restoration Program, FEIR/EIS 2012 pp. 439.
\12\ Bureau of Reclamation, SJRRP, Press Announcement (online at
http://restoresjr.net/news/MP-14-012SJRRPCeaseFlows1MonthEarly.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The aforementioned model of Friant water user classification and
its efficacy had never been tested in a manner that actually involved a
zero water allocation from the Bureau. It had however--been heavily
theorized in a model developed by the Technical Advisory Committee
[TAC] to the San Joaquin River Restoration Project [SJRRP], developed
by way of the San Joaquin River Settlement Agreement (Settlement
Agreement/SA). The MCFB maintains a seat on the Board of Directors at
the Resource Management Coalition [RMC], to which public and non-public
presentations are made by the Bureau of Reclamation on the status of
the SJRRP to a collective group of San Joaquin River stakeholders, the
Exchange Contractors, State Department of Water Resources, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and
multiple irrigation districts. Throughout last year, the Bureau
suggested through multiple reports \13\ and letters from the State
Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] that a 0 percent allocation was
impending based on hydrological models. The planning for this event is
therefore derived to be a contingency of the SJRRP, and the MCFB is
deeply affected by its implementation. To fully understand the nature
of how the Settlement Agreement [SA] affects MCFB and its members, a
summary of the settlements key provisions is necessary. The SJRRP is a
direct result of a Settlement (known as the SA), reached in September
2006 on an 18-year lawsuit to provide sufficient fish habitat in the
San Joaquin River below Friant Dam near Fresno, California, by the U.S.
Departments of the Interior and Commerce, the Natural Resources Defense
Council [NRDC], and the Friant Water Users Authority [FWUA]. The
settlement received Federal court approval in October 2006. Federal
legislation was passed in March 2009 authorizing Federal agencies to
implement the settlement.\14\ The settlement is based on two goals:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Draft Channel Capacity Report for 2014, Bureau of Reclamation,
presented at RMC Permits 11885, 11886, and 11887 and License 1986 of
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Letter from SWRCB dated October 21, 2013.
\14\ Bureau of Reclamation, SJRRP (online http://restoresjr.net/
background.html).

Restoration: To restore and maintain fish populations in ``good
condition'' in the main stem of the San Joaquin River below
Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River, including
naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
salmon and other fish.

Water Management: To reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts
to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors that
may result from the Interim Flows and Restoration Flows
provided for in the settlement.

The MCFB and its members are greatly and frequently affected by the
SA's water management strategies--which are directly influenced by the
SA's restoration objectives. These two goals are often contradictory in
nature and in a case like this year's extreme drought, have made the SA
un-implementable by the State, the Federal Government, and those
locally involved.
By way of example, the SJRRP's efforts to build habitat required
for the reintroduction of anadromous fish has stalled for multiple
reasons--however the plan to support a small population of transplanted
fish has moved forward--without any of the infrastructure required to
keep the fish alive. This took a significant amount of water out of the
system for the Class 1 and 2 Friant water users heading into a critical
drought year. The information can be summarized by the Bureau's
designated Restoration Administrator, Tom Johnson in the following
manner:

``The winter of 2013-2014 is shaping up to be one of the driest
in California history . . . the opportunity to conserve
unreleased Restoration Flows to support the Restoration Program
in the future and improve water supplies in the region in this
incredibly dry year was a consideration . . . ultimately, it
was the . . . consensus that an early reduction of flows, while
not biologically beneficial in its own right, is biologically
reasonable . . . given the anticipated sufficient water
temperatures in critical areas of the river . . .''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ San Joaquin Restoration Program, Restoration Administrator
Flow Recommendation, January 31, 2014, ``Recommendations for 2014
Restoration Flows.''

The MCFB contends that this practice, although discussed and
determined legally under the confines of the SA, is a horrendous
practice--effectively placing a non-existent population of fish over a
very real and present population of people and agricultural businesses.
The amount of water that was dedicated to the 2014 Restoration Flows
was over 250,000 AF.\16\ Although the MCFB appreciates that an overall
``ramp down'' of restoration flows occurred, this amount of water being
dedicated to something that the Bureau's own panel of experts and
scientists has claimed is pointless is a massive waste of water and
precious wealth for the Central Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MCFB would like to offer a set of solutions to this water
crisis, immediate and long term. These solutions have been tailored to
the jurisdiction of this committee, the House Natural Resources
Committee--and should be viewed through its ability to enact change
through its jurisdiction.
immediate water crisis solutions
I. Expedition of Water Deliveries by Maximization of Through Delta
Pumping
The need for expedited water deliveries--specifically throughout
the delta and Mendota Pool is extreme and can be performed in real
time. Achieving maximum flexibility in delta export operations will be
key in allowing the Bureau to meet Exchange Contractor substitute water
supply operations, which is critical for Friant to be able to use
whatever supplies may be generated (or stored) in the upper San Joaquin
River watershed.
Water deliveries are presently being hampered by an inadequate
definition of what is considered a protected v. threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act. This committee has the power to
review and change this law to better define the nature of what an
endangered species is AND the success criteria required for it to be
delisted. This change, although controversial, may be considered to
sunset by 2015, to at minimum allow some form of relief for farmers
during this crisis.
This action would also bring the Tracy Pumping Plants back online
at a greater capacity, providing much needed relief for the
recirculation efforts on the San Joaquin River.
In addition to these immediate fixes, any and all water dedicated
toward cold water promotion in attempts to minimize turbidity
throughout the Central Valley Project must cease immediately. This is a
wasteful practice in the delta, given the drastic need for all the
water available to supply people and people's food supply.
II. San Joaquin River Restoration Plan Amendments (Pub. L. 111-11)
The SJRRP provides for a dedicated ``cold water fishery'' on the
San Joaquin River, based on historical hydrographic data and evidence
of previous cold water activities nearly 100 years ago. It was this
biome that the SJRRP seeks to reproduce in the present day environment
in an attempt to bring back anadromous salmon numbers. However, there
are numerous habitat necessities that will be required prior to
implementing a cold water fishery--namely a high volume of water, side
channel habitat construction and spawning gravel implementation, which
at this time make this condition in the SJRRP unworkable.\17\ This
committee has the jurisdiction to revisit Pub. L. 111-11, and develop a
more logical timeframe for which to implement these restoration
objectives--but moreover, to delay any activities associated with it
implementation in the next year--based on the critical water year. The
SJRRP's goal of implementing restoration should also be based on
minimizing a waste of taxpayer dollars as well as facilitating water
deliveries to the Friant system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ SJ Settlement Agreement, Case 2:88-cv-01658-LKK-GGH Document
1341-1 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 13 of 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this action can be considered to sunset by 2015, to at
minimum allow some form of relief for farmers during this crisis.
long term water crisis solution
I. Investment in Water Storage Infrastructure
One of the greatest and most imperative solutions for long term
drought crisis aversion is the development of storage throughout
California. For MCFB members--and for most within the Friant system,
the development of a storage facility in the upper San Joaquin River
Basin (Project) would provide massive amounts of direct relief for 5
counties (Madera, Merced, Fresno, Kings, and Kern), more than 6 million
acres of irrigable Ag land, and over 1 million people. This is a bold
statement, but upon elaboration more can be derived from its roots.

--Upper San Joaquin Storage Site has already been authorized by
Congress \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Pub. L. 108-7, Division D, Title II, Section 215, Omnibus
Appropriations Act 2/2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Project does not touch the delta or is hindered by through-delta
conveyance
--Project is the strongest contender for a local cost share--not
also requiring/needing a State cost share component
--Local irrigation districts will not or don't have to be required
to pay for project

This storage site, colloquially known as Temperance Flat,
regardless of the end use or ownership--is the only one in the cue that
has the ability to bring water into the San Joaquin River system
directly. This means that should the end purpose of the near 500,000 AF
generated by the Project.
The Bureau of Reclamation, in its January 2014 Feasibility
Report,\19\ cited that the potential net effects of a storage project
in the upper San Joaquin would, ``significantly contribute to the
success of flow and therefore the success of a Chinook salmon
population, known to be affected by water temperatures . . .'' The MCFB
views this benefit--although not directly benefiting farmers, as an
overall benefit of the project thus contributing to more water system
wide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Draft, Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation,
Feasibility Report, January 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the drought crisis has been influencing catastrophic
effects on members of the MCFB. We are estimating a total net loss of
$65 million in crop damage, $455 million in our labor forces, and
nearly $275 million lost due to water lost on the exchange market. We
hope that this committee, through its jurisdiction can enact the
immediate and long term solutions we've proposed.
The Madera County Farm Bureau appreciates the opportunity to
provide testimony today. We have included a letter from our neighboring
Farm Bureau, Tulare, to be included as part of the record.
______

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Coleman.
Our next invited witness is the Honorable Felicia Marcus,
who is the Chairwoman of the State Water Resources Control
Board of California.
Chair Marcus is not here, and I have to say, as the
Chairman of the committee, I am really disappointed because we
invited her probably a week-and-a-half ago to testify.
Obviously, this is a very important issue, and it seems to me
from my perspective that the Water Control Board, at least the
Chair, ought to be here to testify. We are here to get
information.
So we invited her probably a week-and-a-half ago, and it
was only yesterday that we got a letter saying that she was not
going to show up. Now, I find it very ironic. On the front page
of the paper this morning, the State Water Control Board was 45
minutes away in Firebaugh, and yet the Chair of the Water
Control Board couldn't show up today. So I am very, very
disappointed that she is not here, and I just simply wanted to
state that for the record.
So next I want to recognize Mr. David Murillo, who is the
Regional Director of the Mid-Pacific Region of the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation.
Mr. Murillo, thank you for being here. You are recognized
for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF DAVID MURILLO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MID-PACIFIC
REGION, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Murillo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hastings and
members of the committee, I am David Murillo, Regional Director
of the Mid-Pacific Region for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am
pleased to be here today alongside our partners to describe the
actions that are underway to address the drought in California.
My full written statement has been submitted for the record.
We are all aware of the severity of this drought, so I will
skip straight to the discussion of what Reclamation is doing to
help both at the operational level and within our budget.
First, Reclamation and our stakeholders are implementing a
demonstration project for managing Old and Middle River, or
OMR, flows in the delta. Basically, the demonstration project
will improve operational stability and result in more efficient
CVP and State project operations. This demonstration project is
being implemented in 2014 and will be reevaluated for 2015
operations.
Second, in January, Reclamation worked with DWR on a
Temporary Urgency Change Petition that was submitted to the
State Board on January 31. The petition requested a reduction
in the delta outflows required by State Water Rights Decision
1641, as well as other actions to maintain delta salinity
requirements. The State Board issued an order in response to
the petition, and we requested to extend the January order
through the end of March.
Third, as described in our 2014 CVP Water Plan, Reclamation
proactively requested an early determination from NMFS of the
San Joaquin River inflow-to-export ratio based on the January
runoff forecast and the predicted continuing dry February
forecast results based on the need to plan in advance and
provide some certainty in operations to accommodate water
transfers.
And fourth, we have been working collectively with our
contractors to develop environmental documents to support water
transfers should conditions allow and sellers are willing to
make water available. Just last week, we publicly released two
transfer alternative documents. First transfer water from
north-of-delta contractors to south-of-delta contractors; and
two, transfers of non-project-based supplies from Sacramento
River Settlement contractors to in-basin buyers north of the
delta. Cumulatively, these alternatives could make 100,000 to
200,000 acre feet of water available.
As we move forward in this drought year, Reclamation, DWR,
NMFS, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Federal and State contractors, and the State Board
are working to develop an operational plan for the remainder of
the water year which will serve as a contingency plan under the
NMFS BO. This plan outlines assumptions for all users in
California water to plan for and implement drought response
measures, as necessary.
Turning from operations to the funding perspective, we have
worked for years to maximize the budgetary resources available
for water supplies in California. Every year for the past two
decades, hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal resources
have been provided annually in this State, much of it here in
the Central Valley, to develop new water supplies, maximize
conservation, improve existing infrastructure, and finalize
innovative agreements among water users. As the other witnesses
here can attest, local communities in California are on the
forefront of water supply efficiency and modernization of their
delivery systems. These are summarized in my written statement.
Of course, there is always more to do. We remain committed
to longer term solutions that will create a more sustainable
future for the CVP. We are pressing forward on the feasibility
studies for new and expanded reservoir storage in the Central
Valley. We have completed four major reports on storage
projects since July of last year. Specifically, we released a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Shasta
investigation, and in December we released a draft appraisal
report on the expansion of San Luis Reservoir, as well as a
progress report for the north-of-delta off-stream storage. Then
in February we released the Draft Feasibility Report for the
Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation. And we are
planning to release the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for it this year. Last, we expect to complete the Final
Feasibility Report and Final EIS for Shasta by the end of this
year as well.
In closing, I thank the committee for its attention to this
issue, and for fair consideration of all that we are doing to
operate the State and Federal projects in compliance with the
law. Reclamation values its working relationship with all the
parties represented here today. I would be glad to answer any
questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murillo follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Murillo, Regional Director, Mid-Pacific
Region, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman Hastings and members of the committee, I am David Murillo,
Regional Director of the Mid-Pacific Region for the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to represent the Department of
the Interior (Department) today, alongside our partners including the
State of California and the water community, to describe the actions
that are underway to address the drought in California.
As the committee is acutely aware, California is experiencing its
most severe drought in recent history. We are now more than two-thirds
of the way through the rainy season and many areas of the State are 60
to 75 percent below average annual precipitation totals for this date.
It would take more than \1/2\ inch of rain from Redding to Fresno every
other day until May to get back to average precipitation, and even with
such precipitation, California would remain in drought conditions due
to low water supplies in reservoirs from the two previous dry years.
Despite recent storms, our very low reservoir and snowpack levels
dictate that we must plan ahead and conserve more water. Reclamation,
the State, and our Federal partners have not been standing still
waiting for this drought to develop. State and Federal water managers
are working hand in glove in a delicate balancing act to optimize water
allocations, both short-term and long-term. For my testimony, I would
like to summarize some of our actions at the operational-level aimed at
reducing the impacts and optimizing the use of existing water supplies
this year, and then I will move on to some of the funding issues
relevant to this discussion.
First, Reclamation and multiple stakeholders developed and are now
implementing a demonstration project for managing Old and Middle River
[OMR] flows in the delta. The demonstration project will use a ``flow
index'' that can be calculated in real-time to make decisions instead
of tidally filtered gauge data that can take days for determining OMR
flow requirements associated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[USFWS] and National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] Biological
Opinions [BOs]. Implementing the OMR Index Demonstration Project will
improve operational stability and simplify accounting for the many
factors affecting OMR flow, and result in simplified and more
predictable Central Valley Project [CVP] and State Water Project [SWP]
operations. This demonstration project is being implemented in 2014 and
will be reevaluated for 2015 operations.
Second, in January, Reclamation worked with the California
Department of Water Resources [DWR] to develop a Temporary Urgency
Change Petition that was submitted to the State Water Resources Control
Board (State Board) on January 31, 2014. The Temporary Urgency Change
Petition requested a reduction in the delta outflows required by State
water rights Decision 1641, as well as other actions to maintain delta
salinity requirements. The State Board issued an Order in response to
the petition on January 31, 2014. In late February, Reclamation and DWR
requested the State Board to extend the January Order through the end
of March. The State Board granted this extension on February 28, 2014.
As part of the Temporary Urgency Change Petition and Order, Reclamation
is providing support to USFWS and the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife [DFW] to perform additional delta smelt and salmon monitoring.
This monitoring is providing additional information and will provide
information more quickly on fish movement and presence to inform
operations under the Temporary Urgency Change Petition and Order.
Reclamation and DWR will continue to monitor hydrologic conditions to
determine whether additional drought response actions should be
requested from the State Water Board. Also, Reclamation is actively
monitoring the State Board's flow and salinity standards on the San
Joaquin River at Vernalis. If necessary, Reclamation and DWR may be
requesting a relaxation of Vernalis salinity standards to conserve
water in storage that can be used later to ensure our ability to keep
control over delta salinity over the long term, should the drought
continue.
Third, as was detailed in our 2014 CVP Water Plan, Reclamation has
taken a number of steps to facilitate water transfers. Reclamation
requested an early determination from NMFS of the San Joaquin River
inflow to export (I:E) ratio requirement based on the January runoff
forecast and the predicted continuing dry February forecast results. To
allow water users to plan in advance and to provide some certainty in
operations to accommodate water transfers, on February 7, NMFS agreed
to establish an I:E ratio of 1:1 for April-May, 2014 earlier in the
year than they normally would so that we could plan for less
restrictive CVP and SWP exports. Also consistent with the 2014 Water
Plan, Reclamation has been working collaboratively with its contractors
to develop environmental documents to support water transfers, should
conditions allow. During the Week of March 10, we publically released
two transfer alternatives: (1) transfer of water from north of the
delta contractors to south of the delta contractors; and (2) transfer
of non-project base supplies from Sacramento River Settlement
Contractors to in-basin buyers north of the delta. Cumulatively, these
alternatives could make 100,000 to 200,000 acre-feet of water available
to those most in need. In addition, Reclamation has been working
closely with the DWR and the State Board to facilitate water transfers.
As we move forward in this drought year, Reclamation, DWR, NMFS,
USFWS, DFW, Federal and State contractors, and the State Board are
working to develop an operations plan for the remainder of the water
year, which will serve as a contingency plan under the drought
exception procedures in the NMFS BO. This plan will outline operations
and assumptions (allocation, refuges, barriers, cold water pool, water
quality, fisheries, and the possibility of entering into another
drought year in 2015) to allow all agencies and users of California
water to plan for and implement drought responses measures as
necessary.
Through these and other actions, Reclamation is working closely, on
a day-to-day basis, to coordinate and communicate proactively with the
State of California and within the Federal family. High level
leadership calls are being held weekly to identify issues before they
become problems, and to find solutions to provide water for our
customers and protect irreplaceable natural resources.
In November 2013, the administration launched the National Drought
Resilience Partnership [NDRP] to help communities better prepare for
droughts and to reduce impacts on families and businesses. The NDRP is
coordinating Federal efforts across the country and working closely
with State and local governments and other partners to improve
community preparedness and resilience to drought. With the severe
drought in California, the NDRP is also playing a critical role in
response, helping to connect communities to the Federal assistance they
need.
Turning from operations to funding, we have worked for years to
maximize the resources available for water supplies in California.
Every year for the past two decades, hundreds of millions of dollars in
Federal resources have been provided annually in this State, much of it
here in the Central Valley, to develop new water supplies, maximize
conservation, improve existing infrastructure and finalize innovative
agreements among water users. As the other witnesses here can attest,
many local communities in California are on the forefront of water
supply efficiency and modernization of their delivery systems. The
President's visit to the Central Valley last month, as well as the
Secretary Jewell's visit last week, made clear that the administration
understands the seriousness of the situation here. Two weeks before the
President's visit, our previous Commissioner, Mike Connor, came to
Sacramento to announce a 2014 funding opportunity of up to $14 million
in Federal assistance for irrigation districts, water districts, tribes
and other water or power entities to cost share on projects that create
new supplies for irrigation and improve water management. This
opportunity is part of a partnership between Reclamation and the
Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS], whereby NRCS will
provide funding and technical assistance for on-farm projects such as
tail water recovery systems, conversion to sprinkler or drip systems,
and micro-irrigation investments. Reclamation and NRCS will each
provide up to $7 million for this effort. The deadline for submitting
proposals is Monday, March 24 at noon, and we anticipate project
selections will be announced by late May or early June.
These efforts are not new in the Mid-Pacific Region. Since 2009,
Reclamation has provided over $42 million in financial assistance to
water purveyors in the Region for agricultural and urban water use
efficiency improvement/management projects. Through various programs
such as CALFED, Bay-Delta Restoration Program (NRCS Partnership),
WaterSMART, and the Water Conservation Field Services Program, combined
with recipient cost share, over $138 million has been invested in water
efficiency improvement projects over the last 4 years. Collectively
these projects conserve approximately 274,000 acre-feet of water
annually and have been proven as one of the most cost effective ways to
increase the available supply of water in California, and elsewhere.
Through the title XVI water reuse program alone, municipalities
throughout California are now making use of approximately 350,000 acre-
feet of recycled water annually, reducing reliance on the over-
allocated Bay-Delta and Colorado River systems.
Reclamation recognizes the need to fund projects that address water
supply sustainability and stretch limited water supplies. This is made
all the more relevant when you consider that the hundreds of thousands
of acre-feet of CVP water that was rescheduled from 2013 into 2014 is
proving crucial to providing water supplies this year. For some
districts, this water is their only source for 2014 supplies. A
significant amount of this rescheduled water would not have been
available without the conservation investments made with our partners
in years past under these programs.
In addition, the projects that were funded in 2009-2011 by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act under the authority of the
Reclamation States Drought Relief Act of 1991 have now been
implemented. Reclamation provided $40 million in funding in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley for well rehabilitation, new wells,
and temporary pumps and pipes. This new infrastructure is providing a
water supply to areas that previously did not have access to a supply
and is assisting growers to be more resilient to drought.
It has been 2 years since Reclamation and the San Luis and Delta-
Mendota Canal Authority completed construction of a 500-foot connection
between the State and Federal projects just west of Tracy. The Delta-
Mendota Canal/California Aqueduct Intertie addresses conveyance
conditions that had restricted use of the Jones Pumping Plant to less
than its design capacity, potentially restoring 35,000 acre-feet of
average annual deliveries to the CVP. The Intertie provides redundancy
to portions of the State and Federal water distribution system, allows
for maintenance and repair activities that are less disruptive to water
deliveries, and provides the flexibility to respond to CVP and SWP
emergencies. In the first 18 months of operation, nearly 73,000 acre-
feet of additional CVP water was pumped through the Intertie. It was a
successful project, and is illustrative of the working relationship we
have with the State and our water contractor community.
Of course, there is always more to do. We know there will be more
tough choices to maintain basic supplies if a fourth straight dry year
materializes. Various Federal and State agencies are assessing the
amount of ``carry-over'' supplies that must be retained in our
reservoirs to maintain salinity control in the delta to ensure that it
can continue to be used as a water supply source and to provide for
health and safety purposes in case of a fourth straight dry season, and
this possibility will inform our thinking for the rest of 2014.
Although we are focused on near-term actions to address the
drought, we also remain committed to finding longer term solutions that
will create a more sustainable future for the CVP. We continue to press
forward on the feasibility studies that examine the potential for new
and expanded reservoir storage in the Central Valley. Of note, we have
completed four major reports on storage projects since July last year.
Specifically, in July we released the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation, and in
December we released a Draft Appraisal Report on the expansion of San
Luis Reservoir, as well as a progress report for the North-of-Delta
Offstream Storage Investigation. Then in February we released the Draft
Feasibility Report for the Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage
Investigation. In addition, Reclamation is planning to release the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Upper San Joaquin
Investigation and complete the Final Feasibility Report and Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Shasta Lake Water Resources
Investigation by the end of this year. Reclamation, through the San
Joaquin River Restoration Program, is also supporting the development
of groundwater recharge projects in support of the water management
goals of the Program.
Finally, I would note that for the long-term, the administration
remains committed to working closely with the State of California to
achieve the co-equal goals of (1) improving California's water supply
reliability; and (2) protecting, conserving, and restoring the bay-
delta environment. In addition to the water management measures
discussed above, we continue to work in close partnership with the
State in developing the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan.
In closing, I thank the committee for its attention to this issue,
and for fair consideration of all we are doing to operate the State and
Federal projects in compliance with the law for the benefit of all
Californians and the environment. Reclamation values its working
relationship with all the parties represented here today. I would be
glad to answer questions at the appropriate time.
______

