[Senate Hearing 111-592]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-592
SECURE WATER ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
SECURE WATER ACT, TITLE 9501 OF P.L. 111-11, AND THE BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION'S WATERSMART PROGRAM, WHICH INCLUDES THE WATERSMART GRANT
PROGRAM, THE BASIN STUDY PROGRAM, AND THE TITLE XVI PROGRAM
__________
MARCH 16, 2010
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-190 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN McCAIN, ARIZONA
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 2
Connor, Michael L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 4
Entsminger, John, Representing the Colorado River Basin States... 30
Kassen, Melinda, J.D., Director, Western Water Project, Trout
Unlimited...................................................... 12
Keppen, Dan, Executive Director, Family Farm Alliance............ 17
Pack, Anthony J., General Manager, Eastern Municipal Water
District....................................................... 33
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator From Michigan................ 1
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 2
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 47
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 53
SECURE WATER ACT
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie
Stabenow presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM
MICHIGAN
Senator Stabenow. Good morning. We are very pleased to have
all of you with us, and we thank our distinguished panel this
morning.
Today's hearing is an oversight hearing to receive
testimony on the Bureau of Reclamation's implementation of the
SECURE Water Act and the Bureau of Reclamation's water
conservation initiative known as the WaterSMART program.
Senator Risch is our ranking member today and will be
joining us shortly, and I will turn it over to him for comments
and in a moment to our chairman, distinguished chairman whose
leadership has brought us the SECURE Water Act. We are very
pleased to have Senator Wyden with us this morning as well.
We all know that water is a precious resource for all of
us, and the legislation, the SECURE Water Act, authored by our
chairman, Senator Bingaman, is a very important piece of
legislation to protect that resource.
This law, enacted last year, expands the tools available to
increase water use efficiency, acquire additional water use
data, improve water management, and enhance our understanding
of climate change impacts on water availability and energy
production in the United States.
Simulations suggest that water supplies could be
significantly affected by climate change over the course of the
coming decade. So it is important to try to address these
issues right now. The Department of Interior's WaterSMART
initiative is designed to tackle the challenges of water issues
today.
We have a great group of witnesses. We appreciate your
being here. Before turning it over to our witnesses, let me
call on our chairman, Senator Bingaman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Risch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James E. Risch, U.S. Senator From Idaho
Senator Stabenow, it's a pleasure to be here today, and I thank you
for chairing this important hearing.
I am pleased to join you in welcoming the witnesses and members of
the public. I know Chairman Bingaman has a lot of interest in this
hearing, in particular as it relates to the implementation of the
Secure Water Act.
This oversight hearing provides us an opportunity to examine what
the US Bureau of Reclamation is currently undertaking to ensure we have
access to a reliable, safe and secure water supply, while maintaining
and preserving the natural habitats of some of our nation's most
valuable wildlife.
However, as we address the role of Reclamation in providing a
reliable water supply, we need to ensure the government and its
agencies recognize water resources are the responsibility of the
individual state and the citizens and groups within that state.
Allocation decisions and recommendations on all water resources
projects and their management should be a state decision. Each federal
agency, including the Bureau of Reclamation, must recognize and work
within the state's own water resources planning structure.
In Idaho, our lakes, rivers and streams are a critical natural
resource for all of our state. How Idaho rivers build into the greater
Columbia Basin impacts the entire northwest region. This relationship
provides great opportunities and challenges that need better
understanding.
Once again, I thank the witnesses for coming today. And thank you,
Senator Stabenow, for conducting this hearing. I look forward to
today's testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Stabenow. Thanks
for holding this hearing and chairing it.
This is an important issue, and it is great to have Mike
Connor back here. He worked hard on this, of course, and is the
reason that we were able to get this legislation put together.
Now, of course, the Bureau of Reclamation, with him as the head
of that bureau, has the job of trying to implement this
legislation.
So I do think it is an extremely timely subject and one
that is very important for my State of New Mexico and for the
entire West and the entire country. So I look forward to
hearing all the witnesses and learning what we can about how we
are doing with the vision that we had in enacting the
legislation.
Thank you very much.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much, Chairman Bingaman.
Senator Wyden, if you wanted to make a comment, we would
welcome it.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I
appreciate the courtesy of being able to come.
Water is of enormous importance to our area, as Dan Keppen,
who I will introduce in just a moment, knows. I think it is
fair to say that at home in Oregon, we probably wish that some
of the snow that fell in Washington, DC, in February had
somehow migrated to our part of the world.
I think you are going to enjoy, Madam Chair, Dan Keppen, an
Oregonian. He is representing today the Family Farm Alliance.
There is probably nobody in the solar system who knows more
about water and agriculture issues in our State than Dan.
Senator Merkley and I are working together to get
assistance for the farmers in the hard-hit Klamath area from
the Federal agencies. It brings home the stark fact that every
gallon of water is a precious thing.
Just very briefly, Madam Chair, in our part of the world,
disputes in the West about taking water from a river used to be
resolved with a gun. Now they tend to be resolved with steel
pipe and water conservation projects, and that is why, as you
noted, the WaterSMART program is such an extraordinary
breakthrough in terms of water management.
In our part of the country, with the help of the bureau,
the Central Oregon Irrigation District's Juniper Ridge Project
in the Deschutes Basin is going to replace 2.5 miles of
irrigation canal with steel pipe and return an additional 12.7
million gallons of water in the river during the 6-month
irrigation season.
Water conservation efforts in Oregon, though, don't just
begin or end with modernizing irrigation canals. The city of
Hermiston, where I just had a town meeting, has proposed a new
water treatment plant that is going to deliver enough
additional water to the local irrigation district to irrigate
600 acres of high-value crops.
So what we are going to hear from our witnesses today is
new approaches to sustaining the farm economy in the rural
West, not just in Hermiston, but in a variety of western areas
that certainly face an uncertain future because of dwindling
water supplies.
The House has already passed legislation to authorize that
Hermiston project, and I look forward to the committee taking
action on companion legislation I have introduced, S. 1573, to
do the same.
One final point, it is very good that we have Mike Connor
at his post, working on these issues. In my view, the
administration has made an excellent choice. Mike knows that
all of us on the committee are ready to work with him to truly
make water conservation one of the tools that our States can
use to make our rural communities economically viable while we
preserve our natural treasures.
So, Madam Chair, you are kind to let me, in effect, barge
in and make this statement. You have got a great panel of
witnesses, and I look forward to working with you and them and
particularly appreciate Dan being back here. He is somebody who
has consistently given me good counsel on water and ag issues
over the years, and we appreciate him being included.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much for your leadership
as well.
Mr. Keppen, you have a high threshold now. The solar
system, I think, is what Senator Wyden said.
[Laughter.]
Senator Stabenow. So that is a pretty high bar.
First, we are going to hear from Mike Connor, the
Commissioner of Reclamation. Next, we will hear from several
witnesses who represent water users and important interest
groups that have a stake in dealing with water supply issues.
Ms. Melinda Kassen, the managing director of Western Water
Project of Trout Unlimited in Boulder, Colorado. Welcome.
Mr. Dan Keppen, who is in the solar system an executive
director of the Family Farm Alliance, Klamath Falls, Oregon.
Mr. John Entsminger, deputy general counsel to the Southern
Nevada Water Authority, representing the Colorado River Basin
States in Las Vegas, Nevada. Welcome as well.
Mr. Tony Pack, general manager of the Eastern Municipal
Water District in Perris, California.
So, we welcome all of you, and we will turn it now to Mr.
Connor. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Connor. Thank you very much.
Madam Chairwoman, members of the subcommittee, Chairman
Bingaman, Senator Wyden, I appreciate the opportunity to be
here. I am Mike Connor, the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation.
As a threshold matter, I would just like to say I
appreciate the high expectations, and I have a new appreciation
for the implementation side of things, as opposed to the idea
creation on the legislative side of things.
But I am pleased to be here to discuss Reclamation's
implementation of the SECURE Water Act and its relation to the
department's WaterSMART program, an initiative that was
announced just a few weeks ago. My written statement has been
submitted for the record, and I will summarize it briefly.
The WaterSMART program stands for Sustain and Manage
America's Resources for Tomorrow. We believe it will assist
local communities in stretching limited water supplies and help
alleviate conflicts over water. The initiative is highlighted
in the fiscal year 2011 budget request.
The American West is now the fastest-growing region of the
country and faces serious water challenges. Extended droughts
are impacting water availability, and climate change is likely
to compound the situation. At the same time, there is an ever-
increasing competition for limited water resources.
Environmental needs are much more apparent, population is
growing, energy needs are on the increase, and regions of the
West that have been relying on groundwater are seeing aquifer
levels decline significantly.
With respect to climate change, the most immediate impact
will be on the hydrologic cycle. In the western United States,
rising temperatures are increasing evaporation and perhaps the
severity of recent droughts. A greater portion of winter
precipitation is falling in the mountains as rain rather than
snow, reducing the winter snowpack. Winter low temperatures are
rising, and the snowpack is melting earlier.
Collectively, these trends for precipitation and
temperature are producing earlier runoff, making it harder to
use the winter precipitation later in the summer. These changes
require new approaches to water management.
The SECURE Water Act was developed with these water related
challenges in mind. Fundamentally, it provides authority to
ensure that Federal water and science agencies work together
with the States and local water managers to plan for climate
change and other threats to water supplies. Ultimately,
Reclamation's goal in implementing the SECURE Water Act and the
WaterSMART initiative is to promote certainty and
sustainability in the use of limited water resources, whether
it be for agricultural, municipal, industrial, environmental,
or power generation purposes.
Science is fundamental to effective water management, and
Reclamation will be expanding its research into the effects of
climate change on the water cycle. Some highlights of the
research program include, one, creation of downscaled climate
projection archives. This is an archive of global climate model
projections downscaled to scales that are useful for water
management.
Two, evaluations of global climate model projections to
determine how flood frequencies may change in the 21st century
and, 3, evaluation of whether the ability to predict water
supply is diminished by climate change, and the identification
of possible new, more accurate methods of prediction.
Reclamation will use the activities described above and
other available data to undertake West-wide Climate Change Risk
Assessments. As required by the SECURE Water Act, these
assessments will provide for all of the major river basins in
the West initial projections of how climate change will affect
temperature and precipitation, water supply, and water demand.
These assessments will also include reconnaissance-level
analysis of how project operations and environmental conditions
may be affected by changes in hydrologic conditions.
Building on basic scientific information, WaterSMART
includes Reclamation's Basin Studies program by which
Reclamation is partnering with an array of stakeholders to
conduct comprehensive studies that evaluate the impacts of
climate change and define options for meeting water demands in
the specific river basins in the West.
The Basin Studies will identify adaptation strategies to
resolve basin-wide water supply issues, including changes to
the operation of water supply systems, modifications to
existing facilities, development of new facilities, or
nonstructural changes. In fiscal year 2009, Reclamation
provided $3 million in funding to initiate the first 3 basin
studies--Colorado River Basin, the Yakima River Basin in
Washington, and the St. Mary's and Milk River systems in
Montana.
Although a better understanding of water resources is
critical, improved water management is an ongoing process with
immediate opportunities. Simply put, maximizing the efficient
use of water is essential to any adaptation strategy.
Currently, Reclamation is implementing projects to help
advance water conservation and water reuse through the
WaterSMART initiative. Reclamation's Fiscal Year 2011 request
for the WaterSMART program is $62 million, of which $6 million
is slated for the Basin Studies program I just discussed. The
balance of the $62 million request is for projects to improve
water management, including $27 million for WaterSMART grants
and $29 million for the Title XVI program.
WaterSMART grants, which were previously known as challenge
grants, will continue to provide cost-shared funding for on-
the-ground projects. To date, the grants have enabled huge
strides in water conservation, water marketing among willing
sellers and buyers, and have helped build projects that improve
water management while incorporating renewable energy aspects
or addressing endangered species needs.
Since 2004 through fiscal year 2009, over $74 million in
Federal funding has been awarded to 167 grant projects for
improvements in 16 western States. The improvements resulting
from these grants are projected to conserve approximately
580,000 acre-feet per year when fully constructed.
Reclamation committed $40 million of its $950 million
Recovery Act appropriation to the grant program, and as
evidence of the program's popularity, Reclamation received
funding requests exceeding $350 million for that $40 million
opportunity. The grants will leverage Federal funding by
requiring a minimum 50 percent non-Federal cost-share
contribution.
I will quickly summarize since I am running out of time.
Title XVI provides authority for Reclamation's water
recycling and reuse program and is the third major component of
the WaterSMART program. Reclamation currently has a backlog of
$626 million in authorized Title XVI projects, even after the
allocation of $135 million in Recovery Act funds.
Overall, Federal investment in Title XVI has totaled about
$524 million and resulted in an estimated 245,000 acre-feet
annually of recycled water. We project that to grow to 350,000
acre-feet through fiscal year 2011. The administration
recognizes the success of this program and, for that reason,
has significantly increased the budget request for these
projects in 2011.
Obviously, there is a lot going on with respect to the
SECURE Water Act and the WaterSMART initiative. My written
statement provides greater details.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the programs, and
I will answer questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Mike Connor,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased
to be here today on behalf of the Department of the Interior
(Department) to discuss the WaterSMART Program and the Department's
efforts through that program to implement the Secure Water Act (Title
IX, Subtitle F of Public Law 111-11). The WaterSMART Program (Sustain
and Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow) will assist local
communities in stretching water supplies, and is highlighted in the
fiscal year 2011 Budget request released by the President. The FY 2011
Budget provides a total of $73 million for the WaterSMART Program, $62
million for Reclamation and $11 million for the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS).
The FY 2011 Bureau of Reclamation Budget provides:
$29 million for water recycling and reuse projects (Title
XVI);
$27 million for competitive WaterSMART grants (formerly
called challenge grants); and
$6 million for water basin studies.
Through its WaterSMART program, the Department of the Interior has
set an ambitious high priority performance goal of conserving up to
350,000 acre-feet of water by 2012.
The USGS also has $11 million in its FY 2011 Budget for its
scientific endeavors under the WaterSMART program. I will discuss the
Reclamation and USGS efforts related to the Secure Water Act and the
WaterSMART program in detail later in this statement.
Water Security: Challenges Ahead and the Need for Coordinated Action
I want to start by briefly discussing the factors that led Congress
to enact the Secure Water Act and that spur our commitment to use the
levers we have available as a federal agency to confront water
management challenges. The American West is now the fastest growing
region of the country and faces serious water challenges. Competition
for finite water supplies, including water for environmental needs, is
increasing as the need for water continues to grow. At the same time,
extended droughts are impacting water availability and climate change
is likely to compound the situation. As our climate changes and the
earth warms, the most immediate impact is on the hydrologic cycle.
Warming impacts where precipitation falls, how much falls, in what
form, and the rate of consumption. These changes directly affect the
water supply available for drinking, irrigating crops, generating
electricity, supplying industry, terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and
filling our lakes, rivers, and aquifers.
In the Western United States, these changes are not just
anticipated for the future, but are being measured today:
Average temperatures are rising, thereby increasing
evaporation and perhaps increasing the severity of recent
droughts;
A greater portion of winter precipitation is falling in the
mountains as rain rather than snow, reducing the winter
snowpack;
Winter low temperatures are rising, and the snowpack is
melting earlier in the spring; and
Collectively, these trends for precipitation and temperature
are producing earlier runoff, making it harder to use the
winter precipitation later in the summer (i.e. reducing the
capacity for natural storage).
And the Western States are not alone in experiencing water supply
challenges. In 2007, parts of Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, South
Carolina and Tennessee, traditionally water-rich states, had their
lowest annual rainfall on record, and streamflows in many areas were at
all-time lows. As recently as 2008, low precipitation in Georgia,
Alabama, and Florida and conflicting demands for water for metropolitan
supply, agricultural demands, power generation, and ecosystem needs
resulted in litigation costing those States millions of dollars.
Neither the East nor the West is immune to water shortages. That is why
a national program is so important.
It is interesting to note that the majority of irrigation
withdrawals and irrigated acres are still in the Western states, but
significant increases in irrigation have occurred in several eastern
and southern states. According to a recent USGS report, ``Estimated
Uses of Water in the United States in 2005,'' Circular 1344, irrigation
withdrawals declined by nearly 6 million AF in the 17 Western States
from 1995 to 2005, while they increased by 4.5 million AF in the 31
eastern States during this decade. Irrigated acres in the 17 Western
States increased steadily to a peak of nearly 49 million acres in 1980,
and varied from 45 to 47 million acres since then. On the other hand,
irrigated acres in the 31 Eastern States have steadily increased in
each reporting year, gaining nearly 3.4 million acres between 1995 and
2005 when nearly 16 million acres were irrigated.
The science is quite clear that climate change will add to the
challenges we face today in managing our water supply, water quality,
flood risks, wastewater, aquatic ecosystems, and energy production.
These new stresses are likely to be felt first in the fastest growing
region of the nation--the West. The Western States accounted for 32% of
the nation's population growth from 1990 to 2000, with some of the
fastest growth in the driest areas.
The fundamental purpose of the Secure Water Act is to provide
authority so that the Federal water and science agencies can work
together with the States and local water managers to plan for climate
change and the other threats to our water supplies, and take action to
secure our water resources for the communities, economies, and the
ecosystems they support.
The Department of the Interior's strategy for implementing the
Secure Water Act includes collaboration among agencies to enhance
climate change science, which will allow us to better assess the
threats to our water systems and implement mitigation strategies. The
particular areas of concern are:
Water supply, including both surface storage and groundwater
aquifers;
Generation of hydroelectric power;
Cooling water for thermal power plants;
Water required for development of new energy sources;
River flows to maintain ecosystems and water quality;
Recreational use of lakes and rivers; and
Protection from floods and rising sea levels.
introduction to watersmart
Given increased demands for water from growing populations and
energy needs, amplified recognition of environmental water
requirements, and the potential for decreased supplies due to drought
and climate change, a water balance cannot be achieved without water
conservation and water reuse. Federal leadership is critical to
widespread acceptance and implementation of effective conservation and
recycling techniques. The purpose underlying the Department's
WaterSMART Program is to work to achieve a sustainable water strategy
to meet our Nation's water needs.
Reclamation's WaterSMART Program includes WaterSMART Grants, the
Basin Studies Program, including West-wide Climate Change Risk
Assessments (WWCCRA), and the Title XVI Water Recycling and Reuse
Program, which will be discussed at the end of this Statement.
Reclamation will also partner with States, tribes and local entities
under WaterSMART to develop incentives and best practices for
implementing water conservation and water recycling projects. USGS will
also play an important role through the USGS WaterSMART Availability
and Use Assessment program. An interdisciplinary science approach will
be used to implement this assessment.
The remainder of this statement will discuss the Department of the
Interior's implementation of the Secure Water Act, including the
relevant programs that fit within the WaterSMART framework. We have
grouped the federal programs discussed to reflect the following
overarching goals: Collaboration among Federal Water Agencies,
Enhancing Climate Change Science, Assessing and Preparing for Threats
to the Water Supply, and Implementing Mitigation Strategies.
collaboration among federal water agencies
The Secure Water Act requires increased collaboration among the
Federal water agencies. Reclamation is working closely with the lead
science agencies in the areas of climate and water, namely the USGS and
the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), through the NOAA-led interagency National
Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) and NOAA's Regional
Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) university centers to ensure
that the best information and science is available for water
management. As contemplated by the Act, collaboration will also extend
to applicable State and local entities, non-governmental organizations
(NGO's), academic institutions and tribes.
These partnerships will also build on collaborations that have
already begun:
Together with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), NOAA, and the USGS, Reclamation has formed the Climate
Change and Water Working Group (C-CAWWG) to bring the water
managers and climate scientists together to create efficient
research and development (R&D) collaborations and information
sharing across the federal agencies toward understanding and
addressing climate change impacts on Western water supplies and
water use.
Reclamation, the USACE, NOAA and the USGS collaborated to
write Climate Change and Water Resources Management: A Federal
Perspective, USGS Circular 1331. This report represents the two
primary water ``operating agencies'' and the two primary water
``science agencies'' collaborating to address the need for a
comprehensive assessment of approaches for including climate
change in water resources management.
As part of CCAWWG coordination, Reclamation and the USACE
are developing detailed descriptions of information and tools
that water managers need from the science agencies and other
researchers. Perspectives from both State and local water
managers will also be sought and included in this report.
Reclamation is working with the USGS and NOAA, including
NOAA's RISA program to develop a Climate Change Training
program for water managers. In discussions with water managers,
a credible, consistent source of climate information and
training is always one of the highest priorities identified.
Reclamation is providing input to NOAA as it plans for the
next generation of Global Circulation Models (GCMs) to define
the types of outputs that will be of most value to water
managers.
Reclamation is participating in the Postdocs Applying
Climate Expertise (PACE) Fellowship program with NOAA to
sponsor research activities focused on water management needs.
There are currently three active postdocs participating in this
program--two focused on water supply questions for the Colorado
River Basin and one studying potential changes to extreme
precipitation events.
enhancing climate change science
Reclamation's Role
Reclamation will expand its research into the effects of climate
change on the water cycle and how that may be managed for now and in
the future. Some highlights of the research program and research
underway include:
Creation of a downscaled climate projection archive. This is
an archive of GCM projections downscaled to spatial scales
useful for water management analyses;
Evaluations of global climate model projections to determine
how flood frequencies may change in the 21st century;
Evaluation of whether our ability to predict water supply is
being diminished by climate change, and identification of
possible new, more accurate methods; and
Evaluation of how various hydrologic forecast models perform
under climate change scenarios, leading to more informed
choices among models.
The USGS Role
The USGS will bring its science to bear on water cycle climate
effects through its participation in the Department's Energy and
Climate Change Council, which is coordinating activities within and
across the bureaus to develop and implement an integrated strategy for
climate change and energy response by the Department. Close
coordination between this Council and the WaterSMART Program is a
Departmental priority. Finally, at Congressional direction, the USGS
created a National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC)
to meet the climate adaptation science needs of resource managers. The
USGS engaged Federal agencies, States, Tribes, NGOs, and others to
design the structure and operations of the Center. Over the next two
years, the Department will establish five of the proposed eight
regional Climate Science Centers (CSCs) that will be staffed by USGS
and partner scientists and information specialists to deliver basic
climate-change-impact science. All of these measures will aid us in
determining the effects of climate change on the water cycle.
assessing and preparing for threats to the water supply
West-wide Climate Change Risk Assessments (Section 9503(b)(1)-(3) of
Secure Water Act)
Reclamation will use the research and development activities
described above to undertake West-wide Climate Change Risk Assessments.
These assessments will provide consistent projections for all of the
major river basins in the West of how climate change will affect:
Temperature and precipitation;
Water supply; and
Water demand and consumptive use.
These assessments will also include reconnaissance-level analysis
of how water project operations may be affected.
This information will provide a sound and consistent foundation for
the Basin Studies and other planning activities that will formulate
local and regional mitigation strategies to address climate change and
other threats to our water supplies.
Basin Studies ($6 million in the FY 2011 Budget) (Section 9503(b)(1)-
(4) of Secure Water Act)
Through the Basin Study Program, Reclamation will partner with
basin stakeholders to conduct comprehensive studies to evaluate the
impacts of climate change and define options for meeting future water
demands in river basins in the West. The Basin Studies will identify
adaptation strategies to resolve basin-wide water supply issues,
including changes to the operation of water supply systems,
modifications to existing facilities, development of new facilities, or
non-structural changes. The Basin Studies will build on the West-wide
Risk Assessments to develop basin-specific strategies to help meet
water demands. By encouraging input from basin stakeholders, the Basin
Studies will also build capacity and collaboration in the process of
identifying water management solutions.
