[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                      WHY WE NEED TO STORE MORE 
                     WATER AND WHAT'S STOPPING US

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND 
                               FISHERIES

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                        Tuesday, March 28, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-13

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       
      

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

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
51-754                       WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 	
Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

                       CLIFF BENTZ, OR, Chairman
                      JEN KIGGANS, VA, Vice Chair
                   JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member

Robert J. Wittman, VA                Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Tom McClintock, CA                   Mike Levin, CA
Garret Graves, LA                    Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Kevin Mullin, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Val T. Hoyle, OR
Daniel Webster, FL                   Seth Magaziner, RI
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Debbie Dingell, MI
Jerry Carl, AL                       Ruben Gallego, AZ
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Joe Neguse, CO
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Katie Porter, CA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL                Ed Case, HI
John Duarte, CA                      Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                              ----------                                
                                
                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, March 28, 2023..........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon............................................     1
    Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Hill, Tricia, Broad Member, Klamath Water Users Association, 
      Merrill, Oregon............................................     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     6
    Sewell, Joshua, Senior Policy Analyst for Taxpayers for 
      Common Sense, Washington, DC...............................    13
        Prepared statement of....................................    14
    Bourdeau, William, Vice Chair, San Luis and Delta-Mendota 
      Water Authority, Coalinga, California......................    17
        Prepared statement of....................................    19
    Mueller, Andy, General Manager, Colorado River Water 
      Conservation District, Glenwood Springs, Colorado..........    23
        Prepared statement of....................................    25

 
                  OVERSIGHT HEARING ON WHY WE NEED TO
                      STORE MORE WATER AND WHAT'S
                              STOPPING US

                              ----------                              


                        Tuesday, March 28, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

             Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:16 p.m., in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Bentz 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Bentz, McClintock, Radewagen, 
LaMalfa, Boebert, Duarte, Hageman; Huffman, Peltola, Magaziner, 
and Porter.

    Mr. Bentz. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and 
Fisheries will come to order.
    Good afternoon, everyone. I want to welcome our witnesses, 
Members, and our guests in the audience to today's hearing. The 
Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on why we need 
to store more water, and what is stopping us.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made a part of the hearing 
record if they are submitted in accordance with the Committee 
Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                    FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. Bentz. The purpose of today's hearing is to talk about 
storage of water. And many people, I have noticed, here in the 
eastern part of the United States don't understand that the 
western part of the United States is an arid and dry region, 
and that about 78 million people living within it have to, for 
the most part--Seattle excluded--store water to get through the 
spring, summer, and a portion of the fall months. This is a 
necessity for most of those 78 million people.
    There are some, and if you read Cadillac Desert, you would 
discover that folks have asserted water storage is bad and 
irrigation is worse. I would suggest that that particular 
approach has been proven incorrect, and that many of the 
problems that are suggested in that 30-year-old book have been 
appropriately addressed.
    The one thing that has happened that is of serious concern 
is the increased, not-anticipated demands on stored water. So, 
for those of us who have been in this space for a long time, we 
recognize that, originally, the instream interests were 
ignored, and thus, when water was stored, the anticipated use 
was generally for three or four purposes: hydro, agriculture, 
flood control. Over time, the purposes of that stored water 
have been expanded to include instream interests, tribal 
rights, and other new demands.
    Without commenting upon the nature or quality of those 
demands, I will simply say that they are real, and they need to 
be taken into account. This means that the original storage 
approach has been necessarily modified to include a lot of uses 
that weren't previously contemplated. So, of course, we need to 
store more water.
    The challenge, of course, is finding out how to do it. And 
most of us who have studied how water is stored in the West 
understand that it is extraordinarily expensive to put in a new 
reservoir. It is extraordinarily expensive to raise the height 
of some, although I think the calculus today is changing.
    In other words, in the past, 100 years ago, folks went to 
the Federal Government and pointed out, if we are going to 
settle out here in the West, the Federal Government was going 
to have to help, and the Federal Government did. And the reason 
it did so was to make sure that people who chose to live out 
here could actually make a living. And if you go back and read 
the congressional minutes of the original Reclamation Act, you 
will find that the focus was on making sure that people could 
make a living out here.
    So, that is the foundation for the original investment. But 
now the challenge is, in constrained-spending times, how do we 
pay for increased water storage if we are going to raise the 
height of a dam, or if we are going to use some of the other 
techniques?
    Then that brings me to the other techniques, and some of 
our witnesses today will be talking about how much water we 
could generate in upper regions of our watersheds if we just 
better managed our forests. So, we have ongoing studies in 
different states to determine how much water would be saved if 
we did a better job of removing, let's say, the 1,000 stems per 
acre, and reducing it down to that which forestry experts tell 
us we should have; how much water could we save if we had 
appropriate places for snow to rest, as it waited to melt; how 
much can we generate in the upper regions by preserving the 
snow and the snowpack in the watersheds better.
    One of the challenges that we have, of course, in any water 
situation is that, just when drought is overwhelming, you get 
65 feet of snow in the Sierra. And so, all of a sudden, 
everyone thinks the problem is over and it is time to move on. 
That most assuredly is not the case, as we will hear testimony 
regarding what is happening in the Central Valley.
    And we will have some focus upon aquifer storage, which I 
think is probably the most likely, and both financially and 
readily available, means of storing water. So, we are going to 
be talking about that also today, and I welcome that kind of 
dialogue. It happens that we will be holding an off-site 
hearing in the Central Valley soon, and I look forward to 
having these discussions.
    It is important today that we recognize this is an 
oversight hearing. I hope the discussion will lead us to 
solutions that work for all of the people that now need this 
stored water.
    I left cities out; I shouldn't have. There are literally 
millions of people now reliant upon stored water. So, I think 
it is extraordinarily important that this hearing be successful 
today.
    With that, I will stop my opening statement and ask the 
Ranking Member, who I recognize, to speak for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good afternoon, everyone. Today's hearing has a title that 
poses a rhetorical question: What is stopping us from storing 
more water?
    And the answer that my Republican colleagues offer boils 
down to a very familiar scapegoat, if you have followed their 
work in the Natural Resources Committee in recent years. They 
suggest that, even though Western states like California have 
built the world's largest system of dams over the past century, 
capable of diverting and storing millions of acre-feet of 
water, we could build a lot more if we just didn't have to 
comply with those troublesome environmental laws like NEPA.
    And in the case of the Klamath Basin, where it is more 
complicated than somebody proposing a new dam, the suggestion 
is that the shortages and hardships that are impacting everyone 
in that basin, all stakeholders, Upper Basin, Lower Basin, the 
suggestion is that all of that would be manageable if it wasn't 
for that darned Endangered Species Act.
    This week, they are scapegoating environmental laws for our 
water challenges. Last week, it was blaming NEPA for high gas 
prices, inflation, and pretty much everything but the common 
cold. Pick any issue that comes before this Committee, turn to 
Page 1 of the GOP playbook, and it says, ``Trash our 
environmental laws.'' As the saying goes, when your only tool 
is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    So, look, attacking environmental laws may be great 
politics in some places, but it is not a serious response to 
complex Western water challenges. And to claim that 
environmental laws are the reason that we don't have more 
storage in Western states requires you to ignore a lot of 
facts.
    In recent years, my home state of California has added 6 
million acre-feet of new surface and groundwater storage, all 
while foundational environmental laws like NEPA and the ESA 
were in place. That is real, wet water. It helped California 
recently get through the worst drought in recorded history.
    The Interior Department has told this Committee that they 
are not aware of a single Reclamation dam that has ever been 
denied construction because of delays associated with 
environmental review. Interior does cite the high cost of new 
dams and a lack of cost sharing partners as the primary reason 
new dams that have in some cases been authorized by Congress, 
but never constructed. But it is not NEPA, and it is not the 
ESA.
    The proposed Shasta Dam is a great example, one of the 
highest priority projects for some. But it is an illustrative 
example, because that project has had a completed environmental 
impact statement going all the way back to 2015. That is nearly 
8 years ago, and yet it hasn't been built because it has no 
non-Federal cost share partner to help pay for it.
    Now, in truth, Mr. Chair, the primary impediment to new 
dams is the enormous cost of these projects, and the inability 
of project beneficiaries to pay for them without massive 
government subsidies and the fact that water managers are 
finding cheaper, smarter, better ways to develop water supply 
resiliency. Why aren't large dams more competitive with these 
other solutions?
    Well, numerous independent experts have told us nearly all 
the best dam sites were taken when the West built dams just 
about everywhere during the 20th century. The remaining 
proposed locations don't yield very much water in return for 
their multi-billion-dollar construction price tag.
    California alone has 41 million acre-feet of water storage, 
surface water storage. Virtually every major river and 
tributary in the state is already dammed. Our state water board 
will tell you that many of these rivers and tributaries are 
over-appropriated. That is why more and more water managers are 
turning to 21st century water infrastructure projects like 
groundwater storage, water reuse, recycling, water use 
efficiency, and, in some cases, desalination. These are 
projects that they deem to be viable, and in many cases they 
provide communities with drought-proof water supplies that 
don't depend on the whims of changing hydrology, hydrology that 
is changing because of climate change.
    While water managers are trying to diversify their 
portfolios and pursue these cost-effective strategies, some of 
my colleagues just can't let go of the notion that we should 
focus almost entirely on big dams. And this stubborn mythology 
really can distract us from pursuing things that actually can 
be done, like the many water supply enhancement projects that 
are going to happen in the years ahead because of the record 
amount of money--$8 billion--we invested in last year's 
Congress through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in 
Western water--a bill that, unfortunately, my Republican 
colleagues on this Committee voted against.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the conversation today. 
I am glad that we are going to be hearing about the principle 
of beneficiary pays, which has always been a very, very 
important principle for reclamation projects.

    I yield back.

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Huffman. I will now introduce our 
witnesses: Ms. Tricia Hill, Klamath Water Users Association 
Board Member in Merrill, Oregon; Mr. Joshua Sewell, Senior 
Policy Analyst at the Taxpayers for Common Sense; Mr. William 
Bourdeau, Vice Chair of San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water 
Authority, Los Banos, California; and Mr. Andy Mueller, General 
Manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District in 
Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
    Let me remind the witnesses that, under the Committee 
Rules, you must limit your oral statements to 5 minutes, but 
your entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the talk button on 
the microphone.
    We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn 
green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn 
yellow. And at the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, 
and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
    I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning.
    I now recognize Ms. Hill for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF TRICIA HILL, BROAD MEMBER, KLAMATH WATER USERS 
                  ASSOCIATION, MERRILL, OREGON

    Ms. Hill. Chairman Bentz and members of the Subcommittee, 
thank you for this hearing and allowing me the honor of 
testifying. My name is Tricia Hill, and I am here appearing for 
Klamath Water Users Association. I am blessed to work every day 
with my family, and proud to be a fifth generation Klamath 
Basin farmer.
    I had hoped that my daughters would be the sixth generation 
of women in my family to farm in the Klamath Basin. But without 
a real commitment from the Federal Government to sustainable 
water use in the Klamath Watershed, I can't imagine they will 
ever see this future.
    Although in many places, reclamation made the desert bloom, 
that is not so for my home. Two hundred years, two thousand 
years, two million years our farmland was under water. The 
Upper Klamath Basin is naturally a giant sponge filled with 
lakes and marshlands with the ability to store over a million 
acre-feet. A portion of these lands were reclaimed, resulting 
in the lands I am now blessed to farm, some of the richest 
farmland in the world.
    The water, which once covered the surface of our farms, was 
stored in the winter and early spring by enlarging natural 
lakes such as Upper Klamath Lake. Our groundwater was recharged 
every year through the application of water for growing crops, 
crops that need less water to grow than would have ever 
evaporated from these historic lakes and marshlands.
    That all changed in 2001. Since then, water that would have 
never left the Upper Basin has been taken and released for 
river flows, which literally leave our wildlife and our 
communities in the dust. Water which fed our ecosystems in the 
Upper Klamath Basin, replenishing soils, providing habitat, and 
growing food is now labeled project supply as the water 
delivered to historic lake beds and marshes only benefit 
agriculture. Meanwhile, the water being flushed downriver 
received the mantle of ``environmental water,'' even though the 
flows required by NMFS were neither natural nor sound 
management of the environment in the Upper Basin.
    For over 20 years, our air quality, our soil quality, our 
wildlife, our drinking water, and our economies are 
continuously sacrificed on the altar of the need to do 
something, regardless of how effective this something is. Our 
reality: If there is a problem, the fish agencies' go-to 
solution is to take water from the Upper Basin.
    One hundred years ago, Reclamation built storage on the 
Klamath Project, which was paid for by farmers and ranchers, 
from Upper Klamath Lake, which is partially utilized, to Tule 
Lake and Lower Klamath Lake, which are completely dry. The 
problem is, between conflicting biological opinions for ESA 
lake suckers and downstream coho salmon, we cannot fill these 
natural storages during the winter, and we are prevented from 
using them during the summer.
    We know fish populations and fish-based communities are 
hurting, too. We respect those communities and their very real 
concerns and values. But we have over 20 years of history 
showing regulating the Klamath Project does not and will not 
fix ailing fisheries that these communities depend on.
    In the Klamath Basin, fish science has gone out the window. 
Water is now nothing more than a political game to see who 
could amass the most acre-feet from the investment in our 
project supplies. Winning has become the goal, instead of the 
actual success for species and our communities.
    As a member of the agricultural community, I will tell you 
we feel targeted and devalued. We are struggling to explain to 
our children why raising food has become a thing to be ashamed 
of, and why the promises made in the Klamath Hydrologic 
Settlement Agreement by Federal, state, and tribal governments 
to address our agricultural community's needs have been 
forgotten.
    In short, there are no winners, only losers. KWUA urges 
this Subcommittee to take a hard look at how stormwater is 
being managed by Reclamation in the Upper Basin.
    In the Klamath, this is not an issue of environmental laws. 
It is an issue of not following the law. The details and 
decisions that are going in the Upper Basin would quite 
literally shock you. It should embarrass the entire government 
that Federal agency discussions over water for endangered 
species in the Klamath Basin sound more like used car lot 
negotiations instead of scientific discussion.
    It is my hope and KWUA's goal to engage in collaborative 
dialogue and problem solving that honestly addresses all the 
important interests in the basin. We have stood ready to do so 
since the expiration of our prior settlement efforts in 2016. 
We in the Klamath Project still believe in a shared future, 
where all Klamath Watershed communities are successful, period.
    On the behalf of the farmers and ranchers in the Klamath 
Project, I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 
today, and I am happy to answer any questions you might have.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Hill follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Tricia Hill, Farmer, on behalf of Klamath Water 
                           Users Association

    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for this important hearing and for allowing me 
the honor of testifying before this Subcommittee.
    My name is Tricia Hill. I am a farmer, and work in partnership with 
my parents, my uncle, my brother, and my sister.
    I am appearing on behalf of Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA), 
where I am a board member and past President of the Board of Directors. 
KWUA is a nonprofit corporation, formed in 1953, whose members are 
irrigation districts who are contractors of the United States Bureau of 
Reclamation's (Reclamation) Klamath Project. Our members use water from 
the Klamath River and Upper Klamath Lake.
    I would like to bring the Subcommittee's attention to Reclamation's 
management of Upper Klamath Lake, the Klamath Project's main storage 
reservoir, and the Klamath River, and the impact of this management on 
farms and ranches, and the communities in the Upper Klamath Basin and 
specifically the Klamath Project area. For producers in the Klamath 
Project, the issue is less a matter of developing more stored water, 
and more a matter of being stopped from using stored water. In fact, we 
are prevented from using water that inundated our lands thousands of 
years ago. That land, which includes farms and critical national 
wildlife refuges, is being dried up by today's federal water policy.
The Klamath Project

