OVERSIGHT HEARING ON COLORADO RIVER DROUGHT CONDITIONS AND RESPONSE MEASURES--PART 1
Summary
The printed record of the October 15, 2021 (Part 1) and October 20, 2021 (Part 2) oversight hearings of the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife of the Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, on Colorado River drought conditions and response measures (Serial No. 117-10). Chair Jared Huffman said the Colorado River serves 40 million people and supports $1.4 trillion in economic activity each year, and that in August the Bureau of Reclamation made the first-ever shortage declaration in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Huffman said there are 30 Tribal Nations across the Colorado River Basin and that tribes have been historically excluded from its management. Witnesses included Tanya Trujillo, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, and Amelia Flores, Chairwoman of the Colorado River Indian Tribes.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“OVERSIGHT HEARING ON COLORADO RIVER DROUGHT CONDITIONS AND RESPONSE MEASURES--PART 1.”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/oversight-hearing-on-colorado-river-drought-conditions-and-response-me-b8177ce3d8/
, SHA-256 21c8aa3d4329d262bde21ecc796f013b60b24a9c5de5084ad5d2a8c1518d281d.Full text
[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COLORADO RIVER DROUGHT
CONDITIONS AND RESPONSE
MEASURES--PART 1 AND 2
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Friday, October 15, 2021 (Part 1)
Wednesday, October 20, 2021 (Part 2)
__________
Serial No. 117-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-892 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, IL, Vice Chair
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Ranking Member
Grace F. Napolitano, CA Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Doug Lamborn, CO
CNMI Robert J. Wittman, VA
Jared Huffman, CA Tom McClintock, CA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Paul A. Gosar, AZ
Ruben Gallego, AZ Garret Graves, LA
Joe Neguse, CO Jody B. Hice, GA
Mike Levin, CA Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Katie Porter, CA Daniel Webster, FL
Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Melanie A. Stansbury, NM Russ Fulcher, ID
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Pete Stauber, MN
Diana DeGette, CO Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Julia Brownley, CA Jerry L. Carl, AL
Debbie Dingell, MI Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
A. Donald McEachin, VA Blake D. Moore, UT
Darren Soto, FL Yvette Herrell, NM
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU Lauren Boebert, CO
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL Jay Obernolte, CA
Ed Case, HI Cliff Bentz, OR
Betty McCollum, MN
Steve Cohen, TN
Paul Tonko, NY
Rashida Tlaib, MI
Lori Trahan, MA
David Watkins, Staff Director
Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
Vivian Moeglein, Republican Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Chair
CLIFF BENTZ, OR, Ranking Member
Grace F. Napolitano, CA Jerry L. Carl, AL
Jim Costa, CA Don Young, AK
Mike Levin, CA Robert J. Wittman, VA
Julia Brownley, CA Tom McClintock, CA
Debbie Dingell, MI Garret Graves, LA
Ed Case, HI Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Daniel Webster, FL
Steve Cohen, TN Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Darren Soto, FL Russ Fulcher, ID
Raul M. Grijalva, AZ Lauren Boebert, CO
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Friday, October 15, 2021 (Part 1)................ 1
Statement of Members:
Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 4
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 5
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, Prepared statement of............. 84
Statement of Witnesses:
Buschatzke, Tom, Director, Arizona Department of Water
Resources, Phoenix, Arizona................................ 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Questions submitted for the record....................... 41
D'Antonio, John, State Engineer, New Mexico, Albuquerque, New
Mexico..................................................... 73
Prepared statement of.................................... 75
Questions submitted for the record....................... 76
Entsminger, John, General Manager, Southern Nevada Water
Authority, Las Vegas, Nevada............................... 51
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Questions submitted for the record....................... 53
Flores, Amelia, Chairwoman, Colorado River Indian Tribes,
Parker, Arizona............................................ 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Mitchell, Rebecca, Director, Colorado Water Conservation
Board, Denver, Colorado.................................... 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 56
Questions submitted for the record....................... 57
Nelson, Peter, Chairman, Colorado River Board of California,
Glendale, California....................................... 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Questions submitted for the record....................... 49
Shawcroft, Gene, General Manager, Central Utah Water
Conservancy District, Orem, Utah........................... 59
Prepared statement of.................................... 60
Questions submitted for the record....................... 63
Trujillo, Tanya, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science,
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Questions submitted for the record....................... 12
Tyrrell, Patrick, Wyoming Commissioner to the Upper Colorado
River Commission, State of Wyoming......................... 64
Prepared statement of.................................... 65
Questions submitted for the record....................... 70
Vigil, Daryl, Jicarilla Apache Water Administrator and Co-
Facilitator, Water & Tribes Initiative in the Colorado
River Basin, Dulce, New Mexico............................. 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman
Pacific Institute, Statement for the Record of Michael
Cohen.................................................. 85
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, October 20, 2021 (Part 2)............. 89
Statement of Members:
Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 92
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 89
Prepared statement of.................................... 91
Statement of Witnesses:
Castle, Anne, Senior Fellow, Getches-Wilkinson Center for
Natural Resources, Energy and the Environment, University
of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado............................. 140
Prepared statement of.................................... 141
Questions submitted for the record....................... 146
Davis, Tom, President, Agribusiness & Water Council of
Arizona, Yuma, Arizona..................................... 133
Prepared statement of.................................... 134
Questions submitted for the record....................... 139
Hagekhalil, Adel, General Manager, Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California... 94
Prepared statement of.................................... 95
Questions submitted for the record....................... 99
Hawes, Taylor, Colorado River Program Director, The Nature
Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado............................. 107
Prepared statement of.................................... 109
Questions submitted for the record....................... 115
Martinez, Enrique, General Manager, Imperial Irrigation
District, Imperial, California............................. 102
Prepared statement of.................................... 104
O'Toole, Pat, President, Family Farm Alliance, Savery,
Wyoming.................................................... 121
Prepared statement of.................................... 122
Questions submitted for the record....................... 132
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar
Gila River Indian Community, Letter of Support dated
October 20, 2021....................................... 159
Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman
Gila River Indian Community, Statement for the Record of
Stephen Roe Lewis, Governor............................ 166
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON COLORADO RIVER DROUGHT CONDITIONS AND RESPONSE
MEASURES--PART 1
----------
Friday, October 15, 2021
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., via
Webex, Hon. Jared Huffman [Chairman of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Huffman, Costa, Soto, Grijalva,
Stansbury; Bentz, and Gonzalez-Colon.
Also present: Representatives Leger Fernandez, Susie Lee,
and Titus.
Mr. Huffman. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on
Water, Oceans, and Wildlife will come to order. We are meeting
today to examine Colorado River drought conditions and response
measures for the first of two meetings on this important
subject.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings will be limited to the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner
and help keep Members on their schedule.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they
are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or the close of the
hearing, whichever comes first.
Hearing no objection, that is so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Representative Teresa
Leger Fernandez, Representative Susie Lee, and Representative
Dina Titus join the hearing to ask questions of the witnesses.
Hearing no objection, that is so ordered.
Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess,
subject to the call of the Chair.
As described in the notice, statements, documents, or
motions must be submitted to the electronic repository at the
following email address: [email protected].
Additionally, please note that, as with our in-person
meetings, Members are responsible for their own microphones.
Please mute when you're not speaking. Members will be muted by
staff only to avoid inadvertent background noise.
Finally, Members or witnesses who are experiencing any
technical problems should inform Committee staff immediately.
I will now recognize myself for a brief opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thanks again for joining us for the first of
two meetings that we are having on Colorado River drought
conditions and response measures.
The Colorado River is often called the hardest working
river in the West, and that is because it does so much for so
many. The fact that we are meeting to hear testimony from more
than 15 witnesses covering 2 separate days really speaks to
this very fact.
The Colorado River supplies water to communities across
seven western states, serves 40 million people from Colorado to
California, and along the way, this river and its tributaries
flow through six national parks and monuments. It also supports
a multitude of fish and wildlife, nearly 6 million acres of
irrigated agriculture, and $1.4 trillion in economic activity
every single year.
Unfortunately, unprecedented drought conditions are now
creating enormous challenges for this important river and for
those who depend on it.
In August, the Bureau of Reclamation made the first-ever
shortage declaration in the Lower Colorado River Basin. And
that, of course, is due to severe drought and low reservoir
conditions, which have triggered reduced water releases from
Lake Mead. These are actions that were recently taken in the
Upper Basin, as well, to slow declining water levels at Lake
Powell.
Water levels at Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the Colorado
River's two largest reservoirs, have declined to lows that
haven't been seen since those reservoirs were first filled,
which, understandably, has drawn a lot of national attention
and concern.
After more than two decades of drought with no end in
sight, it is clear--to most of us, at least--that climate
change is fundamentally altering the Colorado River. It is
decreasing the amount of water available from this key river,
which was already over-allocated.
Climate scientists are telling us to expect hotter, drier
conditions, and even less water being available in the upcoming
years. In fact, some scientists describe what we are now seeing
in the Southwest as a long-term shift in climate called
aridification that portends a multi-decade mega-drought.
This is deeply concerning for the tens of millions of
people who depend on the Colorado River. It is particularly
concerning for communities that already face water insecurity
challenges, which have long affected tribal communities more
than any other across the Colorado River Basin.
And I should note that there are 30 Tribal Nations across
the Colorado River Basin. Under the Winters Doctrine, which was
first recognized by the Supreme Court in 1908, these tribes
have significant legal rights to enough water from the Colorado
River to secure and maintain viable homelands. Yet, tribes have
been historically excluded from Colorado River management and
decision making.
It is essential, from both the practical and moral
perspective, that, moving forward, tribes play a significant
role in the management and decision-making process on the
Colorado River, and I look forward to more discussion on that
need today.
I want to also note that, while we face significant
challenges, we also have some effective tools in place to help
deal with the worst effects of this drought. This includes the
measures included in the Colorado River Drought Contingency
Plan, which was authorized through legislation led by our
Chairman, Raul Grijalva, in the last Congress. But still, more
action is needed.
So, we look forward to hearing from Federal, State, and
Tribal government witnesses today on what more can be done to
respond to these unprecedented climate challenges we are seeing
across the Colorado River Basin. We will also discuss some of
the initiatives being led by members of this Committee, which
include investments in near-term drought response, investments
in water rights settlements, Salton Sea improvement projects,
and investments in drought-proof water recycling projects that
are being led by water managers across the Colorado River
Basin.
I look forward to hearing more today and next week about
the need for future Colorado River management plans to
effectively incorporate climate science.
We have a lot of ground to cover, so with that, I would
like to now yield and recognize Ranking Member Bentz for his
opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, Chair, Subcommittee on
Water, Oceans and Wildlife
Thank you for joining us today for the first of two meetings on
``Colorado River drought conditions and response measures.''
The Colorado River is often called the hardest working river in the
West because it is asked to do so much for so many. The fact that we're
meeting to hear testimony from more than 15 witnesses over 2 days
speaks to this very fact.
The Colorado River supplies water to communities across seven
western states, serving 40 million people from Colorado to California.
Along the way, the river and its tributaries flow through six
national parks and monuments. It also supports a multitude of fish and
wildlife, nearly six million acres of irrigated agriculture, and $1.4
trillion in economic activity each year.
Unfortunately, unprecedented drought conditions are now creating
enormous challenges for this important river and those who depend on
it. In August, the Bureau of Reclamation made the first-ever
``shortage'' declaration in the Lower Colorado River Basin due to
severe drought and low reservoir conditions, triggering reduced water
releases from Lake Mead. Actions were also recently taken in the Upper
Basin to slow declining water levels at Lake Powell.
Water levels at Lake Mead and Lake Powell--the Colorado River's two
largest reservoirs--have declined to lows that haven't been seen in
decades since the reservoirs were first filled, which has
understandably drawn national attention and concern.
After more than two decades of drought with no end in sight, it's
clear that climate change is fundamentally altering the Colorado
River--decreasing the amount of water available from this key river,
which was already overallocated.
Climate scientists are also telling us to expect hotter, drier
conditions and even less available water in upcoming years. In fact,
some scientists describe what we're seeing now in the Southwest as a
long-term shift in climate called ``aridification'' that portends a
multi-decade ``megadrought.''
This is deeply concerning for the tens of millions who depend on
the Colorado River. It's particularly concerning for communities that
already face water insecurity challenges, which have long affected
tribal communities more than any other across the Colorado River Basin.
I should note that there are 30 Tribal Nations across the Colorado
River Basin. Under the Winters doctrine--which was first recognized by
the Supreme Court in 1908--these Tribes have significant legal rights
to enough water from the Colorado River to secure and maintain viable
homelands. And yet, Tribes have been historically excluded from
Colorado River management and decision making.
It's essential from both a practical and moral perspective that,
moving forward, Tribes play a significant role in the management and
decision-making process for the Colorado River. I look forward to more
discussion on that need today.
I also want to note that, while we face significant challenges, we
also have some effective tools in place to help deal with the worst
effects of this drought. This includes the measures included in the
Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan, which was authorized through
legislation led by Chair Grijalva last Congress. Still, more action is
needed.
We look forward to hearing from Federal, state and tribal
government witnesses today on what more can be done to respond to the
unprecedented climate challenges we're seeing across the Colorado River
Basin. We'll also discuss some of the initiatives being led by members
of this Committee, which include investments in near-term drought
response, investments in water rights settlements, Salton Sea
improvement projects, and investments in drought-proof water recycling
projects that are being led by water managers across the Colorado River
Basin.
I also look forward to hearing more today and next week about the
need for future Colorado River management plans to effectively
incorporate climate science.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a welcomed
Committee hearing on an issue that is of incredible importance,
not only to the seven states involved with the Colorado, but
all of the western United States.
Of course, as you mentioned, this is the first of a two-
part hearing on the consequences of this two-decades-long
drought. I am very happy that we are spending that kind of time
on this issue. It is certainly that important.
And, of course, as we know and as I mentioned, this drought
isn't affecting just the Colorado, it is affecting all of
Oregon, California, Washington, and all other western United
States. And since our last meeting on drought, which was about
5 months ago, about 5.8 million acres have burned up here in
Oregon and California. And project water users in Oregon's
Klamath region and large portions of the California Central
Valley Project have been given zero allocations of water. And,
of course, they are not the only ones.
This absence of water has devastated communities throughout
the western United States. Thousands of people are desperately
worried right now that yet another year of drought will be the
nail in the coffin for many, many, farming, ranching, and,
actually, communities across the West.
Meanwhile, in a time of massive supply chain problems
throughout our entire economy, the last thing we need is to
rely on foreign countries for our food because of more water
shortages.
I think, Mr. Chair, that today our discussion is really
about choices between a lot of different uses of water. And I
am going to be very interested in listening to folks talk about
how in the world we are going to make those choices.
So, a little about the history of the Colorado--and I know
the folks testifying today know far more about it than I--but
if there was ever an illustration on what, I would like to say
a microcosm basis, but it is not really true because the
Colorado is so big, this situation the Colorado is facing is so
reflective of what we are going to be seeing all over the West.
Whatever we come up with today, I think, is going to be a
template of some sort for the type of issues we are facing here
in Oregon, California, Washington, Nevada, and so forth.
So, I suppose, one thing that is easy to pop over is the
incredible value of the Colorado system. And the folks that put
it together all those years ago are to be commended. I know
there are many who find fault with how the Colorado was
developed. I reference, of course, the book, ``Science Be
Damned,'' by Eric Kuhn and John Fleck, an interesting book, one
that I think Monday morning quarterbacks a lot of things, but,
on the other hand, makes some good points about optimism, when
it comes to building storage.
On the other hand, without storage, can we imagine what
would be happening now in California, Phoenix, and other places
benefited by these systems?
Of course, I am a water lawyer. I have spent, literally,
hundreds, if not thousands, of hours involved in all types of
water negotiation: water litigation, dam re-licensing, never-
ending negotiations over impossible circumstances of zero-sum
games of allocating water, and also being involved in the
Columbia River Treaty negotiations with Canada, and on and on
and on.
So, today's hearing is so important and so welcome in many
ways. I just wish it wasn't coming before us in such a period
of fear that we may not have more water to deal with and, in
fact, we will probably have less. I don't anticipate
breakthroughs today, but I do expect the continuation of the
processes that were referenced, Mr. Chair, the DCPs, the
Drought Contingency Plans, and other tools to try to address
the impossibility of allocating water between everybody that
needs it.
With that, Mr. Chair, I want to thank all the folks that
are going to testify today in advance of their testimony. I
look forward to a productive conversation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Ranking Member Bentz.
I understand that the Chair of the Full Natural Resources
Committee, Mr. Grijalva, who has been a great leader on these
issues, is with us to provide an opening statement.
So, Chairman Grijalva, please, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Just a quick comment to thank you, Chairman
Huffman, for the hearings. Vital, vital discussion that your
committee is not overlooking, and we all appreciate that. And
all of us that represent that region, we appreciate that very
much.
And I want to just associate myself with your opening
comments, Mr. Chairman. I think we need a comprehensive
initiative, and that is where we are going to deal with the
Colorado River and to deal with the mega-drought. And your
point, I think, is really important.
I mentioned the watershed around the Colorado River, so
vital to its life, and that needs protection, as well,
particularly around the Grand Canyon.
I appreciate this hearing very much. And what we passed in
Reconciliation, Mr. Chairman, dealt with additional significant
resources to deal with the question at hand here, it dealt with
significant resources to have settlements with Indian Nations
regarding water, and to be able to have resources for
infrastructure for Tribal Nations to begin to use, and be able
to create viable communities themselves.
So, that is where we are at, and I appreciate it, Mr.
Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Chair Grijalva.
We will now hear testimony, starting with today's first
panel featuring Federal and Tribal government witnesses.
Before introducing our witnesses today, I will remind non-
Administration witnesses that they are encouraged to
participate in the Witness Diversity Survey created by the
Congressional Office of Diversity and Inclusion. Witnesses may
refer to their hearing invitation materials for further
information on that.
Under our Committee Rules, please limit your oral
statements to 5 minutes. Your entire statement will appear in
the hearing record, however.
And when you begin speaking, the timer will start counting
down. It will turn orange when you have 1 minute left. I do
recommend that Members and witnesses who are joining remotely
use the grid view in Webex here, so that you can lock the timer
on your screen.
After your testimony is complete, please do remember to
mute yourself to avoid inadvertent background noise. And I will
allow all of our witnesses to testify before we begin
questioning.
So, we will first hear testimony from Ms. Tanya Trujillo,
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of
the Interior. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Trujillo to testify
for 5 minutes.
[Pause.]
Mr. Huffman. Do we have Assistant Secretary Trujillo?
[Pause.]
Mr. Huffman. Let me just ask our staff if we are having
some kind of technical difficulty.
Assistant Secretary Trujillo, I believe you are muted,
which you will not be the first offender in that regard. We
have all done it. But if you could unmute yourself, we would
love to hear from you.
[Pause.]
Mr. Huffman. Thank you for your patience, folks, while we
figure out why we don't have audio for the Assistant Secretary.
I will tell you what. While we try to work the----
Ms. Trujillo. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Huffman. Yes, do we have her now?
Ms. Trujillo. Mr. Chairman, can you hear me?
Mr. Huffman. Yes, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Take it
away.
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you for your patience.
STATEMENT OF TANYA TRUJILLO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND
SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Trujillo. Good afternoon. I am Tanya Trujillo, the
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of
the Interior. I am honored to be part of the panel today with
some of our tribal partners regarding the ongoing drought
conditions in the Colorado River Basin.
And as you noted, it is also significant that the
governors' representatives from all seven Basin states will be
here today to testify, as well.
The Colorado River binds us together. We have a proven
track record over the recent decades of being able to find ways
to adapt to the changing conditions we are facing. It will be
essential for us to continue to work together to develop
additional innovative agreements to address the ongoing
challenges.
Climate change is real, and we are seeing the effects of
climate change in the Colorado River Basin every day. The
effects include the extended drought, extreme temperatures,
extensive wildfires, and, in some places, flooding and
landslides that are affecting our communities and our
environment. Now is the time to take innovative actions to
respond to them.
The Department of the Interior is committed to addressing
the challenges of climate change in the Colorado River Basin by
utilizing science-based, innovative strategies, and working
cooperatively with the diverse communities that rely on the
river. We are working at Interior with our sister agencies, and
with states, tribes, and local entities to respond to the
drought throughout the West and in the Basin.
Since January, we have been providing funding to over 220
different projects around the West, and we were able to
recently reprogram $100 million to be able to be responsive to
the drought conditions we are seeing through various programs
that we have available. They include improvements to
infrastructure and continued drought contingency planning
efforts.
We also received additional funding through the disaster
relief bill. We are working to be able to get that funding out
to the local and tribal communities as soon as possible. We
appreciate Congress' continued support for these important
issues.
October 1 marked the first year, the beginning of the new
water year across the West, and we are grateful for reports of
initial snow in some of the states, in some of the areas, but
we know that we are going to be starting out with a deficit. We
are starting out with challenging water supply conditions in
many of the basins and facing situations that are significantly
below average. In the Colorado River Basin, Lake Powell and
Lake Mead are currently at historically low levels.
As you noted, on August 16, we announced the operating
conditions for next year, and we announced the first-tier
shortage in the Lower Basin. We have worked collaboratively in
this basin to plan ahead for these conditions, but we know we
need to be continuing to do more.
Interior will work to utilize the best available science
and technical expertise, and work collaboratively to help
inform our decisions and work with our partners on our
collective decision making in the Basin. We will continue to
support additional investments and improvements to water
infrastructure that include investments in new technology, and
always emphasizing the need for continued collaboration on how
we can best be able to meet the needs of the communities and
allow them to utilize the Federal resources that we have
available.
The testimony we will hear today will highlight the
challenges that we face in many of our areas around the
Colorado River Basin. To address the challenges, we know we
will urgently need to build upon the existing tools that we
have and to expand upon the work that we have done. That work
helps us conserve water, protect the environment, preserve our
hydropower resources, and operate our infrastructure
efficiently.
The progress that we have made has been accomplished
through the strong partnerships that we have with the states,
with the tribes, with the water users, and communities
throughout the Basin. We look forward to that continued
coordination into the future.
Thank you all for recognizing the importance of this issue
and for holding the hearing today. I would be happy to answer
any questions as a followup. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Trujillo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tanya Trujillo, Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science, U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, thank you for the
opportunity to testify about the drought situation in the western
United States. I am Tanya Trujillo, Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science at the Department of the Interior (Department). My statement
today provides a status update of our responses to the severe drought
conditions in the Colorado River Basin.
First, I will review current reservoir and water storage
conditions in key settings across the West.
I will then describe the coordination taking place within
the Federal Government and with our non-Federal partners to
respond to the challenging conditions we are facing.
While I will present remarks today on the drought conditions facing
the West, I want to reiterate something I and my colleagues across the
Administration are focused on every day: climate change is real. We are
seeing the impacts of climate change manifested in drought, wildfires,
hurricanes, extreme heat, massive storm events and localized flooding.
Climate change is impacting Americans across our nation.
2021--overview of current reservoir conditions
According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, even now in October, a large
majority of the western United States is experiencing above average
temperatures and severe or extreme drought conditions. In California
and in the Colorado River Basin, certain reservoirs have reached 30-
year storage lows. Lake Powell and Lake Mead--the two largest
reservoirs in the United States--are currently at historically low
levels. Although the Rio Grande and Pecos basins and parts of Arizona
received some monsoonal rainfall this summer, the temporary relief has
not reversed the more than two-decade drought impacting the region.
Collectively, a very challenging water supply situation exists in much
of the West.
In the Colorado River Basin, the period from 2000 through 2021 has
been the driest 22-year period recorded in more than 100 years of
record-keeping. The reservoir system was 95 percent full in 2000, but
as of September 28th, Colorado River system reservoirs sit at just 39
percent, the lowest levels since they began to fill. Over the 22-year
drought period in the Colorado Basin, combined hydropower generation
has declined 13 percent to an annual average of 10.5 million MWh.
Declining storage levels due to ongoing drought have resulted in
reduced hydropower generation efficiency and concerns about approaching
minimum power pool at Glen Canyon Dam, below which no power can be
produced.
On August 16th, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) issued the
August 24 month study: given ongoing historic drought and low runoff
conditions in the Colorado River Basin, downstream releases from Glen
Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam will be reduced in 2022 due to declining
reservoir levels. In the Lower Basin the reductions represent the first
``shortage'' declaration--demonstrating the severity of the drought and
low reservoir conditions. At the same time, under an operational
agreement with Mexico, Mexico will incur reduced delivery on the
Colorado River in 2022. Again, these recent declarations demonstrate
the severity of the drought and the need to continue to work actively
with states, Tribes, and stakeholders, and to continue to work in a
cooperative fashion with our neighbors and partners in Mexico.
Recent projections by Reclamation and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have provided further reason to
continue our drought relief efforts. In late September, Reclamation
released updated 5-year projections for the Colorado River, showing a
continued elevated risk of Lake Powell and Lake Mead declining to
critically low elevations, including the potential of Lake Powell
falling below minimum power pool as early as July 2022. Adding
additional concerns, NOAA's Climate Prediction Center recently
forecasted an increased likelihood of a La Nina Winter this year and
the continuation of high temperatures and below-average precipitation
reaching into December 2022.
Many of Reclamation's projects will begin the 2022 water year with
below-average carryover water storage. We have had to make difficult
choices this year, and together we will have to make more difficult
decisions if it continues to remain dry next year.
interagency coordination
The Department participates in several points of coordination being
established among federal agencies working to optimize federal drought
response--including the National Climate Task Force, the Interagency
Drought Relief Working Group, the National Drought Resilience
Partnership, the Water Subcabinet, and works directly with federal
entities including the Western Area Power Administration. Each of these
groups provide important avenues for coordination, and collaboration,
and encompass both immediate drought relief as well as long-term
drought resilience efforts geared at responding to ongoing climate
threats.
Through these collaborative agencies, we can marshal existing
resources and work in partnership with state, local, and Tribal
governments to address the needs of communities suffering from drought-
related impacts; identify and disburse immediate financial and
technical assistance, and develop longer-term measures to respond to
climate change, including building more resilient communities and
protecting the natural environment. On September 15th, the Climate Task
Force Director sent a letter outlining federal drought relief efforts
in response to an August 15th inquiry from 10 western governors.
drought--selected responsive actions
Across the West, Reclamation has continued working on using the
best available science to improve water supply forecasting and
operations planning and modeling to help inform decision-making and
meet competing demands.
Investments in Drought Response Actions
During 2021, the Department has completed a steady stream of
drought-related or water conservation-related funding awards across the
West as part of existing programs to help make local communities more
resilient or diversify local water supplies, selecting 227 projects to
be funded with $73.2 million in WaterSMART funding across the western
states. We want to take this opportunity to highlight a few important
examples:
February 2021: Drought Resiliency Projects selected, $15.4
million for 18 projects in 7 western states.
March 2021: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants selected,
$42.4 million for 55 projects in 13 western states.
March 2021: Cooperative Watershed Management Program--
Phase II Grants selected, $2.1 million for 11 projects in 7
western states.
April 2021: Drought Response Program--Drought Contingency
Planning Grants selected, $809,000 for 5 contingency plans
in 3 western states.
June 2021: Basin Study Program--Water Management Options
Pilots selected, $219,496 for 2 projects in central Oregon.
June 2021: Cooperative Watershed Management Program--Phase
I Grants selected, $2.6 million for 27 projects in 12
western states.
July 2021: Water Marketing Strategy Grants selected, $1.14
million for 7 projects in 4 western states.
August 2021: Small Scale Water Efficiency Grants selected,
$5.5 million to 82 water improvement projects in 16 western
states.
September 2021: Applied Science Grants selected, $3.1
million for 20 projects in 11 western states.
September 2021: FY 2022 Science and Technology Program
investments selected, $4.92 in 46 new research projects and
$3.4 million to 134 research projects.
In addition to the above-mentioned awards, on August 5th,
Reclamation announced three WaterSMART grant opportunities--Drought
Resiliency Projects, which closed last week on October 5th, Water and
Energy Efficiency Grants and the new Environmental Water Resources
Projects, as part of an overall plan to implement amendments to the
SECURE Water Act. These programs will help communities throughout the
West by increasing water supply sustainability and drought resiliency.
Applications for the Water and Energy Efficiency Grants and the new
Environmental Water Resources Projects are due November and December,
respectively.
Over the course of this past summer, the Department and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) made several investments to help
mitigate effects of the west-wide drought on the ground. Examples
include:
On July 15th, Reclamation executed a cooperative agreement
for $15 million in immediate aid to the Klamath Project
through the Klamath Project Drought Response Agency
(KPDRA), with an additional $3 million in technical
assistance to Tribes for ecosystem activities, and funding
for groundwater monitoring in the basin. These efforts
supplement additional funding provided by Reclamation and
other Department bureaus in 2021. On October 4th, an
additional $5 million was provided for drought relief to
Klamath Project contractors as part of the Department's
reprogramming, for a total of $20 million for KPDRA to
distribute.
On July 23rd, the Department provided to Congress notice
of its intent to reprogram $100 million into drought-
related programs and projects. Reclamation is in the
process of allocating that funding to various actions
around the West. The purpose of the reprogramming is for
both rapid emergency response to address current conditions
and drought resilience actions that will result in drought
preparedness beyond 2021. This request includes funding for
Rapid Response Mitigation ($32,000,000), for Drought
Resiliency (over $42,000,000), and more than $25,000,000
for other activities including Wildland Fire Mitigation and
Prevention, Native American Affairs, and water recycling
projects.
On August 2nd, USDA announced its investment of $15
million for a new drought pilot to assist agricultural
producers impacted by worsening drought conditions to
provide relief to impacted California and Oregon producers
in the Klamath River Basin. The announcement comes as the
Secretary of Agriculture will travel to the State for
events focused on drought and wildfire resiliency on
Tuesday.
On September 29th, USDA announced the availability of $500
million to support drought recovery and encourage the
adoption of water-smart management practices. From rising
temperatures and heat waves, to early snow melt and low
rainfall, record-breaking drought has affected producers
across the country. This assistance will target these
challenges and enable USDA's Farm Production and
Conservation agencies to deliver much needed relief and
design drought resilience efforts responsive to the
magnitude of this crisis.
Responding to Drought in California
Throughout this difficult water year, Reclamation has worked
closely with the California Department of Water Resources to
accommodate the voluntary transfer of non-project water. These
transfers provide important flexibility, particularly in dry years, to
allow irrigation districts to adjust to changing conditions. In 2021,
Reclamation has responded to a record-high number of requests for the
transfer of nearly 350,000 acre-feet of transfers through state and
Federal facilities.
Demonstrating its ability to be flexible, Reclamation adjusted
spring-time operations at Shasta Dam to benefit endangered winter-run
Chinook salmon. The adjustment involved the bypass of Shasta Dam's
powerplant and temperature control device in favor of releasing water
from higher, warmer layers of Shasta reservoir through river outlets.
The power bypass began on April 18, 2021, and concluded on May 24,
preserving approximately 300,000 acre-feet of colder water for later in
the summer with no increase in overall release volume.
In California, Reclamation has:
Deployed facility features to preserve cold water for fish
and enhance hatchery capabilities.
Deployed monitoring programs to collect data, including
the Enhanced Delta Smelt Monitoring Program and the
Enhanced Acoustic Tagging of Salmon.
Implemented an emergency pulse flow on Clear Creek to
benefit spring-run Chinook salmon.
Released stored water from New Melones Reservoir for Delta
outflow requirements.
Facilitated groundwater pumping programs in the Upper
Sacramento River Valley to meet irrigation demands and
preserve storage in the Shasta reservoir.
Building on its long history of working closely with federal,
state, and local partners in California, the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) conducts monitoring, modeling, and assessments that its partners
need to address drought challenges. USGS operates a stream gage network
of over 500 gages, a ``superstation'' monitoring network in the Bay-
Delta that provides real-time data for Federal and State water
projects, and a statewide groundwater well network. USGS also conducts
extensive monitoring of land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley. USGS
has developed integrated surface-water/groundwater models to evaluate
drought impacts on water availability, use, and quality throughout the
State.
This year, USGS is working with the State Climatologist to apply
novel modeling tools and a USGS-developed drought metric to quantify
impacts of the ``disappearing snowpack.'' USGS is also conducting
assessments of ecological drought impacts and of wildfire effects on
water resources and aquatic ecosystems in California. These severe
impacts of drought clearly affect our wildlands and communities,
including vegetation mortality and increased risk of large, high
severity wildfire.
Responding to Drought in the Colorado River Basin
Historic drought and low-runoff conditions have impacted the
Colorado River Basin since 2000. Most of the flow of the Colorado River
originates in the upper portions of the Colorado River Basin in the
Rocky Mountains. The Upper Basin experienced an exceptionally dry
spring in 2021, with April to July runoff into Lake Powell totaling
just 26 percent of average despite near-average snowfall last winter.
The water year 2021 unregulated inflow into Lake Powell--the amount
that would have flowed to Lake Mead without the benefit of storage
behind Glen Canyon Dam--was 33 percent of average. Total Colorado River
system storage as of just last week (Sept. 28, 2021) is only 39 percent
of capacity, down from 49 percent at this time last year.
Hydropower production efficiency continues to be impacted at both
the Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam powerplants as poor hydrology
persists throughout the Colorado River Basin. If the reservoirs at Glen
Canyon or Hoover Dams (Lake Powell and Lake Mead, respectively) on the
Colorado River, drop below the level where power can be generated, it
will result in the loss of millions of dollars in revenue that
currently are used to fund multiple federal programs, such as
endangered species and salinity control programs. One recent response
action was taken under the Drought Response Operations Agreement
(DROA), an important element of the 2019 Colorado River Drought
Contingency Plan Authorization Act. After consultation with--and
acknowledgement from--all seven Basin States and other partners, under
the emergency provisions of DROA, Reclamation started supplemental
water deliveries in July 2021 to Lake Powell from the upper reservoirs
of Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa, and Navajo. Those supplemental deliveries
will provide up to an additional 181 thousand acre-feet of water to
Lake Powell by the end of the 2021 in order to protect hydropower
production and reduce the risk and duration of Lake Powell falling
below the target elevation of 3,525 feet.
Recent projections of risk that Lake Powell could decline below
this target elevation in 2022 are the subject of ongoing analyses by
Reclamation and the Upper Basin States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah,
and Wyoming, and Reclamation is actively working to ensure that Tribes
and other partners are informed and engaged as further drought response
releases are considered for implementation. Important decisions on the
potential need for additional releases will be required in the months
ahead. As Reclamation and its partners continue to assess drought
response actions, we will continue to use the best available scientific
information and continue to coordinate closely with our federal, state,
tribal and non-governmental partners, and stakeholders in the Basin.
In 2020, consistent with the Colorado River Drought Contingency
Plan Authorization Act, Reclamation conducted outreach meetings with
its partners and stakeholders, including the Lower Basin states, water
agencies, Tribes, non-governmental organizations, and the U.S. Section
of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC), to provide
an update on Reclamation's efforts to create or conserve 100,000 acre-
feet or more of system water annually under the Drought Contingency
Plan (DCP). Reclamation's strategy is focused on projects that will
generate water savings annually over a longer period. We recognize,
however, that these longer-term projects will take some time to develop
and become operational. Shorter-term projects and agreements that
generate system water over the term of the DCP are being explored to
help bridge this gap.
In addition, Reclamation has entered into agreements for with the
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation to create system conservation water in
2020, 2021, and 2022, with the Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage
District to create system conservation water in 2020 and 2021, with the
option for a third year in 2022, with the Gila River Indian Community
to create system conservation water in 2021, and a funding agreement
with Metropolitan Water District, the Central Arizona Water
Conservation District, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority for the
creation of system conservation water at the Palo Verde Irrigation
District from August 2021 through July 2024. The 242 Wellfield
Expansion Project and agreements listed above will generate
approximately 60,000 to 80,000 acre-feet of system water each year in
2021, 2022, and 2023 toward Reclamation's efforts. Potential future
projects or agreements to create or conserve additional system water
are being developed, subject to applicable law including availability
of appropriations, in coordination with our partners and stakeholders.
The USGS is modernizing its observational capabilities by
implementing the Next Generation Water Observing System, or NGWOS. When
fully implemented, the NGWOS will provide high-resolution data on
streamflow, evapotranspiration, snowpack, soil moisture, water quality,
groundwater/surface-water connections, stream velocity distribution,
sediment transport, and water use. These data are intended to be
coupled with advanced modeling to provide flood and drought forecasts
with greater certainty and address a variety of other water-resource
questions in each region. Thus far, the USGS has selected three
Integrated Water Science basins and NGWOS implementation is ongoing in
all three. One of those basins is the Upper Colorado River Basin, where
drought is a primary focus.
conclusion
The only way to address these challenges and climate change is to
utilize the best available science to develop innovative solutions and
to work cooperatively across the landscapes and communities that rely
on our western rivers. This Administration is working every day to
collaborate with states, Tribes, farmers, and communities impacted by
drought and climate change to build and enhance regional resilience by
being proactive and fully using the tools we have available. We
appreciate Congress' attention to the severity of drought and welcome
your input on new tools and approaches to help the communities we all
serve. I look forward to our continued work together and to answering
your questions.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Tanya Trujillo, Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science, Department of the Interior
Questions Submitted by Representative Levin
Question 1. Assistant Secretary Trujillo, as I'm sure you are aware
the shutdown of the Paradox Valley Unit has caused salinity concerns
for water districts in California that receive Colorado River water.
What is the Bureau doing to address this salinity issue?
Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has been working to
address salinity concerns within the Colorado River Basin through its
participation with many partners in the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program. According to Reclamation's 2019 Quality of Water
Report, as of 2017 Reclamation removes approximately 480,000 tons of
salt annually from the Colorado River, not including Paradox Valley. We
are also exploring options to expand investment in the Basin-wide
program for further salinity control in the Basin.
In regard to the Paradox Valley Unit, on March 4, 2019, operations
at the Paradox injection well were suspended to analyze the largest
earthquake to date and assess the risk of continued operations. Because
the earthquake was near the threshold for causing damage to the
surrounding community, Reclamation management decided to evaluate risks
before continuing operations. Reclamation is performing analyses to
quantitatively evaluate seismic risks associated with continued
operation of the Paradox Valley Unit. These analyses will take an in-
depth look at the seismic hazard potential and the potential for
resulting damage. As the analyses are ongoing however, Reclamation is
evaluating the operation of the Paradox Injection Well at a reduced
operating capacity. Reclamation is also exploring other options for
salinity control within the Paradox Valley.
Question 2. Under what timeline will you be carrying out the
actions you highlighted?
Answer. Expanded investment in the Basin-wide salinity control
program will continue during fiscal year 2022. The seismic and risk
analyses should be completed in 2023. A possible Paradox Injection Well
test run is being evaluated for 2022.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Assistant Secretary Trujillo. I
will now call upon Congresswoman Teresa Leger Fernandez to
introduce our next witness.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Chair Huffman, for
giving me this opportunity to participate in this important
hearing, and to introduce the next witness.
I am really excited that two constituents from my
beautifully diverse 3rd District in New Mexico are testifying
today: Tanya Trujillo--thank you very much for your testimony--
and Mr. Daryl Vigil.
I have known Daryl Vigil going back decades, from when I
served as General Counsel for the Jicarilla Apache Nation. At
present, he is the Water Administrator for the Nation. And
among many roles, he is also the co-facilitator for the Water
and Tribes Initiative in the Colorado River Basin. He is also
Chairman of Water is Life Partnership. He is truly a leader for
communities seeking long-term water sustainability and equity.
Thank you so much for being here today, Mr. Vigil, we look
forward to your testimony.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Vigil, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DARYL VIGIL, JICARILLA APACHE WATER ADMINISTRATOR
AND CO-FACILITATOR, WATER & TRIBES INITIATIVE IN THE COLORADO
RIVER BASIN, DULCE, NEW MEXICO
Mr. Vigil. Thank you, Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member
Bentz, and other members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify about the drought situation in the
western United States. And I can't go on any further without
acknowledging, of course, my Representative, Teresa Leger, a
decades-long friend of the Jicarilla and, of course, my friend,
Representative Melanie Stansbury, and also my friend and fellow
New Mexican, Assistant Secretary Trujillo. Thank you so much
for the opportunity today. And it is so nice to hear you, and
thank you, Teresa, for that acknowledgment. I really appreciate
it. And thank you, Chairman Grijalva, for the opening
statements, as well.
I am here presenting this to you from lovely Durango,
Colorado, at Fort Lewis College, where, as you may or may not
know, has an enrollment of over 30 percent of Native American
students, so a pretty special place to be at to be able to
provide this to you.
I am going to kind of paraphrase my testimony, since I know
that it takes 7 minutes to read the whole thing.
But as has been mentioned before, my name is Daryl Vigil,
and I am an enrolled member of the Jicarilla Apache Nation. I
am also of Jemez and Zia Pueblo descent. My reservation is in
north central New Mexico, and extends from the New Mexico-
Colorado border, 70 miles south.
My tribe has significant water rights in the Colorado River
Basin, and as has been mentioned, I have had the honor of being
my water administrator, and thank my President, Edward Velarde,
and my Legislative Council for continuing to trust and empower
me to be able to speak on behalf of this Nation, in terms of
something that is of absolute importance to my tribe, which is
our water rights and the spiritual value of our water rights.
And, again, we say this all with the backdrop of
understanding that this conversation is absolutely vital and
important and considering where we are at in this moment in
time, not only with the situation with climate, but the
geopolitical kind of conversations that are going on. So, this
is not only important to the tribes, but as has been mentioned
before, it is important to the entire Basin, the 30 sovereigns
in the Basin, and this country as a whole.
I am going to talk a little bit about the past, present,
and future role of tribes in the Colorado River Basin, as we
understand. My key message is that sovereigns in the Basin--
tribes, along with Federal and State governments--need to be at
the decision-making table. Tribes have senior water rights to
at least 25 percent of the current natural flow of the Colorado
River, and have historically been excluded from decision
making, or consulted only after decisions have been made. It is
my sincere hope that the attention and the action of this
Committee represents the beginning of a new chapter in the
management of the Colorado River, a chapter in which tribes are
treated with the same dignity and respect and responsibility as
other sovereigns in the Basin.
And I think it is really important to understand that
tribes have lived sustainably in the Basin for a millennium,
and continue to do so today despite Mother Nature's challenges,
colonization, systemic strategies to terminate, exterminate,
and assimilate the Indigenous people of this country. And we
have experience, not only hundreds, but thousands of years of
sustainable and adaptive living. We understand the importance
of honoring the very things that keep us alive, that feed us
and quench our thirst.
And it is important to provide just a little bit of
context, because as has been stated, we are at a pivotal moment
in time. Next year will be the 100th anniversary of the
Colorado River Compact, the foundational law of the river. And
at that time, it is just important to understand the context of
where my tribe was at that time.
In 1887, our reservation was established, after our own
kind of trail of tears, and we survived on government rations
outside our traditional homeland. And although we were
historically nomadic, government tried to make us farmers and
ranchers on lands that didn't really support those activities.
We didn't establish a governance structure on my reservation
until the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, couldn't vote in
elections until 1948, and did not have plumbing in the town of
Dulce until the 1960s.
And it is important to note that my Nation settled its
water rights claims nearly 100 years after the Colorado River
Compact in 1992, during the early years of tribal settlements.
So, as has been mentioned before, there is a lot of
conversation about how do we get inclusive of tribes? How do we
make tribes part of this process? The current structures do not
allow for any of that to happen. Inside my testimony, I
definitely line out a way of creating something where we don't
have to recreate the wheel, in terms of a model that was
created in the Columbia River Basin, that was mentioned a
little bit earlier, that looks a lot similar in terms of the
components of what could be built in the future.
But given the amount of tribal water rights that the tribes
have and the commitment and the number of thousands of years
that we have lived here, the current structure doesn't account
for that. Absolutely, something new needs to be built, where
not only those tribal voices are heard or included in the
conversation, but that other voices that haven't been
traditionally heard are integrated into that, so we build a
future together in the Basin that would be really, really
unique, in terms of transforming the Federal-Tribal sovereign
relationship.
I really appreciate the time and please, I ask you to take
a look at my testimony, because I go into the specifics not
only about what the division is that my Nation has, in terms of
how we can participate, but also it has links to the work that
we have done in the Basin to really build on that collaborative
effort so that----
Mr. Huffman. We appreciate that, Mr. Vigil. Thank you so
much for sharing that.
Mr. Vigil. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vigil follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daryl Vigil, Water Administrator of the Jicarilla
Apache Nation and Co-facilitator of the Water & Tribes Initiative
Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and other members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about the
drought situation in the western United States.
My name is Daryl Vigil. I am an enrolled member of the Jicarilla
Apache Nation; I am also of Jemez and Zia Pueblo descent. My
reservation is in north central New Mexico and extends from the New
Mexico/Colorado border 70 miles south. My Tribe has significant water
rights in the Colorado River Basin. I have had the honor of being my
Tribe's Water Administrator for the last 11 years, and I am grateful
that the leadership of the Nation--President Edward Velarde and my
Legislative Council--has trusted and empowered me to speak on behalf of
the Nation and to co-facilitate a broader tribal/basin dialogue through
the Water & Tribes Initiative.
Thank you for your leadership on convening this hearing to address
the ongoing drought in the Colorado River basin and how we,
collectively, are responding. This is an issue of extreme urgency and
vital importance not only to the tribes in the basin, but to the entire
basin and this country as a whole.
My remarks speak to the past, present, and future role of tribes in
Colorado River governance. My key message is that as sovereigns in the
basin, tribes--along with federal and state governments--need to be at
the decision-making table. Tribes have senior water rights to at least
25% of the current natural flow of the Colorado River but have
historically been excluded from decision-making or ``consulted'' only
after decisions have been made. It is my sincere hope that the
attention and action of this Committee represents the beginning of a
new chapter in the management of the Colorado River--a chapter in which
tribes are treated with the same dignity, respect, and responsibility
as the other sovereigns in the basin.
Past
Tribes have been living sustainably in the Colorado River Basin for
a millennium and continue to do so today, despite mother nature's
challenges, colonization, and systematic strategies to terminate,
exterminate, and assimilate the indigenous people of this country. We
have experience and knowledge developed over many hundreds of years of
sustainable and adaptive living. We understand the importance of
honoring the very things that keep us alive, that feed us and quench
our thirst.
The foundational law of the river, the Colorado River Compact was
developed in 1922 without tribal participation. At that time, my tribe
(reservation established 1887, after our own trail of tears) was
surviving on government rations outside our traditional homelands.
Although we were historically nomadic (hunter, gatherers) the U.S.
Government tried to make us farmers and ranchers on lands that did not
support those activities (Chama Valley-White Clan, taken first by the
Spanish, Tierra Amarilla Land Grant). We didn't establish a governance
structure until 1934 (IRA), couldn't vote until 1948, and did not have
plumbing in the town of Dulce until the early 1960s. My Nation settled
its water rights claims in 1992 during the early years of tribal water
settlements.
Present
Fast forward to today, nearly a hundred years since development of
the Colorado River Compact. Tribes continue to be largely left out of
the problem-solving and decision-making processes. Tribes were not
consulted in developing the 2007 Interim Guidelines, which create the
current management framework for the river. They were not consulted in
the 2012 Basin Supply Demand Study, nor were they consulted--except
after the fact--on the decision to initiate Drought Response Operations
this summer. All of these decisions directly impact tribal water
rights, tribal communities, and Native people throughout the basin.
Over the past 10 years, individual tribes, along with the Ten
Tribes Partnership and the Water & Tribes Initiative, have sought to
raise awareness and understanding of the role of tribes in the basin,
have forged partnerships with federal and state governments, and have
worked with conservation groups and other water users to emphasize how
the current structures for management have not honored the spirit of
settlement agreements, have not provided access to basic infrastructure
for clean drinking water, and have not acknowledged thousands of years
of environmental, cultural, traditional, ceremonial, and spiritual
tribal values.
Future
As you know, the 2007 Interim Guidelines, the Drought Contingency
Plans, and other governing arrangements will expire at the end of 2025.
The Biden Administration is expected to launch the formal process to
develop a new management framework for the river sometime in the coming
months--a framework that must and will directly address the ongoing
drought and a much drier future with a lot less water . . . all in the
context of the ongoing pandemic.
This is a pivotal moment in history given the current realities of
drought and aridification, the opportunity to create a new management
framework for the river, and the 100th anniversary of the Colorado
River Compact in 2022. It is time to create a new paradigm for
governing the use of the Colorado River--one that integrates best
available science and indigenous knowledge of the basin. And one that
involves tribes as active partners in problem-solving, decision-making,
and governance. This new paradigm has been emerging organically over
the past decade in the form of many collaborations and partnerships
among tribes, states, the federal government, stakeholders, and water
users.
Building on this collaborative culture, we need to create something
like a Sovereign Governance Team that includes tribes in a process of
shared decision-making with the other sovereigns in the basin--state
and federal governments. This approach was used successfully in the
Columbia River Basin (which encompasses portions of Montana, Idaho,
Oregon, and Washington) to prepare for the renegotiation of the
Columbia River Treaty between the United States and Canada.
In a report based on over 100 interviews with tribal and other
leaders in the Colorado River Basin, many people expressed a belief
that a Sovereign Governance Team creates a level playing field among
sovereigns. Tribes are treated as co-equals with states and the federal
government, rather than as other ``interest groups'' or
``stakeholders,'' as in past processes. A Sovereign Governance Team
integrates tribes in a meaningful way into planning and problem-solving
before decisions are made; and it provides an opportunity for all
stakeholders, experts, and the public to be more meaningfully involved
in an inclusive, open, and transparent process.
Chairman Huffman and members of the Committee, you can make this
happen. We need this type of governance structure to respond to the
issues facing the basin. Your leadership to move in this direction
would also be a significant expression of fulfilling the federal
government's trust responsibility to the 30 tribes in the basin.
Without this type of structure, tribes will continue to bear the
impacts of the unrealistic expectation that federal and state
sovereigns will effectively and responsibly represent tribal water
interests along with their own. Tribes themselves, not state and
federal officials, are in the best position to advocate for and protect
their own tribal interests.
While my tribe is actively working on addressing the impacts of
drought, we do so knowing the uncertainty surrounding our participation
in the broader planning for the basin. We ask that you formalize a
process for tribal participation in a new era policy and partnership,
where tribal sovereignty is acknowledged and respected, and where
tribes can be effective sovereign partners to create solutions to
address the tremendous challenges before us now and in years to come.
Thank you.
More detailed information regarding water-related issues of importance
to tribes in the Colorado River Basin can be found at the following
locations:
http://www.naturalresourcespolicy.org/projects/water-tribes-colorado-
river-basin/
http://naturalresourcespolicy.org/projects/water-tribes-colorado-river-
basin/3.20-wti-report-executive-summary-final.pdf
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/tws/finalreport.html
______
Mr. Huffman. Finally, we will hear from Chairwoman Amelia
Flores of the Colorado River Indian Tribes next.