In FY 2009, Reclamation provided funding to initiate the first
three basin studies under this program, including:
The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study ($1
million Reclamation, $1 million matching) covering portions of
Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and
Wyoming;
Yakima River Basin Study and Associated Basin Restoration
Implementation Plan, covering south central Washington ($1.3
million Reclamation, $1.3 million matching); and
Modeling for the Future of the Milk and St. Mary River
Systems in north central and southern Montana ($350,000
Reclamation, $350,000 matching).
The Colorado River study provides an ideal example of the
collaborative process that we will employ under the Basin Study
Program. The study encompasses the Colorado River Basin (upper and
lower) and those areas of the seven basin states--Wyoming, Colorado,
Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California (Basin States)--that
receive Colorado River water. Cost-share partners include each of the
seven Basin States. The proposal is to complete a comprehensive review
of water supply and current and long-term demands through 2060 within
the Colorado River Basin; to assess options for resolving water supply
imbalances; and to develop recommendations for future consideration to
address current and projected imbalances. Paramount to the study is an
assessment of the potential impacts of climate variability and climate
change on water supplies and demands, including impacts on hydropower.
WaterSMART Water Availability and Use Assessment Initiative
To answer the question, ``How much water do we have in the United
States?'' the USGS will put together a cohesive national picture of
water availability and how it varies across our country through a new
initiative called the WaterSMART Water Availability and Use Assessment.
Many factors affect the amount of water that is available--
precipitation patterns, streamflows, groundwater availability, and land
uses. Trends in availability are already apparent in many locations
across the country. The WaterSMART Water Availability and Use
Assessment Initiative will account for the changing amount, quality,
and use of water resources across the Nation. It gives a standard way
for the Nation to understand water availability using measurements or
estimates of the different components of the water cycle, including
precipitation, surface water, and groundwater. The key components of
this initiative include:
A nationwide system to deliver information about the water
availability factors that every manager needs to know when
dealing with availability questions--precipitation and
evapotranspiration, surface-water runoff and baseflows,
recharge to groundwater and changing storage in aquifers.
Increased knowledge of water-use science--withdrawals,
demands, consumption, and return flows.
An investment in the science of ecological flows.
A new grant program for State water resource agencies to
assist them with critical work on their water use databases.
A series of ``focus area'' studies where there is a desire
on the part of watershed stakeholders to conduct a
comprehensive three-year technical assessment of water
availability with the best available tools. The USGS will work
with watershed stakeholders and the various agencies involved
in these geographic focus areas to scope and conduct these
studies.
implementing mitigation strategies
The science activities just mentioned are necessary to inform the
management needs that exist with respect to water resources. Improved
management, however, is an ongoing process and much more can be done
now. With increased demands for water from growing populations and
energy needs, amplified recognition of environmental water
requirements, and the potential for decreased supplies due to drought
and climate change, a certainty and sustainability with respect to the
use of water resources cannot be achieved without water conservation
and water reuse. Federal leadership is critical to widespread
acceptance and implementation of effective strategies to mitigate the
impacts of climate change.
WaterSMART Grant Program ($27 million in the FY 2011 Budget)
WaterSMART Grants (previously Water Conservation Initiative
Challenge Grants) provide cost-shared funding for the following types
of on-the-ground projects: (1) water conservation and efficiency
projects that allow users to decrease diversions and to use or transfer
the water saved; (2) water marketing projects with willing sellers and
buyers, including water banks, that transfer water to other uses to
meet critical needs for water supplies; (3) projects that improve water
management by increasing the use of renewable energy, by increasing
operational flexibility (constructing aquifer recharge facilities or
making system optimization and management improvements), or by
addressing endangered species and other environmental issues; and (4)
pilot and demonstration projects that address the technical and
economic viability of treating and using brackish groundwater,
seawater, impaired waters, or otherwise creating new water supplies
within a specific locale.
WaterSMART Grants leverage Federal funding by requiring a minimum
of 50 percent non-Federal cost-share contribution. Grants are available
to States, tribes, irrigation and water districts, and other entities
with water or power delivery authority. Beginning in 2010, Reclamation
can also provide cost-shared assistance to universities, non-profits,
and organizations with water or power delivery authority for research
activities designed to enhance the management of water resources,
including developing tools to assess the impacts of climate change on
water resources, and research that will increase the use of renewable
energy in the management and delivery of water and power. Additionally,
to ensure that the most effective conservation and reuse approaches are
employed, Reclamation will begin partnering with States, tribes and
local entities to develop incentives and best practices in water
conservation techniques, water recycling and reuse methodologies, and
land use policies.
Since 2004 through fiscal 2009, over $73.8 million in Federal
funding (including Recovery Act funding) has been awarded to 167 Grant
projects for improvements in 16 western states. We expect that these
projects will conserve 540,000 acre-feet per year when fully
constructed. Reclamation committed $40 million of its $950 million
Recovery Act appropriation to the Grant Program, and as evidence of the
Program's popularity, Reclamation received funding requests exceeding
$350 million for that $40 million opportunity. We are continuing the
Program in 2010, and will solicit applications for 2010 WaterSMART
Grants within the next several weeks.
Based on Reclamation performance data, challenge grants have
provided a yearly average of 87,273 estimated acre-feet conserved since
2004. Grant projects include such activities as converting leaky dirt
canals to pipeline, eliminating water losses due to seepage and
evaporation to result in substantial water savings; installation of
measuring devices, including Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) systems to improve control over water deliveries and to reduce
operational spillage; installation of automation technology to allow
more precise, remote control of water diversions and deliveries; and
projects involving water marketing such as a pilot water bank in the
Deschutes River Basin in Oregon aimed at facilitating the voluntary
transfers of water among users.
Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program ($29 million)
Title XVI of P.L. 102-575, as amended (Title XVI), provides
authority for Reclamation's water recycling and reuse program. The
Title XVI program is focused on identifying and investigating
opportunities to reclaim and reuse wastewaters and naturally impaired
ground and surface water in the 17 Western States and Hawaii. Under the
program, Reclamation makes available cost-shared funding for planning,
design, and construction of water recycling projects, as well as
research and demonstration projects.
For purposes of the Title XVI program, a water reuse project is a
project (including the necessary facilities and features) that reclaims
and reuses municipal, industrial, domestic, or agricultural wastewater
and naturally impaired groundwater and/or surface waters. Consistent
with State law, reclaimed water can be used for a variety of purposes,
such as environmental restoration, fish and wildlife, groundwater
recharge, municipal, domestic, industrial, agricultural, power
generation, or recreation. Water reuse is an essential tool in
stretching the limited water supplies in the West. Title XVI projects
develop and supplement urban and irrigation water supplies through
water reuse, thereby improving efficiency, providing flexibility during
water shortages, and diversifying the water supply. Overall, Federal
investment in Title XVI has totaled about $524 million through FY 2009,
and resulted in an estimated 245,000 acre-feet of water made available
in 2009, a figure that will grow as projects reach full build-out. This
Administration has significantly increased the budget request for these
projects in 2011. New criteria Reclamation is developing in 2010 will
enable us to review and rank Title XVI project funding proposals, and
fund them. Some of the issues that will be looked at include reducing
existing diversions or addressing specific water supply issues in a
cost-effective manner, addressing environmental and water quality
concerns, and meeting other program goals.
Feasibility Studies
The Secure Water Act authorizes Reclamation to conduct feasibility
studies to study the feasibility and impacts of constructing
infrastructure necessary to address the effects of global climate
change on water resources. New infrastructure could include the
construction of water supply or water management facilities, or
infrastructure to benefit environmental needs or enhance habitat.
I have described initial efforts of an implementation process that
will unfold over the coming years. Both the WaterSMART Program and the
Secure Water Act hold the potential to enable tremendous strides
forward in preparing both our water supply infrastructure and the
people who manage it for meeting the challenges of tomorrow.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee. I am
please to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
I did forget to indicate in the beginning that we do ask 5
minutes, and we will take your written statements as well so we
have enough time for questions.
So, Ms. Kassen, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MELINDA KASSEN, J.D., DIRECTOR, WESTERN WATER
PROJECT, TROUT UNLIMITED
Ms. Kassen. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Senator Bingaman--
Mr. Chairman--Senator Wyden.
Thank you for having this hearing today on the SECURE Water
Act. Trout Unlimited supported SECURE because Reclamation must
address water availability in light of increased population
and, whether it is drought or climate change, less water in the
West.
I believe that conservation work on the ground will be
critical to ensuring that SECURE lives up to its promise of
protecting and restoring ecological resiliency--the phrase in
the statute--in all of the West's rivers.
TU is a national not-for-profit conservation organization,
organized in Michigan, with over 135,000 members, almost all of
whom are sportsmen and women dedicated to healthy fisheries and
their habitats. TU started the Western Water Project, which I
direct, in 1998 to use and improve State water law systems to
achieve our goal of providing clean, flowing water for native
and wild trout and salmon. We now operate in 7 States with 25
staff--lawyers, engineers, and biologists.
Our approach is less of a top-down one than to work
collaboratively with land owners to improve stream flows on the
ground. We have proven this strategy throughout the West. We
have provided leadership and innovative ideas for partnerships
to protect and restore flows, which means things like we buy--
help irrigators buy solar pumps that will help them maintain
their water yield but will also allow a change in diversion
infrastructure so that stream flows improve.
These kinds of partnerships, we believe, are key to
sustaining and restoring ecological resiliency from headwaters
to deltas. We focus more on the headwaters, but it is the same
needs throughout the system.
One of the innovations of SECURE, from our standpoint, was
that it put ecological resiliency and helping to ensure and
maintain other environmental--sorry, other water needs at the
same level in the statute. It was equally important to protect
ecological resiliency as it was to protect existing yield for
existing users, and that obviously requires balance. But it is
different from many previous authorities that have been given
reclamation, and we see that as an innovation.
The other innovation that we think is important is that
Reclamation was directed not just to work with traditional
States and beneficiaries, but also with other entities who have
other kinds of interests, like NGO's and nondirect
beneficiaries. That since our experience, whether in the
Wenatchee and the Blackfoot in the Little Snake, our
experiences suggest that having a broader table helps come
about with solutions. We think that is a terrific approach.
As Commissioner Connor said, there are currently 3 basin
studies proceeding. Trout Unlimited is involved in the Yakima
and in the Colorado River Basin studies. The--I guess we are
glad that this hearing is happening because we were a little
disappointed not with the amount and dedication of money for
this program in the President's new budget, but with the way
the Colorado River Basin study, in particular, is proceeding.
Because unlike the Yakima study, where rural economy and
ecology are sort of twin goals, and it is a big table with
NGO's and growers and local governments and the States, the
Colorado River Basin study has 5 program objectives.
Environmental flows, ecological resiliency are not there. The
table has been set for the States and Reclamation, and there
are no NGO's. There are no irrigation districts. Nobody else is
at the table.
We are allowed to comment, but as you guys know, it is very
different to be at the table than to be allowed to say
something after things have been crafted. So we are hopeful
that there can be a slight course correction relatively soon
not only for the Colorado River Basin study, but to make sure
that all of the new studies that are done under SECURE and all
of the processes going forward can live up to the mandate of
SECURE, which was not only to have everyone at the table, but
to consider ecological resiliency as well as traditional water
uses.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kassen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Melinda Kassen, J.D., Director, Western Water
Project, Trout Unlimited
Madame Chairman Stabenow, Ranking Member Brownback, and
Subcommittee members, thank you for providing oversight this morning
for the Bureau of Reclamation's implementation of the SECURE Water Act,
originally introduced by Chairman Bingaman and passed last year as part
of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (PL 111-11). Trout
Unlimited (TU) strongly supported SECURE from its introduction. We
believe that our work on the ground in the West will be a critical
component of ensuring that SECURE lives up to its promise of protecting
and restoring ecological resiliency for western rivers in the face of
the impacts predicted as a result of climate change.
who we are
TU is a non-profit conservation organization with over 135,000
members nation-wide, almost all of whom fish and many of whom are
sportsmen and -women dedicated to the protection and restoration of
cold water fisheries and their habitats. TU created the Western Water
Project in 1998 to use and improve state water law systems so that they
all include the tools needed to achieve our goal of providing clean,
healthy flowing water for native and wild trout and salmon. TU's
Western Water Project now operates in seven states and employs 26
professional staff, including lawyers, engineers and biologists.
why tu cares about secure
A defining feature of TU's Western Water Project is our
determination not to approach the challenges facing western rivers just
from the top down, but rather to work collaboratively, on-the-ground
with landowners to improve stream flows. We have proven the efficacy of
this strategy throughout the West by providing leadership and
innovative ideas for enhancing instream flows through partnerships.
Expanding these kinds of partnerships must be an integral part of
protecting and restoring the ecological resiliency of the West's
rivers, from headwaters to deltas. As a result, we believe that non-
governmental organizations (NGO) collaboration with water users will be
fundamental to the success of SECURE.
As TU develops projects to reconnect tributary streams to mainstem
rivers, for example, we work both to improve aquatic habitat and
increase the efficiency of an irrigator's water delivery system. We
want our projects to be truly win-win, resulting both in more secure
water deliveries and in healthier fisheries. In Montana, we are leasing
water from ranchers in the Blackfoot River to replenish stream flows,
while also funding improvements to ranchers' irrigation systems. In
Idaho, we have pioneered the use of the state's water bank to move
water through rivers in ways that both increase fish habitat and
restore the depleted Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer. And we have learned
to harness renewable energy in these projects, so that when we work
with a landowner to replace a diversion structure that has historically
dried up a reach of a creek, we can install a solar-powered pump so
that the producer does not incur fuel costs for delivery of water.
Our work reconnecting cold water fishery habitat in the headwaters
of western states improves the resiliency of both native and wild fish.
Connected habitats allow fish to move within a system, for example, to
avoid localized drought or fire. Increasing the size of a fishery by
reconnecting streams over a larger habitat improves the genetic pool
for the fish, thereby giving them a healthier long term prognosis over
smaller, more isolated populations. TU is working hard on the ground to
recover endangered species of trout, but also to keep sensitive species
from ever being listed. Thus, for example, we sought and won passage of
a new provision of Utah law that allows fishery organizations to lease
water from irrigators to improve flows for native species of trout in
hopes that this will lead to stronger populations of both Bonneville
cutthroat trout and Colorado River cutthroat trout--species whose
habitats have declined, but are not yet listed.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Colorado River Cutthroat Trout currently occupy 16% of the
subwatersheds in their historical range. See, http://www.tu.org/
science/conservation-success-index/colorado-river-cutthroat. Bonneville
Cutthroat Trout occupy 35% of their historical range. See, http://
www.tu.org/science/conservation-success-index/bonneville-cutthroat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold water fish in the West will be especially affected by
increases in temperature; these fish require cold water to survive. For
this reason, projected impacts from climate change make our work in the
West of securing robust populations of cold water fish all the more
pressing. Re-operations of Bureau of Reclamation facilities, such as we
helped achieve on the South Fork of the Snake River in Idaho early in
the last decade, provide critical flows of cold water for native trout
while maintaining water yields for Reclamation's project beneficiaries.
TU scientists are continuing to use climate models and spatial data to
anticipate climate-related stressors on native trout so that we can
develop strategic partnerships to proactively address these
challenges.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For more information about TU's Conservation Success Index,
see, www.tu.org/science/conservation-success-index. For a specific
example of the work, which shows the status of Colorado River cutthroat
trout, see http://www.tu.org/science/conservation-success-index/
colorado-river-cutthroat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the threats associated with a warming climate, including
warmer water and lower flows, TU strongly supported passage of the
SECURE Water Act. My staff worked closely with staff for this committee
to help develop the concepts embodied in SECURE.
the secure water act
Among a host of other excellent programs, SECURE authorizes a
multi-step process to address projected climate change impacts from
Reclamation facilities in eight major river basins.\3\ First, the
Secretary shall analyze climate change impacts in the major river
basins.\4\ Then, the Secretary shall develop strategies to mitigate
those impacts.\5\ Next, the Secretary shall conduct feasibility studies
as to these strategies.\6\ Finally, the Secretary may make grants to
implement activities that prevent water crises, address climate related
impacts to water supplies or increase ecological resiliency in the face
of climate change.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These basins are listed in Sec. 9502(12)(B).
\4\ See, Sec. 9503(b)(3).
\5\ See, Sec. 9503(b)(4).
\6\ See, Sec. 9503(d).
\7\ See, Sec. 9504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TU supported SECURE as important additional authority for
Reclamation because it requires the agency not only to confront the
potential impacts of climate change on rivers where Reclamation's
facilities are located, but also to brainstorm, analyze and ultimately
implement solutions to the negative impacts of climate change that the
models and water managers anticipate. Thus,
The Congressional findings in SECURE repeatedly place water
for the environment on the same list of important
considerations as water supplies for cities and agriculture.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, Sec. 9501(1), (2), (3) and (7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The climate change adaptation program that SECURE directs
the Secretary to establish, is supposed to ``ensure . . . that
strategies are developed . . . to address potential water
shortages, conflicts, and other impacts to water users [in],
and the environment of, each service area'' (emphasis
added).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, Sec. 9503(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basin analyses must look at impacts both to ``fish and
wildlife habitat'' and ``flow and water dependent ecological
resiliency,''\10\ along with Reclamation's ability to deliver
water to its contractors, generate power, manage flood control,
provide recreation, and protect endangered species and water
quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, Sec. 9503(b)(3)(D) and (G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secretary is to consult non-Federal participants
(including NGOs) about mitigating these impacts, including
strategies related to ``habitat restoration plans''\11\ along
with reservoir operations, water conservation and water
storage;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See. 9503(b)(4)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Act also authorizes the Secretary to cooperate with non-
Federal participants to ``conduct . . . studies to determine
the feasibility and impact on ecological resiliency of
implementing each mitigation and adaptation strategy'' that the
Act identifies, and that the Secretary determines to be
necessary, to address the effects of climate change on water
resources;\12\ and,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, Sec. 9503(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the grant program for states, tribes and organizations or
districts with water or power delivery authority, the Secretary
is authorized to make grants and enter agreements for many
purposes, including ``to address any climate-related impact to
the water supply . . . that increases ecological resiliency to
the impacts of climate change.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, Sec. 9504(a)(1)(H)(i). Subsection (a)(3)(B) of Sec. 9504
limits grants for irrigation improvements so as not to increase water
for irrigation, but rather to conserve water for other uses, presumably
municipal, industrial, recreation or ecological resiliency.
We now look to Reclamation to lead effective implementation of
SECURE, and to Congress to provide useful oversight and adequate
funding to bring it to fruition.
Other important programs in SECURE that TU strongly endorses are
the climate change and water panel to review, gather and extend
scientific research regarding the effects of climate change on western
rivers,\14\ the national streamflow information program of the US
Geological Survey,\15\ and the national water availability and use
assessment program.\16\ We will not be able to overcome our challenges
without data, and each of these programs will improve our understanding
of what we have now and what the future may bring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, Sec. 9506.
\15\ See, Sec. 9507.
\16\ See, Sec. 9508.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
important innovations in secure
For TU, one of the most important innovations in SECURE is that,
both for the analysis of impacts and for the development of solutions,
Reclamation was directed to consider not only affects on water supply
and yield, but also on the ecological resiliency of the West's rivers.
SECURE effectively recognized that ensuring healthy environmental flows
needed to be on the same footing with providing water to sustainable
agriculture and growing cities. We agree with this principal because
our work on the ground in rural communities has demonstrated time and
again, from Washington's Wenatchee to Montana's Blackfoot to Colorado
and Wyoming's Little Snake, that healthy rivers are an integral
component of healthy communities. Cities build river walks for a
reason; even Las Vegas celebrates the location where desert springs
provided water for a nascent metropolis. And rural communities
celebrate the waters that run through them as well, from building kayak
courses through town as has happened in a dozen Colorado towns, to
promoting river recreation as a critical part of a diversified rural
economy, as we see in Idaho's Big Lost and Wood River basins.
Another innovation in SECURE is its directives to Reclamation to
work on water matters not only with states and project beneficiaries,
as they have long done, but also with non-governmental organizations.
We appreciate that SECURE inherently recognizes that the successes of
TU and other conservation NGO's working in western communities mean
that we can make a valuable contribution to Reclamation's analyses and
implementation of the strategies SECURE identifies.
current implementation
The President signed SECURE into law less than one year ago, on
March 30, 2009, so this process is still in its infancy. Reclamation
recognized the importance of the new law by moving $3 million in funds
to Basin Studies and seeking $18 million for the challenge grant
program established under '9504. TU appreciates that Reclamation is
taking its responsibilities seriously.
In fact, when the law was signed, Reclamation had already begun a
competitive process to choose rivers for basin studies under different
authority. Last September, it formally announced the winners: the
Colorado, Yakima and Milk-St. Mary's. (Due to the cold water resources
in Washington, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, TU is especially interested
in the Colorado and Yakima Basin Studies.) While the Basin Study
processes began under previous authorizations before passage of the
Act, they have become the vessel into which Reclamation is pouring its
SECURE efforts Thus, it will be important that these and future Basin
Studies are modified during implementation to meet all of the goals of
the SECURE Water Act.
In its FY11 budget request, Reclamation envisions continuing the
Basin Studies, expanding its capacity to award grants, and adding some
west-wide scientific analyses and two, new, not-yet-established
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives in the Colorado River Basin. With
regard to the Basin Studies, the Reclamation budget justifications,
submitted last week, stated:
Through the Basin Studies, Reclamation will work with States,
Tribes and local partners to analyze the impacts of climate
change on water and power facilities in the West and identify
mitigation strategies to adapt to climate variability and
chronic water shortages. Such efforts are critical in Western
States as they cope with the impacts of climate change and
areas experience record droughts and populations increases.
Each study includes state of the art projections of future
water supply and demand on a basin-wide scale; analysis of how
the basin's existing water and power operations and
infrastructure will perform in the face of changing water
realities; and recommendations on how to optimize operations
and infrastructure in the basin to supply adequate water in the
future.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2011.
Water and Related Resources, p. 2.
TU was disappointed with the failure of this description to mention
the impacts of climate change on environmental flows or the need to
identify mitigation strategies to maintain or improve ecological
resiliency.
Notwithstanding this oversight, the Yakima Basin Study, where the
sole non-Federal cost-share partner is the State of Washington's
Department of Ecology, has developed an integrated management plan
framework, including needs analysis, that specifically proposes
elements related to fishery habitat restoration and enhancement. The
workgroup that guides the Yakima study and implementation process also
includes one conservation NGO (American Rivers) with a long-standing
presence in the Basin. The challenge for that workgroup will be to
reach an agreement where the ultimate balance of strategies includes an
economically efficient mix of traditional responses (e.g., new storage)
and innovative ones, like conservation and water marketing.
However, in the Colorado River Basin Study, the basin states and
non-Federal partners like the Southern Nevada Water Authority (who Pat
Mulroy on this panel directs) are engaged in a much less open process.
The first fact sheet that Reclamation released describing the focus of
the program did not mention either environmental or ecological water
needs.\18\ The same is true for the five program objectives listed in
the plan of study.\19\ Moreover, not only are there no conservation
NGOs at the table, but the stakeholder plan that Reclamation recently
released provides for public comment,\20\ but not for direct engagement
in crafting the analyses being done in the next year, or in determining
which alternatives are ripe for consideration as adaptation strategies.