The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Our next witness is Ms. Janelle Beland, who is the
Undersecretary of the California Natural Resources Agency in
Sacramento.
For the record, our invitation was to Mr. John Laird, who
is the Secretary. He couldn't make it, and he was gracious
enough to send his Undersecretary, and we thank you very much
for being here.
I just wish the same courtesy could have been given to us
from the State Water Resources Control Board.
Ms. Beland, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JANELLE BELAND, UNDERSECRETARY, CALIFORNIA NATURAL
RESOURCES AGENCY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. Beland. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I am Janelle Beland, Undersecretary for Natural
Resources for the State of California. The State appreciates
the invitation to appear before this committee today and offer
testimony on our response to the current drought.
With California now in our 3rd dry year of weather and
shrinking reservoir supplies, we are reminded once again that
nothing focuses California's attention on our limited water
resources like drought. California is experiencing a severe
drought of uncertain duration. On the heels of two previous dry
years, storage in the State's major reservoirs and the water
content of the Sierra snowpack remain well below average for
the date.
Recent storms have not ended the drought, and the window
for California to gain significant precipitation is closing.
The latest National Weather Service data continue to show
nearly the entire State in severe drought and nearly two-thirds
in extreme drought.
Federal, State, and local water projects that rely on
snowpack in the Cascades and the Sierra, the source of nearly
one-third of California's developed water supply, will be
operating under unprecedented dry conditions this summer, and
we will be challenged to manage our system to conserve vital
reservoir storage.
Typically, the Sierra Nevada snowpack melts in the spring
and summer. It collects in reservoirs to provide about one-
third of the water Californians use each year. Some communities
are running low on drinking water. Many of California's rivers
and streams are also running very low, and farmers who rely on
surface water for irrigation are faced with difficult decisions
to plant crops amidst great uncertainty about whether State and
Federal water infrastructure will be able to deliver the water
needed to supplement local supplies to grow their crops.
Everyone who relies in whole or in part on project water--
farmers, fish, people in cities and towns--will get less water
this year. Simply put, there is not enough water to go around,
so we need to conserve and make some strategic decisions now,
planning for the worst if we do not get much more precipitation
in the next few weeks.
One of the most important lessons learned from our previous
record dry years, such as 1976 and 1977, is that delay only
makes the effects of the drought worse. Just like the Governor
has asked all Californians to conserve water around their
homes, we are taking the same actions for the State on a much
larger scale.
On January 17, Governor Brown issued an emergency
Proclamation of Drought. That proclamation ordered that our
Department of Water Resources work constructively with fellow
State and Federal agencies to take proactive steps now to
preserve our ability to manage water supplies across a broad
array of needs should this drought worsen. The Governor's
proclamation is the fourth action taken by a Governor since
1987 to deal with drought on a statewide basis.
The California Department of Water Resources runs the State
Water Project. With Lake Oroville and the California Aqueduct
that winds across two-thirds of the State, the State Water
Project delivers water pumped from the delta to 25 million
Californians and 750,000 acres of farmland.
One primary concern from the State's perspective has been
to ensure that enough water can be directed to communities for
basic needs such as drinking water and water for sanitation and
fire-fighting. While some communities have adequate water
supplies saved locally for such purposes, other communities
need continued exports from the delta for these essential
purposes.
Another primary concern is the need to prevent salt water
intrusion into the interior delta, where a large portion of the
State's fresh water supplies are conveyed for human and
agricultural use. A certain amount of outflow must continue
throughout dry months to push back salt water from the interior
delta. If there is not enough water to maintain this balance
throughout the year, fresh water sources traveling through the
interior delta will become contaminated. This is a very real
concern this year.
In recognition of both of these concerns, on January 29 the
Department of Water Resources and the Bureau of Reclamation
asked the State Water Board to adjust water rights permit and
license terms that normally control State Water Project and
Federal Central Valley Project operations. DWR and the Bureau
sought this temporary urgency change in order to preserve
dwindling supplies in upstream reservoirs for farms, fisheries,
and cities and towns as this drought continues.
The relief sought in the petition would also provide
additional time to assess how much water the projects would
need for salinity control and basic needs such as drinking
water and sanitation throughout this year.
This temporary urgency change did the following: it allowed
a reduced delta outflow so that the State and Federal projects
could conserve their dwindling supplies in reservoirs for later
in the year; it allowed for the operation of the Delta Cross
Channel gates in real time so less flow would be needed to
repel salinity; and it established a real-time drought
operations management team. Without these changes, various
regulations would require us to release water in our reservoirs
now. The amount usually required to be released from reservoirs
this time of the year was set assuming a dry year, but not a
drought of this magnitude.
The Chairman. Could I ask you to summarize your final part?
Ms. Beland. Sure.
The Chairman. Your full statement will appear in the
record.
Ms. Beland. Yes, I get it.
I guess on that, I will just wait for questions. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Beland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janelle Beland, Undersecretary, California
Natural Resources Agency, State of California
overview
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am
Janelle Beland, Undersecretary of the California Natural Resources
Agency. The State of California appreciates the invitation to appear
before your field hearing today to offer testimony on our response to
the ongoing drought crisis.
California is experiencing a severe drought. On the heels of 2
previous dry years, all of the State's major reservoirs remain well
below average storage for the date. Statewide, the water content of the
Sierra snowpack also is well below average for the date. Recent storms
have not ended the drought, and the window for California to gain
significant precipitation is closing. The latest National Weather
Service data continue to show nearly the entire State in severe drought
and nearly two-thirds in extreme drought.
Although long-range forecasts suggest a shift to weak El Ninno
conditions in the coming months, this does not mean that the drought in
California will be over next winter. State and Federal water project
operators and environmental and water quality regulators are working
together in real time to exercise as much flexibility as possible under
regulatory standards to allow for the capture and storage of water from
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). Every effort has been made to
maximize the amount of water the projects could export during the
storms in February and March, with the realization that this may be the
last opportunity to capture and store unregulated flow during this
winter season.
These efforts are being closely coordinated with State and Federal
fishery agencies and the State Water Resources Control Board (State
Board), which is exercising flexibility allowed under the law. This
real-time water management will continue to adjust operations in
response to changing conditions.
In the coming weeks, in order to help preserve water supplies in
upstream reservoirs and limit salinity encroachment in channels of the
Delta, the California Department of Water Resources [DWR] is developing
plans to install temporary emergency rock barriers across three Delta
channels. DWR is working with Federal and State wildlife agencies and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to gain permits for installation of
these emergency barriers, which would be removed in the fall. Similar
emergency barriers were last installed in the drought year of 1977, and
the barriers worked as intended to help control salinity.
overview of statewide conditions
As previously mentioned, despite several consecutive days of rain
across California this month, we are significantly behind average
precipitation conditions for this time of year.
The statewide snowpack shows 29 percent of average snow water
content for the date, slightly less than last week's measurement. The
snowpack water content is currently at 19 percent in the northern
Sierra, 35 percent in the central Sierra, and 33 percent in the
southern Sierra.
Typically, the Sierra Nevada snowpack melts in the spring and
summer. It collects in reservoirs to provide about one-third of the
water Californians use each year.
Major reservoir storage rose slightly over the last couple of weeks
but is still significantly below average. Shasta stands at 58 percent
of typical storage for this time of year. Oroville storage is 62
percent of average and Folsom Lake is at 67 percent of average storage
for this time of year.
Federal, State, and local water projects that rely on snowpack in
the Cascades and the Sierra--the source of most of California's
developed water supply--will be operating under unprecedented dry
conditions this summer, and will be challenged to manage their systems
to conserve vital reservoir storage.
The very low reservoir and snowpack levels dictate that we must be
prudent with our minimal water supplies, and that requires additional
flexibility to operate the State and Federal water projects. In this
extraordinarily dry year, all water users, including agricultural,
municipal, and fish and wildlife uses, will be impacted.
To maximize flexibility, the project operators, DWR and the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) have coordinated closely to exercise
maximum flexibility and allow the water projects to conserve and store
water as they continue to assess the water needs for later in the year
and into 2015. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife [DFW] and
the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] have coordinated closely
with these agencies, and have worked to ensure that water management
decisions do minimal harm to endangered and protected species.
One primary concern has been to ensure that enough water can be
directed to communities for human health and safety purposes, which
includes basic needs such as drinking water and water for sanitation
and firefighting. While some communities have adequate water supplies
saved locally for such purposes, other communities need continued
exports from the Delta for these essential purposes. It should be noted
that the agencies' intent has been to ensure enough water in
communities for these essential purposes, but not to deliver exports
for all normal usage (such as exterior landscape irrigation).
Another primary concern is being able to prevent saltwater
intrusion into the interior Delta where a large portion of the State's
freshwater supplies are conveyed for human and agricultural use. A
certain amount of flow must continue throughout dry months to push back
saltwater from the interior Delta. If there is not enough water to
maintain this flow throughout the year, we will lose control over
salinity in the Delta and fresh water sources traveling through the
interior Delta will become contaminated. This severely compromises the
water projects' ability to deliver water for basic public health and
safety or irrigation uses. This is a very real concern this year.
January is typically the wettest month in California, but January
2014 proved an extraordinary anomaly. Scant rain or snow fell across
the State for the entire month. It was the driest month on record for
most places in the State, and it followed two previous dry years.
On January 29, 2014, DWR and the Bureau asked the State Board to
adjust water rights permit and license terms that normally control
State Water Project and Federal Central Valley Project operations. DWR
and the Bureau sought this ``temporary urgency change'' in order to
preserve dwindling supplies in upstream reservoirs for farms,
fisheries, and cities and towns as the drought continues. The relief
sought in the petition would also provide additional time to assess how
much water the projects would need for salinity control and essential
public health and safety needs throughout the year as mentioned above.
This temporary urgency change order (order) did the following:

Allowed a reduced Delta outflow so that the State and
Federal water projects could conserve their dwindling
supplies in reservoirs for later in the year;
Allowed for the operation of the Delta Cross Channel gates
in real time so less flow would be needed to repel
salinity;
Established a Real Time Drought Operations Management
Team.