    As you consider issues of the Klamath Basin, I urge that you not 
think of the Klamath Project as an irrigation project that grew out of 
drying up rivers. Although in many places Reclamation has ``made the 
desert bloom,'' this is not so for the Klamath Project.
    Two hundred years ago, two thousand years ago, and two million 
years ago, much of the area we now farm was under water. It was lakebed 
and marsh, fed by flow from the Klamath and Lost Rivers that spilled 
into these lakebeds. The idea behind the Klamath Project was to use the 
very same water that was normally on the lands; that water would be 
stored in other places (reservoirs) and then applied for irrigation 
during the spring and summer.
    This vision greatly contributed to why the Klamath Project was one 
of the first federal water projects authorized after the passage of the 
Reclamation Act. In addition, the area has extremely fertile soils, 
natural topography to facilitate the efficient movement of water, and 
lakes that could be used as natural storage reservoirs.
    This view was expressed by Charles Walcott, Director of the U.S. 
Geological Survey, testifying that ``the feasibility of this project 
from an engineering standpoint is beyond question and it is also one of 
the cheapest projects'' that Reclamation had investigated up until that 
time.\1\ The reason for Walcott's optimism was in part due to the fact 
that Upper Klamath Lake ``could be utilized as a storage reservoir for 
the irrigation of a large body of land, approximating 300,000 acres 
lying almost equally in Oregon and California.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ H.R. Rpt. No. 3764, 58th Cong., 3rd Sess. (Jan. 20, 1905).
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress agreed with the potential benefits of the Klamath Project, 
passing the legislation necessary for its construction. The first 
deliveries through the Project began in 1907. Shortly after, a dam was 
constructed at the outlet of Upper Klamath Lake, providing controlled 
storage of water to ensure adequate irrigation supplies for the 
Project.
    Even though those who designed the Klamath Project did not have our 
technologies, their planning was remarkable. Evaporation and 
evapotranspiration from the then-present areas of open water and marsh 
was a greater amount of water than what our crops consume today. In 
plain terms, under current conditions, even when every acre is 
irrigated, less water is consumed on the land than was consumed 
historically in the natural or ``pre-Project'' condition of the region.
    For several generations, the water supply for the Klamath Project 
was considered more than adequate for multiple uses. Communities were 
built; first, by early European settlers, whose vision and energy 
continue to be sources of amazement. Later, veterans of World War I and 
World War II were awarded homesteads in thanks for their service. In 
the latter half of the twentieth century, Hispanic families joined 
these immigrants, and are valued, prominent members of our communities.
    Two highly valued federal wildlife refuges were also reserved when 
the Klamath Project was constructed. They are: Lower Klamath and Tule 
Lake National Wildlife Refuges (NWR), managed by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service. It is fitting that Project facilities are the sole 
means for delivery of water to these refuges, as the waterfowl and 
other wildlife that grace the Project landscape do not distinguish 
between the public and private lands they call home.
    As time passed, local irrigation districts eventually took over 
operation and maintenance of most Klamath Project facilities. The size 
and role of the local office of Reclamation steadily diminished to the 
point, in the early 1980s, when Reclamation seriously contemplated 
transferring responsibility for the remaining facilities to the 
districts and effectively closing shop.
Storage in Upper Klamath Lake in Relation to Food

    Before addressing what has transpired to the Klamath Project over 
the last three decades, I want to explain briefly some details of the 
Project's primary water source. Upper Klamath Lake is the largest body 
of fresh water in Oregon and constitutes one of the greatest natural 
reservoirs in the world. Only a small dam was required to beneficially 
store the water in this reservoir rather than having it flood Tule Lake 
and Lower Klamath in the late winter and spring. As envisioned by 
engineers in 1905, that stored water is returned to these lands over 
the growing season.
    The total capacity of Upper Klamath Lake is more than 650,000 acre-
feet, of which approximately 500,000 acre-feet is stored in a 6-foot 
operating window, sometimes known as ``active'' storage. That is, 
within each foot of water stored in Upper Klamath Lake there is 
approximately 80,000 acre-feet of water. That amount of water can 
irrigate 40,000 acres of farmland in the Klamath Project for a full 
year.
    To break that down further, an inch of stored water in Upper 
Klamath Lake can fully irrigate well over 3,300 acres for a full year.
    For further context, a single acre of irrigated land in the Klamath 
Project can produce 55,000 pounds of potatoes, 7,000 loaves of bread, 
or 20,000 bags of peppermint tea.
    Applying simple multiplication, an inch of water in Upper Klamath 
Lake equals 23 million loaves of bread. And, assuming the average 
American consumes about 50 loaves of bread in a year, then an inch of 
water feeds over 460,000 Americans.
    We could perform a similar exercise with pounds of potatoes or 
cheese, heads of garlic, jars of onion powder, and on and on. Food 
grown in the Klamath Project can be found in every grocery store and 
restaurant in America. This is all thanks to the vision of Reclamation 
engineers, the infrastructure paid for by Klamath Project water users, 
and the work we all proudly do.
Events Since the 1990s

    For nearly 100 years, the Klamath Project received full water 
deliveries--all that was needed or at least very close to that--every 
single year. Farms and waterfowl thrived. This was the Project of my 
childhood. Fields thick with golden heads of wheat. Skies filed horizon 
to horizon with vees of migrating geese. My fingernails caked with 
earth after helping my dad ``check spuds.'' My sister's laugh when we 
stalked the ditches for turtles and frogs. However, in the last 20 
years, that has changed as a direct result of actions taken under the 
federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
    In 1988, Lost River and shortnose suckers were listed as endangered 
under the ESA. In response, Reclamation began managing water levels in 
Upper Klamath Lake for the purported needs of these fish to survive, 
thereby limiting water deliveries to the Klamath Project.
    A decade later, a segment of coho salmon, the population that spawn 
in tributaries in Oregon and California, were listed as threatened 
under the ESA. In response, Reclamation added more pressure to the 
Upper Klamath Basin and began managing flows from Upper Klamath Lake 
into the Klamath River--40 miles downstream of the Klamath Project--for 
the purported needs of these additional species of fish.
    What occurred since that time could (and should) fill volumes, but 
undeniably one fact is true--interests advocating on behalf of the 
river and the lake have effectively negotiated for all the water they 
have demanded. This is so even though the demands do not correspond 
with the historic reality of our basin.
    For the Klamath Project, the initial shock was 2001, when 
irrigation supplies were cut off for the first time ever. No water was 
delivered until late July, at which time the damage was already done. 
Any crops that had been planted withered and fields quite literally 
blew away. Family farms were bankrupted, and communities were 
devastated.
    Following 2001, the National Academy of Sciences was asked to weigh 
in on the Federal agencies' decisions with respect to water management 
and whether or not they were justified. In a series of thorough 
reports, a blue-ribbon panel of scientists found that the decision to 
shut off water to the Klamath Project was not justified, that best 
available science did not support the lake levels and river flows that 
had been required, and that federal agencies in effect needed to look 
elsewhere--beyond the Klamath Project--to find solutions for ESA-listed 
fish.
    American taxpayers have now spent hundreds of millions of federal 
dollars on researching suckers and salmon and the reasons for their 
decline. Even more money has been spent for the sake of ``restoring'' 
their habitat. But the sad fact is even though the dollars are gone and 
countless biological opinions have been written by the fishery 
agencies, and irrigation and refuge supplies have been severely 
curtailed, no one can say ``we have addressed the factors that are 
actually limiting fish populations.''
    Dikes have been breached and thousands of acres of farmland 
flooded. Dams that existed for almost a century have been ripped out 
(with more potentially to come). Thousands of productive acres of world 
class farmland have gone out of production in the name of restoration, 
with negligible results.
    There were attempts made by many--led primarily by farmers and 
tribes--to come up with a durable solution. A settlement agreement was 
signed in 2010, which ultimately expired in 2015 due to lack of 
congressional authorization.

    The fish agencies' inability to truly identify what is hurting fish 
means they only have one knob to turn. So, they have fundamentally 
changed the operation of the Klamath Project, and all of the people and 
wildlife that live here suffer from those changes.

    As a farmer, I understand there are things I can control and things 
that I cannot control. I cannot change the weather, so I tweak my 
tillage or fertilizer plan to adapt. The difference is that as a farmer 
I pay the cost of those actions. The fish agencies cannot control ocean 
temperatures or invasive species preying on juvenile suckers, so they 
reduce Klamath Project water deliveries in an attempt to compensate. It 
does not matter so much if redirecting irrigation water will or will 
not help the fish in the river or the lake, it only matters that they 
can control ``something'' that could affect fish. As a result, we have 
a decades-long history of decimating the Klamath Project and refuges to 
increase water supplies for ESA-listed species, and no record of 
success in helping those species.

    Our air quality, our wildlife, our drinking water, and our 
economies are all sacrificed on the altar of the need ``to do 
something'' regardless of how effective that something is. Our reality 
is that if there is a problem, the go-to solution is regulating the 
Klamath Project, because that is something that can be done. It is not 
fair, but more importantly, it is not effective.

    Meanwhile the species have apparently continued to decline, 
notwithstanding the water already being set aside for them. The 
response, rather than reconsidering the agencies' approach, has been to 
instead simply allocate more and more water to the fishes' purported 
needs.

    The dysfunctional operations plan controlling the Klamath Project 
is a dramatic example of the problem. In my reality, every drop of 
water that enters Upper Klamath Lake is allotted to one of three 
``buckets''--lake, river, or Project. The Project's ``bucket'' 
basically only gets water that spills over or out of the other two. In 
effect, the Project gets the scraps. This system completely contradicts 
the historic reality of water in the Upper Klamath Basin and ignores 
that the water that ends up ``down river'' is only available because of 
the infrastructure that was built for an irrigation system and paid for 
by Klamath Project farmers and ranchers.

    Instead of recognizing the needs of people and wildlife up and down 
the Klamath, the federal government micromanages every single drop of 
water in the Upper Klamath Basin based on dates on a calendar providing 
zero flexibility. The whole process of consulting on the effects of the 
Klamath Project and its obligations under the ESA is now a competition 
over who can get more water--at the expense of another party. Victories 
are now measured in acre-feet allotted, not fish or habitat recovered.

    The last three years in particular have shown this disconnect. 
During the time period 2020 through 2022 combined, there was roughly 
2.1 million acre-feet of inflow to Upper Klamath Lake, of which 1.7 
million--or 80 percent--was released for river flows. Comparatively, 
less than 300,000 acre-feet--or 15 percent--was available for farms and 
refuges within the Klamath Project.

    Breaking those figures down further shows how storage operations in 
Upper Klamath Lake have been completely turned upside down. During each 
of the last irrigation seasons, Reclamation has released more water 
from Upper Klamath Lake to provide flows in the Klamath River than has 
flowed into Upper Klamath Lake during the same time period. The year 
2021 provides a vivid example.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1754.001


    .epsFrom a regulatory perspective, Reclamation is required to 
ensure that the effects of its actions not result in jeopardy to coho 
salmon in the Klamath River. We cannot understand why Reclamation must 
release more water than nature provides in order to make sure that it 
is not causing jeopardy by the operation of the Klamath Project. The 
regulatory problem here is that the ESA has devolved into a competition 
for water rather than a process that addresses Reclamation's impacts.

    In other words, purporting to be acting under the ESA the fish 
agencies are taking water that for the past century was used to grow 
food for tens of thousands of families across America and provided 
important habitat for migrating birds and wildlife on the Pacific 
Flyway and re-allocating it for no apparent benefit to listed fish.
At What Cost?

    For me, the definition of cost depends on which hat I am wearing.

    As a child of the Klamath Basin, the cost that makes my heart hurt 
is that the pair of sandhill cranes in my valley are gone. The frogs 
and water snakes that populated my yard near the irrigation canal are 
nowhere to be seen. Due to the agencies focusing solely on a few 
species, hundreds of other species in the basin have literally been 
left in the dust.

    As a mother, the cost is that I constantly fret about the dust from 
dried up fields and wildlife refuges and the effect that has on my 
daughter's asthma. I warn my girls about the length of their showers 
and running the washing machine because I know our well--dependent on 
recharge from irrigation water--is going dry. Reallocating water that 
historically would have resulted in lakes and marshes to the river is 
destroying our air quality and the water table that my community relies 
on for home use.

    As an employer, the cost that keeps me awake at night is the impact 
to my employees. Like all the farmers in the Upper Basin, my employees 
are my family. Although I am grateful for the efforts of federal and 
state agencies and members of Congress advocating for financial 
assistance in the Klamath Basin, that is not enough to do more than 
cover the mortgage. I do not want to let my employees go, but without 
water there are no jobs for me to give them. By forgetting the needs of 
our Upper Basin communities, the current system is driving good people 
out of the basin who deserve a home and a future.

    As a business owner, the cost that is the ultimate reality is the 
economics. Historically, a normal water supply for the Klamath Project 
from Upper Klamath Lake was between approximately 350,000 and 500,000 
acre-feet. In other words, beyond the food production value, an acre-
foot of water has historically generated between $1,000 and $1,400 for 
the economy of the Klamath Basin.

    Klamath Project irrigators have repaid their respective allocated 
shares of the costs incurred by the federal government in constructing 
the Project. Since then, farmers have funded and taken over the 
operation and maintenance of most Project facilities. We also pay money 
to the United States government to cover its share of the costs--in 
advance--of the facilities that Reclamation still maintains. Over the 
years, we have paid hundreds of millions of dollars for the upkeep of 
Project facilities so that we can continue to serve their intended 
purpose, which is helping grow food for this nation and provide for 
healthy habitat in the wildlife refuges in the basin.

    As a result of requirements of the ESA, the Project supply for 
farms and refuges of the Klamath Project has been insufficient in eight 
of the last ten years, idling tens of thousands of productive 
agricultural acres each year and costing the economy more than two 
hundred million dollars annually. Hundreds of businesses have been 
lost; families have been put into hardship; and generations of farmers 
and our employees are hurting.

    These impacts are felt and shown throughout our communities. County 
revenues to pay for police, fire, and other essential services are 
diminished. Schools close. Grocery stores and restaurants close. Movie 
theaters close. Community pools are emptied, and parks go unwatered, 
leaving trees and open space to dry up and die. People and families 
begin to move away.

    Had these sacrifices somehow improved the situation for the fish, 
helping them recover, perhaps I could explain to my neighbors why we 
hurt. Sadly, I have no explanation, other than that the political 
environment is not sensitive to producers or agricultural communities.

    Suckers in Upper Klamath Lake continue to fail to recruit new 
adults to the population, meaning in effect that no juveniles are 
surviving to an age where they could reproduce. Hundreds of millions of 
larvae are born and can be found around the lake each spring and early 
summer but they are effectively gone by fall. There has been three 
decades of research on this problem, and we still do not have a good 
explanation of why. Yet the Klamath Project and its people and wildlife 
continue to suffer.

    For salmon, since the institution of specified flows in the Klamath 
River, disease conditions have flourished. Disruption of the historical 
flow regime and loss of peak flows to maintain year-round minimum flows 
has caused an explosion of the annelid worms that cause C. Shasta, a 
parasite that can be lethal to juvenile salmon.
    We hope federal decision-makers may finally (even if reluctantly) 
coming to grasp that more water in the lake or the river does not equal 
more fish. I am reminded of a passage in one of the NRC's reports that 
states:

        Whereas professional judgment is essential for successful ESA 
        implementation where site-specific information is absent, its 
        use is more problematic when initial judgments fail empirical 
        tests. Reversal of an initial judgment may seem to be an 
        abandonment of duty or a principle, but it is unrealistic to 
        expect that all initial judgments will be proved scientifically 
        sound.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ National Research Council. 2004. Endangered and Threatened 
Fishes in the Klamath River Basin: Causes of Decline and Strategies for 
Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. (p. xvi.) 
https://doi.org/10.17226/10838.


    The fish, the federal agencies that manage them, the people that 
harvest these fish--they do not pay these costs. They do not help 
maintain and fix Klamath Project facilities. They do not even pay for 
any of the costs to maintain and operate Link River Dam, which in the 
last 20 years has been operated almost exclusively for the purported 
benefit of the fisheries.
Conclusion

    Please visit my farm and my community. I work hard to make it a 
place that both people and wildlife want to be. Come to my home and you 
will see sustainable farming practices, employees treated with respect 
and dignity, snow-capped mountains, and fertile soils. Other countries, 
and other regions in America, cannot compare to the conditions we have 
to grow food.

    You will also see two of our country's first wildlife refuges, 
which former Interior Secretary Stuart Udall once described as our 
nation's most important areas for waterfowl and shorebird 
conservation--85,000 acres in the heart of the Pacific Flyway.