While Reclamation's project manager for this study has met with several
interested conservation NGOs (including TU) about the study, outreach
we genuinely appreciate, having an opportunity to comment simply does
not equate to having a seat at the table where the study and strategies
are shaped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See fact sheet link at, http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/
programs/crbstudy.html.
\19\ See, http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/pos.pdf.
\20\ See, http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/pip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, while Reclamation is just beginning to implement SECURE, TU
is concerned that, especially in the Colorado River Basin Study,
because the process began under other authorities, it is proceeding
without adequate emphasis on ecological resiliency, and without
providing conservation NGOs with the opportunities that SECURE set out
regarding the development and assessment of basin strategies.
recommendations
TU is encouraged that Reclamation is taking seriously its authority
to implement the SECURE Water Act. Obviously, to meet the additional
challenges that may occur for water needs for cities, irrigators, the
environment and industry as a result of the predicted impacts due to
climate change, Reclamation will need to work with all of its partners
in the West, including NGOs. In addition, Congress will need to provide
the necessary funding to achieve the goals of SECURE so that we can
have vibrant cities and rural communities, along with healthy rivers.
TU is confident in Reclamation's ability to make the adjustments
necessary to fulfill the goals of SECURE, and supports Reclamation's
budget request for the WaterSMART program.
While there are many aspects of its plans that we appreciate and
endorse, TU believes that Reclamation's implementation of SECURE would
be substantially improved were it to place appropriate emphasis on
ecological resiliency, and expand the Basin Studies to bring
conservation NGOs to the table as they work with the states and project
beneficiaries to analyze impacts and develop strategies, as well as to
find the funds necessary for the Secretary to conduct feasibility
analyses on such strategies. TU believes that our work and that of
other conservation NGOs demonstrates that we can add substantial value
to the process of adapting the nation's water supply to the challenges
posed as a result of drought and increased populations in the West such
that we should have a seat at the table for these discussions.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
answering your questions.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Mr. Keppen.
STATEMENT OF DAN KEPPEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FAMILY FARM
ALLIANCE
Mr. Keppen. Good morning, Madam Chair and Senator Bingaman
and Senator Wyden.
Great to see you and really appreciate the support of you
and Senator Merkley on our situation in Klamath. I have got a
pit in my stomach thinking about it right now, but thank you
for your leadership.
The Family Farm Alliance is a group. We are a nonprofit. We
represent farmers, ranchers, allied industries, irrigation
districts in the 17 western States. All we are focused on is
ensuring availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water
for our western farmers and ranchers.
Today, I was asked to talk about SECURE Water Act and the
Bureau of Reclamation's water conservation initiative, and I
have also been asked to explain a case study that we are
putting together, which will really have relevance to a lot of
things that we are talking about today. I have actually
included 2 of the case studies in the written testimony I
submitted to you earlier.
I will start with the SECURE Water Act. My organization has
twice testified before this committee on climate change and
water, when Senator Bingaman's legislation was moving through
the last Congress, and we offered specific recommendations on
that SECURE legislation as it was being crafted. We were
pleased to see that many of our recommendations were included
in the final law, which was signed by President Obama a year
ago.
We supported SECURE in part because it provides water
managers with effective, on-the-ground tools to fix
infrastructure problems that are further complicated by climate
change. SECURE expands opportunities for the types of programs
already funded through Reclamation's WaterSMART grant program,
and these projects provide for improved water management,
enhanced supplies, water conservation, and then better
efficiencies.
We strongly support SECURE, but we do have questions about
how this program is being implemented. It is kind of in its
infancy. Our members want to know where the dollars are being
spent, what types of programs and projects are receiving
priority, and most importantly, how can they get involved. In
particular, I think we would like to see projects that really
do tie in to Reclamation's core mission of providing water and
power to their customers.
We are also curious to see how SECURE is going to fit into
the bigger picture efforts by Congress to address climate
change. We think that the goals and programs of the SECURE
Water Act should actually specifically be included in the
comprehensive climate legislation that is underway to ensure
that this program is funded with priority.
I would like to focus now a little bit on the Reclamation's
water conservation initiative and, in particular, on the
WaterSMART grant component. This program, formerly known as a
challenge grant program, is one that many of our members have
benefited from in recent years. Appendix B of my written
testimony summarizes how the Tulare Irrigation District in
California has really funded a variety of really innovative
water-saving projects with the assistance of this grant
program.
My testimony also identifies some of the shortcomings in
the administration of this grant program, and we offer
recommendations on how to address those. They are pretty minor.
Overall, most of our members have benefited from this
WaterSMART grant program.
I believe, really, there is just not enough money in it to
address the needs that are out there. So, we were pleased to
see in Reclamation's budget request this year $27 million for
that program. That is twice as much as what was funded in the
last fiscal year, and we think that is a great start.
I was asked by this subcommittee to talk about our case
study report, and I am in the process of putting that together.
We are a pretty thin organization, you know? We don't have a
lot of overhead, a lot of administration staffing. So we are in
the process of getting it together. It is coming together
nicely but will be released in the next month or so.
This report is going to include several case studies that
highlight real-world examples of water conservation, water
transfers and markets, aging infrastructure, and water
restoration and enhancement activities. We are going to
describe water conservation and management projects that work
well, especially those that have benefited from WaterSMART
program grants, and then pass those lessons learned on those
projects to our partners with the Bureau of Reclamation.
Our report can further be used to describe the types of
conservation activities that should be funded under the climate
change bills currently moving through Congress.
Finally, we want to describe the complications facing local
water users, the creative solutions that can be developed to
meet those problems and offer recommendations that lead to more
local success stories. One case study in Wyoming, included as
appendix to my written testimony, describes the efforts of the
Little Snake River Conservation District to take the lead in
creating truly holistic watershed solutions.
This land owner-driven organization is now working
collaboratively with over 30 different partner organizations,
including Trout Unlimited, and this example supports an
important objective of our report. We want to demonstrate that
water managers, ranchers, and farmers are experienced and
creative individuals, and they should be looked to as an
important resource to help resolve the water conflicts of the
West.
When we are done, this report will cover about 12 different
case studies that will span probably every major watershed in
the western United States.
The impacts of climate change on western water supplies
will challenge all water users in the near future. Being
prepared requires investment and adaptation in the management
of western water supplies. To survive this trial, our efforts
need to begin today--before crises, before conflict, and before
there are winners and losers.
Unfortunately, in some parts of the West, that may be too
late. We need to get going quickly, and we think that the
Reclamation's water conservation initiative is a positive step
in the right direction.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keppen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan Keppen, Executive Director, Family Farm
Alliance
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Brownback, and
Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Dan Keppen, and I serve as
executive director of the Family Farm Alliance (Alliance).
The Alliance is a grassroots organization of family farmers,
ranchers, irrigation districts and allied industries in 16 Western
states. The Alliance is focused on one mission: To ensure the
availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to
Western farmers and ranchers. We are also committed to the fundamental
proposition that Western irrigated agriculture must be preserved and
protected for a host of economic, sociological, environmental and
national security reasons--many of which are often overlooked in the
context of other policy decisions.
I would like to acknowledge and thank Alliance Members Dick Moss
(Provost & Pritchard, Visalia, California), Tom Knutson (Nebraska State
Irrigation Association), Pat O'Toole (Ladder Ranch, Wyoming) and Larry
Hicks (Little Snake River Conservancy District, Wyoming) for their
assistance in developing this testimony.
introduction
I am honored to be here today to discuss the SECURE Water Act
(SECURE) and the Bureau of Reclamation's Water Conservation Initiative,
which includes the WaterSMART Grant Program, the Basin Study Program,
and the Title XVI Program. The Family Farm Alliance has twice
previously testified before the Committee on climate change and water,
and offered specific recommendations on the SECURE legislation. We were
pleased to see that many of our recommendations were included in the
final law. I will address SECURE is this testimony, particularly as it
relates to broader climate change legislation that may be considered by
the Senate. The Alliance believes that the goals and programs of the
SECURE Water Act should be specifically incorporated into any
comprehensive climate legislation to ensure that they receive adequate
resources and emphasis.
I have also been asked today to explain the Family Farm Alliance
Water Management Case Study Report, which we are currently developing,
and has relevance to several of the topics on this hearing's agenda. I
have included two of these case studies as appendices to this
testimony, which we hope will provide insight into the positive and
negative aspects associated with implementing conservation projects
involving agricultural water users and government partners.
alliance involvement with the secure water act and climate change
issues
The Family Farm Alliance Board of Directors in 2007 established a
subcommittee to develop a white paper that addresses the important
issue of climate change, its possible impact on Western water supplies
and irrigated agriculture, and recommendations on how to plan and
provide stewardship for this change. The report was prepared by an
Alliance climate change subcommittee, our Advisory Committee, and water
resources experts from around the West. That document--titled ``Water
Supply in a Changing Climate: The Perspective of Family Farmers and
Ranchers in the Irrigated West''-was released just over two years ago.
Our report shows that climate change could further strain fresh
water supplies in the American West. We must begin to plan for that
now, and not wait until we are forced to make decisions during a
crisis.
reinforcing the secure water act
Last year, Congress moved to address the potential impacts of
climate change on western state water supplies. It approved the SECURE
Water Act (signed into law by President Obama in March 2009 as P.L.
111-11, Title IX, Subtitle F) creating federal inter-agency programs to
assess the effects of climate change on water supplies, develop
strategies and technologies to address potential water shortages and
increase the collection of data on current and future water supply
availability. The Family Farm Alliance supported the SECURE Water Act
in part because it provides water managers with highly beneficial ``on-
the-ground'' solutions to infrastructure problems exacerbated by global
climate change. SECURE authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
provide cost-shared grants for planning, designing, or constructing
improvements to water infrastructure that conserve water, provide
management improvements, and promote increased efficiencies. This
expands opportunities for the types of projects already funded through
the Bureau of Reclamation's WaterSMART Grant Program, which many Family
Farm Alliance members have benefited from. These projects provide for
improved water management, enhanced supplies, water conservation, and
greater efficiencies, thereby stretching dwindling water supplies.
questions about implementation of the secure water act
The Alliance strongly supported the SECURE Water Act. Our members
now have questions about how this program is being implemented. They
want to know where the dollars are being spent, what types of projects
and programs are receiving priority--and, most importantly--how can
they get involved? It is our hope that today's hearing will lead to
improved dialogue between the Bureau of Reclamation and Western water
users that begins to answer these questions.
other climate change legislation considerations
There is broad scientific consensus that even modest changes in the
global climate would likely alter precipitation patterns in ways that
could pose serious threats to water supplies and agricultural
production worldwide, particularly in arid regions such as the American
West where a large portion of agricultural production is dependent upon
irrigation. A significant reduction in the amount of food and fiber
produced by American farmers would have adverse consequences for our
economy and national security and for our trading partners abroad.
In the past year, legislation has been introduced to address
climate change in a comprehensive and aggressive manner. We had hoped
that Congress would share our concern that safeguarding the nation's
ability to feed itself should be one of the principal goals of any
legislation whose purpose is to marshal a national effort to minimize
and adapt to the effects of climate change. Unfortunately, while House-
passed climate legislation (H.R. 5424) and legislation (S. 1733)
introduced by Senators Boxer and Kerry would commit the federal
government to employ ``all practical means'' to protect fish and
wildlife from the adverse effects of climate change, those proposals
include no comparable commitment to ensuring the continued vitality of
domestic agriculture and agriculturally-based rural communities.
Legislation (S. 1933) introduced by Chairman Bingaman takes a more
reasonable approach to natural resources adaptation, and it
specifically incorporates the goals and measures of SECURE. But it,
too, places the greatest emphasis on fish and wildlife.
The Family Farm Alliance supports the goal of conserving natural
resources with fish and wildlife adaptation planning, research and
programs. But the lack of comparable attention to adaptation needs of
domestic agriculture and rural communities calls into question the
intent and effects of a large-scale effort focused exclusively on
natural resources.
If Congress enacts comprehensive climate-change legislation, it
must include additional adaptation programs for irrigated agriculture
and rural resource-based communities if such efforts are to be given
the necessary attention and resources. Farms and communities in the
western United States face the prospect of economic disruption and
increased competition and conflict over agricultural and water
resources as a result of climate change. Helping them adapt to and
withstand the impacts of climate change should be no less a national
priority than meeting the needs of fish and wildlife and of farmers in
other nations.
We refer you to the October 27, 2009 statement the Alliance
submitted to the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works.
It provides specific observations and recommendations on how Congress
can provide adaptation programs that benefit Western irrigated
agriculture and rural communities. We hope this subcommittee can play a
role in advancing these recommendations as the Senate considers climate
change legislation.
the bureau of reclamation's watersmart (challenge) grant program
Reclamation's Challenge Grants--now renamed WaterSMART Grants--
leverage Federal funding by requiring a 50 percent non-Federal cost-
share contribution. Grants are available to States, tribes, irrigation
and water districts, and other entities with water or power delivery
authority. Many members of the Family Farm Alliance have benefited from
this program in recent years. Appendix B summarizes how one of our
members--Tulare Irrigation District (CALIFORNIA)--has funded a variety
of water-saving projects with the assistance of WaterSMART Grant funds.
Tulare Irrigation District (TID) is fortunate to have aggressive
staffers who are always looking for opportunities and are willing to
invest time and money to secure grants for projects that conserve water
and promote conjunctive management of surface and groundwater. TID has
benefited from partnering with others and sharing project benefits.
These types of partnership generate significant local and regional
support for project proposals. The keys to TID's grant success have
been: 1) Paying close attention to grant requirements; 2) Sufficient
planning to demonstrate a thoughtful and consistent approach; and 3)
Recognition that a ``phased'' approach can be used to incrementally
fund larger projects.
TID and other Alliance members have also identified shortcomings in
the administration of the WaterSMART Grant program and have developed
the following recommendations on how to address those problems:
A. There is often a ``disconnect'' between required funding
timelines and needed National Environmental Protection Act/
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) reviews. In
California, local water users believe these reviews could be
satisfied in a much more expeditious manner by relying on
existing, similar state reviews. For aging water
infrastructure, the historic review requirements should be
modified, perhaps by developing a programmatic approach to the
NHPA requirements for water facilities.
B. Federal administrators sometimes have a lack of
understanding about the limited construction ``window'' that is
available when working on water delivery systems. Early
``kickoff meetings'' with project proponents and Reclamation
personnel should be a required step in these projects.
C. Grant applicants sometimes face financial and time-
management difficulties looking for multiple partners to share
the benefits of a proposal, especially for smaller grants. If
multiple benefits and collaborative efforts are to be
emphasized, commensurate funding should be made available to
support these necessary administrative actions.
The vast majority of Family Farm Alliance members who have
benefited from WaterSMART Grants believe that there is not enough money
to address the needs that are out there (see ``Other Needs'' below). We
were pleased to see that the Bureau of Reclamation's Fiscal 2011 budget
request includes $27 million of WaterSMART Grants, double the FY 10
level of funding. This is a good start.
Our Members and others in western irrigation also lament the
absence of any current program to address major rehabilitation needs,
similar to the now-defunct ``Small Reclamation Projects Rehabilitation
and Betterment Program''.
importance of federal climate change, conservation and infrastructure
assistance
Water conservation, recycling and desalination efforts and water
transfers are important tools for improved management of increasing
scarce water resources. However, these demand-management actions must
be balanced with supply enhancement measures that provide the proper
mix of solutions for the varying specific circumstances in the West.
Supply enhancement should include rehabilitation of existing
facilities and construction of new infrastructure. Rehabilitation
measures should focus on maximizing the conservation effort through
increased delivery efficiencies, construction of re-regulation
reservoirs to minimize operational waste, and construction of new dams
and reservoirs in watersheds with inadequate storage capacity to
increase beneficial use and provide operational flexibility. Additional
groundwater supplies should also be developed, but in a manner where
groundwater use falls within the safe yield or recharge parameters of
the aquifer. Conjunctive management of surface and groundwater supplies
should be encouraged. Installation of additional stream gauges, water
meters, groundwater recharge projects to employ during times of high
surface flow, groundwater monitoring wells and better estimates of
consumptive use are of paramount importance for the equitable
management of available water supplies.
The federal government needs to seriously consider adopting a
policy of supporting new projects to enhance water supplies while
encouraging state and local interests to take the lead in the planning
and implementation of those projects. Local and state interests have
shown enormous creativity in designing creative water development
projects. For example, the State of Wyoming has initiated its Dam and
Reservoir Program, in which proposed new dams with storage capacity of
2,000 acre feet or more and proposed expansions of existing dams of
1,000 acre feet or more qualify for state funding. Wyoming water
managers and policy makers recognize that dams and reservoirs typically
provide opportunities for many potential uses. While water supply is
emphasized in the Wyoming program, recreation, environmental
enhancement, flood control, erosion control and hydropower uses are
also explored as secondary purposes.
Many water projects are ready to be developed in the West, as
demonstrated by studies completed by the Family Farm Alliance and the
Bureau of Reclamation in 2005. While conservation and recycling
programs have done a tremendous job of meeting new growth, only a small
amount of new water storage capacity has been developed in the past 30
years. Maintaining the status quo simply isn't sustainable in the face
of unstoppable population growth, diminishing snow pack, increased
water consumption to support domestic energy, and increased
environmental demands. It's time to start building the water
infrastructure needed to cope with a changing climate, meet the needs
of a burgeoning population, and support a healthy agricultural base in
the West.
family farm alliance water management case study report
The Family Farm Alliance is currently compiling in to a report a
number of case studies that highlight real-world examples of water
conservation, water transfers and markets, aging infrastructure
problems, and watershed restoration / enhancement. This document will
be used in several forums. For example, we would like to describe water
conservation and management projects that work well (best management
practices), especially those that have benefited from WaterSMART
grants, and pass the lessons learned from those projects on to the
Bureau of Reclamation. One of those case studies, involving the Tulare
Irrigation District (CALIFORNIA), is included as an appendix to this
testimony. We are also hoping that observations and recommendations
from these types of projects can be used to help influence how the
SECURE Water Act will be implemented by Reclamation. Our report can
further be used as a template to advocate for the types of conservation
activities that could be potentially funded under the climate change
bills currently moving through Congress.
Another area of focus in our report will include water markets and
transfers, where we would like to provide examples of successful
efforts, identify where there are impediments to success, and describe
where adverse impacts negated such benefits. These studies will help
form the framework for Alliance policy on water transfers, which will
be advanced in the agricultural / urban / environmental water sharing
coalition we are involved with in the Colorado River Basin. We are
already assembling work for transfer programs undertaken in the Central
Valley (CALIFORNIA), in the Klamath Basin (CALIFORNIA / OREGON), in
Southern California, and along the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains
(COLORADO).
We will also include examples of aging water infrastructure
predicaments facing our members. Findings and recommended solutions can
be used in our ongoing efforts to implement the loan guarantee
provisions we advocated for in the Rural Water Supply Act and to
underscore the additional funding needs that are required to address
key infrastructure issues in the West, such as the St. Mary Facilities
(MONTANA) and rehabilitation of Minidoka Dam spillway (IDAHO).
Finally, we will describe the complications facing local water
users, the creative solutions that can be developed to meet those
problems and recommendations that ensure continued, locally-driven
success. We already have developed one case study in Nebraska, where
irrigation districts have completed project transfers resulting in
expanded opportunities to partner with new entities to improve
infrastructure, flood control, and water management. Another case study
in Wyoming that describes the efforts of a local conservation district
to take the lead in implementing holistic watershed solutions is
included as an appendix to this testimony.
An important objective of our final report will be to demonstrate
that water managers, ranchers and farmers are resourceful and creative
individuals that should play an active role in resolving the water
conflicts of the West.
When our report is completed, it will include at least a dozen
individual case studies for projects located in virtually very major
river basin in the Western United States. We look forward to sharing
the final report with this committee and other important water policy
makers.
other needs
The SECURE Water Act and Reclamation's WaterSMART Grant Program are
two important tools that improve the availability of reliable,
affordable irrigation supplies and partially mitigate for climate
change impacts to Western water resources. However, critical problems
remain to be solved, and the Bureau of Reclamation and Congress can
help address these needs.
1. Create Flexible Financing Options to Help Water Managers Proactively
Deal with Aging Infrastructure and Climate Impacts to Western
Water Supplies
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) built and manages the
largest part of the critical water supply infrastructure that is the
foundation of the economic vitality of the 17 Western States. Much of
this federally-owned infrastructure is now 50-100 years old,
approaching the end of its design life, and needs to be rebuilt and
rehabilitated for the next century. The Congressional Research Service
has calculated the original development cost of this infrastructure to
be over $20 billion, and Reclamation estimates the current replacement
value of its water supply and delivery infrastructure at well over $100
billion. These facilities are an essential component of the nation's
food-production system and their operation helps ensure our ability to
provide reliable and secure food for its own citizens and the rest of
the world.
The problem with fixing aging public infrastructure is primarily
financial. There are not enough federal dollars to go around for these
burgeoning needs. Yet, in the case of Reclamation water facilities,
most of the rebuilding of this federal water infrastructure is paid for
by the end users who contract with Reclamation for their water
supplies. Reclamation estimates that $3 billion will be needed from
project users in the near-term to provide for essential repairs and
rehabilitation of Reclamation facilities.
This is where the problem begins: under its legal authority,
Reclamation must treat expensive, major rehabilitation and replacement
projects as operation and maintenance costs (O&M) that must be paid for
by the water users both in advance, and in the year in which the costs
are incurred. For some of these projects, it is not uncommon for annual
O&M bills for these rehab projects to be thousands of times larger when
compared to previous years, with little time for water users to
prepare. With the federal government holding title to these facilities,
water users can not easily obtain financing to meet their O&M
obligations, nor can they simply pass along huge increases in costs to
their water customers in such a short period of time.
In the past, Reclamation offered its water users direct loans to
cover their share of these major expenses, allowing them to finance
over many years their contractual share of these costs over time.
However, these direct loans had been discontinued, as mounting
pressures on the federal budget redirected funds that were
traditionally dedicated to these loan programs. As a result, in most of
these cases, the unthinkable happens: these vital rehabilitation and
replacement projects are delayed or dropped, leaving the facility in
badly decomposing or unsafe condition for future generations to deal
with, and setting up the perfect storm of facility failure and
resulting damages to property and person.
With leadership from your Committee, Congress has sought creative
ways to address this challenge, and we are encouraged by two recent key
legislative fixes:
A. P.L. 111-11, signed into law last March, includes new
authorities to address aging canal systems in urbanized areas
of the West. An important part of this law, (Title IX, Subtitle
G) authorizes the Secretary of Interior to advance funding for
the costs of ``extraordinary operation and maintenance work''
that can be repaid by local authorities, with interest, over 50
years. The 50-year repayment option applies to both reserved
works and those works whose management has been transferred to
local entities by Reclamation. This extended repayment
authority has been welcomed by our members as a means of
securing affordable financing for repairs to federal
facilities.
B. Title II of the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 (PL 109-
451) authorized a loan guarantee program within Reclamation
that would leverage a small amount of appropriated dollars into
a large amount of private lender financing available to
qualified Reclamation-contractor water districts with good
credit. In other words, the Congress has given the authority to
Reclamation to co-sign a loan to help their water contractors
meet their contract-required, mandatory share of rebuilding and
replacement costs of federally-owned facilities.