Chairwoman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF AMELIA FLORES, CHAIRWOMAN, COLORADO RIVER INDIAN
TRIBES, PARKER, ARIZONA
Ms. Flores. Good afternoon, Chairman Huffman and Ranking
Member Bentz. My name is Amelia Flores. I am the Chairwoman of
the Colorado River Indian Tribes. I appreciate the invitation
to testify today on behalf of my people about the drought and
its impacts on the Colorado River. That is the namesake of our
sovereign government.
I also want to thank Chairman Grijalva for his work to get
our La Paz lands returned, and his support for not only CRIT,
but all Native people and tribal governments.
The Colorado River Indian Reservation is separated by more
than 70 miles of the Colorado River running through our lands,
located in both California and Arizona. We have the right to
divert 719,000 acre-feet, and are currently using over 300,000
acre-feet, the same amount used by the state of Nevada.
Since time immemorial, the river has sustained us. I am
here today to tell you that we are committed to helping to
support the river that has provided for us, and we have water
to offer for this effort.
The Colorado River is suffering not only from drought, but
climate change that is forcing all of us to change our
relationship with its water. We must use its water more
efficiently and ensure that each drop provides maximum benefits
so that others are not cut off entirely. This will require new
and improved water delivery infrastructure, especially on
tribal reservations, including ours.
We have received funding from the WaterSMART program and
USDA programs to make improvements to the Federal irrigation
project and our farmlands. But the needs greatly exceed the
capacity of these programs and our ability to provide the
required 50 percent matching funds. By joining with the state,
local, and private sector, with creative partnerships, we have
started to make up for the lack of Federal investment in the
BIA irrigation project. The Committee's inclusion of $150
million in the Reconciliation proposal to assist tribal
governments addressing the drought will greatly help us and
other tribes.
We hold the senior water right for the Lower Basin and are
the largest single user of the water from the Colorado River in
Arizona. Our water right was quantified by the U.S. Supreme
Court in the Arizona versus California decision, with the
priority date of 1865, and is not likely to be shortened.
Despite the challenges our tribe faces, we are providing
help to the rest of the Lower Basin through the Drought
Contingency Plan, which was authorized by legislation approved
by this Committee.
The Colorado River Indian Tribes are creating more than
150,000 acre-feet of water for Lake Mead as system
conservation. This water and our ICS contributions since 2016
have raised the water levels in the lake by more than 3 feet.
In addition, we have been working with the state of
Arizona, environmental leaders, and the water users to develop
a legislative proposal that will authorize us to lease our
water to other users in the state. This is the same right that
Congress has authorized for other tribal governments in Arizona
and across the West.
Because our water rights were adjudicated by the Supreme
Court, Congress has not acted on them, and we lack the
authority to lease water because of the prohibitions in the
300-year-old Indian Trade and Intercourse Act. Without the
right to lease our water, we can do little to directly assist
communities in Arizona or our neighbors on the river, who may
face drastic water shortages in the coming years.
We have worked with stakeholders and the state of Arizona
for over 5 years to develop the proposed legislation that will
provide us the same sovereign rights over our water that other
tribal governments have. Our proposed legislation will help
make Arizona more water resilient, and will provide our tribe
with the financial resources to fund improvements to the
irrigation project, so that our water use may become efficient.
Greater efficiency on our reservation means we can do more
to help the river. The Colorado River Indian Tribes are
committed to working with the United States to support on-river
habitat, including providing more water and land for endangered
species protection.
Our legislative proposal will also permit us to lease
secure water supplies to third parties, including
municipalities on the river, and those served by the CAP that
are facing shortages. This may reduce the demand for
groundwater pumping that is not sustainable in Arizona. Our
first priority water right can be diverted directly from the
Colorado River with little to no risk of reduction during
shortages, and will limit the need for new or additional water
delivery infrastructure.
Leasing our water for off-reservation use does include a
cost for us. If you visit our reservation, you will see more
than 10,000 acres of our farmland sitting fallow, a reminder
that our people have chosen to protect the health of the river.
Our legislative proposal will only allow leasing of water
we have consumptively used on the reservation for at least 4 of
5 recent years. This will keep the river and all other water
users whole.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Chairwoman----
Ms. Flores. We are simply requesting the right to decide
for ourselves how to best use our water, because we do not have
this right today.
It has been an honor to be here today, and I thank you for
inviting me. I will submit written testimony and am pleased to
answer any questions you might have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Flores follows:]
Prepared Statement of Amelia Flores, Chairwoman, Colorado River Indian
Tribes
Good afternoon Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz. My name is
Amelia Flores. I am the chairwoman of the Colorado River Indian Tribes.
I appreciate the invitation to testify today about the drought and its
impact on the Colorado River that is the namesake of our sovereign
government.
Our reservation is separated by more than 70 miles of the Colorado
River running through our lands located in both California and Arizona.
Since time immemorial, the River has sustained us. I am here today
to tell you that we are committed to helping to support the River that
has provided for us.
The Colorado River is suffering not only from drought but climate
change that is forcing all of us to change our relationship with its
water. We must use its water more efficiently, and ensure that each
drop provides maximum benefits so that others are not cut off entirely.
This will require new and improved water delivery infrastructure,
especially on tribal reservations including ours. We have received
funding from the WaterSMART program and USDA programs to make
improvements to the federal irrigation project and our farmlands, but
the needs greatly exceed the capacity of these programs and our ability
to provide the required fifty percent matching funds.
By joining with the state, local, and private sector with creative
partnerships we have started to make up for the lack of federal
investment in the BIA irrigation project.
The Committee's inclusion of $150 million in the reconciliation
proposal to assist Tribal governments addressing the drought will
greatly help us and other tribes.
We hold the senior water right for the Lower Basin and are the
largest single user of water from the Colorado river in Arizona. Our
water right was quantified by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Arizona
versus California decision with a priority date of 1865 and is not
likely to be shorted.
But we are not able to use our full water right. Most of our water
is delivered through the Colorado River Irrigation Project, a run-down
federal irrigation system maintained and operated by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. We lose more than 100 thousand acre-feet of water per
year to poor maintenance and poor operations. The Project has not
diverted as much as 80 thousand additional acre-feet in a year because
of poor water accounting. We know how to prevent this and to put our
full water right to productive use for our people and the funding that
we need.
Despite the challenges our Tribe faces, we are providing help to
the rest of the Lower Basin. through the Drought Contingency Plan,
authorized by legislation approved by this committee. The Colorado
River Indian Tribes are creating more than 150 thousand acre-feet of
water for Lake Mead as system conservation. This water and our ICS
contributions since 2016 have raised the water levels in the Lake by
more than 3 feet.
In addition, we have been working with the State of Arizona,
environmental leaders, and water users to develop a legislative
proposal that will authorize us to lease our water to other users in
the state. This is the same right that Congress has authorized for
other tribal governments in Arizona and across the west.
Because our water rights were adjudicated by the Supreme Court,
Congress has not acted on them and we lack the authority to lease water
because of the 300 year old Indian Trade and Intercourse Act. Without
the right to lease our water, we can do little to directly assist
communities in Arizona who face drastic water shortages in the coming
years.
We have worked with stakeholders and the state of Arizona for over
five years to develop the proposed legislation that will provide us the
same sovereign rights over our water that other tribal governments
have. Our proposed legislation will help make Arizona more water-
resilient and will provide our tribe with the financial resources to
fund improvements to the irrigation project so that our water use may
become efficient. Greater efficiency on our reservation means we can do
more to help the river. The Colorado River Indian Tribes are committed
to working with the United States to support on-river habitat,
including providing more water and land for endangered species
protection.
Our legislative proposal will also permit us to lease secure water
supplies to third parties, including municipalities that are facing
shortages. This may reduce the demand for unsustainable groundwater
pumping and our first priority water right can be diverted directly
from the Colorado River with little to no risk of reduction during
shortages limiting the recipients need for new or additional water
delivery infrastructure.
Leasing our water for off reservation use includes a cost for us.
If you visit our reservation, you will see more than 10 thousand acres
of our farmland sitting fallow, a reminder that our people have chosen
to protect the health of the river.
Without the additional revenue water leasing may provide, the large
volumes of system conservation water we are now providing will become
an economic burden we may not be able to afford.
Our legislative proposal will only allow leasing of water we have
consumptively used on the reservation for at least four of five recent
years. This will keep the river and all other water users whole.
Finally, we are simply requesting the right, to decide for
ourselves how best to use our water because we do not have this right
today.
Our Tribal Council is committed to maintaining and improving the
health of the river and to developing a sustainable tribal economy.
Water leasing as we propose can achieve both goals. Our water can also
help build a bridge for the basin to get to a future that has the
advanced technology for water desalination and reuse.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I will submit written
testimony and am pleased to answer any questions you might have.
______
Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that, Chairwoman Flores. Let me
remind members of the Committee that Rule 3(d) imposes a 5-
minute limit on questions. We will now turn to Member
questions, and I will recognize Members, starting with myself.
And Chair Flores, I would like to begin with you, please.
Thanks again for joining us. I appreciated the conversation
about how your tribe is committed to providing the Colorado
River the same support it has provided us, in your words, for
so long.
And then you continued by talking about how your tribe will
support water uses through leases that strengthen the health of
the Colorado River. So, I have no doubt about your commitment
here, and I appreciate your comments. But I do want to follow
up on that subject, and just ask about NEPA, the National
Environmental Policy Act, one of our important environmental
protections in Federal law, which spotlights the environmental
impacts of any proposed actions and develops alternatives that
can be chosen to avoid or limit harmful environmental impacts
and unintended consequences.
So, I just want to ask, as you develop and refine your
legislation on water leasing, will you support the preservation
of the NEPA process and other environmental protections in a
manner similar to what I understand has been done with other
tribal water leases in Arizona and elsewhere?
Ms. Flores. Thank you for your question, Chairman Huffman.
Yes, we will follow all the requirements that other tribes have
been imposed with.
Mr. Huffman. OK, thank you for that. And I want to also ask
you about the math problem that we have on the Colorado River.
As you know, we have legal entitlements that add up to 17.5
million acre-feet of water every year. And with global warming
and a more realistic, more modern assessment of the hydrology
of the Basin, we may only be able to deliver something much
less than that. I am hearing maybe 12.3 million acre-feet.
So, given our math problem, I want to ask how you view the
idea of prioritizing system conservation and future water
leases and prioritizing other actions that can help us reduce
overall consumption and address this systemic shortage.
Ms. Flores. Would you repeat that question again?
Mr. Huffman. Sure.
Ms. Flores. It was a long question.
Mr. Huffman. I won't repeat the whole thing. You know that
we have an imbalance, in terms of the entitlements that far
exceed what we now understand the hydrology of the Basin will
provide. So, I just want to ask how you view the idea of
prioritizing conservation in future water leases and also
actions that can help us reduce overall consumption.
Ms. Flores. OK. Thank you for the question. Our proposed
legislation only permits us to lease water that we have been
using already on our reservation. So, we are required to reduce
consumptive use to make water available in a lease.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. In the time I have left, I just
have a couple of quick questions for Assistant Secretary
Trujillo and Mr. Vigil.
I want to start with large-scale water recycling. We are
seeing some, I think, very promising collaboration in that
regard. This is drought-proof water supply, of course, that we
have historically done on a smaller scale. But with these
larger-scale projects, we can actually provide supply for
millions of people. So, I want to ask you where that fits into
our planning and our future on the Colorado River Basin.
Ms. Trujillo. OK, thank you. We have a system for unmuting.
Mr. Huffman. Yes, we are making progress.
Ms. Trujillo. Water recycling is a very important component
of our portfolio, and the new authorization proposed in the
infrastructure package will be very helpful. I think it does
represent a good opportunity to continue that collaboration
that we have seen among the states, to continue the partnering
between the Federal Government and the local entities who are
doing so much on the ground. And we are going to have to do
conservation in every state, going forward, to help continue to
address the conditions that we see.
Thank you for thinking proactively about that issue.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. And in the limited time I have
left, could you just speak quickly about Salton Sea
restoration? Why is this important, not just in California, but
for other Basin states?
Ms. Trujillo. Yes, thank you for recognizing the importance
of the Salton Sea. I formerly lived and worked in California
and dealt with issues at the Sea firsthand. I met as recently
as yesterday with representatives from the Imperial Irrigation
District, and stability at the Salton Sea helps create
stability with respect to the interactions within California,
which also helps create stability with the other states and
with our government.
It was great to see support from the Representatives in
Arizona recently for additional Salton Sea funding and support,
and I know the Upper Basin states have similarly, in the past,
reached out and supported those efforts, as well. So, I think
there is a recognition of the importance in a very broad
context.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much.
Ranking Member Bentz, I see you back on the screen. Are you
ready to go?
Mr. Bentz. I am ready to go.
Mr. Huffman. Excellent, you are recognized.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Madam Assistant Secretary, the situation--I know you are
familiar with it--in the Klamath has led this year to a choice
between in-stream interests, on the one hand, and farmers on
the other. And the farmers lost.
Here on the Colorado, we can see the same situation
approaching, and I think it has only been through incredible
amounts of hard work by the folks in that Basin to avoid such a
stark choice.
But let's assume the worst, and I hate to do so, but let's
assume the worst. And when it comes to the future of--there are
endangered species on the Colorado. Tell us, if you will, what
you think the outcome would be if it came down to the four
endangered species on the Colorado, on the one hand, and the
outer stream water users, on the other?
Tell me, will the same thing happen on the Colorado that
has happened on the Klamath?
Ms. Trujillo. It can be--thank you for that question. And,
as you noted, we have had tremendous challenges in the Klamath
Basin. I know we have been in close coordination with your
office, and I know how important the issues are to you. And I
think you know we have been working very, very hard to try to
balance several competing demands for insufficient water
supplies. We saw the worst drought ever this past year, and it
was a horrible situation to be in.
The Colorado River Basin can be a good model for continued
coordination, including with respect to these kinds of
endangered species challenges that exist. There are three
different recovery programs in the Basin that have a wide range
of support from the water users, from the environmental
communities, from the tribes, from our Federal team, as well.
So, we have a strong record to be building from in the Basin.
And I think it is a good model that we can use in other
contexts, as well.
I appreciate being part of these conversations.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and I just want to
say thank you for the work that the Bureau has done in trying
to help in an extraordinarily difficult situation.
What I am really trying to call out, though, is the very
high probability that we are going to see this happen again and
again as we look into this very, very water-short future. So,
what I am hoping that we will be able to do is address the
Endangered Species Act in a way--I think you kind of alluded to
it when you said people are working together to try to figure
out how to make these things work.
The kind of all-or-nothing zero-sum game that we see in the
Klamath, though, when it comes to water, I don't think is the
proper future. I think the proper future is one where we figure
out a way of trying to make sure everybody gets something in
these situations, as opposed to cutting everybody off, as did
happen in the Klamath.
And the reason I bring this up is because people are
suffering so greatly from this. I mean, the damage, even
notwithstanding your excellent efforts in trying to help people
out. So, I am just saying that is why I welcome this
conversation today, because I see the same thing coming on the
Colorado that we had to deal with in the Klamath this year. And
I am just so wishing that we don't have to deal with it again.
Forgive me for going on like this, but it is such an important
thing to the people in my area, and not only my area, but the
Central Valley Project of California.
So, having said that, I am going to shift it over to
Chairwoman Flores for a second.
You mentioned, Chairwoman, that the Colorado River Indian
Tribes have worked with stakeholders and the state of Arizona
for over 5 years to develop the proposed legislation, your
testimony highlights. What, in your opinion, are the major
barriers to actually having the content of that bill happen?
Ms. Flores. The major barriers for our legislation bill is
just to get everybody on the same page, and we have done that.
We have been, over the past 5 years, having meetings, and
having a voice. And not having a voice was one of the barriers.
So, now we do have a voice, and stakeholders and other
entities are recognizing us, and they see our water and our
first priority water rights, and they see that we have been
participating in the pilot programs of fallowing our lands, and
we have been committed and have held our end of the bargain by
keeping the water in Lake Mead with a pilot program, and also
with the DCP.
We were welcomed to join in and be a part of the solution,
and not a hindrance in saving the river. And, again, the river
has always taken care of us. We need to take care of this
river. And I think that there are many other barriers, but that
was one of the main barriers that we recognized, our water
allocations were not recognized in seeing all the shortages.
So, we have something to offer. Thank you.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you for that.
And Mr. Chair, sadly, I didn't have my clock on. Do I have
time left for another question?
Mr. Huffman. Well, you are a minute 18 into the red, so----
Mr. Bentz. So, the answer is no.
Mr. Huffman. Unfortunately, I have to say no, but we can
come back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Ranking Member Bentz, for your
comments, and thanks for bringing up the dire conditions in the
Klamath Basin, which we both represent.
I know that the gentleman is aware that everyone in the
Basin, and every interest has been suffering, and the
downstream communities I represent and the species that you
alluded to are also getting hammered. There are no big winners
in this drought condition, so I did want to make that point.
And the Chair will now recognize Mr. Costa for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this important hearing, and not only today, but next week.
As you know, I have historically been involved in this from
my days in the State Legislature, as Chairman of the Ag and
Water Committee. And I think that water, the precious water
resource that we all depend upon, is going to be one of the
most pressing challenges we face in the 21st century with
climate change, not only for western states, but for our entire
country and the world. It ultimately will determine whether or
not we are amicably able to live and support an increased
population, not only in our country, but around the world.
Let me remind, and I think most of you know, that part of
the challenge here as it relates to the Colorado River, a river
that was litigated for decades when the final allocation was
resolved with the law of the river, it allocated 7.5 million
acre-feet of water to Upper Basin states, and 7.5 million acre-
feet to Lower Basin states. It includes Arizona, California,
and Nevada. In addition, 1.5 million acre-feet to Mexico.
It was determined back then, in the 1960s, in historical
data, that the average yield was about 16.4 million acre-feet
per year. But the fact of the matter is that that was over-
allocated. We know that today. It is estimated that water flows
over the last two decades have continued to decline, averaging
12.4 million acre-feet. So, we have oversubscribed the river,
and that is part of the challenge here.
And the Native Americans and the Nation states that are
represented here clearly have an important requirement that
they be afforded their water rights, as well. And we have folks
that have determined that they have rights to the river that
have yet to be resolved, and that is on top of what has already
been determined to be allocated.
So, we have more demand. And guess what? Since the 1960s,
all the Southwestern states, Upper Basin states, the Lower
Basin states, they are growing, and more demands on that water,
whether we are talking about New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada,
California, Colorado. So, how we deal with this conundrum with
climate change is, really, the issue at hand.
I have long sought--and I want to ask my questions toward
Ms. Trujillo--we have to use all the water tools in our water
toolbox.
In California, we get water from a number of different
sources. But one of the primary sources is the Colorado River
Basin. Ms. Trujillo, how does Federal investment in our water
infrastructure, including improving conveyance, help California
and the entire western states become more resilient to climate
change impacts on our water supplies?
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Congressman. The muting comes from
your guys, so we have figured it out. Thank you.
Mr. Costa. As long as the Chairman gives me the 10 seconds
that you were muted.
Ms. Trujillo. That is a deal.
Mr. Huffman. We have been pretty generous today, Jim.
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Representative Costa, for your
leadership on these issues. From the Federal perspective, the
investments absolutely make a difference, with respect to the
water supplies. But there is a strong connection between the
stability that we are seeking to achieve in the Colorado River
Basin and the other sources of supply for California. That is a
clear recognition that exists.
Our infrastructure proposals include investments in
modernizing the aging infrastructure that we have, and
developing more water recycling and more innovative
technologies to more efficiently use water, and in basic
investments in conservation throughout the Basin.
Mr. Costa. And I am a big supporter of that. I only have
about 45 seconds left. I know you have your Interagency Drought
Relief Working Group and your National Drought Resilience
Partnership as part of the water subcabinet meeting.
And, we in California, with our multiple sources, are
looking at ways, and are working with the Chairman to better
reinforce our own conveyance of facilities and provide ability
to reduce the amount of evaporation through the use of solar
power and other means. Because, to the degree we can use these
conservation tools, not only to improve our species, but
improve water for our farms and our farm communities with these
extreme drought conditions.
We will talk more about the money, but I think in the next
hearing I would like to know how you are going to, through this
various water subcabinet effort, allocate these funds, and how
we can work with you so all of the different states that are
impacted by the Colorado River, including California, can
participate in the allocation of these funds, because they are
desperately needed during the extreme droughts.
And I want to thank the Full Committee Chairman and the
Subcommittee Chairman. During the Reconciliation period we were
able to add another $500 million for drought relief purposes,
and this is all important as we kind of work through this.
Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentleman, and I am now told that
Representative Gonzalez-Colon will go next.
Representative Gonzalez-Colon, you are recognized.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Chairman, for allowing me.
I have been hearing the witnesses.
And first of all, I want to say thank you to all of them
for bringing this issue. And even when I am part of the eastern
part of the Caribbean, knowing what is happening in other parts
of the states is important. I mean, all of us have our
problems, and I think the witnesses have illustrated things
that can be achieved by working together. So, in that sense I
want to say thank you.
But I want to yield my time to Ranking Member Bentz.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you so much, Representative Gonzalez-
Colon, for that yield, and I will make sure that I only utilize
2\1/2\ minutes, so I give my overage back to the Chair. But a
question back to Secretary Trujillo for just a moment.
Many of the Basin states noted the need for continued
improvements to system modeling tools. What is Reclamation
doing in that regard? Are you working on design of better tools
to try to tell us what we can anticipate, and what we are going
to do, should further shortfalls occur?
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Representative Bentz. We
absolutely are continuing to work to develop the best available
information that we can utilize for our own decision making,
but also to have available for the communities and the water
managers around the West, including in the Colorado River
Basin.
We work closely with our other Federal agencies at NOAA,
the Weather Service, and the forecast center to be able to have
alignment in the information we are providing. We have
excellent technical staff at Reclamation, who strive to
communicate very effectively with the affected folks that are
working on these issues.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you for that. And with that, Mr. Chair, I
am going to yield back. And I hope now we are even, and I will
stick within my 5 minutes the next time around. And thanks
again to Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon for the yield.
Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentleman. Order is restored, and
that is much appreciated.
I believe Mr. Soto is next on our side, so the gentleman
from Florida is recognized.
Mr. Soto. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, coming to you
from Florida, what is generally rich in water country, although
our aquifer definitely has some stresses on it. We are very
proud of the $8.3 billion that is in the Build Back Better Act
to help with Western water issues.
And Chairman, I noticed that you needed a little extra
time, so I wanted to yield to you, if you would so want it, the
remainder of my time.
Mr. Huffman. I wish you would yield some of your water to
California. But----
Mr. Soto. Whenever you want to fund that cross-nation
pipeline of water from the East to West Coast, we have more
than enough, more than we want. But that is for another day.
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Soto, there are people who still talk
about that kind of thing. I don't think it is ever going to be
feasible, but I appreciate the thought.
No, I do not have further questions in this round, so I
appreciate----
Mr. Soto. Then I yield to Mr. Costa the remainder of my
time, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Costa, you are recognized.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Representative Soto, for
that opportunity, and Mr. Chairman, as well.
Ms. Trujillo, I would like to get back to the area we were
discussing earlier. In the fiscal appropriations for 2022, we
have water-related resources at $1.7 billion plus, and that not
only deals with the President's request, but additional funding
from Fiscal Year 2021. The total, I guess, comes to $1.95
billion, when you add the numbers up.
And then the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill would add to
that another $5.35 billion, $1.1 for water storage, $3.2 for an
aging infrastructure account, which I hope we can use some of
those funds to deal with the challenges we have in California,
and repair projects that are identified under Reclamation's
Assessment Management Report.
And then for local communities, I mean, we have so many
communities, whether they are Native American communities or
small rural communities, whose drinking water doesn't meet with
state or federal standards.
How quickly do you think we are going to get that money
out?
And, of course, that doesn't mention the Reconciliation
monies that I spoke of earlier, and I don't know how much that
is going to be, depending upon what happens with
Reconciliation, obviously. But what is the strategy that the
Bureau has for dealing with getting these monies out as quickly
as possible, where it is most needed?
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you very much for the support from
Congress for these important issues.
The short answer is that they are building upon our
existing programs, so we have a very efficient way of getting
the additional funding out to the communities. We are building
upon the programs that we have. We have backlogs. We have
additional requests for funding that we can easily cycle into,
and I think that was working in coordination by design for how
some of this came together on purpose.
Mr. Costa. Well, part of that--and the Bureau, obviously,
has its challenges, to be sure--but when we worked on the
settlement agreement on the San Joaquin River, as an example,
we allowed under that legislation that was signed into law the
ability for the Bureau to work with local water districts under
the thought that they might be able to facilitate the
implementation of funding in a more expedited fashion, and the
Bureau could, given the more cumbersome process you deal with.
Have you looked at different ways in which you can deal
with local agencies to facilitate expediting these funds?
Ms. Trujillo. We are always looking for that, for ways to
be more efficient. I think, since January, we have already
figured out how to allocate funding to over 220 different
districts throughout the West.
Mr. Costa. And I think that Native American groups, as
well, right?
Ms. Trujillo. Yes. Absolutely, absolutely. We have expanded
our tribal technical support programs and have prioritized the
ability to efficiently work with them, in coordination with our
other partners here at Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
the Fish and Wildlife Service. Yes, we are trying to be as
efficient as possible with these programs.
Mr. Costa. Well, my time has almost expired. I don't know
if we can do it in next week's hearing or not, but I think it
would be helpful for the Subcommittee and the Full Committee,
frankly, to get an idea of what is realistic to be expected, in
terms of what has already been allocated in the next fiscal
year that can be actually moved out, and in the next several
years. So, that would be helpful, I think, for all of us.
Ms. Trujillo. Absolutely.
Mr. Huffman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Stansbury from
New Mexico for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
convening today's important hearing, and thank you to all of
our witnesses for joining us today.
I am especially proud to see so many New Mexicans here. As
I often say, New Mexico's top exports are green chile and our
water experts, of which we have many here today. So, it is so
great to have you all here today.
As we know in New Mexico, el agua es la vida, and it is
part and parcel of our cultures and ways of life, our economy,
and the future of our state.
Assistant Secretary Trujillo, we are so proud to have you
serving in this role and representing New Mexico.
And, Mr. Vigil, we are so grateful for your leadership at
Jicarilla and on the Ten Tribes Partnership. And, of course, we
are joined by our state engineer, who is here today, Mr.
D'Antonio.
As a fellow New Mexico water nerd, I am excited to have you
all here today to talk about the Colorado River and our other
crucial watersheds in the West.
As we all know, our rivers and communities have been
gripped across the West by a drought this year. But our
communities are no strangers to water scarcity, as our tribes
and pueblos have lived on these lands since time immemorial,
and our acequia and land grant communities have shared waters
across many, many generations.
But it is clear that what we are seeing today is part of a
much larger trend of a changing climate. As temperatures are
getting hotter, our snowpack is declining, and we are seeing
fundamental changes in our hydrologic systems. And nowhere is
this more visible than in New Mexico, where our communities
have faced historic drought conditions this year, at the same
time that our state has had the largest number of disaster
declarations due to flooding and wildfires this year. So, it is
clear, climate change is here, and it is threatening the
ability of our communities to bring water to our fields, to
meet the needs of our tribes and pueblos, our acequias, our
farmers and ranchers, and our rivers, which depend on these
life-giving waters.
While the Colorado River is being strained by these
changes, we also are seeing historic partnerships in the Basin,
led by many of the panelists who are joining us here today,
that are helping to bring transformational change to the
management of this system. And these partnerships are crucial,
not only to the communities in the Colorado River, but to the
Rio Grande Basin that flows through my district, which depends
on water transfers from the Colorado to meet the needs of our
communities and our endangered species.
As we look to the future and managing these river systems
in a time of climate change, we need to continue to leverage
these collaborative partnerships to invest in the best
monitoring science and technology that we can, to invest in
modernizing our infrastructure and operational requirements,
and ensure that our communities have a seat at the table, and
are helping to direct the decisions that are made about those
water systems.
And I believe our job, as lawmakers, is to make sure that
we are putting into place all of the changes that are necessary
to empower our communities by passing transformational water
policies; working to protect our tribes and pueblos' trust and
treaty responsibilities and water rights; investing in our
water management agencies; investing in resilient
infrastructure, as we are doing in the Build Back Better Act
and Bipartisan Infrastructure Act; investing in our water
science and data and technology; and protecting those rivers.
That is our charge, as public servants and caretakers of these
sacred waters.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to use a little bit
of my remaining time to ask Assistant Secretary Trujillo.
You have worked across the West, and the Colorado, the Rio
Grande, and many of our rivers for many, many years. Can you
please share with us what you think Congress can do to help
lift up the best of these collaborative watershed efforts, and
what we can do to best support your work?
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Representative Stansbury. And it
makes me homesick to see you and Representative Fernandez
there, in Santa Fe, or in New Mexico.
I think the work that Congress is doing through the
bipartisan infrastructure package is a great example of how
that helps us do exactly what you mentioned in your remarks,
where it allows us to improve our infrastructure, it allows us
to do more recycling, to do more water planning, and drought
contingency planning efforts, and support the existing programs
that we have.
And I think the underlying emphasis on sound science is
exactly the way that we want to continue to be doing business
in the Colorado River Basin and in the West by context, as
well.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you so much.
And I see, Mr. Chairman, I am out of time. But if you will
indulge me, I just want to say I am really grateful also that
we have Mr. Vigil here today, who is such an incredible
resource on how we bring and make sure that our tribes have a
seat at the table, as we are directing and protecting our water
rights for our tribes and our communities moving forward.
So, we are grateful to have you here today, as well. Thanks
very much.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Representative Stansbury. We are
going to continue this New Mexico thread by recognizing
Congresswoman Leger Fernandez for the next 5 minutes.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Chairman Huffman. Are you
getting an echo, or am I all right?
Mr. Huffman. I love the sound of your voice, but we are
hearing it twice.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Let me try to fix that.
[Pause.]
Ms. Leger Fernandez. OK, is this better?
Mr. Huffman. Yes, the audio sounds pretty clear. Go ahead.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. OK, great. Sorry about that.
[Audio malfunction.]
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Agua es vida, water is life. Earlier
this year I did an Ague es Vida Tour in my beautiful district,
where I heard from the Rio Chama Acequia Association, local
farmers, the Carson National Forest, Taos Pueblo, and many
more. And at each stop, local leaders told me about the impact
that declining water supplies and the climate crisis has on
their communities.
And something that resonated, as Mr. Vigil pointed out, the
importance of people, of tribes being talked to before things
happen. The acequia users immediately below the dam, which
receives water from the Colorado, noted that they were never
consulted when the dam was being planned and constructed. They
noted how the dam's operation negatively impacts their
irrigation canals and structures, but they just weren't part of
the conversation.
Mr. Vigil, in your testimony you talked about an idea. You
named it the sovereign governance team, and that you thought it
was very important that this be created when crafting future
Colorado River agreements. Can you give us a really short
synopsis of what a sovereign government's governance team looks
like?
What should it look like, this consultation?
[Pause.]
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Did I go mute again?
Mr. Vigil. It wasn't you, Representative, it was me, I am
sorry. Thank you so much for the question, and thank you for
the acknowledgment.
And yes, it is really important to understand,
Representative, that right now there is no formal
institutionalized inclusion of the 30 tribal sovereigns into
the policy-making process, as it exists. So, we have to rely on
either our State sovereign or the Federal sovereign to
represent our tribal water interests.
And we have really built the foundation of understanding, I
think, particularly in the Colorado River Basin, in terms of
the absolute need for tribes to be at that sovereign table with
the Federal Government and the State sovereign to make policy
for the future of the Colorado River, because the current
policy isn't inclusive of that formally. And no matter how much
you want to engage in the conversation of inclusion, the
structure doesn't allow for that right now.
So, when we are talking about drought and drought response,
yes, we can be a part of that conversation, and it is in our
DNA about how to live sustainably and how to practice adaptive
management in and through our culture. But for us to be able to
participate meaningfully, as we should, there needs to be a
structure for engagement, and there is not one that exists now.
So, why not use the template of something that was already
created and seems to have worked, to a large extent, in terms
of creating a table for sovereigns to engage? And this will do
a whole number of things, in terms of forwarding policy in the
Colorado River, where we need to start thinking about a culture
and behaviors of dealing with less of a resource, and how we
are going to equitably apportion that resource, as has already
been stated.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so very much. I wanted to
get two quick questions in for our other Nuevo Mexicana.
As you know, the Navajo Gallup Water Supply Project runs
through my congressional district. It helps the Jicarilla
Apache Nation, Navajo City, Gallup, and other surrounding
communities. And I am going to put this together with also
other pipelines, because what we have is, those pipelines,
finishing them has been delayed and we don't have the
authorized spending level that is needed. We no longer have
enough money.
So, I wanted to ask you if you and the Bureau would be
committed to work with me and the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the
Navajo Nation, and Gallup on amendments to the Project's
authorization, so we can take advantage--not take advantage,
but we can make sure that we recognize the true costs.
And, also, we are going to have to make sure there are
additional groundwater wells to supply communities until the
project is complete. So, I am hoping you will be open to
working with us on getting that done.
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Representative Fernandez. That
project is near and dear to my heart, and I have been working
on it very closely for over 15 years, and will be very happy to
make sure your staff and yourself are aware of all of the
progress we have been making.
And we have been working very closely with folks there in
the region, at the Navajo Nation, and in the local communities
to think creatively about how to make sure we can complete the
effective components of the program. And we will be happy to
work on technical support with your office and with others to
make sure that we can make any adjustments that may be needed.
But I was happy to participate in the groundbreaking
ceremony for the Cutter Lateral, and then I am looking forward
to being able to participate in the blessing ceremony, because
that portion of the pipeline has been completed. The managers
did a great job of that construction, and it is currently
providing water to the communities who did not have it
available, previously. And it is a great example of the
commitment from the Bureau of Reclamation and Department of the
Interior of meeting the tribal needs in our various communities
and in our home state of New Mexico.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Ms. Trujillo. The gentlelady's time
has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the Full
Committee, Representative Grijalva from Arizona.
Mr. Grijalva. First of all, I thank Chair Flores for her
comments and her kind remarks. They are very much appreciated.
And as the Chairwoman knows, all of us are very much aware in
Arizona of the significant contribution the tribe made to
accomplish that portion of the Drought Contingency Plan. So,
many thank yous.
Let me follow up on something that Chairman Huffman was
asking. The comments you hear about, if you throw out NEPA, you
throw out endangered species, you throw out other environmental
protections, air quality, water quality, that the drought will
be resolved. That is not true. That is not even a false choice.
It is just not true. I ask this because I think it is very
important about utilization and usage, going forward.
And as you and the council put together the leasing
proposal, is the lease going to prioritize water releases that
help deal with the deficit that we have in the Colorado River?
Is that the primary focus of it, if I may ask?
It is your prerogative to put in there what you want, Madam
Chair, and I acknowledge that and respect that. But my question
is, is that something that is a consideration?
[Pause.]
Mr. Huffman. Do we have the Chairwoman?
Ms. Flores. Thank you for the question, Chairman Grijalva.
We want our sovereignty protected to use our water as we
decide. Right now we don't have that authority to use the
water, and we are seeking to lease our water. We can only use
our water on our lands, our farmlands.
But our tribal members decided in a referendum that they do
not want to make multi-generational commitments of our water
for new development. We are finally free from the long-term BIA
land leases and do not want our water to be committed in the
same way.
We are committed to saving the river and helping our
neighbors and overall environment. So, we want the authority to
decide again for ourselves how to use our water, which is the
same authority other tribes in Arizona have, and we have water
to do so.
Mr. Grijalva. And I respect that, trust me, I respect that.
But in this process, this legislative process, I am asking a
question that I think is inevitable, and I think that is
further discussions that Chairman Huffman and I can have with
your leadership and yourself, Madam Chair. Again, thank you for
what you are doing for Arizona, and thank you very much for
your kind comments. I appreciate it.
Ms. Flores. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Vigil, 12 tribes in the Colorado River
Basin still have unresolved water rights claims. And we need
that resolution to quantify the water rights for the tribes,
not only for themselves, but, I think, for the whole Basin.
Talk about that. That is more of a statement than a question,
but what I mean is, that is pretty obvious. Those have to be
closed.
[Pause.]
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Vigil?
[Pause.]
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Vigil, you are muted.
Mr. Vigil. I am very sorry. Yes. Incredibly good question,
in terms of the tribes in the Basin who don't have quantified,
or haven't settled their water rights yet.
In terms of the structural deficit that is going on, the
supply demand imbalance, and it becomes a real part of the
conversation, because where is that water going to come from in
that particular climate? Because that tribe absolutely has a
right to that water, and it has a right to water for domestic
uses, even paramount to just a settlement.
So, it becomes really important that for certainty in the
Basin, we start to recognize not only those tribal rights that
are quantified, but those that are unquantified, because those
have to be included into the conversation.
Mr. Grijalva. Right. Thank you. Certainty, I think, is the
key word that you used, and this is critical to that certainty
for the Basin.
If I may, Mr. Huffman, one question for Mr. Vigil.
We have heard from the Tribal Nations today about being at
the table, and it is absolutely correct. With 25 percent of the
resource, they have to be at the table, not only
proportionally, but with equity. But in the past the table has
been dominated by users whose interests are more on the
business/commercial side.
And not only the integration of tribes, but how we create a
balance in the future drought management plans after 2026, how
are we going to create that balance?
Mr. Vigil. Yes. First you have to acknowledge----
Mr. Grijalva. This is for Ms. Trujillo, Mr. Vigil.
Mr. Vigil. Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Huffman. Ms. Trujillo?
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vigil, as
well.
Mr. Chairman, we at Interior recognize the importance of
involvement of our tribes, and have been working very closely
and through several forums, some of them that Mr. Vigil is
involved with, like the Water and Tribes Initiative and the Ten
Tribes Partnership.
We also have a technical discussion going on with regular
conversations throughout the Basin with our tribes. And then,
in Arizona, the intertribal forum allows us multiple
opportunities for interactions.
And we think, going forward, we are going to have to be as
inclusive as possible in all of the seven states, with respect
to the State Representatives, the local communities, the non-
profit organizations, the very, very broad group of interested
people who are depending on the Colorado River and will need to
be part of our discussions, going forward.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. When this was created, the
interests of the West were different. This is a different West,
and there are many different constituencies and voices that
need to be heard in the development of those plans.
Thank you, Mr. Huffman, thanks to----
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. And I know that, as Mr. Vigil was
attempting to chime in, he was going to remind us that he had
suggested the Columbia River Basin as a potential model as an
answer, I am sure, to your question. I appreciate his testimony
and everyone in our panel of Federal and tribal witnesses.
We are going to move on now to a second panel. I would like
to remind the second panel witnesses to please mute yourself
when you are not speaking. Of course, the flip side of that is
please unmute yourself when we need you to speak. We are
continually reminded of that side of it, as well.
But I will allow the witnesses to all finish their
testimony before we bring it back to Members for questions.
I will now introduce our second panel. Today, we have the
governors representing all of the seven states of the Colorado
River Basin with us to present testimony--or the governors'
representatives, rather. We won't have all seven governors
themselves, but we will have representatives from all seven of
those governors.
And we will hear first from Mr. Thomas Buschatzke, Director
of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Buschatzke for 5 minutes.
[Pause.]
Mr. Huffman. And you are muted, Mr. Buschatzke.
[Pause.]
Mr. Huffman. OK, we are going to try to fix the audio.
Let's give this just a moment.
We could have Mr. Peter Nelson from the Colorado River
Board of California ready on deck, if we can't get the audio
fixed for Mr. Buschatzke.
Mr. Buschatzke. Chairman Huffman, can you hear me now?
Mr. Huffman. There you go. We have you loud and clear.
STATEMENT OF TOM BUSCHATZKE, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
WATER RESOURCES, PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Mr. Buschatzke. Thank you for providing me an opportunity
to testify today on behalf of the state of Arizona. I have also
submitted written testimony.
A 20-year drought and climate change have had devastating
impacts on the Colorado River. In 2022, Arizona will lose 18
percent of its total Colorado River entitlement. Impacts to
agriculture, tribes, and municipal water users will result. But
Arizonans have come together to provide financial resources and
wet water to partially mitigate those impacts.
The likelihood of future deeper cuts is high, and in 2023,
Arizona may lose an additional 80,000 acre-feet. And mitigation
for those reductions is unlikely. In August, projections of
Lake Mead levels triggered a consultation provision in the
Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan. The robust actions we
have taken to date are not enough. Arizona, Nevada, and
California have been meeting, and are looking to do more.
Additional actions to protect Lake Mead fall into two
categories: mandatory cuts or additional conservation.
Arizona's goal is conservation, and not greater cuts. Tribal
and non-tribal partnerships will achieve that goal.
Over the last two decades we have learned valuable lessons
for managing the Colorado River, and they include:
(1) be vigilant in monitoring the hydrology of projected
reservoir elevations. We must have data and modeling products
produced by the Bureau of Reclamation, who possess the best
available science.
(2) achieve outcomes to equitably share the benefits and
risks attendant to the Colorado River system.
(3) adhere to an ethic of collaboration among the states,
Mexico, the United States, tribes, and other stakeholders.
(4) recognize that we are connected, from Wyoming to the
Sea of Cortez.
(5) incentivize actions that conserve water in Lake Mead.
(6) resources from the United States and its agencies must
be tools in the toolbox.
And (7) continue state participation in formal discussions
with Mexico.
As I mentioned, Arizona tribes are key stakeholders in
Colorado River management. A healthy river is critical to
tribal water rights settlements. Arizona has 11 of its 22
tribes with rights yet to be determined in whole or in part.
Uncertainty attached to climate change impacts on the flow
of the river, and to the post-2026 operating criteria, further
complicates the completion of settlements. But it is important
to the state that those tribal claims be settled.
In conclusion, drought and climate change are presenting
challenges that are likely to increase over time. Proper
planning, management, robust conservation, and collaboration
across political jurisdictions and among stakeholders create
the greatest likelihood for success today and in the future.
I thank you again, and I stand ready to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Buschatzke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Buschatzke, Director, Arizona Department
of Water Resources
INTRODUCTION
My name is Tom Buschatzke and I am the Director of the Arizona
Department of Water Resources. Thank you for providing me an
opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the State of Arizona as
the subcommittee examines the status and management of drought in the
Colorado River Basin.
BACKGROUND
In 1980, Arizona took a major step forward in water management when
it adopted the Groundwater Management Act, a groundbreaking set of laws
to manage our finite groundwater supplies and incentivize conjunctive
use of surface water and groundwater. The Act was a hard-fought
compromise between agriculture, industry, mining interests and
municipalities. The Act imposes stringent water management regulations
in the areas of the state designated as Active Management Areas, or
``AMAs.'' Within AMAs, municipal, industrial, and agricultural
groundwater users are subject to mandatory water conservation
requirements. Agricultural acreage is capped, with no new agricultural
land allowed to be put into production after 1980. Turf acreage is
limited on new golf courses and so is the amount of water they can use.
New housing developments are required to show that they have a 100-year
renewable water supply before they can be built. Outside of AMAs,
community water systems, i.e., municipal providers, are required to
have conservation and drought management plans in place and
agricultural acreage is capped in areas designated as Irrigation Non-
Expansion Areas.
The overarching policy goal of the Act is to reduce reliance on
finite groundwater supplies and preserve those supplies for use when
drought has reduced the availability of surface water supplies. These
aggressive water management actions have resulted in a reduction in
Arizona's water use over the same time period that the State's
population and economic output have increased. One example of the Act's
success is that Arizona's dependence on groundwater has decreased from
53% in 1980 to 41% as of 2019.
Building Upon the Original Groundwater Management Act
The 1980 Groundwater Management Act has been improved over time as
new programs and tools were identified. In 1986, the Arizona
Legislature established the Underground Water Storage and Recovery
program to allow persons with surplus supplies of water to store that
water underground and recover it for use at a later time. In 1994, the
Legislature enacted the Underground Water Storage, Savings, and
Replenishment Act, which further refined the underground storage
program.
There are several mechanisms used to accomplish the storage
requirements and certify the creation of ``long-term storage credits''
that can be accessed in the future. One way to earn long-term storage
credits is to put Colorado River water or reclaimed water into
facilities constructed for the purpose of allowing the water to
infiltrate into the underlying aquifer. Long-term storage credits can
also be earned by supplying a substitute surface or reclaimed water
supply to a farmer who would otherwise pump groundwater for irrigation.
The groundwater left in the ground by that farmer creates long-term
storage credits that can be recovered later by the entity supplying the
surface or reclaimed water supply to the farmer. This method for
creating long-term storage credits leverages existing infrastructure:
the canals, laterals and wells already being used by the farmer.
Another commonly used method to create long-term storage credits is
to utilize existing dry streambeds. Water is delivered into those
streambeds and infiltrates into the groundwater aquifer. Infiltration
rates can be enhanced by the construction of basins or berms. A less
frequently used fourth mechanism is to put surface water or effluent
directly into the aquifer through injection wells.
Protections are in place to ensure that the addition of water to
the aquifer through this program does not harm the aquifer's water
quality and that rising water levels do not damage existing structures
extending below land surface.
The underground storage program serves multiple objectives by
integrating sustainable water supply management and drought protection.
Water users in Arizona have taken advantage of this program to store
water underground to protect against reductions in surface water
supplies due to drought. Long-term storage credits can be used to
demonstrate renewable water supplies to meet the 100-year requirement
for residential growth. Long-term storage credits are fungible and can
be sold from one water user to another, thus creating a market
mechanism to help manage water supplies in Arizona.
The State recognized the value of the underground storage program
when it created the Arizona Water Banking Authority in 1996. This state
agency is charged with storing water underground to backfill shortages
of Colorado River water for municipal, industrial and tribal entities
that have their water delivered to them through the Central Arizona
Project and for certain municipal and industrial Colorado River water
users who have contracts directly with the Secretary of the Interior.
To date the Water Banking Authority has stored about 4.3 million acre-
feet for these purposes. The Water Banking Authority is also authorized
to engage in interstate banking of Colorado River water with California
and Nevada. To date, the Water Banking Authority has stored 601,000
acre-feet for Nevada. Arizona previously stored water for California,
but California has since recovered that water.
Current Issues of Concern: Drought and Climate Change
Arizona has been under an emergency drought declaration since 1999.
The Governor of Arizona makes that declaration annually pursuant to a
recommendation from the Governor's Drought Interagency Coordinating
Group. The declaration relates to local conditions ``on the ground'' in
Arizona as well as drought impacts to water supplies.
The past two decades of on-going drought in the western United
States, and in particular the Colorado River Basin, is challenging the
seven Colorado River Basin States of Arizona, California, Colorado,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as the Republic of
Mexico, to meet the needs of the 40 million people and millions of
acres of farmland that rely on the River.
The volume of water in Lake Mead has been declining since the Lake
was last full in 2000. The cause of the decline is over-allocation of
the River and drought-induced reductions in the annual average flow of
the River. More importantly, many scientists believe that it is climate
change, not drought, that is the root cause of declining flows in the
Colorado River system. To illustrate that point, we have seen several
years in which runoff is significantly lower than snowpack. For
example, in water year 2021, snowpack in the Colorado River Basin
peaked at 89% of normal, while runoff was only 33% of normal. This
phenomenon is likely the result of the hotter and drier conditions
caused by climate change. This trend is one that water managers must
take into account as we plan for the future of the Colorado River.
Natural flows in the Colorado River have decreased from the long-
term average of 14.8 million acre-feet per year to an average of 13.3
million acre-feet per year over the last 30 years. Future flows of the
Colorado River are predicted to be even less.
Actions and Creative tools to manage the Colorado River
Water managers in the Colorado River Basin have been cognizant of
the risks to the water supplies provided by the River for decades and
have taken numerous actions to address these risks. In 2007, the
Secretary of the Interior adopted the Colorado River Interim Guidelines
for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake
Powell and Lake Mead, commonly referred to as ``the Guidelines.'' The
Guidelines require reductions in Colorado River water use by Nevada and
Arizona triggered at specified elevations in Lake Mead. Those
reductions were intended to slow projected declines in Lake Mead
elevations and to reduce the probability of the Lake falling below
critical elevations to single digits. The Guidelines also work to
balance the contents of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, thus protecting key
elevations in both reservoirs. New tools to incentivize conservation in
Lake Mead were also developed in those Guidelines. One important tool
is ``Intentionally Created Surplus'' or ``ICS,'' which allows a water
user to conserve water that has been historically used and effectively
store it in Lake Mead for use at a later date. That tool has been very
successful in bolstering water levels at Lake Mead.
After the Guidelines took effect, water managers representing the
Basin States began working with the Department of the Interior and the
International Boundary and Water Commission (``IBWC'') to develop a
framework for cooperative efforts between the United States and Mexico
in managing the Colorado River. Recognizing the need to include the
Basin States in binational discussions regarding the Colorado River,
the IBWC adopted Minute No. 317 to the 1944 Mexican Water Treaty to
allow for participation by the Basin States. In 2012, in coordination
with the Department of the Interior and the Basin States, through the
adoption of Minute No. 319 to the 1944 Mexican Water Treaty, Mexico
signed on both to the benefits inherent in the Guidelines, such as
conserving water for later use, and to voluntary reductions equitable
to those mandated by the Guidelines.
In 2013, the Colorado River Basin States concluded that the
Guidelines were not robust enough to protect Lake Mead and the Colorado
River System. The States embarked on a process to identify and
prescribe additional actions to protect the River. Those discussions
culminated in the Secretary of the Interior adopting the Upper Basin
and Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plans (``DCP'') in May 2019.
The Lower Basin DCP requires additional contributions to Lake Mead
by Nevada, Arizona and California at targeted elevations. Through
Minute No. 323 to the 1944 Mexican Water Treaty, Mexico also agreed to
participate in the actions contained in the Lower Basin DCP. The
Guidelines and the DCP agreements are in place through 2026. Table 1
shows the volumes of reductions and contributions by participant at
each elevation under the combined requirements of the Guidelines and
the Lower Basin DCP.
Table 1. 2007 Interim Guidelines Shortage Reductions and Incremental
DCP Contributions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Two other key components of the Lower Basin DCP are expanding
ICS flexibility as an incentive to conserve water in Lake Mead and
establishing an adaptive management provision if projections show a
continued decline in the Lake Mead levels.
While the DCP was under negotiation, in light of the need for
immediate action, water managers developed another mechanism to protect
Lake Mead, beyond the creation of ICS. Water users can reduce their
historical use and leave that water in Lake Mead as part of the
contents of the River system. Unlike ICS, the conserved water is not
recoverable by the entity that created it. That water is referred to as
``system conservation.'' The Bureau of Reclamation has played a crucial
role in agreements to compensate those who create system conservation
by verifying the reduction in consumptive use.