    Those resources are being jeopardized and ultimately deserted. 
Farms in some cases have gone without water for more than three years. 
The refuges, the remnants of an ancient Pliocene lake, are dry for the 
first time in millions of years. Birds are disappearing, as is other 
wildlife. And the food that this basin used to grow is being lost. Food 
prices are not just going up; grocery store shelves are literally going 
bare. We built the Klamath Project's water storage decades ago, but 
that investment is now being squandered for no good scientific reason.

    KWUA urges this Subcommittee to take a hard look at how water is 
being managed in the Klamath Basin. The details and the decisions being 
made that I could not go into detail in my testimony would, quite 
literally, shock you. Fish science has gone out the window as 
apportionment of Klamath Basin water has become a tool of politics, not 
wildlife and fisheries management. The backbone of this nation's food 
supply and food security--irrigated agriculture in the West--is being 
broken for no good reason.

    Despite these grave concerns, there can be a better future. We are 
mindful that we are not the only communities, and we are latecomers 
compared to our Native American neighbors. We want their fish, and 
their communities to flourish. Our issue, however, is that destroying 
my community and our wildlife will not recover the important fisheries 
in peril. It is my hope, and KWUA's goal, to engage in collaborative 
dialogue and problem-solving that honestly addresses all the important 
interests in the basin. We have stood ready to do so since the 
expiration of our prior settlement efforts in 2016. Unfortunately, we 
do not perceive that other parties have the same objectives, and the 
overall atmosphere in the basin is toxic. We welcome any assistance of 
the Subcommittee in turning this situation around.

    On behalf of the farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Project, thank 
you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and I am happy to 
answer any questions you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Ms. Hill. I now recognize Mr. Sewell 
for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JOSHUA SEWELL, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST FOR TAXPAYERS 
                FOR COMMON SENSE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Sewell. Good afternoon, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member 
Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 
invitation to testify at today's hearing. I am Joshua Sewell, 
Senior Policy Analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a 
national, non-partisan budget watchdog based here in 
Washington, DC.
    Today's hearing has a very appropriate title. You don't 
have to be a resident of a Western state to understand not just 
the desire, but the need to store more water. For me there is 
no debate on that point.
    But the second part of the title is critical: What is 
stopping us? I would argue that one major factor is that, 
despite being very valuable, water is often not appropriately 
valued by both consumers and managers. Creating and improving 
tools to better price and better utilize this valuable resource 
is critical to both the region and the country's economic 
future.
    To quickly answer the question, the greatest challenge now 
is finding projects that allow us to obtain and manage water at 
a price we can afford. What is stopping us is a lack of 
beneficiaries willing to bear the high costs of those new 
projects.
    Now, as a fiscal watchdog, it is incumbent upon me to 
remind the Committee and observers of our current fiscal 
environment. This year's Federal budget deficit is projected at 
$1.4 trillion. Deficits are projected to average $2 trillion 
annually over the next decade, all added onto the $31.5 
trillion in total U.S. debt through today. That fiscal path is 
not sustainable.
    Knowing this, leadership, especially in this chamber, has 
committed to addressing our nation's deficit problem, and at 
TCS we strongly support leadership's commitment. This 
commitment and scrutiny, however, must be applied to every part 
of the budget, including Federal taxpayer support for Western 
water, support that has been ongoing for more than a century.
    Since the Bureau of Reclamation's creation in 1902, a 
veritable dam-building spree has unfolded. Now, nearly every 
major river and tributary in the West is dammed multiple times. 
California alone, as has been stated, has 1,400 dams. A 
complex, critical, and in many ways, miraculous network of 
water capture, storage, and distribution, much of it federally 
financed, sprawls across the West.
    And the truth is, for the most part, those sites where the 
engineering, economic, and electoral calculations penciled out, 
dams have been constructed. What we are left with now are a few 
multi-billion-dollar projects where the economics just don't 
work. When the numbers are crunched, many proposed reservoir 
expansion or construction projects provide too little water and 
too few reasonable locations to make them affordable for the 
beneficiaries who would be responsible under law for the bill.
    Now, facing an uncertain future from a more dynamic climate 
and, as has been stated, an unsustainable debt burden, now is 
the time to follow the fiscally prudent path of not putting all 
our eggs in one basket or, in this case, all of our hopes for 
water in one model of storage.
    How, then, do we store more water in a manner that is 
fiscally responsible, while not shortchanging competing public 
priorities seeking to benefit from that limited water? By 
following a few principles.
    Fix it first. We have already invested billions of dollars 
in storage and transport infrastructure as Federal taxpayers, 
and I think it is important that we need to fix and improve 
that infrastructure where it still serves a purpose.
    We also must expand beyond traditional on-river reservoirs. 
Off-stream reservoirs, projects that plan for scaled storage, 
flood plain restoration that encourages aquifer recharge, these 
can often provide for new and more stable opportunities for 
water storage.
    We also must have projects that work in normal and drought 
years. Stormwater capture, wastewater recycling, agricultural 
efficiency, and reuse, these can often produce water for use at 
much lower costs per acre-foot, compared to new, large 
reservoirs.
    But in the end, it also comes back to this--as a reminder 
that we are a budget group--is the government adequately 
pricing a scarce resource?
    Most of what people seem to talk about is Uncle Sam opening 
his checkbook and building more projects. But under reclamation 
law, it is the beneficiaries who are supposed to pay--or 
rather, repay. And I don't hear a lot of beneficiaries opening 
their wallets to cover the true cost of these big, expensive 
projects.
    So, in the end, I think what is stopping us is that too 
many people look at the days of old and think a costly, big dam 
paid for by taxpayers, that is the solution. But we can't 
afford to focus on just one remedy, no matter how familiar, 
easy to comprehend, or historically prevalent. Instead, we must 
ensure all the water storage tools in the 21st century toolbox 
are being utilized, that beneficiaries pay their financial 
share for projects, and that we increase the return on these 
critical investments.
    I thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to any 
questions you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sewell follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Joshua Sewell, Senior Policy Analyst, Taxpayers 
                            for Common Sense

    Good afternoon Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members 
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to testify at today's 
Subcommittee hearing, Why We Need to Store More Water and What's 
Stopping Us. I am Joshua Sewell, Senior Policy Analyst at Taxpayers for 
Common Sense, a national non-partisan budget watchdog group based in 
Washington, DC.
    You don't have to be a resident of a western state to understand 
not just the desire, but the need to store more water. Access to 
sufficient quantities of quality water is critical to the economic 
future of an important part of our country. As I will document in my 
testimony, as the populations and economies of western states have 
grown, more storage has been added in recent decades. I will also 
document many of the reasons that even more has not been developed. But 
I also think the second part of the hearing's title is critical--what 
is stopping us. I would argue that one major factor is that 
historically, despite being very valuable, water has not been 
appropriately valued by both consumers and managers. Creating and 
improving tools to better price and better utilize western water will 
be critical to both the region and the country's economic future.
    Before getting into the particulars, it is important to remember 
the fiscal environment in which this important hearing is being held. 
The federal deficit for fiscal year 2023 is currently projected to be 
$1.4 trillion. This deficit and all future deficits, which are 
currently projected to average more than $2 trillion annually over the 
next 10 years, will be piled onto the current federal debt of nearly 
$31.5 trillion. Our nation has reached its statutory debt limit with 
the Secretary of the Treasury employing extraordinary measures to avoid 
a catastrophic default on our debt obligations. Leadership, especially 
in this chamber, has committed to addressing our deficit problem, and 
as a budget watchdog we support this commitment.
    It is in this environment that we must develop public policy, 
whatever the challenge being addressed. It has long been TCS's position 
that our fiscal challenges are so great that no part of the federal 
budget can be held sacred. Lawmakers must scrutinize every spending 
program, tax policy, or revenue generator, no matter how popular or 
familiar, to ensure taxpayers are getting the best return on our 
federal investments and from our federal policies.
    As such, this scrutiny rightfully applies to policies, procedures, 
and projects intended to secure water in western states.
    Obtaining and managing water in the public's interest at a cost 
that is fiscally responsible is today's primary challenge. The recent 
droughts and long history of the west show that western water users 
need to use available water better. As federal taxpayers are in the 
midst of a potential generational debt crisis, we must ensure efforts 
to address this challenge produce the most return on federal 
investments. To get those projects approved and delivered in a timely 
manner, those investments must serve the greatest number of public 
interests, not one particular user or another. Projects to increase 
storage capacity in the west are one potential tool. Other tools 
include more efficient use of water currently available, maximizing 
efficiencies from existing, at times under-maintained federally 
financed infrastructure, and prioritizing future investments on 
projects that increase stability and predictability in water 
availability through diversification of storage. When it comes to 
ensuring the economic future of western states, we must follow the 
fiscally prudent path of not putting all our eggs in one basket, or all 
of our hopes for water in one model of water storage.
Background

    Since the creation of the Bureau of Reclamation in 1902 federal 
taxpayers have invested significantly in the water infrastructure of 
western states.
    Western water users have benefited tremendously from various forms 
of federal financial assistance. Under reclamation law beneficiaries of 
projects are required to pay for the capital costs of their share of 
benefits from those projects, with the period for repayment having been 
extended from an original 10 years to now typically 40 years. Besides 
having a long repayment period, the clock for these payments does not 
start until the project is completed. History has shown that projects 
can deliver water for decades without being deemed complete (or 
substantially complete) and thus not starting the clock on the bulk of 
repayment costs. And at least for agricultural beneficiaries, there are 
no interest calculations, meaning these users are effectively treated 
to a no-interest federal loan lasting decades.
    Federal assistance has been extended to project elements beyond 
initial construction that are vital to water users. Loans for the 
construction of agricultural water distribution systems, water service 
contracts, and authorization to provide relief from payment for users 
unable to pay their full obligation are additional ways various users 
have benefited from federal assistance.
    Quantifying the exact dollar amount these benefits have provided is 
difficult, but it is in the billions of dollars easily.
    Importantly federal investments in western water infrastructure are 
not simply an artifact of history, they continue to this day. In 
addition to the annual appropriations the Bureau of Reclamation 
receives, billions of dollars were included in recent legislation, such 
as $8.3 billion in the Infrastructure and Jobs Act.\1\ While a common 
criticism from some is bemoaning the lack of new reservoir construction 
since the late 1970s, there has been investment in projects to increase 
water storage. It just does not always take the shape of large, 
traditional reservoirs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ United States Bureau of Reclamation, www.usbr.gov/bil, accessed 
March 25, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal taxpayers can and should continue to provide federal 
assistance to western states to help their water management, but that 
assistance cannot be unlimited or have too narrow a focus on one set of 
beneficiaries.
Fiscally Responsible Solutions for Storing More Water

    The critical task now is to figure out how to store more water in a 
manner that is fiscally responsible and does not short-change competing 
public priorities seeking to benefit from that water. There are several 
principles that, if followed, will provide the opportunity to develop 
these fiscally responsible solutions.
Price Water Correctly

    First, we must price water correctly. It's a basic rule in 
economics that when resources are priced incorrectly, inefficient use 
occurs. In other words when something is cheap, we don't value it. 
While a lot of responsibility in rate setting is rightfully done at the 
non-federal level, there is a federal responsibility in pricing water 
correctly. Project economic evaluations must be based on sound, 
credible science and assumptions on both the project cost and potential 
benefits side. When reality-based project costs are calculated we must 
strengthen the beneficiary pays principle for water projects. People 
and institutions manage their resources more responsibly when it is 
their money that is at risk. We need to ensure all parties are pulling 
their weight. Congress needs to make the statutory and regulatory 
changes to improve water markets by first charging closer to market 
rates for water. Finally, project planning and development must be 
guided by the fact that multiple parties and types of beneficiaries 
have a valuable stake and legitimate interest in water management 
decisions. All these parties must be provided with a seat at the 
negotiating table.
    The Los Vaqueros project from the Contra Costa County Water 
District (CCWD) is one example of how new surface storage 
infrastructure can be built. In 1997 CCWD completed 100,000 acre feet, 
later expanded to 160,000 acre feet, of new off-river storage at the 
Vaqueros Reservoir and over the years undertook a number of other 
projects to update and enhance water intake and delivery 
infrastructure. While this project was financed with water district 
bonds, it can serve as a model for engagement and use of federally 
funded projects. As the General Manager of the district testified, by 
having broad stakeholder involvement from the beginning and exploring 
project alternatives in a way that sought to serve all these 
stakeholders to avoid or mitigate environmental harms, the parties 
ultimately settled on the project that made the most economic sense 
with the option of scaling up if future partners and economic 
opportunities developed.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Water for Our Future and Job Creation: Examining Regulatory and 
Bureaucratic Barriers to New Surface Storage Infrastructure: Hearing 
before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Natural 
Resources, 112th Congress (2012) ( Testimony of Jerry Brown, General 
Manager, Contra Costa Water District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fix-it-First

    Second, fixing existing infrastructure to maximize its performance 
is one of the most cost-effective ways to increase storage and 
efficient use of available water. As I mentioned earlier, federal 
taxpayers have already invested heavily in western water 
infrastructure. Even if new large reservoir storage projects are 
constructed, there must be adequate infrastructure to manage and 
deliver the water they capture. Deficiencies that reduce the capacity 
to use already available water, such as the 33 mile sag in the Friant-
Kerr Canal that reduced water flow by nearly half, should be a primary 
focus. While this particular deficiency is on pace to be fixed by 
September of next year,\3\ many other opportunities exist. Lawmakers 
must not repeat the all too often folly we see of new projects crowding 
out critical maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ SJV Water, ``Temperance Flat Dam Put on the Shelf 
Indefinitely,'' GVWire, July 1, 2020. Accessed March 25, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expand Options Beyond Traditional On-River Reservoirs

    Focusing solely on construction of new and bigger reservoirs is too 
narrow and fiscally irresponsible. The challenge of securing enough 
water to meet our needs is too important and too complex to tackle with 
most of our tools left inside the toolbox. The tendency to focus almost 
exclusively on one solution, new and bigger reservoirs, has the 
unfortunate effect of ignoring many other tools that can be a part of 
the solution. It is also fiscally irresponsible to gamble the West's 
economic future on an effort focused solely on capturing more water in 
a historically wet year.
    California alone has 1400 dams. After aggressive 20th century dam 
building, the truth is that those sites where the engineering, 
economic, and political calculations pencil-out the easiest, are mostly 
built. The vast majority of rivers already have dams and adding another 
doesn't generate more water; in fact, in some cases it will capture 
water that was going to be captured by another dam. A dam isn't a 
divining rod. And while there is a lot of attention being paid to the 
enormous recent precipitation events, you can also look at the Colorado 
River Basin and see enormous empty reservoirs. We can't cost-
effectively build storage to capture all the rain, nor should we. 
Attempting to do so would result in excess unused storage capacity most 
years and an underinvestment in tools capable of providing water in 
years of average precipitation or even drought.
    That's why a more diverse and diversified strategy is needed.
Plan for Dry Years and Wet Years

    Developing a suite of policies that work in all types of years, by 
utilizing all cost-effective options for water storage will be key. New 
dams to produce new reservoirs may be an appropriate tool. But numerous 
projects undertaken over the last 40 years show they are not the only 
tool, and sometimes, there are better tools. Again, new reservoirs are 
not off the table. But other more innovative options are likely to 
produce quicker, more stable returns, at a cheaper cost to all 
involved. That is, we should increase the use of 21st century 
appropriate approaches, including water reuse and recycling, water-use 
efficiency, and groundwater storage.\4\ As an example, the Los Angeles 
Department of Water and Power is working to clean up contaminated 
groundwater in order to use the aquifer to store water, including 
recycled water and urban storm water.\5\ These types of projects often 
have lower capital costs than large reservoirs and can produce water 
for use at much lower costs per-acre-foot. The current historically wet 
year in California should also prompt policymakers to adopt effective 
water management techniques that pre-date the Bureau of Reclamation. 
Floodplain restoration, temporary flooding of agricultural fields, and 
mountain meadow preservation and restoration are all tools that can be 
used to cost-effectively manage and capture precipitation often while 
recharging quickly draining aquifers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Natural Resources Defense Council, ``The Untapped Potential of 
California's Water Supply,'' June 10, 2014. https://www.nrdc.org/
resources/untapped-potential-californias-water-supply, accessed March 
25, 2023.
    \5\ Nelson, Barry. ``New Water Storage Strategies Serve 
California's 21st century Needs,'' The New Humanitarian. January 25, 
2018. https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/water/community/2018/01/25/
new-water-storage--strategies-serve-californias-21st-century-needs. 
Accessed March 25, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion

    There are numerous opportunities to more efficiently use western 
water. Reservoirs, even new ones, may be an appropriate tool. But they 
can't be the only tool. I think what's stopping us, is that too many 
people look at the days of old and think a costly big dam paid for at 
taxpayers' expense is the solution, when in reality, it is a lot of 
measures like reuse, conservation, floodplain restoration to allow 
groundwater recharge, off-stream storage, and yes, charging closer to 
market rates for water that is solution.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward 
to your questions.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    I now recognize our next witness, Mr. Bourdeau, for 5 
minutes.