I regret to report that this latter tool--the Reclamation loan
guarantee option--continues to be held up because of incorrect
interpretations of clear Congressional direction by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). An April 3, 2008 memo prepared by OMB
concluded that the Bureau can carry out the loan program only if it is
willing to siphon large amounts of funding away from other programs and
needs within its budget. This is not what Congress intended. In 2008,
we shared with this Committee our findings that showed OMB's
conclusions are wrong and that they are driven by a desire to prevent
implementation of the program. We are baffled by OMB's opposition to a
device specifically designed to help non-federal entities raise non-
federal money to repair federally owned infrastructure at little or no
cost to the federal government.
We need your help, through Congressional oversight and possibly new
legislative language, to tell OMB that they are wrong, and to allow the
Bureau of Reclamation to proceed with implementation of the loan
guarantee program as Congress intended it to function. In addition,
further Congressional attention and effort will necessary in order to
help western water managers deal with aging water infrastructure and
climate impacts to western water supplies.
2. Streamline the Regulatory Permitting Process
Modern, integrated water storage and distribution systems can
provide tremendous physical and economic flexibility to address climate
transformation and population growth. However, this flexibility is
limited by legal, regulatory, or other institutional constraints, which
can take longer to address than actually constructing the physical
infrastructure. The often slow and cumbersome federal regulatory
process is a major obstacle to realization of projects and actions that
could enhance Western water supplies.
The Family Farm Alliance has long worked on finding ways to
streamline the regulatory process, and worked closely with past
administrations and Congress towards that end. In the past year, our
members are becoming increasingly concerned about the number of
environmental policies that are currently being re-written by this
Administration. It appears the changes being contemplated could result
in stricter requirements that would further slow down federal approvals
on water projects that are already very time-consuming and challenging.
We are concerned about the following administrative actions that could
carry the risk of real potential harm for Western irrigators:
Economic and Environmental Principles & Guidelines for Water
and Related Resources Studies.--The White House in December
released a draft of new standards for federal water projects
that for the first time put environmental goals on the same
plane as economic development concerns. The proposed overhaul
of 1983 standards for the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
directs the agency to fold non-monetary benefits into project
assessments by measuring improvements to wildlife habitats and
biodiversity. These proposed changes for the Corps and Bureau
of Reclamation may have a significant impact on new water
project planning and federal funding in the future.
National Environmental Policy Act Expansion.--It is our
understanding that the Administration may soon issue an
executive order adding climate change to the list of factors
federal agencies must take into account when evaluating
projects and policies. Some conservation groups have pushed for
the expansion of the 40-year-old National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), which currently requires agencies to consider
environmental factors such as land use, biodiversity and air
quality. Our members fear that requiring analysis of climate
change impacts during the NEPA process, especially at the
project-specific level, will slow economic recovery while
providing no meaningful environmental benefits.
ESA Administrative Revisions.--The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) is considering wide-ranging revisions to the
1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA), that could provide new
definitions for some key provisions, including those addressing
critical habitat and consultations between service biologists
and other agencies over projects that could impact protected
animals and plants. For example, the USFWS earlier this year
proposed to revise a 2005 designation of critical habitat for
the bull trout, a threatened species protected under the ESA.
If finalized, the proposal would increase the amount of stream
miles originally designated as bull trout critical habitat in
five Western states by 18,851 miles and the amount of lakes and
reservoirs designated as critical habitat by 390,208 acres. The
problem here is, for many Western water users, the maze of
requirements for ESA permits that can restrict activities or
delay projects for months or years. We essentially supported
the administrative regulatory changes put forward prior to 2009
that would have streamlined the consultation process. It now
looks like those changes have been reversed, with no apparent
request for agency input offered to the regulated community.
EPA Pesticide Restrictions.--EPA is making a precedent-
setting decision to impose pesticide restrictions that will
essentially prohibit their use in large areas of Washington,
Oregon, California and Idaho. The most serious deficiency in
EPA's announced plan involves expansion of no-use buffer zones
to every ditch, drain, canal, and irrigation furrow that might
eventually drain from an agricultural field into a salmon
habitat. EPA also recently singled out the state of Florida as
the first state in the nation on which they are proposing to
establish a nutrient standard for all bodies of water. These
proposed standards are being imposed on the basis of an
EarthJustice lawsuit and will establish nitrogen and phosphorus
standards different from the rest of the country. This is
another very disturbing development, but consistent with other
recent administration actions.
EPA Reconsideration of the ``Water Transfers Rule''.--A 2008
U.S. EPA rule allows water transfers from one water body to
another without Clean Water Act (CWA) permits. We now
understand that EPA is planning on reconsidering the ``Water
Transfers Rule'', which states that a mere transfer of water
from one meaningfully distinct navigable body of water to
another does not require a NPDES permit, even though the water
being transferred may add new pollutants to the receiving body
of water. The Justice Department in a recent document says EPA
may abandon the rule, a move that would subject water transfers
throughout the nation to pollution permitting requirements.
This could have severe consequences in states like California,
where huge quantities of water are moved from one basin to
another.
Many of the above administrative changes are drawing praise from
environmental organizations that have been advocating them for some
time. The Family Farm Alliance hopes that the Administration will give
equal consideration to the concerns of agricultural organizations. We
pledge to work with the Administration, Congress, and other interested
parties to build a consensus for improving the regulatory processes
associated with improving water systems.
conclusion
The impacts of climate change on sensitive Western water supplies,
while not totally understood today, will significantly challenge all
water users in the West--municipal, industrial, agricultural, and
environmental--in the near future. Being prepared requires investment
and adaptation in the management of Western water supplies. To survive
this trial, our efforts need to begin today--before crises, before
conflict, and before there are winners and losers. The SECURE Water Act
is a very positive step in the right direction, providing much needed
opportunities for partnerships with federal agencies; providing
direction for federal policymakers in dealing with the impacts of
climate change on our precious water supplies; and providing some
innovative new tools that will be necessary in order for the federal
government to proactively work with local and state water authorities
on real solutions. The WaterSMART Grant Program could be improved in
some minor ways, but, overall, a consistent complaint we hear from
throughout the West is that there isn't enough money in the program to
meet the overall need.
We stand ready to assist you, Madame Chair, and the Members of this
Subcommittee in furthering these efforts that are so important to all
our communities in the face of such an uncertain and challenging
future. We must emphasize, however, that we are facing water problems
right now. As evidenced in California's San Joaquin Valley,
legislation, water transfers and data collection alone will not resolve
these problems. The amount of water on the planet remains the same. We
need policy and water decisions that are based on sound science. And we
need the infrastructure to conserve, reuse, store, treat, manage and
convey water to where and when it is needed, at the quality and
quantity needed, to resolve these problems and avoid even more severe
consequences that loom on the horizon.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee
today. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
appendix a: tulare irrigation district--a case study highlighting more
recent grant (``challenge grant'', now termed ``watersmart grants'')
and funding opportunities with a focus on usbr programs
Backdrop
Many Western water projects are reaching the end of the original
economic and design life. Dollars for preventative maintenance and
system rehabilitation are hard to come by, while at the same time,
costs are increasing because less water is being sold, regulations are
increasing, farmed acreage is reduced, and energy and labor are more
expensive. Water supply reliability has been reduced in recent years,
which means that ways to increase additional yield are needed to even
get back close to meeting demand. Fortunately, new technology is
available to improve operational control. And local water managers are
realizing that new partnerships are needed in order to obtain
reasonable costs for improvements, all the while ensuring that benefits
are shared.
In California, Integrated Regional Planning (IRP) efforts are
gaining in prominence. The State of California has embedded the IRP
approach in Propositions 50 and 84 and the water bond proposal that
will be voted upon in November 2010. The IRP approach advocates for
collaboration and achievement of multiple benefits. It encourages a
blending/exchange of resources to maximize local benefits, and the
outcome is usually controlled more by regional partnerships then any
one individual agency.
Organization
Tulare Irrigation District (TID) covers 67,600 acres in
California's San Joaquin Valley. TID is a Central Valley Project Friant
contractor with major water rights on the Kaweah River and access to
groundwater. Two growing communities--Visalia and Tulare--affect TID's
operations. The district is water-short and located in an area of
regional groundwater overdraft, exacerbated by conditions caused by San
Joaquin River restoration efforts.
Key Actions
System Optimization Review (SOR)--TID in 2009 undertook a $655,000
planning study (with $300,000 USBR cost share) that will evaluate
historic diversions, currently available supplies; existing delivery
system capacity; past and projected demands; and groundwater pumping
estimates (municipal and agricultural) and estimated safe yield. The
SOR will assess potential groundwater recharge/banking projects and
other projects/programs (pre-feasibility level), addressing specific
issues raised in the SOR study. Based on this assessment, the SOR Study
will prepare a Strategic Plan to address the pressing issues TID faces
in the next several years. It will update the TID Groundwater
Management Plan and re-assess current resources and capabilities. The
Study will include a focused strategic planning effort to engage in
regional collaboration, especially with nearby cities and other
regional water managers. Projects and programs pre-feasibility analysis
will also be performed.
Plum Basin Phase 1
This $1,060,000 project (including a 2009 Challenge Grant cost
share of $300,000 and partnered with the City of Tulare) proposes the
construction of groundwater recharge basins and control structures.
SCADA Upgrade
Improvements to District canal operations with new SCADA equipment
and construction of new automated control structures will cost
$765,300, with 2005 Challenge Grant cost share of $300,000.
Other TID grant successes
USBR Field Services Grant $50,000 in FY 2007 for SCADA
improvements at the Tagus Basin, a District water recharge and
regulation facility;
USBR Field Services Grant $50,000 in FY 2008 for the design
and installation of a ramp flume on Rockford Canal near Da
Costa Basin.
NRCS AWEP funding in FY 2009 for conservation projects--
$4,000,000 to be spent over 5 years with TID growers;
ARRA Drought Relief Funding in FY 2009 of $925,000 for 2
well enhancements and 26 well rehabs for TID growers.
Lessons Learned
Tulare Irrigation District (TID) is fortunate to have aggressive
staffers who are always looking for opportunities and are willing to
invest time and money to successfully secure grants for projects that
conserve water and promote conjunctive management of surface and
groundwater. TID has benefited from partnering with others and sharing
project benefits, which generates significant local and regional
support for their project proposals. The keys to TID's grant success
have been: 1) Paying close attention to grant requirements; 2)
Sufficient planning to demonstrate a thoughtful and consistent
approach; and 3) Recognition that a ``phased'' approach can be used to
incrementally fund larger projects.
TID and other Alliance members have also identified some defects
with Challenge Grant administration and have offered up recommendations
to repair those flaws:
A. There is often a ``disconnect'' between required funding
timelines and needed National Environmental Protection Act/
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) reviews. In
California, local water users believe these reviews could be
satisfied in a much more expeditious manner by relying on
existing, similar state reviews. For aging water
infrastructure, the historic review requirements should be
modified, perhaps by developing a programmatic approach to the
NHPA requirements for water facilities.
B. Federal administrators sometimes have a lack of
understanding about the limited construction ``window'' that is
available when working on water delivery systems. Early
``kickoff meetings'' with project proponents and Reclamation
personnel should be a required step in these projects.
C. Grant applicants sometimes face a conflict between the
desire to spread the grant program benefits and the efficacy of
spending significant sums of money to secure smaller grants.
TID believes there is not enough Challenge Grant money to address
the needs that are out there. They also lament the absence of any
current program to address major rehabilitation needs, similar to the
now-defunct ``Small Reclamation Projects Rehabilitation and Betterment
Program''.
appendix b: little snake river conservation district--a case study
highlighting integrated collaborative watershed management and the
importance of locally-led management efforts
Backdrop
In most Western states, much of the water used derives from
snowmelt in mountainous areas. We are hearing more frequent reports
from state and local governments and water users who question how the
federal government is managing the watersheds. Forested lands cover
about one-third of the nation's land area, and although they have roles
in timber production, habitat, recreation and wilderness, their most
important output may be water. Forests provide natural filtration and
storage systems that process nearly two-thirds of the water supply in
the U.S. Forest vegetation and soils, if healthy and intact, can
benefit human water supplies by controlling water yield, peak flows,
low flows, sediment levels, water chemistry and quality. One of the
biggest threats to forests, and the water that derives from them, is
the permanent conversion of forested land to residential, industrial
and commercial uses.
Real management is needed in the real ``reservoir'' of the West--
our federally-owned forest lands in upper watershed areas.
Location
The Little Snake River is a Colorado River Headwaters Basin arising
on the continental divide with land in both Colorado and Wyoming. It is
a major tributary to the Yampa and Green Rivers in the Upper Colorado
Basin.
Geography and Hydrology
The area is relatively geographically isolated from any large
metropolitan or urban communities (> 300 miles from Denver or Salt Lake
City). Population in the basin is less than 1,000 people. There are
three towns in the basin, Baggs, Dixon, and Savery with populations of
400, 82, and 26, respectively. There are 20,000 acres of irrigated
lands adjacent to the main stem of the Little Snake River and its major
tributaries. Land ownership in the basin is approximately 31% private,
8% state, and 61% federal (BLM & USFS).
Elevations and precipitation in the basin range from 10,000 feet
and 55 inches of annual precipitation to 6,000 feet and 8 inches of
annual precipitation. Low elevation landscapes are dominated by desert
shrub land communities and transition to mixed mountain shrub, aspen,
and pine/spruce/ fir plant communities at the highest elevation.
Average annual water yield out of the basin is approximately
449,000 acre-feet (AF) per year. Total consumptive water use in the
basin is approximately 44,000 AF per year. The largest annual
consumptive use is for municipal water project via a trans-basin
diversion (21,000 AF) followed by agriculture (20,000 AF) and
environmental and miscellaneous uses (3,000 AF). The first water rights
for irrigation where filed with the Territory of Wyoming in March of
1875.
Land Use and Habitat Characteristics
Predominant land uses are range land agriculture, recreation, and--
more recently--fluid mineral development (oil & gas). Historically, the
basin also supported some timber harvest and hard rock mining for
copper, gold, and silver. Because of the basin's geographic isolation
and low population, it has not incurred major deleterious impacts
associated with human activity until the recently development of fluid
minerals. Consequently, the area has a fairly intact ecosystem that
supports the largest population of Colorado Cutthroat Trout, flannel-
mouth suckers, and round-tailed chubs. It also supports some of the
largest populations of Columbian Sharp-tail and Greater Sage Grouse in
the U.S. The basin is also home to 8,000 elk, 21,000 mule deer, 22,000
antelope, 130 species of birds, 15 species of fish, and numerous other
species of mammals and amphibians.
In 1844 John C Fremont traversed the Little Snake River Valley and
noted in his journals ``The country here appeared more variously
stocked with game than any part of the Rocky mountains we had visited:
and its abundance is owing to the excellent pasturage and its dangerous
character as a war ground''. The game (wildlife) that attracted the
warring Native American tribes to area was a byproduct of the excellent
pasturage that Fremont spoke of. It is also the reason the area
attracted early ranchers. The first cattle entered the Little Snake
Basin in 1871 when Noah Reader brought 2,000 head that where turned out
at the mouth of Savery Creek. In 1873 George Baggs brought 2,000 head
into the valley near the vicinity of the town bearing his name. Today
the area supports around 25,000 head of cattle, 6,000 head of sheep,
and 2,500 head of horse both domestic and wild.
Organization
The Little Snake River Conservation District (LSRCD) has a locally
elected board of supervisors and is staffed by dedicated professionals.
Key Integrated Collaborative Watershed Management Actions
Muddy Creek and Savery Creek Clean Water Act Section 319
Watershed Projects. The LSRCD has received and administered
over $1 million dollars from EPA to implement best management
practice for livestock grazing.
Muddy Creek Wetlands. Established the largest wetland
project in the State of Wyoming and received over $800,000 in
grant funding for this project including $165,000 from Ducks
Unlimited.
Little Snake River Aspen Conservation Joint Venture. Locally
lead effort with BLM & USFS, private land owners to restore and
enhance 12,000 acres of Aspen forest.
Little Snake River Watershed Fish Barrier Assessment.
Collaborative effort with Trout Unlimited, LSRCD, and local
landowners/irrigators.
Little Snake Watershed Fish Barrier Removal and Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration Project. Joint project with numerous
local, state, federal, and NGO partners. Current expenditure
and obligation for this project is $2.5 million.
Cooperative Conservation Planning Initiative (CCPI). This is
a USDA-NRCS farm bill program. The LSRCD is the local sponsor
on two different CCPI projects including the Fish Barrier
Removal and Hazardous fuels--forest health projects in the
Little Snake Basin.
Battle Collaborative Stewardship Contract. The USFS and the
LSRCD agreed to address hazardous fuels on 3,000 acres of the
Medicine Bow National Forest due to bark beetle infestation.
Little Snake River Conservation Planning initiative. This is
a joint effort among the LSRCD, NRCS, The Nature Conservancy
(TNC), and private land owners. It consists of inventorying and
updating conversation plans for 42,000 acres of private lands
for consideration under Conservation Easements.
Results
In 2005 the local community, working with the State of
Wyoming, constructed a 23,000 acre foot $30 million dollar
water storage project to provide water for municipal,
agricultural, fisheries and recreational use.
As part of the overall watershed project, Clean Water Act
Section 319 monies were utilized to implement grazing Best
Management Practice to restore and enhance riparian and upland
areas. Other funds and partners have assisted with the
restoration and enhancement of more than 20 miles of river and
stream channels for both cold and warm water fish species. Over
800 acres of wetland habitat has been constructed, improved,
and enhanced.
3,500 acres of forest treatment has been completed to reduce
hazardous fuels and improve wildlife habitat.
Thousands of acres have been put under conservation
easements in order to perpetuate agricultural use and protect
critical wildlife habitat.
Ten irrigation diversion structures have been modified to
allow for fish passage and in 2011 all remaining irrigation
diversion structures in the Little Snake basin are scheduled
for modification for fish passage.
Recognition
Since 1991 numerous agencies, organization, and NGO's have
recognized the Little Snake River community and the local governmental
natural resource agency, the Little Snake River Conservation District
(LSRCD), as leaders in natural resource conservation. Following are
list of acknowledgments and achievements.
1996 USDI-BLM Rangeland Stewardship Award.
1996-2000 National Demonstration Project ``Seeking Common
Ground--Livestock and Big Game on Western Range Lands''.
1997 & 2002 EPA volume II & III Section 319 Success Stories.
2007 National Association of Conservation District South
West Region Collaborative Conservation Award.
2009 Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Imperial Habitat Partner.
Numerous articles featuring work conducted by the LSRCD, area land
owners, and its partners have been featured in popular publications
like Farm Journal, Beef Today, Bugle Magazine, Wyoming Wildlife, and
Range Magazine as well as peer reviewed journal publication in the
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (2008) and the Journal of
Rangeland Ecology (2009).
Lessons Learned
These efforts have all been locally-led. Conservation of natural
resources in the Little Snake River Basin integrated with agrarian life
style and perpetuation of this culture is the highest priority for the
local community in the Little Snake Basin. In Wyoming, the local
residents have passed a conservation property tax to carry on this
work. Since 1990 this tax has generated approximately $8 million
dollars in local revenues. These funds have leveraged over $40 million
dollars in project money to implement conservation and development
projects in the Little Snake River Basin.
Today the Little Snake River Basin hosts a myriad of wildlife, and
robust natural resources while sustaining compatible agricultural uses
and natural resource based recreation business. This was accomplished
through local leadership and commitment of the Little Snake River
Conservation District working collaboratively with over 30 different
partner organizations and agencies that have assisted in the
conservation of the Little Snake Basin, in a collaborative locally-led
process.
Properly managing federal watersheds and encouraging federal
agencies to work with the agricultural community to solve local water
problems is imperative. Through thoughtful planning, the Administration
can play a truly important role in helping find the solutions that have
proved so elusive to date.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Now, Mr. Entsminger, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ENTSMINGER, REPRESENTING THE COLORADO RIVER
BASIN STATES
Mr. Entsminger. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am happy to be here today on behalf of the Colorado River
Basin States and to provide our views about the Colorado River
Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, which is a cooperative
effort between the Bureau of Reclamation and the basin States.
I would also like to touch on some of the conservation programs
we have in southern Nevada.
The Colorado River Basin includes parts of seven western
States, supplies water for municipal, industrial, agricultural,
and environmental needs and includes most of the major western
areas in the western and southwestern United States, including
Denver, Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, Phoenix, Tucson, Los
Angeles, and Las Vegas.
The reservoirs on the main stem can store about 4 times the
annual average flow of the Colorado River, and this storage has
allowed us to weather past droughts, including a significant
drought in the last 10 years.
However, there is increasing concern on the river that
increasing droughts, population growth, and climate change,
which is projected to reduce the available yield of the river
by as much as 10 to 30 percent over the next half century,
could exacerbate supply and demand in balances.
With this in mind, we strongly support Reclamation's
ongoing water conservation initiative, which includes the Basin
Studies program. Reclamation has committed $1 million to the
Colorado River Basin study over the next 2 years, and the basin
States have matched that $1 million with both cash and in-kind
services so that it is a 50/50 cost-share over the next 2
years.
We are pleased that that program kicked off on January 22nd
of this year, and the one concern we would note with the
program is with a program of this magnitude and complexity, we
want to ensure that there is sufficient funding to complete the
program and ask that Congress look at that as necessary.
Now I would like to turn my attention to some of our
conservation efforts, and we note that there are significant
conservation programs all over the Colorado River Basin, but in
southern Nevada, 90 percent of our water supply that we use to
supply 2 million people with water comes from the Colorado
River. So conservation is not a small component of our resource
program. It underlies our entire resource program.
To date, we have enacted a number of demand management
strategies. Our local governments, cities, and counties have
passed ordinances which limit the amount of turf that can be
installed in new homes. We have daily, weekly, and seasonal
frequency limitations. Significantly, we have a block-tiered
rate structure so that the lower rates, on the lower tiers, you
have a lifeline rate that is for indoor usage. But as you go up
and as you use more water outdoors, we send a pricing signal to
try to curtail outdoor use in a very strong way.
But we also provide incentives. To date, our WaterSMART
Landscape Program has provided $155 million to the residents of
southern Nevada to remove turf from our community. That program
has resulted in the removal of over 140 million square feet of
turf, or the equivalent of 3,200 acres of turf, with an average
annual savings of more than 7 billion gallons of water for our
community.
However, we know that conservation is not going to be the
only answer. We know that in the coming decades, new water
supply projects will be needed, and that is why we are so
supportive of the basin States program so that we can look at
these supply and demand imbalances and, hopefully, be ahead of
the curve in finding solutions for those imbalances.
With that, I thank you for your time today, and I will be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mulroy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patricia Mulroy, General Manager, Southern Navada
Water Authority, Las Vegas, NV
Madam Chairman, I am Patricia Mulroy, General Manager of the
Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), Las Vegas, Nevada. I am pleased
to provide my views to you today concerning the Bureau of Reclamation's
Basin Study Program and specifically the Colorado River Basin Water
Supply and Demand Study (Study), a cooperative effort between
Reclamation and the seven Colorado River Basin States (Basin States). I
would also like to describe our efforts at SNWA to promote water
conservation to help meet our current and future demands.
background
The Colorado River Basin (Basin) includes parts of the seven states
of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming
and is one of the most critical sources of water in the west. The
Colorado River and its tributaries provide water to over 30 million
people for municipal use, supply water to irrigate nearly 4 million
acres of land, and is also the lifeblood for at least 15 Native
American tribes, 7 National Wildlife Refuges, 4 National Recreation
areas, and 5 National Parks.