Table 2 illustrates the efforts of water users in the Lower Basin
States and Mexico to preserve the elevation of Lake Mead through ICS
and system conservation. The Bureau of Reclamation has shown that since
2014, the collective conservation efforts in the Lower Basin have
increased the elevation of Lake Mead by approximately 50 feet. When the
Central Arizona Water Conservation District's (``CAWCD'') voluntary
forbearance of excess Central Arizona Project (``CAP'') water and the
additional contributions agreed to in the DCP are included, Arizona's
contributions by themselves have increased the elevation of Lake Mead
by approximately 23 feet, two-thirds of which was for overall system
benefit and not for ICS.
Table 2. Water Conservation in Lake Mead since 2014
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Impacts of Colorado River reductions to Arizona and mitigation
efforts
In 2022, Tier 1 of the Guidelines will be in effect, requiring
additional DCP reductions. Nevada will leave 21,000 acre-feet in Lake
Mead; Mexico will leave 80,000 acre-feet in Lake Mead; and Arizona will
leave 512,000 acre-feet in Lake Mead. These are significant reductions
for our water users.
Arizona has a 2.8 million acre-foot per year apportionment of Lower
Basin Colorado River water. When full supplies are available, about 1.5
to 1.6 million acre-feet of this water is used by Tribes, agriculture,
cities, water companies and industries in central and southern Arizona
through the CAP. The remainder of Arizona's apportionment is used by
Tribes, agriculture, cities, water companies and industries along the
mainstem of the Colorado River in western Arizona.
Pursuant to established priorities, virtually all the reductions to
Arizona in 2022 will be applied to CAP supplies. Water deliveries to
the Arizona Water Banking Authority for water banking (underground
storage for future recovery), agricultural users, two tribal
communities, 12 cities and towns, two private water companies, a
community facilities district, the Central Arizona Groundwater
Replenishment District and a handful of industrial users within the CAP
system will be reduced.
To address these cuts, Arizona has a DCP implementation plan to
partially mitigate the impacts. The reductions to tribal communities
and municipal and industrial users will be fully mitigated with
substitute water supplies or financial compensation. The reductions to
agricultural users will be partially mitigated with substitute water
supplies and money for infrastructure and efficiency improvements.
Water banking will not be mitigated.
The Arizona DCP Implementation Plan is a monument to collaboration
and creativity. Funding sources came from the State, CAWCD and non-
governmental organizations. A DCP Steering Committee composed of
bipartisan State legislative leaders and representatives of the State
executive branch, tribes, water users, interest groups, agricultural
districts, counties, and the Bureau of Reclamation hammered out the
plan over an 8-month time frame. A package of state legislation was
passed on January 31, 2019 to effectuate the implementation plan and to
authorize the Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources to
sign the Basin States' DCP Agreements. A total of 22 separate
agreements were negotiated and executed to deliver the DCP and the
Arizona Implementation Plan.
The Seven Basin States' DCP Agreements and the Arizona
Implementation Plan continue a long-standing philosophy regarding
drought preparedness and water management: continuously develop and
improve the legal framework, policy prescriptions, institutions and
infrastructure needed to create certainty so that reliable and secure
water resources are the pillar upon which the State builds its economy,
grows its population and maintains a superior quality of life for its
citizens. That philosophy includes partnering with the federal
government, neighboring states and Mexico. At the same time, Arizona
has always maintained an ethos of taking actions within the State to
better manage its water supplies and to be prepared for and to address
the impacts of drought-induced water supply reductions.
Flexibility in managing water supplies and adaptation to drought
conditions are part of Arizona's history and will continue to be a key
management strategy now and in the future.
Additional Actions and Next Steps on the Colorado River
In August 2021, Bureau of Reclamation projections activated the
Lower Basin DCP adaptive management provision, commonly referred to as
the elevation 1030' consultation provision. This provision requires
Arizona, California, Nevada and the Department of the Interior to
``consult and determine what additional measures will be taken to
protect against the potential for Lake Mead to decline below elevation
1,020 feet.'' \1\ The three states have been meeting to discuss
additional actions to meet that requirement and to identify and resolve
the many issues that may attach to those actions. Additional actions
could fall into two categories: (1) additional mandatory reductions in
use, or (2) additional voluntary conservation of water in Lake Mead
through ICS or system conservation. At this time, the states are
focusing on the latter category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lower Basin Drought Contingency Operations, Section V.B.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1030' consultation process allows the affected states and their
water users to determine how best to manage Lake Mead and the Colorado
River system. In the alternative, the Secretary of the Interior or a
court could impose actions upon us. The latter is an outcome that
potentially dictates winners and losers and is not the preferred path
of Arizona.
The expiration of the Guidelines and the DCP in 2026 also points to
the need to address the operating parameters after 2026. While those
parameters are expected to be developed through an administrative
process, including environmental compliance under the National
Environmental Policy Act and concluding in a record of decision, the
Basin States agreed in 2007 to consult on the post-2026 water
management framework. The States have embarked on that path and reached
out to tribal communities and Non-Governmental Organizations as part of
that process earlier this year. That process will likely continue in
parallel with the 1030' consultation. From Arizona's perspective, the
near-term 1030' consultation is more pressing and a higher priority.
CREATING RESILIENCY TO DROUGHT
Reuse of Reclaimed Water
Arizona's history also includes a strong commitment to recycling
and reuse of reclaimed water. Arizona was reusing substantial volumes
of reclaimed water long before reuse became a common practice. The
poster child for reuse in Arizona is the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station in the Phoenix metropolitan area, the only nuclear power plant
in the world to use reclaimed wastewater for cooling. Since 1973, the
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station has held a contract for reclaimed
water. Palo Verde currently contracts for 80,000 acre-feet per year and
uses 72,000 acre-feet per year of treated municipal wastewater from the
91st Ave Wastewater Treatment Plant, which also serves five cities in
the region. Palo Verde produces up to 4,200 megawatts of power and
serves about four million people in four western states. Technological
advances and improved management practices have increased water use
efficiency by the cooling towers and substantially reduced water use
since the startup of the plant in 1986.
Most of Arizona's municipal wastewater is reclaimed and put to
beneficial uses, including indirect potable reuse, agricultural and
landscape irrigation, riparian restoration and other environmental
uses.
Augmenting Arizona Water Supplies
In 2021, the Arizona Legislature created a Drought Mitigation Fund
and a board to administer it. The fund is designed to explore
opportunities to augment Arizona's water supplies with new water from
outside the State.
One potential project is being explored as part of the
implementation of Minute No. 323 to the 1944 Mexico Water Treaty:
binational desalination opportunities in the Sea of Cortez. Those
discussions are on-going.
Through the Governor's Water Augmentation, Innovation and
Conservation Council, in-state desalination opportunities, additional
reuse of recycled water, enhanced artificial recharge and other
opportunities are also being explored.
Maximizing the use of existing infrastructure
Arizona is leveraging existing infrastructure to develop and deploy
additional water resources. The Central Arizona Project canal runs from
the Colorado River through central Arizona and into southern Arizona in
the Tucson area, a total of about 336 miles. The canal is used to
deliver approximately 1.5 million acre-feet of water from the Colorado
River each year. There is capacity in the canal to move other types of
water as well. For example, certain groundwater aquifers outside of
central Arizona have been statutorily designated to allow transfer of
the groundwater to central Arizona. The CAP canal can be used to
transport that water pursuant to the February 2017 System Use Agreement
between the CAWCD (the operator of the canal) and the Bureau of
Reclamation. The System Use Agreement ensures that the legal framework
governing the use of the canal is honored, while taking advantage of
the flexibility to move water inherent in the canal's design and
operation.
The System Use Agreement also allows the canal to be used for the
transportation of long-term storage credits, i.e., water stored
underground. That water will be recovered to backfill Colorado River
shortage reductions for both non-tribal and tribal entities. The canal
can also be used to effectuate the marketing of long-term storage
credits.
The System Use Agreement also enables new water management tools.
The Cities of Tucson and Phoenix entered into a landmark exchange
agreement in 2014. Phoenix is sending some of its Colorado River water
through the CAP canal to Tucson where it is stored underground. When
Phoenix needs the water, Tucson's CAP water will be delivered to
Phoenix through the CAP canal, and Tucson will use its wells to recover
Phoenix's stored water. That exchange leverages the use of the CAP
canal and Tucson's wells, creating cost savings, flexibility and
drought resiliency for both cities. Completion of that agreement was a
major accomplishment for Arizona.
Forest and Watershed Health
Unhealthy and overgrown forests on National Forest Service lands
are fuel for large catastrophic wildfires that affect the health of the
Salt River, Verde River and East Clear Creek watersheds in Arizona.
Large-scale, high-severity wildfires make average precipitation events
extremely destructive; accelerating flood flows and toxic runoff,
eroding soils, depositing sediment into water storage reservoirs, and
ultimately causing hundreds of millions of dollars in increased
treatment costs and reduced water storage capacity. Reservoirs filling
up with sediment and ash is a significant concern considering that the
Greater Phoenix area is a desert environment that relies on long-term
water storage to provide water to millions of people.
Re-establishing healthy forests, through forest restoration, is
critical to maintaining and protecting the health of Arizona's water
supply. Restoring Arizona forests to a more natural condition through
thinning provides a multitude of benefits including:
Protecting communities, property and lives from wildfires.
Preventing large-scale, high-severity fires that emit air
pollutants and carbon.
Protecting sustainable and reliable water supplies, water
infrastructure, long-term water storage, and preventing
against degraded water quality.
Increasing forest resiliency to natural wildfire, insects,
disease, and the effects of climate change.
Sequestering additional carbon.
Protecting endangered and threatened species and their
habitat.
Protecting recreation, tourism, and economic
opportunities.
On average, approximately 12,000-15,000 acres of thinning occurs
every year. The goal is to thin to 50,000 acres per year over the next
20 years. The State of Arizona has increased its efforts in forest
restoration through the Healthy Forest Initiative and partnerships.
There is a significant need to increase the pace and scale of
restoration to protect Arizona's water supplies.
CONCLUSION
Arizona and the other western states face serious challenges as we
grapple with drought and the anticipated hotter and drier future
attendant to climate change. Meeting those challenges requires
vigilance in monitoring the hydrologic conditions, watershed health and
reservoir contents to create programs and implement actions that not
only respond to those conditions but reduce the likelihood that more
onerous water supply reductions will occur.
Arizona has a history of meeting challenges both on its own and in
concert with other water users in the Colorado River Basin and Mexico.
Arizona recognizes that it cannot be successful solely on its own,
particularly given the challenges we face today. Collaboration with the
Basin States and Mexico is the only realistic pathway to achieve
success. Likewise, the water users, Tribes and other stakeholders
throughout the Basin must be engaged and provide input into actions to
protect the Colorado River System. Arizona has embraced that philosophy
in the creation of the DCP, the 1030' consultation and post-2026
discussions.
Partnering with the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of
Reclamation is also a crucial factor in managing the current conditions
of the Colorado River and will be key in managing our future.
Reclamation's data and modeling capabilities represent the best
available science in providing a baseline for hydrologic conditions and
projections to inform decision-making for future actions. Interior and
Reclamation have other key resources that can deployed to enhance the
sustainability of the Colorado River System.
Moving forward, transparency and inclusiveness are imperative.
Arizona benefited by following those tenets in the creation of its DCP
Implementation Plan that set the stage for approval of the Seven Basin
States' DCP Agreements. Arizona is following those tenets as it
continues its internal discussion and as it works with the Basin
States, Mexico, the United States and stakeholders on the Colorado
River.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Thomas Buschatzke, Director,
Arizona Department of Water Resources
Thank you, and the members of the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans,
and Wildlife, for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee,
as well as the Subcommittee's efforts to explore solutions to the
continuing hydrologic decline on the Colorado River. It is only through
sharing information and collaborating on innovative ideas that we can
develop long-term certainty for this crucial water supply in the West.
Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
Question 1. The ``Law of the River'' and the quantification of the
Upper and Lower Basin states amounted to around 17 million acre-feet of
water, which was determined was the annual flow at the time. However,
we know in the previous two decades it has been more like 12.4 million
acre-feet. And this does not even account for other Native American
tribes with water right claims that have yet to be resolved. There is a
tremendous amount of demand, and with climate change we know the yield
is only going to decline. Let's say the annual yield over the next 30
years is 10 million acre-feet, maybe with climate change it's more or
less. How do we take into account how we got to the original
allocation, with the Upper and Lower Basin States and the Native
American tribes, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?
Answer. We remain committed to resolving the outstanding claims to
water of Native American tribes. However, reaching settlement of Tribal
reserved water rights is a complex, years-long process that involves
numerous parties and may include settlement of both Colorado River and
non-Colorado River water supplies. While any settlement or other
resolution of claims to Colorado River water must take into account the
River's operating rules and available supply, those claims should be
resolved in a process separate from the development of the overall
River operations.
The 1922 Colorado River Compact apportions 16 million acre-feet per
year of water between the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins. At the
time, Compact negotiators believed as much as 20 million acre-feet
could be available throughout the entire Colorado River System each
year, and over 17 million acre-feet per year in the River's mainstream.
Even so, they recognized that the highly variable river would not yield
a reliable supply every year. At the time annual river flows sometimes
fell below 10 million acre-feet. As such, the negotiators anticipated
and provided for years of drought and low river flows. The Compact gave
the certainty needed to construct Hoover Dam and other storage
reservoirs, providing both flood control protection and water supply
security for over 85 years. That water security has enabled the
economic prosperity envisioned by the Compact negotiators a century
ago.
The Law of the River (court decisions and decrees, a Treaty,
compacts, regulations, federal statutes, and numerous agreements that
govern Colorado River operations) following the 1922 Compact reflects
an understanding that the Colorado River provides less water than was
thought to be available in 1922. Apportionments to individual Upper
Basin States made in 1948 are by percentages of available water, not
set volumes. In the U.S. Supreme Court's 1964 decree in Arizona v.
California (376 U.S. 340), the Court anticipated shortages to the Lower
Basin States' mainstream apportionments. Additions to the Law of the
River made in this century also reflect a keen understanding that
collaboration and flexibility are crucial to ensure that the Colorado
River can continue to serve the existing and growing demands on this
critical water supply.
Although the 1922 Compact negotiators anticipated drought, and
those who followed recognized a smaller supply, they could hardly
anticipate what we are experiencing now. Even so, the Compact provides
the foundation for all that has followed and must remain. We must also
take into account every resulting right, obligation, and benefit which
finds its source in that bargain. Ultimately, we must develop tools to
use less water within that framework, either through voluntary or
mandatory conservation.
Our challenge now is not reallocating water. Our challenge is to
collaborate to address the increasing hydrologic risks by developing
additional innovative, and proactive measures, including either
voluntary or mandatory conservation, that fit within the existing
structure to address the challenges we face today and going forward,
including when there is insufficient water to fully satisfy the
existing apportionments of the Colorado River System.
In the past two decades, the United States, Mexico, the seven
Colorado River Basin States, Native American tribes, water users, non-
governmental organizations and other stakeholders have demonstrated the
ability to collaborate to create and implement such innovative and
proactive solutions, incorporating the ability to adapt to changing
conditions, and to do so within the framework of the Law of the River
as it exists today.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Buschatzke.
We will now go to Peter Nelson, he is the California
Chairman of the Colorado River Board.
STATEMENT OF PETER NELSON, CHAIRMAN, COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF
CALIFORNIA, GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Nelson. Good afternoon. My name is Peter Nelson, and I
am the Chairman of the Colorado River Board of California and
California's Colorado River Commissioner.
I would like to thank the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans,
and Wildlife, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, Chairman
Grijalva, and the other members of the Committee for holding
this hearing at a time of historic drought.
Regardless of why the climate has changed, the record is
clear: less than average precipitation is resulting in
measurable runoff, aridification, causing lake levels to
plummet, putting 40 million Americans at risk, environmental
havoc, and food production peril.
The Colorado River Board of California represents the
collective interest of Colorado River water users in our state.
We protect the rights and interests of California's water and
hydropower resources. We provide peer-to-peer relationships in
collaborative, interstate discussions with the other six Basin
states, the Federal Government, tribes, and Mexico.
California is also experiencing drought with equal, if not
greater, severity. Allocations for the State Water Project
contractors in 2021 are just 5 percent. The Department of Water
Resources is signaling contractors to expect an initial zero
percent allocation, needing a snowpack of 140 percent just to
get a normal runoff. For the first time ever, Orville Dam is
now unable to produce power, due to low reservoir levels. Pre-
1914 water rights holders were issued orders to stop
diversions.
On the brighter side, California has stepped up in 2003
with the Quantification Settlement Agreement to reduce Colorado
River uses by 800,000 acre-feet annually, and included
mitigation measures for the Salton Sea. We achieved and
exceeded conservation through the 2007 shortage criteria and
2019 Drought Contingency Plan. So, Metropolitan has 1.3 million
acre-feet of storage in Lake Mead, adding 14 feet of elevation.
Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water
District, and Palos Verdes have a successful fallowing program,
with partners in Arizona, Nevada, and the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Additionally, Metropolitan Nevada, Arizona, and Reclamation
are currently collaborating on a large-scale recycling project
in the Los Angeles Basin. This has the potential to create
150,000 acre-foot annually of water for the region, reducing
demand on the Colorado River.
Naturally, with the largest share of California's river
use, a target will be the Imperial Irrigation District.
Imperial has already participated in the largest ag-to-urban
transfer in the country through the Quantification Settlement
Agreement. Any additional water conservation programs will need
to, of course, have their concurrence, and need to address the
Salton Sea mitigation.
California is collaborating with our sister states in the
Basin, Native American tribes who need access to clean and
reliable water and to be part of the process, Federal agencies,
and colleagues in Mexico in developing the next set of Colorado
River System operating guidelines to be put in place in 2026.
We are responding with all hands on deck to the reconsultation
requirements under the DCP 1030 elevation trigger, in
collaboration with these partners.
We urge the Committee to support and provide funding for
partnerships involving large-scale regional recycling projects,
system conservation programs, Salton Sea mitigation, and water
quality improvements, including addressing salt reductions from
the Paradox Valley unit. It will only be through collaboration
and cooperation among all of us stakeholders in the Basin that
we will have any chance of meeting these challenges, and we
will need the United States to be involved in these efforts.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement,
and I look forward to addressing any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Nelson, Chairman, Colorado River Board of
California
INTRODUCTION
My name is Peter Nelson, and I am the Chairman of the Colorado
River Board of California (Board). The Board is the California state
agency established in 1937 by the Legislature and is charged with
safeguarding and protecting the rights and interests of the State, its
agencies, and citizens in the water and hydropower resources of the
seven-state Colorado River System. The Board is comprised of ten-
members, including representatives from the Coachella Valley Water
District, Imperial Irrigation District, Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Palo
Verde Irrigation District, San Diego County Water Authority,
representatives from the California Departments of Fish and Wildlife
and Water Resources, and two at-large public members. In my role as
Chairman of the Board, I serve as California's Colorado River
Commissioner in discussions with my counterparts in the other six
Colorado River Basin States and representatives of the Federal
Government. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to provide
this testimony regarding the impacts and challenges of the ongoing
drought in the Colorado River Basin to the Subcommittee.
THE CHALLENGES OF THE ``MILLENNIUM DROUGHT''
The Colorado River Basin is experiencing its worst drought in over
100 years of record-keeping, and one of the worst droughts in the past
1,200 years. The period from 2000 through 2021, characterized as the
``Millennium Drought'', is projected to be the driest 22-year period on
record with an average annual natural flow at Lee Ferry of 12.4 million
acre-feet (MAF), which is 84% of the long-term average of 14.7 MAF
based on the historical period 1906-2021.
Provisional indications are that Water-Year (WY) 2021 resulted in a
winter snowpack of about 89% of average but yielded a runoff and inflow
into Lake Powell of about 30% of average. This disparity between
snowpack and runoff is directly attributed to hotter than normal
temperatures in the Basin and extremely dry soil moisture conditions.
Currently, the observed unregulated inflow into Lake Powell was 3.52
MAF, or about 33% of average (10.8 MAF over the period 1981-2010). WY-
2021 will end up being the third driest year on record (WY-2002 was the
driest, followed by 1977). Finally, Water Years 2020 and 2021 are the
driest two consecutive years in the historical record (1906-2020).
As of October 7, 2021, Lake Powell has just under 7.3 MAF in
storage, or about 30% of capacity. Lake Mead storage is just over 9.0
MAF, or just under 34% of capacity at an elevation of about 1,068 feet.
Total System reservoir storage is about 23 MAF (38% of capacity) but
has lost nearly 6.5 MAF since this same time last year.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) August 2021 24-Month
Study Report projections for Basinwide water supply conditions was
released on August 16th and was used to define operations at both Lakes
Powell and Mead for development of the 2022 Annual Operating Plan (AOP)
for the Colorado River Reservoir System. Based upon the August 2021 24-
Month Study Report, and pursuant to the tier determination criteria in
the 2007 Interim Guidelines, it is projected that the annual release
from Lake Powell through Glen Canyon Dam in WY-2022 will be reduced to
7.48 MAF (only the second time since 2007 that there will have been a
7.48 MAF release from GCD), and the current projection is that the
annual release in WY-2023 could be as low as 7.0 MAF.
The calendar year (CY) 2022 Lake Mead operations are projected to
be conducted under a ``Level 1 shortage condition'', as the August 2021
projection is that Lake Mead will be below elevation 1,075 feet on
January 1, 2022. This will be the first time that a formal ``shortage
condition'' has been declared by the Secretary of the Interior; and
pursuant to the 2007 Interim Guidelines, 2017 U.S./MX Minute 323, and
the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan (DCP), this first-tier shortage
condition results in a combined total 0.613 MAF of reductions to
Arizona, Nevada, and Mexico during CY-2022. Due to its senior water
rights, California does not take any reductions under the Interim
Guidelines and does not begin to make DCP contributions to Lake Mead
storage until Mead reaches or goes below elevation 1,045 feet.
The August 2021 24-Month Study Report also contains a ``minimum
probable'' (10th%ile) projection that Lake Mead's elevation could reach
or decline below elevation 1,030 feet in July 2023. Pursuant to Section
V.B.2. of Exhibit 1 to the 2019 Lower Basin DCP, this projection
requires a consultation among the Lower Basin States and the Secretary
of the Interior to determine if ``additional measures'' are warranted
to bolster storage in Lake Mead and protect the reservoir from reaching
or declining below 1,020 feet a critical elevation for water supply
(i.e., about 5.5 MAF of live capacity). The Lower Basin States have
initiated a technical analysis and evaluation process to identify
potential measures that could be developed and implemented to protect
Mead elevation 1,020 feet.
Over the past several decades, the Basin has experienced a
noticeable shift to hotter, drier conditions, which are straining an
already overallocated system. For instance, when comparing 2011-2020 to
1971-1980: (1) precipitation decreased by 0.3%; (2) temperature
increased by 2.4 degrees F (1.3 degrees C); (3) natural flow decreased
by 8.5%, or 1.2 MAFY; (4) run-off efficiency decreased by 8.4%; and (5)
Lower Basin intervening side-inflows decreased by 21.7%, from an
average of 0.914 MAFY to 0.716 MAFY. While direct causality of
increasing temperatures and reduced water supply in the Basin may not
always be clear, the implications of the available climate-change
science and data can no longer be ignored.
Within the State of California, WY-2021 has ended up being the
second-driest year (1977 being the driest) and follows WY-2020 which
was the fifth-driest year on record. The dry conditions in California
resulted in a drawdown of reservoir storage to 60% of average at the
end of WY-2021. Allocations to California's State Water Project (SWP)
contractors in 2020 were 20% of Table A allocations; and declined to 5%
in 2021; and the Department of Water Resources has indicated that the
initial allocation will be 0% for 2022 and will not increase until
sufficient precipitation falls in the Northern Sierra Nevada. Finally,
as of mid-summer 2021, 50 of California's 58 counties were under a
drought emergency proclamation and following the Governor's call to
reduce statewide water use by 15%, MWD issued a water supply alert
urging its service area to meet the Governor's water reduction target.
As this Subcommittee is aware, the wildfires of 2020 were
catastrophic for California. Over 4.2 million acres were burned in the
worst year ever. The impacts on watersheds in California will likely be
felt for years to come. The 2021 summer/fall wildfire season in
California is shaping up to be nearly as severe. For the first time in
the state's history, two large fires have burned from the west side of
the Sierras to the east side. As bad as the recent impacts of the
drought have been in the Colorado River Basin, they have been equally
bad in California.
Finally, in July 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce's National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction
Center reported a ``La Nina Watch''. The tropical Pacific Ocean is
currently in a neutral climate state, but NOAA experts see the
potential for La Nina conditions to emerge this fall and winter, with a
70-80% chance of La Nina conditions from November 2021 through January
2022. La Nina conditions across southern California tend to be drier
than average, but exhibit a less clear signal for northern California.
COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING AND WATER CONSERVATION
California was one of the first states in the Basin to begin
extensively developing the use of Colorado River water supplies in the
1870s in the Palo Verde Valley, and by 1920 there were nearly 500,000
acres being cultivated in the Imperial Valley. California was the
primary advocate for the federal development of the Lower Colorado
River system to provide reservoir storage for flood control and water
supply reliability purposes and for a canal that would convey water to
the Imperial Valley. These needs were met by the Congress with the
passage of the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act (45 Stat. 1057) which
authorized the construction of what became known as Hoover Dam, Lake
Mead, and the Imperial Dam and All-American Canal.
By the late-1980s and into the early-2000s, California's lawful use
of mainstream Colorado River water supplies was averaging about 5.2
million acre-feet per year (MAFY). Beginning in early-1990s,
California's Colorado River water users began taking meaningful steps
to reduce its annual demands to its basic mainstream apportionment of
4.4 MAFY and diversify the available water supply portfolio pursuant to
``California's Colorado River Water Use Plan'' developed by the
Colorado River Board and its member agencies. These activities resulted
in the 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), the Nation's
largest ag-to-urban water conservation and transfer program, and
initiated mitigation efforts for impacts to the Salton Sea.
With the 2003 QSA in place, the Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
typically conserves about 0.500 MAFY and has cumulatively conserved
about 6.2 MAF since 2003. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
has banked over 4.0 MAF in its groundwater basins since the 1970s. The
San Diego County Water Authority has invested heavily in the conserved
water transfer agreement with IID, the cornerstone of the QSA, as well
as the lining of the All-American and Coachella Canals and made other
investments that have increased storage and expanded local supplies
including the nation's largest desalination plant and $1.5 billion
Emergency & Carryover Storage Project. The Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California (MWD) has developed over 6.0 MAF of storage
capacity since the 1980s, a 15-fold increase in storage capacity. Two-
thirds of this storage is outside of MWD's service area, and contained
in the Colorado River Basin, Central Valley, and with other State Water
Project (SWP) contractors. MWD also maintains a long-term cooperative
water conservation program with the Palo Verde Irrigation District. As
of January 1, 2020, MWD had 3.5 MAF stored (some on behalf of IID and
Nevada), its largest amount to date.
The 2001 Interim Surplus Guidelines were intended to help
California ratchet down its average annual mainstream water use from
5.2 MAFY to its basic apportionment of 4.4 MAFY, but the onset of the
Millennium Drought in 2000 essentially resulted in an immediate cutback
to California's basic mainstream apportionment of 4.4 MAFY.
Following the implementation of the 2007 Colorado River Interim
Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for
Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2007 interim guidelines), over the period
2008-2020, California has created and stored approximately 2.0 MAF of
``Intentionally Created Surplus'' (ICS) supplies in Lake Mead.
Collective efforts between the Lower Basin States and Mexico have
resulted in about 4.0 MAF of conserved water supplies (equivalent to
about 51 feet of elevation) being retained in Lake Mead.
California utilized the LB DCP's provisions for increased storage
opportunities and MWD and IID stored approximately 0.340 MAF total in
Lake Mead in 2020. By the end of CY-2021, California is projected to
have nearly 1.3 MAF of ICS stored in Lake Mead (equivalent to about 14
feet of elevation in Mead). This could not have occurred without the
additional ICS exhibits approved in the Lower Basin DCP and
California's aggressive use of its collaborative water conservation
programs among its Colorado River water users.
For CY-2021, with the 5% State Water Project 2021 Allocation, MWD
projected a water supply/demand gap of just under 0.650 MAF. Water
supplies to meet the shortfall were withdrawn from MWD's dry-year
storage reserves and the purchase of ``north of Delta'' water
transfers. Initially, MWD had planned to meet some of that supply gap
from water stored in Lake Mead, but as its service area demands dropped
it altered operations so that California will not withdraw and stored
water from Lake Mead this year.
California Governor Newsom's Administration has prioritized water
management as crucial to the State's economic, ecological, and social
well-being. In July 2019, the Newsom Administration finalized a Water
Resilience Portfolio that charts state actions to equip California to
cope with more extreme droughts and floods and rising temperatures
while addressing declining fish populations, overreliance on
groundwater supplies, and a lack of safe drinking water in many
communities, as well as other challenges. The actions of the Resilience
Portfolio are intended to maintain and diversify water supplies,
protect, and enhance natural systems, build connections within and
across watersheds, and bolster preparedness for natural disasters.
Water resilience is also prioritized in the State's budget, and over
the next three years the budget will invest nearly $5 billion in
projects, personnel, and local financial assistance to help the State's
diverse regions safeguard clean, reliable water supplies even in the
face of average warmer temperatures that can exacerbate drought and
flooding.
Collaboration and cooperation have been the primary tools utilized
by the Basin states--especially the Lower Basin states--and Mexico over
the past two decades, beginning with the interim surplus guidelines in
2001, followed by the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation
Program in 2005, the 2007 interim shortage guidelines, and a series of
important binational agreements between the U.S. and Mexico,
culminating in Mexico's Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan in
Minute No. 323 executed in 2017. This Mexican contingency plan was
intended to be both comparable and complimentary to the domestic DCP
agreements executed by the Upper and Lower Basin states in 2019.
Under the authorizations provided by the federal SECURE Water Act
of 2009 (P.L. 111-11), Reclamation, the seven Basin states, and
numerous stakeholders across the Basin participated in the development
of the Colorado River Basin Study report which was finalized in 2012.
This important science-based report evaluated various scenarios
associated with water uses and water supply conditions in the Basin
through 2060. The report identified a range of water supply/demand
imbalances going forward; and defined a ``vulnerable condition'' as the
long-term average annual natural flow at Lee Ferry of 13.8 MAFY, and an
8-year period of flows less than 11.2 MAFY. In a related vein,
Reclamation initiated a similar study effort focusing on the long-term
Colorado River water resource needs among Native American Tribes in the
Basin. The 2018 Basinwide Tribal Water Study report identified between
2.8-3.4 MAFY of quantified/unquantified consumptive use and diversion
water rights among the 29 federally recognized Native American Tribes
in the Basin. Finally, hydrologic and water supply information provided
in both the 2012 Colorado River Basin Study and 2018 Tribal Water Study
Reports was supplemented with significant climate-change related
scientific data and analyses in the 2020 Colorado River Basin ``State-
of-the-Science'' report.
In the context of Colorado River management, the value of adaptive
management cannot be overstated. With the initiation of the Millennium
Drought in the early 2000s, the surplus guidelines morphed into the
2007 interim shortage guidelines which, along with and additional
conservation actions implemented by the Lower Basin States, stabilized
the reservoir system at about 50% of capacity for more than a decade.
However, new information available from climate scientists demonstrated
that future droughts could be more severe than was previously
understood, resulting in an increased risk of reaching critical
reservation elevations. This new information resulted in the Basin
states, Reclamation, and Mexico initiating efforts that resulted in
both the 2017 binational Lake Mead protection plan with Mexico in
Minute No. 323 and the 2019 Basin States DCPs both of which were
intended to further protect critical elevations in both Lakes Powell
and Mead while continuing to meet the water supply needs in the states
and in Mexico. The back-to-back poor hydrologic conditions of 2020 and
2021 demonstrated that increased risk and have significantly reduced
levels in both Lakes Powell and Mead resulting in implementation of
further DCP actions and evaluation of potential additional measures to
protect critical elevations in both reservoirs.
FEDERAL SUPPORT NEEDED TO HELP ADDRESS HISTORICALLY LOW RESERVOIR
SYSTEM STORAGE CONDITIONS
California believes that going forward it will be imperative to
continue to closely coordinate and collaborate with not only the other
six Basin states, water users in the Basin, Mexico, but most
importantly with the federal agencies with management authorities and
responsibilities in the Colorado River Basin. As the next set of long-
term operational guidelines are developed for implementation beginning
in 2026 (post-2026 guidelines), the following are some of the
challenges that must be addressed:
1. Continued Incentivization of Water Conservation, System
Augmentation, and Water Supply Storage Opportunities--There
must be an emphasis on continuing to incentivize the
conservation and storage of water supplies in both the
Upper and Lower Basins and Mexico. The federal/non-federal
partnership should continue to diligently identify
realistic and feasible System augmentation opportunities
(e.g., weather modification and desalination, etc.), both
within the United States and in collaboration with Mexico.
Under decreasing water supply conditions, the Lower Basin
states and Mexico will require increased water supply
management flexibility, and operational and water supply
reliability and certainty.
2. Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Enhancements--With the
continued decline of water supply storage in the reservoir
system and reduced flows in the mainstream and tributaries,
it will become critically important to ensure the long-term
viability of the water quality improvements provided by the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program authorized in
the 1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (P.L.
93-320, as amended), including developing a long-term
solution associated with the Paradox Valley Salinity
Control Unit. Going forward, it will also be important to
address aspects of Title I of the Act in the context of
maintaining adequate water quality associated with the
annual delivery of Colorado River water to Mexico pursuant
to the 1944 U.S./Mexico Water Treaty. The collaborative and
cooperative partnership with Mexico regarding conservation,
storage, salinity management, and management of
environmental resources will be important to these efforts.
3. Native American Tribal Collaboration and Partnership
Opportunities--The 2018 Basinwide Tribal Water Study
identified between 2.8-3.4 MAFY of consumptive use and/or
diversion rights collectively among the Tribes in the
Basin, and a need for reliable safe drinking water supplies
on some reservations highlights the need for close
coordination and collaboration among the U.S., Tribes, and
the Basin states. The Arizona DCP process provides a
potential template for identifying opportunities, value,
and benefits for Tribal participation in water conservation
and storage programs and should be an important element as
the seven States begin development of the post-2026
guidelines framework.
4. Maintenance of Colorado River Basin Environmental Compliance
Programs--Given the severity of the Millennium Drought and
System operational complexities, meeting new environmental
compliance obligations associated with the post-2026
guidelines may prove challenging and may require additional
analysis and evaluation pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act, as well as permits under the
Endangered Species Act. The Basin States will be seeking to
collaborate with the various federal agencies in evaluating
the need for bolstering existing environmental compliance
programs like the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management
Program, Salton Sea management, and the Lower Colorado
River Multi-Species Conservation Program.
5. Partnership & Collaboration in Large-Scale, Longer-Term Efforts--
With more than 20+ years of managing the Colorado River
System under severe and sustained drought conditions, it
has become abundantly clear that collaboration and
cooperation among the seven Basin states, water users,
scientists, non-governmental organizations, Native American
Tribes, Mexico, and agencies of the U.S. Federal Government
will be necessary if we are to successfully meet long-term
water supply needs for 40 million residents and over five
million acres of irrigated agriculture. California believes
that it will be very important for the Federal Government
to commit not only fiscal resources but to also direct the
inter-departmental and inter-agency coordination that will
be needed to begin to address the increasing impacts of
climate change in the Basin, as well as the rest of the
Nation. This federal/non-federal partnership must be
swiftly developed and dedicated to landscape-level forest
and rangeland management and watershed rehabilitation which
can provide benefits leading to improved water supply
conditions and improved environmental conditions for
species and habitats.
6. Utilization of Adaptive Management--To the extent possible, the
post-2026 guidelines must address significant variability
and uncertainty in basinwide water supply and hydrologic
conditions going forward (i.e., both extremely dry and wet
periods). It is anticipated that the identification and
consideration of inflection points for critical resources
(i.e., ``sign-posting'') that can trigger adaptive
decision-making and management will be important.
7. Collection, Management, and Utilization of ``Best Available
Science''--It will be important to evaluate updated water
use data, new scientific data, new research, utilize
hindcasting, review actual operating experiences (e.g.,
Reclamation's final 7.D. Review Report, etc.), and continue
to improve precipitation and water supply forecasting
techniques. Fully consider future climate projections and
identify potential future hydrologies in evaluating
potential alternative management/operational strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
California, its sister-states in the Colorado River Basin, and the
Republic of Mexico, continue to face significant challenges in
addressing the impacts of the Millennium Drought and the increasing
effects of warming brought on by climate change. This will require
stepped-up coordination and cooperation among the water users and all
relevant state and federal agencies in the context of monitoring,
forecasting, planning, decision-making and adaptive management, and
implementation of operations, programs, and activities that can provide
the states and water users with some measure of certainty and
reliability associated with meeting critical water supply needs.
California has a long history of meeting challenges associated with
management of the state's water resources portfolio; and since the mid-
1990s in the Colorado River Basin, this has been accomplished through
collaborative and innovative partnerships within and among its Colorado
River water users as well among the other six Basin states and Mexico.
Continuing this collaborative partnership among stakeholders across the
Basin and in conjunction with the federal agencies will become
increasingly more important as the Basin's water supply conditions are
further impacted by the Millennium Drought and the inherent
uncertainties associated with climate change.
In closing, California believes that the Congress, this
Administration, as well as future administrations will be essential in
providing not only direction and fiscal resources in support of drought
mitigation relief and water conservation programs, but also in
committing the significant agency expertise that resides with the
departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce, as well as the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to working closely with the seven
Basin States. Going forward, California remains committed to its
continued collaboration and cooperation with all of the Basin's water
users, tribes, federal agencies, and Mexico in meeting the challenges
and immediate needs during the ongoing drought as well as working
together to identify and implement science-based sustainable water
resources management activities and programs and develop an adaptable
operational paradigm for the post-2026 Colorado River System
guidelines.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Peter Nelson, Colorado River
Commissioner, State of California
Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
Question 1. The ``Law of the River'' and the quantification of the
Upper and Lower Basin states amounted to around 17 million acre-feet of
water, which was determined was the annual flow at the time. However,
we know in the previous two decades it has been more like 12.4 million
acre-feet. And this does not even account for other Native American
tribes with water right claims that have yet to be resolved. There is a
tremendous amount of demand, and with climate change we know the yield
is only going to decline. Let's say the annual yield over the next 30
years is 10 million acre-feet, maybe with climate change it's more or
less. How do we take into account how we got to the original
allocation, with the Upper and Lower Basin States and the Native
American tribes, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?
Answer. While the 1922 Colorado River Compact may have laid out a
scheme for the apportionment and beneficial consumptive use of up to
17.5 million acre-feet of water supplies from the Colorado River System
annually, the hydrologic and water supply conditions over the past 20+
years indicate that that volume of annual water supply likely can no
longer be considered certain and/or reliable. Furthermore, the great
uncertainty associated with the future impacts of warming and climate
change that scientists have linked to anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions require the seven Colorado River Basin States and all of the
stakeholders reliant upon these important water supplies to incorporate
best science and adaptive management in developing and implementing the
next set of Colorado River System operational guidelines and
implementing the full range of water management, facility operations,
and conservation tools available.
Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation across all of the
stakeholders in the Colorado River Basin in the United States and
Mexico continue to be the most important and effective tools in the
toolbox. The Basin States and stakeholders have significant expertise
in meeting challenges using collaborative and consensus-based
processes. Relatively recent examples of collaborative problem-solving
in the Colorado River Basin includes development of California's
Colorado River Water Use Plan that resulted in the 2003 Quantification
Settlement Agreement, the 2001 Interim Surplus Guidelines, the 2005
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, the 2007
Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated
Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, Mexico's 2017 Binational
Water Scarcity Contingency Plan in Minute No. 323, and the 2019 Drought
Continency Plans for the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins.
Planning for shortfalls in water supply, whether due to variable
annual hydrology or climate-change induced, are now a primary element
in responsible water supply management planning and decision-making and
will continue to be going forward. With respect to tribal allocations,
several of the Native American tribes in the Lower Colorado River Basin
have settled and quantified water rights through the 2006 Consolidated
Decree in Arizona v. California (547 U.S. 150). Other tribes in the
Basin have water rights specified in settlement agreements, and others
are in ongoing water rights settlement negotiations with the Department
of the Interior and individual states.
In conclusion, water managers across the Colorado River Basin in
the United States and Mexico must continue to act in coordination and
collaboration in developing effective strategies and programs for
managing these important water supplies, taking into account recent
climate science, reducing risks, and providing water users across the
Basin with appropriate measures of certainty and reliability. The
primary challenge that the Basin's stakeholders face today is to
collaborate to address increasing hydrologic and water supply condition
risks due to climate change. These risks can be reduced by developing
additional innovative and proactive measures that can address the water
supply challenges we face today and going forward, including when there
are insufficient water supplies to fully satisfy the existing
apportionments made under the 1922 Compact and other elements of the
Law of the River.
Questions Submitted by Representative Levin
Question 1. Mr. Nelson, I've heard from constituent water agencies
who are concerned by the salinity issues caused by the shutdown of the
Paradox Valley Unit. Have you heard similar concerns among your
members? How do you see this issue impacting the water quality in the
system?
Answer. The Colorado River Board of California (Board) and its
member agencies are very familiar with concerns expressed by California
users of Colorado River water supplies regarding the continued seismic-
safety shutdown of the Paradox Valley Unit (PVU), and I share these
concerns. The PVU is the largest project of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)
estimates that when fully operational, the PVU prevents nearly 100,000
tons of salt from entering the Colorado River annually. According to
Reclamation, a fully operational PVU represents 7% of the salinity
control in the Colorado River when measured at the Imperial Dam
diversion structure located about 26 river miles upstream from Morelos
Dam, which serves as the primary Mexican diversion point at Northerly
International Boundary.
The shutdown of the PVU has direct water quality, water supply, and
economic impacts to water users in the Lower Basin. Reclamation
estimates that the loss of PVU salinity control could result in a
nearly 10 mg/L increase in salinity at Imperial Dam with an associated
economic impact of approximately $25 million annually. Today, the
Colorado River is experiencing critically dry conditions that short-
term forecasts suggest will increase salinity in Lake Mead due to lower
inflows of fresh water. Increasing salinity in the water supply for
California impacts the effectiveness of water recycling plants and
requires farmers to apply additional water to fields to leach salts
from soils. It could take over a decade to regain the level of salt
control (i.e., 100,000 tons of annual control) afforded by the PVU due
to the time needed to ramp up replacement control projects if PVU is to
remain inoperative over the long-term. All of these factors are
magnified given the current critically dry conditions and further
highlight the need to implement additional drought response activities
in the Colorado River Basin, such as those currently being proposed by
California, Arizona, and Nevada.
The State of California, through the Board and its member agencies,
continues to collaborate closely with the other six Basin States and
Reclamation through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum to
identify options to restart or replace annual salinity control lost
with the current shutdown of the PVU. Additionally, pursuant to Section
303(c)(1) of the 1972 Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500) and the 1974
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (P.L. 93-320), the seven
Basin States and Reclamation are responsible for continuing effective
salinity control measures in the Colorado River Basin to meet water
quality standards and ensure that water supplies of sufficient quality
continue to be available for use in the United States and Mexico. The
Board and its member agencies appreciate your attention to the
challenge of continuing to improve the water quality of the Colorado in
the face of the potential loss of the Paradox Valley Salinity Control
Unit.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Nelson.
The Committee will now hear from Mr. John Entsminger, the
General Manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
Mr. Entsminger, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ENTSMINGER, GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN NEVADA
WATER AUTHORITY, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
Mr. Entsminger. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member
Bentz, Representative Napolitano, and members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation today. My name is
John Entsminger, and I serve as General Manager of the Southern
Nevada Water Authority.
It is not news to this Subcommittee that the unprecedented
hydrologic conditions on the Colorado River have left both
Lakes Powell and Mead at critically low elevations. The math
problem we face is simple. If we rely upon the promises of the
1920s and the 1940s, there are legal entitlements to 17.5
million acre-feet of water each year. Annual use today is
approximately 14 million acre-feet. And over the last 20 years,
the river has given us an average of 12.3 million acre-feet.
Despite fervent warnings from the scientific community that
in the face of climate change we must plan for a future with
even less than 12.3 million acre-feet, there is not yet
anything approaching consensus within the river community as to
how dry of a future we should plan for. And while this panel
was asked to talk about drought, there is more and more
evidence on the ground that what the Colorado River is actually
facing is not drought, but aridification and a permanent
transition to a drier future.
If we are to build upon the river's many successes over the
last 25 years, we must confront the magnitude of the challenge
in front of us and quickly reach agreement on what future
scenarios we are willing to plan for.
But defining the problem is only the first step. We must
develop additional supplies, pursue aggressive conservation,
and make investments in technologies and tools that show
promise in helping us achieve both. The agricultural and
municipal sectors must work together. And to that end, research
is underway to test the effectiveness of drip irrigated alfalfa
projects in Arizona. But the learning is slow, and the pace of
engagement between urban and agricultural water users must be
accelerated.
As we work on our long-term goals, we must also recognize
that the only near-term management strategy for protecting
critical Lake Mead elevations is reducing use. Southern Nevada
has invested billions of dollars in water conservation and
infrastructure. But Nevada represents a mere 1.8 percent of the
river's allocated flows. Continued efficiency must become a
commonplace philosophy throughout the Basin.
We must also develop additional supplies. Metropolitan's
Regional Reuse Project represents a long-term supply option for
the Lower Basin, and we continue to urge the passage of the
Large Scale Water Recycling Project Investment Act. Cooperative
regional projects of this kind represent the best hope for
adding new supplies into the Lower Basin.
Our progress toward sustainable solutions depends on
partnership and well-coordinated action. But the river
community is at a crossroads. We have a simple, but difficult
decision to make: Do we double down on the promises of the last
century, and fight about water that simply isn't there, or do
we roll up our sleeves and deal with the climate realities of
this century?
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Entsminger follows:]
Prepared Statement of John J. Entsminger, General Manager, Southern
Nevada Water Authority
Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, Representative Napolitano
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to speak
today about Colorado River drought conditions. My name is John
Entsminger and I serve as General Manager of the Southern Nevada Water
Authority and as the lead representative for the state of Nevada
regarding Colorado River issues.
The Seven Basin States and the Federal Government enacted the
Interim Guidelines in the early 2000s as Colorado River drought
conditions began to materialize. As conditions worsened, we worked to
identify and implement additional actions. From new policies and
collaborative agreements to joint investments in new technology, we
continue to maintain a singular goal: to keep more water in the system
and avoid the potential for water and power supply disruptions.
Nevada and Arizona made our first Drought Contingency Plan (DCP)
water contributions in 2020. The Lower Basin states will make
additional contributions in 2021. And, next year--with Lake Mead water
levels projected to decline below elevation 1,075--we will take our
first ever shortage reductions. These and other actions have helped to
reduce Lake Mead water level declines by more than 50 feet. Gratefully,
Congress has appropriated federal funding for DCP-related project
activities. In addition, there is $300 million for DCP activities
included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which is
currently under consideration by Congress.
Despite these efforts, Lake Mead water levels continue to decline.
Preliminary observed unregulated inflow to Lake Powell was 33 percent
of normal last year, the second worst year on record. Day-by-day and
year-by-year we inch closer to critical elevations. According to the
Bureau's latest modeling, we could be sitting in a third-tier shortage
by 2025. This means the Lower Basin will be taking its deepest defined
cuts under existing agreements, totaling 1.1 million acre-feet of water
per year from U.S. users and an additional 0.275 acre-feet from Mexico.
Barring multiple successive years of normal or near normal hydrology,
which is unlikely, conditions will continue to deteriorate. Like you,
we have come to recognize that currently required reductions are not a
long-term solution--they are simply one of many steps needed to avert
risk for a few more years.
The math problem we face is quite simple. If we rely on the
promises of the 1920s and 1940s, there are legal entitlements to use
17.5 million acre-feet of water each year. Today, use is approximately
14.0 million acre-feet per year. Over the last 20 years, the river has
given us an average of 12.3 million acre-feet per year. Despite the
fervent warnings from internationally renowned scientists like Jonathan
Overpeck and Brad Udall that urge us to plan for a future with even
less than 12.3 million acre-feet, the river community is far from
consensus about how dry of a future to plan for. And, while this panel
was asked to talk about drought, on-the-ground evidence suggests the
Colorado River basin is not experiencing drought but aridification--a
permanent transition to a drier future. If we are to build upon the
river's many successes over the last 25 years, we must confront the
magnitude of the challenge in front of us and quickly reach agreement
on what future scenario we're willing to plan for.
Defining the problem is only the first step. We must develop
additional supplies, pursue aggressive conservation, and make
investments in technologies and tools that show promise helping us do
both. It is well known that agriculture uses approximately 80 percent
of the river's flow. The remaining goes to municipal users. As we have
learned from supply chain disruptions over the last 18 months,
agricultural and urban sectors must work together to reduce water use
while also ensuring both food security and the health and safety of our
urban populations. To this end, several municipalities embarked on a
new collaboration just this fall to research irrigation technology that
can decrease consumptives uses while maintaining crop productivity. In
Arizona, drip irrigated alfalfa projects are currently being tested.
But the learning is slow and calculated, and the pace of engagement
between urban and agricultural water users must be accelerated if we
are to tackle the daunting challenge of updating the guidelines and
agreements for future river operations.
As we work on our long-term goals, we must also recognize that
additional water use reductions over and above the 2007 shortage and
DCP contributions are necessary. The drought contingency plans
envisioned taking additional actions to protect a Lake Mead elevation
of 1,030 feet, an elevation that Reclamation projects could be reached
before the end of 2023. As that likelihood becomes ever more probable,
the only near-term management strategy is reducing use. As I've
previously shared, we have invested billions of dollars in water
conservation and infrastructure. And, each week, we review analysis of
additional programs and water savings opportunities. But Nevada
represents a mere 1.8 percent of the water allocated on the river. You
could evacuate Las Vegas tomorrow and the river's math problem would
not be improved in any meaningful way. Our best hope is that continual
water efficiency becomes a commonplace philosophy throughout the west.
As you know, Southern Nevada is unique when it comes to reuse and
recycling. We collect and treat nearly every drop of Colorado River
water used indoors and return that water to Lake Mead for return-flow
credits. This extends the availability of our overall supplies by more
than 75 percent.
At least locally, there is little more we can do to extend our
reuse potential. That is why we began working with the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) to explore
participation in their Regional Recycled Water Advanced Purification
Center project. The project represents a long-term supply option for
our community. To this end, we continue to urge passage of the Large
Scale Water Recycling Project Investment Act, which authorizes a new
grant program for projects that provide substantial water supply and
other benefits to drought-stricken regions. The Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act includes this important bill and provides $450
million for a large scale water recycling and reuse program. The House
Natural Resources Committee proposed an additional $100 million for
large scale water recycling projects as part of the Build Back Better
Act. This funding is critically needed to help project stakeholders
offset the costs to their communities for critical water infrastructure
and help ensure the project can be completed when needed--which,
frankly, is soon.