 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BOURDEAU, VICE CHAIR, SAN LUIS AND DELTA-
         MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY, COALINGA, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Bourdeau. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and 
members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to testify before 
you today. My name is William Bourdeau. I am here with 26 years 
of experience in business, agriculture, and water 
infrastructure policy which informs my testimony.
    My family took public service very seriously. My 
grandparents are buried here in Arlington National Cemetery. My 
grandmother was in charge of the infectious disease ward in the 
South Pacific during World War II, and my grandfather earned 
the Distinguished Service Cross and two Purple Hearts on the 
beaches of Okinawa. I joined the Marine Corps when I was 17 
years old, committing myself to service, serving our nation. I 
have continued my dedication to public service, serving on 
multiple boards that support the communities where I live and 
work.
    I am here testifying on behalf of the San Luis and Delta-
Mendota Water Authority. The Water Authority is a very diverse 
group of members from a variety of municipalities to the 
largest contiguous wetlands in the western United States, and 
also some of the most effective and efficient farmers in the 
world.
    The economic and social effects of not having enough water 
are real where I live, and these communities are some of the 
most impoverished. The human suffering is real. Adequate and 
reliable water supplies are essential to public health, the 
environment, and the economic vitality of the San Joaquin, San 
Benito, and Santa Clara Valleys. The Water Authority's member 
agencies are doing their part to conserve. Our farmers have 
spent billions of dollars putting drip irrigation in the 
system.
    We are blessed in the state of California. We have very 
fertile soil. We have a Mediterranean climate, and we are 
blessed by the Sierra Nevadas that captures a tremendous amount 
of snow and rain, particularly in years like this. And we are 
able to apply that water precisely when the plant needs it. It 
not only saves water, but it increases our productivity.
    Our municipal water users have been working hard to 
conserve, as well, and they have deployed smart devices to help 
conserve both indoor and outdoor water use, and they have 
invested in recycling.
    If we want California agricultural production and the 
associated food security that accompanies it, we need to 
meaningfully invest in our infrastructure. I believe that it is 
a national security issue. As a Marine, I understand if you cut 
off someone's supply lines, they become vulnerable. And if we 
rely on foreign countries for our domestic food supply 
capability, we become vulnerable.
    Right now, California's climate has swung from drought to 
flood. We need to take advantage of these flood flows. We need 
to make sure we can divert the water. We need the permits, and 
we need to capture and store much of this water in the aquifers 
that have been depleted.
    This year, we have been blessed with lots of snow and rain, 
and the reservoirs have been filling up. According to the 
Bureau of Reclamation, one single day in March, they were able 
to capture 145,000 acre-feet of water in Shasta Reservoir. But 
with additional storage capability, more could have been 
achieved. On that same day, we lost about 200,000 acre-feet of 
water out to the ocean.
    We need storage and better conveyance capacity for 
agricultural water supplies, for drinking water, for 
recreation, and for the environment. If we do not build more 
storage and invest in efficient water infrastructure, we will 
continue on the pendulum of extremes of abundance and scarcity.
    We shouldn't have to wait for a crisis to make good 
decisions. We should be proactive. We should be making 
investments in this infrastructure. We should find ways to 
streamline the costs. I understand these projects can be very 
costly, but the longer we wait, the more expensive they get. We 
also need to make sure that Congress takes a hard look at how 
these regulations are structured, and making sure that we can 
get these projects built in a timely fashion.
    In conclusion, while it is difficult to compare ourselves 
to the generations that came before us, we have the chance to 
implement meaningful change that will enhance the quality of 
life for generations to come. We need to identify the best 
projects and avoid over-studying, undue delays, and build a 
better system. My hope is that today's critical discussion on 
the future of the West and water infrastructure will pave the 
way for such transformative steps and a better future for 
generations to come.
    Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering any 
questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bourdeau follows:]

 Prepared Statement of William Bourdeau, Vice Chair, San Luis & Delta-
                        Mendota Water Authority

        California's water infrastructure system has not kept pace with 
        needed investments to capture, increase, and distribute water 
        supply. This need for increased investment is vital not only to 
        provide greater conveyance and storage capacity for water users 
        in more arid parts of the state but also for the beneficiaries 
        of California's $50 billion agriculture economy.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Dubetz & Horton, Sharing the Cost: Accelerating Water 
Resilience through Infrastructure Finance in California, Milken 
Institute (2022). Available at: milkeninstitute.org/report/water-
resilience-california-finance-infrastructure.

    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify today. It is a great 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
privilege.

    My name is William Bourdeau, and I bring over 26 years of expertise 
in business, agriculture and water infrastructure policy to the 
Subcommittee. At the age of seventeen, I proudly joined the Marines, 
committing myself to serving our nation. Even after leaving the armed 
forces, I have continued my dedication to public service and the 
communities where I live and work.

    I hold several key leadership positions, including Vice Chair of 
the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, Chair of the California 
Water Alliance, and Chair of the Valley Future Foundation. 
Additionally, I serve on the board of directors for the Westlands Water 
District, American Pistachio Growers, Family Farm Alliance, and the 
Agriculture Foundation of California State University, Fresno. Today I 
am testifying as the Vice Chair of the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water 
Authority (``Water Authority'').

    My grandparents were part of the Greatest Generation, a time when 
nearly every American made significant sacrifices for our nation. While 
it is difficult to compare ourselves to that generation, we have the 
chance to implement meaningful changes that will enhance the quality of 
life for generations to come. My hope is that today's crucial 
discussion on the future of the West and domestic food security will 
pave the way for such transformative steps.
Introduction to Water Authority

    The Water Authority is a public agency with its principal office 
located in Los Banos, California. It was formed in 1992 to serve two 
important roles: 1) to operate and maintain certain south of Delta 
Central Valley Project (``CVP'') facilities, including the Jones 
Pumping Plant, the Delta-Mendota Canal (``DMC'') and the O'Neill 
Pumping Plant; and 2) to provide representation on common interests of 
the Water Authority's member agencies. Most of the Water Authority's 
member agencies depend upon the CVP as their principal source of water. 
The Water Authority's member agencies serve water to approximately 1.2 
million acres of agricultural lands within the San Joaquin, Santa 
Clara, and San Benito Valleys, nearly 2 million people in the Silicon 
Valley, and millions of waterfowl that depend upon nearly 200,000 acres 
of managed wetlands and other critical habitat within the largest 
contiguous wetland in the western United States.
The Water Authority Member Agencies have Invested Locally and 
        Regionally; the United States, in Partnership with the State of 
        California and Local Water Agencies, Must Do More

    Those served by the Water Authority's member agencies are leaders 
in water conservation. Farmers have taken numerous steps to improve 
water use efficiency, with over 90 percent using measures such as laser 
leveling, employing computer aided drip irrigation, and utilizing 
global positioning systems. Municipalities have created rebate and 
incentive programs for outdoor and indoor conservation, the 
installation of water saving devices, graywater systems, and rainwater 
capture, in addition to significant investments in recycled water 
programs to reuse the same molecules of water multiple times.
    Conservation alone is not sufficient to address the needs of all 
regions of California. The United States, in partnership with the state 
of California and local water agencies, must break what appears to be a 
never-ending cycle of planning and get to building--build new surface 
water storage, develop the facilities to increase groundwater storage, 
and improve how water in California is conveyed from places where they 
cause immense damage to where they can instead create tremendous 
benefit. This call for action is similar to the call that led to the 
initiation and construction of the Central Valley Project and State 
Water Project, among other water projects, in California--one where 
humanity harnessed the incredible power of nature to spread benefits 
throughout California, rather than simply leaving some regions subject 
to its destructive wrath.
    The lack of meaningful investment in fundamental infrastructure 
over the past few decades, particularly water storage and conveyance, 
has compromised the ability of multi-purpose water projects to serve 
their diverse interests. People, environment, and businesses are 
suffering. The communities where I live, where I work--those served by 
the Water Authority's member agencies--are vulnerable. This 
vulnerability is of acute concern to me because many of the communities 
most negatively impacted by the lack of meaningful investment are some 
of the most impoverished regions of California. Simply put, adequate 
and reliable water supplies are essential to the public health, 
ecosystems, and regional economic viability of the San Joaquin, San 
Benito and Santa Clara Valleys. Prior generations recognized the 
importance of water development by constructing California's intricate 
water system, however, much of that infrastructure must be modernized, 
particularly in light of the hydrologic impacts of a changing climate.
    The effects we see from the rapid change in hydrologic cycles--for 
example between the extreme dry conditions in 2021 and 2022, and the 
storms and flooding that California has been experiencing since last 
December--are stark illustrations that the State's water infrastructure 
is inadequate. This year, with new and improved infrastructure, 
California could have better controlled the water and held it for use 
during a time when water will be less plentiful; instead, much of that 
benefit has been lost and even worse, flooding has caused 
incomprehensible damage. Water infrastructure, and particularly 
storage, is a critical tool for resiliency in light of drought. Storage 
provides many benefits, including water supply for irrigated 
agriculture and drinking water for people. It provides flood 
protection, hydropower, and recreation. It also provides critically 
important resources for the environment, for example, by establishing 
cold water flows for fish and water for wildlife refuges. Given 
California's increasingly variable hydrologic cycle, the capacity to 
store water during times of high flows for beneficial use during dry 
periods may be the difference between economic and environmental 
viability and disaster. Farms, cities, industries, and the environment 
all benefit from the active management of water.
Break The Planning ``Do-Loop''

    Federal and state laws and regulations are important to ensure the 
environment is protected. However, we have seen that the important 
benefits they provide have been weaponized to delay the implementation 
of projects, with great financial, socioeconomic, and environmental 
cost. California must move forward to construct new storage and 
conveyance projects and must make improvements to existing 
infrastructure without the undue delays that have plagued many of 
California's water infrastructure efforts over the last 40 years or so. 
We need to ensure the economic backbone of California is strengthened. 
We need to focus on the activities that support a more resilient and 
sustainable economy and environment for all of California. By stating--
or restating--its intent, Congress can provide important leadership and 
direction.
Surface and Groundwater Storage are Needed

    Aquifer storage and recovery provides an important source of water 
for California. Indeed, many in California have been and will continue 
to utilize the plentiful water flowing through California's rivers and 
streams today to increase the quantity of water in groundwater basins 
and help them recover from significant pumping that occurred for the 
last few years. Those efforts, and even new ones, however, cannot reap 
the full benefits that Mother Nature can provided and has provided this 
year. Aquifer storage and recovery has its limits and thus surface 
water storage will continue to--must--play an important role in 
California's water portfolio. The current conditions in California best 
demonstrate that.
    With a climate that tends to alternate between flooding like that 
caused by the atmospheric rivers we have seen this year and the two 
droughts that persisted for six years in the last decade, additional 
infrastructure could have yielded significant benefits. According to 
data from the California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau 
of Reclamation, on a single day in March (March 13, 2023), the Bureau 
of Reclamation was able to add more than 145,000 acre-feet of water to 
the storage in Shasta Reservoir. The amount of storage is impressive--
enough to supply up to 300,000 households with water for one year--but 
with additional surface storage capabilities, more could have been 
achieved. On that same day, approximately 200,000 acre-feet of water 
flowed out of the San Francisco Bay to the Pacific Ocean. One would 
think that some of that outflow could have been captured with no or 
limited impact to the environment. This example should render beyond 
debate the conclusion that California must improve its water 
infrastructure to become climate resilient, and surface and groundwater 
storage are critical components of reaching a more sustainable and 
viable future.
The Investment is Warrented; Congress Can Help

    California's economy, including its agricultural productivity, 
plays an important role in the local and national economies. Studies 
performed by noted economist Dr. Michael Shires have found that 
agriculture from just one of the Water Authority's member districts, 
Westlands Water District, contributes about 5 billion dollars per year 
to the California economy through direct and indirect economic effects. 
This economic engine accounts for over tens of thousands of jobs. 
California agriculture produces well over half of total U.S. production 
of almost every category of fresh fruit and vegetables consumed in the 
United States. Domestic food production is important for national 
security and generally produces higher quality food, applying more 
stringent environmental and labor protections, than many other 
countries.
    The past two drought cycles in California have been very difficult 
for California's people, farms and its environment. Fortunately, 
California has recently been blessed with record or near record amounts 
of snow and rain. Unfortunately, several of the Central Valley Project 
storage facilities reached or are approaching operational capacity 
(unable to store water due to flood control limits). And, many 
reservoirs are projected to have limited capacity to store water when 
the snowpack melts later in the spring. As a result, a significant 
amount of water from the atmospheric rivers and snow pack will flow 
through reservoirs, not be stored, and thus not be available for 
beneficial use in years when nature provides less natural precipitation 
and snowpack.
    This lost opportunity is especially frustrating in a time where 
many Water Authority member agencies have received a 0 percent surface 
water allocation in the prior two years. Moreover, in the last decade, 
those Water Authority members received water allocations below 20 
percent seven times, including four years with no allocation, and only 
received above 75 percent or more twice, which continues to reinforce 
that California's water system is no longer able to provide the 
reliability necessary to support the demands placed on it. Rainfall and 
snowpack patterns are changing, and California's water management 
strategies must be responsive to this new reality.
    Storms that started in December, which delivered much needed relief 
from dry conditions and restored reservoir levels, also provided more 
water than our system can convey and store in such a short time period, 
resulting in over 4 million acre-feet of outflow, more than is 
necessary to maintain Delta water quality and to support important 
ecosystem functions.
    In an era of increasing uncertainty, we must advance long-term and 
sustainable solutions--we must protect and restore our critical 
infrastructure that serves as the backbone of California, we must 
increase our ability to store water during limited, but more extreme 
hydrologic events like those in January 2023, and we must improve the 
operational flexibility of our system so that we can adapt to the 
challenges presented by each water year. Increased groundwater storage 
is important but that alone will not meet the needs of California. The 
time to invest is now--we cannot allow this moment to pass without 
meaningful action to build water resilience for our communities, farms, 
and ecosystems.
    We have not built a federal surface storage project in California 
since the 1980s. To put that in perspective, since 1980 the 
population--one component of demand on water--has increased by 15 
million people. The construction of the Central Valley Project was a 
monumental and historic undertaking in California, however we cannot 
assume that a system built decades ago can fully satisfy current 
demands of residents, the crops that feed the nation and world, 
businesses, and the environment. We need to make investments in our 
water infrastructure that look forward and build more flexibility into 
our water management system. We need to significantly increase the 
amount of water that is stored on the surface and in the ground. If we 
do not do that, we will continue on the pendulum of extremes of 
abundance and scarcity. These storage methods need to be pursued 
together to be most effective; unlike what some have proposed, we 
cannot simply replace surface storage with groundwater recharge 
projects. Long-term water supply reliability for all regions in 
California and for the environment cannot be stabilized without 
additional surface storage and conveyance capacity.
    If Sites Reservoir and the Los Vaqueros expansion project were 
completed, California would have an additional 1.6 million acre-feet of 
storage capacity today. This increased storage capacity would serve 
multiple beneficial uses--including 1) up to 54,000 acre-feet per year 
of water for millions of waterfowl that travel the Pacific Flyway each 
year and depend upon the largest contiguous wetlands west of the 
Mississippi delta, and 2) up to 300,000 acre-feet of water to help 
manage river conditions for at risk fish species. An additional 
project--the B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and Reservoir Expansion Project--would 
leverage existing construction work that is being undertaken as part of 
the B.F. Sisk Dam Safety Modification Project and raise the dam an 
additional 10-feet, creating approximately 130,000 acre-feet of water 
storage in San Luis Reservoir. The additional storage capacity would 
increase operational flexibility and water supply reliability for Water 
Authority member agencies. Congress needs to take a hard look at 
improving the regulatory processes for infrastructure projects, to 
ensure decisions on whether to construct them swiftly, especially in 
light of the significant federal investments that have been made in the 
Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction 
Act.
    Congress must also look at the uncertainty in our system right now. 
The beneficiary pays principal is predicated on the assumption that a 
project sponsor incurs cost outlays at the onset of a proposed project 
and recoups those costs only after the project is complete and the 
benefits are accruing. However, when water project operations are 
highly uncertain, in large part as a result of litigation and the 
regulatory environment, like those experienced in California today, the 
project sponsor does not have the benefit of stability when making long 
term projections on major investments. Think of this in terms of a 
business investor: would you invest in a business where there is little 
certainty if the business could operate at 100 percent, 50 percent, or 
even 0 percent of capacity from one year to the next? We can and must 
do better to create the space where important investments in water 
infrastructure can be made with less risk.
Conclusion

    The past few years in California have proven very difficult for the 
Water Authority's member agencies. Although California has recently 
been blessed with record or near record precipitation, many people, 
many businesses, and much of the environment are still trying to 
recover from the impact of recent drought years. Unfortunately, for 
many, the precipitation that has fallen on California has been less of 
a savior and more of a disaster. Devastating floods and emergency 
evacuation orders are all too common. And, as history has shown, the 
next drought lies immediately head. That is why the hearing today is so 
important and topical: why are we unable to capture and store more of 
this water? There will always be extreme wet and dry periods in 
California. We need to avoid over-studying, undue delays, and build: 
build a system that can capture more water during wet periods so that 
we--the people, businesses, and the environment--have a sufficient 
water supply to avoid the devastating impacts of dry periods.