Many of the largest urban areas of the west and southwest such as
Denver, Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson, Los
Angeles and San Diego rely on the Colorado River or its tributaries for
all or a part of the water supply. Hydropower facilities along the
Colorado River provide more than 4,200 Megawatts of generating
capacity, helping to meet the power needs of the west while reducing
the use of fossil fuels. The Colorado River is also vital to Mexico to
meet both agricultural and municipal water needs.
Most of the flow of the Colorado River and its tributaries
originates as snowmelt from high mountain areas in Wyoming, Utah, and
Colorado and moves downstream through some of the most arid regions of
the U.S. Because of variations in weather and water use, Colorado River
flows have fluctuated significantly each year and throughout the year.
The reservoirs on the mainstream and its tributaries provide storage
capacity of approximately four times the average annual natural flow.
This storage has provided the ability to meet most demands in the
Basin, even over periods of sustained drought, such as has been
experienced since 2000.
However, concern has increased regarding the adequacy of Colorado
River runoff to meet future needs. This is based on recent severe and
persistent drought, projection of continued population growth in the
west and southwest, and predictions by Climate Scientists for as much
as 10-30 percent decreases in average yield of the Colorado River due
to climate change.
In fact, water supply and demand imbalances already exist in some
geographic areas in the Basin and are projected to increase in both
magnitude and extent in the future. Over the past nine years, average
annual Upper Basin water use has decreased by approximately 400,000
acre-feet (a decrease of approximately 11 percent) due in large part to
water shortages caused by the current drought.
basin states and reclamation will conduct colorado river basin water
supply and demand study
The Basin States strongly support Reclamation's ongoing Water
Conservation Initiative which includes the Challenge Grant, Title XVI,
and Basin Study Programs. All of these Programs offer potential ways to
help evaluate and meet current and future water supply challenges in
the west and southwest areas served by the Colorado River.
The Study is one example of how the Water Conservation Initiative
can provide assistance in managing the Basin's limited water supply.
The Basin States received notification from Reclamation in September of
this year that our proposal was selected and would receive Federal
cost-share funding. Reclamation has Federal funds in the amount of
$1,000,000 that will be provided over a two-year period toward
completion of this Study. The Basin States have committed to a 50
percent cost share with Reclamation through cash and in-kind services
to match the Federal contribution.
The Study will analyze through the year 2060 water supply and
demand imbalances throughout the Basin and in those regions outside the
Basin that receive Colorado River water, assess options for resolving
such imbalances, and develop recommendation to address current and
projected imbalances. We view the Study as a critical next step in
moving forward to address both short-term and long-term water supply
needs and for identifying potential solutions for the Basin. It will
build upon previous efforts by water utilities, the Basin States, and
Reclamation to manage the Colorado River in the most effective way
possible. We have worked closely with Reclamation to develop the
necessary agreements and the final Plan of Study. I am pleased to
report that the Study was initiated in January of this year.
While we deeply appreciate the Federal contribution for this Study,
we have some concern about whether the federal and non-federal funding
will be sufficient to get the best results for a study of this scope
and magnitude. We urge Congress to carefully consider the potential to
provide additional funding to enable further cost sharing to fully
achieve the goals of the Study.
southern nevada water authority's water conservation programs
I would now like to describe SNWA's conservation programs to
provide the Subcommittee insight with respect to our efforts to help
manage, conserve and stretch our supply of Colorado River water. While
my remarks will focus on SNWA, I would point out that most urban and
agricultural water entities throughout the Basin also have aggressive
conservation programs.
As you know, the Las Vegas area is located in one of the most arid
parts of the U.S. At present, 90% of SNWA's water supply comes from the
Colorado River. Promoting the efficient use of water is central to our
mission. Our success in increasing efficiency of water use and
reduction of water waste wherever possible has a direct link to the
volume of water we will need in the future.
While we consider conservation as one of the resources in our water
portfolio, it is fundamentally different from other water resources.
Unlike our ``wet'' resources such as the Colorado River, banked water,
and groundwater, conservation is a tool we use to reduce overall
demands.
We have implemented a number of conservation activities since our
formation in 1991. While we actively promote indoor conservation, our
greatest opportunity for water conservation lies in reducing outdoor
use, which accounts for about 60% of SNWA's water use. We use several
tools to aggressively promote conservation in the SNWA service area.
These include regulation, water pricing, incentives and education.
During the past 18 years, city and county governments have adopted
a variety of land use codes and water use ordinances to promote more
efficient use of water in the Southern Nevada area. For example, a 2003
code for construction of new homes prohibits turf in the front yard and
limits it to 50% of the backyard landscaping. Restrictions also
prohibit watering during the hottest times of day and limit how often
residents may water during the week on a seasonal basis. More stringent
policies have also been implemented to offset drought impacts and more
recently these have become permanent measures to assist in overall
conservation of water.
Water rates, including block or tiered rates, are one of our most
effective conservation tools. Higher rates are charged as water use
increases. This measure encourages efficiency while ensuring
affordability of water for essential uses. Rates are reviewed regularly
to ensure they keep up with inflation, maintain their effectiveness in
encouraging conservation, and maintain the fiscal integrity of the
water utility.
A variety of incentives are encouraging community participation in
water conservation. Incentives encourage residential and commercial
property owners to convert lawn to water-efficient landscaping. For
example, since its inception, we have provided nearly 155 million
dollars toward removal of turf as part of our Water Smart Landscapes
Program. This has resulted in conversion of over 140 million square-
feet of lawn (over 3,200 acres); saving more than 7 billions gallons of
water annually in the SNWA service area.
Last but not least, education is an integral element of our
conservation program. This tool helps communities in the Southern
Nevada area learn about the importance of conservation and what they
can do to help conserve water.
In closing, we will continue our efforts in conservation; however
it is clear that conservation alone will not enable us and many other
water users in the Basin to meet the projected Basin water demands
through 2060. Additional development of water resources will be
required. The efforts of all the water managers and users in the Basin
will be needed to accomplish this goal. In our view, the Study and
Reclamation's efforts in other areas of its Water Conservation
Initiative are critical factors in achieving this goal.
Madam Chairman, we thank you and other members of this Subcommittee
for your interest, support, and efforts to assure that the Basin and
adjacent regions that receive Colorado River water will continue to
have adequate supplies in the future.
I would be pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pack.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY J. PACK, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Mr. Pack. Madam Chair, Senator Bingaman, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
I am the general manager of Eastern Municipal Water
District, which provides water and wastewater services to
675,000 people in Riverside County in southern California.
California is in a water crisis. Southern California has
experienced the first year of region-wide mandatory water
rationing, and the initial allocation from the State water
project was the lowest it has ever been.
EMWD has long recognized the serious challenges that will
confront water agencies throughout the West and have made
supply self-sufficiency our most critical strategic objective.
Over the past decade, we have committed over $235 million of
our own funds just to implement programs that provide local
water in our service area. We have done this to reduce our need
for imported water supplies from Colorado River and the
California Delta.
As a result, we have reduced our dependence on imported
water from 82 percent down to 56 percent, while our connections
have gone up 34 percent in the last decade. We have
accomplished this by building brackish water desalination
plants, local water filtration plants, expanding our recycled
water system, aggressive water conservation, and demand-based
water rates.
I would like to comment on a few of the items contained in
Reclamation's WaterSMART initiative that we are already in the
process of doing.
EMWD is a member of the Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority, or SAWPA, which is a Joint Powers Authority, which
is composed of 5 water agencies tributary to the upper Santa
Ana River. The Santa Ana Watershed Basin is approximately 2,800
square miles in portions of 4 counties and is home for
approximately 5.6 million people. SAWPA and Eastern have
participated in basin-wide studies and management activities
for many years, and SAWPA today is recognized by the State of
California as the most sophisticated and effective watershed
planning agency in the State.
The element that is most important to our agency is the
Title XVI program. My agency's largest, most successful local
resource development effort is our nearly 50-year-old water
recycling program. EMWD's recycled water has provided for
agriculture, landscaping, environmental purposes, construction,
manufacturing, industrial customers, and ``in lieu'' customers
who take the water in lieu of groundwater.
In 2009, EMWD sold 73 percent of the recycled water
produced by our wastewater treatment plants. In perspective,
the State-wide usage number is about 15 percent, and
nationwide, it is about 5 percent of beneficial reuse.
The Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program provides a
means for funding water recycling projects. However, the
program has never been adequately funded until the recent
infusion of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009. Under that program, my agency received $9.46
million, which is used to construct storage tanks, pipelines,
and a booster plant to provide more reliable pressure to our
users.
While the primary objective of the project is to improve
system reliability and pressurization, it will also generate
approximately 3,200 acre-feet of new demand.
I want to comment on some of the programs that we have done
to reduce--to deal with the area of climate change, energy use,
and emission reduction. We have evaluated and quantified the
energy usage and emissions for each of our 5 sources of water.
Recycled water is lower in both areas by a significant amount.
Even the desalination plants use less energy and have fewer
emissions than our 2 imported water sources, which gives even
more importance to reducing our use of imported water.
Our water distribution system is managed by a computer
program that automatically determines the most efficient
combination of pumps to run and the time of day with the lowest
electric rate structure. Our entire headquarters facility is
powered by a series of nine natural gas-fired micro-turbines,
which also provides the hot water for the buildings and 150
tons of air conditioning.
We recently upgraded our large wastewater treatment plant
by adding 3 ultra-clean power plants that use fuel cell
technology and are fueled by gas generated during the treatment
process. This has enabled us to reduce energy costs and the
carbon footprint while generating clean, reliable energy
onsite.
The 3, 250-kilowatt fuel cells will allow the plant to meet
40 percent of its energy needs with zero emissions, reducing
the carbon footprint by approximately 1,200 tons of carbon
dioxide per year.
We also are test piloting a process for producing biodiesel
feedstock from restaurant grease waste. Currently, more than 5
million gallons of restaurant grease trappings are produced
each year in the service area and are being disposed of in a
landfill site. The oil that can be separated from the grease
trappings should be able to produce enough biodiesel to power
our entire fleet, and then some.
I have several other items, but I see my time is up. So
these are all detailed in my written comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pack follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anthony J. Pack, Eastern Municipal Water District
introduction
Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow and members of the Subcommittee on
Water and Power for the opportunity to testify before you today
regarding the implementation of the SECURE WATER ACT and the Bureau of
Reclamation's (Reclamation) WaterSMART Initiative. I am the General
Manager for the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), which provides
water and wastewater services to 675,000 persons in Riverside County in
Southern California.
Approximately five years ago, I testified before the House of
Representatives, Subcommittee on Energy and Resources. I expressed then
that the participation of the federal government in water resource
management is essential, as the federal government has the ability to
undertake or coordinate interstate and regional water development and
energy projects. I further recommended that the federal government
should participate by providing technical support by funding important
basic research to solve water and related energy problems. The SECURE
WATER ACT begins to address those issues, and confirms the obligation
of the Federal Government to support the States, as well as regional,
local, and tribal governments in the management of water resources.
This is proposed to be achieved through nationwide data collection and
monitoring, agency collaboration, basin studies, and further climate
change evaluation and activities to increase the efficiency of the use
of water in the United States. While these Congressional findings are
tremendously important, the implementation of the results is what will
determine our future.
California is in a water crisis. Southern California has
experienced its first year of region-wide mandatory water rationing and
the initial allocation from the State Water Project is the lowest it
has ever been. EMWD has long recognized the serious challenges that
will confront water agencies throughout the West, and have made supply
self sufficiency one of our most important strategic objectives. Over
the past decade, we have committed over $235 million just to implement
projects that will develop new local supplies in our service area, and
reduce our need for imported water supplies from the Colorado River and
the California Delta. As a result, we have reduced our dependence on
imported water from 82 percent down to 56 percent, while our
connections have increased 34 percent over the same period. We have
accomplished this by building Brackish Water Desalination Plants, Local
Water Filtration Plants, expanding our Recycled Water System, and
aggressive water conservation and demand based water rates.
Reclamation's WaterSMART Initiative includes the Basin Study
Program, cost-shared grants for water management improvement projects,
and funding of water reuse and recycling projects through the Title
XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse Program and the WaterSMART
Clearinghouse. Together, these programs are the principal components of
Reclamation's implementation of the SECURE WATER ACT. I would like to
share with you some of the ways my agency has participated in these
programs.
EMWD is a member of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
(SAWPA), a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), which is composed of the five
water agencies tributary to the upper Santa Ana River. The Santa Ana
Watershed Basin is approximately 2800 square miles in portions of four
counties, and home for approximately 5.6 million people. SAWPA and
Eastern have participated in basin wide studies and management
activities for many years and is recognized by the State of California
as the most sophisticated and effective watershed planning agency in
the state.
We have participated with Reclamation in several different grant
programs that addressed the goal of reducing outside water use, a
desalter brine reduction study, development of a landscape water use
database, and public school water efficiency retrofits. We look forward
to participating in these programs in the future. These programs are
very important as agencies must often commit their limited financial
resources to the more immediate needs of community growth and system
repair and replacement.
The third element, and the one most familiar to our agency is the
Title XVI program. My Agency's largest, and most successful local
resource development effort is our nearly 50 year old water-recycling
program. Water recycling, until recently considered an innovative use
of resources, is becoming commonplace as pressures on potable water
supplies continue to grow. In the past 10 years, due to extensive
research and elaborate public awareness programs, public acceptance of
recycled water has been greatly enhanced. This coupled with the easing
of regulatory restrictions has enabled local water agencies to tap into
this most important resource to meet the ever-increasing need for
water. EMWD's recycled water is provided for agricultural interests,
landscaping, environmental purposes, construction, manufacturing and
industrial customers and ``in lieu'' customers that will use recycled
water ``in lieu'' of historically used ground water. In 2009, EMWD sold
73 percent of the recycled water produced by our wastewater treatment
plants. In perspective, the statewide usage number is about 15 percent,
and the nation as a whole only averages five percent beneficial reuse.
The Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program provides a means of
funding water recycling projects; however, the program has never been
adequately funded until the recent infusion of funding from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). EMWD tried
unsuccessfully for several years to receive an authorization through
legislation until 2008, when we finally received a $12 million dollar
authorization. Subsequently, EMWD received $9.46 million in funding
under ARRA to construct storage tanks, pipelines, and a booster plant
to provide more reliable pressure to our users. One project has been
awarded, three projects will be awarded next month and one project is
being delayed because of the land condemnation process. We also have
three additional projects that were in the original Congressional
Authorization that could be implemented relatively quickly if
additional funding becomes available. While the primary objective of
the projects is to improve system reliability and pressurization, it
will also generate approximately 3,175 acre feet of new usage.
The Title XVI program allows the Federal Government to leverage its
investment four to one, and in these difficult economic times, it was a
struggle for EMWD to commit the $30 million representing our share of
the projects. While this is a burden for the local agency it gives
credibility to the program as no properly managed agency would submit a
project that did not have significant resource benefits, knowing that
it had to pay 75 percent of the costs.
There exists a substantial backlog of projects in the program. In
Southern California alone, 17 projects have been approved through
amendments to the Act. If all projects are completed they are projected
to generate 400,000 acre feet of recycled water annually. The Title XVI
program is vital to meeting the water supply needs of the nation and we
urge you to adequately fund the program to eliminate the backlog of
authorized projects.
The last component of the WaterSMART Initiative is the
Clearinghouse which is still under development. Once fully developed,
it will provide a focal point for obtaining information on a number of
water, conservation, and energy related issues.
Finally, I would like to address some of the activities we have
undertaken to address the areas of climate change, energy use, and
emissions reduction that align with the objectives of the SECURE WATER
ACT.
We have evaluated and quantified the energy usage and emissions for
each of our five sources of water. Recycled water is lower in both
areas by a significant amount. Even the Desalination Plants use less
energy, and have fewer emissions than our two imported water sources,
which gives even more importance to reducing our use of imported water.
Our water distribution system is managed by a computer program that
automatically determines the most efficient combination of pumps to
run, and the time of day with the lowest electric rate structure. We
reduced our energy costs an average of 10 percent when we implemented
the program. We also use natural gas engines, with state of the
industry emission controls, in many of our pumping plants.
Our entire headquarters facility is powered by a series of nine
natural gas fired micro-turbines which also provides the hot water for
the buildings and 150 tons of air conditioning as a secondary benefit.
We recently upgraded one of our large Wastewater Treatment Plants
by adding three ultra-clean power plants that use fuel cell technology
and are fueled by the gas generated during the treatment process. This
has enabled us to reduce energy costs and the carbon footprint while
generating clean, renewable, reliable, energy onsite. The three 250
kilowatt fuel cells will allow the plant to meet 40 percent of its
energy needs at peak hours with near zero emissions, reducing the
carbon footprint by approximately 1,200 tons of carbon dioxide per
year. EMWD is planning to install three additional 300 kilowatt fuel
cells at another Wastewater Treatment Facility, which could be
operational by 2012.
EMWD is currently test piloting a process for producing a biodiesel
feedstock from restaurant grease waste. Currently more than five
million gallons of restaurant grease trappings are produced each year
in the EMWD service area and are being disposed of in a landfill site,
necessitating a 180-mile roundtrip. The oil that can be separated from
the grease trappings should be able to produce enough biodiesel to
power our entire fleet, and then some, of diesel powered vehicles.
We have installed Global Positioning Systems on the majority of our
vehicles which resulted in a reduction 288,000 miles driven in just
nine months of use, compared to the same period in the previous year.
This resulted in a Green House Gas (GHG) reduction of 15 percent or
more from our vehicle use.
In summary, I would like to stress that your efforts here today are
critically important to California and the nation. California, and
indeed all the Western States, are currently experiencing unprecedented
multiple threats to their water supplies including continuing drought,
dwindling supplies, crumbling infrastructure, climate change concerns,
and population growth. The initiatives discussed here today are
essential for providing a secure water future for the Western states.
Madam Chairperson, I would like to thank you and the Subcommittee
members again for the chance to testify before you today and I will
respond to your questions.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much. Thank you to each of
you for your thoughtful and very important testimony as we move
forward.
Let me start with Commissioner Connor, and thank you again
for your leadership. You talk in your testimony about the
ongoing work of the Climate Change and the Water Working Group
that I know partners with USGS and the Army Corps and NOAA.
Could you talk more about the practical effects of the
partnership and how you are working to avoid duplication
efforts? When do you anticipate the report regarding potential
climate change adaptation strategies to be available?
Mr. Connor. Yes, Senator. The point of that collaboration,
as you say, is exactly that. I mean, this is an era of limited
resources. As we know from the President's State of the Union
address, we are going to be at flat budgets here on the
discretionary side for a while.
So it is absolutely imperative that we collaborate, not
duplicate efforts, and through that collaboration, we can make
headway on these projects. So, with respect to that working
group, I have got an example there of its first product was a
report that we did on climate change and water resources
management, which is an incredibly useful tool for identifying
data gaps. That was initially a key part of this.
We have general circulation models that provide some sense
of what is going to happen with precipitation patterns and how
that might affect water resources. But we need to look at how
to downscale those models so that we can work them on a basin-
by-basin basis.
So there is a lot of data that we need to put into that
effort. NOAA has those global circulation models. The USGS has
the hydrologic data that can feed into that. The Corps has
flood expertise that we need to understand in managing the
system. Of course, we have a good handle--we, the Bureau of
Reclamation--on water demands, water needs, and in a lot of
basins, environmental needs, too, that we need to manage for.
So that collaborative process I think will lead to a good
strategy for obtaining data, putting that into a useful forum
that we can use, and then managing from that data.
With respect to an overall next-generation report, I am not
sure what the timing of that is. Yes, I will be happy to answer
that question for the record.
Senator Stabenow. OK. Thank you very much.
Ms. Kassen, first, I come from Michigan. We are very proud
of Trout Unlimited and its origins in our great fishing State.
You talk in your testimony about examples of successful
cooperative efforts to restore habitat and also improve water
supply efficiencies, develop renewable energy supplies. Can you
talk a little bit more about examples and tell us what really,
from your perspective, is the key to success in those efforts?
Ms. Kassen. Sure. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I can give you an example from the Little Lost Basin, for
example, since the Senator from Idaho just joined us. In many
western--if you think about your basic western valley, there
are little tributaries coming down. There is a main stem at the
bottom of the valley, and there are irrigation ditches coming
off of those tributaries about a mile up from the confluence
with the main stem.
So the last mile of these tributaries can be dewatered and
sometimes dry during the late irrigation season, which would
naturally be the lowest flow over the course of the year. Using
farm bill money and after being in a valley for a while and
building relationships, Madam Chairwoman, I think that may be
the most important component of success is it is--even with my
staff on the ground in a State, they can't just walk up to one
of Dan's members and say, ``Hey, we have got a great project
for you. Trust us.''
We may not be the Government, but it just sort of doesn't
work that way. So we spend a lot of time, a lot of my staff
spend a lot of what I would call ``coffee shop time'' and
learning about what is important to the growers in the area, in
the district, and talking about the needs of the fisheries.
A lot of the rural areas where agriculture is important are
also areas where the recreation economy is growing, where land
owners can make as much money leasing private fishing rights as
they do growing hay. Certainly, it is a balance and an addition
to income.
So, after we spend some time hanging out in a valley,
talking and developing relationships, then we can go in and
work on improvements to irrigation districts. Maybe use
irrigation infrastructure. Maybe you start with a fish ladder.
Maybe you start with a screen on a diversion structure so that
the fish don't end up in the ditch as opposed to in the river,
which is important especially when you have fish that could be
listed on the Endangered Species Act list, but which are not
good in the irrigation ditch for a number of other reasons if
you are a grower.
So, first, we might do some relationship building doing
those kinds of projects. Then, since our interest is in trying
to get the tributary opened back up for habitat, we would move
to an application for EQIP money under the farm bill, for
example, to change the point of diversion from that one mile up
that dewaters the bottom of the tributary onto the main stem or
into groundwater, put in a solar pump so that nobody is
spending any energy. It is renewable energy. The water now
comes from the main stem, and the tributary flows all summer
long into the main stem.
So you have opened up 1, 5, 8, 20 miles of habitat. The
water yield is the same. There is a solar pump. So it is not
costing in terms of energy, which can be a big deal for
producers. We like to think of it as being a win-win-win-win
all the way around. It is good for the fish, and it shows that
sort of nontraditional allies can work together.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
We have been joined by Senator Risch. Welcome. I am going
to turn to our chairman for a few questions, and then come back
to Senator Risch.
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Thank you all for your testimony.
Let me just ask one--I will ask Mike Connor. One of the
issues that is obviously undergirding all of this is as the
cooperation and coordination between Federal agencies, we have
got the Interior and the Corps of Engineers, and that is
primarily what you have addressed. We have also got the
Department of Agriculture, and Ms. Kassen has talked about the
farm bill in various comments.
I guess I would be interested in knowing the extent to
which this push for smart use of water and sustainable use of
water and conservation of the water resources has been
implemented and is being implemented in the Department of
Agriculture, in addition to the extent to which it is being
implemented in Interior. Because, obviously, in my State--I am
sure this is true in all western States--by far, the biggest
user of water is agriculture. If you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Connor. I do have thoughts. I don't have a lot of
anecdotal data and evidence about how USDA has been working
some of these same types of programs, with same objectives as
we have. I know they have the programs. They have the EQIP
program, which I think is driven toward on-farm water
conservation.
So it is a perfect partnership that can be created between
our approach, which is usually we look at conservation,
rehabilitation of our existing system--delivery systems. Then
if you couple that with on-farm improvements, which is the
primary goal of the EQIP program, I think we can have a
collective strategy that addresses problems on a more broader
basis than any particular river basin.