Our progress toward sustainable solutions depends on partnership
and well-coordinated action by all. This necessitates using realistic
views of future hydrologic risk and meaningful participation by a
broader suite of water users. This river community is at a crossroads
and has a simple but difficult decision to make: do we double down on
the promises of last century and fight about water that simply isn't
there or do we roll up our sleeves and deal with the climate realities
of this century?
I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to John J. Entsminger, General
Manager, Southern Nevada Water Authority
Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
Question 1. The ``Law of the River'' and the quantification of the
Upper and Lower Basin states amounted to around 17 million acre-feet of
water, which was determined was the annual flow at the time. However,
we know in the previous two decades it has been more like 12.4 million
acre-feet. And this does not even account for other Native American
tribes with water right claims that have yet to be resolved. There is a
tremendous amount of demand, and with climate change we know the yield
is only going to decline. Let's say the annual yield over the next 30
years is 10 million acre-feet, maybe with climate change it's more or
less. How do we take into account how we got to the original
allocation, with the Upper and Lower Basin States and the Native
American tribes, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?
Answer. Within the borders of the State of Nevada there are no
outstanding Native American tribal claims to Colorado River water.
However, we support the resolution of outstanding claims in other
states.
The math is not complex. We draw water every day from a system
where uses exceed inflows despite the fact that a majority of states in
both the Upper and Lower Basins are currently using less than their
full legal entitlements. Therefore, any process to bring the system
into balance must include agreement on how to match uses with available
supply.
Any new or expanded use of Colorado River will add to the overall
supply and demand imbalance unless accompanied by a commensurate
reduction of an existing use within the basin.
The only way we can capitalize on the successes of past river
cooperation is to confront the realities of climate change with
transparency and candor. My sincere hope is that in doing so we can
continue to demonstrate that the flexibility and management solutions
for the water supply of 40 million people can be found within our
existing laws and compacts--through collaboration and not litigation.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Entsminger. Up next is Ms.
Rebecca Mitchell, the Director of the Colorado Water
Conservation Board.
Ms. Mitchell, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF REBECCA MITCHELL, DIRECTOR, COLORADO WATER
CONSERVATION BOARD, DENVER, COLORADO
Ms. Mitchell. Thank you, Chairman Huffman and members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. I am Becky Mitchell, Director of the Colorado Water
Conservation Board. As Director of our state's water policy
agency and Colorado's negotiator on the Colorado River, I want
to share my insights on the impacts of drought in Colorado, an
Upper Basin state, and the factors that impact our relative
water supply security, from an interstate perspective.
The entire Colorado Basin has been impacted by drought, but
those impacts have been felt differently in the Upper Basin and
Lower Basin because of where Lakes Mead and Powell sit. Both of
these large reservoirs are above Lower Basin water uses and
below Upper Basin uses. Having these large reservoirs above
them has meant the Lower Basin has had some certainty in their
water deliveries. In fact, the Lower Basin states have never
faced shortages to their deliveries from Lake Mead, and will
not until 2022.
In contrast, in the Upper Basin we have taken shortages
nearly every year for over 20 years. Without that large
reservoir upstream, we are reliant on current runoff from
snowpack. It is for this reason that the Upper Basin uses are
variable. When snowpack is abundant, water is available for
use. But when the snow is thin, water is not there, and our
water users go without: a perfect example of the impacts of
climate change.
Colorado has suffered from consecutive years of low stream
flows. Perpetual dry soil conditions have increased absorption
of snowmelt and reduced spring runoff. This year has been
especially difficult: 90 percent of the state is currently
experiencing drought.
An example of the difficult situations that Coloradans are
dealing with: a major storage project in southwestern Colorado
received only one-tenth of its water allocation this year, and
due to the compounding years of shortages, people across the
state are considering heartbreaking decisions like selling
multi-generational family farms. These decisions have
significant psychological, sociological, and economic impacts
to the communities.
The water shortages facing southwest Colorado the last 2
years fell heavily on the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, whose economy
and communities depend on revenue generated from crop
production.
On top of these impacts of drought, releases made from Blue
Mesa Reservoir recently also impacted the local recreational
economy. These releases were made by the Bureau of Reclamation,
pursuant to the imminent need provision of the Drought Response
Operations Agreement, part of the 2019 Drought Contingency
Plan. There were also releases from New Mexico and Wyoming.
The dry soil conditions and warmer temperatures have also
left our forests more vulnerable to fire. The summer of 2020
brought record-breaking fires, including three of the largest
wildfires in Colorado's history. In total, over 650,000 acres
were burned, and hundreds of homes were destroyed. We are still
dealing with the aftermath of those fires, including
catastrophic mudslides. With little vegetation to hold the soil
in place and prevent erosion, heavy rainstorms brought roughly
65,000 tons of mud and debris down the slopes, closing
Interstate 70 for 17 straight days.
It is important for me, as Commissioner of the Headwaters
State, to make sure everyone whose work impacts the Colorado
River understands the challenges that Coloradans face,
particularly as we implement the 2019 Drought Contingency Plans
and consider the negotiation of the post-2026 operations of the
major reservoirs.
As we look forward to those negotiations, one critical
element will be meaningful engagement with the Tribal Nations
in the Colorado Basin. Speaking as Colorado's Commissioner, I
talk to the representatives of the Southern Ute and the Ute
Mountain Ute Tribes regularly, sovereign to sovereign. I am
proud to say Colorado has water rights settlements with both of
those tribes, but we must understand that each tribe is
different, with different needs, values, histories, and
relationships. Negotiators in each state should take the time
to sit down with each tribe in their state to understand their
unique positions and needs.
It will also be important to recognize that since not
everything can be addressed through these operational
guidelines, we must also support initiatives that recognize the
urgent need to ensure tribes have access to clean drinking
water.
In addition to supporting initiatives providing funding for
infrastructure to access clean drinking water for tribes,
Colorado also supports ongoing efforts to fully fund
implementation of the Drought Contingency Plan, investments in
agricultural sustainability and efficiency, and recovery
programs in the Upper Basin, including through House Resolution
5001.
My discussions with folks across the state of Colorado,
including tribal representatives, stakeholders, NGOs, and all
types of water users, have helped me develop some principles
that will remain in the forefront of my mind through the
upcoming negotiations. I believe all of those here today can
stand behind two of those goals.
First, we must continue the spirit of interstate
collaboration and cooperation that has defined the work in the
Basin for 100 years.
Second, we must provide water supply security and certainty
for all in the Lower Basin, the Upper Basin, and the 40 million
people who rely on this critical resource.
We are committed to being a part of the solution that works
for all of the Colorado River Basin. Thank you, and I will be
available for questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rebecca Mitchell, Director,
Colorado Water Conservation Board, and Colorado Commissioner,
Upper Colorado River Commission
For the last 100 years, the Colorado River Basin States have relied
on the certainty provided by the Colorado River Compact to develop
water supplies for 40 million people, 5.5 million acres of farmland,
and water for our national public lands, all of which drives a $1.4
trillion economy annually. Colorado remains fully committed to working
with the Basin States and Department of the Interior to address the
challenges in the Colorado River Basin in a collaborative and adaptive
manner, while also remaining committed to the principles outlined in
the 1922 Colorado River Compact.
The Basin States negotiated the 1922 Colorado River Compact to: (a)
provide for greater certainty and security for all states who rely on
the water; (b) eliminate pressures to race to develop uses; (c) allow
Upper Basin States to develop supplies at their own pace and safeguard
water for future uses; (d) allow the states to determine how the water
would be divided and apportioned amongst themselves in perpetuity; (e)
maintain state autonomy; and (f) promote interstate comity and remove
causes of present and future controversies.
In addition to the 1922 Compact, other agreements, decrees,
treaties, and other legal documents govern the allocation and use of
Colorado River water. These agreements have largely been intended to
provide security for the basin's water users through changing
conditions brought on by climate change and extended drought. Two such
agreements are the 2007 Guidelines and the 2019 Drought Contingency
Plan. Both of these agreements are interim in nature and expire in
2026. The Basin States now have opportunities to learn from how the
Guidelines and DCPs have operated in practice, particularly through
very dry hydrology. This information will help inform what comes next.
Currently, there are significant ongoing planning and
implementation efforts underway, all taking place against a backdrop of
critically low reservoir elevations, a 21-year millennium drought that
is ongoing, and the challenges of a warming climate that will further
stress the basin. In this context, it is important to understand the
significant differences between the operations and systems in the Lower
Basin States (Arizona, California, and Nevada) and the Upper Basin
States (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming).
Lakes Mead and Powell both sit above all Lower Basin water uses and
below the Upper Basin uses. Having these large reservoirs above them
has meant that the Lower Basin States have had certainty and security
in their water deliveries. In fact, the Lower Basin States have never
had to face shortages to their deliveries from Lake Mead, and will not
until 2022. Importantly, Lake Powell and Lake Mead operations are
linked by the 2007 Guidelines. The amount of water taken out of Lake
Mead directly impacts the amount of water that is released from Lake
Powell.
In contrast, water users in the Upper Basin States have taken
shortages nearly every year for over 20 years. Without a large
reservoir upstream, Upper Basin water users are reliant upon current
runoff from snowpack and water users are only able to use water from
that snowpack in that particular year. This means Upper Basin water
users frequently do not received the full amount of water to which they
are legally entitled. It is for this reason that Upper Basin uses are
variable. When snowpack is abundant, water is available and water users
put it to beneficial use. When the snow is thin, water is not there and
they have to go without.
Colorado has suffered from consecutive years of low stream flows.
Perpetual dry soil conditions have increased absorption of snowmelt and
reduced spring runoff. This year has been especially difficult: 90% of
the state is currently experiencing drought.
Multiple years of shortages have resulted in many Coloradans facing
heartbreaking decisions. A major storage project in southwestern
Colorado received only one-tenth of its water allocation this year.
Agricultural producers across the state are considering selling
generations-old family farms. These types of decisions have significant
economic, sociologic, and psychological impacts across the entire
state. The water shortages facing the Southwest part of Colorado the
last two years fell heavily on the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, whose
economy and communities depend largely on revenue generated from
successful crop production.
On top of the impacts due to drought, Coloradans have also been
impacted by releases recently made from Blue Mesa Reservoir. These
releases were made as part of a larger effort by the Bureau of
Reclamation pursuant to the imminent need provision of the Drought
Response Operations Agreement, part of the 2019 Drought Contingency
Plan. With the goal of protecting critical elevations at Lake Powell,
Reclamation is in the process of releasing a total of 181,000 acre-feet
from reservoirs in Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The releases
forced the marina and other businesses near Blue Mesa reservoir to
close six weeks earlier than planned, resulting in lost jobs and a 25%
loss in annual revenue. As the states work with Reclamation to develop
a plan for potential future reservoir releases, creating a plan for
recovery of this water will be important.
The dry soil conditions and warmer temperatures have also left our
forests more vulnerable to fire. The summer of 2020 brought record
breaking fires to Colorado, including three of the largest wildfires in
Colorado's history. In total, over 650,000 acres were burned and
hundreds of homes were destroyed. We are grateful that the 2021 fire
season has not been as severe, but we are continuing to deal with the
aftermath of last year's fires, including catastrophic mudslides along
Interstate 70 through Glenwood Canyon. The mudslides were a result of
the Grizzly Creek Fire in 2020 that left a 32,000 acre burn scar on
steep canyon walls. With little vegetation to hold the soil in place
and prevent erosion, heavy rainstorms brought roughly 65,000 tons of
mud and debris down the slopes closing the highway for 17 straight
days.
It is important for me, as Commissioner of the headwaters state, to
make sure that everyone whose work impacts the Colorado River
understand the challenges Coloradans face, particularly as the 2019
Drought Contingency Plans are being implemented and the Basin States
look forward to the negotiation of the post-2026 operations of the
major reservoirs.
As we look forward to those negotiations, one critical element will
be meaningful engagement with the Tribal Nations in the Colorado River
Basin. As Colorado's Commissioner, I talk to representatives of the
Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes regularly on a sovereign-to-
sovereign basis. Colorado has water rights settlements with both of
these tribes. But it is imperative to understand that each tribe is
different--with different needs, histories, and relationships. It will
be important that the negotiators in each state take the time to sit
down with each tribe in their state to fully understand their unique
positions and needs. It will also be important to recognize that since
not everything can be addressed through the operational guidelines, we
must also support initiatives that address the urgent need to ensure
tribes have access to clean drinking water.
In addition to initiatives that provide funding for infrastructure
that is critical to access to clean drinking water for Tribal Nations,
Colorado also supports ongoing efforts to fully fund the recovery
programs in the Upper Basin, Drought Contingency Plan implementation,
and more general investments in agricultural viability and
sustainability.
As we look forward to the next chapter of Colorado River
management, it is imperative that the Basin States continue in the
spirit of collaboration and cooperation that has defined the work in
this basin for 100 years. We must also provide water supply security
and certainty for all--the Lower Basin, the Upper Basin, and for all of
the 40 million people who rely on this critical resource.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Rebecca Mitchell, Director,
Colorado Water Conservation Board and Colorado Commissioner, Upper
Colorado River Commission
Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
Question 1. The ``Law of the River'' and the quantification of the
Upper and Lower Basin states amounted to around 17 million acre-feet of
water, which was determined was the annual flow at the time. However,
we know in the previous two decades it has been more like 12.4 million
acre-feet. And this does not even account for other Native American
tribes with water right claims that have yet to be resolved. There is a
tremendous amount of demand, and with climate change we know the yield
is only going to decline. Let's say the annual yield over the next 30
years is 10 million acre-feet, maybe with climate change it's more or
less. How do we take into account how we got to the original
allocation, with the Upper and Lower Basin States and the Native
American tribes, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?
Answer. For almost a century, the Colorado River Basin States have
relied on the certainty provided by the Colorado River Compact to
develop water supplies for 40 million people, 5.5 million acres of
farmland, and water for our national public lands.
The 1922 Colorado River Compact is the first interstate water
compact negotiated in the United States and it has served as the
foundation for the management of the Colorado River for the last 100
years. In 1922, the Upper Basin (Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New
Mexico) became very concerned about the rapid growth in the Lower Basin
(California, Nevada, Arizona) and mounting pressure from the federal
government that was claiming all the undeveloped and excess waters in
the Western States.
To balance these competing interests, the States negotiated the
Compact to: (a) provide for greater certainty and security for all
states who rely on the water; (b) eliminate pressures to race to
develop uses; (c) allow Upper Basin States to develop supplies at their
own pace and safeguard water for future uses; (d) allow the states to
determine how the water would be divided and apportioned amongst
themselves in perpetuity (e) maintain state autonomy as opposed to
federal control; and (f) promote interstate comity and remove causes of
present and future controversies.
The Colorado River Compact apportions the Colorado River with the
Upper and Lower Basins each allocated the exclusive beneficial
consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet per year. The Lower Basin also
received the right to develop an additional 1 million acre-feet to
account for its tributaries, for an aggregate of 16 million acre feet
of water between the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins. The Upper
Basin States are obligated to not cause the flow of water at Lee Ferry
to be depleted below an aggregate of 75 million-acre feet for any
period of 10 consecutive years. It also recognized an allocation to
Mexico which, under the 1944 Treaty, was set at 1.5 million acre-feet
per year to be satisfied first from waters that are surplus over and
above the aggregate. The Colorado River Compact is the basis for a
second compact, and the federal laws, court decrees and agreements
authorized since, and the culture of collaboration it forged remains a
unique and critical asset in the region.
The 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact accommodates variable
water supplies in the Upper Basin by apportioning water to each state
by percentages of available water apportioned under the Colorado River
Compact, instead of fixed amounts. Arizona v. California (376 U.S.
340), addressed expected shortages to the Lower Basin States'
apportionments and for Tribal reserved water rights to be included in
the apportionment of the states where reservations are located.
Colorado has a settlement in place with the Southern Ute and Ute
Mountain Ute Tribes and the Tribes' water uses are included as part of
Colorado's allocation.
Our use of water in Colorado, and the other Upper Basin States, is
naturally limited by hydrology. Our biggest reservoir is the snowpack.
We cannot control its operation and on account of a changing climate,
we have less natural snowpack today than 20 years ago. This year has
been particularly difficult.
For example, over the course of this summer, conditions across
western Colorado deteriorated significantly. The Ute Mountain Ute Farm
and Ranch Enterprise, owned by the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, one of the
area's largest water users, wasn't able to produce crops without their
water allotment and had to lay off 50 percent of their staff, who are
mostly members of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. The farm used only 8 of
their 110 fields.
Because of our increasingly limited supply over the last 20 years,
the Upper Basin consumes much less water than it is apportioned under
the Compact--notably, about 3 million acre-feet less every year. This
does not mean that the Upper Basin does not need or cannot use more
water. When it is available, it is diverted and used.
Lower Basin water users get their water supplies from releases of
water from Lakes Powell and Mead. In contrast to the Upper Basin's
variable supply from natural snowpack, these reservoirs provide a
secure and reliable source of supply. Due to how the system operates,
the Lower Basin has benefited from above normal releases. This has
directly contributed to the declining levels in Lakes Mead and Powell.
In considering how to best manage the Colorado River in the face of
a warmer and drier future, our task now is not to reapportion the
water, but to work together to find flexibilities within the existing
framework to equitably share shortages between the Upper and Lower
Basins.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Ms. Mitchell. We will now hear from
Mr. John D'Antonio, the State Engineer for the state of New
Mexico.
Mr. D'Antonio, you are recognized.
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Huffman. We are not getting audio from you,
unfortunately, Mr. D'Antonio. And I don't think you are muted.
Let's try again.
Mr. D'Antonio. Can you hear me?
Mr. Huffman. It is pretty faint. Can you try to give us a
little test here?
Mr. D'Antonio. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Huffman. Let's keep working on that. Can we come back
to you, Mr. D'Antonio?
I think, if we can, we should jump ahead to Mr. Gene
Shawcroft, General Manager of the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District, and then we will come back to Mr.
D'Antonio when we can get a little better volume level for him.
So, Mr. Shawcroft, if you are with us, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF GENE SHAWCROFT, GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL UTAH
WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, OREM, UTAH
Mr. Shawcroft. Good afternoon to all. Thank you for
conducting this hearing. Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member
Bentz, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Gene
Shawcroft, and I serve as Utah's Upper Colorado River
Commissioner and General Manager for the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District. The district is the state sponsor of the
Central Utah Project and is also the largest diverter of
Colorado River Water in Utah.
The Colorado River provides over one-third of Utah's water
supply and is fundamental to its prosperity. With such reliance
on the river, the unprecedented drought in mainstem reservoir
storage and river flows is alarming.
On March 17, Governor Cox declared a state of emergency,
due to drought conditions, and urged all Utahns to use less
water. The effectiveness of Utah's statewide drought response
is promising. Over this time last year, we have reached
reductions as high as 32 percent.
As General Manager, I have also overseen the implementation
of the largest water conservation program of Colorado River
water in Utah. Section 207 of the Central Utah Project
Completion Act statutorily requires us to conserve up to 80,000
acre-feet annually by 2033. We are conserving nearly 140,000
acre-feet, 50 percent more than our statutory requirement.
Additional work must be done. Nowhere is this more
important than in the Colorado River Basin. We know that
extreme conditions like this year will become more frequent,
further straining a river system that is reaching a breaking
point.
The Upper Basin Drought Contingency Plan includes a
commitment by the Upper Division states to evaluate the
feasibility of a temporary, voluntary, and compensated demand
management program to reduce consumptive use.
In addition, the Drought Response Operating Agreement is
also being actively implemented in the Upper Basin. This
agreement governs the release of storage water upstream of Lake
Powell, once operational adjustments have been considered at
Lake Powell. Releases from these upper reservoirs are underway
as we speak, as has been mentioned.
Also, as Ms. Mitchell mentioned, the Upper Basin has
routinely taken shortages, which are measured by the
significant reductions in water that is available for use by
our system. Like others, we face challenges in supplying water
to a state with explosive growth, even as the supply
diminishes. Overcoming these challenges is a tall order we must
tackle together, with the inclusion of all Colorado River
stakeholders.
Utah is committed to the development and use of new
technology to aid in forecasting and measurement of diversions,
use, and depletions.
One particularly important platform using remote sensing
for measurement of depletions is OpenET. Continued
congressional support of such work, especially as it shifts
from the research to application arena, is necessary. Further
use of such tools will allow for consistent determination of
depletions across all Colorado River Basin states.
Congressional support for rural water infrastructure
investment, conservation programs, outreach, education, and
additional research is also critical.
I grew up on a small farm in Colorado. As a boy, my
favorite day was the day the snowmelt began, and water was
turned into the canals. Watering the canals meant we could eat,
buy things, and live comfortably. I learned early on that water
is finite, shared, and a common resource.
When it comes to the Colorado River, the most effective
solutions for the future must be collaborative. Each of the
Basin states is bound together by a common goal, which is to
utilize this precious water resource in a responsible way that
honors governing law, and allows us to meet the needs and
priorities of our communities.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share this
information, and I would be happy to answer questions. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shawcroft follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gene Shawcroft, Utah Commissioner,
Upper Colorado River Commission (UCRC) and General Manager,
Central Utah Water Conservancy District
Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Gene Shawcroft. In January 2021, Governor Spencer Cox
appointed me as Utah's Upper Colorado River Commissioner and Basin
State Representative. I also serve as the Chair of Utah's newly formed
Colorado River Authority of Utah. This new Authority was formed by
Utah's State Legislature in response to the need we saw to expand and
focus additional resources on improved Colorado River water management
in Utah. Governor Cox appointed me to this position, in part because
since 2010, I have served as the General Manager of the Central Utah
Water Conservancy District. The District is the state sponsor of the
Central Utah Project (CUP) which oversees the construction, operation,
maintenance, and management of the project facilities. The District is
also the largest single diverter of Colorado River water in Utah. Our
project delivers water for agriculture, municipal and industrial water
users in eight counties from the border of Colorado stretching west to
the two largest counties along the Wasatch Front which includes the
Salt Lake City metropolitan area.
The Colorado River provides over one third of Utah's water supply
and is fundamental to its economy, growth, and prosperity. With such
reliance on the river, the precipitous, and unprecedented drop in
mainstem reservoir storage and river flows that has occurred since
2000, and particularly over the last year, is alarming. On March 17,
2021, Governor Spencer Cox declared a state of emergency due to drought
conditions and urged all Utahns to save water. In response, Utah
increased efforts with a long existing statewide ``Slow-the-Flow''
campaign that includes significant increases in incentive programs for
water efficiency programs and projects. Utah is committed to use
funding from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, including nearly
$100 million, toward improving water management to reduce consumption.
The effectiveness of Utah's state-wide drought response is
promising, including significant reductions by districts,
municipalities and other water purveyors reaching as high as a 32%
reduction of use over this time last year. While gains have been made
additional work must be done. Nowhere is this more important than in
the Colorado River Basin where temperature and precipitation trends
corroborate the message that we have heard for years: extreme
conditions, like we experienced this year, will become more frequent
further straining a system that is nearing a breaking point. Urgent
action is needed now to avoid catastrophic failures in the system.
In anticipation of such a situation, the State of Utah, along with
our sister states, signed onto the 2019 Drought Contingency Plans
(DCP). The Upper Basin plan includes a commitment by the Upper Division
States to evaluate the feasibility of a temporary, voluntary, and
compensated demand management program to reduce consumptive water use
within the Colorado River basin. Utah has begun to evaluate the
feasibility of such a program within our state by investigating the
applicability of demand management on a measurable scale within Utah.
The western water law doctrine of prior appropriation coupled with
State laws governing water rights complicates our ability to protect
conserved water in the Upper Basin for system benefits. Further, we
need to develop better tools to monitor variable hydrologic conditions
and improve our current water use measurement infrastructure.
The second element of the Upper Basin DCP--the Drought Response
Operating Agreement (DROA) is also being actively implemented in the
Upper Basin. The DROA provides for actions by the Federal Government,
in conjunction with Upper Basin States, when Lake Powell elevation
projections reach a certain threshold. This agreement governs the
release of storage water from Colorado River Storage Project Act
Initial Units upstream of Lake Powell, once operational adjustments at
Lake Powell have been considered. Since early 2021, we began holding
routine monitoring meetings, and by late spring, conditions had
deteriorated such that the second trigger had been actuated requiring
an action plan be developed and implemented. Utah has been an active
participant throughout the process, and remains committed to working
with our sister states, and the Bureau of Reclamation in completing the
Drought Response Operating Plan by the end of 2021, for implementation
thereafter. However, the process of developing the Drought Response
Operating Plan has made it clear that its use as a drought response
tool is extremely limited, and may only be effective under unique,
short-term circumstances. We need a more comprehensive, long-term
response if we are going to get through this difficult challenge.
Utah and the other Upper Division States have watched our available
water supplies dwindle as the prolonged drought has continued. North
facing mountains used to store snow through late summer keeping our
mountain streams flowing year-round. Today the mountains are bare and
many streams flow at a trickle. Like the Lower Basin in 2022, the Upper
Basin has routinely taken shortages, however these ``cuts'' in water
supply are not measured by reducing diversions from reservoirs. Rather,
Upper Basin shortages are measured by the significant reductions in
water that is available for use by the system.
As General Manager of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District
(District), I have overseen the implementation of the largest water
conservation program of Colorado River water in the state. Section 207
of the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA--Public Law 102-575),
required statutory ``Water Management Improvements'' to conserve up to
80,100 acre-feet annually by 2033. The District has aggressively
pursued dozens of water efficiency projects and today we conserve
nearly 140,000 acre-feet per year, 50% more than our statutory
requirement. This has been achieved at a combined local and federal
cost of nearly $230 million in both agricultural and municipal
projects. This 140,000 acre feet of conserved water annually is 30,000
acre-feet more than the District's total trans-basin diversion from the
Colorado River of 101,900 acre-feet per year. Without this conservation
effort over the past 30 years, Utah would be severely handicapped. The
District has pivoted its attention to development of a 100 percent
locally funded water efficiency measured including low water use
landscapes, turf removal, flip your strip, and other water conservation
incentive programs.
We recognize that moving forward in the Colorado River basin
progress will only be achieved by working together with the other basin
states, Federal Government, Colorado River Tribes, and other
stakeholders. Not unlike others in the basin, we face challenges in
supplying water to a state with explosive growth, even as the supply
diminishes. Overcoming these challenges is a tall order we must tackle
together. Utah needs to work with all water users and stakeholders,
including tribes to find new and innovative ways to conserve water. Not
unlike California and Arizona, a significant amount of Utah's Colorado
river water is used in agriculture. We can learn from our Lower Basin
colleagues to find ways to improve efficiencies within the important
agriculture industry without undermining our agricultural heritage
through buy-and-dry scenarios. There are no simple solutions to these
challenges, but we live in a time when technological advancements in
modeling, measurement and water application make it possible to
optimize the use of our shared water resources. Three considerations
important to drought mitigation planning in the Colorado River Basin
include:
1. Continued improvements to system modeling tools used to inform
operations and planning, and consensus in application of
these tools by basin states and the Federal Government. The
Bureau of Reclamation has developed modeling tools that are
fundamental to Colorado River management. These tools have
served the basin well, but as aridification stresses the
system, more is being asked of them. Increased investment
by the Federal Government including staffing will be
necessary to support, improve, and modify these tools to
meet a new set of demands, including accounting for
shortages in the Upper Basin, Drought Response Operations
under the Drought Contingency Plans, drought mitigation
measures through reductions in consumptive use, and the
evaluation of curtailment implementation in the Upper
Basin.
2. Acquisition and implementation of new technology. Effective
management of water resources has its roots in measurement
throughout the life cycle of a drop of water. Utah supports
and is committed to the development and use of new
technology to aid in forecasting and measurement of
diversions, use, and depletions. One particularly important
platform using remote sensing for measurement of depletions
is OpenET. This will allow for evaluation of water use as
frequently as satellite imagery is available and will be a
valuable tool for water managers and water end users in
managing water resources. I appreciate Chairman Huffman (D-
Calf), Congresswoman Susie Lee (D-NV) and Congressman Chris
Stewart (R-Utah) for their leadership by introducing the
Open Access Evapotranspiration Data Act in the House of
Representatives. This bill establishes a program under the
Department of the Interior (DOI) that uses publicly
available data from satellites and weather stations to
provide estimates of evapotranspiration (ET), a critical
measure of the water that is consumed and removed from a
water system. This allows water managers, farmers,
ranchers, and other decision makers to be able to access
consistent and accurate data as we make decisions about
water resource management. Continued support of such work,
especially as it shifts from the research to application
arena is necessary. Further, use of such tools will allow
for consistent determination of depletions across all the
Colorado River Basin States, which is necessary where
management of the river is a function of the measurement of
consumptive uses.
3. Increased investment in Agricultural Water Efficiency programs
for Upper Colorado River Basin states for drought
mitigation. Recognizing roughly 80 percent of Utah's water
is applied to agricultural uses, the state legislature
created Utah's Agricultural Water Optimization Task Force
in 2018. It has identified further opportunities for making
Agricultural water use more efficient, and apply to
Agricultural water use broadly, including varying methods
of application and quantity, testing crops of varying
drought tolerance, and evaluating the impacts of fallowing.
Implementation of these optimization measures at a
meaningful scale will require additional research and
Federal funding. Congressional support for rural water
infrastructure investment, conservation programs, outreach,
education, and research is critical.
Utah is rapidly updating its statewide Colorado River Drought
Mitigation Plan and is already investing in new drought mitigation
measures. We hope to apply lessons learned from our successes and
failures as we move forward. These measures are critical to our future
success as we build on a history of significant water efficiency
efforts within the state of Utah.
I grew up on a farm in South Central Colorado. As a boy, when other
kids my age would describe the most exciting day of the year as
Christmas, I would say my favorite day was the day the snowmelt began,
and water was turned into the canals. Water in the canals meant we
could eat, buy things, and live comfortably. It also meant we had to
work hard to achieve these things. I learned early on that water is a
finite, shared and common resource. When it comes to the Colorado
River, we can be encouraged by the bridges that have been built to
deliver us to where we are today. The most effective solutions for the
future must be collaborative. As we work to enhance the tools to
understand the long-term hydrology and conserve the availability of
Colorado River water, each of the Basin States are bound together by a
common goal, which is to utilize this precious water resource in a
responsible way that honors governing law and allows us to meet the
needs and priorities of our communities.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Gene Shawcroft, PE, Utah Basin
States Representative and Utah Upper Colorado River Commissioner
Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
Question 1. The ``Law of the River'' and the quantification of the
Upper and Lower Basin states amounted to around 17 million acre-feet of
water, which was determined was the annual flow at the time. However,
we know in the previous two decades it has been more like 12.4 million
acre-feet. And this does not even account for other Native American
tribes with water right claims that have yet to be resolved. There is a
tremendous amount of demand, and with climate change we know the yield
is only going to decline. Let's say the annual yield over the next 30
years is 10 million acre-feet, maybe with climate change it's more or
less. How do we take into account how we got to the original
allocation, with the Upper and Lower Basin States and the Native
American tribes, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?
Answer. On behalf of the state of Utah, I appreciate the
opportunity to respond to Representative Jim Costa's question following
the October 15, 2021, Subcommittee Oversight Hearing on ``Colorado
River Drought Conditions and Response Measures--Day One.''
Representative Costa has requested a response to the following
question, in relevant part: ``How do we take into account how we got to
the original allocation, with the Upper and Lower Basin States and the
Native American tribes, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?''
The 1922 Colorado River Compact and the 1948 Upper Colorado River
Basin Compact, the two seminal components of the Law of the River, are
designed to function under varying hydrologic conditions--in times of
high and low flows. Under the 1922 Compact, the Upper Division States'
non-depletion obligation is based upon a rolling average of 75 million
acre-feet of water over a consecutive 10-year period, an acknowledgment
that in any given decade some years may yield more flows and other
years less. Similarly, the 1948 Compact makes allocations to the Upper
Division based on percentage shares of available supply, rather than on
an absolute quantity of water.
The Colorado River Basin States, together with our federal
partners, are committed to finding collaborative solutions in
consultation with key stakeholders on the river, including Tribes, to
address the rapidly declining hydrology both in the near term and as we
approach 2026, when the current operational criteria governing the
river expire. Like the Law of the River itself, our goal is to develop
new criteria that will allow the States and water users to adapt to
wider fluctuations in hydrology going forward.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify at the hearing
and to provide the foregoing response.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Shawcroft. Let's go back to Mr.
D'Antonio, and see if we can hear him now.
Mr. D'Antonio. Can you hear me, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Huffman. Mr. D'Antonio, I don't know what to say. We
are just not able to hear you.
So, unfortunately, while we can keep trying to work on
that, we are going to have to have your written testimony
suffice for the time being. And if we can troubleshoot the
audio, I am sure we would like to include you in the
questioning.
But given that problem, we will now hear from Mr. Pat
Tyrrell from Wyoming, Commissioner to the Upper Colorado River
Commission.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK TYRRELL, WYOMING COMMISSIONER TO THE UPPER
COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION, STATE OF WYOMING
Mr. Tyrrell. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member
Bentz, and members of the Subcommittee. Am I being heard?
Mr. Huffman. Yes, you sound great. Thanks for checking.
Mr. Tyrrell. Thank you, with Mr. D'Antonio's problem, I
thought I would check.
I am Patrick Tyrrell, Wyoming's Commissioner to the Upper
Colorado River Commission, and Wyoming's Governor's
representative on the Colorado River. Thank you for providing
the opportunity to present testimony today on behalf of the
state of Wyoming.
You have heard much already today about conditions at Lake
Mead and Lake Powell. The drought impacts are not limited to
the major system reservoirs. Water users in Wyoming, like other
Upper Basin states, continue to experience significant water
shortages, due to the extremely dry conditions.
We, in Wyoming, as in other places, rely on snowmelt and
whatever runoff is available on the rivers and streets. When
the water supply is not sufficient to supply all water rights,
only the earliest and most senior water rights get satisfied.
Therefore, like our other Upper Basin states, our users
have routinely also suffered shortages, even though Wyoming has
developed less than two-thirds of its compact apportionment
under a full supply.
During drought years, Wyoming water use is reduced by more
than 20 percent, compared to years when water is more
plentiful. These shortages get little attention, and require no
Federal declaration, but they happen nevertheless, and carry
with them attendant economic impacts.
Collaboration will continue to be the key in responding to
drought. Since before 2000, the Basin states, Reclamation,
Mexico, Basin tribal leaders, NGOs, water users, and others
have collaborated to implement unprecedented, innovative, and
proactive measures. As the challenges increase, that
collaboration must not only continue, but improve.
We intend to continue that coordination as we develop post-
2026 reservoir operating rules. However, post-2026 guidelines
cannot address all of the numerous issues and impacts caused by
this drought. Many can only be addressed by other response
measures.
The Upper Basin will continue to implement the 2019 Drought
Contingency Plan, the principal goal of which was to assure
continued compliance with the 1922 Compact.
Further, releasing storage from upstream Federal
reservoirs, as you just heard about from Mr. Shawcroft, is only
a first line of defense to protect critical elevations at Lake
Powell. Existing storage is finite and cannot protect that lake
under many of the dry scenarios now being projected. If such a
program is even feasible in addition, any Upper Basin demand
management program still faces difficult challenges to be
resolved before it can be developed and implemented.
More is needed to help ensure the Basin drought resilience.
The most immediate needs include ensuring the Federal
commitments under the DCP can be met, securing access to clean
water for tribal communities, and securing authorization and
long-term funding for species recovery programs.
There is a real need to focus on a broad range of
investments and opportunities, including water storage
infrastructure, advancing large scale augmentation,
facilitating system conservation, promoting watershed health,
promoting forest restoration and management, improving Ag
operations, incentivizing municipal conservation, and improving
water supply forecast.
The effects of this historic drought extend from the
headwaters in Colorado and Wyoming through each Upper and Lower
Basin state and into Mexico. Drought response measures must
equally stretch across the entirety of the Basin. Success will
require development and implementation across Federal agencies,
in cooperation and partnership with the Basin states, the
tribes, other water users, NGOs, and other stakeholders.
Wyoming is ready and willing to engage in that
collaborative effort necessary to build and sustain water
resiliency throughout the Basin, and to provide more
information on the types of investments and opportunities most
likely to help ensure the Colorado River Basin continues to
support a thriving economy and a healthy environment.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. I will
remain and be happy to answer any questions you or the
Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tyrrell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick Tyrrell, P.E.,
Wyoming's Commissioner to the Upper Colorado River Commission
and Wyoming's Governor's Representative to the Colorado River
Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Patrick Tyrrell. I am Wyoming's Commissioner
to the Upper Colorado River Commission and Wyoming's Governor's
representative regarding the Colorado River. Thank you for providing me
the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the State of Wyoming
about Colorado River Drought Conditions and Response Measures.
Colorado River Drought Conditions
The ongoing drought in the Colorado River Basin is well known and
well documented. The Basin is experiencing its worst drought in over
100 years of record-keeping, and one of the worst in the past 1,200
years. The period from 2000 through 2021 is the driest 22-year period
on record with natural flow in the Upper Colorado River Basin at 84% of
the long-term average of 14.68 million acre-feet (MAF) based on the
period from 1906 to 2021. Water Year 2021 was the second driest in the
historical record, with the unregulated inflow into Lake Powell being
about 33% of average.
Lake Mead is experiencing historically low storage. On August 16th,
the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) issued its August 24 month
study. Due in part to ongoing historic drought and low runoff
conditions in the Colorado River Basin, releases from Lake Mead will be
reduced in 2022 representing the first ``shortage'' declaration in the
Lower Basin. The declaration will require the following water
reductions and contributions: Nevada will leave 21,000 acre-feet in
Lake Mead (7% of the state's annual apportionment); Arizona will leave
512,000 acre-feet in Lake Mead (18% of the state's annual
apportionment); and Mexico will leave 80,000 acre-feet in Lake Mead (5%
of the country's annual allotment). Despite robust conservation
activities in the Lower Basin since 2014 which have increased the
elevation of Lake Mead by an estimated 50 feet, recent projections
predict an almost certainty that shortages in the Lower Basin will
continue over the next several years, and it's likely that even greater
water reductions and contributions will occur by 2024.
At Lake Powell, Reclamation's projections indicate the potential of
falling below the minimum power pool elevation as early as July 2022
should extremely dry hydrology continue into next year. Beyond 2022,
the chance Lake Powell could fall below minimum power pool ranges from
about 25% to 35%. There is an almost 90% chance Lake Powell will fall
below elevation 3,525 feet next year, an elevation the Upper Basin is
trying to protect. That target elevation provides a 35 vertical-foot
buffer designed to minimize the risk of dropping below the minimum
power pool elevation of 3,490 feet and balances the need to protect the
infrastructure at Glen Canyon Dam and meet operational obligations to
the Lower Basin States of Arizona, California and Nevada.
The effects of these historic drought conditions are not limited to
an isolated region, and they are not limited to the major basin
reservoirs. Rather, they extend from the headwaters in Colorado and
Wyoming, through each Upper and Lower Basin State, and into Mexico.
Further, projections and various modeling analyses suggest the
prospects of improved water supply cannot be relied upon for future
planning and decisions. We need to plan for continuing bad hydrology,
and, like the drought, response measures need to extend to the entire
basin rather than isolated regions.
Wyoming's Colorado River Basin and Drought Conditions
Water users in Wyoming continue to experience significant water
shortages due to the extremely dry conditions. Currently, all of
Wyoming's Colorado River Basin is suffering from either severe or
extreme drought. The extended and current drought conditions have and
will continue to impact Wyoming water users in significant ways.
Impacts to irrigated agriculture from the exceptionally low flows in
water year 2021 are just the latest example.
Unlike most water users in the Lower Colorado River Basin, Wyoming
water users do not have large upstream reservoirs like Lakes Powell and
Mead in which to save supplies for use in water short years. Instead,
Wyoming users rely on snowmelt and are subject to whatever water is
available in the rivers and streams. When the water supply is not
sufficient to supply all water rights, the earliest, most senior water
rights get satisfied first, and the junior water rights get turned off
by Wyoming water officials. When there is not enough water available,
they simply get no water.
The conditions in the northern portion of Wyoming's Green River
Basin during 2021 illustrate this situation. Many streams in this basin
do not have supplemental storage water for late season supply. Due to
low stream flows and early runoff, regulation of those streams--the
turning off of junior water rights--began in mid-June and continued
throughout the remainder of the water year. They were regulated to
priority dates dating from the 1880s and 1890s. This means water rights
with priority dates of about 1900 and later were regulated before mid-
way through Wyoming's short growing season. Instead of receiving their
full supply of water for 5 months, they received that water for only
about 2 months. Approximately 68,000 acres with valid water rights from
these streams were subject to regulation.
The southern portion of Wyoming's Green River Basin and the Little
Snake River Basin experienced similar drought conditions in 2021. Due
to low stream flow conditions, the southern Green River Basin
tributaries experienced regulation beginning in early May and
continuing throughout the remainder of the water year. Water rights
with priority dates later than 1890 in some instances did not receive
natural flow supplies for most of the year. However, unlike most of the
northern Green River Basin tributaries, there are some smaller storage
facilities in the southern Green River Basin which helped supply
supplemental storage water to some of those rights which were otherwise
prevented from diverting natural flow. Those smaller reservoirs are
currently between 6% and 27% full. Similarly, many irrigation rights in
the Little Snake River Basin were forced to start relying on storage
water instead of natural flow beginning in about mid-July. The primary
reservoir in that basin is now only 27% full. While the existing
storage in these basins certainly aids in providing a late season
supply to Wyoming water users, it only aids those who have a right to
the storage. Many water users are simply at the mercy of whatever flow
the streams provide.
Over the course of the last 22 years of drought in the Colorado
River Basin, Wyoming water users have routinely suffered shortages.
Some years are worse, some are better. These routine shortages occur
even though Wyoming has developed less than 2/3 of its Compact
apportionment under a full supply. During the drought years, Wyoming
water use reduced more than 20% compared to years when water was more
plentiful. These shortages get little attention and require no federal
declaration, but they happen nevertheless and carry with them attendant
economic impacts. Response measures intended to address the drought in
the Colorado River Basin should not only focus on main stem storage and
uses, but also uses at the top of the Basin like those in Wyoming.
In response to the continuing drought in Wyoming's Colorado River
Basin, on July 16th Governor Mark Gordon convened a Wyoming Colorado
River Working Group to meet regularly to discuss Colorado River issues
and monitor potential impacts to Wyoming. The group is made up of
representatives of key water use sectors of Wyoming's Green and Little
Snake River Basins, including agricultural, municipal, industrial and
environmental interests. It will discuss and share Colorado River
information with interested stakeholders in Wyoming's Green and Little
Snake River Basins. The Working Group is a continuation of a
coordinated and proactive outreach effort that has been underway in
Wyoming since 2019.
Drought Response Measures
Continued Collaboration in the Colorado River Basin
Collaboration will continue to be key in responding to drought. In
response to the last two decades of historically dry hydrologic
conditions and higher than normal temperatures, the Basin States,
Reclamation, and Mexico have collaborated to implement unprecedented,
innovative, and proactive measures, including the 2007 Interim Shortage
Guidelines; binational Minutes 318, 319, and 323; the 2019 Drought
Contingency Plans (DCPs); and other important water conservation,
storage, and augmentation efforts.
Despite the severe hydrologic and water supply challenges, these
measures have allowed the Basin States to continue to satisfy water
needs, meet Treaty and Compact obligations, and fulfill environmental
commitments, all while ensuring no one is left behind and no one
unfairly bears the brunt of these necessary efforts. Wyoming is
committed to continue to approach challenges with the same focus on
collaboration and equity as the Basin faces worsening hydrology.
As the Basin States and Reclamation begin working on longer-term
solutions to the shared risks and vulnerabilities we face in the
Colorado River system, we will also be preparing for the development of
the post-2026 Colorado River operating rules. Generally, the
development of the post-2026 guidelines is expected to be focused on
the management and operations of the Colorado River reservoir system.
While each of the Basin States may have guiding principles or specific
goals and objectives associated with developing the post-2026
guidelines, Wyoming is resolutely committed to working together to make
the system work for all.
In addition to individual state efforts like those in Wyoming, the
Basin States intend to coordinate and communicate with the Department
of the Interior leadership, Basin Tribal leaders, NGO and environmental
representatives, water users, and other stakeholders. The Basin States
also expect that, in conjunction with the two sections of the
International Boundary and Water Commission and the Department of the
Interior, similar outreach and discussions will be held with Mexico in
the near-term. Outreach efforts will require that multiple, parallel
discussions occur alongside the formal NEPA process led by the
Department of the Interior. While it will not be possible for everyone
to be involved in every discussion, it will be important for the States
to coordinate the various parallel discussions. Collaboration will
continue to be key in responding to drought.
Upper Basin Drought Contingency Plan
Both the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin continue to implement the
2019 DCPs. The Upper Division States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and
Wyoming, along with Reclamation, are implementing the Upper Basin DCP.
The principal goal of the Upper Basin DCP is to help assure continued
compliance with the 1922 Compact. It does so by helping protect
critical elevations at Lake Powell. Protecting those elevations reduces
the risk that the Upper Basin will fail to meet its compact
obligations. The Upper Basin DCP as approved by Congress in 2019
consists of two agreements: \1\ The Drought Response Operations
Agreement (DROA) and the Demand Management Storage Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although not part of the DCP package approved by Congress in
2019, the Upper Basin DCP also includes a weather modification program
within the Upper Division states to help boost snow accumulation and
system water in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Several Lower Basin
water utilities and entities participate and help fund the ongoing
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DROA applies to the 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act
(CRSPA) Initial Units. The CRSPA Initial Units are Glen Canyon Dam,
Flaming Gorge Dam, Curecanti (the ``Aspinall Unit''), and Navajo Dam.
The Agreement relies on available water supplies as needed to reduce
the risk of Lake Powell dropping below the target elevation 3,525'.
This target elevation appropriately balances the need to protect
infrastructure, compact obligations, and operations at Glen Canyon Dam
as storage approaches minimum power pool, with the Upper Division
States' rights to put Colorado River System water to beneficial use.
In July 2021, Reclamation exercised the imminent need provisions of
the DROA and began making releases from the upstream Initial Units to
Lake Powell. Those DROA releases were designed to deliver an additional
181 thousand-acre feet of water to Lake Powell by the end of December
2021. The additional delivery was expected to raise Lake Powell's
elevation by approximately three feet. Reclamation and the Upper
Division States are now working together to develop and finalize, if
necessary, a DROA plan in 2022. They expect to have a draft plan to
provide for stakeholder outreach and feedback by the end of 2021.
Drought response operations are a first line of defense to protect
critical elevations at Lake Powell. But that existing storage is not
infinite and cannot protect Lake Powell under many of the dry scenarios
now being projected. If dry conditions persist or worsen as many
project, existing storage will diminish or be inadequate, and the Upper
Basin may ultimately need to reduce its uses to comply with the 1922
Compact.
The Demand Management Storage Agreement authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to make unfilled storage capacity at the CRSPA Initial
Units available for use by the Upper Division States, through the Upper
Colorado River Commission (UCRC), at no charge. Such storage capacity
is available provided that the UCRC requests use of the storage
capacity for the purpose of storing water conserved as part of an Upper
Basin demand management program. Once the Upper Division States secured
this storage authorization in 2019, they, along with the UCRC, began
investigating the feasibility of an Upper Basin demand management
program.
The purpose of an Upper Basin demand management program will be to
temporarily reduce consumptive uses in the Upper Basin or augment
supplies with imported water, if needed in times of drought, to help
assure continued compliance with Article III of the 1922 Compact and
without impairing the right to exercise existing Upper Basin water
rights in the future. Any demand management program will be a state-
based effort implemented under state law. The Upper Basin has learned
that no demand management program is likely to conserve enough water in
any single year to achieve its goals. Therefore, an Upper Basin demand
management program will require the ability to store conserved water
over multiple years.
There are many outstanding issues that must still be investigated
before an Upper Basin demand management program can be established.
Those issues include, among other things, determining transit losses
that will occur by moving conserved water downstream to Lake Powell,
securing sufficient demand management water volumes, measuring
conserved consumptive use volumes, evaluating local impacts from non-
use, ensuring delivery of conserved consumptive use volumes to the
CRSPA Initial Units without diminishment by downstream diverters,
deterring water right speculation at the expense of agricultural
communities, and developing the expertise and resources necessary to
administer such a program. These issues, as well as others, are
complicated by the fact that a demand management program must work in
all four Upper Division States where differing water laws apply.
Funding is another significant issue. Considerable funding will be
necessary to compensate water users for their voluntary participation
in the program for conserving consumptive uses.
Each of the Upper Division States, and the UCRC, continue to
investigate the feasibility of a potential demand management program.
But as described above, both the DROA and the Demand Management Storage
Agreement are primarily intended to help assure continued compliance
with the 1922 Compact. They do not address drought impacts in the Upper
Basin but are instead designed to maintain downstream obligations to
the Lower Basin.
Additional Drought Response Measures
There are numerous additional drought response measures which can
be effective at helping water managers at all levels address the
uncertainties threatening the Basin. Wyoming, alongside the other Basin
States, recently expressed to the House Natural Resource Committee its
general support for many investments and opportunities designed to
respond to drought.\2\ Wyoming continues to support securing
authorizations and appropriations within proposed federal legislative
initiatives related to those investments and opportunities. I would
like to reference just a few of those investments and opportunities
here:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Colorado River Basin States Representatives of Arizona,
California, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming in Support of
Nevada Responses to Questions for the Record, letter to The Honorable
Raul M. Grijalva, Chairman, House of Representatives Natural Resources
Committee, dated June 28, 2021.
Storage Water Infrastructure: We must continue to invest
in the aging water infrastructure necessary to meet current
and future demands for water. Existing water infrastructure
in the west is getting older and is in desperate need of
expensive rehabilitation and improvement. Additionally, we
must invest in additional storage in response to more
variable hydrology and earlier runoff (earlier runoff
results in less ability maintain existing uses). Small,
watershed level storage can help address the types of
shortages faced by Wyoming's agricultural water users in
the Green and Little Snake River Basins. Further, storage
provides additional water management flexibility to better
meet downstream municipal and industrial water needs,
improve flood control, generate clean hydropower, provide
recreation opportunities, and create additional late season
flows that can benefit downstream aquatic and terrestrial
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
species.
Funding for DCPs: Existing arrangements under the Lower
Basin DCP and related Treaty Minute 323 with Mexico commit
the Federal Government to create or conserve 100,000 acre-
feet of Colorado River system water in the Lower Basin and
to share in funding with Mexico for management and
monitoring projects. Making the necessary investments to
honor these commitments remains vital to ongoing drought
response and stability in the Basin. Additionally, funding
for the Upper Basin DCP can help assure those tools are
implemented as intended, aid in more accurately
representing Upper Basin uses and circumstances in existing
and future planning tools, and enhance the potential that
the existing DCP measures continue as future operating
options.