    I again want to thank the Committee for allowing me to testify at 
today's important and timely hearing.

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. With that, I now recognize Mrs. 
Boebert to introduce our next witness, Mr. Mueller.

    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my honor to 
introduce Andy Mueller, General Manager of the Colorado River 
Water Conservation District.
    Prior to taking the helm at the Colorado River District, he 
spent 23 years in private law practice on the West Slope of 
Colorado. His work ranged across the breadth of critical 
Western Colorado topics: water, natural resources, land use, 
and community issues. For 9 years, from 2006 to 2015, he was 
Ouray County's Director on the Colorado River District Board, 
his last two as Board President.
    Andy is a wealth of knowledge on water and forestry issues, 
and I couldn't be more thrilled that he made the trip to be 
here with us today in Washington, DC.
    And with that, Andy, you have 5 minutes, and you may begin 
your testimony. Thank you so much.

  STATEMENT OF ANDY MUELLER, GENERAL MANAGER, COLORADO RIVER 
    WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO

    Mr. Mueller. Thank you, Representative Boebert. Thank you. 
Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and the other members 
of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here 
today with you.
    On Colorado's Western Slope, water is everything. Our 
rivers form the backbone of our rural economy that depend on 
multi-generational farms and ranches, thriving recreational 
industries, and the environmental beauty for which our state is 
so renowned.
    For 85 years, the Colorado River District has worked to 
protect the water interests of the communities of western 
Colorado. Melting snowpack, occasional rain, and the associated 
runoff from the Colorado's Western Slope provides 70 percent of 
the main stem of the Colorado River's entire natural flow. This 
water supports over 40 million people, 5 million acres of 
irrigated agricultural land, 2 countries, 30 sovereign tribal 
nations, 7 states, and 11 national parks.
    Hotter-than-average temperatures over the last 23 years 
have diminished the flows of the Colorado River by 20 percent, 
and sound science tells us that we should plan for further 
significant reductions. We need to create both long-term and 
short-term solutions.
    In the long term, one of the largest variables over which 
we have any control at all is the health of our forests and our 
ability to collect, filter, and convey water. In the short 
term, accessible and easily adaptable storage solutions mean 
that our communities, our agriculture, and our rivers can 
continue to thrive year to year.
    First, I will address the long term. Snow is the primary 
form of Colorado River water storage, and our forests are, by 
far, the largest reservoirs in the Colorado River Basin. High-
elevation forests, those over 9,000 feet in elevation, play an 
especially critical role in capturing, preserving, and 
filtering the water that is essential for the health and 
economic well-being of not only the Western Slope, but the 
entire Colorado River Basin.
    Our forest lands help sustain river base flows in the 
summer, when crops, boaters, and fish need water. As far back 
as the Organic Act of 1897, Congress expressly recognized the 
importance of watershed protection in the national forests. 
Just over 65 percent of all forest land in Colorado is 
federally owned, and right now current efforts to manage 
Colorado's forests are not keeping pace with the realities of a 
changing climate and hydrology.
    Since 2000, the headwaters of our communities and the 
Colorado River have experienced back-to-back hot, dry, windy 
springs, and early summers. Heating results in dry soils and 
catastrophic wildfires in the heart of our most important 
watersheds.
    In 2020, for example, Colorado experienced the three 
largest wildfires in the state's recorded history, all three in 
the same season and all three in the headwaters of the Colorado 
River. Studies indicate that fires will only get bigger and 
more severe. Without natural filtration of a healthy forest 
after a severe wildfire, sediment, ash, and other nutrients and 
chemicals flush directly into the rivers, requiring expensive 
infrastructure upgrades to the drinking water sources for 80 
percent of our state's population.
    We applaud the large-scale investments dedicated to forest 
health in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation 
Reduction Act. However, these investments currently prioritize 
forested lands in the wildland-urban interface. Because the 
dollar value of man-made infrastructure is weighted so heavily 
in these decisions, the important headwaters of the Colorado 
River and the natural infrastructure and high-elevation forests 
are not receiving adequate funds to address the compounding 
threats they face. Preliminary conversations have begun to 
reallocate funding with this in mind, but we cannot underscore 
the urgency for fully supporting these efforts expeditiously.
    Now let's talk about dealing with the short term, and the 
benefits and need for high-elevation, small reservoirs. On the 
western slope of the Rockies, we don't live below major 
reservoirs like Lake Mead and Lake Powell, which provide multi-
year carryover storage for Colorado's lower-basin states. As 
mentioned earlier, the snowpack of our high-elevation forest is 
our largest reservoir.
    And once the snow is gone, our largest storage bucket is 
too. By applying best practices developed over decades and 
informed science, we can use these small buckets, anywhere from 
10,000 to 100,000 acre-feet, in strategic high-mountain 
locations to re-time the releases of water to mitigate the 
impacts of a warming climate. And to do so we can benefit both 
consumptive needs and non-consumptive needs. We have numerous 
examples of this in our state, but, unfortunately, many of our 
stream systems are without high reservoirs in the high-mountain 
state locations, and do not allow us to achieve success in 
these areas.
    I encourage you to direct additional Federal resources and 
bolster new and existing storage opportunities. But as 
important as funding, if not more, are the regulatory approvals 
that must be streamlined, and our Federal programs need to work 
efficiently and effectively.
    Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Mueller follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Andrew Mueller, General Manager, Colorado River 
                      Water Conservation District

    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today 
about these important issues.
    My name is Andrew Mueller, and I am the General Manager of the 
Colorado River Water Conservation District. On Colorado's Western 
Slope, water is everything. Our rivers form the backbone of a rural 
economy that depends on multi-generational farms and ranches, thriving 
recreation industries, and the environmental beauty for which our state 
is so renowned.
    For 85 years, the Colorado River District has worked to protect the 
water interests of western Colorado. We work every day to manage, 
conserve, develop and protect West Slope water on behalf of the state 
of Colorado and the citizens in the 15 Colorado counties that form the 
headwaters of Colorado River and its principal tributaries in the 
state.
    Importantly, melting snowpack, occasional rain, and the associated 
runoff from within our District alone provides 65% of the natural flow 
of the mainstem of the Colorado River. When you include runoff from our 
sister conservation district to the south, the Southwestern Water 
Conservation District, snowmelt and runoff from Colorado's Western 
Slope provides for 70 percent of the River's natural flow.
    The Colorado River is aptly referred to as the hardest working 
river in America, and its headwaters are vital to the health and future 
of the American Southwest. The high-elevation forests west of the 
Continental Divide capture the snow that becomes the water that 
supports over forty million people, five million acres of agricultural 
land, two countries, thirty sovereign Tribal nations, seven states and 
eleven national parks.
    Hot temperatures over the last 23 years have diminished the flows 
of the Colorado River by 20%, and sound science tells us we should 
anticipate and plan for further significant reductions. Even in wet 
years, the river no longer reaches its natural mouth at the Sea of 
Cortez and legal claims to the Colorado River's water significantly 
exceed the average annual flow.
    Thankfully, on the slopes across Colorado's high country, the snow-
water equivalent of 2023 winter storms soared past the seasonal 
averages of the last thirty years--but if history tells us anything, we 
can't rely on that to continue. Colorado experienced a similarly robust 
snowpack in 2011 and 2019, but both followed closely on the heels 
of2012 and 2020, both brutally dry years.
    Managing a system where the only certainty is uncertainty means 
looking both at long term and short-term solutions. In the long term, 
one of the largest variables over which we have any control is the 
health of our forests and their ability to collect, filter and convey 
water. In the short term, accessible and easily adaptable storage 
solutions mean that our communities, our agriculture and rivers can 
continue to thrive year to year.
I. Managing High-Elevation Forests to Support Healthy Watersheds
The Role of High-Elevation Forests as our Largest Reservoirs

    The role played by high-elevation forests in capturing, preserving, 
and filtering water is critical not only to the health and economies of 
the Western Slope, but to the entire Colorado River basin. Forests 
above 9,000 feet in elevation are the most productive when it comes to 
collecting snowfall during the winter and releasing it throughout the 
summer, and the vast majority of these super-collector regions are on 
federally owned land. As the snowpack in those high-elevation forests 
slowly melts, it is filtered through soils, recharging groundwater, 
filling reservoirs, and flowing downstream to thirsty farms, ranches, 
cities, and industrial users. Snow is the primary form of Colorado 
River water storage, and our forests are, by far, the largest natural 
reservoirs of the Colorado River Basin--the critical natural 
counterparts to the built reservoirs of Lakes Mead and Powell.

    Across the West, federally owned forested lands are the dominant 
water source, providing approximately 52% of the total water supply.\1\ 
In the state of Colorado, specifically, 80% of residents depend on a 
water source which comes from high-elevation forests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Liu, N., et al (2021). Forested lands dominate drinking water 
supply in the conterminous United States. Environmental Research 
Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac09b0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our forest lands also enhance the drought resilience of irrigated 
agriculture and water-related outdoor recreation. They help sustain 
river base flows in the summer when crops, boaters, and fish need 
water. Well-managed forests and their supporting natural water 
infrastructure provide numerous additional public benefits, including 
preventing soil erosion, improving water quality, lowering water 
treatment costs, capturing carbon, and benefiting wildlife habitat and 
fisheries.

    The economic impact of the clean, reliable water sources which 
depend on healthy forests cannot be overstated. According to a study in 
2020, Upper Basin of the Colorado River in the southwestern United 
States supports municipal, industrial, agricultural, and recreational 
activities worth an estimated $300 billion per year within the state of 
Colorado alone.\2\

    \2\ Hadjimichael, A., et al (2020). Defining Robustness, 
Vulnerabilities, and Consequential Scenarios for Diverse Stakeholder 
Interests in Institutionally Complex River Basins. Earth's Future. 
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001503.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wildfire Impacts on Watersheds

    Since 2000, the headwaters communities of the Colorado River have 
experienced back-to-back-to-back years of hot, windy springs and early 
summer heat, which have caused our snowpack to sublimate--or turn snow 
directly from its solid state to a gas--leading it to disappear into 
the atmosphere instead of melting and flowing into our rivers.

    The multidecadal drought in the Upper Colorado River Basin has also 
brought on a historic soil moisture deficit that severely impacts 
runoff from snowmelt. Year after year, unusually dry soils from warmer 
than normal temperatures and a lack of moisture are absorbing more of 
the water that melts from our snowpack in the Rocky Mountains. As 
temperatures rise, moisture evaporates from our plants and soils, 
creating a massive water debt which comes due when snows melt, 
consuming water before it reaches the rivers and streams creating both 
quality and quantity problems for many municipalities who rely on high 
mountain streams for their water.\3\

    \3\ Dale et al., 2001; Westerling et al., 2006; Millar and 
Stephenson, 2015; Abatzoglou and Williams, 2016; Westerling, 2016).

    Higher temperatures and dryer conditions in recent years have also 
led to catastrophic wildfires that have laid bare large swaths of our 
forested lands in the heart of our most important watersheds. Take 2020 
for example, when Colorado experienced the three largest wildfires in 
the state's recorded history--all in the same season. Recent studies 
project a 50 to 200 percent increase in annual area burned in Colorado 
by approximately 2050, compared to conditions of the late 20th century, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
based on projected warming of 2.5 to 5 degrees F.\4\

    \4\ Spracklen et al., 2009; Yue et al., 2013; Olivia L. Miller; et 
al, Journal of Hydrology, vol. 11, May, 2021.

    Certain severe fires can create water repellent or ``hydrophobic'' 
soils. After these fires, rain events can flush ash, sediment, and 
nutrients into waterways and impact essential water infrastructure and 
water quality. Without that natural filtration of a healthy forest, 
sediment flushes directly into the river, requiring expensive 
infrastructure upgrades to drinking water sources. Chemicals and 
nutrients which would otherwise not have made it into the water also 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
build up, leading to algae outbreaks and unhealthy water quality.

    Watersheds and water infrastructure on both sides of the 
Continental Divide have been seriously impacted by wildfire, resulting 
in hundreds of millions of dollars in restoration and mitigation 
expenses in the Centennial State alone. Nationwide, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that wildfires cost 
$16.5 billion in 2020 and $67.3 billion between 2016 and 2020.