They also have a rural energy program. We are in the
process, driven by a couple of crises that we are dealing with,
with respect to the California Bay Delta and the Klamath Basin
situation, of looking at forming partnerships with the USDA and
trying to just do that, addressing these conflict situations
where we have water shortages and not just combine our
conservation efforts for the long-term solution, but also
combine it with the USDA and then integrate a renewable energy
strategy as part of that.
So that is the goal. It is something that is already in the
works, and the proof will be in the next couple of years of
whether we can start coordinating our efforts, having projects
on the ground that yield those benefits on a broader spectrum.
The Chairman. All right. Let me ask Mr. Pack a question.
You made a statement in your testimony that I found
interesting. You say we have evaluated and quantified the
energy usage and emissions for each of our 5 sources of water.
Recycled water is lower in both areas by a significant amount.
Even the desalination plants use less energy and have fewer
emissions than our 2 imported water sources.
Commissioner Connor and I were at a ceremony at the Bureau
of Reclamation's laboratory that they have set up to try to
help develop desalination technology and see what more can be
done with that. Can you tell a little more detail about how you
concluded that getting water from your desalination plants uses
less energy and has fewer emissions than your imported water
sources? That surprises me as a conclusion.
Mr. Pack. Yes, Senator. I do have a graph that I should
have included in my written testimony. But Commissioner Connor,
in his former job, has seen it, and I think you will remember
it and the staff has as well. But we calculated the total
energy usage of the State project and the Colorado project from
the point of source to the point of delivery in our service
area and calculated the pumps, such as the pumping over the
Tehachapis.
Then we looked at the energy usage of the 2 plants,
desalinization plants that we have running. These are
groundwater, brackish plants treating about 2,000 TDS water. As
you know, the lower the TDS, the less energy required to push
it through the membranes and quantified those as well.
On the recycled water, we do not use any of the energy
costs within the wastewater treatment plant, only from the
fence line on out because the wastewater treatment process is
required, of course, by law. So we only calculated what was in
the distribution system for the recycled water. I have all
those numbers.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much, Chairman Bingaman.
We are going to continue with a few questions. Senator
Risch will please jump in as you wish.
To Mr. Keppen, from the standpoint again of family farms,
that your alliance is so important in talking about the
partnership between agriculture and conservation and how all
these partnerships come together. You talk in your testimony
about the inclusion of measures to address climate change,
adaptation needs of agriculture in rural communities.
I wonder if you talk more about examples of the kinds of
measures that you think would be best?
Mr. Keppen. Sure. Thanks for this opportunity.
Many of those tools are available in SECURE. That is why we
were so supportive of that legislation initially. I mean, a lot
of it comes down to uncertainty when you are talking about
climate change. SECURE allows and promotes installation of
additional stream gauges and snow measurement devices, that
sort of thing. That is hugely, hugely important right now.
I think there is studies all over the board about what the
impacts of climate change will be on water resources in the
West. Regardless of what is causing the climate change, we are
seeing it in a lot of places. I think most of those studies are
consistent in predicting that we are likely to see periods of
snow melt happening sooner and then having longer and drier
summers.
So another tool that our association advocates for is
creating new storage to trap that water and capture it and use
it not only to help irrigation and late summer needs, but also
to provide flood control and other benefits.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
I am wondering, coming from a State of Michigan, where we
have a lot of water. But we have a lot of family farms, and we
have a lot of challenges and different impacts as it relates to
climate change and so on. What kinds of conversations go on
between your alliance on the west coast and people in the
middle of the country and so on as it relates to sharing
information, even if there is right now a different impact?
I am wondering what kinds of conversations are happening?
Mr. Keppen. That is a great question. By the way, my
parents are both from the Detroit area. So----
Senator Stabenow. OK. Great.
Mr. Keppen. But, well, see, our organization was created
about 20 years ago, and you notice we are in the western
States. The reason for that is we have a real strong
partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation. A lot of our
members are bureau customers. So, really, this side of the
Mississippi, we have no members.
We do work with other organizations, and in particular in
the last year, we have been working with the Johnson Foundation
out of Racine, Wisconsin. They have got this really great
environmental forum set up, and we have been real active in
that. They are going to be rolling out a public session here in
June that is going to kind of encapsulate 3 or 4 meetings that
they have had in the last 2 years, talking about fresh water in
the United States.
I was part of a 3-day forum in Racine last fall. There were
about 30 of us there, conservation groups and ag groups, trying
to find common ground in particular on water quality issues in
farming. So, yes, that dialog is going on, and in my view, that
is the most effective forum I have seen so far.
Senator Stabenow. Right. I would encourage that very much.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank the chairman, who isn't here, for arranging for this
meeting.
First of all, in response to that last question, I grew up
in Wisconsin, and I now live in Idaho. I can tell you that the
use of water is very much different in the Midwest than it is
the western States. I appreciate the attempt to find some
common ground, but I am telling you, it is a whole different
deal. We irrigate with a teaspoon sometimes out West, where
that isn't necessarily true in the Midwest.
I had a question for Ms. Kassen. I am familiar with the
description, you had a description, I think, was it on the
Pahsimeroi River that you are referring to, where we had the
dewatering stretches? Was that the river you were talking
about?
Ms. Kassen. Actually, a tributary----
Senator Risch. Tributaries?
Ms. Kassen. It was actually a tributary to the Little Lost,
but it would also be true on the Pahsimeroi.
Senator Risch. Same thing. I was aware of the conversion to
pumps in some of the areas. I guess I was not aware that you
were doing the pumping through--or that the farmers were
encouraged to do a project that has the pumping through solar.
What size of a pump can you run with solar?
You know, on my farms, I have run 100 horse, and I have run
60 horse, and I can't see one of those turning with solar
power. But how big a pump are you talking about?
Ms. Kassen. OK. We are not talking about a center pivot,
Senator. We are not. We are talking about this is a stream
which is probably--we are putting one CF--by doing this
project, we are putting a CFS or a CFS and a half back into--
back into the stream. So----
Senator Risch. How many horse pump? I guess that is what it
comes down to.
Ms. Kassen. Off the top of my head, I honestly don't know.
But it is not--it is fived. It is smaller. So let me find out
for you.
Senator Risch. Do you think you can run a 5 horse pump on
solar?
Ms. Kassen. I will tell you how much it is----
Senator Risch. OK. I appreciate it.
Ms. Kassen [continuing]. For the record.
Senator Risch. I would be interested. For those who don't
understand, I mean, this may seem small. But Ms. Kassen would
affirm that when you are talking about 1 CFS up in the Upper
Salmon stretches or the Little Lost or the Big Lost, that is a
critical piece of habitat for fish. So even though it sounds
small, it is really important.
So thank you.
Senator Stabenow. Let me ask Mr. Entsminger. Am I
pronouncing that correctly? Is that----
Mr. Entsminger. Entsminger, Madam Chair.
Senator Stabenow. Entsminger. OK. Thank you very much.
I wonder if you might talk from a practical standpoint.
What do the Colorado River Basin States hope to gain, if you
could talk a little bit more about what they hope to gain
through the current study, and what additional work will be
done after the study is completed? What will need to be done?
Mr. Entsminger. I think I will answer the second part first
and say I think we won't know what needs to be done until we
complete the first phase of the study. Because the study
itself, all the States, all the water users do a lot of work
within their areas, assessing their water supply needs, but
there hasn't been a basin-wide holistic look at what is
everybody's projections for the next 50 years. Where are these
supply and demand imbalances most likely to occur?
Then, as Commissioner Connor stated in his testimony, what
are the logical steps that can be taken to address those supply
and demand imbalances? So that is really the crux of this
study--A, identify where these imbalances occur and, B, look at
realistic, real-world solutions that can be implemented to
address them.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
Commissioner Connor, you have released a draft criteria you
intend to use to allocate funding for Title XVI water reuse
programs. I am wondering how the criteria will be used to
address the backlog? We are hearing about the backlog today. We
know there is a backlog that exists, and we know there is about
10 new projects, I believe, awaiting authorization.
What will be the criteria used to prioritize the newly
authorized projects, and how will you address the current
backlog?
Mr. Connor. You are correct. There is a substantial backlog
in the Title XVI program based on its popularity and the
results that are being achieved. So it is the definition of an
oversubscribed program, if there is any Federal program. It is
about $600 million. That is $600 million after we put, as Mr.
Pack mentioned, $135 million of Recovery Act money toward Title
XVI projects.
So we are making incremental gains with respect to that
Title--with respect to Recovery Act money. We were able to
initiate some activity on some newly authorized projects. We
are going to try and keep that going with our budget request
for 2011, which was $29 million, which was about 115 percent
increase over the prior enacted year. So we are trying to
demonstrate the commitment to getting at that oversubscribed
nature and that backlog.
The criteria that you mentioned are going to be key to that
effort. If we can increase--over the last few years, we have
just incrementally tried to keep the 2 or 3 or 4 projects that
were authorized back in 1992 moving toward completion.
Certainly, Congress had increased that amount over time. But
for our budgets, we had pretty much limited activity to those
existing projects in construction.
Now that we are seeking additional resources, particularly
through fiscal year 2011, we need to have a set of criteria to
define for the 2011 request how we would use the $20 million of
undesignated Title XVI money that we are asking for and then in
future years, as we are developing budgets.
So the criteria are going to be key for that. We put them
out for public comment, I believe, yesterday. We want to be
transparent. We want to revise the criteria as a result of the
discussions that we get and the comments that we get.
We are looking at certainly water supply. That is a key
factor in the criteria. What is the bang for the buck with
respect to the investment and the yield on recycled water? Is
it a regional approach? Are there partners involved in this
process? Does it help alleviate conflicts? That is another
aspect of the program.
A new aspect of the program, and obviously, Mr. Pack's
projects would fare well, is the integration of renewable
energy strategies and energy efficiency opportunities through
these projects.
So that is the whole--that is not the entirety of it. That
is kind of some key criteria that are going to be moved
forward, and they are going to be key to us prioritizing
projects and whittling down the backlog.
Senator Stabenow. Further on Title XVI, it is my
understanding that the projects that have been authorized and
funded so far are in California, and I am wondering what
Reclamation is doing to ensure that programs benefits are
utilized throughout the Reclamation States?
Mr. Connor. Certainly, you are correct that the vast
majority of projects have been focused on California.
Originally, the program was actually created to help address
and alleviate the oversubscription of southern California and
the Colorado River Basin, and it has been very effective from
that standpoint in generating well over 200,000 acre-feet of
recycled water over time to help wean southern California off
the Colorado River and also to help address its reliance on the
Bay Delta.
There have been other projects already. New Mexico; El
Paso, Texas; Arizona; Oregon; and Utah have benefited from the
Title XVI program really to the tune of, I think, one project
each in those States. We are getting a large amount of interest
from Texas, and I had a discussion with a whole number of
municipalities in Texas at the last National Water Resources
Association conference.
So, actually, our Great Plains region went down and
conducted a seminar with a bunch of municipalities in Texas to
walk through the Title XVI process, the feasibility criteria
that we use as a threshold matter, that we try and inform
Congress about before authorization takes place, and then the
prioritization criteria that we will look at for funding
projects.
So we are trying to inform people about the program. Of
course, I have got to just be candid that, typically, we are
not supporting new authorizations right now, given that large
backlog that exists. But we are trying to have people work
through the process, let them assess the feasibility of these
projects, let them inform Congress, and we recognize that the
program has a lot of benefits.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
Then, finally for me, how will the interests of the
environment be addressed in the new Basin Study program? For
example, nongovernmental organizations, will they be eligible
to cost-share with Reclamation to do a study or to apply for
WaterSMART programs?
Mr. Connor. I need to go back and check on the WaterSMART
programs. I think that is an eligibility that we need to
address. So let me address that one for the record, quite
frankly.
Certainly, NGO's can be cost-share partners as part of the
Basin Studies. We hope as the program--we are going to continue
the program in fiscal year 2010. I think we have already sent
out requests for interest from States, and I think they are due
back at the end of March and which we will start a process to
start making decisions by June.
Hopefully, given the success and the interest in fiscal
year 2009, the first 3 Basin Studies programs, that the
coalition that gets together to cost-share will grow and
include the NGO community. I certainly appreciate the comments
that Ms. Kassen made with respect to the Colorado River Basin
Studies program. We are going to have a public involvement plan
associated with that.
We hope to not just have cost-share partners comment, but
actually be on some of the teams that are going to be developed
to work through some of these issues. I am certainly happy to
go back and look at that.
I would say, as we move forward from this point on with the
SECURE Water Act authority and our West-wide risk assessments,
we are going to be looking not just at water supplies and
demands from a traditional water user standpoint, but also
incorporating environmental needs as part of those assessments.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Just in closing, Madam Chairman, is that I
want to thank TU for your work in Idaho. I am quite familiar
with it, and the description you had in your testimony about
working from the bottom up, as opposed to the top down, is one
that the U.S. Government could take an example from.
Working as you do, spending your money on projects on the
ground and actually having bragging rights to accomplishments
is substantially better than the litigious approach that some
other organizations take to attacking these problems. You are
to be commended for what you do, and I am a great fan of what
TU is doing, particularly in Idaho.
Thank you.
Ms. Kassen. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Risch.
Thank you to each of you.
I should note that we have also received additional written
testimony regarding the hearing today that will be put in the
record. The testimony, as well as the written submissions that
each of you have given, will be made a part of the record.
We will keep the record open for a period of 2 weeks to
receive any additional statements or additional information you
would like to have. For purposes of Senators and staff,
questions for the record will be due by the close of business
tomorrow.
So, again, thank you very much for all of your efforts, and
this subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Response of Melinda Kassen to Question From Senator Risch
Question 1. Will the WaterSMART project give us better
understanding of the ``supply and demand'' relationships with ESA and
the Salmon in the Columbia Basin?
Answer. While WaterSMART includes some west-wide research and a
broad ranging grant program, there is no specific Columbia River Basin
Study that might consider the relationships highlighted in this
question. However, there is a Yakima Basin Study underway where the
goal is to develop a Comprehensive Water Resource Management
Implementation Plan. See, http://www.usbr.gov/WaterSMART/docs/
Yakima%20River.pdf. Because of the presence of ESA-listed salmon
species in the Yakima River Basin, this study, and the plan that will
be its product, should provide a better understanding of how to address
the ``water resource imbalances'' that exist in that basin. (Id.)
Eventually, WaterSMART could expand the lessons learned from this
Yakima Basin Study more broadly through the Columbia River Basin.
______
Responses of Patricia Mulroy and John Entsminger to Questions From
Senator Risch
Question 1. Please describe the different federal agencies you have
to coordinate with in order to provide water within your area.
Answer. Due to the fact that approximately 90% of the land in
Nevada is owned by the federal government and 90% of the water supply
for southern Nevada originates in a federal reservoir (Lake Mead), the
Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) has ongoing interactions with
multiple federal agencies. A brief description of these interactions is
as follows:
a. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). SNWA has contracts with BOR
pursuant to Sec. 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act for the
delivery of Nevada's basic and surplus Colorado River
apportionments that represent approximately 90% of southern
Nevada's municipal water supplies. SNWA also interacts with BOR
as the representative of the Secretary of Interior in his role
as water master of the lower Colorado River pursuant to the
Consolidated Decree in Arizona v. California. SNWA holds
rights-of-way grants for water treatment and transmission
facilities on BOR property.
b. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). SNWA holds rights-of-way
grants for water treatment and transmission facilities on BLM
property and has active applications for additional rights-of-
way. Obtaining these rights-of-way grants have resulted in
numerous and ongoing compliance actions pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and multiple
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's) and Environmental
Assessments (EA's).
c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The NEPA actions
referenced above also result in corollary compliance with the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). SNWA has, both historically and
currently, worked with the FWS on completing appropriate
consultations pursuant to Sec. 7 of the ESA, has collaborated
with FWS in implementation habitat conservation plans pursuant
to Sec. 10 of the ESA and has worked closely with FWS in
determining the need to list additional species as threatened
or endangered pursuant to Sec. 4 of the ESA.
d. National Park Service (NPS). Lake Mead is surrounded by
Lake Mead National Recreation Area, which is managed by NPS.
SNWA holds rights-of-way grants for water treatment and
transmission facilities on NPS property and anticipates future
applications for additional rights-of-way with resultant NEPA
and ESA compliance. SNWA has a proposed groundwater project in
the vicinity of Great Basin National Park and has entered into
a number of stipulated agreements with NPS pursuant to state
water rights processes regarding environmental monitoring and
management activities.
e. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). SNWA has entered into a
number of stipulated agreements with NPS pursuant to state
water rights processes regarding environmental monitoring and
management activities. SNWA has also interacted with BIA in
negotiated water rights agreements with the Las Vegas Band of
Paiute Indians, the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians and the Navajo
Nation.
f. Army Corp of Engineers (ACE). SNWA has frequent and
ongoing compliance activities with the ACE related to dredge
and fill permits under Sec. 404 of the Clean Water Act.
g. United States Geological Survey (USGS). SNWA has multiple
contracts with the USGS, including several joint funding
agreements, related to the monitoring and study of surface and
groundwater resources in eastern and central Nevada, water
quality issues in Lake Mead and other Colorado River issues.
h. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Although
administered by the Nevada Department of Environmental
Protection, SNWA has numerous compliance activities related to
the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act overseen by
EPA.
i. International Boundary Water Commission (IBWC). SNWA is
currently working with IBWC and BOR as part an ongoing process
to reach agreements with the country of Mexico on a number of
Colorado River issues, including shortage sharing.
j. National Forest Service (NFS). SNWA holds grazing permits
administered by the NFS related to ranching operations
associated with SNWA's groundwater resources.
Question 2. Please describe the models you use in projecting
current and future water use.
Answer. SNWA projects water use by using estimated future SNWA
service area population along with projected water use in gallons per
capita per day (GPCD) based on SNWA's current water use patterns and
current water conservation goals.
The projected future population utilized in SNWA's water use
forecast is based on Clark County population forecasts prepared by the
University of Las Vegas Nevada's Center for Business and Economic
Research (CBER). The CBER population forecasts are currently funded
under an interlocal agreement among the Southern Nevada Water
Authority, the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada,
and the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition. CBER prepares the
Clark County population forecasts using the Regional Economic Models,
Incorporated model PI+ (REMI), a regional economic model commonly
applied in economic forecasting and impact analysis. CBER's forecasting
process also involves a workgroup consisting of southern Nevada
planners, demographers and analysts resulting in a consensus on the
population forecast for Clark County. The resulting forecasts are
utilized by many southern Nevada agencies in various planning
processes.
SNWA's water use forecasting process applies the CBER forecast of
Clark County population by adjusting the forecast to reflect the SNWA's
service area. The resulting SNWA service area population forecast is
then combined with current normalized water use in GPCD and a long-term
trend on GPCD reflecting achievement of SNWA's long-term conservation
goal. SNWA's current long-term water conservation goal is to reduce
GPCD by approximately 50 additional gallons per person by the year
2035.
______
Responses of Michael L. Connor to Questions From Senator Stabenow
Question 1. Your testimony indicates that Reclamation has expended
approximately $74 million for the challenge grant program since 2004
and that you expect that investment to eventually yield a savings of
approximately 580,000 acre-feet of water per year--you also indicate
that Reclamation has spent approximately $524 million for the Title XVI
program which saved 245,000 acre-feet of water in 2009--
Can you give us an ``apples to apples'' comparison of
dollars spent per acre-feet of water saved for each program?
Answer. Because Title XVI water recycling projects are
fundamentally different from the typical water conservation focus of a
WaterSMART [formerly Challenge] Grant project, a strict ``apples to
apples'' comparison of the dollars spent per acre-foot is not a
representative measure of each program's performance. Many external
variables including regional economics, water availability, specific
concerns being addressed by each project, water use type, and other
factors influence the two programs' performance and cost.
For example, in agricultural areas, water delivery improvements
such as canal lining or measurement improvement projects funded with
WaterSMART grants may yield significant water savings. In urban areas,
residential and industrial efficiency improvements can be supplemented
by attempts to create new water supplies. Water recycling and reuse is
a critical tool to address urban water needs, reduce imported water and
associated pumping costs, and thereby increase the sustainability of
water supplies.
Using figures up to 2009, as stated in our testimony, Title XVI
projects had been appropriated $524 million in Federal funds since 1992
and were producing 245,000 acre-feet of water per year. Counting only
the Federal appropriations (not counting the typical 75% local project
share within Title XVI), these existing Title XVI projects could be
said to have a $2,138 per acre-foot cost. It is important to note,
however, that the $524 million listed in our testimony includes $135
million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding. Projects
funded under ARRA are currently beginning construction and will add to
the 245,000 acre-feet per year of water savings recorded in 2009. A
cost per acre-foot excluding ARRA funding to compare water savings more
closely to constructed projects is approximately $1,588 per acre-foot.
For WaterSMART Grants, these projects had been appropriated $74
million since 2004, and were conserving 580,000 acre feet per year.
Counting only the Federal appropriations, these existing projects could
be said to have yielded a $127 per acre-foot cost.
Are there reasons to continue to fund both programs even if
one is more efficient on a dollar per acre-foot of water basis?
Answer. Yes. Throughout Reclamation, many different projects and
programs produce water at a differing cost per acre-foot basis. As
stated above, this is attributable to the wide variety of external
variables in place where water projects are constructed. The Department
of the Interior (Department) believes that cost is not the only
variable relevant for policy decisions about the funding of water
programs.
Question 2. How will the WaterSMART program incorporate the goals
of the Department's New Energy Frontier initiative?
Answer. Both the New Energy Frontier initiative and the WaterSMART
initiative are part of the Department's Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 budget
request. While their implementation will proceed separately, each
initiative advances the goal of renewable energy in the water, energy
and land management areas. Under the WaterSMART Program, Title XVI
Program funding and the WaterSMART Grant funding opportunity both award
points to projects incorporating renewable energy sources and
addressing the water-energy nexus. Projects competing under these
Programs are more likely to receive Federal funds if they incorporate
renewable energy technology or resources. Also under the WaterSMART
Program, the Basin Studies being conducted by Reclamation specifically
focus on increased demand for hydropower or other energy development
that may result from anticipated changes in water use or decreased
reservoir levels. The New Energy Frontier initiative will be
implemented primarily through the Bureau of Land Management, Minerals
Management Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Under the terms of a March 24, 2010
Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of the Interior, the
Department of Energy and the Department of the Army through the Corps
of Engineers, Reclamation will also play a key role in increasing
generation from Federal hydropower facilities. The MOU is described
online at http://www.doi.govinews/pressreleases/2010_03_24_release.cfm
Question 3. You indicate that Reclamation has initiated West-wide
Climate Change Risk Assessments to provide consistent projections for
all of the major river basins in the West of how climate change will
affect water supplies--
How are you coordinating with the other federal agencies on
this effort to ensure that you are not duplicating efforts?
Answer. Reclamation coordinates with other Federal agencies
regarding our climate change activities in several different ways. In
2008, Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA and the U.S.
Geological Survey formed the Climate Change and Water Working Group to
coordinate and focus on identifying climate research needs and tools.