Species Protection Programs: The continued authorization
(H.R. 5001) and reliable funding of threatened and
endangered species programs remains vital to maintaining
fish and wildlife protections in and around the Colorado
River Basin. Reliable funding will become even more
critical as power revenues decrease due to shrinking
reservoir elevations. These programs are important not only
for the benefit of the various species, but also to ensure
water uses can develop and continue. Examples of important
programs include the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
Recovery Program, the San Juan River Recovery
Implementation Program, the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive
Management Program, Multi-Species Conservation Program, and
the Salton Sea Restoration Program.
Improve Water Monitoring, Measurement and Weather
Forecasting: Accurate data and information is critical for
planning decisions regarding reservoir storage and
releases, and improving the ability to readily adapt to
extreme weather events and shifts in climate. Improved
water measurement, such as funding for streamgages that are
identified as Federal priority streamgages, will be
critical to not only inform planning decisions, but also to
implement existing tools such as the Upper Basin DCP.
Accurate water measurement will also be necessary to
properly implement elements of the Law of the River. The
USGS should coordinate with the Upper Basin States to site
streamgages within the Basin where they can be the most
effective for these purposes.
More must be done to accurately measure existing consumptive
uses throughout the Basin, but especially in the Upper
Basin. 80% of the total consumptive use in Wyoming's
Colorado River Basin consists of the evapotranspiration
(ET) of water through the irrigation of crops.
Unfortunately, ET is the component of water use that is
technically the most difficult to accurately estimate,
which makes it difficult for water managers to plan and
make decisions. While accurate satellite-based methods at
the field scale are available, they are expensive and labor
intensive, and therefore not easily accessible to those
that would benefit from them most including water managers
and the water users themselves. OpenET would help fill this
data gap. The new software platform would provide cost
effective and rapid online access to this key water use
variable. It would also allow the means by which all users
across the Basin States can better understand consumptive
use. It can also help farmers and ranchers use water more
efficiently and help water managers monitor historic and
current water use, all using open and transparent data.
Wyoming strongly encourages Congress, through legislation
such as H.R. 4832, to provide OpenET funding and a ``home''
within an agency in the Department of the Interior (either
Reclamation or USGS) so that OpenET can continue to be
developed to fill this critical data gap.
Incentivize Municipal Conservation and Infrastructure: In
coordination with Colorado River Basin partners, programs
should be continued and improved to incentivize
implementation of municipal conservation technologies,
including indoor and outdoor programs for potable use.
These programs should be broad enough to not only include
some of the largest municipalities in the Basin, but also
smaller municipal providers like those in Wyoming.
More is needed to help ensure the Basin's resilience to higher
temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and pronounced storage
fluctuations going forward. As previously described by the Basin
States, the most immediate needs include ensuring that federal
commitments under the Drought Contingency Plans can be met, securing
access to clean water for tribal communities, and securing
authorization and long-term funding for species recovery programs. In
the long-term, there is a need to focus on a broad range of investments
and opportunities, including: Large-scale augmentation, facilitating
system conservation within existing authorities, promote watershed
health, promote forest restoration and management including wildfire
mitigation and protection, improvement of agricultural operations and
infrastructure, incentivize municipal conservation (including large
scale re-use projects), and improve water supply forecasting,
measurement as well as monitoring to project future Basin conditions
and inform decisions.
Conclusion
The Colorado River Basin is currently experiencing some of the
worst drought conditions in recorded history. The effects of these
conditions are not limited to an isolated region but extend across the
entirety of the Basin. Drought response measures must equally stretch
across the entirety of the Basin. It is also imperative to recognize
that not all the actions can be implemented uniformly across the Basin.
Success will require development and implementation across federal
agencies in cooperation and partnership with the Basin States, Tribes,
water users, and other stakeholders. Wyoming is ready and willing to
engage in the collaborative efforts necessary to build and sustain
water resiliency throughout the Basin, and to provide more information
on the types of investments and opportunities most likely to help
ensure the Colorado River Basin continues to support a thriving economy
and a durable environment.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. I am happy to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Pat Tyrrell, Wyoming Commissioner
to the Upper Colorado River Commission
Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
Question 1. The ``Law of the River'' and the quantification of the
Upper and Lower Basin states amounted to around 17 million acre-feet of
water, which was determined was the annual flow at the time. However,
we know in the previous two decades it has been more like 12.4 million
acre-feet. And this does not even account for other Native American
tribes with water right claims that have yet to be resolved. There is a
tremendous amount of demand, and with climate change we know the yield
is only going to decline. Let's say the annual yield over the next 30
years is 10 million acre-feet, maybe with climate change it's more or
less. How do we take into account how we got to the original
allocation, with the Upper and Lower Basin States and the Native
American tribes, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?
Answer. The 1922 Colorado River Compact apportions 16 million acre-
feet of beneficial use of water between the Upper and Lower Colorado
River Basins. At the time, Compact negotiators believed there was much
more available, up to 20 million acre-feet in the entire Colorado River
system, and over 17 million acre-feet in the river's main stream. Even
so, they recognized that the highly variable river would not provide a
reliable supply in every year. Even before 1922 annual river flows
sometimes fell below 10 million acre-feet. As such, the negotiators
anticipated and provided for years of drought and low river flows. They
also provided for the Basins to share in any deficiency to Mexico
should such a deficiency ever be recognized. The 1922 Compact provided
the certainty needed to construct Hoover Dam which has provided both
flood control protection to California and Arizona as well as water
supply security to the Lower Basin for over 85 years. That water
security has enabled the Lower Basin development and economic
prosperity envisioned by the Compact negotiators a century ago.
Since the 1922 Compact, the Law of the River affecting the
interstate and international use, management, and allocation of
Colorado River system water reflects an understanding that the Colorado
River provides less water than the negotiators believed was available
in 1922. Apportionments to individual Upper Basin States made in 1948
are by percentages of available water, not set volumes. In the U.S.
Supreme Court's 1964 decree in Arizona v. California (376 U.S. 340),
the Court anticipated shortages to the Lower Basin States' mainstream
apportionments. We further know that the water rights of Native
American tribes, whether currently quantified or not, must be satisfied
from the individual state apportionments in which the tribal
reservations are located. Additions to the Law of the River made in
this century also reflect a keen understanding that the river's
available supply cannot meet existing and growing demand without
collaboration and flexibility to implement unprecedented, innovative,
and proactive measures.
Although the 1922 Compact negotiators anticipated drought, and
those who followed recognized a smaller supply, they hardly could have
anticipated what we are experiencing now. Nevertheless, the original
equitable division made in 1922 provides the foundation for all that
has followed and must remain. We must take into account that original
equitable division as well as every resulting right, obligation, and
benefit which finds its source in that bargain.
Our challenge now is not reallocating water. Our challenge is to
collaborate to address the increasing hydrologic risks. We do that by
developing additional innovative and proactive solutions that fit
within the existing structure to address the challenges we face today
and going forward, including when there is insufficient water to fully
satisfy the existing apportionments. In the past two decades, the
United States, Mexico, the seven Colorado River Basin States, Native
American tribes, water users, non-governmental organizations and other
stakeholders have demonstrated the ability to collaborate to create and
implement such innovative and proactive solutions, incorporating the
ability to adapt to changing conditions, and to do so within the Law of
the River framework as it exists today.
______
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Tyrrell, thanks very much. We are going to
move on to questions of the Members right now. If we can figure
out the problem with Mr. D'Antonio's microphone, we will take
him out of order and come back to him. But in the meantime, I
am going to recognize myself for the first set of questions,
and I would like to begin with Mr. Nelson from California.
Mr. Nelson, we spoke in the previous panel a little bit
about the Salton Sea restoration. This, of course, is a
partnership that is being led by the state of California, but
it includes tribes and local partners, environmental
stakeholders, and Federal agencies. Could you please just
expand on why Federal support of those partnerships and their
restoration work is so important, not just for those living
near the Salton Sea, but, really, for the larger Colorado River
Basin community?
Mr. Nelson. Sure. Thank you, Congressman Huffman, for the
question. It is a great question.
The Salton Sea is, historically, a delta part of the
Colorado River, and it is important to the region of Southern
California.
First, the work that is being done now at the Salton Sea is
associated with a continued implementation of the 2003
Quantification Settlement Agreement, which resulted in nearly
500,000 acre-feet of conserved water supply that are then
transferred to the coastal plain. And that is an important
aspect of water management in California.
Secondly, the Sea is a critical element of the Pacific
Flyway. We have the Sonny Bono Refuge there. It houses, as
other areas, resident and migratory bird species, which are
important for ecological values there.
Thirdly, as the inflows to the Sea have decreased since
2003, mitigated by the QSA, and as well as increased irrigation
efficiencies within the Imperial Irrigation District, the
exposed playa continues to expand, and it is resulting in a
significant public health threat associated with blowing dust.
It is my understanding that the Imperial Valley contains some
of the highest childhood asthma rates and other pulmonary
health issues. This air quality impact is a social and
environmental issue that is critical to the region, not only to
the Imperial Valley, but across the Mexicali Valley, into the
southwestern Arizona and eastern Riverside County.
And, finally, I would say it is worth acknowledging that
the commitments for collaboration and partnerships contained in
the August 2016 MOU between the Obama administration and the
state of California. That MOU committed the state and the
Federal Government for long-term coordination and a series of
tests that would be accomplished, including an initial outlay
of $20 million for habitat restoration and dust suppression,
and $10 million for state-managed monitoring at the Sea.
California suggests that this MOU should be considered,
basically, as a foundation for our collaboration in the area.
We have the Salton Sea mitigation plan that the state is
working through, and actually making some good progress on now.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Nelson.
Mr. Entsminger, in the time I have left I would like to
talk about this large-scale water recycling potential, the
vision for bringing a new drought-proof source of water to this
vexing shortage challenge we face in the Colorado Basin. Could
you speak a little bit about why adding something like that to
the region's water supply portfolio would be so critically
important, and also the state of play in terms of Federal
support for these large-scale water recycling projects?
Are we doing enough? Should we be doing more? You have the
rest of my time.
Mr. Entsminger. Thank you very much, Chairman Huffman.
First, just the water impact. The Metropolitan Project
could add as much as 160,000 acre-feet of water to the system,
and Met has been very gracious in agreeing to partner with
southern Nevada and central Arizona to make that into a
regional project with regional benefits.
I do think more projects like that are available, and as we
move into the future, we really have to look at all water
within this Basin as water that is precious and available for
use, be those storm waters or the wastewater that Southern
California is currently discharging into the Pacific Ocean. All
of that water can be utilized to solve the daunting problems in
front of us.
In terms of the Federal Government, there is, I believe,
$450 million contained in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill,
which would be very good to get that across the finish line,
and additional funds within the Reconciliation bill that would
also be not just for water reclamation, but also for Federal
compliance with their obligations. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. All right, I appreciate that very much.
Ranking Member Bentz is next up for questions, but I am
told that we may have finally achieved an audio connection with
Mr. D'Antonio. We want to give all seven Basin states equal
time, and I promised I would bring him in out of order.
So, Mr. D'Antonio, let's see if we can hear you. And if Mr.
Bentz is willing to just stand down for a few minutes, we will
come right back to him after you.
[Pause.]
Mr. Huffman. So, Mr. D'Antonio?
Mr. D'Antonio. I am on my cell phone.
Mr. Huffman. And we can hear you. Fantastic.
Mr. D'Antonio. OK, great.
STATEMENT OF JOHN D'ANTONIO, STATE ENGINEER FOR NEW MEXICO,
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
Mr. D'Antonio. Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz,
Representative Leger Fernandez, Representative Stansbury from
New Mexico, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, my
name is John D'Antonio. I am the State Engineer for New Mexico
and Governor Lujan Grisham's representative on the Colorado
River Compact. I very much appreciate your patience today, and
the opportunity to appear before you to provide comments and
updates on behalf of the state of New Mexico regarding the
current issues and priorities related to the Colorado River
Basin.
First, the Upper Basin shortages: In the 1922 Colorado
River Compact, the seven Colorado River Basin states agreed to
share the Colorado River with each Basin apportioned the
exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet
of water per year. New Mexico's apportionment is 11.25 percent
of that amount.
Since 2000, the Colorado River Basin has entered a period
of continued drought. The Upper Division states have been
taking shortages based on limited supply for the past two
decades. In New Mexico, water shortages occur annually in the
San Juan River Basin, including the Animas and La Plata
tributaries. The San Juan-Chama Project, a major trans-basin
diversion project authorized by Congress in 1962 to deliver San
Juan water to New Mexico's municipalities and pueblos along the
Rio Grande, has experienced significant variability in water
supply, particularly during the last decade. As an example, in
2021 we experienced a shortage of 40 percent.
One key component of the Upper Basin Drought Contingency
Plan is the Drought Response Operation Agreement, known as
DROA. In June 2021, Reclamation projected that Lake Powell may
fall below the critical elevation of 3,525 feet in less than 6
months. And under the emergency provision of the DROA,
Reclamation, in coordination with the Upper Division states,
started releasing 181,000 acre-feet this year from three main
reservoirs in the Upper Basin to help boost the elevation of
Lake Powell.
Reclamation and the Upper Division states are currently
working on a planned framework that will fully address the
states' key issues and concerns prior to any future drill
operations.
Authorized projects in the Basin states: One of the
original intents of the 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act
was to allow the Upper Division states to fully develop their
apportionment. To date, the Upper Basin states have not. New
Mexico's Upper Basin water use is currently about half of its
apportionment. Most of New Mexico's future development plans in
the Upper Basin are for tribal water development, pursuant to
the Indian water rights settlements that have already been
authorized by Congress, such as the 2009 Navajo-Gallup Water
Supply Project, which is vital in providing sustainable
residential water to the rural communities within and around
the Navajo Nation, the Jicarilla Apache Nation, and the City of
Gallup. Those communities have been hit particularly hard by
the drought and the COVID-19 pandemic.
When using or analyzing the existing climate trends, both
prolonged dry periods and punctuated wet periods should be
taken into consideration. The system will need to be addressed
not only for worse droughts than we have experienced today, but
also for short and wet periods from an infrastructure and
public health and safety standpoint. It will be important to
address the existing short- and long-term challenges with a
long-term equitable approach, while retaining the flexibility
for the states to develop their authorized amounts,
particularly during the good years. Striking such a desired
balance, however, is no easy task.
The 2007 Interim Guidelines will expire in 2026 and affect
over 40 million people in seven states. The Upper and Lower
Colorado Regional Offices of the Bureau of Reclamation have
staff with relevant modeling expertise who can assist the Basin
states with responding to our short-term priorities, i.e.
modeling refinements and needs related to the DCP's
implementation, and long-term priority, which is the post-2026
operations of Lakes Powell and Mead. We would request
additional financial resources for Reclamation to support the
Basin states in the next 1 to 5 years.
New Mexico supports the Build Back Better Act and the
Reclamation Settlement Fund for Indian water rights
settlements, which is really an investment in our future, as
well as H.R. 5001, which is the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Basin's Recovery Act.
In conclusion, in 1922, the seven Basin states agreed to
the terms of the Compact on the basis that it represented a
fair apportionment for the resource and that it protected
rights for each of the signatories. For almost a century, the
states have worked cooperatively with each other and the
Federal Government and the Republic of Mexico and other
partners and stakeholders to manage the systems and implement
necessary adaptive management actions within the confines of
the law of the river.
Future decision-making process should consider science,
legal, and policy aspects concurrently. I am confident that all
seven Basin states will strive to employ a fact-based approach
that considers the holistic vision. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. D'Antonio follows:]
Prepared Statement of John R. D'Antonio Jr., New Mexico State Engineer
Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, Distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee: My name is John D'Antonio. I am the State Engineer
for New Mexico and Governor Lujan Grisham's representative on the
Colorado River Compacts. I very much appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today and provide comments and updates on behalf of
the State of New Mexico regarding the current issues and priorities
related to the Colorado River Basin.
Upper Basin Shortages:
In the 1922 Colorado River Compact, the seven Colorado River Basin
States agreed to ``share'' the Colorado River, with each Basin
apportioned the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 million
acre-feet of water per year. New Mexico's apportionment is 11.25
percent of that amount, based on the 1948 Upper Colorado River Compact.
Since 2000, the Colorado River Basin has entered a period of
continued drought. The Upper Division States have been taking shortages
based on limited supply for the past two decades. In New Mexico, water
shortages occur annually in the San Juan River Basin, including the
Animas and La Plata tributaries. The San Juan-Chama Project, a major
trans-basin diversion project authorized by Congress in 1962 to deliver
San Juan water to New Mexico's municipalities and Pueblos along the Rio
Grande, has experienced significant variability in water supply
availability, particularly during the past decade. As an example, the
2021 shortage amount for this project was approximately 40 percent.
Lake Powell Levels:
In response to the drought conditions, the Federal Government and
the Basin States have worked together to establish measures to address
the coordinated operations and levels of the two largest reservoirs in
the nation, i.e. Lake Powell behind the Glen Canyon Dam, and Lake Mead
behind the Hoover Dam. The elevation of Lake Powell is important to New
Mexico and other Basin States, their citizens and water users, to
continue to satisfy obligations under the two compacts, and to benefit
from the power generated at Lake Powell and from its direct revenues.
Those measures include the 2007 Colorado River Interim Guidelines and
the 2019 Drought Contingency Plans (DCPs).
One key component of the Upper Basin DCP is the Drought Response
Operations Agreement (DROA). In June 2021, Reclamation projected that
Lake Powell may fall below the critical elevation of 3,525' in less
than six months. Reclamation then informed the Upper Division States
that it intended to act under the emergency provision of the DROA,
which gives the Secretary discretion to act in case of an ``imminent
need.'' Reclamation, in coordination with the Upper Division States and
after consultation with the Lower Division States pursuant to DROA,
started releasing 181,000 acre feet in calendar year 2021 from three
main reservoirs in the Upper Basin, to help boost the elevation at Lake
Powell to the extent practicable. Reclamation and the Upper Division
States are currently working on a plan framework that will fully
address the States' key issues and concerns prior to any future DROA
operations.
Authorized Projects in The Basin States:
One of the original intents of the 1956 Colorado River Storage
Project Act was to allow the Upper Division States to fully develop
their apportionment. To date, however, the Upper Division States have
not fully developed their apportionment due, in part, to the fact that
water users in the Upper Basin seldom have sufficient water to fully
use their water rights in any given year.
New Mexico's Upper Basin water use is currently about half of its
apportionment. Most of New Mexico's future development plans in the
Upper Basin are for tribal water development pursuant to Indian water
rights settlements that have already been authorized by Congress, such
as the 2009 Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, which is vital in
providing sustainable residential water to the rural communities within
and around the Navajo Nation, the Jicarilla Apache Nation, and the City
of Gallup. Those communities have been hit particularly hard by the
drought and COVID-19 pandemic.
When using or analyzing the existing climate trends, both prolonged
dry periods and punctuated wet periods should be taken into
consideration. The system will need to be assessed not only for a worse
drought than we have experienced today, but also for short wet periods
from an infrastructure and public health and safety standpoint. It will
be important to address the existing short- and long-term challenges
with a long-term, equitable approach, while retaining the flexibility
for the States to develop their authorized amounts, particularly during
the good years. Striking such a desired balance, however, will be no
easy task.
Funding For Reclamation to Assist the Basin States:
The 2007 Interim Guidelines will expire in 2026. The Interim
Guidelines, and any new operational rules that come after them, affect
over 40 million people, in seven States. The Upper and Lower Colorado
Regional Offices of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have staff with
relevant modeling expertise who can assist the Basin States with
responding to our short-term priorities, i.e. modeling refinements and
needs related to the DCPs implementation, as well as addressing the
States' long-term priority, which is the post-2026 operations of Lakes
Powell and Mead. These tasks will be extremely time consuming.
In the spirit of harmonizing our working relationship with the
Department of Interior and Reclamation, we would request additional
financial resources for Reclamation to support the Basin States in the
next one to five years.
Conclusion:
In 1922, the seven Basin States agreed to the terms of the compact
on the basis that it represented a fair apportionment of the resource,
and that it protected rights for each of the signatories. For almost a
century, the States have worked cooperatively with each other and with
the Federal Government, the Republic of Mexico, and other partners and
stakeholders to manage the system and implement necessary adaptive
management actions within the confines of the Law of the River. Any
future decision-making process should consider science, legal and
policy aspects concurrently. I am confident that all seven Basin States
will strive to employ a fact-based approach that considers that
holistic vision.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views on this
matter.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to John R. D'Antonio, New Mexico
Compact Commissioner
Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
Question 1. The ``Law of the River'' and the quantification of the
Upper and Lower Basin states amounted to around 17 million acre-feet of
water, which was determined was the annual flow at the time. However,
we know in the previous two decades it has been more like 12.4 million
acre-feet. And this does not even account for other Native American
tribes with water right claims that have yet to be resolved. There is a
tremendous amount of demand, and with climate change we know the yield
is only going to decline. Let's say the annual yield over the next 30
years is 10 million acre-feet, maybe with climate change it's more or
less. How do we take into account how we got to the original
allocation, with the Upper and Lower Basin States and the Native
American tribes, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?
Answer. In the 1922 Colorado River Compact (1922 Compact), the
seven Colorado River Basin States agreed to allocate the water in the
Colorado River to provide more certainty and security that could help
promote development. Both the Upper and Lower Basins were apportioned
the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet of
water per year, and an amount of water was set aside in case a treaty
was ever signed with Mexico regarding Colorado River water. Further, in
1948 the Upper Basin states entered into the 1948 Upper Colorado River
Basin Compact (1948 Compact). New Mexico's apportionment under the 1948
Compact is 11.25 percent of the Upper Basin's share. All states have
developed water in accordance with the respective Compacts and have
plans for continued development. Reallocation of the Colorado River is
not a recommendation New Mexico would support. It should continue to be
up to each state to manage demand within its boundaries based on
available supply within each state.
The 1922 and 1948 Compacts, and the body of laws, regulations,
treaties, compacts and other documents that are collectively known as
the Law of the River, have allowed the seven Colorado River Basin
states, through cooperation and coordination, to manage the supply in
the Colorado River up until now. The most recent addition to that body
is the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan. The Lower Division
states (Arizona, California, Nevada) and Upper Division states
(Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) are actively coordinating on
additional Upper and Lower Basin actions under the Drought Contingency
Plans. At the same time, all seven states have begun coordination with
the Department of the Interior to replace the 2007 ``Colorado River
Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated
Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead'' which expire at the end of
2025. The states are committed to working closely with the federal
government and other partners in the Basin to negotiate a new agreement
to replace the Guidelines.
New Mexico has entered into water rights settlements with its two
Colorado River Basin tribes: the Navajo Nation and the Jicarilla Apache
Nation; and consequently, does not have unresolved Indian water right
claims in the Colorado River Basin. Those settled claims are part of
New Mexico's 11.25 percent share of Colorado River water. New Mexico is
actively engaged with both tribes to implement projects to put their
water to beneficial use within New Mexico. In fact, these tribal
projects are the major remaining water development projects for New
Mexico within its 1948 Compact allocation.
As was the case for New Mexico, it is up to the individual states
to address the tribal claims in their respective states, and within
their respective apportionments, as identified in the 1922 and 1948
Compacts.
The existing precedents set by New Mexico for resolving Indian
water rights claims could be used as a roadmap on how to address the
tribal water and supply shortage issues in the entire Basin. In
addition to fitting within an individual state's compact share, the
settlement agreements include shortage sharing provisions. That means,
for New Mexico, that supply shortages will be shared in accordance with
the shortage-sharing provisions included in its tribal settlements.
Moreover, the Upper Division states have been taking water
shortages for at least the past two decades. In New Mexico, water
shortages occur annually in the San Juan River Basin, including on the
Animas and La Plata tributaries. In addition, the San Juan-Chama
Project, New Mexico's major trans-basin diversion project authorized by
Congress in 1962, has experienced shortage in its water supply of
between 10 and 15 percent, particularly during the past decade. The
shortage experienced by this project in 2021 was approximately 40
percent of a full supply. New Mexico and its water users have learned
how to manage through such water shortages according to the Law of the
River and through Indian water rights settlements.
We all know more about the Colorado River system today than we did
in 1922, and we are all concerned about additional aridification due to
climate change. That knowledge, the collective operating experience of
the federal government and the states, and the spirit of cooperation
that is the hallmark of the Colorado River Basin will be useful tools
to address the challenges we will face in the future.
______
Mr. Huffman. Mr. D'Antonio, thank you for your technical
perseverance.
And Ranking Member Bentz, thank you for your forbearance.
You are up. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start with Mr.
Tyrrell from Wyoming.
You mentioned, Mr. Tyrrell, watersheds and forest
restoration as something, of things that need to happen. Here
in Oregon, we agree with you completely that watersheds are an
absolutely essential part of our water systems, and that forest
restoration is an absolutely essential activity.
But, sadly, we can't seem to get into the forest. And there
is a prohibition almost upon cutting down a tree, or trying to
remove junipers or other things that would actually help
dramatically in improving the watershed and our water supply.
It is the craziest thing, when we all know that good things can
happen if we can get into the forest, but we can't seem to get
there.
So, my question to you, is the same thing happening in
Wyoming? And if so, what are you doing about it?
Mr. Tyrrell. Thank you for the question, Representative
Bentz. I don't know that I can speak greatly to Wyoming's
forests right now, other than in access to them. We have also
been not quite like Oregon this year, but the victim of fires
in recent years. The Mullen fire last year, west of Laramie,
was horrible.
And in my view, if we are interested in hydrologic health
of forests and rivers, that points backward to a healthy
forest. Whether it is removing fuels or just having healthy
growth, forests are valuable for the water they can hold in the
winter, in terms of snow, and in maintaining many riparian and
stream flow areas for both the environment and for people who
rely on the water. So, it would seem to me that looking at
forest health can do nothing but help our conditions on the
river.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. And shifting to Ms. Mitchell from
Colorado, there is a lot of talk and a lot of reference to
collaboration and conservation, and words like that. Pretty
general.
What I would be interested in knowing is if a study has
been done in your state to determine, first of all, what sort
of conservation might actually be available. And if
implemented, how much water you could actually save. And this
question I could ask of any one of the seven states before us,
so I don't want to pick on you particularly, but I think you
did mention collaboration, certainty, and other words like
that. So, that is why I am asking you the question.
Can you give us some idea of how much water is available,
if you were able to implement conservation across the board in
your state?
Ms. Mitchell. Yes, and thank you for that question,
Congressman Bentz.
As part of our work through our Colorado water plan,
conservation has been one of the pillars that has stood up in
how we move forward to a long-range future of water for
Colorado. And conservation being highlighted in that is just
one of the solutions. There is quantification in that to some
level, along with goals, but that is not just in the Colorado
River Basin, it is across the entire state.
There is a goal of over 400,000 acre-feet of conservation
measures to take place. But that is across the state. I would
have to get back to you on exacts of what would potentially be
possible, not all of our state is in the Colorado River Basin.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you for that. I would love to see those
numbers. And if they exist somewhere, please share them.
Mr. Shawcroft of Utah, there is an unfortunate focus on
agriculture as the source of water in situations like this. And
the result, of course, is that agriculture gets cut off,
because there are a lot more people in cities than there are on
farms.
My question to you is, what should the farmers be doing,
given this focus that they find themselves squarely within?
Mr. Shawcroft. Thank you for the question. You are exactly
right. A large majority of the water in Utah, and I believe the
other states, as well, is used for agriculture. And I agree
with you that many times agriculture gets a bad name for using
water, or wasting water, when in reality a farmer uses water,
what he diverts, part of that is used by the production of the
crop. Part of that returns to the river, which turns out to be
the next appropriator's water supply.
So, it is not as simple as some people think, simply
diminishing use for agriculture automatically produces water
for culinary purposes. In my mind, it has to be a market-based
situation, where there is an advantage for those who are using
water that has historically been used for agriculture to move
it to municipal. And that is typically how it has been done in
Utah, and it happens quite comfortably, if those conditions are
set: willing buyer, willing seller.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Bentz. We are glad to be joined
by two Members of the Nevada Delegation for the next set of
questions, so we will now recognize Representative Dina Titus
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving us
an opportunity to sit in on this very informative panel.
I represent the heart of the Las Vegas Valley. We have over
2 million people there and 40 million tourists coming every
year, so the water in the Colorado River that goes to supply us
is a very important issue. I would like to address our
representative, Mr. Entsminger.
There are three factors happening here, all at the same
time.
One, southern Nevada is one of the fastest growing areas in
the country and increased by 18 percent over the last decade.
But this has been going on for much longer than that. We went
from 1.3 million folks to 2.3 million between 2002 and today.
There was a time when you had to build an elementary school a
month to keep up with the growth. So, growth is one factor.
Second, we are the fastest warming community in the
country. I think you called it aridification. So, that is the
second factor.
Third, we have the smallest amount of water in the
allocation from the river to start with. Yet, I think we are
one of the best stewards of the amount that we do get.
I was really glad that you mentioned in your comments the
Large Scale Water Recycling Project Investment Act, which I am
a co-sponsor of, and pointed out that money that will go toward
water projects in the bills that are being considered for
infrastructure.
All this time these three factors are going on, though, we
have reduced our consumption of water. It is pretty amazing how
we have been able to do that. Could you talk about how we can
sustain growth or continue growth, while also reducing our
consumption of water from the river?
Mr. Entsminger. Absolutely, Representative Titus. And as
you said, it is good to see a couple of friendly Nevada faces
on the call, after being outnumbered by the New Mexicans for
most of the hearing.
As you say, since 2002, we have reduced our depletions off
of the Colorado River by 23 percent, while at the same time
adding over 800,000 new residents. And we did that largely by
taking out turf. But we have arrived at a place where, in order
to continue to accommodate the type of growth we are seeing, we
need to continue on that conservation journey. And that is why
the Nevada legislature adopted this year Assembly Bill 356,
which prohibits the use of Colorado River water for non-
functional turf in the Las Vegas Valley by 2026, and that will
save about 10 percent of our Colorado River allocation, just by
getting grass out of street medians and places where nobody's
kids or grandkids are using it.
So, the key to our journey is continuing to control our
demands because, as you say, climate change isn't doing us any
favors, either. We estimate that our gallons per capita per day
will go up by 9 gallons between today and 2035, just because of
increased warming.
Ms. Titus. Well, I know you had that great project, where
you could convert your yard to desert landscaping, and I think
that was a big success. Could you just share with us a little
about how that worked?
Mr. Entsminger. Absolutely. We refer to that as our Waters
Smart Landscape Program. Right now, we pay $3 a square foot to
incentivize people to take out grass. And the results have been
pretty staggering. Again, since the turn of the century we
spent about $250 million of local funds to fund that program.
And as a result of that, you could actually lay an 18-inch wide
piece of sod around the circumference of the Earth at the
equator with all the grass that we have removed from the
Valley.
Ms. Titus. Wow. People think about Las Vegas and golf
courses, and big resorts, and fountains, and things that--but
in reality, they use only a small percentage of the water that
is consumed here in the Valley. Is that right?
Mr. Entsminger. That is correct. Well, actually, Clark
County, which is home to 76 percent of the state's population,
uses less than 5 percent of the water that is available within
the state of Nevada. And if you look at that resort industry,
that, as you said, brings in 45-ish million visitors a year,
they use less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the water that is
available within the state of Nevada.
Ms. Titus. Are you working with DRI on any water
conservation projects?
Mr. Entsminger. Yes, I am fortunate enough to sit on the
board of trustees for the Desert Research Institute, and we
coordinate with them regularly, both on conservation
initiatives, water quality issues in Lake Mead, and any number
of other scientific endeavors.
Ms. Titus. Are you involved at all with the St. George
Water Project just north of here?
Mr. Entsminger. I am not, but Mr. Shawcroft is here, if you
would like to ask him about that.
Ms. Titus. I will save that for next time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Representative Titus. And we are
going to go to your Nevada neighbor.
Congresswoman Susie Lee, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Chair Huffman, and thank you, Ranking
Member Bentz, for hosting this really important meeting, and to
all of our witnesses for their excellent testimony.
As Congresswoman Titus said, southern Nevada and the entire
Southwest is facing unprecedented drought. As we know, in my
district, Lake Mead, which supplies water for over 25 million
people across Nevada, Arizona, and California, is at its lowest
level since construction in the thirties.
And to help address this crisis, so much more must be done
to accurately measure consumptive use, which includes programs
like OpenET. And I want to thank Mr. Tyrrell and Mr. Shawcroft
for recognizing the importance of this program in their
testimony, which, Congresswoman Titus, was developed through
Desert Research Institute.
Here in the House I have introduced the Open Access
Evapotranspiration Data Act--that is a long word--OpenET, with
fellow colleagues of this Committee to establish a program
under the Department of the Interior that uses publicly
available data from satellites and weather stations to provide
measurements and estimates of evapotranspiration and help water
managers, farmers, and ranchers make decisions about their
water use.
And I have also been working to secure Federal funding for
the large scale water recycling projects. In fact, my
colleagues on this Committee--along with them, the Large Scale
Water Recycling Investment Act was included in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Bill.
Mr. Entsminger, as you mentioned in your testimony, the
Southern Nevada Water Authority is partnering with Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California on a multi-billion-dollar
regional water recycling project. Can you speak to how this
proposed project will provide tangible benefits to Nevada,
California, and other communities along the Colorado River
Basin?
Mr. Entsminger. Absolutely. So, in its simplest
explanation, what the Met project will do is take wastewater
that is currently being discharged into the Pacific Ocean--and
thereby can't be utilized--treat that, either inject it into
aquifers in Southern California, or perhaps even take it to
direct potable reuse, thereby extending the use of that water
in Southern California.
And, in concept, what we have discussed with Met is that
Southern Nevada Water Authority would invest $750 million
toward the capital needs of that project. And in return for
that, Metropolitan would leave a small amount of their Colorado
River entitlement in Lake Mead for our use over the period of
the project.
And I believe the Central Arizona Water Conservancy
District has now also signed on to participate in that project.
So, in a very real way, with the funding that is in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, this is a regional project with
large amounts of funding from local agencies, but also
partnership with our Federal partners.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you. And how would you rank this in our
fight against the worsening drought, in all of the tools in
your toolbox?
Mr. Entsminger. Well, I think what I would say is, of all
the testimony we have heard today, that is the only project
that is actually adding new water into the fight against the
problem. We have talked a lot about how to use less, and how
many more needs there are, but in terms of introducing real,
wet water that is not currently available, that is the project
and the model for the future.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you. I am actually looking out on my
backyard, which does have artificial turf as part of the Water
Smart project, so we have been fighting to combat drought, as a
member of Appropriations, with such activities.
So, in addition to supporting regional recycled water
partnerships, are there any other specific types of investments
in water-related climate resilience in the Colorado River Basin
that need Federal assistance?
Mr. Entsminger. Well, I think the most obvious one is there
is a Federal obligation contained in the DCP to contribute
100,000 acre-feet a year to the protection of Lake Mead
elevations. And while Reclamation has done a good job trying to
meet that obligation, they haven't quite gotten all 100,000
acre-feet a year. So, I think, providing Reclamation with
additional funding so that they can meet that goal, but also
expand the programs that Mr. Buschatzke talked about in his
testimony in terms of agreements with some of the tribes in
Arizona and expanding system conservation efforts, would be a
good use of Federal funds.
Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield.
Mr. Huffman. I thank our colleagues from Nevada for closing
us out on, I think, a more hopeful note, talking about some
projects and strategies that can really make a difference in
addressing these challenges.
I want to thank the witnesses for their----
Mr. Costa. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Huffman. Yes, sir?
Mr. Costa. Was I going to get a chance to ask questions?
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Costa, of course. Of course, we want to
include you. I didn't have that in my notes, that you wanted to
jump in, but you are recognized.
Mr. Costa. I have been listening tentatively to all the
debate and appreciate it very much from both panels. Thank you.
Let me make two statements, and then ask what my father
would say is the $64,000 question. But, based upon the value of
water per acre-foot these days, I suspect it is a lot more than
$64,000.
The first statement is that I subscribe to some of the
comments that you made earlier, that our water allocation for
the production of food is a national security issue. It really
is. Less than 5 percent of our Nation's population is engaged
in agriculture production. But a majority of Americans, maybe
as a result of the pandemic, with schools and restaurants
closed, began to understand that food doesn't come from your
restaurant, or your favorite store, but it comes from people
and farm workers and farmers throughout the country, who put it
on America's dinner table every night.
The second point I want to make has been part of the
witnesses' statements here that we have heard this afternoon,
and it is not new, and it is something I think we all subscribe
to, and that is using all the water tools in our water toolbox.
And I would be interested--Ms. Mitchell talked about
quantification and the pillar of conservation, and I strongly
subscribe to that notion, because we have done a lot in
conservation. But I think, for all of the witnesses, it would
be nice if we could quantify how much more we can build upon,
in terms of conservation as a part of one of the water tools in
our water toolbox.
But let me get back to the point I made in my opening
statement, which was that the law of the river and the
quantification of the Upper and the Lower Basin states amounted
to some 17 million acre-feet of water, that it was determined
at that time was the annual flow of the Colorado River. And we
know that in the last two decades it has been more like 12.4
million acre-feet, and that doesn't account for other Native
American tribes that have reserved water rights claims that
have yet to be resolved. So, there is just a tremendous amount
of demand. And with climate change, we know the yield is only
going to decline.
So, this is the question I would like to submit to all of
you. And if you want to provide a written statement for your
answer, I think we would appreciate that. Let's say the annual
yield over the next 30 years is 10 million acre-feet. I don't
know, with climate change, maybe it is plus or minus. How do we
take into account how we got to the original allocation with
the Upper and Lower Basin states and the tribes, the sovereign
nations, and then reallocate that on a lot less water?
That is the $64,000 question, but it is also a lot more
than that because, frankly, of the value and the importance of
water security to everybody, everybody.
It was so difficult to agree upon 17 million acre-feet,
which we know now is not there. How do we agree among the Upper
and Lower Basin states, and the Native tribes on a reduced
amount, knowing that we are all going to use all the water
tools in our water toolbox, and we are going to conserve, and
we are going to do all that stuff, OK? So, that is the $64,000
question.
Mr. Huffman. In a minute and 34 seconds, do any of the
witnesses want to answer Mr. Costa's Hunger Game scenario of
how we get through that kind of shortfall?
Mr. Nelson. Congressman Costa, I will take a first crack at
it.
The law of the river is a series of agreements, court
adjudications all down the line, the DCP being the most recent
one. I have been on several panels that the question is, is the
DCP enough?
Mr. Costa. I know, and I was involved in the Quantification
Agreement a number of years ago, and that was a success of
sorts.
Mr. Nelson. Very much a success to reduce water use in
California.
So, when you look at that progression, it is an incremental
change. And currently we are in the process of meeting quite
frequently with the Lower Basin and the Upper Basin and the
seven Basin states, in trying to quantify additional measures
of conservation that we can do in the interim, but also working
on the 2026 guidelines. So, it is really a series of
collaborative work together that tries to (1) quantify, and (2)
develop the areas in which we are going to make those
conservation investments.
Mr. Costa. Would it be too easy to digest that we use all
the water tools in the water toolbox, and we measure what that
adds up to, and then we take the percentage of water that was
allocated, and the difficult law of the river contract and, on
a percentage basis, reduce it by that factor to 10 million
acre-feet, or whatever we determine the yield to be?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, one of the challenges with that is the
long-term water rights that folks have----
Mr. Costa. I know, I know.
Mr. Nelson. So, that is the challenge. And it is a
collaborative process to get through that.
And I will say one thing--I notice that you, and no
disrespect, I notice a number of folks had lunch during the
panel today. And I take your comments to heart, and the food
that we eat actually comes from water. And food security is an
important issue. And food equals water, and we all are a part
of that process, and the food production cycle is very
important.
Mr. Costa. Well, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and I look forward to continuing to work on this.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. It is a great question you ended
with, and I am sure that, if any witness wants to provide any
written supplemental answers to that or any other questions, we
would all be happy to see it.
Let me just check to see if there are any other colleagues
that were hoping to jump in with questions. I don't want to
overlook anyone. But I don't think there are.
So, I think, at this point, we are going to bring this
first day of our Colorado River Basin hearing to a close.
Again, thanks to the witnesses on this second panel, and to
all the Members for their great questions.
Members of the Committee may have some additional questions
for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in
writing. Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee
must submit those witness questions within 3 business days
after the hearing, and the record will be held open for 10
business days to allow for responses.
If there is no further business, and seeing none, then,
without objection, the Committee stands adjourned. Thanks.
[Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
I want to thank Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member Bentz for
holding two days of hearings on the dire drought conditions in the
Colorado River Basin. This is such an important topic and one that I
have been invested in well before I came to Congress.
I also want to thank and welcome Metropolitan Water District's new
GM, Adel Hagekhalil, for being here, and to the Subcommittee and the
Chair for inviting him to testify.
I can't think of a better witness than Metropolitan to be here
today due to their vast history and knowledge with this river system.
The Colorado River Aqueduct, built and operated by MWD, provides about
25% of the water used in their service area. For the past two decades,
MWD has been committed to increasing the sustainability of the Colorado
River by building partnerships inside and outside California based on
conservation, storage, and reuse.
An example of one of these partnerships is the proposed partnership
between Metropolitan, the LA County Sanitation District, the Southern
Nevada Water Authority, Central Arizona Water Conservation District,
and the Arizona Department of Water Resources, to develop the largest
wastewater purification facility in the US, known as the Regional
Recycled Water Project. This multi-billion-dollar project would produce
168,000 acre-feet of water annually, enough for more than 500,000
households.
This innovative recycling project represents an opportunity for
three states in the Basin to improve their water supply reliability
through a single project. It could transform how water is managed in
the Basin and become a model for future interstate partnerships.
Due to the high price tag of this project, there currently aren't
any meaningful existing grant programs in the federal government to
adequately support it which is why I introduced H.R. 4099, which would
create a new grant program within the Bureau to support large-scale
recycling projects with an estimated cost of at least $500 million.
With the help of MWD and other local water agencies, Southern
California has continued to be a leader in modernizing water
infrastructure and working to reduce our reliance on imported water. LA
currently recycles more than 100 million gallons of water per day for
use in irrigation, industrial purposes, and groundwater recharge. But
as LA continues to grow, climate change becomes more severe, and
droughts only getting longer and harsher, now more than ever the
federal government should be stepping in to make adequate, long-term
financial investments into drought resilience and conservation
projects.
I again want to thank the Chairman and this Subcommittee for
holding this hearing. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and
continuing to work with the Bureau, Basin States, Tribes, environmental
organizations, water agencies, and all other stakeholders on the
Colorado River for a path forward to a more drought resilient West.
______
Submission for the Record by Rep. Huffman
Statement for the Record
Michael Cohen
Senior Associate, Pacific Institute
Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to
submit this written testimony. In the following I offer brief comments
on:
1. The drying of the West
2. The exemplary efforts of many Colorado River water users to adapt
to these conditions
3. The compelling need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because
adaptation will not be sufficient.
The Pacific Institute, a California-based non-profit, has
investigated and proposed solutions to Colorado River challenges for
thirty years. In 1993, Institute researchers produced Colorado river
basin and climatic change. The sensitivity of streamflow and water
supply to variations in temperature and precipitation for the U.S. EPA
(EPA230-R-93-009). We also participated in the development of Colorado
River surplus and shortage criteria and in the 2012 Basin Study.
The Drying of the West
Colorado River flows have decreased significantly over the past 100
years, from the 1922 Compact assumption that the river yielded more
than 16.5 million acre-feet (MAF) per year, to the 20th century annual
average of 15.2 MAF, to the Millennium drought average of less than
12.4 MAF. Yet we should not assume that runoff has now stabilized at
this dangerously low rate. Rather, in the face of continuing
anthropogenic climate change, we can expect to see Colorado River
runoff continue to decline, rapidly exhausting system storage and
imposing harsh and inequitable impacts on the people, environment, and
economies of the West.
The rate of the river's decline has exceeded climate scientists'
disturbing runoff projections. More than forty years ago, Stockton and
Boggess \1\ projected that a 2+C temperature increase and a 10%
decrease in precipitation could reduce annual upper basin runoff by a
third, to 9.75 MAF. In fact, this estimate is slightly higher than the
average annual natural Colorado River flow for the years 2000-2004 and
the estimated runoff in 2020 and 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CW Stockton and WR Boggess, 1979, Geohydrological implications
of climate change on water resource development, Fort Belvoir, VA: US
Army Coastal Engineering Research Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To its credit, the Bureau of Reclamation has recognized this
alarming trend and has updated and improved its modeling assumptions to
reflect the more recent dry period. Reclamation now projects that both
Lake Powell and Lake Mead could fall to critically low elevations in
the next several years--well before the current Interim Shortage
Guidelines expire.
The challenges confronting the Colorado River Basin extend
throughout the West. California just suffered its driest water year in
a century. In July, the Great Salt Lake fell to its lowest level in 60
years, likely reducing lake-effect snowfall on the ski resorts along
the Wasatch Front. The Salton Sea is now 43 square miles smaller than
it was when the Quantification Settlement Agreement was signed in 2003,
and 10.5 feet lower. Devastating forest fires have burned millions of
acres, sterilizing soils and generating smoke that impairs air quality
across the nation. Farms and ranches that have been in families for
generations have folded in the absence of water. River rafters and fly
fishers have seen their seasons curtailed due to insufficient instream
flows. Hydropower generation has declined with falling reservoir
elevations. The West is drying.
Collaboration and Adaptation
Colorado River water users have taken dramatic and exemplary steps
to adapt to the drying West. Major cities have successfully decoupled
their water use from economic and population growth: Albuquerque and
Denver and Las Vegas and Los Angeles and Phoenix have added hundreds of
thousands of people and seen significant economic expansion yet use
less water than they did twenty and even thirty years ago. In 2020, the
Imperial Irrigation District--the largest single user of Colorado River
water--consumed 20% less water than it did in 2002 while still
irrigating 98% of the land, using 0.66 MAF less water overall. This
conservation and efficiency helps to maintain agricultural productivity
while providing resilience for southern California cities during the
state's punishing drought and reduces demand on the river.
In the most recent five-year period (2016-2020), annual Colorado
River consumptive use by the lower basin states averaged 6.89 MAF, well
below their annual 7.5 MAF compact entitlement. Lower Basin consumptive
use of Colorado River water declined by more than 1.6 MAF from its high
point in 2002 to 2020. Lower Basin users and the Republic of Mexico
have ``stored'' some 4 MAF of water in Lake Mead, delaying the shortage
declaration until this year and enabling users to better prepare for a
drier future. Water agencies in the U.S. are now investing in water
conservation and efficiency projects in Mexico--in a foreign country!--
and agencies in Arizona and Nevada are in discussions to invest in a
water recycling project in California. One of the basin's four
endangered fish species--the humpback chub (Gila cypha)--was just
downlisted to threatened earlier this week, and another may be
downlisted in the near future, reflecting the success of upper basin
fish recovery programs. California has invested hundreds of millions of
dollars in Salton Sea projects and, with additional federal financial
and technical support, can begin to make real progress to protect
ecological and human health and ensure the long-term viability of the
nation's largest agriculture-to-urban water transfer.
An amazing level of cooperation, trust, financial investments, and
measurable actions by stakeholders have generated these remarkable
achievements. The basin is a model, studied internationally, for its
ability to set aside the traditional tools of litigation in favor of
collaborative investments in conservation and efficiency. Credible
science and modeling have supported these efforts, improving water
users' understanding of the river system and the potential impacts of
proposed actions. A network of bold and innovative thinkers from a
variety of sectors, a willingness to (slowly) enlarge the negotiating
table, and many, many years of discussions and outreach and hard work
made this progress possible.
Adaptation is not sufficient
The basin's extraordinary collaboration and cooperation and
dramatic reductions in total consumptive water use over the past twenty
years postponed the declaration of a shortage for the Lower Basin by
several years, building a bridge toward water supply security and
certainty. But the climate change-generated chasm separating us from
that security and certainty grows ever wider. Simply put, if we fail to
address the root cause of the worsening crisis in the West and slow the
rate of climate change, we will never complete that bridge.
Climate change is occurring faster than projected. Its impacts have
been more severe. In the Colorado River basin, the rate at which runoff
has declined has exceeded even the extraordinary efforts by water users
to conserve. The elevation of Lake Mead could fall another forty-four
feet in two years.
Water touches all of the West. Ranchers, farmers, tribes, fishing
and whitewater enthusiasts all depend on it. It supports growing cities
that have held their water demands flat (or have actually seen them
decline). We need to sustain the western way of life and take
aggressive actions to diminish the rate at which western water supplies
are crashing.
Adaptation measures are not enough. Emergency drought responses are
not enough. Alleviating the symptoms is not enough. It's time to
confront the clear cause of the long-term and intensifying drying of
the American West. Privileging and protecting a narrow set of
extractive industries at the expense of the western way of life should
no longer be tolerated.
Congress needs to enact aggressive climate mitigation legislation
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while continuing to support the
impressive and innovative adaptation efforts that have enabled many in
the West to postpone the worst impacts of the accelerating crisis.
# # #
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON COLORADO RIVER DROUGHT CONDITIONS AND RESPONSE
MEASURES--PART 2
----------
Wednesday, October 20, 2021
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., via
Webex, Hon. Jared Huffman [Chairman of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Huffman, Costa, Grijalva, Levin,
Lowenthal, Soto; Bentz, Boebert, Fulcher, Gonzalez-Colon, and
Westerman.
Also present: Representatives Gosar and Susie Lee.
Mr. Huffman. Good afternoon, everyone. The Subcommittee on
Water, Oceans, and Wildlife will come to order. Good morning,
rather, I should say.
The Subcommittee is meeting today, this is Day 2 of our
hearing on Colorado River drought conditions and response
measures. Obviously, a very important subject.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
this hearing are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Member.
This allows us to hear from our witnesses sooner, and allows
Members to better keep their schedules.
In addition, please note that, as with our in-person
meetings, Members are responsible for their own microphones.
So, please remember that you can be muted by staff only to
avoid inadvertent background noises.
Finally, Members or witnesses who experience technical
problems should inform Committee staff immediately.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes to make an
opening statement.
THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thanks again, everyone, for joining us for the
second of our two meetings on Colorado River drought conditions
and response measures.
As we heard during our first meeting on this very important
subject last week, the Colorado River, which serves 40 million
people and fuels $1.4 trillion in economic activity every
single year, is currently experiencing a 21-year drought that
is greatly exacerbated by climate change.
Last week, we heard testimony from the Interior Department
about the unprecedented drought conditions that we are seeing.