    Suffice to say, negative impacts on both water quality and quantity 
are widespread in the aftermath of mega-fires in the headwaters and 
downstream users, in this case, the 40 million who live in the Colorado 
River Basin, ultimately pay the price.
Funding Forest Management
    Current efforts to manage Colorado's forests are not keeping pace 
with the realities of a changing climate and hydrology. In 2019, 
federal agencies (primarily the Forest Service and BLM) reported over 
100 million acres of federal land at high risk of wildfire.\5\ The 
Colorado Forest Action Plan recently identified 2.4 million acres of 
forested land in our state in urgent need of treatment to reduce 
wildfire risk and protect watersheds at an estimated cost of $4.2 
billion.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ (2019). WILDLAND FIRE Federal Agencies' Efforts to Reduce 
Wildland Fuels and Lower Risk to Communities and Ecosystems. https://
doi.org/GAO-20-52.
    \6\ Colorado State Forest Service, (2020). Colorado Forest Action 
Plan. https://doi.org/https://csfs.colostate.edu/wp_content/uploads/
2020/10/2020-ForestActionPlan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Colorado, just over 65% of all forest land is federally 
owned.\7\ In our district alone, 67% of the lands are owned by the 
federal government, making organizations such as the United States 
Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) critical 
players in the long-term health of our forests and the water resources 
that originate within them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ DiMaria, J., et al (2017). Forest Management to Protect 
Colorado's Water Resources. https://doi.org/https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/
pubs_journals/2017/rmrs_2017_venable_n001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Intentional, well-funded forest management strategies based in 
science are one of the most critical tools to protect Colorado's 
headwaters landscapes. We applaud the large-scale investments dedicated 
to forest health in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation 
Reduction Act. However, these investments are largely prioritizing 
forested lands within the wildland-urban interface. For example, 
although the USFS' 10-year strategy to address the wildfire crisis 
contains selection criteria such as critical watersheds, sources of 
drinking water, and habitats for native fish and wildlife, USFS 
priority landscapes in Colorado almost exclusively focus on forests 
located near Colorado's Front Range and urban core.\8\ Because the 
dollar value of man-made infrastructure is weighted so heavily in these 
decisions, the important head waters of the Colorado River, natural 
infrastructure and high-elevation forests are not receiving adequate 
funds to address the compounding threats they face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ (2023). Confronting the Wildfire Crisis: Expanding Efforts to 
Deliver on the Wildfire Crisis Strategy. https://doi.org/https://
www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs_media/fs_document/WCS-Second-
Landscapes.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While we appreciate the Forest Service's efforts to scale forest 
health treatments strategically, we also believe there is a moral and 
economic responsibility to take seriously the stewardship of our 
headwaters landscapes. Preliminary conversations have begun to allocate 
more funding with this in mind, but we cannot underscore the urgency of 
fully supporting these efforts expeditiously. Knowing what we do about 
predicted forest conditions over the next few decades, it is important 
to recognize that the immediate cost to man-made infrastructure may not 
be the greatest one. Timely intervention and accessible funding will be 
the difference between effective mitigation of health and economic 
impacts, versus a spiraling crisis which will threaten our nation's 
water and food security.
    Finally, we encourage our federal partners to engage with local 
stakeholders and allies to spend the initial investments provided 
through the BIL and IRA strategically and wisely, and to support 
consistent, large-scale investments in our nation's forests. In March, 
The Nature Conservancy, American Forests, and NWF proposed increasing 
funding by at least $1 billion annually for proactive, climate-informed 
forest restoration and management.\9\ The investment required to be 
able to adapt to our hotter, drier reality is considerable, but if we 
do not start soon, the cost will be that much greater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ T.N.C. (2020). Revitalizing America's National Forests Policy 
Recommendations for Restoring Forests to Deliver Natural Climate 
Solutions and Ecological Benefits. https://doi.org/https://
forestclimateworkinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Revitalizing-
Americas-National-Forests.Sep-2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Small-Bucket Storage as an Effective Drought-Mitigation Tool
High-elevation Storage and Coordinated Releases
    Western Slope water managers, including local, state, and federal 
stakeholders, are currently working with existing tools to mitigate the 
impacts of increased uncertainty in water supply and quality. No 
singular entity can make a measurable impact on a problem of this 
scale, however. Through strategic, cooperative efforts, stakeholders 
across the West Slope have been able to implement small-scale, 
effective measures to mitigate some of the immediate impacts of hotter 
summers and lower river levels.

    By applying best practices developed over decades and informed by 
science, we can utilize these small buckets--ranging from 10 thousand 
acre-feet to 100 thousand acre-feet in strategic high mountain 
locations--to time the releases of water to address a wide array of 
consumptive and non-consumptive needs along the river. For example, 
anytime we have reservoirs which are reasonably full or projected to 
fill, we coordinate storage releases into the Colorado River to create 
a peak in the hydrograph to benefit river health, endangered species, 
and downstream agricultural users. This practice allows for greater 
flexibility for management of limited water resources even in dry 
years. Two examples of reservoirs which the Colorado River District has 
utilized to achieve these benefits are included below:

        Elkhead Reservoir

        The Yampa River starts in the mountains above Steamboat Springs 
        and runs through the northwest corner of Colorado to its 
        confluence with the Green River in Dinosaur National Monument. 
        Elkhead Reservoir is a small, 25,500-acre-foot capacity 
        reservoir located on a tributary to the Yampa and partially 
        owned and operated by the Colorado River District.

        In the summer of 2021, low snowpack and an early, hot and dry 
        summer reduced the flow of the Yampa River to historic low 
        levels, and, for only the second time in history, a ``call'' 
        was put on the river. In this case, a call meant that the 
        Division Engineer, or local water administrator for the State 
        of Colorado, cut off the access to water for many junior local 
        agricultural producers just at the time these same families' 
        cattle herds were being forced off of federal high country 
        grazing allotments due lack of feed.

        In order to take the call off and protect our farmers and 
        ranchers, the Colorado River District coordinated a release of 
        677 acre-feet of water from Elkhead Reservoir. The releases 
        were timed not only to allow irrigators to have access to the 
        water during the hottest months of the year, but also to 
        alleviate the impacts of high water temperatures on local fish 
        populations.

        Ruedi Reservoir

        Ruedi Reservoir is a federally owned reservoir built on the 
        Fryingpan River, a tributary of the Roaring Fork River, and 
        when full, it holds approximately 102,000 acre-feet of water. 
        Ruedi is another example of small-bucket reservoirs providing 
        outsized benefits to sections of the Colorado River in support 
        of productive agriculture and endangered fish habitats.

        In 2018, an exceptionally dry, hot summer led to low streamflow 
        in the Roaring Fork River, a river with an exceptional trout 
        fishery that provides millions in economic inputs for local 
        communities. The resulting rise in water temperature threatened 
        native trout species and caused concern for irrigators 
        downstream.

        In response to this extremely difficult season, the Colorado 
        River District and Ute Water Conservancy District contributed a 
        combined total of 8,000 acre-feet of water from late July into 
        September. Those contributions were used to substitute water 
        that would have typically come from Green Mountain Reservoir's 
        ``Historic Users Pool'' to satisfy the Cameo Call. Five 
        municipalities from Aspen to Palisade also agreed to contribute 
        more than 1,500 acre-feet of unscheduled ``contract water'' 
        held in Ruedi for agricultural and environmental needs along 
        the lower Roaring Fork River and farther downstream on the 
        Colorado River.

        ExxonMobil followed suit in September by contributing 5,000 
        acre-feet of Ruedi releases to provide water for endangered 
        fish species in what is known as the 15-Mile Reach between 
        Palisade and the Colorado River's confluence with the Gunnison 
        River.