DWR and the Bureau are now in the process of quantifying those
public health and safety needs and defining precisely how any water set
aside for public health and safety purposes may be used. The definition
will not include deliveries to farms for irrigation or homeowners for
lawn-watering.
On January 31, the State Board's Executive Director also advised
that ``junior priority'' water-right holders may be ordered to curtail
their diversions from the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems.
These curtailments would be structured to occur in a manner that
respects water rights, with senior water right holders being the last
to have their water restricted, as required under State law.
Curtailments will be based on river gauges on each watercourse, and
have not yet occurred.
Also, on January 31, DWR announced that its customers--29 public
water agencies serving cities and farms--should expect no deliveries in
2014 if significant precipitation did not occur in the next few months.
These customers could expect delivery only of ``carryover'' supplies
that they had not used in 2013. The zero allocation is the first-ever
for all customers in the State Water Project's 54-year history.
The announcement does not mean that anyone's tap will run dry, but
it will trigger difficult decisions for many farmers, and it
underscores the need for aggressive conservation by all Californians.
Also on January 31, DWR notified long-time water rights holders in
the Sacramento Valley that their deliveries from the State Water
Project may be cut 50 percent, the maximum cut permitted under
contract, depending upon the results of future snow surveys. All of
these settlement contractors are agricultural irrigation districts.
On February 7, the order was amended to include the flexibility
needed after recent storms, when natural flows are high enough, so that
the limits on Delta exports would not be in effect and normal
conditions would apply.
Two separate, moderate storm systems moved across California in
February. Water project operators worked with the State and Federal
wildlife agencies to maximize regulatory flexibility so that as much
storm runoff as possible could be captured and stored in San Luis
Reservoir, south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, with minimal harm
to Delta water quality and threatened and endangered Delta species.
February 2014 proved wetter than January, but not enough to end the
drought or avoid a high-stakes balancing act in water project
operations.
Around February 9, Delta outflow started spiking after the first
significant rain event to hit this winter. From February 10 to February
11, the State and Federal water projects increased their pumping from
the Delta to about 6,000 cfs, maintaining that level until February 18.
During the month of February, the State and Federal projects
received additional flexibility in the amount they could export from
the Delta, via the coordination established under the Real-Time Drought
Operations Management Team process for operating Delta facilities
established by the January order. Additionally, Federal and State fish
and wildlife agencies have made similar adjustments to export
limitations based on their authorities and permits.
As a result, additional water was pumped from the Delta in February
and March due to regulatory flexibility granted the projects by Federal
and State fishery agencies. The rest of the water was pumped from the
Delta under compliance with existing regulations that did not require
use of the ``temporary urgency change'' or the easing of any standards
designed to protect water quality and fish species.
Here is a more detailed analysis of Delta water project operations
from February to today:
From Feb. 1 through Feb. 9, record-dry conditions in northern
California kept Delta outflow (the volume of water flowing out of the
Delta into San Francisco Bay) at roughly 7,000 cubic feet per second
[cfs]. The combined export of the State Water Project and Central
Valley Project (the amount of water diverted from the Delta into
storage at San Luis Reservoir) was held at slightly under 1,000 cfs due
to degraded water quality conditions in the Delta.
Around Feb. 9, Delta outflow started spiking after the first
significant rain event to hit this winter. In addition, the Delta Cross
Channel Gates were opened as part of the ``temporary urgency change''
order granted by the State Board. That order allowed for modified
implementation of the requirements in D-1641, a water rights decision
of the State Board that sets salinity and other water quality
objectives for the Delta and Bay.
With Delta water quality improving, from Feb. 10 to Feb. 11, the
combined water project exports ramped up to about 6,000 cfs and stayed
there until Feb. 18.
By Feb. 18, Delta outflow had dropped to 8,000 cfs as the storm
runoff dwindled.
Exports ramped down and reached the minimum health and safety level
of 1,500 cfs by Feb. 23. Exports stayed at that minimum health and
safety level until March 2. By March 2, with the return of significant
rain, Delta outflow jumped to 26,000 cfs. Exports increased gradually
from March 2 through March 4 to reach 6,000 cfs, then climbed over the
next several days to reach 6,800 cfs.
Beginning on March 11, Delta outflow dropped to 11,000 cfs, then
rose again to just under 17,000 cfs. Delta outflows are now headed back
down to levels below 10,000 cfs by the middle of next week.
Combined water project exports have remained at just under 7,000
cfs and were scheduled to remain at that level through last weekend.
The upper levels of exports were constrained by a multitude of existing
regulations established to protect Delta fisheries including
requirements of D-1641 and Federal rules to protect Delta smelt and
chinook salmon, which are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act
[ESA] and the California Endangered Species Act [CESA].
Operators of the State Water Project and Central Valley Project,
together with representatives of the Federal and State fishery agencies
and the State Board, are working collaboratively to find flexibility in
the implementation of these regulations. They seek to maximize exports
to the extent possible under the law, with the realization that the
last set of storms may be the last opportunity to capture and store
unregulated flow during this winter season.
In a normal year, the State and Federal water projects would be
required to keep Delta outflow at 11,000 cfs during March, primarily to
protect habitat for fish and wildlife. In particular, these flow
requirements are elevated during this time of year because of the
migratory life cycle of salmon. Increased flows help them move through
the Delta ecosystem. This means that under a normal year's rules,
11,000 cfs is required to flow out of the Delta and through the San
Francisco Bay. However, amid drought conditions and the need to
conserve and export precious water, flexibility for this requirement
was explored and the State and Federal fisheries agencies have advised
that reducing the flow below 11,000 cfs will not unreasonably affect
fish and wildlife.
The upper levels of exports are constrained by regulations to
protect Delta fisheries and Federal rules to protect delta smelt and
chinook salmon, which are listed under the ESA and CESA. Operators of
the Federal and State projects are working collaboratively with the
Federal and State fish agencies and the State Board to maximize
flexibility in the implementation of these regulations.
During the coming weeks and months, the project operators will work
in close coordination with the State and Federal fish agencies to
ensure that the system stays within current requirements for fish. And
they will closely monitor fish species affected by project operations
to assess whether further protections are warranted.
DWR and the Bureau are gathering data and looking at how much water
will be needed through the dry months and possibly into next year to
maintain salinity control in the Delta, meet minimal public health and
safety needs, and abide legal requirements to protect threatened and
endangered fish. This review should clarify the water needed for these
purposes for the rest of the year and possibly into next year if we
experience a 4th dry year.
At that time, the State and Federal water projects will be able to
update their allocation projections to their water contractors, based
on the prudent assessment of water in the system for carryover storage
needs for the coming dry months.
recent state actions
State and Federal water management agencies continue to work
together to allow exports of additional water from the Delta based on
storms in the last 6 weeks. Recent precipitation has provided a window
of opportunity to capture additional water for storage both north and
south of the Delta, and both the State and Federal water projects have
increased pumping for a limited time to capture as much water as
possible under current regulatory standards.
Last week, DFW and the State Board announced that they will
expedite approval of storage tanks built by rural residents for
domestic water use. These storage tanks help protect drinking water
supplies and increase fire safety by giving rural residents a water
supply that they can manage on their own property.
This week the State Board approved reduced cost financing for
recycled water projects to speed the construction of such projects.
They are also working to expedite approval of such projects.
DFW, USFWS, and NMFS last week released a contingency plan for the
release of small fish raised in Federal and State hatcheries. Due to
the drought, new measures will be taken to release the hatchlings in
portions of the Delta that allow for their migration to the ocean while
enabling their eventual return to lay eggs and continue their life
cycle.
The Governor's Office and State agencies have launched
drought.ca.gov, which will provide a central location for drought
information. Agencies will continue their own drought Web pages, and
drought.ca.gov will include a listing of these Web pages.
The Governor's Office of Planning and Research has posted online
its drought toolkit for local governments, which outline actions that
communities can take to respond to the drought.
This week on March 21, the Governor's tribal advisor will hold a
statewide consultation call with tribal leaders to continue discussions
on drought response with Interagency Drought Task Force officials.
The Department of General Services held a water conservation
training last week for facility managers from State and local
governments, as well as school districts across the State, to provide
information and support to their water use reduction efforts. Over 300
managers from across the State participated.
The Governor's Office of Emergency Services continues to gather
drought-related costs from State agencies and local governments, which
is reported weekly to the Drought Task Force. The task force continues
to meet daily to take actions that conserve water and coordinate State
response to the drought.
On March 3, Governor Brown signed a $687.4 million drought relief
plan (SB 103 and SB 104). Highlights of the package include:

Accelerated grant expenditures of $549 million under
Proposition 1E and Proposition 84 in the form of
infrastructure grants for local and regional projects that
are already planned or partially completed to increase
local reliability, including recapturing of storm water,
expanding the use and distribution of recycled water,
enhancing the management and recharging of groundwater
storage and strengthening water conservation.
Thirty million dollars from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Fund to DWR for direct expenditures and grants to state and
local agencies to improve water use efficiency, save
energy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from state and
local water transportation and management systems.
Fourteen million dollars for groundwater management across
the State, including assistance to disadvantaged
communities with groundwater contamination exacerbated by
drought.
Fifteen million dollars from the State general fund to
address emergency water shortages due to drought.
Thirteen million dollars from the general fund to augment
the State and local conservation corps to expand water use
efficiency and conservation activities and to reduce fuel
loads to prevent catastrophic wildfires.
Twenty-five point three million dollars from the general
fund to be deployed to maximize the potential Federal
drought assistance for providing food to those impacted by
the drought.
Twenty-one million dollars from the general fund for
housing-related assistance for those impacted by the
drought.
One million dollars to continue the Save Our Water public
education campaign.

On February 21, DWR sent letters to counties and well-drilling
contractors asking for timely submission of well completion forms. This
information will help DWR track increased use of groundwater and new
well installation activities.
DWR and the Bureau continue to monitor water quality in the
western, central, and southern Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The cross-
channel gates along the Sacramento River near Walnut Grove were closed
due to fishery concerns.
On February 12, DWR and the Bureau filed a petition with the State
Board seeking authority to exchange water within the areas served by
the Federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project and vice
versa.
On February 10, DWR announced the award of $153 million to help
fund 138 separate water projects around the State, 35 of which will
help communities cope with drought in the long-term.
DWR is working with the Bureau and the State Board to ensure an
efficient process to transfer water between voluntary buyers and
sellers. However, given the uncertainty of water supplies, few
proposals for voluntary sales may be submitted.
On January 17, Governor Brown proclaimed a state of emergency and
directed State officials to take all necessary actions to prepare for
drought conditions. The Governor asked all Californians to reduce water
consumption by 20 percent and referred residents and water agencies to
the Save Our Water campaign for practical advice on how to do so. The
Governor also directed State agencies to use less water and to hire
more firefighters.
Key measures in the proclamation included:

1. Directing local water suppliers to immediately implement local
water shortage contingency plans;
2. Ordering the State Water Resources Control Board to consider
petitions for consolidation of places of use for the State
Water Project and Central Valley Project, which could
streamline water transfers and exchanges between water
users;
3. Directing DWR and the State board to accelerate funding for
projects that could break ground this year and enhance
water supplies;
4. Ordering the State water board to put water rights holders
across the State on notice that they may be directed to
cease or reduce water diversions based on water shortages;
5. Asking the water board to consider modifying water quality
control plan rules that require the release of water from
reservoirs so that water may be conserved in reservoirs to
protect cold water supplies for salmon and maintain water
supplies;
6. And directing the State Department of Public Health to provide
technical and financial assistance to communities at risk
of running out of drinking water.

The Governor's proclamation is the fourth action taken by a
Governor since 1987 to deal with drought on a statewide basis.
The Governor, through the emergency proclamation, directed his
interagency drought task force to devise a plan to provide emergency
food supplies, financial assistance, and unemployment services to
communities hard-hit by drought-induced job losses.
agriculture-specific actions
State officials are working closely with Federal agencies to
provide assistance to farmers, ranchers and farmworkers in the most
impacted communities. The California Department of Food and Agriculture
has launched a one-stop Web site that provides updates on the drought
and connects farmers to helpful State and Federal programs they can
access during the drought. Farmers, ranchers and farmworkers can learn
more at: cdfa.ca.gov/drought/.

The site features links to crop insurance programs, crop
disaster assistance, emergency farm loans and Federal water
conservation program assistance.
Governor Brown's partnership with the Obama administration
on behalf of California has already led to millions of
dollars in potential assistance for farmers and ranchers.
Those opportunities are chronicled on the Web page.

The White House on Friday, February 14, 2014, announced emergency
funding from several Federal programs to support drought response. This
announcement was coordinated with President Obama's visit to Fresno
County.
Emergency assistance includes:

One hundred million dollars in expedited livestock
disaster assistance to California farmers and ranchers.
This funding, contained in the 2014 Farm bill, will be made
available through the USDA in 60 days. Funding assistance
can cover financial losses by California producers in 2012,
2013 and 2014.
Sixty million dollars for California food banks to help
families affected by the drought. Funding will be provided
by the USDA's Emergency Food Assistance Program.
Five million dollars of funding for conservation projects
at California farms and ranches, provided by USDA's
Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Five million dollars for emergency watershed improvements
to enable activities such as stabilizing stream banks and
replanting bare lands. Funds will come through the USDA's
Emergency Watershed Protection Programs.
Three million dollars for emergency grants to rural
communities facing drinking water shortages. Funds come
through USDA's Emergency Community Water Assistance
program.
Summer food programs: The USDA committed to expanding the
number of Summer Food Service Program meal sites to 600
locations in drought stricken areas throughout the State.
long-term actions
There is broad agreement that the State's water management system
is currently unable to satisfactorily meet both ecological and human
needs, too exposed to wet and dry climate cycles and natural disasters,
and inadequate to handle the additional pressures of future population
growth and climate change. Solutions are complex and expensive, and
they require the cooperation and sustained commitment of all
Californians working together. To be sustainable, solutions must strike
a balance between the need to provide for public health and safety
(e.g., safe drinking water, clean rivers and beaches, flood
protection), protect the environment, and support a stable California
economy.
As we work on emergency actions to manage through this crisis, we
are also taking proactive, long-term steps to prepare California for
future droughts and flood. Our long term approach to preparing
California's water future is captured in the California Water Action
Plan which was released in January of this year. This plan will guide
California's efforts to enhance water supply reliability, restore
damaged and destroyed ecosystems, and improve the resilience of our
infrastructure. We are working daily to balance needs and interests
throughout the State on the overall long term sustainability of our
water resources. This is not just about the current problem of this
serious drought.
The California Water Action Plan has been developed to meet three
broad objectives: more reliable water supplies, the restoration of
important species and habitat, and a more resilient, sustainably
managed water resources system that can better withstand inevitable and
unforeseen pressures in the coming decades. Altogether, this plan
centers on sustaining supplies of water for people, the environment,
industry and agriculture.
This action plan lays out our challenges, our goals and decisive
actions needed now to put California's water resources on a safer, more
sustainable path. While this plan commits the State to moving forward,
it also serves to recognize that State government cannot do this alone.
Collaboration between Federal, State, local and tribal governments, in
coordination with our partners in a wide range of industry, government
and nongovernmental organizations is not only important--it is
essential.
The Water Action Plan, over the next 5 years, will guide State
efforts to enhance water supply reliability, restore damaged and
destroyed ecosystems, and improve the resilience of our infrastructure.
With this plan, we recognize that water recycling, expanded water
storage and groundwater management must all be part of the solution. We
must also make investments in safe drinking water, restore wetlands and
watersheds and make further progress on the Bay Delta Conservation
Plan. All of these things are critical to the long-term solution.
Ten key actions identified:

Make conservation a California way of life.
Increase regional self-reliance and integrated water
management across all levels of government.
Achieve the co-equal goals for the Delta.
Protect and restore important ecosystems.
Manage and prepare for dry periods.
Expand water storage capacity and improve groundwater
management.
Provide safe water for all communities.
Increase flood protection.
Increase operational and regulatory efficiency.
Identify sustainable and integrated financing
opportunities.