In addition, we work closely with WestFAST, a group of Federal agencies
that work with the Western States Water Council. Additionally,
Reclamation coordinates with other Federal agencies on individual
climate change activities, including on each of the Basin Studies
funded in FY 2009. Similarly, Reclamation, which will be initiating
West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments in the next few months, will reach
out to other Federal agencies in conducting the Assessments, both
through the working groups identified above and through agency
contacts. For example, Reclamation co-hosted a workshop with NOAA in
March 2010 in Boulder, Colorado, to bring together Federal agencies
involved in climate activities on the Colorado River. The purpose of
the meeting was for agencies to share information about their
activities and to identify opportunities to collaborate. The West-Wide
Risk Assessments were one of the topics presented by Reclamation.
Finally, Reclamation is also actively involved in Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives, which are focused on increasing coordination
among Federal agencies, States, Tribes, local governments and non-
governmental entities on climate change and resource management.
Responses of Michael L. Connor to Questions From Senator Risch
Question 1. What specific efforts are underway with participation
with US Corp of Engineers?
Answer. Because of our shared missions of water resources
management, the efforts of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) are intimately intertwined across the West.
Reclamation has many efforts underway at the operational and planning
levels with participation from USACE. In Idaho, for example,
Reclamation operates facilities like Palisades Dam on the Snake River
to be consistent with flood control criteria developed by USACE and
adopted by Reclamation. In the event that flows on the River reach a
pre-determined level, criteria in place at Palisades and elsewhere call
for specific actions to manage the facility to maximize flood control
and protect life and property. This arrangement is very common at
Reclamation facilities given USACE's longstanding mission focus on
flood control. At the planning level, Reclamation and USACE coordinated
very closely to plan and commence construction--underway now--of the
Joint Federal Project (JFP) at Folsom Darn on the American River in
California. The JFP is a construction project to improve. both flood
control capability and dam safety at Reclamation's Folsom Dam. The
USACE is conducting the flood control improvements at Folsom, and
Reclamation is conducting the dam safety work. At the long-term
planning level, Reclamation and USACE in February 2005 signed a
partnership agreement designed to increase the coordination,
collaboration and cooperation between the two agencies. This
partnership agreement will enable Reclamation and USACE to collaborate
in areas of mutual interest, such as river management and water supply
initiatives; hydropower management; technical assistance for research;
darn safety and security; emergency management procedures; water-
related recreation management; and improvement of communications
between field offices. Finally, as referenced above, under the terms of
a March 24, 2010 Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of
the Interior, the Department of Energy and the Department of the Army
through the Corps of Engineers, Reclamation and the Army Corps will
play a key role in increasing generation from Federal hydropower
facilities.
Other collaborative activities with USACE include:
Working together as participants on the Columbia River
Reservoir Management Joint Operating Committee to develop
climate and hydrology datasets for use in longer-term planning
studies; and
Reclamation and USACE, as part of the Climate Change and
Water Working Group, have drafted a joint agency perspective on
the improved tools and information our agencies need to better
incorporate global climate change information into our
management of water and water-related resources. The draft
document is titled: Addressing Climate Change in Long-Term
Water Resources Planning and Management: User Needs for
Improving Tools and Information. The document is currently
being broadly reviewed by both agencies. We have also invited
representatives from the non-Federal and other Federal water
resources management communities to contribute their
perspectives for inclusion in the document. We hope its
publication will help science organizations and agencies focus
their climate-related research and development toward the data
and tools most needed by water managers.
Our work with the Army Corps regarding biological opinions
governing the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) is
discussed below.
Question 2. What specific efforts are underway with participation
with Bonneville Power Administration?
Answer. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) markets electric
power and energy from Federal hydroelectric projects in the Pacific
Northwest constructed and operated by both Reclamation and the USACE.
BPA's service area includes Oregon, Washington, Idaho, western Montana,
and small parts of Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, California, and eastern
Montana. Compliance with biological opinions governing operation of the
Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) is one action among many
underway today that requires close coordination between Reclamation and
BPA. The current FCRPS biological opinion reflects over two years of
collaboration by Reclamation, BPA, USACE, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service, together with the four Pacific Northwest States and
several Tribes. As a result of this extensive collaboration and the
parallel, but independent efforts of the action agencies (BPA, USACE,
and Reclamation) to negotiate 10 year agreements to support
implementation of the FCRPS biological opinion, and benefit salmon
recovery efforts, the States of Montana, Washington, and Idaho, the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribe of Idaho, and the Yakama, Warm Springs,
Umatilla, and Colville Tribes, signed 10 year memoranda of agreement
with the action Agencies and have agreed to support the 2008 FCRPS
biological opinion in litigation pending in Federal Court. This
development will lend consistency and predictability to the Federal
operational efforts in the entire Pacific Northwest.
Question 3. Will the WaterSMART project give us better
understanding of the ``supply and demand'' relationships with ESA and
the Salmon in the Columbia Basin?
Answer. As described in Reclamation's testimony, as part of the
WaterSMART Program's basin studies, Reclamation's West-Wide Climate
Risk Assessments will provide projections of how climate change will
affect several factors in eight major river basins, including the
Columbia. Those factors include water demand, temperature and
precipitation. As of now, no WaterSMART Basin Study has been announced
specific to the Columbia River, however, the Basin Study being
conducted on the Yakima River will yield supply and demand information
useful to users and stakeholders on the Columbia River because the
Yakima is a tributary to the Columbia.
Question 4. Within your testimony you describe the goal of
conserving up to 350,000 acre-feet of water by 2012. Is this new water
to be created over the next 2 years, or does it entail water already
accounted for and conserved in the past?
Answer. The 350,000 acre-foot target identified in my testimony
does not include water already conserved in the past. In order to
capture the benefits of program funding appropriated during the
applicable time-frame for the goal (2010 and 2011), the 350,000 acre-
foot target is based on estimated water savings for projects to be
funded with 2010 and 2011 appropriations. Contributions towards the
goal will be calculated by recording the anticipated water savings for
projects funded in 2010 and by the end of 2011. Fundamental to the
WaterSMART Program, the Fiscal Year 2011 President's budget requests
increases in Title XVI ($15,405 million) and WaterSMART (formerly
challenge) Grants ($9 million) above the FY 2010 enacted levels to make
this possible.
Question 5. Within your testimony, you indicate that the WaterSMART
Program intends to achieve a sustainable water strategy to meet our
Nation's water needs. Please describe what you mean by a ``sustainable
water strategy.'' What types of projects could be developed under this
strategy? Who is the lead agency at the Department of Interior, as it
pertains to climate change?
Answer. Through the WaterSMART Program, Reclamation will identify
imbalances in water supply and demand both now and in the future,
taking into consideration the impacts of climate change, and will
implement on-the-ground water conservation projects, water reuse and
recycling projects and other types of adaptation strategies to help
meet future demands. The Department believes that sustainable water
strategies are those that secure and stretch water supplies for use by
existing and future generations; and that are insulated from long-term
uncertainties in hydrology, funding, stakeholder participation, or
other essentials, to the maximum extent possible. The Department's
Climate Change Response Council (re-named the Energy and Climate Change
Council on January 26, 2010) was created by Executive Order 3289 to
coordinate the Department's response to the impacts of climate change
among the Bureaus. Each of the Bureaus are closely coordinating their
specific research and mitigation efforts to ensure that there is no
duplication of effort and to leverage the finance and technical
resources of each.
Question 6. What agency will oversee the WaterSMART Program? If it
is divided amongst two agencies, will there be a lead agency?
Answer. Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey will each
function as leads for their respective activities under the WaterSMART
program and are coordinating on implementation efforts. The WaterSMART
Task Force is composed of representatives from all Department Bureaus
and offices. The Task Force is developing a strategy for the
implementation of the WaterSMART Program in the Department. The
strategy will be provided to the public for comment prior to
finalization.
Question 7. How developed are your current models in projecting
current and future water use?
Answer. Reclamation utilizes state of the science models for system
evaluations, which incorporate water usage. These models have been
fully developed for the purposes of filling information requirements at
each basin where they are utilized. Projections of future water usage
for municipal and industrial purposes are most often provided by
Reclamation's stakeholders. Future agricultural usage is evaluated
using fully developed models that are capable of evaluating current
evapotranspiration. Future projections of water use are anticipated to
be further informed through Research and Development activities as well
as the USGS WaterSMART implementation including the National Water
Census.
Question 8. Please describe the financial role that each of the
federal agencies, described in your testimony as collaborators, will
play within funding the myriad of programs in the Secure Water Act. Who
will be the lead federal agency? Will that agency be able to solicit
and obtain funds from the other federal agencies to fund this
initiative?
Answer. Within the Department of the Interior, Reclamation will
serve as the lead in implementing Sections 9503 through our Basin Study
Program and West-Wide Risk Assessments. Reclamation will also lead
implementation of Section 9504 of the Act through WaterSMART (formerly
challenge) Grants. Reclamation will provide all Federal funding for
these programs and requires a 50 percent non-Federal cost-share for
most activities. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), through the Council
on Environmental Quality and the Subcommittee on Water Availability and
Quality [a subcommittee under the National Science and Technical
Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources], is working to
fulfill the requirements of Section 9506 for an intragovernmental panel
on climate change. The USGS serves as the lead in implementing Sections
9507, which authorizes measures to enhance water data collection and to
produce an assessment of brackish groundwater systems, and 9508, which
establishes a National Water Availability and Use Assessment Program.
The USGS and its more than 800 Federal, State, local, and Tribal
partners collect ground-and surface-water data and information as
called for in Section 9507. USGS base funding in 2010 has allowed the
USGS to begin the assessment of brackish groundwater systems called for
in Section 9507. The USGS will lead implementation of Section 9508 of
the Act through the WaterSMART Availability and Use Assessment
Initiative proposed in the President's 2011 budget. Should the Congress
choose to fund the 2011 USGS WaterSMART effort, the USGS will provide
Federal funding to begin implementing Section 9508.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of David Reynolds, Director of Federal Relations, Association
of California Water Agencies, Sacramento, CA
The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) appreciates the
opportunity to provide additional comments on your March 16 hearing on
the Bureau of Reclamation's implementation of the SECURE Water Act,
WaterSMART program, Basin Study Program, and Title XVI Program. ACWA's
447 public water agency members supply over 90 percent of the water
delivered in California for residential, agricultural and industrial
uses.
In the Western U.S., drought, ESA restrictions, population growth,
climate change, and ecosystem needs make managing water supplies
especially challenging. Improving the reliability of water supplies
requires innovative approaches such as Reclamation's Title XVI, water
recycling program and new WaterSMART program.
ACWA recommends increasing Title XVI funding to at least $75
million per year and encourages Reclamation to promote water recycling
as part of its core mission, including new project authorizations. This
highly leveraged program provides one federal dollar for every three
local dollars invested in water recycling projects. The proposed
federal investment of $75 million would be matched by at least $300
million in local investment.
In California, recycled water projects can be more energy efficient
than obtaining water from other sources. Anthony Peck, the General
Manager for Eastern Municipal Water District, testified that after an
evaluation and quantification of the energy usage and emission for each
of their five sources of water, ``Recycled water is lower in both areas
by a significant amount.'' This calculation is true for many water
districts in California because transporting and pumping water is very
energy intensive.
ACWA supported the SECURE Water Act (P.L. 111-11) and believes it
will help Reclamation plan for future water challenges caused by
climate change. The WaterSMART grant program's focus meshes well with
the Water Management Improvement grants described in the SECURE water
act. However, it remains unclear how the Administration plans to
implement other provisions in the Act. As discussed in the Family Farm
Alliance testimony, water users are having difficulty determining which
studies in the bill are receiving priority and how to become involved
in the process.
ACWA appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on these
programs and looks forward to working with you in the future. If you
have any questions please feel free to contact me in our Washington DC
office at 202-434-4760.
______
Statement of Gary W. Darling, General Manager, Delta Diablo Sanitation
District, Antioch, CA and Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition
Representative
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the Title XVI
Water Reclamation and Reuse Program, and to communicate our experiences
and suggestions.
who we are
The Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition (BARWC) is a partnership of
public agencies committed to developing recycled water as a resource
for the San Francisco Bay Area. BARWC is committed to pursuing highly
leveraged, locally managed projects that will help ensure the security
of water supplies in the western United States for years to come.
Our current membership includes fourteen public agencies across the
Bay Area who are pursuing Title XVI funding for seventeen projects.
These agencies are part of the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling
Program (BARWRP). In 1999, the original BARWRP agencies completed a
Recycled Water Master Plan, which identified 240,000 acre-feet per year
of recycled water opportunities that could be developed by 2025 with
Federal and State funding partnerships. The seventeen projects
currently in BARWC will yield over 50,000 acre-feet per year of water
in the near-term and have the potential to yield over 100,000 acre-feet
per year in the future. Fifty-thousand acrefeet of water is over 16
billion gallons per year or 45 million gallons per day, which is enough
water to meet the needs of 150,000 households. Implementing these
projects will result in reduced demand from Bay Area communities on
scarce freshwater from the Delta.
title xvi program strengths
Title XVI is a very important and beneficial program because of the
Federal partnership and costshared funding for planning, design and
construction of water recycling projects. At 25% Federal share, the
intent is to provide seed money to local agencies to help defray the
cost of expensive alternative water supply projects. Recycled water
projects provide long-term sustainable water supply options, which are
crucial now as California struggles with drought conditions and water
restrictions, and will continue to be crucial as agencies prepare for
and address the effects of climate change.
These projects are mutually beneficial for the Federal government
and the local project sponsor. The Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition
projects benefit California and the Federal Government through the
preservation of State and Federal reservoir supplies for higher uses,
particularly in drought years, and provide a cost effective,
environmentally friendly water supply for increased dry year yield in
the sensitive Bay-Delta region. Recycled water supplies can help the
government meet legal requirements limiting use of water from the
Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta.
Recycled water is sustainable water, and the only new water
available to help California and other western states deal with the
combined pressures of drought and population growth that threaten to
exhaust our existing supplies. Recycled water is a resource available
now in substantial quantities, and these projects can take the pressure
off a system that's oversubscribed, not just in drought years but every
year. With a small Federal contribution, these projects have
demonstrated that they can deliver water and reduce demand on limited
water supplies.
With a 75% minimum non-federal share, the Title XVI program is
highly leveraged so each Federal dollar invested in the program will
yield three times the outlay. The 25% Federal cost share provides
valuable financial support in these difficult economic times to public
agencies being challenged with decreasing revenue and increasing
expenditures. This Federal funding, when combined with State funding
and low interest loans, makes recycled water a more affordable option
for local agencies such that it is cost competitive with existing water
supplies. For example, the Antioch Recycled Water Project is expected
to receive 25% Federal Funding, 25% State funding, and a low interest
loan. Without this assistance, it would take 44 years for the recycled
water costs to breakeven with current potable water costs; with this
assistance, the breakeven point is within one year. Without this type
of financial assistance, many of these projects would not move forward
because the payback period is too long. By continuing to fund
Reclamation's Title XVI program, Congress can ensure incentive for
local communities to invest local resources to build a truly
sustainable water future for the United States.
The BARWC has received $11.58 million in FY09 appropriations,
$4.215 million in FY10 Appropriations, and was allocated $22 million in
Recovery Act funds. This funding will fulfill the authorized Federal
cost share for seven projects. To date, six of these BARWC projects
have not received any money because the Bureau of Reclamation has not
executed any Cooperative Agreements for these projects, some of which
have now completed construction.
title xvi program weaknesses
The Title XVI program has been inherently underfunded, which has
created a funding backlog and until recently a reluctance by the agency
to support new projects. Now, as more funding has been made available
through congressional appropriations and the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), it appears that the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) does not have the resources or an adequate
system to administer the program and execute the agreements in a timely
manner.
It is no small feat for a project to become eligible for Title XVI
funding. It is a minimum three to four year process requiring not only
that the project meet Title XVI requirements for feasibility and
environmental compliance, but that the project receive congressional
authorization and appropriations. This earmark-driven process requires
bills to pass through the House and Senate and be signed into law by
the President for the authorizations, and pass through the House and
Senate and be signed into law by the President for the appropriations.
This has been a minimum two-year process, and in most cases much
longer. Meanwhile, these projects most often will sit on the shelf,
which delays the development of these much needed water supplies. The
process is too long and the level of effort is overly burdensome for
the low risk involved with a 25% Federal cost share.
The BARWC currently has six projects that could move forward, but
are stymied waiting for the authorization process. The authorization
bill (HR2442) was passed in the House last October, but is still
pending in the Senate. Meanwhile, these projects are not eligible for
funding that may be available through ARRA, FY11 appropriations, or
USBR budgets because they have not received authorization. This leaves
8,000 acre-feet of water per year (the equivalent of providing water
for 24,000 homes) untapped.
Once a project has made it through the hurdles of authorization and
appropriation, the money is not available until the Bureau of
Reclamation has checked off all of the Title XVI requirements and they
have executed a Cooperative Agreement (in several cases there are
multiple cooperative agreements for the same project). As the BARWC
project sponsors are still waiting for Cooperative Agreements for Title
XVI compliant projects that have received FY09 and FY10 appropriations
as well as ARRA funding, this process itself has taken over a year.
While the Feasibility process is somewhat defined with Reclamation,
the Cooperative Agreement process is not. Some of the activities occur
at the Regional offices, and some in Denver, although the project
sponsor is not made aware of the steps or timelines for document
submittal or review. For example, while the Title XVI Guidelines state
that a project will go through financial capability determination,
there is no information made available ahead of time to the project
sponsor about what this will involve, who reviews it, how the
determination is made, and the timeline for a decision. Additional
information requests may be made of the sponsor for detailed budget
breakdowns, cost/price analysis determination, and financial management
system surveys, once again with no information regarding the process
and timelines. There is also a disconnect or general lack of
understanding from Reclamation personnel involved in this review
regarding how public works construction projects are designed,
estimated by engineers and bid, such that the requests for budget
details and cost analysis don't line up with reality. For example,
California has a Public Contract Code, which requires public works
projects to be bid through a public competitive process where bids are
based on defined items of work detailed in construction plans and
specifications. Bids are received, opened, and the lowest responsive,
responsible bidder is selected. Additionally, the requirements allow
for the rejection of all bids under certain conditions. Despite all of
these requirements and oversight which helps create a level playing
field and a defensible process to ensure competitive costs on public
works projects, Reclamation personnel request budget breakdowns as if
these were research projects, identifying the principal investigator
and hourly rates, equipment cost breakdown, material cost breakdown,
and so on. This is not how construction projects are bid, and as these
public works projects are also required to comply with the California
Labor Code to provide prevailing wage rates, any additional requests
for employee positions, wages, and so on create an excessive and
unnecessary review.
This is not to say that all of these concepts and reviews are
unneeded, but that the process is not clearly defined and communicated
to the sponsor. Therefore, it appears that Reclamation does not
consistently address these as locally-sponsored construction projects
and does not consistently communicate to the sponsor what needs to be
submitted and how decisions on adequacy or completion are determined
within a predictable timeline.
Additionally, the money coming through these agreements with
Reclamation is on a reimbursement basis. This results in very little
risk to the Federal Government providing 25% cost share when the
project has already been built and paid for by the local agency, and
does not warrant the level of review being requested to determine
financial capability for projects that are already constructed.
The ramification of this burdensome, time-consuming, ill-defined
process is that projects which have worked in the system to complete
feasibility, environmental review and have received public support,
authorization and appropriations are still without funding as they wait
for an agreement.
title xvi opportunities for improvement
More than ever, the Title XVI program is needed. Considering all of
the stressors of drought, population, over-allocation, endangered
species and environmental concerns, the water supply situation in
California is unlikely to improve anytime soon. There is no new water
that can realistically be developed in this region due to the lack of
water availability, fierce competition amongst water users, and
heightened review and insistence from the non-governmental
organizations (NGO's) that there are water management options available
with less environmental impacts. Recycled water and brackish
desalination developed through a Federal partnership utilizing the
Title XVI program are two of the solutions to address this issue. The
source waters are available now, and there are projects ready to
implement that can provide much needed water if financial funding
pathways become more readily accessible. In order for this to happen
through Title XVI, changes are needed so that the program can be
administered efficiently and funded sufficiently.
The political, earmark-driven approach for individual project
authorization and appropriation should be reexamined for Title XVI.
This is a minimum two to three year process for each project. A
different approach that is based on projects competing for
discretionary funds, having met specific phased criteria (such as the
process for approving Federal funds for mass transit) would be more
efficient.
Another approach is to provide federal funding directly to a state
that has an established new water program. For example, California has
established a statewide goal to create one million acre-feet per year
of recycled water by 2020 and two million acre-feet per year by
2030\1\. Those aggressive goals and established State funding programs
should be investigated to determine if the Federal investment could be
channeled directly to the State and result in less cost to administer
and provide water supply improvements towards Federal contracts and
environmental obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ California State Water Resources Control Board, Recycled Water
Policy, Approved May 14, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A broader or revised program approach to authorization and
appropriation will necessarily result in a new program administration
approach. The danger is creating a new approach that is more burdensome
than the current program, or that is a duplication of efforts already
occurring at the state level. If not planned carefully, a new process
could develop which creates an unnecessarily detailed, time-consuming
project evaluation and ranking process with a level of effort for the
agency and sponsor that outweighs the funding amounts or risks. The
goal should be to create a more streamlined, defined and efficient
process that will better serve the Bureau of Reclamation and the local
sponsor, and will help achieve Reclamation's performance measures for
increasing the acre-feet per year of reuse and reclaimed water.
Regardless of the possible approaches addressed herein, I would
suggest that a working group consisting of representatives from the
administration, (DOI, USBR, and OMB); members of Congress; and various
stakeholders (states, local Title XVI project sponsors, etc.) be
convened to review the current situation with respect to all aspects of
Title XVI with a view toward meaningful reform in the program.
BARWC appreciates the support that it has received to date from the
Title XVI Program. The fourteen Bay Area agencies that have joined
together on an unprecedented regional basis are anxious to develop near
term projects that are currently stuck in the congressional approval
process. In the meantime, those projects are on hold. More
significantly, three new projects have joined the coalition that have
the potential to develop 12,500 acre-feet of additional water, and they
have not even begun the congressional and Reclamation approval
processes. Finally, BARWC is aware of several other Bay Area projects
and partners who are interested in moving forward but are wary of the
time and investment needed to secure the federal partnership. BARWC
would like to work with Reclamation to determine a more efficient and
timely process to move the current set of projects forward and attract
other projects in the future that will continue to be mutually
beneficial for the local sponsor and Federal government.
______
Statement of the Western States Water Council
introduction
The Western States Water Council (WSWC) actively supported
enactment of the SECURE Water Act (the Science and Engineering to
Comprehensively Understand and Responsibly Enhance Water Act or Title
9501 of P.L. 111-11). Our members are appointed by the Governors of
eighteen states. We are an advisory body on water policy issues
affiliated with the Western Governors' Association (WGA). We appreciate
the Subcommittee's continuing leadership in addressing the serious
water-related challenges facing the West and the Nation.
Our testimony is based on a number of our prior reports, statements
and positions. More specifically, in June 2006, the Western Governors'
Association unanimously adopted a report prepared by the Western States
Water Council entitled, ``Water Needs and Strategies for a Sustainable
Future'' and in 2008 a follow up ``Next Steps'' report. These reports
included a number of recommendations related to federal programs under
this Subcommittee's jurisdiction, and we would like to address specific
program requests in the Administration's FY2011 Budget in the context
of those recommendations.
department of interior
FY2011 Budget
The Council recognizes the difficult challenges facing the Nation
related to our current economic woes and the federal budget deficit. We
are all being called upon to do more with less. We appreciate the ARRA
investments that have been made in our water resources infrastructure,
and western states in general support similar capital investments at
all levels of government. Increasing demands related to our growing
population in the West and environmental protection, as well as the
uncertainty related to climate change and unquantified Indian water
rights, make present and future water resources planning and management
particularly challenging. The SECURE Water Act notes that the Federal
Government should support the States, which ``bear the primary
responsibility and authority for managing the water resources of the
United States.''