        These carefully timed releases, the product of local, federal, 
        and private entities' commitment to watershed health, were able 
        to provide flows that also supported local ranchers and farmers 
        for 110 miles of the river. By protecting the endangered fish 
        critical habitat flows of the 15-Mile Reach, the releases also 
        protected those same producers by maintaining long-term 
        compliance with the Endangered Species Act, allowing them to 
        continue irrigation operations without interruption.
Funding and Permitting Small-Bucket Storage
    On the Western Slope of the Rockies, we do not live below major 
reservoirs like Lakes Mead and Powell, which provide multi-year carry 
over storage for the Lower Basin states. As mentioned, the snowpack of 
high-elevation forests is our largest reservoir, providing only a 
single year or partial year supply; once the snow has melted or 
sublimated, our largest storage bucket is gone. Manmade storage is a 
foundational piece of the management strategies on which Western Slope 
water managers have relied on and benefits productive agriculture, 
municipal water systems, recreation, and programs like the Upper 
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. Many of our major 
streams do not even have small capacity reservoirs to assist with 
mitigating the impacts of hotter, drier years, and many of the small 
existing reservoirs were built over 100 years ago and need enlargement 
or significant rehabilitation.
    We encourage directing additional federal resources to bolster new 
and existing storage opportunities that collaboratively address 
multiple needs and are strategically positioned to minimize evaporative 
loss, while capturing critical runoff patterns. In addition to funding, 
regulatory approvals must be streamlined, and our federal programs need 
to work efficiently and effectively. For example, the Colorado River 
District views the Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Act (PL-
566 Program) as an important and impactful funding source to advance 
strategic storage opportunities and irrigation modernization projects 
across the West. However, current approval authorities largely rest 
within the national headquarters of the NRCS, far from local staff. The 
Colorado River District supports delegated authority to State 
Conservationists to streamline approval processes, while avoiding non-
linear, duplicative processes that result in long-term delays.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you very much. I thank all the witnesses 
for their testimony.
    I will now recognize Members for 5 minutes for questions, 
and we will begin with Congresswoman Radewagen for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Talofa. Thank you, Chairman Bentz and 
Ranking Member Huffman, for holding this hearing today. Thank 
you to the panel for their testimony.
    Although Western water tends to dominate the conversation, 
water management is something that is important to all 
communities, and I am sure that there will be takeaways from 
today's hearings which will be useful across the country.
    For example, in my home district of American Samoa, we 
suffer from outdated infrastructure and poorly-managed wells 
which contaminate our water table. We also deal with runoff, 
which damages our shoreline and our reefs. Many communities 
like ours need Federal support and guidance to protect both our 
water supply and the environment, not to mention the added 
complication of protecting the economy and reducing inefficient 
spending.
    My questions are all somewhat related, so I will read them 
all off and anyone on the panel who wishes can answer in any 
order.
    Floods and droughts are hard to predict, and this is not a 
problem that can be solved by one or two large projects. One of 
the through-lines of today's hearing is the conflict between a 
need for a wide variety of solutions versus the bureaucratic 
and regulatory process. Could any of you please speak a little 
more about this conflict?
    In your experience, what are some of the barriers that 
impede smaller, more local water management projects?
    And putting our eggs in multiple baskets is generally good 
practice, but doing something just for the sake of doing it 
leads to wasted effort. What type of data should we be 
collecting to make sure a water management solution is worth 
it?
    And how can we better recognize when a particular approach 
is not working to make changes and avoid the sunk cost fallacy?
    Mr. Mueller?
    Mr. Mueller. Congresswoman, if I may--or excuse me, Mr. 
Chairman, may I answer the Congresswoman's question?
    Mr. Bentz. You are recognized.
    Mr. Mueller. Thank you.
    Congresswoman, I would just speak to your first of the 
several questions, and that would be an example of an issue 
where the bureaucratic world runs headstrong into small storage 
projects or small water improvement projects. And the Watershed 
Protection and Flood Protection Act, otherwise known as PL 566 
Program, administered by the NRCS, is a really important and 
impactful funding source to advance strategic storage 
opportunities and irrigation modernization practices across the 
United States.
    Unfortunately, our experience with this program is that 
multiple levels of review built into the system within the NRCS 
often means that we deal with inconsistent and sometimes 
directly contradictory directions from different levels at the 
NRCS.
    A fairly easy solution to avoid this would be to de-
centralize the decision-making into the offices of the state 
conservationist in the NRCS, and avoid the, I think it is 
called a national business center, or there is a fancy name for 
it, the National Watershed Management Center. It is an 
autonomous office of the NRCS located in Arkansas. It is where 
many of our PL 566 projects in Colorado go to rot, because we 
can't get decisions out of that agency.
    And I think that that is true throughout the United States, 
and I imagine in your territory, as well. So, that would be 
helpful.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Would anybody else care to respond? I have 
about a minute left.
    Mr. Sewell?
    Mr. Sewell. Well, this is an area where we would actually 
have some agreement, in that I think, as long as we have--some 
deference to state and regional planning is very important, I 
think, in making some of these decisions. As long as that 
decision, if it is coming with Federal dollars, does not 
contradict the national plans that we have with this area, 
because these are, oftentimes, Federal dollars that go with 
this.
    But I think Ms. Hill has something to say, as well.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will now yield 
to Mr. LaMalfa.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Ms. Hill wanted to answer. Is that correct?
    Mr. Bentz. Ms. Hill, did you wish to answer?
    Ms. Hill. I did.
    Mr. Bentz. Oh, please go ahead.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Oh, excellent.
    Ms. Hill. I am sorry. I just wanted to speak on your 
comment regarding how do we know when something isn't working. 
In the Upper Klamath, we have not only over nearing now 25 
years of the application of biological opinions that have shown 
no recovery of species, as well as specific peer review from 
the National Academy of Science specifically saying that the 
hardy flows that are controlling the amount of water that has 
to go downriver in the winter time for main stem habitat, which 
was peer reviewed and said do not help Coho, that should be 
enough to tell us that we are doing something wrong, especially 
with now in the Upper Basin we have two of our greatest 
national wildlife refuges completely dry, and many homes that 
do not have drinking water because the base moisture of those 
ancient lakes is gone because that water is being rerouted 
downriver.
    So, I would say, in that case, it is telling you it is time 
to do something different. Thank you.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bentz. I thank you, and I recognize Congresswoman 
Porter for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
start off by thanking the Chair for raising an issue that many 
Californians and I back home face, which is storing more water.
    Recent droughts show that Western water users need to get 
creative and prioritize investments for water storage systems 
that can prove to be reliable amid a changing climate, whether 
it is atmospheric rivers or crippling droughts.
    I have concerns with what is being said about remediating 
water scarcity. While I agree that dams and reservoirs are 
important tools in water storage, they can't be our only 
option.
    Mr. Sewell, in your testimony you mentioned that creating 
and improving tools to better use Western water will be 
critical to both the region and the country's economic future. 
But you warn us about putting all of our eggs in one basket. 
Can you elaborate on why fixating on one solution to water 
management would be ineffective and fiscally irresponsible in 
addressing water storage needs?
    Mr. Sewell. Yes, I certainly appreciate the question. 
First, I want to say that we too do not oppose dams or 
reservoirs or expansion of existing reservoirs. But I think in 
any sort of infrastructure that we have experienced, as well as 
other safety net programs that we fund from the Federal 
taxpayers, is having diversity is generally a better risk 
management tool.
    It is one thing--acknowledging that this is such an 
abnormally wet year in the West, that those wet years are not 
going to be here every year. So, we are concerned that we want 
to use our limited Federal funds in the most efficient way to 
provide that water in the abnormally wet years and those 
abnormally dry years when they come. So, it is really about 
risk management.
    Ms. Porter. California has more than 1,400 dams in the 
state. Yet, this Committee is talking about the need to develop 
and authorize more surface water storage, despite there being 
limited to no sensible dam sites left.
    Mr. Sewell, would it be in taxpayers' best interests to 
continue to fund new dam projects in California?
    Mr. Sewell. If the numbers say yes, then yes. But I think 
it has shown that the easiest places economically, engineering-
wise, and politically to build dams are done. So, at this 
point, new dams tend to be very costly in dollars and in 
political issues.
    Ms. Porter. And does California's recent bout of 
atmospheric rivers change your answer with regard to the dams?
    Mr. Sewell. No, it would not.
    Ms. Porter. So, it is in the taxpayers' best interest to 
have a diverse strategy of water management.
    Mr. Sewell. Absolutely.
    Ms. Porter. Can you give us some other examples of diverse 
water management strategies where we might better invest 
taxpayer dollars and have better returns on our investment for 
water storage?
    Mr. Sewell. Certainly, and I think Mr. Bourdeau actually 
mentioned one that we have strongly supported in some of our 
other water issues--not in the West, but it would work in the 
West, as well--is that aquifer recharging via flooding, by 
controlled flooding at times in areas where you have excess 
water, and you can have that storage through the aquifer by 
doing some of that flood plain management, so I think that is a 
really important tool.
    But also, the other is in stormwater management in urban 
areas. I mean, certainly, there is some amount of water if it 
is stormwater management, as well as water recycling that is 
going to be there as a baseline in almost every year, even the 
drought years. So, they do take some cuts in the urban areas. 
You are just going to have some amount of water that is always 
available.
    So, I think having that water available, those tools in the 
dry years and the wet years, is a good way to have that 
redundancy or multiple options of capturing that water that is 
greatly needed.
    Ms. Porter. I really appreciate you pointing that out, 
because the Irvine Ranch Water District, a water management 
company in my district, has been a long-standing example of 
diverse strategies of water storage, and they have positioned 
themselves well to weather drought, as well as years of heavy 
rain because they have invested in expanded water recycling, 
better management of groundwater, establishing emergency water 
supplies, and, of course, enhancing water efficiency. And the 
result has been a 25 percent drop in residential per capita 
water use, while still maintaining a vibrant, beautiful, and 
economically strong, growing community.
    If taxpayers are going to spend billions on water 
infrastructure, I think it is our job to ensure that those 
projects provide long-term availability for the water resources 
that we already have.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Congressman 
LaMalfa for 5 minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Hill, you have a tough situation up there, where a 
project was created about 100 years ago. First of all, why was 
it built? Why was that project built augmenting Klamath Lake?
    Ms. Hill. The purpose of the Klamath Project was 
essentially, at the time, to feed the nation. It was considered 
one of the most economic projects possible because we had 
natural storage in three, four different lakes.
    And then, because of the topography of the land, it does 
not cost us to pump water, it basically flows downhill.
    And finally, again, we have some of the most amazing soils 
not just in the United States, but in the world.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, that project augmented the storage up 
there by around 400,000 acre-feet. When it is full, it is 
400,000 acre-feet of stored water is the term, right?
    Ms. Hill. Yes, our capacity is over half a million, but we 
have some deadpool that is associated that is always in the 
lake.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, OK. And since about 2001, that has all 
changed. This water had been used for agriculture, as well as 
benefiting the refuges for the ducks, the wildlife, et cetera, 
right?
    Ms. Hill. Yes, sir, that is correct.
    Mr. LaMalfa. What changed in 2001?
    Ms. Hill. We now have the application of the Endangered 
Species Act for both suckers that live in Upper Klamath Lake, 
as well as coho salmon that live in the Lower Klamath River.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, you have a lake that is now deeper because 
of the creation of the project. It has created more water. The 
water that was in that lake was created for agriculture, but 
the existing lake still has its water underneath that 
additional new water that is the project.
    So, basically, the Federal Government has been infringing 
upon the water storage that you have paid for as water users up 
there. You are paying for that. Of course, BOR can't account 
for the bills paid yet. They don't know how much is still owed. 
They have been infringing--at least since 2001 on your water 
right, correct?
    Ms. Hill. Yes, and then in addition to paying those costs, 
we also actually pay annual operation maintenance costs for all 
of the facilities in the project, regardless if those 
facilities are used to irrigate or if those facilities are used 
to flush water downriver.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, you are paying for the project if you get 
zero water, you are paying basically to administer fish water.
    Ms. Hill. That is correct.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Mr. Sewell, you are concerned about the 
price per water, I guess, per acre-foot. What should 
environmental water, how do you bill that? What should it be 
valued at, such as the water that is coming out of Klamath, or 
coming out of Lake Shasta, or whatever that is not used for 
agriculture because in Shasta, for example, it has to be held 
longer in the year, so the water is colder at the bottom of the 
lake.
    Mr. Sewell. Yes, Congressman. I would have to admit that I 
would have to defer to people who have better expertise in 
that.
    I do think that if and when the water is used for other 
purposes, then those beneficiaries should be paying the fair 
cost of that. But I would have to defer to folks who have 
better expertise on this specific issue.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, who needs to be targeted with paying a 
better cost or a fairer cost at this point, since you think 
there is a deficiency?
    Mr. Sewell. Well, it depends, I think, on which project, 
obviously. But in this particular instance I would have to look 
into it more myself. But I do think that this is an issue that 
needs to be addressed.
    But the ESA and the Clean Water Act, these long-established 
authorities are there for a reason, as well. So, I think as 
long as we get all the parties that are responsible at the 
table, we can come to a conclusion.
    Mr. LaMalfa. ESA came along long after these projects did, 
and they want to redo these water rights. So, when you are 
criticizing Lake Shasta, Lake Oroville, Folsom, these large 
projects, these were designed as 5-year reservoirs to hold 
water for 5 years of drought when they are full. So, the idea 
that they don't pay off, you get stored water for people and 
agriculture, and electricity, and fish. And you get flood 
control, which we could be using a lot more of right now. You 
get hydroelectric power, you get recreation, you get a lot of 
benefits.
    So, I don't think that there is enough being looked at as 
to what the true value of this stored water is when we say, oh, 
it is just going--basically, the bottom line, what isn't being 
said in the room is that agriculture is getting some water, too 
much water too cheap. That is the common refrain, even though 
50 percent of all California water or more is going out for 
environmental purposes, out to the ocean. Forty percent in a 
good year is agriculture, and about 10 percent is going to 
people's use.
    So, people are being asked to cut 2\1/2\ out of that 10 
percent to get down to 55 gallons per day, 2\1/2\ out of 100, 
when 50 percent is environmental. What is the value of water is 
the real question here. What is the cost of environmental 
water, when we are not even recovering species the way the 
concept is sold to us?
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Magaziner 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Chairman. I am new here, and 
people told me that Congress could be a crazy place. And I 
think we are seeing that on full display right now, because for 
years we have seen and heard Republican Members of Congress 
deny climate science, say that climate change isn't real. I 
believe members of this Committee have called climate change a 
hoax or a scam.
    And universally, the other side opposed the Inflation 
Reduction Act to help transition our country to clean, 
affordable energy, opposed the International Climate Accords to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country and in other 
countries. And now today, we are having a hearing because it is 
not snowing as much as it used to in the mountains out West, 
and areas out West are running out of water. Well, I wonder why 
that is happening. And the idea that we are continuing to have 
Members deny the science, while in some cases large areas of 
their own states are literally running out of water is insane.
    Climate change is contributing to water scarcity. And 
instead of taking this seriously, we are denying the science at 
every turn. And we know what is coming next. What is coming 
next is the request for taxpayer bailouts. And the working 
people in my district in Rhode Island are going to be asked to 
help pay to build the infrastructure to deal with these water 
shortages, because for too long, too many politicians have been 
in the pockets of the Big Oil and gas companies and denying the 
climate science.
    So, how are we going to pay for all of this? Well, I have 
an idea. Why don't we ask the oil and gas companies that made 
over $300 billion of profits last year to chip in to help solve 
the climate crisis that they have profited from? Three hundred 
billion dollars a year can build a lot of water tanks.
    Why don't we ask them to chip in, instead of funding junk 
science to deny climate change, funding the campaign accounts 
of politicians who stall on action to transition to renewables?
    Why don't we ask them to help chip in to clean up the mess 
that they are making?
    Mr. Mueller, you stated in your testimony that hot 
temperatures over the last 23 years have diminished the flows 
of the Colorado River by 20 percent. Do you agree that climate 
change is impacting the availability of water out West?
    Mr. Mueller. Yes.
    Mr. Magaziner. And do you also agree that if we don't do 
anything, if man-made climate change continues unabated, that 
the problem is likely to get worse?
    Mr. Mueller. Yes.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you.
    Mr. Sewell, in your testimony you talk about pricing water 
correctly, and I am hoping that you can help us understand, as 
a lay person, what that means. Does that mean that homeowners, 
mom and pop businesses on Main Street, would necessarily see 
their water bills go up if we had a fairer system for pricing 
water?
    Mr. Sewell. Thank you, Congressman. What we mostly mean by 
that is maintaining this beneficiary pays system. So, under 
reclamation law, certain beneficiaries are supposed to cover 
the cost of their access to water. That is primarily what we 
are talking about there.
    I don't necessarily think it means an across-the-board 
increase to other types of users.
    Mr. Magaziner. Yes, I think that is an important point, 
that we stick with this principle that the average person not 
see increases under a system for fear of pricing.
    And can you also talk a little bit more about what are some 
of the best practices out there, particularly in agriculture, 
for more modern and efficient methods of irrigation, of water-
efficient crops?
    Are there technologies that we, as a Federal Government, 
should be incentivizing to help promote conservation of water 
resources?
    Mr. Sewell. Yes, I certainly think there is an opportunity 
to incentivize better conservation practices. But part of it 
also is just giving operators, giving producers the opportunity 
to innovate and implement some of these practices.
    There is some technical assistance that can be provided, 
and it is going to have a significant debate in the farm bill 
about this issue. But I think part of it is we do need to get 
the regulatory environment correct, have the right assistance, 
but we also have to have the responsibility on all those who 
are affected by climate change to have it be part of the 
solution.
    Mr. Magaziner. All right. Well, I see I am out of time, so 
I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman 
Hageman for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
    Mr. Sewell, are you a hydrologist?
    Mr. Sewell. No, I am not.
    Ms. Hageman. Are you an irrigation engineer?
    Mr. Sewell. No, ma'am.
    Ms. Hageman. Do you manage irrigation projects or municipal 
water supplies?
    Mr. Sewell. No, ma'am.
    Ms. Hageman. Are you a farmer?
    Mr. Sewell. I am not.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. I am honored to have represented 
irrigation districts, municipalities, counties, farmers, 
ranchers throughout my legal career. And two of the first 
projects that I was able to work on were projects built under 
the 1902 Reclamation Act, the Buffalo Bill Reservoir up near 
Cody, Wyoming and Pathfinder Reservoir in central Wyoming. 
Buffalo Bill is 870,000 acre-feet and Pathfinder is 1.16 
million acre-feet of water.
    I also dealt a lot with Lake McConaughy in Nebraska, 
roughly 2 million acre-feet. And when I went back and looked at 
the history of these projects, one of the things that struck me 
is how the people at that time pretty much say exactly what you 
are saying today, which is that these projects aren't feasible, 
or that there isn't sufficient water, or that it doesn't make 
sense economically, or that these are not good projects.
    And then we look at what we have been able to create over 
the last 100, 130 years by building the Klamath Project, and 
the ones that I just described. And pretty much every single 
time they proved people like you absolutely wrong. And I think 
that that is what we will see if we invest in our 
infrastructure the way that our forefathers did.
    When I look at those magnificent projects that they built, 
and I look what they have created in terms of fisheries, and 
sufficient water for recreation and for irrigation and growing 
food, and the communities that they support, what you realize 
is that the folks who built those and had that vision--and they 
did have vision, it wasn't just a vision of scarcity and a 
vision of naysaying, they actually had a vision of what they 
could build and what they could create, and they did it--and 
they created those projects not just for themselves, but they 
created those projects for us to this day.
    I look at Ms. Hill and Mr. Bourdeau and Mr. Mueller, and I 
think about what you do in terms of trying to provide water, 
trying to grow food, trying to feed the people of this country, 
trying to make sure that there are sufficient water supplies 
for our citizens. And I commend you on the work that you do. I 
am glad that you are not naysayers. I am glad that you are not 
the kind of people who say, ``No, we can't build these 
projects, we can't operate these projects,'' because history 
has shown that we can.
    It is interesting that I have people tell me that in 
Wyoming we don't have places for reservoirs, we don't have 
areas where we can store additional water, where we could open 
up additional lands for irrigation, because I am here to tell 
you that we do. And there are many places in Wyoming where we 
could build such projects.
    One of the things that would be important in those areas is 
that that is also where we can create fisheries where there are 
none now. And the reason that there aren't any now is because 
in Wyoming, like so much of the Western United States, without 
irrigation, without reservoirs we don't have fisheries because 
many of our streams go dry by July of every year. And maybe, 
Mr. Sewell, you weren't aware of that, but in Wyoming, 
Colorado, Montana, many of our streams don't have live water 
because we are snowpack states. And once that snowpack is gone, 
that is kind of the end of our irrigation season or our ability 
to have water.