There are many important components imbedded under each of these 10
actions. For the committee's benefit, let me highlight just two of
these that go to the heart of this hearing's topic of addressing long-
term solutions.
The Delta is California's major collection point for water, serving
two-thirds of our State's population and providing irrigation water for
millions of acres of farmland. We know too well the challenges of
moving water through the Delta's fragile levee system with declining
fish populations and historic restrictions on water deliveries. But,
the status quo in the Delta is unacceptable and it would be
irresponsible to wait for further degradation or a natural disaster
before taking action.
While we are working to implement the Delta Plan, one component
remains to be completed: The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan [BDCP]. State
and Federal agencies will complete planning for this comprehensive
conservation strategy aimed at protecting dozens of species of fish and
wildlife in the Delta, while permitting the reliable operation of
California's two biggest water delivery projects.
The BDCP will help secure California's water supply by building new
water delivery infrastructure and operating the system to improve the
ecological health of the Delta. It will also restore or protect
approximately 145,000 acres of habitat to address the Delta's
environmental challenges. The BDCP is made up of specific actions,
called conservation measures, to improve the Delta ecosystem. It
includes 22 conservation measures aimed at improving water operations,
protecting water supplies and water quality, and restoring the Delta
ecosystem within a stable regulatory framework. The project will be
guided by 214 specific biological goals and objectives, improved
science, and an adaptive management approach for operating the water
conveyance facilities and implementing other conservation measures
including habitat restoration and programs to address other stressors.
As the Delta ecosystem improves in response to the implementation of
the conservation measures, water operations will become more reliable,
offering secure water supplies for 25 million Californians, an
agricultural industry that feeds millions, and a thriving economy.
State and Federal agencies will complete the State and Federal
environmental review documents; seek approval of the BDCP by the State
and Federal fishery agencies; secure all permits required to implement
the BDCP; finalize a financing plan; complete the design of BDCP
facilities; and begin implementation of all conservation measures and
mitigation measures, including construction of water conveyance
improvements. Once the BDCP is permitted, it will become part of the
Delta Plan.
We agree that we need to expand our State's storage capacity,
whether surface or groundwater, whether big or small. We need more
storage to deal with the effects of drought and climate change on water
supplies for both human and ecosystem needs. Climate change will bring
more frequent drought conditions and could reduce by half our largest
natural storage system--the Sierra snowpack--as more precipitation
falls as rain rather than snow, and as snow melts earlier and more
rapidly. Moreover, we must better manage our groundwater basins to
reverse alarming declines in groundwater levels. Continued declines in
groundwater levels could lead to irreversible land subsidence, poor
water quality, reduced surface flows, ecosystem impacts, and the
permanent loss of capacity to store water as groundwater.
Among other actions to expand water storage, our plan supports
funding partnerships for storage projects. The Brown administration
will work with the Legislature to make funding available to share in
the cost of storage projects if funding partners step forward. The
State will facilitate among willing local partners and stakeholders the
development of financeable, multi-benefit storage projects, including
working with local partners to complete feasibility studies. For
example, the Sites Project Joint Powers Agreement, formed by a group of
local government entities in the Sacramento Valley, is a potential
emerging partnership that can help Federal and State government
determine the viability of a proposed off stream storage project--Sites
Reservoir.
Over the next 5 years, this Water Action Plan will help us advance
sustainable water management by providing a more reliable water supply
for our farms and communities, restoring important wildlife habitat and
species, and helping the State's water systems and environment become
more resilient.
bay delta conservation plan [bdcp]
The Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan [BDCP] and associated EIR/EIS
is now available for public review and comment. Lead State and Federal
agencies recently extended the public comment period for the EIR/EIS by
60 days. The review period now totals 180 days stretching from December
13, 2013 to June 13, 2014. This extension will allow the public more
time to review and comment on the public draft documents. The 180-day
comment period is 4 times that of the required 45 days in order to
ensure the public has plenty of time to review the draft documents.
This extension is not anticipated to cause significant delays in the
project, although it will likely extend the anticipated release date
for the Final Draft BDCP and EIR/EIS. The public review draft documents
are available online and electronically at libraries throughout the
State serving as document repositories. DVD copies are also available
on request.
As of February 12, DWR completed 12 public open house meetings
throughout the State on the public review draft plan and associated
EIR/EIS. More than 800 participants attended statewide. The meetings in
Sacramento, Clarksburg and Stockton had the highest attendance, with
Sacramento topping the list at 165 participants. A broad range of
engaged stakeholder groups attended every meeting, including
environmental, industry, business, water, and labor groups. Feedback
has been that participants appreciated the format, and the ability to
have one-on-one conversations with technical staff involved in the
development of the project.
Our goal is to allow as many people as possible to provide
comments, all of which will be carefully considered and will ultimately
help shape the development of the final project.
If there's one thing these last 2 to 3 years demonstrate is that we
need conveyance in place that can move water during wet years in a way
that's safer for fish. Doing that allows us to lay-off in the dry
years. We can't manage very easily through droughts without it. In the
long-term, California must continue to focus on actions to modernize
our water delivery system by completing the environmental planning
process for the BDCP.
With the conveyance proposed in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan in
place, the Central Valley this year would have an extra 800,000 acre-
feet of water in the San Luis Reservoir. This effort to restore the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem and greatly enhance the water
system's reliability is the best investment we can make right now in
our water future.
In closing, it is important to note that California water policy
moves in fits and starts tied to floods and droughts. When the rain and
snow falls steadily and predictably, Californians tend to assume it
will always be so. It's human nature.
We intend to take advantage of the public's hyper-focus on water
issues this year to advance improvements to our water system.
East coast newspaper reporters lately have looked at our muddy
reservoirs and declared that California has finally overreached and hit
a wall.
We know better. We know it's because of our reservoirs--as well as
our investments in water conservation, recycling, drip irrigation,
groundwater recharge, and a host of other smart water management
techniques--that we've been able to build a nearly $2 trillion economy
in a State with hydrology that is as varied--both temporally and
geographically--as California.
We are the most populous State, with the richest farm economy, and
the most diverse natural heritage in the Nation. Our water system gets
us through all but the most extreme, outlier years like this one
without much sacrifice. We will cope, invest, and thrive.
On behalf of my colleagues at the State level, and our partners at
the Federal level, I would like to thank you for holding this important
hearing and providing this opportunity to provide testimony. Thank you
for your attention to these issues.
______

The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Next I will recognize Mr. Steve Knell, P.E., the General
Manager of the Oakdale Irrigation District.
Mr. Knell, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF STEVE KNELL, P.E., GENERAL MANAGER, OAKDALE
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, OAKDALE, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Knell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members, for
taking the time to come to California to hear the concerns and
issues surrounding what is now the State's 3rd year of a
drought. My presentation will cover the drought impact----
The Chairman. Move the microphone closer to you, if you
would.
Mr. Knell. Is this better?
The Chairman. That is much better. Thank you.
Mr. Knell. Thank you. My presentation will cover the
drought's current impacts on the Oakdale Irrigation District
and offer a suggested action that should be considered to
address both the immediate and long-term needs of water supply
and reliability in our State.
Compared to many districts, OID has been less affected by
this 3rd year of drought. I know now today we are the ant, as
spoken about earlier. We have prepared for this event by
investing significant amounts of time and resources into making
our district better.
Since 2006, we have put in $50 million of modernization
technologies into our district to advance our district so that
we are better delivering water to farms. When we deliver water
better to farms, farmers can better manage their water on the
farm, making for a rollup of greater efficiencies within
irrigation districts. These technologies are funded solely by
water transfers of our conserved water to agricultural and
municipal water districts in the State.
While OID is not immune to the effects of this 3rd year of
drought, the options gained through these investments soften
those impacts.
As a State, California has been less successful at
developing a drought plan. We choose to spend efforts on the
Lower San Joaquin River Restoration Program to achieve 500
returning spring-run salmon. We have gravitated to choosing to
build bullet trains over water storage or water conveyance. The
State believes it can restore a delta to its once pristine
condition simply by taking 35 percent of the unimpaired runoff
from our watersheds and sending it out to the ocean. We have
taken 10,000 acres of the most productive farmland in the world
out of production at a time when a significant portion of
Americans still go to bed hungry. The failure to prioritize,
plan, and invest leaves California ill-prepared and ill-
equipped to address the human and financial consequences
brought on by this drought.
Water managers in California support increased storage.
Currently, 47 percent of the State's available water is
dedicated to environmental purposes. Agriculture takes 42
percent, and the urban part of the equation gets 11. More
storage makes no sense if that 47 percent share of
environmental water escalates under the vision of the State's
Water Resources Control Board. Storage only makes sense if you
have water to put in storage.
New Melones is a large federally owned storage reservoir on
the Stanislaus River. It has the capacity to hold 2.4 million
acre feet, while the annual yield of the basin is 1.1 million
acre feet, a very smartly built dam. Unfortunately, the ability
of the United States Bureau of Reclamation to store water in
New Melones is restricted by a Biological Opinion which over-
commits the reservoir's water to downstream uses, leaving New
Melones with underutilized storage each and every year.
OID and our sister districts, South San Joaquin Irrigation
District, divert water from the Stanislaus River but do not
have the right to store water in New Melones without Federal
permission under a Warren Act contract. Over the past several
dry years, the need to utilize storage in New Melones has
become increasingly evident. In 2010, OID and SSJID nearly lost
the ability to move 80,000 acre feet to the San Luis Delta-
Mendota Water Authority. There was difficulty in matching up
the timing of water availability to pump access at the Federal
pumps in the delta. Through extraordinary cooperation, the
water eventually moved.
In 2012, that ability was not there, and that water did not
move to the west side. If storage in New Melones had been
available, we could have changed that.
Our initial review indicates somewhere between 20,000 and
40,000 acre feet could be put into storage annually behind New
Melones. The cost to raise Shasta Lake to get 20,000 to 72,000
acre feet is $280 million to $360 million. The cost to raise
the San Luis Reservoir is $360 million to gain 130,000 acre
feet. To store 20,000 to 40,000 acre feet annually in New
Melones would not cost a dollar. In fact, the Federal Treasury
could actually gain $1 million a year in storage fees. Imagine
that.
Access to storage in New Melones provides multiple
benefits, as is provided in my written testimony, chief of
which is the reliability to meet exporter needs in water years
in which storage over-availability is a priority. Congressman
Denham introduced H.R. 2554 to address the issue of New Melones
storage. This bill was approved by the House and included in a
final compromise bill that was sent to the Senate. We hope that
the Senate will act expeditiously in the passage of this
legislation.
And I wish to thank the committee for hearing the views of
the Oakdale Irrigation District.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Knell, P.E., General Manager, Oakdale
Irrigation District, Oakdale, California
opening remarks
I would like to thank the Natural Resources Chairman and committee
members for taking the time to come to California and hear the concerns
and issues surrounding what now is California's 3rd year of drought.
My presentation will cover the drought's current impacts on the
Oakdale Irrigation District [OID] and offer a suggested action that
should be considered to address both the immediate and long-term needs
of water supply and water reliability.
impacts of the drought
Compared to many districts, OID has been less affected by this 3rd
year of drought. OID's preparedness is a result of the investment of
incredible time and resources preparing for this event. OID has
planned, financed and implemented modernization technologies that have
allowed itself to be more efficient at delivering water to its farmers.
The benefits from that effort and the investments made are visible in
times of drought. While OID is not immune to the effects of this third
year of drought, the options gained through its investments soften
those impacts. OID began its modernization and infrastructure
replacement program in 2006; its projected costs were $168 million back
then. OID has spent $50 million to date and still has a way to go. That
planning vision began back in 2003 when the OID Board of Directors
voted for OID to embark upon this course.
As a State, California has been less successful at developing a
focused plan and investing time and resources to achieve drought
preparedness. We are choosing to spend billions of dollars on the lower
San Joaquin River Restoration Program to achieve 500 returning Spring
Run Salmon, when communities in our valley do not have safe, affordable
and reliable drinking water. We have gravitated to choosing to build
bullet trains over water storage or water conveyance facilities. The
State of California believes we can ``restore a delta'' to its once-
pristine condition simply by taking 35 percent of the unimpaired runoff
from our watersheds and sending it out to the ocean. We have taken tens
of thousands of acres of the most productive farmland in the world out
of production when 25 percent of the American population goes to bed
hungry every night. The failure to prioritize, invest and plan leaves
California ill prepared and ill equipped to address the human and
financial consequences brought on by this third year of drought.
immediate and long term solutions
More Reservoir Storage
Water managers in California support increased storage; whether for
urban or agricultural use. However, water storage projects require
significant investment, planning, and long-term reliability. Storage
projects are useless if the State of California, through the State
Water Resources Control Board, is focused upon taking more water out of
existing storage and sending it to the ocean.
Currently, 47 percent of the State's available water is dedicated
to environmental purposes, Agriculture takes 42 percent and the urban
part of the equation gets 11 percent. More storage makes no sense if
that 47 percent share of environmental water escalates, as is the
current vision of California's Department of Water Resources.
While agriculture has made great strides in conservation, like OID,
we can do more if there is an incentive to build and pay for projects
to conserve water. In OID's situation, the ability to pay for more
expensive conservation is diminished because OID has limited ability to
store and use conserved water. Storage only makes sense if you can put
water into storage.
Maximizing the Use of Existing Storage
New Melones is a large federally owned storage reservoir on the
Stanislaus River. It has the capacity to hold 2.4 million acre feet,
while the annual yield of the Stanislaus River basin is 1.1 million
acre feet. The ability of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to store water
in New Melones is restricted by a Biological Opinion [BO]. That BO
calls for such large in-stream flow releases annually, that over time
the resource becomes over-committed. Due, in part, to the BO
requirements, New Melones has a significant amount of storage capacity
that is not used each and every year.
OID and SSJID divert water from the Stanislaus River, but do not
have a right to store water in New Melones without Federal permission
through a Warren Act Contract. OID and SSJID have smaller storage
facilities upstream of New Melones. Despite OID's limited ability to
store water, it has invested in water use efficiency. In 2001, it took
OID 255,000 acre feet to meet its crop water demands on-farm. Twelve
years later and $50 million in conservation investments, it now takes
OID 235,000 acre feet to do the same job. OID markets the surplus water
generated from its conservation efforts to finance and fund its
modernization programs.
Over the past several years, the need to utilize storage in New
Melones has become increasingly evident. For example, in 2010, OID and
SSJID agreed to transfer water to the San Luis Delta-Mendota Water
Authority [SLDMWA]. Pumping restrictions and project operations almost
defeated this transfer because it was difficult to match up the timing
of water availability and the ability to pump. If storage in New
Melones had been available, that difficulty could have been avoided.
The same was true in 2012 when OID and SSJID discussed moving
supplemental supplies to SLDMWA, only to be told there was no capacity
at the pumps. Since there was no capacity, and the Districts could not
store the water in New Melones, this transfer did not occur. A lost
opportunity in a dry year.
OID and SSJID have analyzed the historic hydrology of the
Stanislaus River basin and the current operations under the BO, and
have found time periods of up to 35 years in length where additional
water could have been put into New Melones without spill. As part of
its planning efforts, OID has looked at storing its conserved water,
coordinated river releases to meet regional regulatory obligations on
the Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus Rivers, and water exchanges with
MID/TID as mechanisms available to generate water for storage. Our
initial review indicates somewhere between 20,000-40,000 acre feet
could be put into storage annually. The costs to raise Shasta Lake and
get 20,000-72,000 acre feet of water is $280-$360 million. The costs to
raise the San Luis Reservoir is $360 million for 130,000 acre feet of
water. To store 20,000-40,000 acre feet annually in New Melones would
cost $0. In fact, the Federal Treasury would receive up to $1,000,000
in Warren Act contract payments.

Access to storage in New Melones provides multiple benefits;

1. Increased stored water without any additional capital costs,
construction, or major environmental permitting.

2. More storage under a Warren Act Contract means more revenue to
the Federal Government via storage fees. OID has even
offered to pay the Federal Government in ``water'' as
opposed to ``money'' to benefit their purposes.

3. OID's water transfers and the release of that water could be
coordinated on a fish-friendly flow schedule that benefit
the environment.

4. Storage in New Melones would afford OID and SSJID the ability
to move water when needed, as needed on an annual basis to
better meet the needs of all exporters, both on the Federal
and State Water Project, when pump capacities are an issue.

5. Storage in New Melones would afford greater reliability to
those same exporters as a carryover option in water years
that storage over availability is a priority.