In August, the Department made its first-ever shortage
declaration in the Lower Colorado River Basin, and
unprecedented actions were taken in the Upper Basin, as well,
to slow the declining water levels at key reservoirs--levels
that haven't been seen in decades.
We will hear about some of the creative problem solving
today in testimony from the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California. That is an important part of this
conversation, and I will note that Met is the largest treated
drinking water provider in the United States, serving 19
million people. Met is also collaborating with water managers
in Nevada and Arizona to advance a large-scale water recycling
project that, once it is built, can deliver enough drought-
proof water supplies for half-a-million households. As we heard
in testimony last week from California, Nevada, and Arizona,
innovative projects like what you will hear about from
Metropolitan are going to be needed to respond to changing
climate conditions.
Last week, we also heard from two witnesses representing
Tribal Nations. We will continue that discussion today on the
need to account for tribal water needs across the Colorado
River Basin, and there are 30 Tribal Nations in the Basin. We
noted that last week, under the Winters Doctrine, which was
first recognized by the Supreme Court in 1908, these tribes
have significant legal rights to enough water from the Colorado
River to secure and maintain viable homelands. But these tribal
communities still face significant water access barriers with
devastating consequences.
For example, according to the Center for Disease Control,
American Indians and Alaska Natives are more likely than any
other ethnic or racial group to be hospitalized or die from
COVID-19. The data shows that one of the main factors
contributing to this elevated hospitalization and death rate is
limited access to running water. These and other consequences
of limited running water access simply have to be addressed.
We will also hear more today about environmental water
needs in the Basin, as declining water flows and high
temperatures severely impact fish and wildlife. Low water
levels are also accelerating the spread of invasive, non-native
species, reducing critical habitat, and contributing to an
ecological and human health crisis at the Salton Sea.
As the Salton Sea shrinks, due to reduced inflows and other
factors, important Pacific Flyway habitat is lost, and exposed
lakebed is causing harmful air quality challenges for many
communities. Addressing these environmental challenges must be
a major focus, as well, as we move forward.
While we face a lot of major challenges in the Colorado
River Basin, I must note we also have some effective tools in
place to help respond to our current drought conditions. This
includes the measures that we included in the Colorado River
Drought Contingency Plan, which was authorized through
legislation led by Chairman Grijalva in the last Congress.
And many other initiatives are being led by members of this
Committee to help address challenges that we will hear more
about today. That includes measures for near-term drought
response, investments in water rights settlements, water data
and technology developments, resources for the Salton Sea
improvement projects, and investments in drought-proof water
recycling projects.
I look forward to hearing from our panel of expert
witnesses today on these and other response measures.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, Chair, Subcommittee on
Water, Oceans and Wildlife
Thank you for joining us today for the second of two meetings on
``Colorado River drought conditions and response measures.''
As we heard during our first meeting on this important subject last
week, the Colorado River--which serves 40 million people and fuels $1.4
trillion in economic activity each year--is currently experiencing a
21-year drought that is greatly exacerbated by climate change.
Last week, we heard testimony from the Interior Department about
the unprecedented drought conditions we're now seeing. In August, the
Department made the first-ever ``shortage'' declaration in the Lower
Colorado River Basin, and unprecedented actions were taken in the Upper
Basin as well to slow declining water levels at key reservoirs that
haven't been seen in decades.
Last week, we also heard testimony from the representatives of
seven states who described how they're working to share water supplies
from a river that's greatly overallocated. We'll hear more about that
today.
There are legal entitlements to the use of 17.5 million acre-feet
of water each year from the Colorado River. In the 21st century, the
river's natural flow has averaged just 12.4 million acre-feet.
Meanwhile, climate scientists are urging us to prepare for even less
due to climate shifts that are bringing about even drier conditions
across the Southwest.
Adjusting to these new, drier conditions will be one of the biggest
climate challenges we face. Fortunately, parties across the Colorado
River Basin have a long history of collaboration and creative problem
solving. Those skills will be needed in the period ahead.
We'll hear about some of that creative problem solving today in
testimony from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--
the largest treated drinking water provider in the United States, which
serves 19 million people. Metropolitan is collaborating with water
managers in Nevada and Arizona to advance a large-scale water recycling
project that, once built, can deliver enough drought-proof water
supplies for half a million households. As we heard in testimony last
week from California, Nevada, and Arizona, innovative projects like
this will be needed to respond to changing climate conditions.
Last week, we also heard from two witnesses representing Tribal
Nations. We'll continue the discussion today on the need to account for
tribal water needs across the Colorado River Basin.
There are 30 Tribal Nations in the Colorado River Basin. Under the
Winters doctrine--which was first recognized by the Supreme Court in
1908--these Tribes have significant legal rights to enough water from
the Colorado River to secure and maintain viable homelands. And yet
tribal communities still face significant water access barriers with
devastating consequences.
For example, according to the Centers for Disease Control, American
Indians and Alaska Natives are more likely than any other ethnic or
racial group to be hospitalized or die from COVID-19. The data show
that one of the main factors contributing to this elevated
hospitalization and death rate is limited access to running water.
These and other consequences of limited running water access must be
addressed.
We'll also hear more today about environmental water needs in the
Basin as declining water flows and high temperatures severely impact
fish and wildlife.
Low water levels are also accelerating the spread of invasive non-
native species, reducing critical habitat, and contributing to an
ecological and human health crisis at the Salton Sea. As the Salton Sea
shrinks due to reduced inflows and other factors, important Pacific
Flyway habitat is lost and exposed lakebed is causing harmful air
quality challenges for many communities. Addressing these environmental
challenges must be a major focus as well moving forward.
While we face major challenges in the Colorado River Basin, I must
note that we also have some effective tools in place to help respond to
our current drought conditions. This includes the measures included in
the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan, which was authorized
through legislation led by Chair Grijalva last Congress.
Many other initiatives are being led by members of this Committee
to help address challenges that we'll hear more about today, including
measures for near-term drought response, investments in water rights
settlements, water data and technology development, resources for
Salton Sea improvement projects, and investments in drought-proof water
recycling projects.
I look forward to hearing from our panel of expert witnesses today
on these and other response measures.
______
Mr. Huffman. And with that, I would like to recognize
Ranking Member Bentz for any remarks that he may wish to give.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today marks the second
hearing on the important topic of drought in the seven-state
Colorado River Basin. We heard last week from federal, tribal,
and state witnesses, whereas today we hear from water managers,
farmers, ranchers, and others who are experiencing the
firsthand impacts of drought.
Some of the witnesses here today are, literally, on the
front lines of the devastating drought. In the cases of water
managers, they answer to their ratepayers and their boards, and
in the cases of farmers and ranchers, they have to put food on
their own table, while providing agricultural commodities for
the rest of America. And as we heard last week, and as we will
hear today, they and most everyone else are extremely concerned
that another year of this drought will make matters extremely
worse.
The issues facing the Colorado River Basin are identical to
what communities throughout much of the West are experiencing.
As I indicated last week, the development of the Colorado River
has helped create the vast cities of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt
Lake City, and Denver. And its hydropower, historically, has
been a cheaper renewable alternative to fossil energy for over
4 million electricity consumers in the Basin.
The river also irrigates nearly 5.5 million acres of
farmland, providing an assortment of crops that have created a
massive regional agricultural economy. As we have heard from
nearly everyone last week, and what we will hear today, is that
the math is no longer adding up because of the 20-year-long
drought. The question, then, is over what to do about it, both
short-term and long-term.
From a historical perspective, the states and
constituencies in the Federal Government have managed to find
agreement on the Colorado River matters, even on endangered
species programs. In fact, they are now living under their
agreed-upon Drought Contingency Plans that were enacted in the
last Congress, and mentioned earlier by the Chair. While the
Drought Contingency Plans and other matters expire in 2026, the
states and other stakeholders are beginning the process to find
resolution beyond that time frame, and we heard general words
such as the ``need for collaboration and cooperation and
conservation.''
But to what end? Have studies been done to determine how
much water will be saved, how much found, how much reused? I
hope today's witnesses will touch on these matters.
Certainly, one message that a drought should send loud and
clear to everyone is we need to manage our forests better. A
healthy forest means a healthy working watershed and more water
for other uses. Mr. Pat O'Toole, who is, literally, on the
ground, living this on a daily basis on his working ranch in
Wyoming and Colorado, will tell us firsthand that forests and
rangeland restoration can provide some water supply solutions.
Mr. O'Toole, Mr. Tom Davis, and others will also address
what is called demand management, which could end up being
water reallocated from agriculture to other purposes. As we
heard last week, this could have a negative impact on rural
communities and could end up harming those downstream who rely
on agricultural return flows.
The fact is, and we all know it, there are no easy, simple
solutions. It will take everyone in the region, once again, to
roll up their sleeves. Today's debate is another excellent
start.
I appreciate everyone's participation in today's hearing
and I look forward to the testimony.
Mr. Chair, I thank you for holding a hearing on this
important issue, and I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Ranking Member Bentz. I am told
that the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Westerman,
may wish to make some opening remarks.
Mr. Westerman, are you with us?
Mr. Bentz. He is not here yet, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Huffman. OK, well, very good. We will go ahead and
proceed then to hear from the witnesses.
Before introducing our witnesses today, I want to remind
everyone the witnesses are encouraged to participate in our
Witness Diversity Survey created by the Congressional Office of
Diversity and Inclusion. Witnesses may refer to the hearing
invitation materials for further information about that.
Under our Committee Rules, witnesses must limit oral
statements to 5 minutes, but your entire written statement will
appear in the Committee record.
When you begin speaking, the timer will start counting
down, and it turns orange when you have 1 minute remaining. I
want to recommend that Members and witnesses use the grid view
in Webex, so that you can lock the timer on your screen. That
just makes everything much easier.
After your testimony is complete, please remember to mute
yourself to avoid any inadvertent background noise. The flip
side of that is, when I recognize you, please unmute yourself,
so we can hear from you right away without delay.
I will allow all the witnesses to finish their testimony
before we begin questions from Members.
We will begin testimony from Mr. Adel Hagekhalil, General
Manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California.
And I am sorry, I think I mispronounced your name, sir--I
believe it is Hagekhalil. So, welcome, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ADEL HAGEKHALIL, GENERAL MANAGER, METROPOLITAN
WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Hagekhalil. Good morning and thank you, Chairman
Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I
have submitted formal written testimony for your consideration.
In my time today, I wanted to share a few points of how
Metropolitan is approaching the challenge of the Colorado
River, a challenge that we must all solve together.
We are facing a new normal: hotter and drier days, and
shrinking runoff from our snowpacks. My recent testimony
itemizes the building blocks of success and collaboration we
have had in the past. We will need many, many more building
blocks, moving forward.
The enormity of this challenge, frankly, speaks for itself.
Leadership from the Federal Government and investments in new
projects and programs will be key to addressing the challenges
ahead. I wanted to go over three basic actions that I think
will compromise the building blocks of success.
The first thing for Southern California and our region is
to transform our water strategy. The new approach that I call
`One Water' is essential for us to move forward. One Water is
putting all of the pieces of water policy, of economic policy,
and community policy together into a single, unified regional
approach. One Water means lowering demand and making Southern
California one of the most efficient water societies in the
Nation.
Since 1990, we have invested $800 million in conservation
programs that reduced per capita water consumption by 40
percent.
One Water means converting wastewater and capturing
stormwater that now heads into the ocean into a resilient,
drought-proof supply. Through 100 local water supply projects,
470,000 acre-feet per year were created, enough for 1.5 million
households.
One Water means planning for climate change and variations
in our imported supplies from the Colorado and Northern
California.
One Water means building a new conveyance and new storage
to make this transformed system work better and more
resiliently for all of us. We started the year with 3.2 million
acre-feet of storage, with 1.3 million acre-feet in Lake Mead.
One Water means uniting Southern California's diverse
communities of all walks of life into a common purpose that
addresses the challenges, and does not leave our disadvantaged
communities behind. We will be focused on addressing leaky
pipes and direct installs for conservation measures in our
underserved communities.
The second set of actions is forging new interstate and
international partnerships and projects. Our partnership with
Southern Nevada Water Authority in Arizona to develop the
Nation's largest recycled water project, augmenting supplies
for both Southern California and the Colorado River, is a
perfect example of big and bold new actions we can take
together. This project will add 150 million gallons a day of
new local water supply, enough for 500,000 households.
Federal investments in projects like this will help build
resilience to future challenges in the Colorado Basin. My
agency shares a border with the country of Mexico, the Republic
of Mexico. We must make sure that there are no institutional
barriers to prevent progress, whether it is partnering to
improve agricultural efficiency, banking water behind Lake
Mead, or providing environmental flows. Breaking down barriers
is key to success. We have been able to realize 100,000 acre-
feet per year of water conservation with Mexico.
Lastly is to expand our partnership with our agricultural
partners. The Colorado River is not an urban challenge, it is
not an agricultural challenge, it is a shared resource, and a
shared challenge for all of us. Metropolitan works with the
farming community in California to find ways to use water more
efficiently and preserve and protect the underlying farming
economy. Our partnership with the Bard Water District is a very
promising example, how a farmer with seasonal crops can
maximize the value of their water when a crop in the winter
commands the best market price, and can sell water for storage
in the summer, when a summer crop requires significant water,
yet with less attractive market return.
While using the same partnership with our Watsonville
Indian Tribes as the example of partnership we need with tribal
communities.
In the Palo Verde Valley, Metropolitan continues to look
for innovative ways to make farming more water efficient, so
that fallowing is limited and the underlying farm economy
remains strong. We must show commitment to these communities.
Federal investments can help. With more than $20 million in
conservation investments, we are able to save 500,000 acre-feet
that we are able to leave in the river.
In the Imperial Valley, we must support ongoing and new
efforts to address and restore the shrinking Salton Sea,
because with that more conservation will be possible, and we
can leave more Colorado water in Lake Mead.
In closing, I would say this year has been a wake-up call
for all of us, for Southern California and the entire
Southwest. Climate change is converting modest snowpacks into
meager amounts of runoff. The year of abundance in the river is
over, and the era of shortage is upon us. Reversing the decline
of Lake Mead will not be easy, but I am sure we are able to do
it together, and be up to the challenge.
Through conservation, recycling, reuse, and collaboration,
One Water is the future vision for Southern California and the
river. Confronting the Colorado River challenge as One Water is
the solution for us all. Federal leadership and funding can
help us make this happen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hagekhalil follows:]
Prepared Statement of Adel Hagekhalil, General Manager and Chief
Executive Office of The Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California
Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, Representative Napolitano,
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss Metropolitan's work on the Colorado River. The Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) is the largest
treated drinking water provider in the United States. We are comprised
of 26-member public agencies, including 14 cities, 11 municipal water
districts, and one county water authority, that collectively serve
drinking water to approximately 19 million people and businesses in
more than 300 cities and numerous unincorporated communities in
Southern California.
Metropolitan was created by the California Legislature in 1928 for
the express purpose of building an aqueduct to provide Colorado River
water to Southern California. Delivery of Colorado River water to
Southern California began in 1941 and today, 80 years later, the
Colorado River remains a cornerstone of Southern California's water
supply portfolio.
As you are aware, the Colorado River is under strain and our
reliance is being challenged by climate change and unprecedented
drought. The Colorado River Basin has experienced historic drought
conditions since 2000. Over the last two decades, the average annual
flow of the Colorado River has declined by around one million acre-feet
(AF). In addition to less snowpack and other precipitation, hotter
temperatures have changed how the system behaves as well. In 2020,
precipitation in the basin measured 84% of normal, but the runoff
reaching the river and the reservoirs was only 33% of average. The
higher temperatures resulted in drier soil that absorbed more water,
plants bloomed earlier increasing evapotranspiration, and there were
higher evaporation rates from the snowpack and reservoirs.
As was discussed at the October 15 hearing, the Bureau
Reclamation's recently published forecasts show that Lake Powell may
get so low that it could result in loss of power production at Glen
Canyon Dam. Recently, the Secretary of the Interior declared the first
ever water shortage in the lower basin, resulting in cuts in water
deliveries to Arizona and Nevada as mandated under the 2007 Colorado
River Interim Guidelines.
While California is not subject to water curtailments under the
Interim Guidelines, we recognize that all of us across the West are
`one' when it comes to water. We must work together through a `One
Water' integrated approach to address water shortages. Metropolitan is
committed to working cooperatively within California, and with the
other basin states, the federal government, Mexico, tribes and other
stakeholders to find the necessary solutions to minimize the impacts of
reduced water supply reliability to all users.
Metropolitan's Approaches to Drought and Climate Change in the Colorado
River Basin
Metropolitan imports about half of Southern California's water
supply from the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct and
Northern California via the State Water Project. We have significantly
reduced our reliance on imported water through investments in local
supply development and conservation. Starting in the early 1980s, we
turned our focus toward helping our member agencies develop their own
local supplies within the region to augment our imported supplies. We
don't own any of these local projects, but we help finance them with
programs designed to defray the costs once the projects are operating.
For Metropolitan, these incentives have been a way to help our member
agencies develop more than 100 local supply projects yielding over
470,000 AF of water per year. We have also worked to make water
conservation a way of life in Southern California. Since 1990,
Metropolitan has invested over $800 million in conservation programs
providing rebates for toilets, turf removal, sprinklers and smart
irrigation controllers, and custom efficiency projects for businesses
and industries in our service area. These changes have helped cut the
average per capita potable water use from about 205 gallons per day in
1990 to 120 gallons per day now. With both of our imported water
supplies facing unprecedented drought, these investments are more
important than ever.
Storage is also an important tool to help us adapt to changing
water supply conditions and ensure reliability. In collaboration with
our member agencies and others we have significantly expanded our
region's storage capacity in recent decades. The cornerstone of this
investment is Diamond Valley Lake, a $2 billion reservoir located in
Riverside County that can hold 810,000 AF. We have also increased the
amount of water stored in Lake Mead through the Intentionally Created
Surplus program provided for in the 2007 Colorado River Interim
Guidelines and 2019 Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan. Thanks to
these agreements in the wet water years of 2017 and 2019, we were able
to conserve a significant amount of Colorado River water to build up
its storage account in Lake Mead. Today we have nearly 1.3 MAF stored
in Lake Mead, accounting for almost 17 feet of greater elevation.
As Peter Nelson, Chairman of the California Colorado River Board,
discussed at the October 15 hearing, water year 2021 was the second
driest on record in California. As the water year unfolded, and we had
only a 5% state water project allocation, we began operating the
Colorado River Aqueduct at its full eight pump flow capacity. We
thought we would even need to withdraw some of our reserve in Lake Mead
to meet demands in our service area. Then something unexpected
happened, thanks to conservation in our region, demands for water did
not materialize as we thought they would. Instead, we were able to
store a modest amount of water in Lake Mead during this very dry year.
As the drought worsens across the West, we will need to work together
to conserve water and develop local supplies to create a resilient
water portfolio for the entire Colorado River basin.
Collaboration and Partnerships on the River
The ongoing drought has placed the Basin States in new and ominous
territory. Augmenting supplies, reducing demands, and forging new
partnerships is the only way to bring supplies and demands into balance
on the River. Luckily the groundwork for the path forward is already in
the place. The lower basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada
have taken many steps to lower their overall demands on the Colorado
River. The year 2019 saw the Lower Basin States divert the least amount
of Colorado River water in over 50 years. Mexico has contributed to
meeting the challenge by leaving water in Lake Mead as well.
As the junior water rights holder in California, Metropolitan has
long recognized the benefits of collaboration and partnerships. The
Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) in 2003 helped reduce
California's lawful uses of Colorado River water down from 5.3 MAF to
California's basic apportionment of 4.4 MAF. For Metropolitan, this
meant reducing its historical use of Colorado River water from 1.25 MAF
per year to 550 TAF per year, plus any water management programs we
develop. Metropolitan has spent the last two decades fostering unique
and innovative partnerships in order to augment its basic apportionment
and to help fill its Colorado River Aqueduct, when needed. These
programs include storage/exchange programs with other Colorado River
users in California, including Coachella Valley Water District, Desert
Water Agency, and Imperial Irrigation District (IID).
We have also recently entered into a settlement agreement with IID
over the implementation of the Drought Contingency Plan. Under the
settlement agreement, IID can store additional amounts of conserved
water in Metropolitan's Lake Mead account. If Lake Mead continues
dropping to a level requiring California to make a contribution under
the Drought Contingency Plan, IID will help make that contribution. The
agreement allows Metropolitan and IID to resume negotiating new
solutions to address the imbalance on the Colorado River. We will work
together to explore ways to improve Lake Mead's drought resilience and
secure state and federal funding for the Salton Sea.
a. Agricultural Partnerships
Metropolitan has a long history of collaborating with farmers and
agricultural districts. These win-win partnerships provide flexible and
affordable water supplies for cities across Southern California. At the
same time, the programs support the local agricultural economies by
providing a stable source of income for farmers and funding system
improvements for participating irrigation districts.
In 2005, we entered into a long-standing partnership with the Palo
Verde Irrigation District. As part of this landmark land fallowing
program, farmers are paid to refrain from irrigating between 7 and 28
percent of the valley's land at Metropolitan's call. This water is then
made available to communities in our service area. As part of the
program, Metropolitan invested $6 million in a fund administered by
local authorities to provide benefits to the Palo Verde Valley
community. To date, the money has been spent on activities including
small business grants and keeping the local swimming pool open during
local budget shortfalls. This 35-year agreement is a critical component
of our commitment to finding innovative ways to expand our water
resource portfolio.
We also have a partnership with Bard Water District. Bard is
located within the Yuma Project in Southeast California and receives
water from the Colorado River via the All-American Canal. Metropolitan
and Bard Water District developed a seasonal fallowing program to
augment water supplies for our service area and support Bard's
agricultural economy. Under a 7-year agreement through 2026,
participating farmers avoid planting lower-value, higher water-
intensive crops during the spring and summer in exchange for financial
incentives. In the winter and fall the farmers continue to plant
higher-value crops, such as vegetables and lettuce varieties, which use
less water. The conserved water is made available to Metropolitan for
use in its service area, or to store in Lake Mead for future use. As
part of the agreement, 25 percent of Metropolitan's payments fund
improvements to Bard's water infrastructure.
Also located within the Yuma Project, Metropolitan developed a
forbearance program with the Quechan Indian Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Indian Reservation (Quechan Tribe). Under the terms of the agreement,
Metropolitan provides incentive payments to the Quechan Tribe to limit
its share of Colorado River water used on the reservation.
b. Interstate Partnerships
Over the past decade, Metropolitan has teamed up with Southern
Nevada Water Authority, Central Arizona Water Conservation District and
the Bureau of Reclamation to fund projects that conserve water for the
benefit of the Colorado River. The system conservation effort, which
adds water to Lakes Powell and Mead, was expanded to include Denver
Water to fund projects in the Upper Basin states. These system
conservation projects exceeded more than $20 million in investments and
resulted in more than 500,000 AF left in the Colorado River system.
Dedicated funding is needed to help create or conserve even more
water for the benefit of the system. Section 3b of the Lower Basin
Drought Contingency Plan Agreement commits the Department of Interior
to creating or conserving 100,000 AF of water per year or more. The
conserved water will remain in storage in the Lower Colorado River to
help reduce the likelihood of higher tier shortage reductions and stem
the decline of Lake Mead toward critical low levels. We appreciate that
funding for this work is included in House and Senate Fiscal Year 2022
appropriation bills and H.R. 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act. The Bureau of Reclamation needs this funding to meet its
obligations under the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan.
c. Partnerships with the Republic of Mexico
Metropolitan along with the Imperial Irrigation District, Southern
Nevada Water Authority and Central Arizona Water Conservation District
are funding conservation projects in the Republic of Mexico as part of
Minutes 319 and 323 of the 1944 international treaty between Mexico and
the United States referred to as the Mexican Water Treaty. Pursuant to
that treaty, Mexico is allocated 1.5 million AF of available Colorado
River flows. As part of Minute 319, we have collectively funded the
conservation of nearly 100,000 AF of water in Mexico. Metropolitan
looks forward to working with the Mexico to continue its successful
binational partnership.
Innovation and Opportunities
More frequent and deeper droughts caused by climate change require
new ways of thinking about stretching our limited supplies. An example
of innovative thinking is the proposed partnership between
Metropolitan, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, the Southern
Nevada Water Authority, Central Arizona Water Conservation District,
and the Arizona Department of Water Resources to develop the largest
wastewater purification facility in the United States. As discussed by
Mr. Deven Upadhyay, Metropolitan's Assistant General Manager and
Executive Officer, at a June Subcommittee hearing the Regional Recycled
Water Project (RRWP) represents an opportunity for three states to
improve their water supply reliability through a single project. It
could transform how water is managed in the Colorado River basin and
become a model for future interstate partnerships to address the
impacts of climate change.
Metropolitan thanks Congresswoman Napolitano, Chairman Huffman,
Congresswoman Susie Lee, and other members of the Committee for their
leadership in the development of a new program to fund large-scale
water recycling projects like the RRWP and appreciates their steadfast
support for Reclamation's Title XVI water recycling program to fund
local projects. Metropolitan supports H.R. 4099, the Large-Scale Water
Recycling Project Investment Act, H.R. 1015, the Water Recycling
Investment and Improvements Act, and H.R. 3684, the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act. Metropolitan appreciates these and other
important federal investments that will help us build resilience to
future challenges on the Colorado River.
One of the significant barriers that could impact the costs and
recycling opportunities is the salinity levels of the Colorado River.
The Colorado River Salinity Control Program has been effective at
reducing the salinity of the Colorado River by more than 100 milligrams
per liter or mg/L at Lake Havasu, but the Program is facing challenges.
The largest single salinity control project, an injection well in the
Paradox Valley, has been idle for 2 years, resulting in 110,000 tons of
salt that had previously been controlled now entering the Colorado
River. Metropolitan urges Reclamation to consider operating the
existing well at a safe level while it finds a long-term solution to
control the salt in the Paradox Valley.
We want to partner with the Bureau of Reclamation and other
stakeholders to help build a climate change resilient water supply and
help identify and manage the various remediation efforts throughout the
Colorado River Basin that will enable us to provide additional
flexibility to federal, state, and local water managers.
Another innovative tool to help manage Colorado River supplies is
the OpenET platform. OpenET utilizes satellite-driven
evapotranspiration models to map consumptive water use within
agricultural fields, ecosystems, and urban green areas. Metropolitan
supports H.R. 4832, the Open Access Evapotranspiration Data Act, and
proudly contributes to this work. Once completed, OpenET will provide a
tool for credible, transparent, automated, and easily accessible data
on consumptive water use across the western United States. Metropolitan
thanks Representatives Lee, Stewart, and Huffman for introducing this
bill.
a. Improving Water Reliability while Protecting the Environment
Supplying water reliably for the 40 million people that depend on
the Colorado River means that infrastructure investments must bring
both supply reliability and environmental benefits that carry far into
the future. Historic dry conditions and the resulting decline of water
supply throughout the Basin has contributed and will likely continue to
contribute to significant economic, environmental and other impacts in
the Colorado River Basin.
Metropolitan set a precedent with public/private partnerships that
focus on environmental protection of entire ecosystems rather than
individual species. The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation
Program (LCR MSCP) was created for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species and their habitats. The program involves state and
federal agencies, and stakeholders from Arizona, Nevada, and California
representing water and power utilities, municipalities, Native American
tribes, and conservation organizations. We are the largest non-federal
contributor to the program. The LCR MSCP will result in the creation of
over 8,100 acres of habitat and the stocking of 1.2 million native fish
to augment existing populations. The program area extends over 400
miles of the lower Colorado River from Lake Mead to the border with
Mexico, and includes lakes Mead, Mohave, and Havasu, as well as the
historic 100-year floodplain along the main stem of the lower Colorado
River. The 50 year program was executed in 2005 and is currently ahead
of schedule. As of 2020, 80% of the habitat has been created and 40% of
the native fish have been stocked in the mainstream.
The Salton Sea is California's largest inland lake and due to
drought and unintended consequences of conservation, water levels have
declined and caused an ecological and human health crisis. As the Sea
has subsided, it has exposed 1,000s of acres of playa, that can create
harmful dust during strong wind events. Nearby communities have been
impacted by dust that exceeds clear air act standards. Metropolitan
supports federal investments from this Committee and others for dust
mitigation and ecosystem management projects on the Salton Sea. This
will help local communities and have long-lasting economic and
ecological benefits in the basin.
b. Additional Federal Support Needed
The Colorado River is the lifeline of the American Southwest.
Preparing for the challenges of the River's supply and demand
imbalances will not be easy or inexpensive. Additional investments to
help mitigate the impacts of climate change, improve supply
reliability, and provide necessary infrastructure improvements and
ecosystem benefits will be crucial. Strong federal leadership and
significant federal funding is essential to ensuring success in meeting
this challenge.
Metropolitan is prepared to work with the Bureau of Reclamation,
the Basin States, the Republic of Mexico, Indian Tribes, environmental
organizations, and all the other stakeholders on the Colorado River to
find a path forward. The time to act is now.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Adel Hagekhalil, General
Manager, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Questions Submitted by Representative Napolitano
Question 1. Water recycling is a critical tool in the West, where
drought is becoming more common and severe. I have bills to increase
federal support for water recycling, including a bill that will help
support large-scale water recycling projects like the one the
Metropolitan Water District is advancing with partners in Arizona and
Nevada.
(a) Can you describe some of the benefits of large-scale water
recycling projects for communities in the Colorado River Basin and
across the West facing severe drought conditions?
Answer. Currently, much of Southern California's wastewater is
discharged to the Pacific Ocean. This is a legacy of when urban
communities and regulatory agencies considered sewage a waste rather
than a precious resource central to the water portfolio. Our region has
implemented dozens of innovative local water recycling programs,
including the world-renown Groundwater Replenishment System in Orange
County. Large scale water recycling projects, like our Regional
Recycled Water Project (RRWP), will bolster this legacy and maintain
the region as the nation's leader in recycling water for potable
consumption. At full build out the RRWP could produce 168,000 acre-feet
of water per year providing a new sustainable source of drinking water
for roughly half a million families in Southern California. This
program is being pursued through a significant partnership within our
region between the Metropolitan Water District and the Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts.
Southern Nevada Water Authority, Central Arizona Water Conservation
District, and the Arizona Department of Water Resources are partnering
with us to develop this project that could benefit all three states. If
they eventually invest in a portion of our recycling program,
Metropolitan can leave that amount of its own Colorado supply in Lake
Mead behind Hoover Dam for our partners to use. Through existing and
new agreements on the Colorado River, the Lower Basin states can
improve their reliability through a single project. And this will help
the entire Colorado River Basin.
(b) Do you believe that large-scale water recycling projects, like
the one you and your partners in the Lower Colorado River Basin are
pursuing, can be an important part of the response to climate change
and drought for the entire Basin?
Answer. Yes. Until now Metropolitan has never advanced a proposal
to build our own recycled supply that we would own and operate. The
Regional Recycled Water Project will be our first foray into producing
local supply at scale that makes sense for a regional agency. At full
buildout, the RRWP would be the largest wastewater purification
facility in the United States and could help transform the reliability
of supplies in the Colorado River basin. This shift in approach
acknowledges the steep new challenges facing our water industry.
Climate change, water quality degradation, increasing salinity, and
regulatory impacts all threaten our supply reliability. In the face of
these challenges, we now know that the treatment technologies exist to
be able to purify wastewater for largescale potable use. The scale of
this endeavor matches the regional capabilities of Metropolitan and
would leverage the infrastructure we already have in place to develop a
reliable drought proof water supply for the Lower Basin states.
(c) Do you believe that Federal investments can accelerate large-
scale water recycling projects so we can respond and prepare for
rapidly changing climate conditions as quickly as possible?
Answer. Yes. With our imported water supplies from the Colorado
River and the State Water Project facing unprecedented drought and
future threats from climate change, we need new federal financing tools
to help advance visionary multi-benefit projects like the RRWP.
Metropolitan supports H.R. 4099, the Large-Scale Water Recycling
Project Investment Act, and appreciates the inclusion of this bill in
H.R. 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The creation of
a new Bureau of Reclamation program to support large regional recycling
projects in the arid west will help the entire Colorado River Basin
prepare for the future.
Additionally, robust Title XVI funding for smaller recycled water
projects is needed to accelerate the development of local water supply
projects. Metropolitan supports H.R. 1015, the Water Recycling
Investment and Improvement Act, and H.R. 3404, the FUTURE Western Water
Infrastructure and Drought Resiliency Act and appreciates all the
funding provided for water recycling projects in H.R. 3684, the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
Question 1. In the hearing, I asked about how repairing conveyance
infrastructure in other basins outside of the Colorado River could
benefit management of the Colorado River but also the State Water
Project and Central Valley Project. Since we had limited time in the
hearing, I would like to give you the opportunity to provide written
responses to this question: Could you explain how improving or
repairing conveyance infrastructure in basins outside of the Colorado
River could help with regards to managing the Colorado River's demands?
Answer. Metropolitan's infrastructure connects two of the West's
critical watersheds: the Colorado and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-
Delta. Metropolitan's system is truly integrated, if we have a more
reliable California Aqueduct when water is more available in the
Northern Sierras, we can decrease our demand on the Colorado River
system and leave water in Lake Mead storage. Conversely, if State Water
Project supplies are limited due to subsidence or other infrastructure
issues, demands on the Colorado River system will increase and we will
likely draw from Lake Mead. In addition, a reliable State Water Project
supply provides enhanced water quality for blending with the region's
other water supply sources, including the Colorado River Aqueduct
supply. This blending capability enhances water management for recycled
water and groundwater storage within Metropolitan's service area.
Programs like the Regional Recycled Water Project benefit from the
State Water Project supply by further bolstering the ability to shift
water resources within the service area from the two watersheds--
particularly during multi-year droughts as we are experiencing on the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River watershed.
Infrastructure reliability is key to ensure we can continue to
supply water to our communities. The California Aqueduct is in need of
critical repairs. It is a 60-year-old system that has lost up to 20%
capacity in some reaches. Climate scientists predict that increasing
variability in precipitation this century will seriously challenge
existing water storage, conveyance and flood control infrastructure. If
California's conveyance system is not repaired, it will limit
opportunities to shift water resources within the Metropolitan service
area, from these two watersheds. Metropolitan supports H.R. 2552, the
Canal Conveyance Capacity Restoration Act, to provide federal funding
to help repair California's conveyance system.
Questions Submitted by Representative Levin
Question 1. Mr. Hagekhalil, in your testimony you describe the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, which has helped reduce
salinity for years. However, as you acknowledge, that Program is facing
challenges associated with continued operations of its largest
individual salinity control project, the Paradox Valley Unit. I've also
heard from constituent water agencies who are concerned about increased
salinity in Colorado River water. Can you describe the costs of
increased salinity levels and some policy options we should consider to
address salinity challenges?
Answer. The Salinity Control Program has been a success on the
Colorado River, reducing salinity levels by more than 100 mg/l at our
intake. However, the Program is facing implementation challenges. The
Colorado River Salinity Control Forum's 2020 Triennial review estimated
that economic impacts from elevated salinity levels in the Colorado
River will grow from $353 million per year to $670 million per year
without further investments.
Higher salinity in water supplies affects many sectors, from
reduced crop yields in agriculture, to increased cooling costs in the
commercial and industrial sectors, and to homeowners from the reduced
useful life of water heaters, clothes washers, and plumbing fixtures.
Of particular concern, rising salt levels impair water recycling
operations and reduce the ability to recharge the groundwater with
lower-salinity supplies. Water recycling and groundwater replenishment
are two cornerstones of Southern California's One Water approach to
reliability.
Metropolitan encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to resume
operation of the brine injection well at Paradox Valley, Colorado at a
safe level while working on a long-term solution. Additionally,
Reclamation should implement long-term solutions for other hyper-saline
springs such as Pah Tempe in southwestern Utah. In the near term
increased federal funding for the Colorado River Salinity Control Forum
programmatic efforts is also needed. Long term, local funding for
salinity control on the Colorado River is threatened by reduced power
generation at Lake Mead. The parties involved are working on
negotiating a solution. Congressional authorization will be needed to
amend the funding agreement and sustain the current level of salinity
control efforts. Additionally, salinity control and brine management
research are also needed to help manage salts on the Colorado River.
Metropolitan supports reauthorization of the Water Desalination Act of
1996.
Question 2. Why is it preferable to address salinity issues before
that water reaches us down in California?
Answer. Salinity entering the Colorado River basin comes about
equally from naturally occurring and human-caused sources. Metropolitan
has studied desalting our Colorado River supplies in the past and found
it is expensive and energy intensive. It is more cost effective to
manage salinity through blending supplies with our other imported water
from Northern California and investing in the Colorado River Salinity
Control Forum. For example, salinity control efforts for alternatives
at Paradox Valley range from $60 to $90 per ton of salt removed whereas
costs for removing salinity in recycled water ranges can be an order of
magnitude higher.
Question 3. Mr. Hagekhalil, in your testimony, you point to water
conservation and the development of local supplies as being critical to
the water portfolio of the Colorado River Basin as a whole. Why should
drought-prone communities that rely heavily on imported water be taking
steps to enhance local supplies, not only through water recycling
projects like the ones you describe in your testimony, but also
desalination projects where appropriate?
Answer. Though the region's economy will continue to rely on
imported supplies for the foreseeable future, a One Water approach to
the water reliability challenges we face in the Southwest fosters
unique solutions. Imported supplies, recycled water, stormwater
capture, groundwater recovery, and desalination--these are all part of
the same system. The One Water approach calls for local resources to be
selected by individual communities according to their unique needs and
opportunities. Because local supplies such as recycling and seawater
desalination are largely disconnected from the normal swings of
hydrology and drought, they provide a level of certainty each year that
snowpack-derived supplies cannot always deliver. However, these
alternatives also come at a cost that is higher than our traditional
supplies, which is why the funding programs we have discussed are so
important.
Question 4. How can investments in the development of local water
supply sources promote resilience at the Basin-wide scale?
Answer. About 25 percent of all drinking water in Southern
California comes from the Colorado River, so it's an extremely
important source. Between climate change and severe drought, the
Colorado River looks likely to be remain in shortage for years to come.
Diversifying the resource mix of individual communities in Southern
California and across the basin benefits all the committees and tribal
entities that rely on the Colorado River.
In 2007, Metropolitan and other Colorado River partners entered
into an Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) agreement with the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation to create, store, and later deliver conserved
water in Lake Mead. This agreement allows Metropolitan and local
agencies to incentivize local resource development such as water
recycling, groundwater desalination, and groundwater recovery and store
that water in Lake Mead. All basin states benefit from California's ICS
program because it provides a powerful common incentive to keep this
conserved water in Lake Mead when possible. As an example, with about
1.3 million acre-feet of ICS water stored behind Hoover Dam, Lake Mead
is now 18 feet higher and much more resilient because of Metropolitan's
local resource projects and conservation.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Hagekhalil. The Committee will
now hear testimony from Mr. Enrique Martinez, General Manager
of the Imperial Irrigation District.
Mr. Martinez, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
ENRIQUE MARTINEZ, GENERAL MANAGER, IMPERIAL IRRIGATION
DISTRICT, IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Martinez. Thank you very much, Chairman Huffman and
Ranking Member Bentz. My name is Enrique Martinez. I am the
General Manager of the Imperial Irrigation District. Thank you
for the opportunity to speak in front of this Committee.
IID was established in 1911 and is delivering Colorado
River water to approximately a half-million acre-feet of highly
productive farmland, other commercial users, and seven
municipalities in the Imperial Valley, which is located near
the United States and Mexico border in the Southern California
area. To continue delivery of Colorado River water, our
community's only water supply, it is vital to the Imperial
Valley to sustain its agrarian economy and rural existence.
Since 2003, IID's water management programs have generated
nearly 6.8 million acre-feet of conserved water from both on-
farm and system efficiency programs to meet its water transfer
obligations and storage objectives. IID and its water user's
exemplary commitment to conservation, with program yields now
averaging nearly a half-million acre-feet annually, will ensure
the long-term viability of the Qualification Settlement
Agreement, or QSA, the Nation's largest agriculture-to-urban
water transfer, providing water supply resiliency to California
and other Lower Basin.
As the largest single contractor of Colorado River water,
it is in IID's interest to serve as a responsible steward of
this precious natural resource. IID is actually monitoring the
ongoing drought conditions and forecasted reservoir elevations,
and supports a collaborative approach to river management,
including renewed efforts of the Basin states to protect the
long-term reliability of the system.
IID will continue to work with its growers and water
conservation partners to promote the efficient management of
all Colorado River supplies. It looks forward to additional
consultations with Federal and Basin state representatives to
identify further opportunities that can serve to protect
critical system elevations, as the next set of long-term
operational guidelines are developed and implementation
beginning in 2026.
In the spirit of agency cooperation and collaboration, I
want to share that last month, on September 16, IID and the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California settled a 2-
year legal dispute regarding the water storage and
environmental concerns that will result in a number of benefits
to the Colorado River system and, in particular, to declining
Lake Mead Reservoir elevations.
The reached agreement expands the benefits of IID's
successful on-farm efficiency conservation program, supports
efforts to ensure the state of California supports the Salton
Sea's restoration commitments, and commits our agencies to
explore additional opportunities to utilize the extraordinary
conservation to support the Colorado River system.
The Salton Sea, California's largest lake, finds itself in
a decline, causing impacts to the environment, wildlife, and
air quality in neighboring regions in Southern California,
Arizona, and Mexico. The Salton Sea is one of the most
important links of the Pacific Flyway, supporting over 400
species of birds, including several listed endangered species.
In addition, as the QSA water transfer continues, the
farmers implement conservation measures, becoming more
efficient in the use of irrigation water, and as drought
conditions have continued to become a new normal, Salton Sea
inflows have decreased significantly, along with reduced flows
from Mexico.
Other factors, such as evaporation, farming practices,
local weather conditions, and urban conservation all contribute
to current projections that indicate the Salton Sea will see an
exposure of up to 70,000 acre-feet of previously inundated
lakebed, or playa, over the next 10 years. This exposed playa
will be a source of particulate matter when it becomes airborne
during windy conditions if aggressive dust control measures are
not implemented, and further deteriorate the already
compromised air quality.
Furthermore, the current salinity levels are now twice that
of the Pacific Ocean, and a drop in surface water elevation can
expose an additional more than 25,000 thousand acres of barren,
salt-covered playa. Much of the land is owned by the Federal
Department of the Interior, whose total land holdings at the
Sea exceeds 110,000 acres.
The linkage between the Colorado River and the Salton Sea
is irrefutable. Transfers or other mechanisms that reallocate
water away from the Salton Sea to address these shortages will
hasten its demise. For this reason, protection of the Salton
Sea will be necessary for any basin-wide Colorado River
solutions.
Federal investments are required to help prevent or reduce
the impacts of future droughts. IID thanks the Committee for
including $250 million for Salton Sea projects in the Budget
Reconciliation Bill passed by the House Natural Resources
Committee in September.
Without a reliable water supply, every sector of the
economy will suffer, from agriculture, to manufacturing, to
high tech. This could also impact an emerging industry in the
Imperial Valley.
The recovery of battery-grade lithium or geothermal--from
the geothermal brines--this domestic supply of lithium would
help secure reliable minerals essential for the development of
batteries and other energy storage technologies that are
important to achieving state and Federal climate goals.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Enrique Martinez, General Manager, Imperial
Irrigation District
Chair Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and members of the
Subcommittee: My name is Enrique Martinez and I am the General Manager
of the Imperial Irrigation District. Thank you for this opportunity to
share our comments on the drought conditions that continue to affect
the Colorado River Basin as well as the challenges facing the Salton
Sea, California's largest lake.
Collaboration is Key for Sustainability of the Colorado River
The Colorado River is a shrinking resource and yet the lifeline
that serves over 40 million people in the Western United States.
Unfortunately, warmer temperatures and drier soils are exacerbating the
impacts of the now decades-long drought, and the River's declining
hydrology is hard pressed to meet historical allocations and the many
competing demands of its multitude of users. With similar challenges
affecting most other watersheds within California and the western
United States, reservoirs are reaching historically low levels,
including Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
Established in 1911, the Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
delivers Colorado River water to approximately half-million acres of
highly productive farmland, other commercial users and seven
municipalities in the Imperial Valley which is located near the United
States and Mexico border in Southern California. The continued delivery
of Colorado River water, our community's only water supply, is vital to
the Imperial Valley to sustain its agrarian economy and rural
existence.
Since 2003, IID's water management programs have generated nearly
6.8 million acre-feet of verifiable conserved water from both on-farm
and system efficiency programs to meet its water transfer obligations
and storage objectives. IID and its water user's exemplary commitment
to conservation, with program yields now averaging nearly a half
million acre-feet annually, will ensure the long-term viability of the
nation's largest agriculture-to-urban water transfer, providing water
supply resiliency for California and the Lower Basin.
As the largest single contractor of Colorado River water, it is in
IID's interest to serve as a responsible steward of this precious
natural resource. IID is actively monitoring the ongoing drought
conditions and forecasted reservoir elevations, and supports a
collaborative approach to river management including renewed efforts of
the Basin States to protect the long-term reliability of the Colorado
River system. IID will continue to work with its growers and southern
California water conservation partners to promote the efficient
management of all Colorado River supplies, and looks forward to
additional consultations with federal and Basin State representatives
to identify further opportunities that can serve to protect critical
system elevations.
In the spirit of agency collaboration, I wanted to share that last
month, on September 16, IID and the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California (Metropolitan) settled a two-year legal dispute
regarding water storage and environmental concerns that will result in
a number of benefits to the Colorado River system, and in particular to
declining Lake Mead reservoir elevations. The reached agreement, in
this spirit of collaboration, provides increased storage capacity for
IID through Metropolitan's Lake Mead Intentionally Created Surplus
account. This will contribute to elevation building efforts in the
Lower Basin while expanding the benefits of IID's successful On-Farm
Efficiency Conservation Program, which has generated nearly a million
acre-feet of conserved water since its 2014 rollout. Metropolitan in
turn has committed to supporting efforts to ensure the State of
California upholds its Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) Salton
Sea restoration commitments and the utilization of federal partnerships
to supplement and expand California's Salton Sea Management Program,
and commits our agencies to exploring additional mechanisms to utilize
extraordinary conservation to support the Colorado River system.
The only way to ensure the long-term viability of the Colorado
River system is for water agencies, the states, tribes, Mexico and
other stakeholders that rely on the river to commit anew to working
alongside one another to identify new partnerships and solutions to
address the imbalance on the Colorado River. As such, IID supports
continued coordination and collaboration with federal agencies and
Colorado River Basin partners in the upcoming consultation process and
as the next set of long-term operational guidelines are developed for
implementation beginning in 2026.
The Salton Sea and the Colorado River
The Salton Sea finds itself in rapid decline, causing impacts to
the environment, wildlife and the people who call this part of the
state their home, not to mention the air quality effects to the
neighboring regions in Southern California, Arizona and Mexico. With an
estimated surface area of approximately 350 square miles, the Salton
Sea is the largest lake in California. The Salton Sea is one of the
most important links on the Pacific Flyway, supporting over 400 species
of birds and a myriad of invertebrates, including several federally or
state listed endangered species, such as the Ridgway's rail, the desert
pupfish and the California black rail. The importance of the Salton Sea
as an aviary and wildlife preserve was officially recognized by the
federal government with the establishment in 1930 of the wildlife
refuge now known as the Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge.
In the 1980s and 1990s inflows to the Salton Sea were approximately
1.2 to 1.3 million acre-feet per year, with the majority of the inflows
from agricultural return flows. As farmers became more efficient with
the use of irrigation water, and as drought conditions have become the
new normal, Salton Sea inflows have decreased significantly along with
reduced runoff from Mexico. Other factors such as evaporation, changing
agricultural markets, local weather conditions and urban conservation
and reuse all contribute to current projections that indicate the
Salton Sea will see an exposure of up to 70,000 acres of previously
inundated lakebed, or playa, over the next 10 years. This newly exposed
playa will be a source of particulate matter when it becomes airborne
during windy conditions if aggressive dust control measures are not
implemented, and further deteriorate the already compromised air
quality in the Imperial, Coachella and Mexicali valleys.
Flow reductions to the Salton Sea have already resulted in
increased salinity levels that are now twice that of the Pacific Ocean,
and caused a drop in surface water elevation that has exposed more than
25,000 acres of barren salt-covered playa. Much of this land is owned
by the Department of the Interior (Interior), whose total land holdings
at the Sea exceed 110,000 acres. This impending environmental crisis
has nearly destroyed the fishery and wetland beneficial uses of the
Salton Sea, however the consequential effects on the nearby human
populations will be even more devastating. The region is comprised
largely of disadvantaged rural communities that are already failing
federal air quality standards, saddling them with the state's highest
rates of childhood asthma, and can ill-afford yet another environmental
and social injustice.
The linkage between the Colorado River and the Salton Sea is
irrefutable and the challenges facing it are ones both the upper and
lower basins must recognize as a community of aligned interests. The
Salton Sea is, as you also know, the linchpin and proving grounds of
the nation's largest agricultural-to-urban conserved water transfer
program, the QSA. The viability of these water transfers depends, as it
always has, on a sustainable path forward at the Salton Sea and the
urgency that all of us assign to it. The best way to protect the QSA
and ensure there will be water resiliency in Southern California and
throughout the Colorado River basin in the future, is to afford that
same kind of resiliency, commitment, and dignity to the Salton Sea.
All of the Basin States are acutely aware of the impending water
shortages on the Colorado River. Recent modeling suggests that the
shortages may be even more severe than previously anticipated. As the
Committee is aware, transfers or other mechanisms that reallocate water
away from the Salton Sea to address these shortages will hasten its
demise. For this reason, protection of the Salton Sea while working
with others to increase efficiency of water use will be necessary for
any basin-wide Colorado River solutions.
Renewable Energy at the Salton Sea
While the challenges at the Salton Sea are vast, there are also
opportunities. The Salton Sea Known Geothermal Resource Area is the
largest potential supply of this renewable baseload in the world. As
the Salton Sea's shoreline recedes, it exposes playa that can provide
access to this resource and numerous critical minerals, including
battery-grade lithium, an essential component for electric vehicles and
energy storage. Geothermal development and lithium recovery from its
brine represents a significant opportunity for our community and the
nation. It can provide clean energy while helping to spur economic
development in one of the state's most impoverished areas, and
simultaneously help secure a reliable source of a mineral essential to
the development of electric vehicle batteries and other energy storage
technologies that are important to achieving state and federal climate
goals.
The federal government listed lithium in its critical minerals list
and the California Energy Commission has conducted activities to help
develop lithium extraction technologies. In addition, geothermal energy
can help to address grid reliability concerns given it provides
critical ancillary services required to maintain a reliable energy
grid. The over 1,700 megawatts of identified geothermal resources
located in the Imperial Valley already provide significant value in
meeting current and future energy, climate and economic development
goals.