    Mr. Bourdeau, I want to thank you for being here and for 
your service to our country. And I wanted to highlight 
something you pointed out in your testimony, and that is after 
mentioning the obvious need to increase the amount of water 
stored through surface infrastructure and groundwater storage 
projects, you warned that if we do not do this, we will 
continue the pendulum of extremes of abundance and scarcity. 
And I think that that is one of the things that strikes me and 
that Mr. Duarte has said repeatedly to me, is that there isn't 
morality in scarcity, yet that seems to be what the other side 
continues to push.
    According to the Pacific Institute, California's urban 
areas are letting between 700 and 70,000 and 3.9 million acre-
feet of water wash out to sea, depending on how dry or wet the 
year is. Mr. Bourdeau, while there are many things we can do to 
improve the water situation, can you speak to what a year like 
this could have looked like if surface infrastructure 
reclamation projects were a priority to the state of California 
and the current Administration?
    Mr. Bourdeau. Well, I am in a region that is capable of 
growing food in abundance, and we do it to the highest and most 
stringent environmental standards in the world. We can provide 
food to our nation. And if we have water, we cannot only help 
our food security, but we can create jobs and opportunities, 
and allow people to live the American dream.
    So, yes, I do think water is still a necessity, and we 
should invest in our future.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I recognize Ranking Member Huffman 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Well, Mr. Sewell, apparently your testimony that we should 
continue the 120-year policy of beneficiary pays and look at 
things like cost effectiveness when we consider Federal 
investments in water infrastructure has touched a nerve. But I 
found it pretty sensible. Rest assured, though, a couple of 
months down the road, when we get to the debt ceiling, you will 
hear a lot of rhetoric about fiscal conservatism and fiscal 
restraint. You have to brace yourself for political whiplash 
around here.
    But I want to follow up on this thread of cost 
effectiveness, because we have a raging debate apparently in 
this Committee about what is preventing us from building new 
dams. In your analysis and your assessment, what is stopping us 
from building new dams? Is it environmental laws?
    Mr. Sewell. It appears to be mostly cost. I think, again, 
most of the easiest places, the least costly places to 
construct these dams, they have happened. So, now the projects 
we are left with tend to have high price tags, and those high 
price tags, because these projects are primarily not for fish 
and wildlife, they have to be paid for by those beneficiaries.
    Mr. Huffman. Why is the beneficiary pays principle 
something we have honored for the last 120 years? Why is that 
important?
    Mr. Sewell. Having user pay principle in any 
infrastructure--and honestly, in almost any program--is 
important because it helps stretch taxpayer dollars farther, it 
helps to get more projects. And we have seen this in other 
infrastructure as well, that when users have to put in their 
own money, projects become better. Sometimes they become 
smaller, but often they become more efficient.
    So, the thing is, when you are gambling--I shouldn't say 
gambling--when you are using house money, you are going to 
think differently. That is just a common consumer, common 
infrastructure. We see it with states, we see it everywhere.
    Mr. Huffman. You also talk about the importance of pricing 
water closer to actual market value of that water. We don't 
always do that in the western United States, do we?
    Mr. Sewell. No. Not having an accurate price for the true 
cost of water or other resources is a common problem in Federal 
policy.
    Mr. Huffman. Are you aware of some of the biggest Federal 
water contracts we have in California with the Sacramento 
settlement contractors and the San Joaquin River exchange 
contractors: 2.1 million acre-feet for the Sacramento 
settlement contractors; 600,000 acre-feet for San Joaquin 
exchange contractors? Those are bigger amounts of water than 
the city of Los Angeles uses every single year.
    And under those Federal water contracts, 100 percent of 
that water is delivered for free. What are the policy 
implications of that, and do you think it is fair?
    Mr. Sewell. Thank you, Congressman. As you know better than 
I do, and many members on this panel do as well, there is a 
clash between state water rights and laws that predated the 
Bureau of Rec and Federal projects delivering water to other 
newer beneficiaries. So, I would defer to people who have 
better expertise on this.
    However, it just seems common sense that we need to set 
rates so that users are held responsible for repaying those 
true costs of capturing and delivering their water. And I am 
sure this will cause a little bit of a stir, but those 
agreements from the past, they have to be reevaluated from time 
to time. I mean, just the fiscal situation we are in requires 
that. And just like we are already thinking about the Colorado 
River Compact, and making sure it applies to the actual amount 
of water that we think, that we know we are going to get, we 
have to do the same thing.
    Mr. Huffman. And to its credit, the Bureau of Reclamation, 
for the first time, is re-negotiating the San Joaquin River 
exchange contract. They need to look at the free delivery of 
that water, which just is untenable in this day and age, given 
how much taxpayers are kicking in to public infrastructure, how 
much other water users around the state are paying for that 
water.
    But I want to move on to Mr. Bourdeau, because I 
appreciated your testimony, sir. You talked about the 
importance of investing in a range of water infrastructure 
projects, not just surface storage, but also projects to better 
recharge the even greater amount of water we can capture in 
groundwater. But we are going to need facilities to do that.
    I think you alluded to the importance of maintaining 
existing infrastructure too, like the Friant-Kern Canal, which 
needed some public investments to address the sag and loss of 
capacity. Last Congress, we allocated $8.3 billion, the biggest 
investment in Western water infrastructure in history, for 
exactly those kind of projects. Is that going to be helpful in 
trying to achieve water resilience in California?
    Mr. Bourdeau. I do think so. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Huffman. OK, thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Boebert for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Mueller, I am very pleased that you traveled to 
Washington, DC to be here with us and testify. And I thank you 
so much for your expertise on this issue, as well as many 
others in the Western United States, particularly in Western 
Colorado.
    Your testimony warns that we should be valuing our 
headwaters as much as our wildland-urban interface. Can you 
share with the Committee what is at stake?
    Should the Federal Government continue to ignore managing 
the forests in our headwaters?
    Mr. Mueller. Certainly, Congresswoman. Eighty percent of 
our state's residents depend on water that originates in our 
national forests. And the difference between timely 
intervention and proper management techniques in our forests in 
Colorado and throughout the West and effective mitigation of 
these issues will mean the difference between having a reliable 
source of drinking water for all of our residents. It will mean 
being able to provide food from local sources and regional 
sources to the tables of our residents in the Western United 
States and throughout the country from our ranches and farms.
    It is truly a crisis that is one of those slow moving 
crises headed toward us all. You can see it coming, and I would 
say that we are failing to do what we need to do.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. And Mr. Mueller, as you discuss in 
your testimony, wildfires have lasting impacts not just on our 
forests, but for our ability to utilize our forests as our 
largest reservoirs. In Colorado, this is extremely important, 
as 80 percent of our residents rely on these forests, the 
majority of which are federally owned, for their municipal 
supplies and as a critical source of water.
    What are the impacts to the Colorado River, which is 
already in a 23-year drought, if the Federal Government 
continues to fail to manage our forests?
    Mr. Mueller. Well, I think it is really important to 
emphasize that our forest is our single largest reservoir in 
the state of Colorado and, in fact, in the entire Colorado 
River Basin. A poorly managed forest, a forest that suffers 
from beetle kill and overgrowth due to literally a century of 
fire suppression, is a forest which cannot continue to produce 
water in a reliable fashion.
    The natural infrastructure within that forest is incredibly 
important to all 40 million people who depend upon the Colorado 
River for drinking water and all 5 million acres of irrigation.
    Mrs. Boebert. We heard colleagues from the other side of 
the aisle criticizing our desire for infrastructure for more 
water storage projects. I think when the Federal Government 
allocates infrastructure dollars, it should go toward 
infrastructure. Last year, we passed an infrastructure bill, 
$1.2 trillion. Less than 9 percent of it actually went toward 
anything infrastructure-related. And I didn't hear any of my 
colleagues on the other side saying, ``How are we going to pay 
for this? Who is this coming from? Where is this money going to 
come from to be able to afford this?'' So, I am in favor of 
more water storage projects and the Federal Government being 
responsible.
    I don't think that any of us are climate change deniers. I 
fully agree that the climate is changing. It happens four times 
every year, Colorado sometimes four times in one day. So, we 
just want to be good stewards of our land. We want to manage, 
we want to conserve, and certainly conserve our water.
    So, can you discuss the importance of developing small-
scale storage in Colorado?
    Mr. Mueller. Certainly. I think the small-scale storage, it 
is an interesting situation. I understand other parts of our 
country in the West are looking for larger storage vessels. In 
our headwaters in Colorado, we have streams that have been 
flowing year-round that, due to the rising temperatures and 
hotter, drier summers, reduced snowpack, we have seen those 
rivers going dry. Very important commercial, recreational 
fisheries, very important supplies for agriculture and for our 
cities.
    Small-scale storage allows us to modify the way we have 
been handling the supply of water. And I can tell you, our 
existing small-scale storage, interestingly enough, was 
designed and built for consumptive users, and we have actually 
modified the way we utilize that storage so that we can help 
mitigate the impacts of these rising temperatures.
    Mrs. Boebert. And quickly, what about large-scale storage, 
some of the biggest hurdles, and specifically, as an example, 
the Wolf Creek Reservoir, which is in Colorado's 3rd District.
    Mr. Mueller. Sure. I think that we touched on this a little 
bit--the regulations under NEPA for a small project like Wolf 
Creek or others that we are proponents of in Western Colorado, 
our local communities find the burdensome regulations of NEPA 
that are oftentimes duplicative and extremely long. I mean, it 
can take 10 years to go through that process for a small 
district, really difficult for us to quickly adapt to this 
changing climate.
    So, if we can modify those processes to allow us to 
actually develop these storage buckets faster, it would help us 
tremendously.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Mueller.
    And this political science denier yields.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Duarte for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Duarte. Hello, and hey, William. Good to see you, a man 
from my district.
    Mr. Bourdeau. Good to see you.
    Mr. Duarte. I know you are a local leader in many things, 
water and agriculture down there in the San Joaquin Valley, and 
it is great to have you here today. Any good ideas for 
additional water capacity in California that you believe are 
viable?
    Mr. Bourdeau. Well, I was thinking about that while people 
were testifying, and I do believe there are locations that are 
well suited for large-scale storage projects.
    But what I thought is there are also existing dams or 
reservoirs that, because they are aging infrastructure, that 
they need to be reinforced and retrofitted to make sure they 
are safe, because we would hate to have a dam blow out and all 
the catastrophic actions that would occur as a result.
    So, it may be cost effective to raise those dams as they 
are reinforcing them, and make them safe for society.
    Mr. Duarte. Which ones? Have you looked at numbers and 
specifics on that? Shasta? San Luis, and going, going, going. I 
know we talk about Don Pedro.
    Mr. Bourdeau. Yes, there are many dams that I think could 
use some--not only making sure it is safe, but you could raise 
it so you can increase the water supply.
    Mr. Duarte. Along Highway 5, the California Water Project 
engineers spotted dozens of dam sites. And the Del Puerto Water 
District is building one right off Highway 5 to the west I 
looked at in a visit to the district the other day that can 
hold up to 80,000 acre-feet of water. It is very economic.
    Have you studied the alternative sites of smaller-scale 
reservoirs?
    Mr. Bourdeau. I think we look at all sites. We don't 
discount any location or any place, because we need a reliable 
water supply. So, we wouldn't turn a blind eye to anything that 
was viable.
    Mr. Duarte. Another question: dredging. We are flooding 
right now. You are flooding. I am flooding. The whole district 
is flooding because of an inundation of rains. I believe we 
need to get more serious about dredging. A lot of the dams that 
we have are under-utilized for agriculture and other uses--
environment, human, urban--because we keep a certain amount of 
head space in them for flood water prevention every year.
    If you have bigger spill capacity, you can keep less flood 
water head space in the dams, and actually net more human use 
or environmental use water carried over from winter through 
summer.
    Have you seen any dredging in the Valley in the last 20, 30 
years since our 1982/83 rains?
    Mr. Bourdeau. I haven't personally seen any dredging in the 
Valley.
    Mr. Duarte. You live there?
    Mr. Bourdeau. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Duarte. You get around a bit?
    Mr. Bourdeau. I do.
    Mr. Duarte. I see you around a bit.
    Mr. Bourdeau. I absolutely do.
    Mr. Duarte. So, if there was significant dredging of 
anything happening, we would know it.
    Mr. Bourdeau. We would.
    Mr. Duarte. Yes. We are not dredging our rivers. We are 
losing our flood control capacity every year with siltation. 
And some of the easiest water we have at hand is simply to 
increase the flow rates of our rivers and drainages to be able 
to spill it when we have too much, and hold more until we reach 
that point.
    Mr. Bourdeau. Well, the Water Authority is part of a 
working group which includes the Department of Water Resources, 
the Bureau of Reclamation, and other stakeholders that is 
working on this very issue.
    Delta channels suffer from diminished capacity due to 
siltation. The program would improve drinking water quality, 
water supply operations, and habitat for fish and wildlife by 
removing excess sedimentation.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you, that is a helpful answer. So, we 
wash a lot of water out of the Delta each year, and we are 
trying to save the smelt and save the salmon. Are we helping 
the smelt? Are we helping the salmon? How are the numbers 
going?
    Mr. Bourdeau. That breaks my heart, that we are putting so 
much resources to something and not achieving success. I think 
we are better than that. I think we can find ways to help the 
environment, but also free up water for human progress.
    Mr. Duarte. I know you follow many issues in your area. How 
is the man-made dust bowl in your region of the Valley 
affecting the population?
    Mr. Bourdeau. It is heartbreaking to see the most 
productive farmland in the world fallow, and it does create 
respiratory issues and increases the opportunity for the spore 
that causes Valley fever. So, there are some serious issues 
that should be considered.
    Mr. Duarte. Yes. So, there are more dams we can build. We 
can get better yield off the dams we have by focusing on a 
multi-faceted endangered species approach, versus just washing 
water out through the delta each year. How much water do we 
wash out in a typical year, William?
    Mr. Bourdeau. Oh, tens of millions of acre-feet.
    Mr. Duarte. Yes, I know you have communicated on that a 
number of times.
    Are you a state water contractor?
    Mr. Bourdeau. Personally, no. But I know several people 
that are.
    Mr. Duarte. My understanding is state water contractors 
talk about user pays. How about payers get to use?
    State water contracts have been paying their $250 an acre-
foot for the last half decade now, and I think their deliveries 
have been 5 to 10 percent in some years.
    Mr. Bourdeau. Yes, very difficult to manage through that.
    Mr. Duarte. They are paying for 90 percent of their water 
at a rate of about $250 an acre-foot, and actually getting 5, 
10 percent of what they are paying for. But we are worried 
about user pays. Can we, again, worry a little bit more about 
those who pay get to use the water?
    So, these are things we are dealing with. Thank you, 
Chairman. I will yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Congressman 
McClintock for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, I know none of you deal directly with 
the Shasta Dam, but that is the biggest in the Sacramento 
system. As you may know, it was designed to be 800 feet. When 
it was built in 1944, it was built to only 600 feet. They 
didn't need the extra water at the time. They simply assumed 
that the generations that followed would have the common sense 
to complete the dam.
    By adding that extra 200 feet of elevation, it would mean 
an additional 9 million acre-feet of water storage, nearly 
tripling the capacity of the dam, nearly doubling storage in 
the entire Sacramento system. The current proposal, though, is 
to increase it by 18.5 feet. That is still something, that is 
still about 600,000 acre-feet of additional water storage.
    Here is the plan on enlarging Shasta Lake. It is dated 
November 1978. Mr. Bourdeau, you are shaking your head. Why has 
it taken 45 years, and still we haven't managed to raise it by 
that simple amount?
    Mr. Bourdeau. I wish I knew the exact answer to that, but I 
believe it is because we have been over-studying it. And by the 
time we are done with the study, it is outdated and we have to 
study it again.
    And I think there are many projects that we should be 
actually getting some results. I do think the studies have been 
done, and we need to move forward.
    Mr. McClintock. There is a little town called Forest Hill 
in Placer County. They get their water from the Sugar Pine 
Reservoir. It was built years ago with spillway, but no 
spillway gate. They didn't need the extra capacity at the time. 
They do now. So, they proposed adding a spillway gate to add 
additional storage to that lake: $2 million for the gate.
    But then they discover that they have to budget at least $1 
million on top of that for environmental studies, another $2 
million on top of that for environmental mitigation. And then 
the Forest Service wanted to charge them $6 million as the cost 
of relocating several campsites and a trail that went around 
the lake. So, that $2 million project that was a heavy lift for 
a little community--within reach--that became an $11 million 
boondoggle.
    Does it surprise you that 10 years later that project has 
not been completed?
    Mr. Bourdeau. It doesn't surprise me at all.
    Mr. McClintock. Now, again, what would you speculate would 
be the reason for this?
    Mr. Bourdeau. The costs.
    Mr. McClintock. And costs driven by construction, or costs 
driven by idiotic regulations and slothful bureaucracies?
    Mr. Bourdeau. Regulation and bureaucracy.
    Mr. McClintock. And what is it that can be done about that?
    Mr. Bourdeau. Well, the gentlemen in this room and ladies 
can find a way to streamline that process and make it so we are 
not negatively impacting the environment, but we are not making 
things cost prohibitive so we can't compete with our neighbors 
around the world producing food for our country.
    Mr. McClintock. Ms. Hill, two reapportionments ago, I 
represented the California part of the Klamath River. And when 
I arrived there, I am told of this terrible salmon crisis: a 
population had collapsed, and we had to tear down four 
perfectly good hydroelectric dams as a result. And my response 
to that was, well, why doesn't somebody build a fish hatchery?
    It turns out, of course, somebody did years ago. It is the 
Iron Gate Fish Hatchery, it is attached to the Iron Gate Dam. 
It produces 5 million salmon smolts a year; 17,000 return 
annually as fully grown adults to spawn in the Klamath. But 
they don't let us include them in the population counts.
    To add insult to insanity, when they tear down the Iron 
Gate Dam, the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery goes with it. And then 
you do have a catastrophic collapse of the salmon population. 
Do I have those facts straight?
    Ms. Hill. I am sorry, I can't say specifically, but yes, in 
general.
    Mr. McClintock. All right. Well, Mr. Bourdeau, I have 
legislation that was actually passed the last time the 
Republicans had a House majority--I am trying to get a hearing 
now in this Committee, and I hope to have it marked up soon--
that would change the permitting structure so that these 
environmental studies would run concurrently, not 
consecutively.
    When applications are filed for new dam construction, the 
Bureau of Reclamation would be made the lead agency, and would 
have a limited time to complete the studies and make a 
decision. Would that help our ability to restore water storage 
to the Western United States?
    Mr. Bourdeau. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McClintock. Anyway, thanks very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 
minutes.
    One of the great things about waiting until the end to have 
the last word is that there will be very few people listening 
to the last word.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Bentz. But I am so happy to have the witnesses here 
today that have testified, and a couple of remarks in response 
to some of the things we have heard.
    You will note that the title of our hearing today says 
nothing about surface storage. In my opening statement, I 
referred to aquifer storage, of course, managing our forests 
better, and then raising height of dams because, of course, we 
are all cognizant of cost and, indeed, most of the good places 
for surface storage have been taken.
    There is another thing that needs to be mentioned, and that 
is that folks who think and want to blame our current 
circumstance on climate change always carry with it the fact 
that if suddenly we stopped creating CO2 in the USA, 
the situation would be better. And it wouldn't be. Our current 
circumstance is baked in, and it is going to stay this way or 
get worse for the next 30 to 40 years, despite our best 
efforts. So, that means this conversation today is 
extraordinarily important, because we are going to be dealing 
with it for a long time. And all the blame and caustic remarks, 
I think, are really not that productive.
    One of the things that I did hear, hopefully, a common goal 
is storage in aquifers. And to that end, anticipating this, I 
reached out to Dr. Helen Dahlke, professor of Integrated 
Hydrologic Sciences at UC Davis, and spoke with her at length 
along with staff yesterday. And she had mentioned the new way 
of identifying the best places in the Central Valley to place 
water so that it promptly begins to proceed downward into the 
Earth toward the 140 million acre-feet of space that is 
available for aquifer storage.
    But those new scientific methods of identifying the 
location of the site, the best thing is that I think the folks 
at this dais right now have a common goal of trying to take 
advantage of that. And I would say that the most important 
thing that is going to come out of this hearing today is that 
the Ranking Member and I will be working together to try to 
figure out how to advance our efforts in that space.
    Likewise, the forest being the biggest storage device, of 
course they are. And the Ranking Member and I were also 
commenting that that is a place of common interest. Raising 
dams, that is a place perhaps of common interest, perhaps not, 
but it makes a lot of sense.
    One other thing. There has been much talk about pricing 
water. Let me say that the highest cost water I have heard of 
is $3,800 an acre-foot out of the desal plant in Southern 
California. I am all in favor of desal. But at $3,800 an acre-
foot, the normal cost is around $2,000. If we put that number 
on the amount of water that is available but being lost to the 
sea, it is in the billions. It is truly in the billions.
    So, why we are allowing those billion-dollar bills to float 
down our rivers into the sea is unclear to me, particularly in 
California, when it has to justify its use of the Colorado 
while allowing this kind of unfortunate event to occur.
    I have way more questions than we have time for, but I 
wanted to make these points before we closed out tonight.
    And once again, I want to thank all of the witnesses for 
their help, and I look forward to working with you in the 
future.
    With that, can I say we are adjourned, or do we have 
something else?
    Hold on a second. The closing script.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Bentz. I thank the witnesses again for their valuable 
testimony, and the Members for their questions.
    The members of the Committee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 
p.m. on Friday, March 31. The hearing record will be held open 
for 10 business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]