For more than 100 years the Department of Interior has worked with
the States and Tribes, as well as water users and stakeholders to
address our water challenges. States continue seeking infrastructure
improvements and additions, particularly new water storage
opportunities, while at the same time striving to increase efficiency
and reduce water use. Western water law and policy are based on the
reality of scarcity and the need to use water wisely.
Without the Bureau of Reclamation and federal investment in past
water projects, the West would not be what it is today. Continuing
investments and sacrifices will be needed to maintain our quality of
life and protect our environment. Difficult choices have to be made at
both the federal and state agency levels.
As we plan for the future, states are well aware of the importance
of maintaining our existing assets and prioritizing future
infrastructure investments. States are in the best position to
identify, evaluate and prioritize their needs. State water plans should
help form the basis for federal decisions. We must work together as
partners. The federal government should support States by providing a
rational federal regulatory framework, together with technical and
appropriate financial assistance.
Overall, Interior's budget request for Reclamation is down by $23M,
slightly less than last year, while requests for some programs, such as
the WaterSMART program, have increased. There is a continuing need to
highlight the importance of water to our Nation's economic vitality and
environmental health. The Reclamation Act of 1902, recognizing the
vital need to invest in Western water resources, created the
Reclamation Fund as a means to finance such investments. The
unobligated balance at the end of FY2011 is projected to be about $9.35
billion (but spending from this special Treasury account is still
subject to appropriations and pay go rules). Receipts are more than
sufficient to fund all current Reclamation expenditures and more. In
essence, the unobligated balance grows as fund receipts are used to
finance other government purposes. We continue to urge the Congress to
increase spending from the Reclamation Fund for authorized purposes.
Of special note, Congress has authorized future transfers from the
Reclamation Fund for construction of projects related to Indian water
rights settlements, the resolution of which has been a longstanding
goal of the Council.
Reclamation Climate Change Adaptation Program and Climate Science
Centers
The Council has consistently recognized the importance of water,
weather and climate science. Climate variability and change introduce
significant uncertainty into water resources planning, management and
decisionmaking. The Council supported a Reclamation Climate Change
Adaptation Program. Interior's FY2011 budget request includes $11.5M
for Climate Science Centers. The Council looks forward to working with
Interior as it develops these centers and Reclamation's program. The
Council has also been an advocate for climate programs and services
provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
including the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS)
and Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) Program. We
understand the Council on Environmental Quality will take a lead role
in ensuring these various federal climate science efforts are
coordinated.
bureau of reclamation
WaterSMART Program
The Council has often supported technical and financial assistance
to states and local watershed groups and water districts as an
appropriate federal role. We are encouraged by Secretary Salazar's $62M
request for Interior's WaterSMART Program, and recognize the importance
of the proposal in an increasingly tight federal budget.
WaterSMART Grants
The FY2011 request for Reclamation includes $27M for WaterSMART
water conservation grants to better optimize system operations and
encourage water use efficiency, marketing and banking programs, and the
use of brackish waters. The Council supported legislation specifically
authorizing such grants. In the past, such cost-shared grants have
leveraged federal spending with state and local contributions, leading
to an investment of nearly $3 for every federal dollar spent. Grant
applications continue to come in well in excess of the amount of
federal grants available. For example, Reclamation received 141
applications for grants funded with ARRA money, but with the nearly
$40M appropriated was able to provide money for only thirteen projects
in five states. Roughly ten times the federal appropriation could have
been matched.
The WaterSMART program is in part designed to make water available
through conservation for other uses. It is important to note that the
allocation of water is primarily a state prerogative, and water
transfers are subject to state water law and policy. The use of any
WaterSMART program water savings will be subject to state law. Of note,
the SECURE Water Act explicitly requires grant applicants to agree not
to (1) ``use any associated water savings to increase the total
irrigated acreage of the eligible applicant;'' or (2) ``otherwise
increase the consumptive use of water in the operation of the eligible
applicant, as determined pursuant to the law of the State in which the
operation. . .is located.''
Basin Studies
The Council has been a proponent of watershed and basin-wide
coordination and a commitment to involving all governmental entities
and stakeholders with an interest in finding solutions to present and
future water management challenges. Interior requests $6M for basin
studies to assess water supply and demand, climate impacts and identify
adaptation strategies, in partnership with States, Tribes and water
districts. This request will fund three 50%-50% cost shared studies in
the Colorado River Basin (covering seven states), the Yakima River
Basin in Washington and the Milk-St Mary's River Basins in Montana (and
Canada). Obviously, there are other basins worthy of future study.
These studies are intended to identify basin-wide water supply issues
and in partnership with basin States, Tribes and stakeholders define
options for meeting future water demands and related challenges.
The Western States Water Council has been approached by Reclamation
about involvement in the Colorado River Basin study, and we appreciate
the opportunity to collaborate.
Cooperative Watershed Planning Act
There is a need to focus on grassroots, small watershed approaches
to identifying water problems and potential solutions from the ground
up, integrating these efforts into individual state water plans and
federal water resources planning. Separately, The Council supported
enactment of the Cooperative Watershed Planning Act as part of P.L.
111-11. We understand Interior is moving forward and Reclamation hopes
to implement a pilot project with existing budget resources. Such
assistance will provide important help for grassroots, watershed groups
which have often proven effective in addressing complicated water
management and water quality protection challenges. Hopefully, future
funding will be available to further promote the development of
watershed groups and implementation of watershed management programs
and projects.
Rural Water Supply Needs
The Council has consistently supported assessing and addressing
rural water supply needs, with appropriate federal technical and
financial assistance. Reclamation's $62M request for ongoing projects
is significant. However, rural water supply needs are expanding, in
part due to federal safe drinking water mandates. Current and future
federal spending will not likely be able to meet these growing needs.
Title I of the Rural Water Supply Act of 2005 authorized
Reclamation to complete an assessment of rural water supply needs. The
Council supported enactment and has worked with Reclamation to help
compile a listing of identified needs. The act also authorized cost
shared project assessments. Reclamation has published interim final
rules to govern the program, and requested $2.6M for FY2011 to move
forward with soliciting and screening project assessment proposals. Any
projects recommended for construction would need authorizing
legislation.
Of note, Title II of the act also authorized loan guarantees to
help local districts with project operation and maintenance
responsibilities (but without title to these federal projects) obtain
private financing for major project repairs and rehabilitation work.
Unfortunately, the Office of Management and Budget has determined such
federal guarantees would have to be backed 100% by appropriated funds.
Given the extremely low expected rate of default on such loans, this
appears unnecessary. Moreover, it defeats the purpose of the
guarantees, which is to leverage federal and non-federal resources.
Title XVI Projects
The Council has supported various emerging and expanding
technological opportunities to augment existing water supplies,
including water reuse and recycling opportunities. The $29M WaterSMART
requests for water reuse/recycling projects is another step forward. We
recognize that Reclamation already has a lengthy backlog of authorized
Title XVI projects, and much more could be spent to encourage and take
advantage of water reuse and recycling opportunities. A total of 53
projects have been authorized at a total federal cost of $624M, which
represents up to a 25% federal cost share.
u.s. geological survey
Without timely and accurate water resources information, human
life, health, welfare, property, and environmental and natural
resources are at considerably greater risk of loss. The USGS has been a
leader in developing and realizing the potential of state-of-the-art
technology to provide real or near real-time data with the promise of
vastly improving the quantity and quality of water-related information
available to decisionmakers in natural resources and emergency
management, with the States as essential partners.
watersmart
National Water Assessment/Census
The WaterSMART program includes $9M for USGS to work on a national
water use and availability assessment (or national water census).
Western governors have specifically noted the need for an ``. .
.accurate assessment of the Nation's water availability and water
demands, with the goal of integrating the information into state water
resources planning, recognizing that a truly national assessment must
begin at the state and local level with appropriate technical and
financial support from the federal government.'' (Water Needs and
Strategies for a Sustainable Future: Next Steps, p. IV, June 2008)
Of the requested amount, $1M is to be made available for grants to
help states develop programs to measure water use. Current state
programs and abilities vary widely and such assistant--though limited--
will be welcome. We look forward to working with the USGS
implementation team. The Western States Water Council is currently
represented on the Advisory Committee on Water Information and has
participated with the Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable, and USGS
intends to work through both to refine the concepts and products to
meet stakeholder goals.
As it relates to measuring and monitoring agricultural and other
water uses, the Council has worked hard to secure funding to ensure
that a thermal infrared sensor (TIRS) was included as part of the
Landsat Data Continuity Mission, which NASA has scheduled for launch in
December 2012 (none too soon given operational problems with the
existing Landsat 5 mission). USGS will gather, archive and distribute
this thermal data. An increasing number of states and others are using
this state-of-the-art technology to accurately measure consumptive
agricultural water use remotely. We recognize and appreciate the fact
that USGS has had to make a multi-million dollar budgetary commitment
to accelerate development of its related ground operations to
accommodate the continued availability of this thermal data (due to
NASA's late commitment to include TIRS).
Streamgaging Programs
While recognizing USGS has made a very substantial and significant
increase in its request for water-related information gathering, we are
nonetheless disappointed that requested funding was reduced for the
National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP), which is fully
federally funded (cut about $578,000 to $27M), and the Cooperative
Water Program (cut some $1.9M to $63.6M). Cooperative Water Program
(CWP) partners now fund about two-thirds of program costs.
The proposed cuts, if not restored by the Congress, will
undoubtedly lead to the loss of important streamgages--many with over
30-years of record. The Council and many other stateholders have
repeatedly called for full NSIP funding ($110M) and sufficient
appropriations to support a 50%-50% CWP match ($95M). Together, these
two programs support much of our national streamgaging system, which is
critical for water resources and emergency management, planning and
decision making; water supply project and transportation infrastructure
design; long-term planning related to climate change and variability;
and other essential uses.
Hard funding choices have to be made, but as we struggle to find
support for federal streamgaging programs, state and local confidence
in the federal commitment to these programs is eroding and may
eventually seriously undermine this critical federal-state partnership.
Already some states are building and operating their own streamgaging
systems, and more may follow. We need to consider what national
benefits might be lost along with the current national streamgaging
system should it be replaced with a fragmented lot of streamgages
operated for limited purposes.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
Statement of Shauna Lorance, General Manager, San Juan Water District,
on behalf of the R3 Partners San Juan Water District and the Cities of
Folsom and Roseville, CA
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement on the
Bureau of Reclamation's implementation of the SECURE Water Act (SECURE)
and proposed WaterSMART Program on behalf of the R3 Partners (R3). My
name is Shauna Lorance and I am the General Manager of the San Juan
Water District, a partner in R3. The R3 is a partnership of the San
Juan Water District, the City of Folsom, and the City of Roseville,
California, which represents over three hundred thousand people who
rely on the American River Basin for their water supplies. As a result
of recent Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultations and Federal
court actions, R3 believes that the current operation of the American
River Basin for multiple purposes will be significantly and negatively
impacted in the future. Furthermore, R3 believes that, through proper
implementation of the SECURE Water Act, the Bureau of Reclamation can
assist R3 in meeting current and future water demands, as well as help
meet the significant future challenges that ESA demands in the Delta
will have on the operation of our American River water supply
infrastructure.
Recently, the Central Valley Project (CVP) Operating Criteria and
Plan (OCAP) Biological Opinions (BOs) for the endangered Delta Smelt
and Salmon species in California include recommended reasonable and
prudent alternatives that will negatively impact the reliability of the
American River water resources for both the environment and people.
Existing water supplies have already been stretched farther than ever
imagined and cannot continue to meet future needs without additional
water management and conservation projects in the Basin.
The R3 partners believe the Congress should encourage Reclamation
to be proactive with the SECURE Water Act implementation and allocate
adequate funding for grants to implement local water management
solutions that could help mitigate the possible negative impacts of the
BOs on American River communities.
local input invaluable to integrated regional water management
The Sacramento Region, including the R3 Partners, is committed to
continuing its collaborative efforts to assist the Bureau of
Reclamation in the development of an operating plan for the American
River Division that meets the objectives of the BOs while avoiding or
minimizing impacts to water supply and environmental resources on the
American River.
Implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs)
recommended in the Delta Smelt and Salmon BOs will require significant
changes in the operation of the CVP. A comprehensive statement
describing Reclamation's proposed changes in operations under the BOs
would provide us with valuable information regarding how those changes
would affect American River water supply reliability and environmental
resource protection goals in our region upstream of the Delta.
The Sacramento region has developed an Integrated Regional Water
Management Plan (IRWMP) for improved management of the area's limited
water resources. The program builds on previous efforts, such as the
2003 Regional Water Master Plan developed by the American River Basin
Cooperating Agencies, to support a regional conjunctive use program and
promote water recycling, water use efficiency, and other strategies
that improve local water supply reliability. The American River IRWMP
investigates a broad spectrum of management strategies, recognizes the
benefits of integrating water management strategies, and identifies
priorities for implementing projects and programs. Expanded investments
from Reclamation through additional, longer-term SECURE grants could
provide much needed cost-shared funding for water management tools that
lessen the impacts from the previously mentioned stressors. R3 believes
SECURE could be improved by adding a grant program specifically for
larger, regional water management plans such as our IRWMP. Such
regionally coordinated plans take several years to design and
implement, yet Reclamation's current grant program (WaterSMART) seems
to focus on a project-by-project mentality. A grant program that allows
for a larger total grant to be cost-shared over several years would
allow entire regions to plan for implementation of these coordinated
plans. For example, we would be able to more effectively and
efficiently implement elements of our IRWMP including water
conservation programs, automated water delivery and management systems,
and intertie pipelines between systems to better protect residents
against water shortages during certain times of the year.
Water management and delivery entities in the Sacramento Valley
must be able to budget their share of the cost of such implementation
projects and a project-by-project approach does not lend itself to such
budgetary planning. In fact, the current approach has actually
discouraged participation by districts and municipalities involved in
regional water management. Writing and applying for grants encumbers
valuable local cost-share resources that must be initially devoted to
such projects. Dedicating local staff time and resources to multiple
grant applications can become costly, especially when turned down in
the process. Communities and districts with the foresight to develop
integrated regional approaches to water management in their
jurisdictions should be able to apply once for the entire
implementation plan and, once awarded, match and receive such funding
over a multi-year timeframe. This would allow a more orderly budgeting
process and make applying for grants much more worthwhile.
failure to act quickly has significant consequences
In order for the Sacramento region to recover from the recent
economic downturn, we must have a reliable water supply. As a region,
we have linked our water supply to the sustainability of our aquatic
environment. Without speedy determination of the effects of recent BOs,
this region does not have enough information to move forward with
appropriate investments in environmental restoration, water supply
infrastructure, and groundwater management. Water resource issues
focusing on groundwater and surface water reliability and quality;
flood control and stormwater management; water supply and management
infrastructure development; and environmental protection and
restoration have long been at the forefront of the agenda in ``quality-
of-life'' planning throughout the greater Sacramento metropolitan area.
To that end, over the past decade the agencies and municipalities
charged with managing these resources have engaged with environmental
groups and the business community in a variety of grass-roots,
stakeholder-driven processes. These processes, though wide-ranging in
the breadth of issues considered, have been underlain by a common
objective: To ensure that all relevant constituencies have a voice in
the management and protection of water resources. Uncertainty in these
issues is counter to sound planning and implementation.
Each of the IRWMP projects and programs address Statewide
Priorities (either directly or indirectly). For example, groundwater
wells, conjunctive use surface water pipelines, and treatment plant
expansion projects work together to establish the required conjunctive
use infrastructure that will secure the necessary flows in the
Sacramento and American rivers in dry weather years without
jeopardizing water supply or permanently impacting ground water
aquifers. Recycled water expansion projects diversify water supply
sources in order to reduce dependence on surface water and groundwater
while minimizing discharge of treated wastewater into the rivers and
also contributing to TMDL compliance. Stormwater and flood water
management projects contribute to reductions in CSO's, SSO's, and non-
point source pollution. In addition, ecosystem restoration projects and
meter replacement programs directly address environmental concerns
shared by the CALFED and Bay-Delta water objectives. All of these
projects work towards ensuring adequate, high quality water supplies to
a growing population, while preserving and improving the ecosystems
both in the immediate vicinity of Sacramento and in the Bay Delta. Our
ability to plan long-term for the implementation of these projects is
vital to the sustainability of the region.
sacramento region stakeholders seek expedited analysis and funding
With the predicted impacts from the BOs, as well as the expected
significant impacts from climate change to our water sources in the
Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, integrated regional planning and water
supply and management infrastructure construction in the Sacramento
Region will be critical to mitigating the impacts from both of these
stressors.
For the reasons stated above, the R3 partners and the entire
Sacramento Region urge of the Congress to expeditiously direct the
federal agencies involved in California water issues to immediately
prepare a comprehensive analysis of all possible impacts to the
American River Basin and other watersheds in California flowing to the
Delta, resulting from the many requirements being placed on water
supply in California, including recent Biological Opinions and current
knowledge about the impacts to water supplies from climate change, and
delineate the effects on north-of-Delta water supplies and tributary
biological resources. This analysis should be developed in an open
process that honors the value of local knowledge and experience.
We also request additional federal funding opportunities, either
through SECURE grant programs such as Water SMART or other funding
sources, to assist in the implementation of the IRWMPs in our basin. As
we discussed in this testimony, such efforts will be critical to our
collective economic and environmental futures.
Thank you again for considering our views, now and in the past. We
look forward to working with the Committee in the future.
______
Statement of Darvin Fales, P.E., Secretary-Manager, Quincy-Columbia
Basin Irrigation District, on behalf of the Columbia Basin Project
Irrigation Districts Washington
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement on the
Bureau of Reclamation's implementation of the SECURE Water Act (SECURE)
and proposed WaterSMART Program on behalf of the Columbia Basin Project
Irrigation Districts. My name is Darvin Fales and I am the Secretary-
Manager of Quincy-Columbia Basin Irrigation District.
about the columbia basin project
The Columbia Basin Project (CBP) is authorized by U. S. Congress to
serve 1,029,000 acres when fully developed. The Columbia Basin
Irrigation Districts (Districts) currently provide water to 621,000
acres of irrigable land serving approximately 6000 landowners and farm
operators located in central Washington.
Grand Coulee Dam is the source of the water and energy needed to
sustain the CBP. Water is the lifeblood of farms and families in this
semi-arid region. Water has transformed much of the basin into
productive farm ground as well as prime recreation and habitat for fish
and wildlife. Between 2.3 and 2.7 million acre feet of water are
diverted from the Columbia River into Banks Lake annually. The water
must be pumped from the Columbia River by 12 pumps located in the John
W. Keys III pumping plant. The CBP uses nearly one billion kilowatt
hours of energy per year. Water conserved on Project equates to energy
saved in the power system.
Irrigation water is delivered to the farm through 300 miles of main
canals, 2000 miles of laterals, and hundreds of relift pumps. Excess
water is collected by 3500 miles of drains and wasteways. Much of this
excess water is returned to Potholes Reservoir and used as the water
supply for South Columbia Basin Irrigation District. This feature makes
the CBP one of the most efficient irrigation delivery systems in the
West, but by continuing to take conservation measures, the Project's
efficiency can be further improved.
economics of the columbia basin project
The Districts commissioned an ``Economic Contribution of
Agriculture Irrigated by the Columbia Basin Project'' study in 2009.
Said study only considers the farm-gate contribution to local, state
and national economies and did not consider additional water-based
recreation and wildlife benefits. The scope of the economic impact
analysis includes the generation of jobs and the ``ripple'' effect on
other economic sectors. The economic model measures describe total
economy: output, income and employment.
Results from the economic and fiscal impact analysis show the total
value of CBP production to be estimated at $1.44 billion annually.
The $1.44 billion in crop production in the CBP supports economic
activity throughout the United States of $5.81 billion annually,
generates $2.42 billion income annually and nearly 39,000 jobs. The
total output from the CBP exceeds the federal investment in the
irrigation facilities annually.
water conservation on the columbia basin project
The Districts also commissioned a ``Columbia Basin Project
Coordinated Water Conservation Plan'' with help and financial
assistance from Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). Since the
CBP is a recapture-reuse project, a coordinated effort of all three
Districts is needed to assure that documented water savings through
conservation measures are ``true'' water savings. All three of the
Districts have completed Comprehensive Water Conservation Plans within
the past seven years but this 2010 plan is the first coordinated effort
on Project. The DOE partnered in our efforts to use water savings on
Project as a water source for a depleting ground water aquifer known as
the Odessa Aquifer.
The coordinated plan identifies long-term projects to be
implemented by the Districts beyond 2010. A total of 690 projects have
been identified and listed which include pipelines, canal concrete
linings, buried linings and re-regulating reservoirs. The estimated
costs of these conservation projects exceed $75 million. The estimated
volume of water conserved when these projects are complete is nearly
65,000 acre feet per year.
Ancillary benefits of a long-term conservation plan are the much
needed facility improvements of an aging infrastructure, improvements
to water quality and decreased O&M costs.
improvements to the secure water act and watersmart program
Water delivered and power produced with Reclamation facilities are
crucial contributors to our western economy, and our nation's
agricultural and electrical stability. The challenge of completing
major repair and rehabilitation of federally-owned aging infrastructure
has been a priority of the non-federal operators in recent years. The
Columbia Basin Project Irrigation Districts believe that the SECURE
Water Act could be improved by adding a grant program specifically for
larger, regional water management plans such as the CBP Coordinated
Water Conservation Plan. Such regionally coordinated plans take several
years to design and implement, yet Reclamation's current WaterSMART
grant program only focuses on a ``project-by-project'' approach. A
grant program that allows for a larger total grant to be cost-shared
over several years would allow entire regions to plan for
implementation of these coordinated plans unlocking the potential for
large scale conservation of both water and electrical energy. Water
managers of delivery entities such as the CBP Districts must be able to
budget their share of the cost of such conservation projects and the
current ``project-byproject'' approach does not lend itself to such
budgetary planning. In fact, the current approach actually discourages
participation by districts. Writing and applying for grants consumes
valuable staff resources that must be initially devoted to such
projects. Dedicating staff time and resources to multiple grant
applications is costly and the possibility of being turned down in the
process is a risk that must be carefully weighed in committing these
resources. Districts with the foresight to develop integrated regional
approaches to water management and conservation in their jurisdictions
should be able to apply once for the entire implementation plan and
receive such funding over a multi-year timeframe. This would allow a
more predictable budgeting process and make applying for grants much
more worthwhile. Long telin planning also provides a programmatic
approach that is attractive to other partners for funding the projects.
It will allow them to budget appropriately thus magnifying the
potential for increased involvement and success.
As shown in this testimony, agriculture is an important component
of this nation's economic base and vital to a safe and secure food
supply. As the irrigation structures needed to supply water to the farm
continue to age and the demand for a clean and reliable water supply
for farms, cities, and the environment continues to increase, it is
critical that federally owned facilities be rehabilitated and updated
with the help of federal funds. Modification of the SECURE Water Act is
one way to accomplish this objective by leveraging limited federal
dollars with non-federal funding through cooperative partnerships with
entities such as the Columbia Basin Project.
Thank you for considering our views. If the Committee has any
questions regarding this matter, we are willing to work with committee
staff to answer those questions.