6. Storage in New Melones could be enhanced by inter-basin,
eastside transfers and exchanges.
conclusion
Congressman Denham introduced H.R. 2554 to address the issue of New
Melones storage. This bill was approved by the House and included in a
final compromise bill that was sent to the Senate. We ask that the
Senate act expeditiously in the passage of this legislation.
I wish to thank the committee again for their time and for
listening to the views of the Oakdale Irrigation District.
______

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Knell.
And last, and certainly not least, we have Mr. Kole Upton
from Chowchilla, California.
Mr. Upton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF KOLE UPTON, CHOWCHILLA, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the committee. I am
a family farmer. I live on my farm in Merced County. I farm
with my brother and two sons. The farm was started in 1946 when
my dad returned from 3 years in Europe in World War II. I
started farming in 1971 after I spent 6 years in the Air Force.
We get our water from the underground aquifer, but also
from Friant Dam and an auxiliary dam in Buchanan Dam. We are
facing the same situation that the valley faced in the 1920s
and the 1930s, and that was when the underground aquifer was
being depleted, and that is why the government decided to build
Friant Dam, so they could bring surface water into the Friant
service area, which is about a million acres on the east side.
And the people that came out and developed this land were
people from the Depression and World War II, and the government
passed the reclamation law, which gave people an opportunity to
build farms, support their families and build these wonderful
communities we have all the way from Merced to Bakersfield.
But this whole system, this whole society is under attack
now, and it is in jeopardy because of the environmental laws
that we have, and we shouldn't be blaming the judges because
more than one judge has said, hey, don't blame me; if you want
to change, then change the law so they can interpret it and so
the agencies can interpret them with common sense.
The first item I want to talk about is the San Joaquin
River Settlement. I was involved in that. I was one of the
negotiators, and the goals were laudable. Senator Feinstein and
Congressman Radanovich asked NRDC and Friant to try to come to
two goals. Number-one goal was to try to get a self-sustaining
salmon fishery back on the San Joaquin River. The number-two
and co-equal goal was for the farmers and the east side
communities to get their water back. Those were the rules.
So we did that. It was signed on September 13, 2006. In
addition, Senator Feinstein made us all sign a blood oath that
we would, in good faith and integrity, try to achieve both
those goals. Well, shortly thereafter and before it was signed
in 2008 by President Obama, NRDC and the other environmental
organizations started chipping away by getting themselves
involved in court cases and agencies' decisions and that kind
of thing.
The bottom line was that first they were able to
successfully kick out a lot of water that was going to the west
side. But in addition, they knocked out our ability to
recirculate our water under the water management goal. The key
to that was taking the water down to the southern Friant
districts. Well, we couldn't do that anymore because of these
environmental actions, and yet we can't get anybody from the
Senate or anybody else to hold NRDC accountable to this. The
lady that is not here today, she actually came from NRDC 3 or 4
years ago, so I am not expecting a whole lot of help from her
in this situation. So we are going to need--we need help from
the Congress to change some of these laws.
In addition to not getting the water management goal done,
the fish are not going to make it on the San Joaquin. NRDC's
own data shows that it is going to be too hot because of
climate warming, whatever you want to call it. It is not going
to work, so they can't have it both ways.
And the last thing which I think Mr. Murillo has told me
before, they are short of money. They don't have enough money
to finish this thing. So they are releasing water down the
river when it is available for 10 projects, and none have been
done, and the money is not available to finish it.
In addition, the third part of this agreement was no harm,
no foul to third parties. Well, I can tell you that some of the
third parties along the San Joaquin River where they release
these restoration flows, farmers have water coming up in the
root zones of the permanent crops, and they are hurting them.
So this thing is a disaster. It needs to be changed. Your
bill addresses this.
The other thing is this groundwater subsidence that is
occurring because we are using so much underground. You have to
love the environmentalists. Now they are saying, we have to
come in here and we have to fix this groundwater problem, these
darn farmers are pumping too much from the underground. What do
they expect? They have taken all our surface water. What the
hell are we going to do. That is the only choice we have, all
right, is the underground.
[Applause.]
Mr. Upton. OK. We need three things from you folks. Number
one is we need environmental accountability. Right now, the
urban user, the business user, the farm user, we are all
required to conserve and be accountable. Hey, that is good. I
understand that. Environmental releases, there is no
accountability. There is no accountability. Millions of acre
feet have gone out, and the purpose for which it was intended
has not helped anybody. So we need that to have the same
accountability. If it is not working for the fish or whatever,
then bring it back to the people that are already using it and
leave it there.
The second thing is we need to re-do the River Settlement.
The third thing we need is Temperance Flat. There is no sin
in investing in a dam for the future food supply of the people
of the United States. You have to have a storage so we can do
water banking. People say water banking is the answer. It is
one of the answers, but you have to have two things. There is
too much water coming down the river for it to be able to
percolate in a water bank.
I will close now by saying that if we don't do this, then
we are going to have to fallow hundreds of thousands of acres,
like Congressman Nunes said. And I have to tell you, I think we
have an obligation to people that live here, that have taken
the sacrifice of our forefathers in building this area and
changing it from a desert into a garden, to fight for what they
thought was right. I spent 6 years in the military. My dad
spent 3 years in the military. I have to tell you, I feel like
my own farm, my own family is under an attack by my own
government.
[Applause.]
Mr. Upton. Last, I would say the message I would have is I
commend you folks, but I would give a message to the Senate:
the time for talk is over. It is time for them to do something.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kole Upton, Chowchilla, California
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor and
privilege to appear before the House Committee on Natural Resources. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify concerning the subject of the
hearing: ``California Water Crisis and Its Impacts: The Need for
Immediate and Long-Term Solutions''.
We are family farmers who live on our farm. It was started when our
father returned from World War II. With my brother and sons, I grow
pistachios, almonds, wheat, corn, barley, oats, and occasionally pima
cotton. As most framers in the Friant service area, we are in a
conjunctive water use area. Our water comes from both surface water
supplies and the underground aquifer.
I am appearing as an individual at this hearing and not as a
representative of any of the water or agricultural organizations of
which I am board member.
the problem
This latest drought has magnified and exposed the water crisis
being inflicted on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley. The
availability of adequate and affordable surface water is essential to
the future of this valley. It was the depletion of the underground
aquifers in the 1920s and 1930s that led to the building of Friant Dam.
Remarkably, we are facing the same scenario now. However, it is not
because of the lack of surface water, it is due to the surface water
being ``reallocated'' because of the San Joaquin River Settlement and
the enacting legislation. Surface water that should have been used in
lieu of underground water and used to replenish the underground
aquifers has instead been redirected to flow to the ocean. Had the
redirection of this immense amount of surface water resulted in some
magnificent environmental achievement or the saving of some species,
then perhaps it might have been worth it.
However, the reallocation from east side users has not resulted in
any environmental improvements. The San Joaquin Restoration water
releases have been totally wasted because none of the projects to get
the River ready for salmon have been completed. With no other options,
farmers have turned to the underground aquifers to sustain their crops.
Now, we are in crisis with the underground being depleted at an
unsustainable rate.
The proposed solution by the environmental community and its allies
in the government is to demand regulation of underground pumping. They
allege farmers are acting irresponsibly by depleting the underground,
and are trying to use this ruse as a reason to further hamstring and
control water usage by farmers.
the san joaquin river settlement
To understand this situation, we must first review the San Joaquin
River Settlement. The concept of settlement was advanced by Senator
Feinstein and Congressman Radanovich. There were two co-equal goals: 1.
Attempt to revive a self-sustaining salmon fishery on the main stem of
the San Joaquin River (Restoration Goal); and 2. Mitigate the water
losses of the folks that have depended on this surface water for
decades (Water Management Goal).
The Settlement was signed on Sept. 13, 2006, and Senator Feinstein
required all parties to sign a ``blood oath'' promising to abide by its
terms, conditions, and goals. The key to the Water Management Goal was
the ability to recirculate the restoration water back to the southern
Friant districts once it reached the delta. However, the Natural
Resources Defense Council [NRDC] the primary environmental plaintiff in
the Settlement and the negotiations aggressively continued to
participate and inject itself into critical litigation and regulatory
matters after the signing of the Settlement with a view of doing damage
to delta conveyance and thus to recirculation efforts.
The bottom line is that the water losses cannot be mitigated and
the co-equal Water Management Goal is a sham.
In addition, the goal of a self-sustaining salmon fishery is also
not achievable. First the funding has dried up, and none of the
projects required to get the river ready for salmon have been
completed. Nevertheless, the environmentalists and some government
officials continue to demand that hundreds of thousand of acre-feet be
released to the ocean anyway. Also, the environmentalists own data
shows that the water temperatures caused by global warming will be too
hot for salmon to survive.
Finally, the promise of no harmful impacts to third parties as a
result of actions involving the Settlement has also been broken. An
example is the farmers along the San Joaquin River who have had their
permanent crops damaged by water seeping up in to the root zone because
of restoration flows.
the immediate solution
For the first time in many years, there is proposed legislation in
both the House and the Senate to address the water situation in
California. For the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, it is
imperative that the revision of the San Joaquin River Settlement be
``on the table'' and part of the legislation. The revision is simple.
Change the River Restoration goal from a self-sustaining salmon fishery
to an extension of the current 40 mile, robust fishery that currently
exists below Friant Dam. This concept will provide us with a live
fishery 360 days/year and allow achievement of the Water management
Goal.
In addition, it will save billions of dollars. Some of these
savings could be used to enhance the salmon fisheries currently in
existence that are in the cooler climates required for salmon
viability. Harmful Third party impacts will also be eliminated. The
result would be a live river, more total salmon, and the return of the
availability of hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of surface water
that is essential to the east side.
long term solutions
There are several long term solutions required for this area to be
able to maintain its ability to feed the Nation and the world. They
are:

1. An appropriate revision of the Endangered Species Act [ESA]
that allows for the worthwhile goals of the act to be
achieved without decimating areas like the San Joaquin
Valley, and the food supply of the United States.
Concurrent with that legislation, a proposed law requiring
environmental water releases be held to the same standards
for efficiency and accountability as required of urban and
agricultural uses. Water is a public resource and should
not be wasted by any user. So, if an environmental water
release is not accomplishing the task for which it is being
released, then it should be made available to the other
water users so it may be beneficially used for society.

2. A water balance analysis is done for the San Joaquin Valley so
that residents and decisionmakers know the extent and
seriousness of the situation. Following that analysis, a
determination be made as to how many acres of productive
farm land must be permanently fallowed to get the area in
to water balance.

3. A new dam built at Temperance Flat with public funds. Twice in
the last 20 years, flood events have resulted in the loss
of millions of acre-feet of water because Friant Dam is too
small. Water banking by itself cannot address this problem
because it takes time for the water to percolate in water
banks. The additional storage will provide the time to
store the water and then be released over time. In
addition, this water can be available for in-lieu recharge
which is the most effective means of underground
replenishment.

There is nothing sinful about a society investing in its own
infrastructure. A new dam is the investment in the future food security
of the United State. It would provide the additional water needed to
help restore some water balance to the area, as well as significant
flood control benefits. However, without revising the San Joaquin River
Settlement, a new dam would be virtually useless. The only solution
would then be to permanently fallow hundreds of thousands of more acres
of productive farm land.
conclusion
We are at a crossroads for the east side of the San Joaquin Valley.
For some 50 years, we have thrived due to the foresight, planning, and
wisdom of our forefathers. Leaders of both political parties worked
together to provide an opportunity for the World War II generation by
building Friant Dam and enacting Reclamation Law. This generation
responded magnificently by creating a robust society of small and
medium sized communities embedded in 1,000,000 acres of productive farm
land. This land has nourished this country and the world. It has been a
government program that worked.
Now, all that is at risk not because of any continuing natural
calamity, but because of a continuing series of overreaching
environmental laws passed by Federal and State legislators and enforced
by bureaucrats and judges. The only solution is to revise these onerous
laws. The time to act is now.
______