Federal Investments and Support
Federal investments in improving and building new water supply
infrastructure can help prevent or reduce the impacts of future
droughts. Without a reliable water supply, every sector of our economy
would suffer--from agriculture, to manufacturing, to high-tech.
Critical water infrastructure must be maintained and modernized to
ensure the delivery and safety of water today and for future
generations.
Congress has been supportive of additional funding and legislation
that helps finance improvements and rehabilitation of aging federal
water infrastructure, broadening WaterSMART grants, authorizing a new
collaborative program for snowpack monitoring and runoff forecasting
and improving the efficiency of authorities for the use of federally
owned facilities for aquifer recharge. These are only a few samples of
the much-needed investments in water infrastructure and management but
they are critical.
Similarly, Congress has repeatedly affirmed its strong federal
interest in the Salton Sea, requiring Interior to develop management
plans in 1992, 1998, and 2007. Interior is also the largest single
landowner, owning roughly 40 percent, of total lands under or adjacent
to the Salton Sea. In 2016, Interior and the California Natural
Resources Agency signed a memorandum of understanding that focused on
coordination, funding, overall prioritization of Salton Sea projects
and recognition of the need for federal involvement as the landowner of
the largest amount of acreage at the Salton Sea. Now more than ever,
progress toward these unfulfilled commitments to protect the Salton Sea
is an essential first step toward longer-term collaboration.
IID continues to advocate for protection of the Salton Sea and,
with our partners, will continue to support state and federal funding
to construct much-needed restoration projects there. IID thanks the
Committee for including $250 million for Salton Sea projects in the
budget reconciliation bill passed by the House Natural Resources
Committee in September.
Collaboration Over Conflict: The Law of the River
While the recent history of the Colorado River is built on a
foundation of collaboration, its early foundation was established by a
series of laws, compacts and agreements rooted in conflict and court
cases that at times took decades to resolve. Representative Costa posed
a question at the October 15th hearing suggesting a future of
significantly reduced hydrology and queried participants as to how to
offset the supply demand imbalance moving forward. IID agrees that
River planning exercises should follow the science, and acknowledge it
is unlikely that the system's hydrology will return to historically
forecasted values. But IID also knows that the River's collaborative
success have always respected the Law of the River and the water rights
priority system, and must continue to do so or the legal battles likely
to ensue would be even more dire than Congressman Costa's hydrologic
forecast.
IID is confident that the Basin States, Mexico and tribal water
contractors will develop a path forward with the Bureau of Reclamation
and other stakeholders, and forge additional partnerships and alliances
that build upon past collaborations. The often-competing interests of
agricultural, urban, environmental, tribal and recreational water users
still overlap on certain commonalities, the first and foremost of which
requires maintaining the long-term viability of the system. These
efforts are too critical to fail, as our food supplies, communities and
ecosystems depend on it. IID has a continued interest in solutions that
build upon partnerships, particularly those that respect agriculture
and rural communities and not those that come at their expense.
We look forward to working on these shared interests and the
supporting efforts of the Committee and Congress to ensure the long-
term viability of the Colorado River as well as investments in the
rapidly declining Salton Sea. We stand ready to assist in any manner
possible.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit this testimony.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Martinez. We will have to
follow up on the remainder in the question portion, but we very
much appreciate your testimony.
We will now hear from Ms. Taylor Hawes, Colorado River
Program Director for the Nature Conservancy.
Ms. Hawes, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF TAYLOR HAWES, COLORADO RIVER PROGRAM DIRECTOR, THE
NATURE CONSERVANCY, BOULDER, COLORADO
Ms. Hawes. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member
Bentz, and members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me to
testify today about collaborative solutions for the Colorado
River.
My name is Taylor Hawes, and I am the Colorado River
Program Director for the Nature Conservancy, and I have worked
on Colorado River issues for 25 years.
The Conservancy is a global environmental non-profit
working to create a world where both people and nature can
thrive. We work in more than 70 countries, and our Colorado
River work spans all seven Basin states and into Mexico.
The story of climate change is being written in water: too
much or too little water at the wrong time or the wrong place.
Today, we are witnessing the uptick of climate disasters, such
as deadly flooding in the East and devastating drought and
wildfires in the West.
While drought is a part of the West's normal cycle, climate
change has intensified the impacts experienced in every corner
of the Basin. After two decades of ongoing drought, we must
recognize this is likely our new normal.
As you have heard from other panelists, the Colorado River
system is in the middle of one of the most severe droughts in
recorded history, with the last 2 years hitting particularly
hard. You might not, however, have heard about the impacts to
our rivers, wildlife, and tourism that depend on them. In
Colorado this year, the Dolores River ran completely dry,
resulting in significant fish kills. The Yampa River was closed
to fishing and recreation for more than 3 months, due to low
flows and high temperatures.
Low water levels can accelerate the spread of invasive
species, which reduces critical habitat for endangered fish in
the Grand Canyon, and for migratory birds along the Pacific
Flyway.
As we face this deepening crisis together, we no longer
have the luxury of time. The longer we wait, the fewer options
we will have. We must develop a suite of tools to adapt to this
new reality, or we risk increasingly difficult challenges for
our communities, our agricultural producers, the $1.4 trillion
economy of the region, and the iconic wildlife and landscapes
of the West.
Despite the dire situation, there is also hope. This Basin
has a track record of developing collaborative solutions. Some
of our successes include effective recovery programs for
endangered fish, agreements between Mexico and the United
States to share in shortages, while also providing water for
the environment and the river's Delta, the 2019 Drought
Contingency Plan that defined measures to slow the reservoir
system's decline, and many more local solutions to address our
dwindling water supply.
More is needed, however, and there is increasing urgency to
accelerate these and other types of efforts to prepare for an
uncertain future.
Programs and opportunities that this Committee should
consider that will help this region adapt include the
following: solutions that reduce consumptive water use in the
Basin across all sectors; resilience strategies, such as forest
management, that can improve snowpack retention while restoring
forest health and minimizing catastrophic wildfires;
agricultural programs to improve soil health, restore wet
meadows, modernize our infrastructure, and test regenerative
agricultural practices; decision-making processes that are
transparent, inclusive, and promote buy-in--this includes
voices that have historically been under-represented in the
Basin's management decisions, such as sovereign Tribal Nations
and environmental stakeholders; support ongoing recovery
program efforts, such as passing Representative Neguse's H.R.
5001, which will allow the two Upper Basin recovery programs to
continue to operate through Fiscal Year 2023; expand and
improve existing programs, such as WaterSMART, to allow more
flexible management of water resources through multi-benefit
projects that decrease water consumption; invest in scientific
tools that will help us adapt more quickly, as conditions
continue to change--this includes planning for a range of
scenarios to ensure we are ready for a future with declining
river flows, not just the river we have today.
In other words, things could get even worse than what we
are experiencing today.
To wrap up, the future will not look like the past. This
Basin can be a model of sustainability and adaptation, but
Federal and state investments are needed now to give us the
chance for a thriving future.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. I will
be available to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hawes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Taylor E.C. Hawes, Colorado River Program
Director, The Nature Conservancy
Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and members of
the Subcommittee for inviting me to testify. I am honored to speak with
the subcommittee to explore collaborative solutions for the Colorado
River.
My name is Taylor Hawes, and I am the Colorado River Program
Director for The Nature Conservancy (``the Conservancy'' or ``TNC''). I
have worked on Colorado River issues for almost 25 years in a variety
of roles, including working as a water attorney for the Colorado River
Water Conservation District, a regional water agency, and Northwest
Colorado Council of Governments, a coalition of local governments. The
Conservancy is a global environmental nonprofit working to create a
world where both people and nature can thrive. We work in all 50 U.S.
states and more than 70 countries across six continents. Our Colorado
River work spans all seven Basin states and into Mexico.
I. URGENCY IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN
The Colorado River is at a crossroad. For the last two decades, we
have witnessed the Basin's major reservoirs trending downward even as
consumptive uses declined. The Basin states and stakeholders engaged in
the management of the River have tried to stabilize the system.
Agreements such as the 2007 Interim Guidelines,\1\ Minutes 319 \2\ and
323,\3\ and the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan \4\ did slow the decline,
but as we are seeing now, those agreements are inadequate relative to
the impacts and changes we are experiencing in the Basin. The change in
hydrology is outpacing the change in management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/
RecordofDecision.pdf.
\2\ https://www.ibwc.gov/Files/Minutes/Min319_Env_Fact_Sheet.pdf.
\3\ https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/4200Rpts/DecreeRpt/2018/
43.pdf.
\4\ https://www.usbr.gov/dcp/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have an opportunity to be a model of sustainability. It will not
be easy, and it will require a Basin-wide ethic of conservation. It
will require trade-offs and it will be expensive, but it is necessary,
as the stakes are high for 40 million people, agriculture, 30 federally
recognized tribal nations, industry, and nature.
The Conservancy believes the future of people and nature are
inextricably intertwined. My testimony focuses on opportunities that
benefit both people and nature. Having worked in this Basin for almost
two and a half decades, I am optimistic we can expand and accelerate
our work across sectors and borders to choose a future that is one of
sustainability and collaboration, not conflict.
A. IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE-DRIVEN DROUGHT
The story of climate change is being written in water--too much or
too little water or at the wrong time or place. We are currently
witnessing the uptick of climate disasters, such as deadly flooding in
the East and devastating drought and catastrophic wildfires in the
West. While droughts are part of the West's normal cycle, climate
change has intensified the impacts experienced in every corner of the
Colorado River Basin. After two decades of intensifying drought, we
must all recognize and prepare for the reality that this is likely the
Basin's new ``normal.''
The average annual flows in the Colorado River have declined by 20%
since 2000. More than half of that decline has been attributed to
warming temperatures. Scientists predict that this trend will continue,
as we expect to lose an additional 3-5% of annual flows with every
degree of temperature increase. We are also becoming more aware of the
role soil moisture plays in our water supply. For example, this year,
we received about 90% of normal snowpack but less than 35% of normal
runoff reached our rivers and major reservoirs due to dry soils soaking
up the snowmelt. This scenario is becoming more common, which is the
reason we are promoting investment in resilience strategies.
The recent headlines related to the Colorado River have focused on
record-setting temperatures, declining reservoir storage, impacts to
agriculture where ranchers are left with few options as streams run dry
in the headwaters, declining hydropower generation at Lake Powell, and
cities and farms in Nevada and Arizona facing the first ever Tier 1
shortages from Lake Mead. What you might not hear about as much are the
impacts to our rivers, and the wildlife and tourism that depend on
them.
Declining flows severely impact the health of the Colorado River
and its tributaries, because there are often no alternatives to
mitigate effects. Fish and wildlife cannot survive without water. Yet,
this summer in Colorado, the Dolores River ran completely dry,
resulting in significant fish kills. The Yampa River was closed to
fishing and recreation for more than three months due to low flows and
high temperatures. Both of these rivers provide important habitat to
endangered and sensitive fish species. Many states in the Basin broke
records this summer for low precipitation and temperatures, which
impact wildlife and fish particularly hard. Low water levels can
accelerate the spread of invasive non-native species and have reduced
critical habitat for endemic and endangered fish species within the
Grand Canyon and for migratory birds along the Pacific flyway.\5\
Moreover, opportunities to reconnect the Colorado River to its natural
Delta are further complicated as claims to limited water supplies
increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.pressreader.com/usa/yuma-sun/20210816/
281492164388290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. URGENCY AND A CALL FOR ACTION
If we hope to sustain the Colorado River Basin going forward, we
must recognize that we no longer have the luxury of time. The longer we
wait, the fewer options we will have to adapt to this new reality. We
must develop and utilize a suite of tools that fit the varying needs of
the Basin to build resilience, or we risk increasingly difficult
challenges for our communities, our agricultural producers, the $1.4
trillion economy of the region, and the iconic landscapes of the West.
This urgent need for action is coupled with the equally important
need to work together. What happens in the Upper Basin impacts the
Lower Basin and vice versa. Our agricultural, tribal, recreational and
urban economies are intertwined. We all benefit from a healthy river
system and a resilient watershed. We must not sacrifice one sector or
interest for the sake of the others and no interest group, sector,
region or state can solve this alone. We are fundamentally tied
together by the very nature of this river system. The federal
government, acting through its agencies and Congress, has a vital role
in fostering collaboration, funding multi-benefit solutions and
ensuring transparent and inclusive decision-making processes.
C. HOPE FOR THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN
Despite the dire situation, there is also hope for the Colorado
River Basin. This Basin has a track record of developing collaborative
solutions. Our greatest success stories resulted from collaborations of
``unusual bedfellows'', such as collaboration between agricultural and
conservation interests. These successes include effective Recovery
Programs for endangered fish, multiple agreements between Mexico and
the United States that provide for shortage sharing caused by climate
change driven drought while also providing water for the environment in
the Colorado River Delta, pilot programs to explore the utility of
system conservation activities, and the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan
that included measures to slow the reservoir system's decline between
2019 and 2026. The federal government played an important role in all
of these successes whether through funding, diplomacy, science or just
``getting everyone in a room to work it out''. Most of these examples
had the potential to be extremely controversial but instead resulted in
better solutions through collaboration and inclusion. More is needed
and there is increasing urgency to accelerate these and other types of
efforts to prepare for our new reality.
II. NEEDED ACTIONS FOR THE BASIN AND THE FEDERAL ROLE
In addition to work at the local, state and regional level, there
are actions the federal government can take to facilitate adaptation in
the region. In addition to serving as a convener, Congress and federal
agencies can (1) allocate needed funding to programs and activities
that support reducing water use and promote water resilience and
adaptation in the Colorado River Basin; (2) work with stakeholders to
improve and expand legislation and policies to support resilience and
adaptation; and (3) support efficient and effective implementation of
new policies and funding to ensure mitigation and adaptation measures
are put into place as quickly as possible.
Congress is considering major initiatives to address the root
causes of climate change, build a clean energy future, enhance
community resilience, utilize our natural infrastructure, and improve
forest health. Federal investments in the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA) and Build Back Better Act are the best chance we have
to respond at the scale needed to address climate change and move the
country toward a more resilient, prosperous future. They also include
investments responding directly to the crisis we are experiencing in
the Colorado River Basin. TNC urges Congress to support these pieces of
legislation.
The IIJA and Build Back Better Act include billions of dollars to
help the West manage the current drought crisis while investing in
long-term water supply solutions to help us prepare for droughts in the
future and conserve healthy rivers and the fish and wildlife that
depend on them. Specifically, the legislation supports needed upgrades
to existing water infrastructure, new surface and groundwater storage
projects, water recycling, reuse, and desalination, water conservation,
ecosystem restoration, tribal water rights settlements and water supply
needs, science and data monitoring to support decision making, and
emergency drought response. In particular, I want to commend Congress
for its attention to nature-based solutions throughout the legislation.
Nature-based solutions provide multiple benefits across water use
sectors, including for the environment.
A. SUPPORT TOOLS AND PROGRAMS TO REDUCE WATER DEMANDS
We cannot ignore the reality that there will be less water in the
Colorado River than in the past. Unfortunately, this means we must
reduce our water use throughout Basin. This will not be easy, and it
will include difficult conversations about how we make reductions.
There are, however, water sectors and stakeholders who are actively
exploring ways to reduce water use.
Support Municipal Water Conservation and Re-use
Many cities in the Basin are leaders in implementing conservation
and re-use programs. Investments in the IIJA and Build Back Better
Act--both in traditional water recycling and reuse (such as the Bureau
of Reclamation's Title XVI program) and new large-scale water
recycling--are prime examples of innovative and forward-looking
solutions to municipal water supply challenges that will support
locally led efforts. However, more can be done in cities and towns that
might not have the resources to reduce their water use or to develop
and implement meaningful conservation programs. The WaterNOW Alliance,
for example, has provided Reclamation with a set of detailed
recommendations for making its WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency
Grant (WEEG) program easier to access for small and mid-sized towns and
cities. We support these recommendations to facilitate access to
WaterSMART funds.
Support Agricultural Producers
More than 70% of water supplies in the Basin are used for
agriculture. Along with providing an important food supply, agriculture
is an essential part of the West's economy and culture. While cities
may have more resources to implement conservation programs, farmers and
ranchers often lack the resources to try new conservation measures. The
federal government can support agricultural producers in finding ways
to reduce water use and adapt to our new reality in a way that supports
agricultural production and the long-term viability of the West's
agricultural economy. Agriculture is not uniform in the Basin, and we
will need financial resources and technical support to create locally
adapted solutions as different opportunities will be available in
different parts of the Basin. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
has done a good job increasing the flow of funds to the Basin; however,
we strongly encourage increased coordination between Reclamation and
USDA to ensure funds are spent efficiently and at the appropriate
scales. For example, coordination between the two agencies can help
individual producers and entire irrigation districts at the same time.
In the Lower Basin, where there are large irrigation districts and
longer growing seasons, programs could be created to reduce summer
water use when crops use the greatest amounts of water. Supporting
``system conservation'' programs with willing producers can help
stabilize the system in the short term. In the Upper Basin, we can
invest in modernizing infrastructure, improving measurement of water
use and continuing to explore ways to reduce water use, such as split-
season fallowing and reducing irrigation on less productive lands.
Across the Basin, we can do a better job of focusing federal
investments on building long-term resilience. Over WaterSMART's 12
years, for example, among irrigation modernization projects within the
Colorado River basin, over half of the water ``conserved'' (58.7%) and
of the project dollars awarded (58.4%), went to projects that actually
increased consumptive water use. Changes could be made to Reclamation's
Drought Response Program under the WaterSMART umbrella to better
encourage real reductions in water use. The criteria for selecting
projects to fund under the Drought Response Program could be changed to
prioritize those projects that will reduce water consumption on
irrigated lands. Prioritizing support for voluntary, innovative
demonstration projects of split-season fallowing, rotational fallowing,
conversion of marginal lands to wildlife habitat, and changes to less
water-intensive crops are all examples of ways to incorporate a
reduction in water consumption while supporting irrigated agriculture.
Because of our work on the ground, the Conservancy believes the
farmers and ranchers are the best judge of what is possible. We have
invested in partnerships with agricultural producers to test innovative
ways to reduce water use, while following their lead to ensure it will
work for their operations. Several of these efforts have been made
possible through federal funding, including Farm Bill conservation
programs, Reclamation's WaterSMART program, and the federal
contributions to the System Conservation Pilot Program. Others have
been assisted by federal agency input on how to achieve water
management flexibility. In the Upper Basin, this has included pilot and
demonstration projects in the Grand Valley, Uncompahgre Valley, the
headwaters of the Colorado River near Kremmling, the Gunnison River,
and the rivers in the Southwest corner of Colorado; the Virgin and the
Price rivers in Utah; and the Upper Green River in Wyoming. We have
supported scientific research to evaluate how crops are affected by
different management strategies, and economic work to understand what
it means for the producer's bottom line. We have also provided legal
support to ensure that water rights are protected, that farmers and
ranchers get answers to their legal questions, and to assure that their
most valuable asset--their water right--is not diminished. In the Lower
Basin, we have worked in the Verde River to test new crop types, such
as barley, that use less water and are irrigated in the winter, when
the river is less stressed. Our projects in the Verde River also
included supply chain investments, like the creation of a malt house to
process the barley to ensure the farmers had a market for their new
crop. Funding to support these kinds of projects--both through
environmental non-profits and farmers directly--can help farmers adapt
while also benefiting river health.
B. INVEST IN RESILIENCE STRATEGIES
The scale and pace of climate-related changes in the Colorado River
Basin pose an increasing risk to the reliability of water supplies that
support humans and nature. Water conservation efforts have often
focused on addressing the ``water budget'' problem (i.e., balancing
supply and demand). While these efforts are necessary and important,
they are not enough to deal with the risks our communities face from
changing climate dynamics. New approaches are needed to help our
communities adapt and respond to the compounding and extreme risks of
climate change to economies, communities, landscapes, and the water
resources that support them.
A new report called the Ten Strategies for Climate Resilience in
the Colorado River Basin \6\ (developed by a coalition of conservation
organizations, including TNC) highlights potential strategies that
could help the region adapt to climate change-driven drought and
aridification while reducing pressure on existing water supplies.
Currently, the Conservancy is testing some of these strategies through
on-the-ground projects and research. Examples include forest management
to improve water retention, agricultural practices to enhance soil
health, natural infrastructure to enhance water retention and
groundwater recharge, and exploring opportunities with energy companies
to help communities transition in a way that also considers water
security. Funding scientific research and demonstration projects is
essential in the short term to determine which strategies can best
increase resilience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.tenstrategies.net.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.003
Natural water retention and release projects are another
example of projects that can foster resilience. These projects mimic
beaver dams and can slow and spread water onto areas that previously
supported riparian and wetland ecosystems by allowing water to soak
into the landscape.\7\ Such projects aim to reduce extreme flood risk
and mitigate drought.\8\ These projects help foster adaptive capacity
in ecosystems and help ranching operations to cope with ongoing climate
shifts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Pollock, M.M. et al. Using Beaver Dams to Restore Incised
Stream Ecosystems. BioScience 64, (2014): 279-290; Pilliod, D.S. et al.
Survey of Beaver-related Restoration Practices in Rangeland Streams of
the Western USA. Environ. Manage 61, (2018): 58-68.
\8\ Caroline S. Nash et al., ``Great Expectations: Deconstructing
the Process Pathways Underlying Beaver-Related Restoration,''
Bioscience 71, (2021): 249-267.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Ten Strategies Report provides tangible examples of
projects that can increase resilience in the Basin. Funding in the IIJA
and Build Back Better Act will support these types of projects. For
example, the IIJA includes $100 million for natural infrastructure
projects through the WaterSMART program, $2.1 billion for forest
ecosystem restoration and $100 million for multi-benefit watershed
health projects. If this legislation is passed, the federal agencies
need to be prepared to get funding to projects quickly and efficiently.
To maximize the benefits for communities and the environment, agencies
should involve local, state, tribal governments, and key stakeholders
in decisions about how to allocate these and other funds.
C. SUPPORT INCLUSIVE ENGAGEMENT
Two voices that have often been left out of Basin negotiations in
the past are environmental non-profits and sovereign Tribal Nations. In
the Colorado River Basin, we are fortunate that both parties have
proven their willingness to provide constructive input and be part of
developing solutions. While engagement has improved over the last ten
years, we can do a better job including these voices and perspectives
from the beginning, which will improve the outcomes and long-term
solutions for water management and operations.
The federal government can and should support broader engagement in
the various processes and negotiations over management of the Colorado
River. Inclusive and meaningful stakeholder engagement is not only
critical to avoid conflict and litigation, but it will also increase
buy-in and result in more durable solutions. Leadership by the federal
government is important, as a convener, as a guardian of a process that
is transparent and inclusive, as a science provider, and as a funder.
Federal leadership, especially in carrying out its federal trust
responsibility with tribes, must continue to emphasize inclusivity and
promote collaboration.
Specifically, consultations on the Upper Basin's Drought Response
Operations Agreement (DROA), the Lower Basin Drought Operations Plans,
and the Basin-wide 2026 Interim Guidelines have begun or are ramping
up. We strongly encourage Congress and Reclamation to includes and
environmental non-profits in these negotiations in a meaningful way.
D. PROTECT RIVER HEALTH AND WILDLIFE
The Colorado River is one of the most iconic rivers in the world,
and includes the Grand Canyon, which is one of the seven natural
wonders of the world. The region is home to a renowned wildlife
community, including moose, elk, bighorn and desert sheep, river
otters, and iconic bird species, as well 30 native fish species found
nowhere else in the world. Biologists have identified more than 150
species that are risk from water management operations. These species
are struggling now, and climate change and drought are expected to
exacerbate the impacts to these wildlife communities. The health of our
environment and the species that depend on the river serve as
proverbial ``canaries in the coal mine.'' If the health of the river
system crashes, we will very likely experience negative impacts to our
communities as well.
We have two important fish recovery programs in the Upper Colorado
River Basin. These programs are working to recover four species of
endangered Colorado River fish while still allowing water uses in our
communities. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (the
``Programs'') take a balanced approach to recovering four endangered
fish species in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico by implementing
a range of basin-wide strategies, including improved management of
federal dams and irrigation infrastructure, river and floodplain
habitat improvement, fish stocking, and management of non-native fish
species.
The Nature Conservancy has been an active partner in the Upper
Basin Recovery Program since the 1980s and a partner in the San Juan
Recovery Program for more than a decade. Since 1988, the two Programs
have provided Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 compliance without
litigation for over 2,500 federal, tribal, state, and privately managed
water projects across the Upper Colorado River basin. Together, these
projects are able to divert more than 3.7 million acre-feet of water
per year to benefit people while mitigating the impacts for the
endangered fish species.
Over the last 30 years, in addition to allowing for ESA compliance
to water users, conservation actions have improved conditions in many
areas of the Colorado River Basin that supported these species
historically. As a result of these actions, the razorback sucker has
been proposed for down-listing, and the humpback chub is being down-
listed this week. Both steps demonstrate the continued success and
progress of these collaborative, partnership-informed approaches to
conservation that benefit both people and native species. These two
Programs will require reauthorization in 2023 and continuing federal
support. The Conservancy strongly supports Representative Neguse's
Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins Recovery Act (H.R. 5001),
which allows the Recovery Programs to continue to operate through
fiscal year 2023 and provides time for actions that were delayed due to
the pandemic. We urge you to pass this legislation as soon as possible.
In addition to these two Upper Basin Programs, the Virgin River
Program, the Long Term Experimental and Management Plan focused on the
Grand Canyon and the Lower Colorado River Multi-species Conservation
Program are also focused on conserving and protecting species that
depend on the river while allowing for water use by people. All of
these programs are important to maintaining species and their habitat
as conditions become drier, and they all rely on state and federal
resources. We hope Congress will continue to support these programs.
E. INVEST IN SCIENTIFIC MODELS AND TOOLS
The future will not look like the past. We need tools and models
that will allow us to plan for this uncertainty. Reclamation's model
for managing and forecasting conditions in the Colorado River, the
Colorado River Simulation System or CRSS, needs to be upgraded to deal
with the increasing hydrologic variability. Reclamation has a great
team of scientific and technical staff working to update the CRSS, and
the agency needs your support to complete this critical effort.
Federal investment in monitoring and science will allow water
managers to better forecast, model and track water availability
throughout the Basin. For example, replacing and adding new stream
gages is a high priority. OpenET is another priority program that can
support water conservation and management efforts in the Basin. The
main goal of OpenET is to provide reliable access to evapotranspiration
data that is accurate, consistent, and scientifically valid. This
innovative program is useful for many aspects of water management,
whether for an individual agricultural field or an entire river basin.
We support and appreciate the investments included in the Build Back
Better Act for the U.S. Geological Survey's work in stream
measurements, OpenET, forecasting and monitoring.
III. CONCLUSION
The Colorado River Basin is in crisis and the urgency to act has
never been greater. Failure to develop a sustainable path is not an
option for the 1 in 8 Americans who depend on the Colorado River for
their water supply. We need solutions now to support the region's $1.4
trillion regional economy and the health of our rivers. The federal
government can foster the political will and provide resources to help
stakeholders in the Basin develop and implement effective measures to
respond to climate change, build resilience and ensure water
availability for our economy and the environment.
As Congress prioritizes funding opportunities, the Conservancy
supports partnership and collaboration between the federal government,
Sovereign Nations, and stakeholders in the Basin. Federal funding and
leadership by key federal agencies are critical pieces of the puzzle to
address the challenges we face today and those that we expect in the
future. We also support several pending bills before Congress that
would provide the Basin's stakeholders with the resources we need to
respond to the climate change-driven drought that touches every corner
of the West.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. I look forward
to answering any questions you might have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Taylor Hawes, Colorado River
Program Director, The Nature Conservancy
Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
Question 1. In the hearing you noted that TNC is working on
multiple projects to address the groundwater issues in California.
Please share a list of those projects.
Answer. Groundwater reliance and over-pumping are a concern in
California as well as across the West such as in Arizona, Nevada, and
Utah. As surface water supplies decline, water users often turn to
groundwater pumping. Many groundwater sources are non-renewable or
recharge very slowly and pumping can outpace recharge rates. This can
lead to subsidence, saltwater intrusion in coastal areas, and can
negatively impact groundwater dependent ecosystems and springs that are
critical to wildlife in the arid west. While you asked about projects
in California, I have included projects in neighboring states to
highlight a broad array of proven solutions to address groundwater
sustainability.
CALIFORNIA GROUNDWATER PROJECTS
California is at a critical stage of implementing groundwater
reform, known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA),
enacted in 2014. Under SGMA, local groundwater sustainability agencies
(GSAs) must develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs), with plans
due in 2020 or 2022, depending on the status of basin overdraft. These
plans must consider impacts of groundwater conditions and planned
groundwater management on all beneficial users of water, including
disadvantaged communities and groundwater dependent ecosystems.
To assist GSAs in developing their plans to address impacts to
nature and disadvantaged communities, TNC has partnered with a
coalition of NGOs to provide technical assistance on how to meet the
requirements to address beneficial users. TNC's efforts include
developing tools and science, including mapping of groundwater
dependent ecosystems, all of which are freely available at
www.groundwaterresourcehub.org. With our partners, we are also
reviewing and providing comments to local agencies on their draft
plans,\1\ which are due to the state in 2022. The 2022 plan review
builds on efforts by TNC individually, and as a member of a coalition,
through which we provided comment letters on draft and final plans that
were due in 2020, some of which can be found at https://
groundwaterresourcehub.org/sgma-tools/gsp-comments/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letters on draft plans can be accessed from the Department of
Water Resources (DWR) SGMA Portal/All Submitted GSP Initial
Notifications--then click on the comment bubble on the far right under
the ``Action'' column to view letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to SGMA planning, TNC is helping agencies implement
sustainable groundwater management by addressing both groundwater
supply enhancement and demand reduction, both through nature-based
solutions.
To increase groundwater supply, we are advancing multi-benefit
recharge projects. This includes completing a pilot project with Colusa
Groundwater Agency to demonstrate recharge that provides seasonal bird
habitat, located within a disadvantaged community. In addition, we are
advancing multi-benefit recharge in partnership with the Department of
Water Resources (DWR's) Flood Managed Aquifer Recharge (FloodMAR)
program, with a goal to develop projects that achieve recharge, bird
habitat and flood risk reduction. Pilot projects are being planned in
the Sacramento Valley.
To address demand reduction, TNC is working with willing landowners
to develop a program to strategically retire irrigated agricultural
lands and restore them to arid upland habitat, with a goal to
permanently reduce groundwater pumping while potentially helping to
recover imperiled species. TNC developed a formal partnership with
Lower Tule Irrigation District to plan and pilot the program. These
efforts are timely, as the state has allocated $50 million for land
repurposing, which includes retirement and restoration, in the recent
Water and Drought Resilience package, which will be administered by the
Department of Conservation.
TNC is also addressing demand reduction by advancing groundwater
markets to enable farmers to more efficiently manage limited supplies.
With Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, Ventura County Farm
Bureau and California Lutheran University, TNC helped develop and
launch the first groundwater market under SGMA, designed to provide
farmers flexibility as they reduce pumping by approximately 40%.
Finally, in recognition that storage is a critical component of the
achieving groundwater sustainability, TNC is supporting conjunctive use
projects that strive to jointly manage groundwater and surface water
supplies. Under the State's Water Storage Investment Program, which is
funding storage projects with state bond funds, TNC is providing
support for the Harvest Water Program by the Sacramento Regional County
Sanitation District along the Cosumnes River and the Willow Springs
Water Bank Conjunctive Use Project by the Southern California Water
Bank Authority.
For related questions, please contact:
Mark Kramer, California Federal Senior Policy Advisor, [email protected],
415-515-8248
Sandi Matsumoto, California Water Program Director, [email protected],
805-746-6664
ARIZONA GROUNDWATER PROJECTS
The Nature Conservancy is a founding member of the Cochise
Conservation and Recharge Network in southeastern Arizona
(www.ccrnsanpedro.org), which is a collaborative effort to develop a
regional network of groundwater management projects between TNC, the
U.S. Army/Fort Huachuca, Cochise County, the Hereford Natural Resource
Conservation District, and the cities of Sierra Vista and Bisbee.
Together we have already recharged and/or conserved over 40,000-acre
feet of groundwater for rural Arizona over the past five years, through
eight projects, spanning over 6,000 acres, along 25 miles of the San
Pedro River. The projects work together to sustain groundwater levels
in the region and preserve flows and habitats of the San Pedro Riparian
National Conservation Area, managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management. Three more recharge infrastructure projects are planned to
convey treated effluent and stormwater runoff to the locations where
recharge will benefit the aquifer the most, at an estimated cost of $20
million. If funding for these three additional infrastructure projects
can be secured, hydrologic models forecast that flows in the river, and
aquifer levels, can be maintained for several decades to come, meeting
the water needs of both local and federal interests.
NEVADA GROUNDWATER PROJECTS
The Las Vegas area, Nevada's largest population base, is heavily
reliant on Colorado River water, and uncertainties in future water
supplies often lead to increased withdrawals and reliance on
groundwater. Nevada is the driest state in the nation, so the scarce
precipitation can take a long time to replenish groundwater supplies.
TNC mapped indicators of groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs) in
Nevada in 2019 (see https://arcg.is/qyj0v) and is using the maps along
with available data to assess stressors and threats to GDEs in Nevada
with expected completion in early 2022. These kinds of assessments can
support better integrated management of groundwater and surface water
while ensuring protection of GDEs.
The Nevada Division of Water Resources (also called the State
Engineer's Office) administers groundwater in Nevada in 256
hydrographic areas across the state. The amount of groundwater
available for use is determined according to the perennial yield that
was estimated for most basins in the 1960s and 1970s using very basic
methods. The Nevada Division of Water Resources will be updating these
water budget estimations in all 256 hydrographic areas using the latest
science and technology, which would provide more robust, science-based
estimations of water availability, enabling better and more sustainable
management of groundwater in Nevada.
Groundwater does not adhere to state boundaries, and several
groundwater basins in Nevada are shared with other states like
California and Utah. In the Mojave Desert, the Amargosa River is a
groundwater-fed river that originates in Nevada and flows into
California, terminating in Death Valley. It is sustained by
groundwater-fed springs throughout its length, and is an oasis in the
desert for plants, wildlife and humans, with extremely high
biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy has properties and easements in
both California and Nevada to help protect this water resource and
those that depend on it. We are concerned about a number of threats to
groundwater sustainability in the region that may impact this sensitive
ecosystem, including climate change, mining, solar infrastructure,
highway infrastructure, and renewable energy transmission. We have
several projects to restore and sustain habitat throughout the region
and responsible groundwater management plays an essential role, but it
is important recognize the threats to cross-boundary groundwater
basins.
UTAH GROUNDWATER PROJECTS
Utah is the second driest state in the United States. Some of
Utah's largest population centers, such as Salt Lake City, Moab, and
St. George, are dependent on water from the Colorado River and its
tributaries as well as groundwater. Human populations are rapidly
growing. In the St. George area, the population has doubled every
decade for the past four decades--with that trend expected to continue
in the future--and water resources are diminishing.
TNC is working closely with a large group of stakeholders in Moab,
Utah to better understand the limits of groundwater aquifers and the
impacts to TNC Matheson Wetlands Preserve, streams and aquifers from
current and additional withdrawals. The town of Moab located in
southeastern Utah, is a gateway community to numerous national parks.
Over 1.8 million visitors recreated in the national parks of Southeast
Utah in 2020. With surface waters fully appropriated, water needs to
support future development must be met with groundwater resources. A
recent USGS study, partially funded by TNC, shows a groundwater outflow
of 300 to 1,000 acre-feet per year from the watershed to the Colorado
River, leaving little left for future growth or environmental needs.
Stakeholders, including the City of Moab, Grand County, and Grand
Valley Water and Sewer are interested in employing more flexible water
marketing strategies to ensure the health of our wetlands, streams and
the Colorado River. TNC is currently working with the Utah Division of
Water Rights to refine the water budget calculations and better
understand impacts to the environment.
Questions Submitted by Representative Neguse
Question 1. Your work on-the-ground to improve environmental
conditions along the Colorado River and its tributaries has included
partnerships with water users and agricultural producers to conserve
water for the benefit of species and overall river health.
How can increased Federal investments in drought relief lead to
resiliency for ecosystems and agriculture alike?
Answer. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) actively engages with water
users and agricultural producers to find win-win-win projects that
support our communities and agricultural producers while also
benefiting nature and river health. Environmental non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), like TNC, can play a critical role in
facilitating projects on the ground, but these projects need funding
for all project phases, from development through construction and
implementation. Often NGOs serve as a liaison and fiscal agent to our
partners who are not familiar with managing grants from the federal
government. Before describing ways that federal investments can lead to
resiliency in the region, it is worth highlighting that it is very
important that NGOs are able to apply for and manage these federal
funds that come from federal agencies. The Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2021 made changes to Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) grant
programs to make NGOs eligible applicants for the first time. Going
forward, Congress should ensure NGOs, like TNC, are eligible to the
maximum extent practicable for federal drought relief and resilience
funding.
Turning to ways the federal government might invest in resilience,
the new report Ten Strategies for Climate Resilience in the Colorado
River Basin (developed by a coalition of conservation organizations,
including TNC and available at www.tenstrategies.net) highlights a
number of potential strategies that could help the region adapt to
climate change-driven drought and aridification while reducing pressure
on existing water supplies. Examples of the strategies outlined in the
report include forest management to improve water retention,
agricultural practices to enhance soil health, natural infrastructure
to enhance water retention and groundwater recharge, and exploring
opportunities with energy companies to help communities transition in a
way that also considers water security. Funding scientific research and
demonstration projects is essential in the short term to determine
which strategies can best increase resilience.
Continuing to support the recovery programs for endangered species
throughout the Basin is another example of how federal investments can
support species, river health and water users. In the Upper Colorado
River, the recovery programs implement many measures to improve habitat
or conditions for endangered and threatened fish species while also
providing Endangered Species Act compliance for more than 2,500 water
users in the region. These programs need support through annual
appropriations as well as passage of your legislation H.R. 5001, the
Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins Recovery Act.
Finally, there is a critical need for investment in agricultural
operations and infrastructure through both Reclamation and U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs. These programs can help
agricultural producers adapt to a hotter and drier future, and if done
in accordance with environmental considerations, there can be
significant benefits to irrigators and river health. For example,
investments from the Environmental Water Resources Program at
Reclamation can stimulate multi-benefit projects. Reclamation's
WaterSMART program can also fund improvements to irrigation
infrastructure to better measure and manage water resources,
collaborative watershed planning efforts to address drought resilience,
and the exploration and creation of water marketing solutions to
address limited water supplies. USDA programs like the Regional
Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and PL-566 can also provide
important funding for irrigation infrastructure and watershed scale
activities. Federal investments like these need to minimize or prohibit
increasing consumptive use of water using federal funds, because
increasing consumptive use in over-allocated river basins like the
Colorado River will exacerbate future drought impacts and water supply
imbalances.
Below are several examples where TNC and partners are successfully
using federal investments to support agriculture and ecosystems.
Through the Recovery Program, TNC has helped the Grand
Valley Water Users Association (GVWUA) make important
upgrades to their irrigation system, including the
installation of seven check structures in their main
irrigation canal that allow the GVWUA to maintain
agricultural water deliveries with less water in the canal,
saving tens of thousands of acre-feet in reduced diversions
annually. The saved water has been used to improve flows
for endangered fish in the 15-mile reach of the Colorado
River, which is considered Critical Habitat for the fish.
Through WaterSMART and state funding, TNC worked with the
Maybell Irrigation District to line portions of an old
earthen canal to reduce seepage losses and install check
structures for improved operations, allowing Maybell to
meet the same irrigation demand with reduced diversions.
The project increases flows in the Yampa River for
endangered fish and recreation while benefiting local
producers.
USDA and PL-566 funding are supporting work in the Price
River in Utah to rehabilitate Olsen Reservoir, which will
store and release water to meet environmental flow targets
in the Price River. The Carbon Canal Company plays a
critical role in managing water deliveries to the reservoir
and federal dollars have helped improve measurement and
water control in the canal to enable this.
RCPP funding for the Virgin River in Washington County,
Utah is modernizing the irrigation system to reduce seepage
losses and helping agricultural producers convert from
flood to sprinkler irrigation to improve efficiency. The
project will benefit local producers and water managers and
improve flows and water temperatures in the Virgin River to
support fish and wildlife.
In Arizona, TNC and other partners are using federal funds
to help protect critical habitat, agricultural production
and scenic open space through conservation agreements. TNC
is also working closely with agricultural water users to
help improve water use and restore stream flows on the
Verde River. The installation of efficient automated ditch
systems combined with financial incentives for conservation
have resulted in less water being diverted and increased
flows along 20 river miles in the Verde Valley and in the
Wild and Scenic reach between Camp Verde and Phoenix. The
project received a federal grant of $2.8 million from
NRCS's RCPP program.
In addition to examples of projects, I have also included some more
general considerations below for federal investment to support work
that can benefit both people and nature.
Federal funding from USGS for initiatives like OpenET and
supporting a robust stream gaging system is essential for
understanding how much water we are currently using. We
can't manage what we can't measure and if we want to be
resilient in the face of drought and declining supplies, we
need to know how much water we are using and where.
Funding for the development of projects needs to include
all phases of project implementation, including initial
hydrologic modeling, design, and engineering, and not just
construction costs. Federal funding programs need to expand
to meet the full funding needs of innovative projects, that
in the long run, can benefit multiple water use sectors/
stakeholders.
Water management infrastructure projects that provide
multiple benefits, such as erosion control, sediment
reduction, water quality improvement, aquifer recharge to
increase groundwater supplies, and/or aquifer recharge to
sustain flowing rivers, should be prioritized for federal
funding over projects that only provide singular benefits.
Funding for watershed health and forest management can
also provide many co-benefits to all water users while
supporting benefits to nature. Most stakeholders and the
public in the West support improved forest management to
avoid catastrophic wildfires, but there is sometimes
disagreement about the best approach to forest management.
While clear-cutting might help avoid catastrophic
wildfires, it might actually exacerbate the challenges to
our shrinking water supplies. TNC is currently researching
how forest management can provide ecological and river
benefits while also minimizing fire risk.
Question 2. The Nature Conservancy has been actively involved in a
decades-old program working to recover four endangered fish species in
the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program and its counterpart for the San Juan River, a
major tributary to the Colorado, brings together tribes, water
providers, environmental groups, and state and Federal agencies for the
benefit of recovering these species.
Can you tell us more about these recovery programs and the impacts
of drought on river ecosystems, and why continuing the programs is so
important?
Answer. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (the
``Programs'') take a balanced approach to recovering four endangered
and threatened fish species in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico
by implementing a range of basin-wide strategies, including improved
management of federal dams and irrigation infrastructure, river and
floodplain habitat improvement, fish stocking, and management of non-
native fish species. These programs are working to recover four species
of endangered and threatened Colorado River fish while still allowing
water uses to continue in our communities. Since 1988, the two Programs
have provided Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 compliance without
litigation for over 2,500 federal, tribal, state, and privately managed
water projects across the Upper Colorado River basin, including
projects that provide water to agriculture, industry, and
municipalities such as Denver, Colorado Springs, and Salt Lake City.
Over the last 30 years, in addition to allowing for ESA compliance
to water users, conservation actions have improved conditions in many
areas of the Colorado River Basin that supported these species
historically. As a result of these actions, the razorback sucker has
been proposed for down-listing, and the humpback chub is being down-
listed. Both steps demonstrate the continued success and progress of
these collaborative, partnership-informed approaches to conservation
that benefit both people and native species.
While we have seen forward progress to recover the fishes, the
challenges confronting the Upper Basin have increased. Since 2000, the
average annual flows in the Colorado River have declined by 20%. More
than half of that decline has been attributed to warming temperatures.
Scientists predict that this trend will continue, as we expect to lose
an additional 3-5% of annual flows with every degree of temperature
increase. Low precipitation, reduced snowpack, and increasing
temperatures severely impact the health of the Colorado River and its
tributaries, because there are often no alternatives to mitigate
effects. Fish and wildlife cannot survive without water. Low flows
reduce, or in some cases eliminate, available habitat, limit the
ability of fish to move up and down the river, increase predation on
the fish, and increase temperatures, making it more and more difficult
for the fish to get enough oxygen. Low water levels can also accelerate
the spread of invasive non-native species, which is one of the most
significant challenges the endangered and threatened fish species face.
Finally, opportunities to augment low flow conditions are further
complicated as claims to and demands on ever-more limited water
supplies increase.
TNC strongly supports your Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins
Recovery Act (H.R. 5001), which allows the Recovery Programs to
continue to operate through fiscal year 2023 and provides time for
actions that were delayed due to the pandemic. We appreciate your
leadership on this issue and urge Congress to pass this legislation as
soon as possible.
These two Programs will also require reauthorization in 2023 in
order to continue the important work of recovering the fish as well as
to continue ensuring compliance with the ESA and will require
continuing federal support. Without full implementation of the Upper
Colorado and San Juan recovery programs, the 2,500 federal and non-
federal, tribal and private water and power projects are likely to lose
ESA compliance--which could halt ongoing water uses throughout the
region. The legal and regulatory consequences would result in
tremendous uncertainty regarding the ability of these projects to
provide municipal, agricultural, and industrial water supplies in
accordance with state water law and interstate compacts approved by
Congress.
The two programs must also continue, in order to ensure recovery
actions can be responsive to the changes we are experiencing in the
Basin. The programs use adaptive management, meaning that management
adapts to incorporate new information as it becomes available. We are
constantly learning about the fish and what they need--and what they
need is changing along with the climate of the basin--so there is still
important work for these programs to do. Bringing species back from the
brink of extinction takes time--it doesn't happen overnight. Even
though we have seen successes with two of the fish, we are still
learning what it will take to fully recover all four species. We have
to find solutions to existing and emerging challenges and then put
those creative ideas into action. The partners are already talking
about what the programs could look like after 2023.
Both of these programs are important to maintaining the four
endangered and threatened species, especially as their habitat
conditions become drier, and both of these Programs rely on state and
federal resources. We hope Congress will continue to support these
programs as well as drought resilience programs that will allow us to
meet the needs of people and nature in a more arid future.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Ms. Hawes. We will now
hear from Mr. Pat O'Toole, President of the Family Farm
Alliance. The Chair recognizes Mr. O'Toole for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAT O'TOOLE, PRESIDENT, FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE,
SAVERY, WYOMING
Mr. O'Toole. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member
Bentz, and the members of the Committee. It is really an honor
for me to be able to testify on such an important subject.
I am a rancher and farmer on the headwaters of the Colorado
River. Our irrigation starts 20 miles from the Continental
Divide. We are the first irrigators of this part of the
Colorado River, and this summer celebrated our 140th year at
this ranch. So, we have seen good and bad, up and down. There
is nothing to compare with what is happening right now, from a
drought perspective and water supply perspective. And I have
said that in my testimony, and my testimony is somewhat
prodigious.
I would like to thank Dan Keppen, our Executive Director,
and my board, that goes from the Imperial Valley to here, on
the Colorado River, for information.
But we live this, and I am in a situation where our family
is trying to figure out what are the next steps for us.
I just spent 3 months in the national forest with our
cattle and sheep. We are done with our use this year, and I
spent my life riding horses through trees. You don't do that
anymore. The forest is collapsing on itself because of the
combination of pine beetle, aspen death, and a lack of activity
to deal with those issues. It is so frustrating for us who have
known, really, for years that things weren't right. And now we
have established, whether it is the California fires or what we
are learning here, that the relationship between the healthy
forest and water are absolute.
I was a legislator in Wyoming in the 1980s and 1990s, and
our county is the headwaters of both the Platte and the
Colorado River, and I was involved in negotiations and
discussions between the states and the state of Wyoming on both
rivers.
At that time, we had a statistic that came that I have
testified before is that 160,000 acre-feet of water is not
going into the North Platte River, because the forest is not
functioning correctly. The same thing is on this side, on the
Colorado River. We don't have the numbers now in how a healthy
forest would respond. Our number is based on the snowpack that
we get. But the absolute relationship between a healthy forest
and water management is so important for us to understand.
I give speeches occasionally, and I talk about the hopefuls
and the hatefuls--and the hopefuls are the people that I have
worked with for 30 years in my community. We have a model
community of working within RCS, with the Interior Department,
with the Fish and Wildlife Service. And we have seen absolute
correlation between the kind of work we do on the ground, and
wildlife, and water quality and water quantity. To be in that
kind of a model, with 30 years of success of river restoration,
of trout passage on our whole river system, and to watch the
forest be the state that it is in, it breaks your heart.
My leader, who has been here 30----
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. O'Toole [continuing]. Really, 20 percent, because they
wouldn't let me in the forest. And that is because the hatefuls
that I refer to are the----
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. O'Toole [continuing]. The dead forests, we should have
been acting, and we have not acted. We need to act, and I would
just implore, on a bipartisan basis, as to realize if we are
going to have the systems to produce food, that have wildlife,
that have rural communities, we have to act.
I have been on multiple boards nationally, and the food
issue--50 percent more food is identified by everybody.
Everybody in the world knows that we need to produce more food.
We are producing less. We are losing farmers and ranchers. We
are losing the ability to use our water in a way that allows us
to produce food.
I look at the demand management, for example, as a place
that we are going to take water off the ground at a time we
need to produce more food. It will have huge effects on
wildlife.
We need to think through these, how do we recharge an
aquifer when we take water off the ground, for example.
So, there are so many pieces to this puzzle that I am happy
to be able to be a resource for the Committee. I would invite
any Committee or your staff to come and look at a working
watershed at the Upper Colorado River and see how it actually
could happen.
But I appreciate very much the opportunity to talk to you
today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Toole follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick O'Toole, President, Family Farm Alliance
Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and Members of the
Subcommittee: On behalf of the Family Farm Alliance (Alliance), thank
you for the opportunity to present this testimony today on the
catastrophic drought conditions in the Colorado River Basin and related
response measures. My name is Pat O'Toole, and I have served as
President of the Board of Directors of the Alliance for over 16 years.
About the Family Farm Alliance
The Family Farm Alliance (Alliance) is a grassroots organization of
family farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts, and allied industries
in 16 Western states. We are 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
national policy decisions. The American food consumer nationwide has
access to fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains and beef throughout the year
largely because of Western irrigated agriculture and the projects that
provide water to these farmers and ranchers.
Personal Background and Experience with Colorado River Challenges
I have served on the Family Farm Alliance's Board of Directors
since 1998 and was named as the organization's President in 2005. I am
also a former member of Wyoming's House of Representatives. I presently
serve on the board of directors of Solutions from the Land and work
closely with both the Intermountain Waterfowl Joint Venture and
Partners for Conservation.