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Upton.
I also want to say that at the entrance here there are
forms if any of you would like to make a comment as part of the
record for our committee hearing, or you can go to our Web
site, which is naturalresources.house.gov, and go to
``Contact,'' and you can put your comments in there if you
would like, and we obviously invite your comments.
I want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony. Now
we will start the process here where we Members will ask
questions of some of the witnesses. I will start with myself.
Mr. Murillo, I want to ask you a question. I will ask my
staff if they can put up a graph because this graph, I think,
at least from my perspective, not living here all of the time,
certainly tells a lot. It is a graph going back from 1952 to
2013. The blue line represents the storage in millions of acre
feet from the Central Valley Project starting in 1952 all the
way up to 2013. You can see that blue line has been fairly
constant, with the exception probably of some drought areas,
1976 probably being the most obvious one. I remember that was a
big drought in my State of Washington.
The red square is the initial Ag Service allocation to
agriculture. Since we are talking about agriculture, that is
what the red square was. The green triangle was the final Ag
Service allocation. Now, if you look at that graph starting
from 1952 through 1990 or maybe 1991, with the exception of
1976 when that really was very much a drought, the allocation,
the initial allocation and the final allocation was sufficient.
It was always higher than what the storage was.
But all of that changed, it appears, in 1992, where you can
see that the initial Service allocation and the final
allocation was all over the board, mainly during that time
period under what the CVP storage was.
So, Mr. Murillo, I just wonder if you can explain to me,
somebody from outside the State, what happened in the early
1990s to change this graph when the one constant all the way
through, at least from the graph, was that the storage was
constant. So if you could explain that to me, I would very much
appreciate it.
Mr. Murillo. Thank you for the question, I appreciate it.
So the CVPIA, one of the requirements of the CVPIA is that we
set aside CVP yield, water yield, about 800,000 acre feet a
year. We provide that for in-stream flows. So I think part of
what you are seeing is you are seeing some of the requirements
that have been imposed on us by the CVPIA.
The Chairman. The CVPIA, explain what that was again.
Mr. Murillo. The Central Valley Project----
The Chairman. Improvement Act? Is that what it was?
Mr. Murillo [continuing]. Improvement Act.
The Chairman. OK. And that is legislation----
Mr. Murillo. It was legislation----
The Chairman. I was not in Congress at the time. That is
legislation that was passed in the early 1990s through the
Congress.
Mr. Murillo. Yes, it was, and it was for us to take into
consideration equally fish and wildlife demands. So we were
supposed to put those equal to power generation, Ag delivery.
So we were supposed to hold it at a high priority. So what that
did is it required us to provide additional flows, in-stream
flows to meet some of those concerns.
I think what you are seeing here, at least part of the
impact you are seeing here is some of that 800,000 acre feet
that is being allocated to meet the environmental requirements
of the CVPIA.
The Chairman. Well, Mr. Murillo, I have to say, toward the
end, when I look at these red dots where you have--again,
comparing this with storage, comparing it to the final
allocation, the initial allocation--final allocation, the
storage seems to be pretty much constant. But the allocation,
both initial and the final, seems to be much lower. Maybe I am
missing something. You said 800,000 acre feet. Why would it be
lower in the out years here? What is the reason for that?
Mr. Murillo. Well, like I said, I think part of the
reduction and probably the allocation and the final allocation
that we present is there are a number of factors that we have
to take into consideration these last several years. So CVPIA
is one. That is something that we do have to take a look at. We
talked about this before. There are just a number of other
requirements. We have the water quality requirements that we
have to continue to meet.
The Chairman. Mr. Murillo, my time is rapidly coming out.
Again, I ask that question as somebody not from the State. When
I see this graph here, I see a dramatic change because,
obviously, of legislation that happened. I think there needs to
be an explanation, and maybe some of my colleagues who live
with this better than I can follow up. So thank you for that.
I will yield back my time and recognize Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Larry Starrh and Mark Watte and a few of our folks here, we
have worked together over the years, and with your family, and
I think a number of your comments clearly indicate it. I mean,
we are kind of preaching to the choir here.
My question to maybe you, Mark, and Larry, and if some of
you want to opine in, we have 38 million people in this State,
as we noted, and we have a broken water system, as we have
noted, but we have 4 million people that live here in the
valley, and if it were just us to make the determination,
obviously, I think it would have been done a long time ago.
Having said that, what do you think is going to be
necessary to get people in southern California, people in the
Santa Clara Valley that, by the way, get water out of San Luis,
people in the delta to understand that their water is at risk
as well? Because 4 million people by ourselves cannot convince
38 million people in the State by ourselves that we have a
broken water system.
Mr. Starrh. Well, I will tell you, Benjamin Franklin said
it. He said, ``When the well is dry, we know the worth of
water.''
Mr. Costa. I know. But southern California doesn't believe
that water is at risk.
Mr. Starrh. If I was really good at going out and being a
publicist and a marketer of the problem, I think until you have
a real tragedy--and I hate to say that--either the price of
food has to come----
Mr. Costa. And maybe the silver lining in this crisis, if
there is one, is that the price of food will get to a point
that maybe people will wake up. I don't know.
Mark, do you have a thought?
Mr. Watte. Well, the common theme through the whole day
today is the issues we have with the Endangered Species Act.
That law is just out of control.
Mr. Costa. I agree.
Mr. Watte. And I think until our elected officials will
face that fact and push back against some of the most extreme--
--
Mr. Costa. Yes, but we respond to our constituencies. And
if our constituencies in southern California don't think they
have a problem----
Mr. Watte. Well, I think they are listening to a really
tiny, small constituency. The bulk of the constituencies are
disengaged. They are not aware.
Mr. Costa. Oh, I would agree with that point, too.
Mr. Watte. So I think it is up to the elected to begin the
process----
Mr. Costa. In Santa Clara, their intake is 30 feet above
San Luis Reservoir, and they are going along like there is not
a problem.
Mr. Watte. Well, I just think some leadership from the
elected is a beginning point.
[Applause.]
Mr. Costa. But you have, Mark, you have leadership here,
but we don't represent southern California. You know, I mean,
let's----
Mr. Watte. I understand that, I understand that.
[Voice.]
Mr. Costa. Well, it is right here. I voted for all of those
bills.
[Voice.]
Mr. Costa. Excuse me. I have another question.
The Chairman. Mr. Costa has the time, and please respect
the fact that he has the time.
Mr. Costa, you are recognized.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much.
Ms. Beland, you spoke about what is currently going on. But
does the Governor understand that we have a broken water
system?
Ms. Beland. I would say yes, we very much understand that
fact, and we have----
Mr. Costa. And the proposal to fix this broken water system
by the Governor is what?
Ms. Beland. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan.
Mr. Costa. And that does what? We don't want to get into--
people just want to know. Does that include storage? Does that
include fixing the delta? Does that include creating
flexibility in how the State and Federal pumps are operated?
Ms. Beland. The BDPC, compliant with the California Water
Action Plan, would do all of those things. It would allow us to
fix our conveyance system----
Mr. Costa. By building two tunnels.
Ms. Beland [continuing]. By building two tunnels----
Mr. Costa. Additional storage?
Ms. Beland [continuing]. So that we can reliably move water
to storage, and----
Mr. Costa. Have you sited the storage? Are we talking about
Shasta sites? Are we talking about San Luis? Are we talking
about Temperance Flat?
Ms. Beland. We have not sited storage. We are looking for
storage partnerships because the State----
Mr. Costa. Well, there has to be a cost sharing. I voted
for the Valadao legislation. I was proud of that fact. But we
don't provide any Federal funding in that legislation, which is
why I introduced the other legislation, and that was
understanding the issues that Mr. McClintock raised. I am more
than happy to work with you on that point.
Mr. Murillo, quickly, we talked about the storage, and you
talked about the completion dates of the studies. When could we
begin construction if we were able to reach an agreement
between the State and locals on cost sharing on the
construction of each of these individual projects? Let's take
Shasta, for example. When could we begin there?
Mr. Murillo. Actual construction itself? That all depends
on, once again, once we complete the Environmental Impact
Statements and----
Mr. Costa. Well, but, I mean, it has gone way too long.
Mike Connor acknowledges that; you acknowledge that. I mean,
when could we begin construction? You are going to have to
answer those questions.
My time has run out. But I just think that until we can
tell people up here definitively, if we reach a cost-sharing
arrangement, that we can begin construction next year or in 18
months, nobody is believing us.
Mr. Murillo. Well, like I said, the final feasibility study
and the final EIS for the Shasta will be completed this year.
If we have cost-share partners, we should be able to get
moving----
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Just to quickly pick up on that point,
Shasta was designed at an 800-foot level. It was built to 600
because we didn't need the capacity then. That additional 200
feet would mean 9 million acre feet of additional storage. How
much are you actually proposing to increase Shasta by?
Mr. Murillo. What we are looking at is an 18.5-foot raise.
Mr. McClintock. Eighteen-and-a-half feet when it was
designed to be raised another 200 feet.
Now, you say that the feasibility study will be done then.
The feasibility study is to meet all of the existing laws and
regulations and edicts, which tend to make these completely
infeasible. So isn't this just a shell game?
That is a rhetorical question.
[Laughter.]
[Applause.]
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Beland, the Burns Porter Act produced
the entire State Water Project. That was 21 dams, 7 million
acre feet of water storage, 3,000 mega-watts of hydro-
electricity, 700 miles of canals. If you do the inflation
adjustment for the California Water Project, it is about $17
billion in today's money. The Governor now proposes $14 billion
for the cross-delta facility that adds zero additional water
storage and zero additional hydro-electricity.
Wouldn't that $14 billion be better spent building
additional capacity? For example, $6 billion to raise Shasta to
its full design elevation of 800 feet, build the Auburn Dam,
which was half completed in the 1970s. That by itself, those
two projects would more than double storage on the entire
Sacramento system.
Ms. Beland. Well, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is only a
portion of what the Governor is proposing that we do in the
State. Our State Water Action Plan includes storage, both above
ground and below ground.
Mr. McClintock. How much storage? Anywhere close to the 9
million acre feet in completing Shasta, or the 2.3 million acre
feet of completing Auburn?
Ms. Beland. It is going to rely and depend on those
partnerships that can step forward. We don't have the financing
to build----
Mr. McClintock. I think the obvious answer is no.
Mr. Watte, are we ever going to solve our water shortage
without fundamental reform of the Endangered Species Act?
Mr. Watte. Sorry?
Mr. McClintock. Are we ever going to solve our water
shortage without fundamentally reforming the Endangered Species
Act?
Mr. Watte. Absolutely not.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Beland, Mr. Starrh referenced 800,000
acre feet of water that was released out of Oroville Shasta in
Folsom Dam this fall. Those of us in Sacramento watched the
Sacramento River at full flood, wondering what in the world
were you people thinking. Our subcommittee has requested the
release orders, many of which are completely without
explanation.
Let me put it to you: why was this water released last fall
knowing full well that we were heading into a potentially
catastrophic drought, draining the Folsom Lake almost
completely of its water?
Ms. Beland. We weren't anticipating the drought to continue
in----
[Voices.]
Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your candor.
Mr. Upton----
[Voices.]
The Chairman. Please come to order so we can continue.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Upton, you mentioned the incestuous
relationship between extremist groups like the NRDC and
policymakers in State government, particularly the State Water
Resources Control Board. How widespread is this relationship?
Mr. Upton. Well, I don't know. But I know that in a lot of
the agencies and when you go to talk to people, you are facing
the same people that you faced years ago when you were dealing
with environmental organizations.
Mr. McClintock. So you would say that relationship is
pretty extensive now throughout the State government?
Mr. Upton. Yes, it is very extensive, and it is very
extensive on a lot of the staffs, especially in Sacramento and
in DC. People come out of the environmental organizations and
get on the staffs.
Mr. McClintock. And it is also true in the Federal
Government?
Mr. Upton. Yes, also true of the Federal Government. It is
very difficult to explain to somebody that doesn't understand
Ag, doesn't understand water, and doesn't appreciate it. So
before you can even convince them of anything, you first have
to educate them, and a lot of times they don't want to be
educated.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Knell, we haven't had a major reservoir
since New Melones in 1979. You mentioned the need to build more
capacity, but also to more carefully use our existing capacity.
You pointed out that much of that capacity has been squandered
to meet various governmental environmental mandates. Do you
have any idea how much of our existing capacity--forget
building new storage. Just with our existing capacity, how much
of that is being squandered due to these decisions and laws and
regulations?
Mr. Knell. Well, I can't speak for the State. I can speak
for Melones. I mean, the reservoir is----
The Chairman. Please speak into the microphone. Pull it a
little closer.
Mr. Knell. I am sorry. Melones is, speaking from our basis,
Melones is over-committed to meet downstream resource demands
for fisheries, water quality, and all the rest.
Mr. McClintock. Can you just give us a percentage? How much
of New Melones is being used for people, and how much of it is
being used for fish?
Mr. Knell. Is it 60/40? It is 60/40.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentle lady from Wyoming, Mrs.
Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A question for anybody on the panel. Can anyone tell me
whether these flows that have cutoff irrigation water and are
intended to help the recovery of the delta smelt have indeed
done so? Is the delta smelt survivability increasing because of
these flows? Can anyone answer that verbally?
Mr. Delgado?
Mr. Delgado. Yes. As far as the flows, there is water
coming in from northern California. It is from the Sacramento
River. The delta is a big mess right now. It is a cesspool of
pollution. And basically, in my opinion--I might be wrong, but
the water that has been legally stolen from us has been
diverted through Sacramento River into the delta to clean up
all the sewage from the cities along the coast, and then thrown
basically back into the San Francisco Bay area to clean up the
pollution from San Francisco and clean up the pollution from
the oil refineries. They are using the excuses about the delta
smelt and the fish, but they don't even exist anyway.
The biggest problem we have is pumping restrictions. The
last rain we had, we had rain, and you wouldn't believe--they
would startup the pumps to restore and recharge the San Luis
Reservoir. Instead, the pumps were only pumping like 10 percent
of capacity, and the rest of the water basically went out into
the ocean. That is the way I look at it.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. Anyone else care to comment on
that?
Mr. Upton. My understanding is that the increased flows
have not helped the smelt population, and there are a lot of
factors involved with it. George just mentioned a few, but also
I don't think we really understand completely the science of
where habitat exists for smelt, or the predators or any of
that. So we really don't know. And the fact is that throwing
more water at it hasn't helped, in my understanding.
Mrs. Lummis. So should there be a concept in the Endangered
Species Act of a futile call on water? In Wyoming, we have this
concept of a futile call. If delivering water to a senior water
rights holder downstream will not even get there because the
conveyance system would cause the water to just seep into the
ground, so the water can't be delivered, then you can't make a
call on a senior right because it is futile, it won't get
there.
Should there be a similar concept in the Endangered Species
Act where if it is documented, as this is, that providing more
water, cutting off other water uses to provide more water does
not, in fact, aid the recovery of a species, then there is no
sense doing it? Does that make sense?
[Applause.]
Mrs. Lummis. Yes, Mr. Coleman?
Mr. Coleman. One of the problems is they never set a
standard or criteria for what a successful delta smelt
population is, so they don't know.
Mrs. Lummis. That is a problem that Chairman Hastings and I
identified through over a year of hearings in Washington
regarding some of the flaws of the Endangered Species Act, is
that if you can't measure successful recovery, how do you ever
get a species delisted? So, thank you for that. That is another
confirming bit of testimony that we are on the right track with
regard to requiring scientific data and transparent data as
criteria for recovery of a species so we can improve the
success rate.
Right now, there is only a 2 percent or less success rate
in recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Well, that is a failed law.
[Applause.]
Mr. Coleman. The smelt population this season is the second
lowest it has been, so it has been a total failure. But don't
lose sight. It is not about the smelt. That is just a lever to
take our water. But it has not been successful.
[Applause.]
Mr. Delgado. May I add another thing?
Mrs. Lummis. Yes, sir, Mr. Delgado. By the way, I loved
hearing your background. It mirrored my own. So thank you for--
--
Mr. Delgado. I thank you very much. I am not the only one
that has that background. There are a lot of west side farmers
that come from different parts of the country--Oklahoma,
Kansas. My history goes back to the valley for all of my life.
I have always respected and will always have respect for
farmers in the west side and any farmer that farms anywhere in
the world because it is not as easy as it looks. We make it
look pretty sometimes in the fields, but when you are really
out there trying to make decisions, it is tough enough making
decisions when we are dealing with markets and labor and
dealing with all these environmental laws that have been
imposed on us. So I am very thankful that I have had the
opportunity to be part of the west side. But unfortunately, it
is very sad because the west side is starting to die already.
The Chairman. The time of the gentle lady has expired.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. I recognize Mr. Nunes.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank you
for yielding.
Ms. Beland, just for the record, the Governor opposes the
House-passed legislation?
Ms. Beland. Yes.
Mr. Nunes. So what is the Governor's plan? Does the
Governor believe that there has to be any Federal laws that are
changed or modified in order to bring water to all
Californians?
Ms. Beland. The Governor believes we need to work on the
infrastructure projects that he has put forward in both the
Water Action Plan and the Bay Delta Conservation.
Mr. Nunes. You could build tunnels, you could build canals,
you could build dams, but the problem remains that if the
Federal laws aren't changed, those could all go unused like
they are today.
[Applause.]
Mr. Nunes. I am just trying to see, do you agree with that
statement I just made? Are we using the infrastructure that we
have already built in the last 100 years? Are we using it to
its fullest today?
Ms. Beland. I don't think so.
Mr. Nunes. OK. That is the right answer.
[Laughter.]
[Applause.]
Mr. Nunes. So what dams does the Governor support at this
time to construct? Can you name any dams that he would actually
support raising, or new ones?
Ms. Beland. Well, we are looking at a partnership right now
with Sites Reservoir up in the Northern Sacramento Valley that
will provide us with an opportunity to build in conjunction----
Mr. Nunes. But just one, just the one.
Ms. Beland. That is one example.
Mr. Nunes. Ms. Beland, you are a young lady, so this
comment is not toward you, but the Governor was Governor of
this State 40 years ago when I was born. If the Governor hasn't
figured out what new storage projects have to be built, then I
think that any storage that is talked about--and I think
everybody in this crowd needs to understand this--that it is
only used to pacify those of us who have been fighting for
storage for a long time.
[Applause.]
Mr. Nunes. Would the Governor be willing to waive SEQRA to
construct dams in this State?
Ms. Beland. I can't speak to that. I don't know.
Mr. Nunes. OK. But the Governor does waive SEQRA, sign
bills to waive SEQRA with the basketball stadium arenas,
football stadiums? You know about that, right?
Ms. Beland. Yes.
Mr. Nunes. Mr. Murillo and Ms. Beland, could you comment
on--so the graph I have on the screen, it is basically 2.5
million acre feet that we are short, on average, in this
region, basically from Merced to Bakersfield. Would you agree
with those numbers?
Mr. Murillo. I don't know if I can agree with those exact
numbers, but I believe we are short.
Mr. Nunes. Is it close to 2.5 million acre feet, or is it--
--
Mr. Murillo. I don't know. I can't respond to that. What I
can tell you is we do understand that we are short. We are
trying to deliver water to Ag, and we do understand that we
have a number of regulatory requirements that we are trying to
meet.
This year, what we have been doing is we have been working
with the district general managers and we have been coming up
with ideas this year. Last year, what we dealt with is
basically trying to operate at minus-2,500, minus-2,000. This
year we have moved forward and we are trying to operate at
minus-5,000, minus-6,600. So we are trying to push those
Biological Opinions to the limit.
Mr. Nunes. No, I understand, Mr. Murillo. I mean, you are
in charge of running the Bureau. I am not asking you to be a
water expert, but we have to identify the problem. That is one
of the challenges that I have realized in my time fighting this
issue, is that we always talk in the abstract because it is
easy for politicians to stand up here and say, oh, I want to
build 20 dams, I want to build every dam imaginable. They
always say that when they campaign, but then no dams ever get
built.
So I am trying just to get you and your folks and the
Governor's folks and us, the Congress, to focus on what is the
shortfall. I mean, it has to be close to 2.5 million acre feet,
right?
Mr. Murillo. Like I said, I don't know what the exact
number is. I know we are short.
Mr. Nunes. I mean----
Mr. Murillo. Well, you are asking me the question.
Mr. Nunes. We are not this much short, right?
Mr. Murillo. Exactly.
Mr. Nunes. We are a lot more than that.
Mr. Murillo. Yes, we are more than that. I agree with that.
[Laughter.]
[Applause.]
Mr. Nunes. I think it is really important, and I am asking
both of you, please, to submit after this how much the region
is short. You can take this graph with you. If you come back
with 2 million acre feet, something like that, we can discuss
it. But we have to figure out what the real problem is in order
to build a solution.
The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield real quickly?
Mr. Nunes. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. How quickly can you get that information to
Mr. Nunes? I just ask. How quickly can you get that for the
committee?
Mr. Murillo. We should be able to get it within a couple of
weeks.
The Chairman. A couple of weeks?
Mr. Murillo. Yes.
The Chairman. All right, we will give you that leeway, 2
weeks from today, which would be about April 2, I think, if my
memory serves me correctly. So the committee can expect that
information on April 2. Do you both concur?
Ms. Beland. Yes.
The Chairman. Affirmative on both cases.
I yield back.
Mr. Nunes. And we will get in writing the number we are
asking for.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I recognize the distinguished Majority Whip,
Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. Thank you very much, and thank you to all the
witnesses.
A couple of things I would like to focus on, one following
up on what Congressman Nunes said. We all agree in storage, but
if we can't move the water through the delta, what will the
storage matter?
It goes back to the key question that a lot of people here
said. When you answered the question that the Governor opposed
a bill that passed the House, my question is what part of it
does he oppose? Do you know? I will come back to you.
I want to put the personal aspects of this because we do
have some cameras here and we have some people from out-of-
state as well as part of this conference bill. What does that
really mean that is affecting us today? I listened to Mr.
Starrh say 1,000 acres. This isn't a rotation crop. You said
you grow almonds.
Mr. Starrh. Right. We are taking out--we are going to stop
irrigating 1,000 acres of trees that are anywhere from 15 to 18
years old. So they are productive trees, and with that we won't
be able to--you don't harvest them, you don't hire the people
to harvest them, you don't do any of that. None of that
happens. The product is gone. The trees die. And you have
invested 14 years of capital to get them built. You put them
in, it takes 3 years before you get even a little bit of a crop
off an almond tree, and then, yes, it is gone.
Mr. McCarthy. These trees are 14 years old. You are
fallowing them. They are dying.
Mr. Starrh. Right.
Mr. McCarthy. You can't bring them back the next year.
Mr. Starrh. Right, right.
Mr. McCarthy. A thousand acres.
Mr. Starrh. A thousand acres.
Mr. McCarthy. I want to put another face, not to the farm
but to Mayor Chavez. You talked, even the last time, you gave
some numbers in your community, a little less than 7,000, over
90 percent Hispanic, working, many working in the fields and
others, and you said that you had 40 percent unemployment the
last time. Can you tell us some of the aspects of what happened
during that 40 percent unemployment?
Mayor Chavez. During that time we had long lines for food.
Our crime rate went up during that time that there was no
water. They had cut down on a lot of jobs. A lot of our
community members had moved away, too, because of trying to
find work somewhere else.
Coming from the community, from Huron, I have been there
all my life. I worked in the fields. I picked cotton. I picked
grapes. I know how hard it is for these people to try to have
to look for work, and they have to travel. Some of them have
come back, but some have moved away and stayed away, and that
affects our community a lot, and the revenues themselves and
everything else that we have to pay.
A lot of our homes went empty. A lot had to move out of
their homes, and those went into foreclosure. So we lost that
revenue, too.
Mr. McCarthy. So, the entire city affected, from the
police, fire, school districts as well, because of the
unemployment?
Mayor Chavez. Exactly. Because some couldn't pay for their
homes, couldn't pay the property tax, we lost that money. So
the city was hit very hard with that in 2000--that was in 2009.
We are looking for more shortage this year.
Mr. McCarthy. So those are some of the aspects that happen
rather quickly that we are in the mode of happening right now.
If I could turn back, and I don't hold it to you. You are
not directly with the Governor. I know Secretary Laird couldn't
be here. I served with him in the Assembly. I was hoping he
could have been. I know the Governor declared this an
emergency, so I was hopeful that the Secretary could be here.
Part of why this hearing took place, I know when the
President came out--and correct me if I am wrong, Mr.
Chairman--the entire Democrat delegation inside Congress
requested a hearing, maybe not from this committee but
requested a hearing. And did you invite everyone?
The Chairman. If the gentleman would yield, I sent a letter
to everybody. Once we established the hearing date, I sent a
letter to every Democrat Member of Congress in both the House
and the Senate asking them to come to this hearing.
Mr. McCarthy. If I could turn back to the Governor's
difference of opinion on a bill that has passed the House
dealing with the water issue, and none through the Senate, does
he have some specific reasons that he would oppose it?
Ms. Beland. I think two main concerns: one, that we are
putting one set of interests above another.
Mr. McCarthy. And which would that be? Would that be humans
above fish?
[Applause.]
Mr. McCarthy. What else?
Ms. Beland. And it would interfere with the flexibility
that we would need to respond to the current crisis. Those were
the two reasons that he gave in his letter.
Mr. McCarthy. If I could turn to Mr. Upton, I thought you
gave very interesting testimony, being part of that negotiation
and restoration and coming back with the environmental
accountability, you said. And the one thing I heard from all
this, many times we have gone into these agreements, and what
people have some agreement for is not what turns out to be. I
find, yes, I want more storage, but if we can't get that water
through the delta, we are not utilizing the capacities we have
now.
Maybe you can elaborate a little on what you were meaning
by that based upon the negotiation and the restoration of
others of where it ended up, and the accountability that you
think you need in the environmental as well.
The Chairman. Real quickly, Mr. Upton, real quickly.
Mr. Upton. OK. All right. Well, we had an agreement, a
signed agreement that they were supposed to help us get our
water back, and they have reneged on that, so we are not going
to get our water back. You are talking 250,000 acre feet,
approximately, every year, on average, that is going to be sent
down the San Joaquin River, and that means we are going to have
to pump from underground to make it up. That is unsustainable.
That is unsustainable. So what is going to happen? You are
going to have to idle acres. That is the only other solution,
unless you are going to rewrite this law for a warm-water
fishery and have the Temperance Flat.
This situation could be addressed, but it can't be as long
as they continue to listen just to the environmental side of
this.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
I recognize Mr. Denham.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Knell, in your testimony you talked about past years
being able to transfer water to Westlands Water District. In
2012, you were prohibited from doing that. Can you explain why?
Mr. Knell. The timing of the water, when it was available,
and the capacity at the pumps being consumed for other purposes
just delayed the pumping long enough that the water couldn't be
released. We are trying to release the water within a timeframe
that was fish-friendly so we could benefit the fisheries in our
river, in the Lower San Joaquin. But there again, there just
wasn't any capacity at the pumps due to pumping of other water.
That is why we needed the storage at New Melones. Had we been
able to back that water up the hill and wait until that
capacity was available, then we could shoot the water across.
Mr. Denham. So you were prohibited in 2012. What happened
in 2013? Were you able to pump in 2013, the west side farmers?
Mr. Knell. No. Our district has no surplus water available
for transfers due to the depth of this drought at this time.
Mr. Denham. And this year as well, I assume, there will be
no transfers----
Mr. Knell. I am sorry, I am sorry. In 2013, we moved 80,000
acre feet. I am sorry. I apologize. We moved 80,000 acre feet
across the delta last year. This year I was saying we have no
water for movement.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Murillo, when Oakdale Irrigation District
has water to transfer, is there anything prohibiting them from
addressing that?
Mr. Murillo. I think, as you mentioned, we look at a number
of factors. We look at the demands that are required.
Mr. Denham. Are you currently addressing this problem?
Mr. Murillo. We are taking a look at it. But like I said,
we look at a number of factors. We look at the senior water
rights that are in there. We also----
Mr. Denham. When you say you are taking a look at that,
what does that mean to the farmers in my community? Are you
looking at it so that if there is excess water they can plan on
having that, or is this something that is going to take several
years to look at and do a study?
Mr. Murillo. I think, as we mentioned before, last year we
moved water. What we do is we take a look at what the
conditions are. We take a look at what their proposals are. And
we take a look to see what the impacts to the CVP overall are.
So we consider that, and if we think that the conditions are
right, we can go ahead and move that water through.
Mr. Denham. And you work with Oakdale Irrigation District
on that?
Mr. Murillo. Yes, we work with all districts.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Knell, I introduced H.R. 2554, which would
allow more storage at New Melones Reservoir, again at no cost.
I have heard about Reclamation seeking all avenues to expand
and improve water supplies due to this drought. Has Reclamation
contacted you about this bill?
Mr. Knell. I am sorry?
Mr. Denham. Has Reclamation, have they contacted you about
the bill for New Melones?
Mr. Knell. No. To my knowledge, no.
Mr. Denham. Have you heard of the bill?
Mr. Murillo. I have not seen the bill myself.
Mr. Denham. OK. We will get you a copy of that.
Mr. Murillo. Thank you.
Mr. Denham. It is certainly alarming that you wouldn't be
focusing on all water bills, certainly in an emergency, where
the State has declared an emergency. The President has now
declared an emergency, and we are not looking at all of the
bills that would deal with water storage, especially one that
would come at no cost.
So will you commit to this panel today that you will not
only take a look at the bill but you will actually sit down
with Oakdale Irrigation District and work on a no-cost solution
with new water storage in New Melones?
Mr. Murillo. I personally will take a look at the bill, and
we can sit down and have a discussion.
Mr. Valadao. If the gentleman would yield just for a quick
second?
Mr. Denham. I will yield.
Mr. Valadao. I just want to make sure for the record, Mr.
Denham, that indeed your bill passed the Congress, and I am not
sure about Mr. Murillo. I am not sure that they commented on
the bill, but I know that the Governor's Office opposes the
bill, because they have sent a letter opposing the legislation.
Mr. Denham. I understand that the Governor, Ms. Beland,
opposed this bill. Does he oppose the water storage at no cost
at New Melones Reservoir?
Ms. Beland. I don't have the background on the Governor's
opposition to your bill in particular. I can respond back to
you.
Mr. Denham. I would look forward to a response.
As well, there are a number of different water storage
projects, both in authorization as well as new storage in the
bill.
Look, here is part of my frustration.
The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield? Would the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Denham. You have to show us what you are for. If you
are having an emergency here and you disagree with an approach,
then either introduce a bill of your own or show us what you
are for. But we can't continue to negotiate with ourselves.
[Applause.]
Mr. Denham. I would be happy to yield to the Chairman.
The Chairman. I would ask the Undersecretary, when will you
respond to him, to his specific question? When can he expect
that response? It is an important response. We need to find out
what the State of California wants. He says it very well. When
will they respond?
Ms. Beland. I can get back to you by Friday.
The Chairman. When will you respond?
Ms. Beland. I can respond by Friday.
The Chairman. By Friday?
Ms. Beland. Yes.
The Chairman. You will get a response to Mr. Denham's
question?
Ms. Beland. Yes.
The Chairman. All right. I yield back to the gentleman. He
still has some time because I took it.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. I had a number of questions for the
State Water Resources Control Board, Mr. Chairman. I will
submit those questions through the committee. I would expect
answers.
But I, as Mr. Upton, I find it alarming as well that the
NRDC continues to sue on any new water storage, but yet the
Governor, who is now claiming that we have an emergency here,
continues to appoint the very same people that are suing us on
all of our water projects.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
I recognize Mr. Valadao for 5 minutes.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question, my first question, goes to Ms. Chavez in
Huron. The last year, what was your water allocation for the
city?
Mayor Chavez. The last year the water allocation was 1,125.
This year we received a letter from the Bureau of Reclamation
that we will receive 649 acre feet. That makes us short 476
acre feet, and that is what we have to deal with this 2014-2015
year.
Mr. Valadao. One of the most frustrating things for me,
because I represent the area in Congress and I have had a lot
of time with the mayor in her district office there, is you
have papers coming from the Bureau saying they get 70 percent
of historical use. They like to throw those big numbers out
there, you are getting 70 percent, but they put the
``historical use'' in there in small print, and it ends up
being where you get less than 50 percent of your actual water,
and you are putting these constituents in real danger. It is
not just about the farmers but it is also about people in these
communities. They are very important to us. They are important
to everybody in this area.
My next question, Mr. Delgado, you started this farm. You
are a new farmer. How do situations like today--I mean, you
don't have generations behind you of owning farmland. You
started this on your own. You started as a farm worker. You
built your way up. You probably don't have the same capital as
someone who has been around for two generations or three
generations.
How does this affect you when you have to compete with
these other farmers, and how does that affect you in achieving
the American Dream, what we are all here for?
Mr. Delgado. Well, personally, I have been very blessed to
have this opportunity. So far, I have been blessed with--I have
very close ties with business people, farmers who have been
around for three or four generations. They basically trust me
with my word, that my word is good, that I am honest, I have
character, and that I have good intentions with the land.
I have also been blessed that I have a family that supports
me. My wife has a doctorate in education. I have a son who is a
water law attorney. I have another son who teaches math. I have
my daughter, who is a physical therapist. All of their wives
are college educated. So I have been blessed with what is more
important, which is really a family that comes first.
If something were to go wrong, if I can't survive, well, I
will be a statistic like anybody else. I am gone. But I am
going to try to hang on like everybody else is.
Mr. Valadao. One more question. Mr. Starrh, when you rip
out those 1,000 acres of trees, just like a lot of other
farmers are doing, does it require--obviously, you have an
investment in those trees. You probably have loans. You
probably have other acreage that you can borrow against to help
carry yourself through those tough years. How long does it take
you to rebuild those 1,000 acres, and how long does it affect
other farmers in the area the same?
I mean, obviously, 14 years you have had some of those
trees, 18 years, but it takes now many years to actually get to
the point where you rip those trees out that there was
investment in, hopefully your loans are paid off, before you
can plant the next group of trees and get those into production
where you can start actually making payments to the bank for
it.
Mr. Starrh. Right. Well, when you take them out, then you
would have to lay it out for a couple of years, and then you
start the process. You plant, and then you have another 3
years. But, David, the key is if you don't have water coming in
the future, the decision will be there will be no trees and
there will be no work, and there will be nothing. I mean, we
will just go back to--I mean, I will find a place in Texas, I
guess.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Valadao. So that goes to Mr. Delgado. When someone like
my family and Mr. Delgado's family starts a business and they
have to borrow and they have to do everything they can--you
still work on another farm, I understand?
Mr. Delgado. Right now, anyone--well, I can't speak for
everyone. I speak for myself. We made major investments before
this 1992 Improvement Act was put in place. So we purchased--we
were able to buy land. We bought land, and it has to be
financed with banks, and the banks want answers too. The banks,
when they start having uncertainty, they start pulling back,
and they have that fear. Myself, I have invested money into
land. I purchased land, and at that time it did have 100
percent water allocation. I thought we were in pretty good
shape with water. And yet I understood that the drought would
affect it, like most farmers know that.
Now, another issue is we have invested also in trees, like
Larry has, and drip irrigation systems. Every acre that I know
on the west side and people that use Federal water, basically
it is all under drip irrigation. There is not any water wasted.
Mr. Valadao. So you have this investment. It is all at
risk. We have communities that are affected by this. We are
looking at opportunities, or people are looking for other
opportunities to move. Communities are out of water, and I
heard in your comments earlier, Ms. Beland, that you are trying
to keep the salinity levels at a controllable level in the
delta, and I understand the concerns there.
But throughout the year, there were a lot of timed releases
from these reservoirs that are paid for by the farmers, a lot
of farmers here in the valley. When these reservoirs are
releasing water to help the salinity levels in the delta, it is
interesting that our money, our infrastructure that is supposed
to be protecting jobs, supposed to be protecting communities'
clean water, is concerned with something that, if those dams
weren't there, the water would have just gone out to the ocean,
the salinity levels would come in anyway. It is nature. It
happens. It is not something that you should be using this type
of infrastructure for.
We are not God here. We are not concerned--we can't prevent
water from going into these communities and hurting these
people in the infrastructure that is there, all in the name of
salt or in the name of a fish, because it just doesn't make any
sense.
The salinity levels, if you truly wanted to go back to
nature, tear down the dams, let the water go out when it melts
and then it is over, and by the end of summer the salt comes in
anyway.
[Applause.]
Mr. Valadao. You can't use infrastructure like this to say
that you are trying to protect the environment where, if
everything was in its natural state, then the environment would
be at risk, and then it would recover, just like it probably
happened before humans came to California and started doing all
these things.
It is just interesting for me because when you were making
those comments earlier, you are going down this direction where
you are trying to use things that aren't natural to protect
something that is natural, and it is the most asinine thing I
have ever seen in my entire life.
[Laughter.]
[Applause.]
Mr. Valadao. And it has been good because we obviously have
a great panel here.
I wanted to end because I know that I am the last one, and
I am rushed because of the time limit. But I wanted to say
thank you to the city of Fresno today for allowing us to do
this. This was a really good event.
[Applause.]
Mr. Valadao. We had a lot of staff from Fresno City Hall
help us a lot today, and I want to thank the Fresno City Hall
staff for being so helpful with our staff.
I also want to thank the Fresno PD. I hear they were really
nervous about the size of the crowd, and I am glad we had a
crowd to make them nervous.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Valadao. But Selma High School ROTC, thank you for
taking the time. I know they have already left. They took their
flag with them. We were able to give them a flag flown over the
capital.
[Applause.]
Mr. Valadao. They are in the back. Thank you.
Reverend Baptista, thank you for taking some time for us
today.
William Bordeaux, thank you for doing the Pledge.
And Chairman Hastings, for convening this hearing today, it
means a lot to us here in the valley.
Congresswoman Lummis, thank you very much for making the
trip from Wyoming. Everybody here really appreciates your
comments today, and your questions.
[Applause.]
Mr. Valadao. And just on a closing line for myself, I have
been in Congress for a year now, and this fight has been going
on much longer. I was dragged into politics really the last
time they had a huge rally on the west side that Devin was a
part of in the middle of the orchard. I don't know if you
remember that, in September of 2009. I never considered myself
somebody to run for office.
Having situations like this and being able to be in the
fight on this side of the dais and having a team like this that
is going to work together to pass legislation--when you pass
legislation, what it means is you are putting your money where
your mouth is. You are putting forth your ideas, what you want
to do, how you are going to fix this problem.
But you need partners. For us to do what we did so far has
been really great. But the next step has to go through for us
to actually deliver.
So we have to continue this fight. We have to continue to
move forward, and this is not over just because this is over
today. We are going to continue to fight in Washington, and
thank you so much for being a part of this.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
And I want to thank all of the witnesses for your testimony
here. From time to time there are questions on follow-up. If
you get asked by a Member, please, I hope you will respond in
quick time.
I will say this. When I ask for timelines, I get very
frustrated as a committee chairman when we ask people to
respond and they don't respond. So I expect the State and the
Bureau to respond in the time that we agreed upon here on the
public record.
With that, I thank everybody for coming.
There being no further business, the committee stands
adjourned.
[Applause.]
[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[Additional Material Submitted for the Record]

Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, April 2, 2014

Response to House Committee on Natural Resources Field Hearing Question
on South-of-Delta Water Supply Deficit

introduction
At the March 19, 2014 House Committee on Natural Resources field
hearing in Fresno, California, a slide was presented by the committee
showing a 2.4 million acre-foot ``deficit'' to water supplies south of
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in California (this is referred to as
the ``Deficit Slide'' elsewhere in this document). The total deficit
was calculated as the sum of ``deficits'' created by requirements and
water supply demands classified in several different categories,
including Central Valley Project Improvement Act [CVPIA] environmental
water, CVPIA refuge supplies, the Biological Opinions [BiOps] for the
Central Valley Project [CVP] and State Water Project [SWP], groundwater
overdraft, and the San Joaquin River Restoration Program [SJRRP].
Reclamation and the State of California were requested to provide their
own representation of the water supply challenges and shortages to
users south of the delta. This document responds to that request. In
developing this response, Reclamation relied upon data from the State
of California's Department of Water Resources.
central valley project data
For reasons discussed later in this document, Reclamation does not
agree that the figures shown in the Deficit Slide form an accurate
characterization of a water supply ``deficit'' to water demands south
of the delta. As further detailed in this document, there are many
factors which make it difficult to develop a quantitative analysis of
water supply challenges and shortages to water users south of the
delta. Given these difficulties, Reclamation believes the best way to
quantitatively illustrate the water supply challenges south of the
delta is through a display of the recent history of allocations and
supplies to CVP contractors both north and south of the delta (Table
1).
Of particular interest to the committee in reviewing Table 1 will
be the allocations to south-of-delta agricultural contractors and the
Friant Division. These allocations illustrate the amount of the total
contract volume to those water users that Reclamation has not been able
to serve over the past two decades due to a large number of hydrologic
and regulatory controlling factors which vary (sometimes dramatically)
from year-to-year.
When reviewing the attached table, it is important to note several
other key issues and factors. These key issues and factors highlight
the difficulties previously noted in creating a single ``deficit'' or
water supply shortage value. The issues and factors include:

Hydrologic conditions are a significant factor in annual
allocations and south-of-delta supplies. Table 2 illustrates
the precipitation indices for the Sacramento and San Joaquin
basins, as well as the Sacramento River Basin Year type
(calculation methodologies for these indices were developed by
the State Water Resources Control Board to summarize hydrologic
conditions as part of their regulatory activities). The
precipitation indices are shown in relation to the final south-
of-delta agricultural allocation for each year.
Previous-year hydrologic conditions also play a strong role
in annual water supplies to the Central Valley. To illustrate
this, Table 2 also shows the carry-over storage totals in CVP
reservoirs.
The water service allocations shown in Table 1 do not
reflect the complete annual water supply to many water users
south of the delta. Many water users secure and develop other
water supplies from local sources (groundwater, local runoff,
reuse) and through other means such as transfers, agreements,
exchanges, and rescheduling of previous-year CVP water
supplies.
Specific to the Friant Division of the CVP and as noted in
the footnotes on Table 1, the Friant Class 2 allocation is
considered a ``supplemental'' water supply to the Friant
Division, and should not be considered a firm or ``base'' water
demand for the purposes of analyzing a water supply shortage or
deficit to south-of-delta supplies.
Attempting to create a single summary statistic or
``deficit'' by averaging the allocation and water supply values
in Table 1 would be problematic due to the dynamic nature of
recent changes in regulatory requirements, particularly when
coupled with highly variable hydrologic conditions.
state of california data
In addition to Table 1 which displays the effects of water supply
challenges on water service to CVP contractors, Reclamation would like
to direct the committee to products developed by the State of
California which summarize the reliability of deliveries to the SWP.
These reports can be found on the State's Web site at: http://
baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/swpreliability/.
The most recent SWP reliability report was published in June 2012.
The document is currently being updated and is presently available in
``public review draft'' on the State's Web site at: https://
msb.water.ca.gov/documents/86800/202762/DRR2013_Report_20131210.pdf.
Pertinent to the committee's request, the analysis of ``recent
trends in SWP delta exports and Table A deliveries'' found in Chapter 4
of the public review draft illustrates estimated reductions in SWP
exports and deliveries as a result of changes over time to the
operating environment of the SWP. These changes are shown graphically
in Figure 4-1 of the public review draft (copy of Figure 4-1 attached).
In addition to the SWP Delivery Reliability Reports, the committee
may be interested in reports produced by the State summarizing water
supply and uses across the State. The reports are produced every 5
years in conjunction with updates to the California Water Plan
(Bulletin 160), as required by the California Water Code. The 2013
Update of the California Water Plan is presently available in ``public
review draft'' form on the State's Web site at: http://
www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/cwpu2013/index.cfm. The final updated Plan
will be published by summer 2014.
The California Water Plan includes regional reports which provide
details on the water supplies, water uses, and overall water balance in
each region of the State. Pertinent to the Committee's request are the
San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake regional reports. The most recent
final reports on these areas (2009 Update) are available on the State's
Web site at these links: http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/
cwpu2009/0310final/v3_sanjoaquinriver_cwp
2009.pdf and http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/cwpu2009/0310final/
v3_
tularelake_cwp2009.pdf.
Of particular interest may be Figures SJ-3 and TL-21 within the two
regional reports, which are water balance charts which illustrate the
wide variety of supplies to the area beyond those provided by the CVP
and SWP. Also attached to this document are Figures SJR-20 and TL-16,
the 2013 updated versions of these charts, which are available now in
public review draft form. These charts highlight one of the key
complications with developing an analysis of the water supply shortages
south of the delta, which is that groundwater extraction is often used
in the place of Federal, State, and local surface water supplies in
years when surface supplies are reduced. This can result in increased
extraction of groundwater in the basin.
If the increased groundwater extraction continues and is not
naturally or artificially replenished over time, it may lead to
overdraft. Groundwater overdraft is defined as the condition of a
groundwater basin in which the amount of water withdrawn by pumping
exceeds the amount of water that recharges the basin over a period of
years, during which the water supply conditions approximate average
conditions. In contrast, declining storage over a relatively short
period of average hydrologic and land use conditions does not
necessarily mean that the basin is being managed unsustainably or is
subject to overdraft. Utilization of groundwater in storage during
years of diminishing surface water supply, followed by active recharge
of the aquifer when surface water or other alternative supplies become
available, is a recognized and acceptable approach to conjunctive water
management.
Developing an accurate depiction of groundwater overdraft, and
particularly how it relates to shortage of surface water supplies, is a
very complex task. For this reason, for the purposes of the present
request, the committee may be best served by utilizing the data found
in Figures SJR-20 and TL-16 to observe the variations in water supplies
and use for the time period 2001 to 2010 in the San Joaquin River and
Tulare Lake regions, and the aforementioned SWP Delivery Reliability
Report to estimate the challenges in serving south-of-delta water
supplies to SWP contractors.
issues with ``deficit slide''
As previously noted, Reclamation believes the information provided
above and in the attached tables and charts are currently the best way
to quantitatively represent water supply challenges to south-of-delta
water users. For the benefit of the committee, Reclamation would like
to provide the following additional notes as to why it believes the
Deficit Slide presented at the hearing does not accurately capture or
analyze these challenges.
In general, the total ``deficit'' shown on the slide at the hearing
appears to incorrectly add together several different categories of
water supply requirements and demands under the CVPIA, Endangered
Species Act [ESA], and SJRRP in order to calculate a total amount of
water ``lost'' to south-of-delta water users. Reclamation questions the
appropriateness of the use of several of the values for ``deficit''
shown in the slide, as well as their magnitude, as follows:

The numbers cited cannot be considered additive, because
portions of the water used for the requirements listed on the
slide are also utilized for other purposes, including supply to
south-of-delta water users. For instance, the amount listed on
the slide for CVPIA environmental water (800,000 acre-feet)
includes:

Releases from upstream storage that, at times, can be
exported for use south-of-delta;
Foregone pumping that meets the requirements of the BiOps
or State water quality requirements (which are separately
listed as a ``deficit'' on the slide).

250,000 acre-feet of ``deficit'' is ascribed to the SJRRP.
The parties to the Settlement in NRDC v. Rodgers spent numerous
years negotiating procedures for determining and accounting for
the water supply impacts of the SJRRP. The procedures are
documented in the Restoration Flow Guidelines, dated December
2013.

Using the procedures agreed to by the parties, the average
long-term water supply impact to the Friant Division long-
term contractors as a result of the Settlement is estimated
at 185,000 acre-feet per year.
This amount does not account for the recirculation,
replacement and offset actions that Reclamation is
implementing as part of the Settlement. With implementation
of the recirculation, replacement and offset actions, the
actual average long-term water supply impact will be less.
However, these actions will vary from year to year and are
not possible to calculate at this time.

The amount listed on the slide for CVPIA refuge supplies
(400,000 acre-feet) is larger than the amount delivered to
south-of-delta refuges in recent years (generally approximately
250,000-270,000 acre-feet), and a portion of the water
delivered to refuges generally returns to rivers where it can
be used again for other purposes (pertains to refuge deliveries
both north and south of the delta).
Reclamation is not certain as to the source or accuracy of
the data of some of the other values illustrated on the slide,
such as the amount of water ``loss'' for the BiOps, or the
``groundwater overdraft'' value.

It is also not clear to which water users the
``groundwater overdraft'' value applies; any groundwater
overdraft quantified for the area may apply to more than
just CVP water users, and as such, attempts to resolve any
such issue may involve more than operations of the CVP.
summary
It is the belief of Reclamation that the information provided
through the attached tables and the State's reports serve to respond to
the Committee's request for information on the quantification of water
supply challenges to users south of the delta. Should the Committee
need additional information or wish to discuss these numbers, please
contact Reclamation's Congressional Affairs representatives.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7181.001

Table 2 Central Valley Project South of Delta Agricultural Water Service Allocations and Hydrologic/Carryover Factors Affecting the Allocations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1 Carryover Storage (TAF) \3\ Precipitation (in) \1\ Year Type
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\
Year Final Allocation \2\ Northern San -----------
\5\ Shasta Folsom Trinity Federal New Millerton Total Sierra 8- Joaquin 5-
San Luis Melones CVP station station Sac Basin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 50% 2096.0 570.5 76.2 149.0 671.9 139.9 5003.5 36.0 27.7 C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991 25% 1637.4 178.2 1162.4 387.8 377.7 183.0 3926.5 32.2 30.5 C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992 25% 1339.9 506.1 670.2 268.6 296.3 174.7 3255.8 36.0 29.6 C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 50% 1683.2 171.6 838.3 95.9 83.8 164.6 3037.4 65.3 53.0 AN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 35% 3101.8 562.9 1947.7 347.2 670.7 179.4 6809.7 31.8 24.0 C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 100% 2101.6 216.9 1214.9 91.6 379.2 183.7 4187.9 85.4 69.6 W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 95% 3136.4 466.1 1872.6 442.4 1763.1 319.2 7999.8 61.3 43.5 W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 90% 3088.8 726.3 1712.7 177.4 1988.2 237.2 7930.6 68.8 54.4 W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 100% 2308.3 556.1 1493.9 131.8 1819.3 224.1 6533.5 82.4 65.3 W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 70% 3441.1 712.9 2077.3 713.0 2098.6 438.0 9480.9 54.8 37.0 W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 65% 3327.5 721.6 1961.7 110.6 1828.7 234.9 8185.0 56.7 42.0 AN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 49% 2985.1 660.7 1791.0 464.0 1803.6 211.9 7916.3 33.0 29.3 D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 70% 2199.6 367.6 1428.2 313.6 1481.0 187.9 5977.9 46.3 33.2 D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 75% 2558.2 509.8 1500.1 294.4 1278.2 221.1 6361.8 59.8 39.0 AN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 70% 3159.4 658.1 1881.2 286.5 1280.3 215.0 7480.5 47.3 28.8 BN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 85% 2182.9 376.4 1591.0 157.0 1110.1 181.4 5598.8 57.5 54.4 AN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 100% 3034.8 652.3 1991.3 402.4 1933.2 235.7 8249.7 80.2 55.1 W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 50% 3205.1 638.8 1973.9 402.1 2056.3 240.2 8516.4 37.2 24.9 D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 40% 1879.1 323.0 1550.3 194.3 1437.0 200.2 5583.9 35.0 27.9 C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 10% 1384.5 269.8 1461.1 36.9 1099.3 198.7 4450.3 46.9 38.9 D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 45% 1773.9 411.6 919.0 197.7 1108.4 350.4 4761.0 53.6 44.7 BN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 80% 3318.8 624.2 1557.7 374.3 1276.0 247.5 7398.5 72.7 65.4 W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 40% 3341.0 740.4 2166.8 642.1 2052.2 356.1 9298.6 41.6 25.0 BN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 20% 2591.6 451.6 1799.6 250.9 1510.7 318.5 6922.9 46.3 26.5 D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 0% 1906.0 361.1 1303.2 223.8 1047.1 317.1 5158.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 58% 2511.3 497.4 1569.7 286.2 1298.0 238.4 6401.0 52.8 40.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Precipitation and year type columns are based on the water year (example 1990 represents 10/1/1989-9/30/1990).
\2\ Allocation for CVP South of Delta Ag Water Service based on the contract year (example 1990 represents 3/1/1990-2/28/1991).
\3\ Water in storage carried over from the previous water year (WY)--Example 1990 represents water carried over from WY 1989 that ended on 9/30/1989
into WY 1990 which starts 10/1/1989.
\4\ Year types: C = Critical; D= Dry; BN = Below Normal; AN = Above Normal; W= Wet.
\5\ 2014 allocation data is preliminary, based on initial allocations as of April 1, 2014.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

.epsKey Water Supply and Water Use Definitions
Applied Water. The total amount of water that is diverted from any
source to meet the demands of water users without adjusting for
water that is depleted, returned to the developed supply or
considered irrecoverable (see water balance figure).
Consumptive use is the amount of applied water used and no longer
available as a source of supply. Applied water is greater than
consumptive use because it includes consumptive use, reuse, and
outflows.
Instream Environmental. Instream flows used only for environmental
purposes.
Instream Flow. The use of water within its natural watercourse as
specified in an agreement, water rights permit, court order, FERC
license, etc.
Groundwater Extraction. An annual estimate of water withdrawn from
banked, adjudicated, and unadjudicated groundwater basins.
Recycled Water. Municipal water which, as a result of treatment of
waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use
that would not otherwise occur and is therefore considered a
valuable resource.
Reused Water. The application of previously used water to meet a
beneficial use, whether treated or not prior to the subsequent use.
Urban Water Use. The use of water for urban purposes, including
residential, commercial, industrial, recreation, energy production,
military, and institutional classes. The term is applied in the
sense that it is a kind of use rather than a place of use.
Water Balance. An analysis of the total developed/dedicated supplies,
uses, and operational characteristics for a region. It shows what
water was applied to actual uses so that use equals supply.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

.epsfigure tl-16 tulare lake hydrologic region water balance by water
year, 2001-2010
California's water resources vary significantly from year to year.
Ten recent years show this variability for water use and water supply.
Applied Water Use shows how water is applied to urban and agricultural
sectors and dedicated to the environment and the Dedicated and
Developed Water Supply shows where the water came from each year to
meet those uses. Dedicated and Developed Water Supply does not include
the approximately 125 million acre-feet [MAF] of statewide
precipitation and inflow in an average year that either evaporates, are
used by native vegetation, provides rainfall for agriculture and
managed wetlands, or flow out of the State or to salt sinks like saline
aquifers. Groundwater extraction includes annually about 2 MAF more
groundwater used statewide than what naturally recharges--called
groundwater overdraft. Overdraft is characterized by groundwater levels
that decline over a period of years and never fully recover, even in
wet years.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

[all]