My family has a strong background in irrigated agriculture and our
140-year-old ranch (Ladder Ranch) is located near Savery, Wyoming. Our
family raises cattle, sheep, horses, dogs and children. My family and
Ladder Ranch were the recipients of the distinguished 2014 Wyoming
Leopold Environmental Stewardship Award. Our ranch straddles the
Wyoming-Colorado border at the headwaters of the Colorado River, which
has long afforded me the opportunity to view some unique water issues
first-hand. I have personally testified before congressional committees
several times, and Alliance representatives have testified before
Congress nearly 90 times since 2005. We've seen the ups and downs and
the volatility of weather and the changing climate--now it's clear that
the cycle of life has been disturbed.
Overview
This testimony focuses on this year's drought--an unprecedented
disaster for many farmers and ranchers, their families and rural
communities across the West. The Colorado River Basin is in its 21st
year of drought and its reservoirs will end up at their lowest levels
since they were initially filled. Central Arizona farmers are bracing
for water cuts resulting from the first ever shortage declaration, and
the most recent modeling shows increasing risk of reaching additional
critical levels at Lakes Powell and Mead. The drought impact on Western
irrigated agriculture is not limited to the water, either. Reduced
hydropower generation and the high cost of replacement power is
threatening to cause double digit percentage power cost increases to
many farmers and non-agricultural users. In the midst of the numerous
challenges caused by the ongoing drought, efforts are underway to
renegotiate new operating guidelines in advance of the expiration of
the ``Interim Guidelines for the Lower Basin Shortages and the
Coordinated Operation for Lake Power and Lake Mead (Interim
Guidelines)'' in 2026.
The Family Farm Alliance developed additional written testimony on
impacts that are facing our water and power users in the Colorado River
Basin, which was submitted for the record at your October 15, 2021
hearing. I have been asked to testify on my involvement with forest and
watershed health activities in the Upper Colorado River Basin, and to
convey the position of Family Farm Alliance members throughout the West
on the importance of actively managing to restore our critically
important Western forested watersheds.
The State of Western Forests
As the ``endless summer'' of 2021 came to an end, wildland
firefighters continued to work toward containment of 63 large fires and
complexes that have burned more than 3.1 million acres in the Western
United States, according to the National Interagency Fire Center
(NIFC). So far this year, over 46,000 fires in the West have charred
more than 5.8 million acres, slightly lower than the 10-year average at
this time of the year.
The number of acres burned by wildfire in the U.S. last year--
2020--broke a modern record, according to data published by the NIFC,
as extreme heat and dryness fueled major conflagrations across many
populated areas in the West. Wildfire burned over 10.3 million acres in
2020, breaking the calendar-year record of 10.1 million acres, set in
2015. From August through October 2020, the most extreme conditions
caused thousands of evacuations, homes and structures lost, and tragic
fatalities of 11 people in Oregon and 34 people in California. Last
year marks the third year that wildfire has burned more than 10 million
acres in the U.S., according to fire center records going back to 1983.
All three of those years have been since 2015.
Increasingly fierce Western wildfire disasters are becoming an
annual occurrence and underscore the importance of improving on-the-
ground vegetation management actions that can lead to improved forest
health. Improving the condition of our nation's forested lands is of
primary importance to water providers. National Forest lands are
overwhelmingly the largest, single source of water in the U.S. and, in
most regions of the West, contributing nearly all the water that
supplies our farms and cities. In addition, our already fragile water
infrastructure can be severely damaged or rendered useless by fire and
post-fire flooding and debris flows. Burned areas hold no water at all,
leading to floods, erosion, and mudslides. It also increases turbidity
in the streams flowing through our watersheds. The unhealthy state of
our national forests, which were initially reserved specifically to
protect water resources, has led to catastrophic wildfires that
threaten the reliability, volume, and quality of water for tens of
millions of Americans, along with the wildlife, recreational, and
multi-purpose values of these lands.
Our great Western forests are damaged and diseased. This came about
through a perfect storm of neglect, misguided litigation, lack of use
of science, strained management budgets, and, of course, climate
change. We can have no doubt that the West is warming, and some places
are warming more rapidly than past modeling has predicted. Insect
outbreaks have weakened and killed trees. Violent winds have brought
these trees down providing an abundant source of fuel. Drought and
forests cluttered with dead fall timber serve as a tinderbox for
increasingly intense and devastating fires. Our National Forests in the
Rocky Mountain Region are suffering from climate-driven lack of
function. The inability to develop a logical management strategy has
led to these consequences: catastrophic fires, lack of wildlife habitat
and critical interruption of our water supply.
Challenges
Today's wildfires are often larger and more catastrophic than in
the past. Some of the blame can be attributed to climatic conditions,
like reduced snowpack in alpine forests, prolonged droughts and longer
fire seasons. Western population growth has also played a role, since
we now have more homes within or adjacent to forests and grasslands.
However, decades of fire suppression and inability to manage our
forests through controlled burns, thinning, and pest/insect control
probably play an even bigger role. Where California now has about 100
trees per acre, it once had about 40 trees/acre.
Much of the recent media coverage on the fires raging in Northern
California has featured commentary from politicians, environmental
activists and academics who point to climate change as the driving
factor behind the fires that have forced tens of thousands of
Westerners to flee their homes. Climate change concerns may certainly
be shared by some rural Westerners who live in once-thriving timber
dependent communities. However, there is also a growing frustration
that forest management--or rather, the perceived lack of management by
federal agencies, driven in part by environmental litigation--fails to
get the attention it deserves in many media accounts of the current
Western wildfire infernos.
Some of us who live in rural Western communities who have watched
the condition of federal forests deteriorate in recent decades have a
different perspective. We have witnessed how federal forest management
actions have been hampered in recent decades, in part due to
environmental lawsuits initiated by certain activist groups. We
encourage the Subcommittee to listen to the men and women on the ground
regarding the urgency of implementing forest restoration and
management.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Processes Associated with
Forest Health
The U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) is not fully meeting
agency expectations, nor the expectations of the public, partners, and
stakeholders, to improve the health and resilience of forests and
grasslands, create jobs, and provide economic and recreational
benefits. The Forest Service spends considerable financial and
personnel resources on NEPA analyses and documentation, as well as
environmental litigation.
In recent years--catalyzed by the ominous increase in Western
wildfire activity--we have worked with other organizations, seeking
ways to discourage litigation against the Forest Service relating to
land management projects. We have supported efforts to develop a
categorical exclusion (CE) under NEPA for covered vegetative management
activities carried out to establish or improve habitat for economically
and ecologically important Western species like elk, mule deer, and
black bear. Thus, we have advocated for expediting and prioritizing
forest management activities that achieve ecosystem restoration
objectives.
Reforming the Forest Service's NEPA procedures is needed at this
time for a variety of reasons. An increasing percentage of the Forest
Service's resources have been spent each year to provide for wildfire
suppression, resulting in fewer resources available for other
management activities, such as restoration. In 1995, wildland fire
management funding made up 16 percent of the Forest Service's annual
spending, compared to 57 percent in 2018. Along with a shift in
funding, there has also been a corresponding shift in staff from non-
fire to fire programs, with a 39 percent reduction in all non-fire
personnel since 1995.
Additionally, the Forest Service in 2019 had a backlog of more than
5,000 applications for new special use permits and renewals of existing
special use permits that are awaiting environmental analysis and
decision. On average, the Forest Service annually receives 3,000
applications for new special use permits. Over 80 million acres of
National Forest System land need restoration to reduce the risk of
wildfire, insect epidemics, and forest diseases.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal Register Doc. 2019-12195 Filed 6-12-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Management Impacts on Upper Watershed Water Supplies
It is hard to overstate the importance of snowmelt as a source of
fresh water in parts of the Rocky Mountain West, and great attention is
paid to ecosystem water cycles in this region. Some of the snow that
falls in the mountains goes directly from crystalline snow to water
vapor, bypassing the liquid water phase. This phenomenon--sublimation--
accounts for the loss of a large portion of the snowfall during the
winter months in the Rocky Mountains. Snow intercepted by tree branches
sublimates the fastest, often disappearing within a few days of a
snowfall. Recently published work by the Rocky Mountain Research
Station \2\ (RMRS) teases apart how the loss of spruce canopy affects
the sublimation rates for snow both in the canopy and on the ground in
these ecosystems. These findings have some important implications to
snow interception and retention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Beetle Outbreaks in Subalpine Forests and What They Mean for
Snowmelt, May 2021. Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Forest
Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two years ago, I testified before the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, where I referenced the Forest Service's figure
that 160,000 acre-feet (AF) of water is not going into the Platte River
system because of invasive species such as the pine beetle. The study I
referenced relates to research \3\ conducted by the Forest Service on
the Upper North Platte River in 2000 and 2003. It shows that management
restricting timber harvest had already severely impacted the watershed
and water yield to the tune of a minimum of 160,000 AF \4\ per year.
The Forest Service uses Equivalent Clear-cut Acres modeling to predict
water yield associated with vegetation disturbance, primarily
associated with timber harvest and wildfire. The literature and
research show that implementing a 100-year rotation on all eligible
timber lands would sustain an increase of 50-55,000 AF of water per
year--for just one part of one forest in the state of Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Estimating Additional Water Yield From Changes in Management of
National Forests in the North Platte Basin, May 12, 2000, C.A. Troendle
& J.M. Nankervis (Note: This is an independent report prepared for the
Platte River EIS Office).
\4\ 160,000 AF of water would cover all of Chicago, Illinois with
over one foot water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In focusing on opportunities in Wyoming, it is important to provide
context for what is happening in the West because lessons learned
across the region has application in Wyoming. For example, across the
West, federal laws, regulations and environmental litigators have
greatly restricted our ability to thin forests and take other actions
to aggressively combat invasive insects like the pine beetle. As a
result, large swaths of national forest lands essentially remain ``un-
managed''. In some places, all you can see for miles is a sea of dead
trees, victims of the pine and spruce beetles.
Overgrown Western forests also means forests are using more water
than they did historically. Because the moisture content of the trees
and brush is so low, it makes them more vulnerable to fire and
parasites, such as the bark beetle, which has ravaged millions of acres
throughout the West. The Western wildfire disasters have underscored
the importance of improving on-the-ground management that can lead to
improved forest health. Thinning out trees can reduce water stress in
forests and ease water shortages during droughts. By reducing the water
used by plants, more rainfall flows into rivers and accumulates in
groundwater. If we could calculate potential water yield impacts with
even more confidence, we could determine how much water could be freed
up by thinning forests and controlling pests and invasive insects like
the pine and spruce beetle. Fortunately, we are seeing more recent,
positive developments toward this end.
Examples described below provide additional models for ways of
quantifying the amount of water removed from Wyoming's water supply by
dying forests and invasive species like the bark beetle.
Scientists affiliated with the National Science Foundation (NSF)
Southern Sierra Critical Zone Observatory (CZO) in 2018 conducted a
study in the forests of California's Sierra Nevada mountains. The team
of scientists from the University of California and the National Park
Service combined sensors that measure evapotranspiration with satellite
images of ``greenness'' on the landscape to estimate the additional
freshwater runoff that could be created by thinning overgrown forests.
Their research, published in 2018 in the journal Ecohydrology, shows
that water loss from evapotranspiration has decreased significantly
over the past three decades, due in large part to wildfire-driven
forest thinning. Forest thinning has increased in recent decades to
stave off disastrous wildfires fueled by dense forests. This study
shows that restoring forests through mechanical thinning or prescribed
burning can also save California billions of gallons of water each
year. The total effect of wildfires over a 20-year period suggests that
forest thinning could increase water flow from Sierra Nevada watersheds
by as much as 10 percent.
We have also heard numerous other anecdotal reports from around the
West of water yield increases resulting from clearing pinon and juniper
stands in northwestern Utah, arid communities in the high desert of
Oregon and Northern California, the Pecos River watershed in New Mexico
and the upper Purgatoire River in eastern Colorado. Pinon and juniper
reduction in the Gallup, New Mexico area triggered the reappearance of
flowing water in once dry arroyos that had not been there for decades.
A 2016 study \5\ conducted on the San Carlos Apache Reservation showed
that different vegetation types displayed various responses to water
availability. This further highlights the need for individual
management plans for forest and woodland, especially considering the
projected drier conditions in the Western U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Vegetative response to water availability on the San Carlos
Apache Reservation, Roy Petrakis, Zhuoting Wu, Jason McVay, Barry
Middleton, Dennis Dyem, John Vogel. July 2016. U.S. Geological Survey,
Western Geographic Science Center, 255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff,
AZ 86001, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solutions
Regardless of the causes behind the sad state of our forests, it is
our job now to look for solutions. These solutions will be applied
through specific and thoughtful management. The problem involves a
natural landscape, so some of the solutions will be time-tested natural
processes. Others will be driven by landowners and forest managers
through proactive, aggressive actions. The neglect and deterioration of
our forests cannot continue. We must act now to heal them. We offer
below the recipe for success.
1. Actively Manage and Restore our Federal Forests
Drought brings less snowfall in many areas. The snow that falls
melts off up to 45 days earlier and runs off downstream on frozen
ground. Therefore, the snowpack no longer functions as a reservoir
delaying the release of water in a timely manner. However, the forest
floor can be restored through thoughtful management. A responsible
level of continuous fuels reduction includes a combination of robust
mechanical thinning and prescribed fire. This can be employed to
significantly reduce evapotranspiration, tree stress, disease, and pest
infestation, preserve health forest conditions, and protect species and
habitats.
This is not only good stewardship--it is good economics.
Failure to employ this approach will continue the downward,
accelerating spiral of fuel accumulation, drought, disease, and
invasive insects. This will lead, inevitably, to additional high-
intensity and costly fire events in the future.
We believe active forest management can increase water yield,
improve water quality, provide for jobs, and reduce the cost of
firefighting, while increasing forest resiliency. This can be done, in
part, by increasing the productivity of national forests and
grasslands; employing grazing as an effective, affordable forest and
grassland management tool; increasing access to national forest system
lands; expediting environmental reviews to support active management;
and designing West-wide studies to quantify water yield.
a. Use Controlled Fire and Grazing as Management Tools to Restore
Forests
Wildlife habitat has suffered profoundly from the ``pick-up-
sticks'' of dead trees on the forest floor, from disruption in water
function, and most dramatically, from widespread hot fires. These large
catastrophic fires not only eliminate habitat, but kill millions of
animals, birds and insects. Controlled fire is one of the tools that
can be used to improve forest grounds. However, it is not the only
tool. A recent article in the Sacramento Bee (`` `Self-serving
garbage.' Wildfire experts escalate fight over saving California
forests'') does a nice job explaining this. We are seeing a major shift
happening; the people who love the forest are coming together.
The Organic Administration Act of 1897 (Organic Act) addresses the
role of the forests as part of a larger community--a larger and complex
landscape. They do not exist in a vacuum. Forest grounds were intended
to produce timber for Americans. We have seen the terrible effects of
the near halting of the timber industry. Foresters know how to log in a
responsible and sustainable manner. When done properly, it is one of
the most effective tools to restore forest health. The alternatives are
unregulated logging in other parts of the world and sky-high lumber
prices. Sustainable timber management is a practice that must be
encouraged and facilitated.
Likewise, the forests are part of our food production system. The
grasslands existing in forest lands sustain not only grazing wildlife
like deer, elk, big horn sheep, and antelope, but also forage for
domestic livestock like cattle and sheep. Proper grazing improves soil
through hoof actions and fertilization from manure. Grazing returns
carbon to the soils and is a tool, indeed almost the only tool, for
improving and restoring soils. Again, it must be properly managed, but
many graziers are experts in just those practices. Narrow policy
proposals that disconnect the role of responsible grazing, or even seek
to eliminate this practice, from grassland function will result in
cascading impacts to habitat connectivity, soil health, wildlife
habitat, and carbon sequestration. These actions will also create added
strain on rural communities.
b. Secure Long-Term Conditions of Water Flows
``Securing long-term conditions of water flows'' is named as a top
priority in the Organic Act, yet it is perhaps the most severely
impacted by the deteriorated forests. The forests act as a sponge.
Winter snowfall settles among the trees, and snowmelt and rainfall
alike traditionally soak into the humus and healthy soils on the forest
floor. Climate change and human mismanagement have disrupted this
crucial cycle.
In the Intermountain West, flood-irrigated wet meadows provided by
ranchers as part of their agricultural operations comprise the bulk of
the wetland habitat in snowpack-driven systems. These hay meadows and
irrigated pastures provide important habitat for sandhill cranes,
white-faced ibis, northern pintails, and other priority waterbirds, as
well as an array of ecosystem benefits. Flood irrigation naturally
maintains underlying groundwater that is less vulnerable to a warming
climate and key to supporting seasonally flooded wetlands on the
surface. Filling these ``sponges'' through flood irrigation is critical
to slowing the movement of water through the system and thus increasing
resiliency in the face of drought. Likewise, upland watershed and
forest management activities can help increase water quality and
quantity, as well as mitigating the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
Restoration--utilizing what I refer to as ``AgroForestry''--is very
doable. It will require planning, resources, commitment and will. All
of these things exist.
c. Improve Watershed Yield Through Better Forest Management
As previously discussed, there is a significant gain in water
supply to streams because the consumptive use of water is reduced when
the number of trees growing as forests are managed to avoid the
conditions that result in catastrophic insect infestation or wildfires.
We believe the North Platte River example noted above should be used as
a solid starting point for a case study because of the abundance of
available scientific literature, including the work already developed
by the Forest Service. Improved water yields also have positive
implications for downstream Platte River species protected by the
Species Act. Congress could help initiate a pilot project that builds
upon this work. In addition to underscoring the positive aspects of
active forest management noted above, such a study could also
underscore the importance of appropriately measuring any new water
gained through this and other water enhancement approaches. Generating
new water through landscape management practices should become a new
priority in the Colorado River watershed and other parts of the
American West.
d. Improve Invasive Species Management
Addressing the harmful impacts of invasive species should also be a
priority. Water users confront challenges associated with invasive
species across the West, where salt cedar (Tamarix), quagga mussels,
and cheatgrass--just to name a few--all proliferate. For example,
Tamarix species along riparian corridors or around desert springs can
seriously reduce underground water tables and surface water
availability, drying up wetlands, and reducing flows. Tamarix species
can increase flooding in riparian areas by narrowing channel width. In
addition, the plants are flammable and can introduce fire into wetland
and riparian communities that are not adapted to periodic burning.
While millions of dollars have already been spent on efforts to reduce
the impacts of these and other non-native pests, it hasn't been enough.
And more invasive species will continue to arrive.
2. Engage the U.S. Forest Service
Since the Forest Service is responsible for much of the forestland
in the West, it's engagement will be critical. Bold action is required.
Decision-makers must be empowered to act, rather than get bogged down
in bureaucratic morass. Unfortunately, current bureaucratic practices
are not equipped to fulfill the need. Upper-level policy makers and
managers will need to create a plan and set an agenda that will lead to
success. We must ``empower the competent'' to achieve scale. The areas
in need of restoration encompass millions of acres; 100-acre solutions
will not suffice. Legislation may be required.
Experts from the Forest Service and various affected interests must
be part of the planning process. These interests would necessarily
include area and state foresters, private sector forest managers,
watershed experts, wildlife scientists, grazers, and local community
representatives.\6\ This group should be broad enough to cover areas of
concern, but nimble enough to plan quickly and set the wheels in
motion. The multi-level strategy includes solutions to sustainably
manage our water, which largely originates on forest landscapes and
watersheds. It must consider the habitat provided, or formerly
provided, by the affected forest lands, and the needs of those species
whose lives depend upon those lands. Likewise, traditional forest uses
that have sustained local communities must be considered both as a tool
to bring about needed change, and as a part of the holistic system
which includes trees, wildlife, water and people. These tools include
targeted logging, particularly of dead standing trees, and grazing to
restore soils and reduce fire danger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ People have different interpretations of the terms
``community'' and ``locally led conservation.'' As described in a
letter the Alliance signed on with the Western Landowners Alliance in
September 2021, addressed to the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Interior, local governments, local populations, communities of
practice, and various stakeholder groups can all be counted as some
form of ``community.'' The collaborative and relationship-based
structure of these groups also often leads to more durable conservation
outcomes, which ultimately benefits the resource and the community and
can lead to innovative multi-partner solutions. However, many of these
community-based and locally led organizations lack human, technical,
and financial capacity to grow and sustain these efforts over time.
Leaders of collaboratives often wear multiple hats and run those
efforts in addition to other full-time responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthy forests provide multiple recreation, agricultural,
ecological and economic benefits, and indeed the legislation that
created the Forest Service, mandates this. A successful plan must
direct the effective transition from the forests' present non-
functioning state to a functioning state. This will take time, but a
commitment to action is required to ensure long-term success.
3. Improve Federal Funding Programs and Delivery
To increase stakeholder confidence and ensure effective funding
delivery, federal agencies should invite outside guidance and clearly
state to the maximum extent practical, the intended impact of funds,
method of distribution, and other discretionary factors. We understand
that these agencies have limited influence over specific legislative
prescriptions and that further direction may be provided as the
legislative process unfolds. We also believe that a certain amount of
discretion based on agency expertise is necessary to ensure proper
allocation of funds. However, we submit that our collective on-the-
ground experience can serve as a guide to ensure that such funds
broadly dedicated to conservation and restoration are best utilized to
the benefit of ecosystem function, local community vitality, and
working lands health.
4. Remove Regulatory Barriers to Conservation
From our decades of collective expertise, we are aware of numerous
barriers that prevent interested landowners and other entities from
participating in programs administered by federal agencies, and
ultimately, prevent funding from reaching the ground in a meaningful
way. Statutory limitations such as program payment caps can create
misalignment between program eligibility and conservation objectives.
Regulatory hurdles, for example presented through interpretation of
NEPA, can prolong agency action.
a. NEPA Concerns
The current implementation of the NEPA is reactive, cumbersome,
time consuming and does not enable the Forest Service to implement
forest management strategies in a timely manner. We have advocated for
some key general recommendations to improve the Forest Service
application of environmental laws: (1) Allow landscape-level land
management plans to guide individual actions on the ground without
duplicative administrative process under federal environmental laws;
(2) Direct the creation and use of CEs already allowed under NEPA in
preventing catastrophic wildfires and restoring forest habitat and
ecosystems more effectively and on a timely basis; and (3) Use the NEPA
process to consider how a robust vegetative management program could
improve forest health, improve water quality and lead to increased
available water supply by reducing demand from overly dense tree and
vegetative cover.
We do not seek changes that waive or ignore existing federal
environmental laws. Instead, we call for improvements to make those
laws work for the benefit of the nation as intended. By eliminating
duplicative or unnecessary processes and using streamlining tools
already allowed under the law--and promoting action instead of
litigation--the status quo could be changed. The proposed changes could
help government agencies to use their limited resources to
expeditiously implement land management actions designed to prevent
wildfires and improve habitat for priority, endangered and/or
threatened species. Surely that would be a dramatic improvement over
spending precious time and resources on bureaucratic process and
litigation. These types of critically needed procedural changes to NEPA
implementation will improve our Western landscapes and protect our
valuable water supplies from the devastating effects of wildfires. They
will also allow agencies to improve habitat, restore ecosystems for the
benefit of federally important species and allow continued agricultural
use of our public lands.
The Forest Service two years ago proposed revisions to its NEPA
procedures with the goal of increasing efficiency of environmental
analysis while meeting NEPA's requirements. We supported these proposed
changes to NEPA, many of which were based on adding or expanding
existing CEs. At the time, it was estimated that on average, an
environmental assessment took 687 days to complete. Average time to
complete a CE was just 206 days. By using the new CEs in the proposed
rule, the Forest Service could potentially complete NEPA analyses
between 30 and 480 days earlier on applicable projects.
One of the ways to protect agency credibility in the use of CE's is
to include an explicit provision that the agency will reopen the CE
decision if changed circumstances or new information militate such an
action. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has had such a
provision (called a ``reopener'' by FERC) for many years in its NEPA
regulations and this has aided FERC in its administration of NEPA. Such
a ``reopener'' provision is so attractive that the Bureau of
Reclamation's similar provision prompted Congress to direct Reclamation
to use its CE process in administering the 2013 Reclamation Small
Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act, P.L. 113-24.
Increasing the efficiency of environmental analysis would enable
the Forest Service to do more to increase the health and productivity
of our national forests and grasslands and be more responsive to
requests for goods and services. The Forest Service's goal should be to
complete project decision making in a timelier manner, improve or
eliminate inefficient processes and steps, and, where appropriate,
increase the scale of analysis and the number of activities in a single
analysis and decision. Improving the efficiency of environmental
analysis and decision making will ensure that lands and watersheds are
sustainable, healthy, and productive; mitigate wildfire risk; and
contribute to the economic health of rural communities through use and
access opportunities.
b. Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances and Safe Harbor
Agreement
Federal agency staff capacity and siloed communication structures
also present very tangible hindrances to effective program
implementation on the ground and further complicate already complex
processes. For example, Candidate Conservation Agreements with
Assurances and Safe Harbor Agreements can serve as useful tools to
ensure that landowners' efforts to conserve and recover at-risk and
listed species do not put them in jeopardy of further regulatory
restrictions as a result of their conservation actions. However, these
agreements are time consuming and sometimes costly to landowners to
develop. Beyond agreement development though, the cost of ongoing
implementation, monitoring and reporting is largely unaccounted for and
often falls on landowners, the state or other agreement holders. There
are certain funds that can provide cost-share assistance in developing
these agreements, but ongoing support for implementation, monitoring,
management and stewardship remains a gap and presents a hurdle to the
long-term success of conservation objectives.
5. Action in Congress
We are pleased that there appears to be growing recognition in
Congress of the importance of active forest management. There are
several bills that have been introduced this year, intended to
facilitate responsible forest management.
One of those is the Outdoor Restoration Partnership Act, sponsored
by Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO), and supported by the Family Farm
Alliance. To date, Congress has failed to invest in our Western lands,
undermining our economy and way of life. As a result, local governments
are often left to foot the bill for conservation, restoration, and
wildfire mitigation. Senator Bennet's bill would establish an Outdoor
Restoration Fund to increase support for local collaborative efforts to
restore forests and watersheds, reduce wildfire risk, clean up public
lands, enhance wildlife habitat, remove invasive species, and expand
outdoor access. It would empower local leaders by making $20 billion
directly available to state and local governments, tribes, special
districts, and non-profits to support restoration, resilience, and
mitigation projects across public, private, and tribal lands. The bill
would invest another $40 billion in targeted projects to restore
wildlife.
Another bipartisan bill would provide carbon credits to companies
and other non-federal partners in exchange for thinning trees on fire-
prone forests. America's Revegetation and Carbon Sequestration Act, co-
sponsored by Senators John Barrasso (R-WY) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) would
encourage more intensive forest management--and reforestation--through
a variety of initiatives. The carbon credit idea would allow non-
federal entities to be awarded carbon credits through voluntary markets
in exchange for money they provide the Forest Service for projects that
increase carbon sequestration.
One more important piece of legislation is the Resilient Federal
Forests Act, introduced by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR). This bill--
supported by 85 organizations, including the Family Farm Alliance--
would help address the environmental and economic threats of
catastrophic wildfires.
Each of these bills is important. We hope that efforts like these
will build momentum toward larger forest management reforms in
subsequent bipartisan legislation.
Colorado River Policy Recommendations
Before I conclude this testimony, I would like to update the
Subcommittee on some work the Family Farm Alliance is doing in other
Colorado River forums. The Alliance and its membership respects and
participates in several Colorado River forums and processes, from the
headwaters in the Rocky Mountains to the Delta. We trust that the
foundation laid in past negotiations and operations will succeed in
responding to the tough challenges presented by the current situation.
The Colorado River policy paper we developed in 2015 still
resonates today.\7\ The Alliance has always advocated that the best
solutions are locally driven, coming from the ground up. The success of
the Alliance has been based on our ability to deliver the message of
the local water user up to policy makers in Washington, DC. The
``ground up'' approach we employ is foundational to our West-wide
approach. In the Colorado River watershed, this approach originates at
the project level with local waters and moves up the ``ladder'' up
through decision-makers at the sub basin, state, and Lower/Upper Basins
levels, before being addressed nationally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Colorado River Basin Water Management: Principles &
Recommendations'', Family Farm Alliance, July 2015. 19 pp.
The Alliance is currently working with agricultural water users
from my headwaters ranch all the way to the international border to
develop a new treatise that builds on the 2015 policy and is intended
to provide further guidance to help equip today's decision-makers.
Agricultural water users in the Basin believe the eight policy
principles from 2015 remain fundamental to the long-term health of the
Colorado River and the farms and communities it supports, and they
underpin the specific outcome expectations presented in that paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These principles include:
1. State water laws, compacts and decrees must be the foundation for
dealing with shortages.
2. Water use and related beneficial use data must be accurately
measured and portrayed.
3. Benefits of water use must reflect all economic/societal/
environmental impacts.
4. True costs of transferring water away from irrigated farms in a
managed system like the Colorado River through land
fallowing must be accurately accounted for, including
unintended consequences and third-party impacts.
Understanding these costs will assist in determining the
fair value of any land fallowing proposal.
5. Agricultural water conservation can help stretch water supplies,
but has its limits.
6. Public sentiment supports water remaining with irrigated
agriculture, and developing strategic water storage
opportunities as insurance against shortages.
7. Technologies for water reuse and recycling are proven effective
in stretching existing supplies for urban, environmental
and other uses.
8. Urban growth should not be permitted in the future without
locking in sustainable and diverse water supplies, and
using irrigated agriculture as the reservoir of water for
municipal growth is not sustainable in the long run.
The 2007 ``Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the
Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead,'' are set to
expire in 2026. We stand ready to roll up our sleeves to develop
positive and sustainable outcomes in the current consultation of the
Interim Guidelines, and intend to use our forthcoming paper as our
first step in helping decision-makers in the Colorado River Basin deal
with the harsh realities of current and future water shortages due to
drought and over-allocation of water. To accomplish this, current
Colorado Compact decision-makers must produce operating guidelines
that:
1. Recognize that Western irrigated agriculture is a strategic and
irreplaceable national resource. It must be protected by
the federal government in the 21st century.
2. Provide certainty to all users and interests with equitable
apportionment decisions made from a foundation of state
water law, common sense and fairness. We all have to
remember that society's lawmaking efforts do not dictate
the reality of Colorado River hydrology. We must strive to
develop sound long term plans that avoid unintended
consequences.
3. Address critical data gaps to facilitate the trust needed to make
fair operational and legal decisions related to the next
set of Interim Guidelines. An agreed-upon, common data set
will build trust and enhance the ability of negotiators to
make needed difficult decisions.
4. Manage Lake Mead to provide the Lower Basin's share of the
Colorado River Compact water to Lower Basin users. Manage
Lake Powell to meet both the Colorado Compact obligations
to the Lower Basin and protect the Upper Colorado River
Compact obligations to the four Upper Basin states. Resolve
as many of the outstanding Compact issues as possible to
allow both basins to best adapt and adjust to projected
volatile hydrology and diminished water supplies. The
current and future water supply projections are much less
than those assumed from past negotiations.
5. Expand supply augmentation opportunities as options for meeting
growing water demands, at a time when Colorado River
supplies appear to be diminishing.
6. Emphasize that future urban growth cannot be encouraged without
locking in sustainable and diverse water supplies. Using
irrigated agriculture as the reservoir of water for that
growth--or for growing environmental demands--is not
sustainable in the long run.
These expectations will be further detailed and justified in a
white paper that we plan to release in early December.
The focus of my testimony has been on forest and watershed health,
which has direct bearing on the Alliance's higher-level Colorado River
policy work. Colorado River policy makers are currently seriously
considering augmenting Colorado River supply to meet current water
supply shortages, even from adjacent river watersheds. Augmentation
concepts include ideas like developing new high mountain reservoirs and
innovative new small-scale groundwater and aquifer upper watershed
storage projects in the Upper Basin. While much discussion has been
dedicated to the demand management ideas associated with the Federal
Drought Contingency Plan (DCP), there are other ways to develop
augmentation water, including through both cloudseeding and non-native
riparian vegetation removal operations. In addition to reinvigorating
these two alternatives, the Family Farm Alliance supports
quantification of water generated on the landscape through forest
restoration as a viable augmentation option. The water supply developed
from these augmentation sources could easily exceed any water developed
by a demand management program.
Generating new water through landscape management practices should
become a new priority throughout the West, including the Colorado River
Basin. Desalinization must continue to be part of potential solutions.
We need to actively engage in injecting these options into the
discussions to help provide a fair comparison to the negative impacts
associated with reducing Colorado River agricultural water supplies.
Conclusion
The revival of Colorado River watershed forests is crucial to
combating the effects of climate change. By bringing together
changemakers and working collaboratively, we can change the paradigm of
forest management. Success will mean healthier forests, healthier
wildlife populations, more prosperous and dynamic local communities,
more recreation opportunities, greater economic benefits and much-
needed security in our water supplies.
Balance in production and conservation is the answer to forest
health.
The epic drought we have been experiencing across the western
United States, especially in the last two years, and other weather
abnormalities are different than in the past. Our community has found
that solutions are local. We find that solutions come from the land.
Farmers, ranchers, foresters and fishers all across the West work in
the extremes of elements and volatile weather, and we share a love of
the land. We see the pressure on the land we manage and our water
supplies. Sadly, strategies appear to be evolving to take water from
Western farmers, from food production, and redirect it to other uses.
I'm very lucky to live in a ranching and farming community in a
watershed on the headwaters of the distressed Colorado River. We have
worked for 30 years on building resilience, leading to some of the most
significant watershed restoration and agricultural productivity
projects in the country, as we work with federal and state partners to
manage our land for multiple outcomes-protein production, fisheries,
wildlife, healthy forests and vibrant rural economies.
The key to our success has been local leadership and uncommon
collaboration with diverse partners to address our unique challenges
and capitalize on opportunities. Farmers must be at the center of all
discussions and decision-making on the Colorado River and other Western
watersheds. Significant input will be needed from a wide range of
farmer and other producer organizations outside of typical policymaking
structures. We all must become more adaptable and open to change. We
must learn from those who have experience.
We must become more effective in communicating to the world the
value of farmers and ranchers. Our societies are confused. The basic
principles of existence are under pressure. The steady rhythms of food
production and ecosystem services are crucial to understanding our
challenges and finding solutions.
We will continue our efforts to ensure that irrigated agriculture
continues to play a vital role in feeding our Nation, while keeping our
rural communities and the environment healthy. At a time of
unprecedented change, one certainty holds firm and true--our nation's
most valuable natural resource must be preserved.
The Family Farm Alliance believes that Colorado River Basin
interests can and will successfully work through future droughts and
water shortages in a collaborative and effective way. The future of
millions of people and millions of acres of farms and ranches and the
food and fiber they produce in the Basin rest on this belief. We also
believe if the Basin uses the principles and recommendations advanced
in this testimony, solutions can be found that do not pit one user
against another in resolving differences and complex water problems.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this important
issue. The Alliance looks forward to working with your Subcommittee and
the many agricultural, urban, energy and environmental water users in
finding these solutions so critical to the future of the Colorado River
Basin.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Patrick O'Toole, President,
Family Farm Alliance
Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
Question 1. In the hearing, I asked about how repairing conveyance
infrastructure in other basins outside of the Colorado River could
benefit management of the Colorado River but also the State Water
Project and Central Valley Project. Since we had limited time in the
hearing, I would like to give you the opportunity to provide written
responses to this question:
Could you explain how improving or repairing conveyance
infrastructure in basins outside of the Colorado River could help with
regards to managing the Colorado River's demands?
Answer. Thank you for this question, Rep. Costa. We appreciate your
long-time support for irrigated agriculture in the Central Valley and
throughout the West.
Colorado River Basin management actions are interconnected with
federal water management decisions made in both tributary and adjacent
river basins. Millions of people in Southern California rely upon
multiple sources for their water, including State Water Project (SWP)
supplies from Northern California and surface water from the Colorado
River. Restrictions on other non-connected water sources can limit
opportunities to manage Colorado River water more effectively in a
drought. The direct consequence of the lack of Northern California
water to Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) will
impact the demands and reliance on its Colorado River supplies and is
the most prominent modern-day example of this larger-scale policy
influence.
Interestingly, while the linkage between California's Bay-Delta and
much of the West should be obvious given daily headlines, many in
California do not see the connection. To fix the larger problem facing
the entire region, California has to resolve the Bay-Delta issues that
impact Central Valley Project (CVP) deliveries to our agricultural
water users, and SWP deliveries to customers like MWD, the largest
supplier of treated water in the United States. That includes
modernizing and repairing the conveyance facilities that carry SWP
water to Southern California.
CVP and SWP water conveyance facilities also provide management
flexibility and allow water to be transferred efficiently around the
Valley and to other parts of the state. Unfortunately, subsidence
caused by increased groundwater pumping has significantly impacted the
carrying capacity of those conveyance systems. That additional
groundwater use is happening in large part because Bay-Delta management
of CVP and SWP surface water has reallocated that once-reliable supply
to other uses. As water supply reliability from the Bay-Delta becomes
more uncertain, Southern California municipal and industrial users will
increasingly focus on the Colorado River and their other supply sources
to meet their demands.
Fixing and modernizing those large CVP and SWP conveyance
facilities in the San Joaquin Valley helps water users in Southern
California, the Central Valley and the Colorado River Basin.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thanks very much, Mr. O'Toole. I want to next
recognize Mr. Tom Davis, President of the Agribusiness and
Water Council of Arizona.
Mr. Davis, welcome to the Committee. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF TOM DAVIS, PRESIDENT, AGRIBUSINESS & WATER COUNCIL
OF ARIZONA, YUMA, ARIZONA
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member
Bentz, and members of the Committee. It is my pleasure to have
the opportunity to testify before you today concerning the
ongoing drought on the Colorado River.
As you have stated, my name is Tom Davis. I am Manager of
the Yuma County Water Users Association. I also serve as
President of the Agribusiness & Water Council of Arizona, and
also the Yuma County Agricultural Water Coalition.
Arizona agriculture is on the front lines of the current
21-year drought on the Colorado River. And we stand to be
impacted the most from the management of this drought. As the
result of the first-ever shortage declaration at Lake Mead,
Arizona will face an 18 percent reduction in our annual
divergence from the Colorado River in 2022. Arizona farmers who
receive water from the Central Arizona Project will be hit the
hardest. In places like Pinal County, irrigation districts will
see a 70 percent reduction in their surface water supplies in
2022, and a 100 percent reduction in these supplies in 2023.
This will result in significant amounts of farmland being
fallowed, and the trickle-down effect from reduced farm
revenues, jobs, equipment, seed purchases, food production, et
cetera.
In addition to major water supply concerns we have,
depleted reservoirs and reduced water releases will reduce
power generation on the river, reducing electricity available
for states like Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and California. This
reduced power production, and the need to replace it from other
sources, is expected to translate into double-digit increases
in electricity rates and potential brownouts during heavy
electricity use periods.
Hydropower revenues are used on an annual basis to pay for
numerous power costs associated with Federal endangered species
programs that Taylor referenced, and other environmental
requirements. However, covering these costs through power rates
in future years will become a significant hardship, and we
would like to work with the Subcommittee on resolving this
issue.
Long term, the Agribusiness Water Council and the Coalition
are both focusing on working with other water users and the
Bureau of Reclamation to ensure the renegotiation of the 2007
Guidelines in managing the river, and set the stage for
sustainable, predictable, equitable, and legal operations of
the Colorado River system after 2026. As part of this effort,
we are working with agriculture water users throughout the
Upper and Lower Basin to present a unified set of outcomes we
believe must be achieved by the Colorado River Compact decision
makers.
These outcomes will be the core principles that underpin
our efforts. They are outlined in my written testimony and will
be detailed further by a white paper we plan to release later
in the year.
Water from the Colorado River is the lifeblood for
agriculture in Arizona and throughout the Basin. In Yuma
County, water from the Colorado River fuels a $3.4 billion
agriculture economy and provides for 90 percent of the U.S.
production of leafy green vegetables in the winter months. The
Colorado River, delivered through Central Arizona Project, is
the reason Arizona is among the top national producers of
vegetables, melons, milk, cattle, and other crops.
In order to stretch our water resources even further, we
continue to make significant improvements in irrigation system
practices and equipment. This includes an outlining using
sprinkler and drip irrigation, laser leveling fields, soil
moisture monitoring, and efficient water delivery methods by
using SCADA, just to name a few.
Farmers are also changing cropping patterns, when
economical, to save water.
The national importance of Arizona farmers and ranchers,
along with decades of improvement and use efficiencies, are
important to understand as we work to address the drought in
future water management. This is especially in recent media
coverage of the drought that seems to be pushing the narrative
that water should be reduced from agricultural use, and provide
more water to growing cities and environmental purposes. This
is the wrong approach and the wrong solution.
We certainly don't want our food supply to be trapped in
supply chain interruptions, as we are currently seeing in this
country. We will be happy to work further with other water
users in the Basin to develop long-term solutions.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present testimony. I
will stand for questions later. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Tom W. Davis, President, Agribusiness & Water
Council of Arizona and Yuma County Agriculture Water Coalition
Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz and Members of the
Subcommittee: Across the Western U.S., farms and communities are
experiencing the impacts of severe drought conditions in 2021. For us
in the Colorado River Basin (Basin), the extremely dry conditions this
year are especially troubling as they come on the heels of over two
decades of below average hydrology. As you know, the Colorado River
supplies water and power to over 40 million people and 5.5 million
acres of agricultural lands. We appreciate the Subcommittee holding
this hearing today and for the opportunity to highlight the importance
of the Colorado River in providing drinking water to homes and
businesses across seven states and a major component of the secure food
supply for our Nation as a whole. This hearing also serves to highlight
the immediate steps and long-term principles that are needed to best
manage our scarce water resources in the Basin.
The Agribusiness & Water Council of Arizona (ABWC) represents the
agricultural community from ``ditch bank to dinner plate,'' in Arizona.
Its members include growers, agribusinesses, irrigation and electrical
districts, universities and other entities associated with Arizona's
agriculture economy.
The Yuma County Agriculture Water Coalition (Coalition) \1\
represents irrigated agriculture in the County on policy and budget
issues related to the Colorado River Basin and the impacts of those
issues on County agriculture. These issues include water supply, aging
federal water infrastructure, and other irrigation water related issues
of concern with respect to actions and decisions of the federal
government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Yuma County Agriculture Water Coalition includes the Yuma
Irrigation District, Yuma County Water Users Association, Yuma Mesa
Irrigation and Drainage District , North Gila Irrigation and Drainage
District, Unit B Irrigation and Drainage District, and Wellton-Mohawk
Irrigation and Drainage District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also serve as a member of the Advisory Board for the Family Farm
Alliance, which advocates for the protection and enhancement of
irrigated agriculture in the 17 Western states.
After 21 years of drought, including three of the driest years on
record, nearly every storage reservoir in the Colorado River system is
experiencing historically low water levels. In addition, Lake Mead
levels have led to a shortage declaration for the first time in the
Lower Colorado River Basin (Lower Basin), triggering reduced water
deliveries to Central Arizona farmers.
While the current drought and future hydrologic conditions--which
are expected to be warmer, with more volatility and less snowpack--are
daunting, thoughtful water management and infrastructure investments
can result in a Colorado River system that works better for everyone
and protects U.S. food security. This type of fact-based conversation
is especially important now, as recent media coverage is pushing a
narrative that seems to suggest Colorado River conditions warrant a
reflexive reduction to agricultural water use in order to reserve more
water for cities and the environment. That is the wrong approach and
the wrong solution.
The willingness by some to dismiss the importance of Western
irrigated agriculture is especially troublesome at this moment, just as
our country is seeing the vulnerability of our supply chains and facing
shortages of goods they want or need. It is unimaginable to think about
a time in the future where our food supply could also risk distribution
from a pandemic, natural disaster, or at the whim on a foreign country.
Yet removing water from farms in the Colorado River Basin and elsewhere
in the West will be a step down that exact path. Instead, the urgent
situation we currently face elevates the importance of water users
coming together to get through the immediate crisis and reject the kind
of zero-sum solutions that will come if we allow agriculture to be
pitted against other water users over the longer-term.
Agriculture and Water Use in Yuma County and Central Arizona
Arizona agriculture is important to our Nation, providing seasonal
availability of produce and significant economic contributions.
Additionally, farmers throughout the state continue to improve
irrigation practices and equipment. Both these factors provide
important context as water users in the Basin work together to manage
drought, especially as some continue to rely on old and/or discredited
data regarding agricultural water use as the basis to suggest water
should be reallocated away from farms.
Yuma County
Yuma County agriculture, made possible by irrigation water from the
Colorado River, is important to Arizona's economy and the food supply
of the United States. Agriculture contributes nearly $3.4 billion in
annual economic activity to Yuma County, which is the third largest
vegetable producing county in the nation.\2\ During the winter months--
from November through March--90% of the leafy vegetables produced in
the United States is grown in the Yuma area. Nine processing facilities
prepare two million pounds of lettuce per day for market during these
peak seasons. In addition to lettuce and other leafy vegetables, the
Yuma area produces over 175 different crops, and is blessed with the
favorable conditions that make it a world class location for seed
production and other specialty crops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.yumacountyaz.gov/government/county-administrator/
economic-development-plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even as agricultural production in Yuma County has increased, our
farmers have also improved efficiency of their water use. In fact, the
rate of water diverted to farms has decreased 15 percent since 1990 and
nearly 18 percent since 1975. This increased efficiency has been
accomplished through improved water management and infrastructure, and
a deliberate shift from perennial and summer-centric crops to winter-
centric, multi-crop systems that reduce irrigation during the hottest
summer months. For example, farmers and water managers have reduced
water use by investing in construction of concrete lined irrigation
ditches and high flow turnouts, shortening irrigation runs and
installing sprinkler and drip irrigation systems. Additionally, most
fields are laser leveled annually and growers utilize press wheels and
other management operations to improve water flow across fields.
Overall, Yuma growers' average irrigation application efficiencies in
the 80-85 percent range.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.agwateryuma.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/
ACaseStudyInEfficiency.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Arizona
Central Arizona has a long history of agricultural production,
dating back to the 400's A.D. when the Hohokam civilization used
hundreds of miles of irrigation canals to produce in the desert
environment. Today, the region is among the top national producers of
vegetables, melons, milk, cattle, and cotton, among others. It is also
home to important nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod
production.\4\,\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://economics.arizona.edu/file/1817/
download?token=Qw1qWZ6A.
\5\ https://economics.arizona.edu/file/1821/
download?token=GCidVv9V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as when the Hohokam civilization farmed thousands of years
ago, irrigation is essential to agriculture in Central Arizona. The
need for a reliable water supply for farms and cities in Central
Arizona led to the development of several large-scale water projects in
the region. The Central Arizona Project (CAP) was built to deliver
Arizona's entitlement of Colorado River water to the interior of the
state, with the preservation of irrigated farms as one of the primary
goals of the project.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://library.cap-az.com/documents/departments/finance/
Agriculture_2016-10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of irrigation technology continues to grow in this region.
For example, the use of sprinkler and microirrigation in Pinal County
increased by over 26,000 acres between 2010 and 2015.\7\ Additionally,
some farmers are experimenting with a change cropping patterns to some
less water intensive crops. Similar trends are present in other Central
Arizona Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://economics.arizona.edu/file/1821/
download?token=GCidVv9V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status and Impacts of Ongoing Drought
As mentioned above, the poor hydrology in the Basin and falling
reservoir levels led the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to declare
a shortage in the Lower Basin for the first time in history. Currently
(as of September 30), water stored across the entire Colorado River
system stood at 41% of total capacity. Reclamation modeling also shows
an increasing likelihood that Lakes Powell and Mead will continue to
drop, elevating the potential that they could reach critical levels
within the next 5 years. This modeling includes a 66% chance that the
Lower Basin could reach a Tier 2 shortage (Lake Mead elevation 1050) by
2023 and a 41% chance of a tier 3 shortage by 2025. Tier 3 shortage is
triggered when Lake Mead reaches elevation 1025, leaving less than one
year of water supply allocation in storage and the point where control
and management of the system is lost. Likewise, projections show Lake
Powell having a 34% chance of falling to minimum power pool by 2023.
While water cutbacks from the Tier 1 shortage will not hit Yuma
County water users' senior rights in the Basin, they will result in the
significant cutbacks for farmers in Central Arizona. Under the 2007
Colorado River Interim Guidelines and the 1944 Water Treaty with
Mexico, Lake Mead will operate under shortage status for the entirety
of calendar year 2022. This includes required reductions and
contributions for each individual state forming the lower basin. These
requirements include about 18 percent of Arizona's annual
apportionment, 7 percent of Nevada's annual apportionment and 5 percent
of Mexico's annual apportionment. The cuts will be the largest to date
on the River, and will hardest hit farmers who receive water from the
Central Arizona Project (CAP), who are further preparing for their
supplies to be entirely shut off in 2023.
These reductions will hit growers in Pinal County especially hard.
Pinal County irrigation districts will face up to 70% reductions in
surface water supplies in 2022 and 100% reductions in 2023. Initially,
excess water available in the CAP system was going to provide a
lifeline until 2030, but the Tier 1 shortage declaration has
accelerated the impacts which will now hit next year. The districts are
intensely planning how best to deliver their remaining groundwater
supplies but face challenges due to lack of adequate infrastructure and
resistance from those who oppose increased groundwater pumping in the
County. Significant amounts of farmland will need to be fallowed
resulting in reduced farm revenues, jobs, equipment and seed purchases,
and food and fiber production. This is the face of drought in the Lower
Colorado River Basin.
Beyond the curtailments in 2022, the troubling projections for Lake
Mead levels may accelerate actions to protect lake levels. The ABWC and
Coalition are open to constructive solutions designed to protect the
Colorado River system and comply with the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan
(DCP) requirement for elevation 1030 consultations that were triggered
by this recent modeling. Instead of looking to irrigated agriculture in
the Basin as a reservoir for future municipal, industrial and
environmental water supplies, we must ensure long term equitable
success in these discussions by including agricultural water users at
the negotiating table from the beginning.
Drought Related Power Impacts
In addition to significant water supply concerns, decreased
hydropower generation and the resulting increased replacement
electricity costs are compounding the impact of the ongoing and
historic drought in the Basin. Depleted storage and reduced water
releases continue to reduce the amount of hydropower produced at the
Hoover Dam, Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), and Parker-Davis
projects, along with the revenue available to support significant non-
power costs assigned to power users.
The impact of this reduced generation to our members is two-fold
and will translate into sudden, double-digit percentage electricity
rate increases. First, because federal hydropower customers are
responsible for paying all capital and operational costs associated
with generation and transmission of energy at these facilities, along
with environmental and non-power expenses that have been assigned by
federal statute, decreased generation means those costs are spread over
fewer megawatt hours resulting in higher rates per kilowatt hour.
Second, replacement power must be secured to make up for reduced
hydropower generation, an impact compounded by the current high price
of electricity on the open market driven by persistent heat waves, the
loss of generation facilities in the region, and other factors.
The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) has communicated that
Hoover, CRSP and Parker-Davis customers should expect the cost of
replacement power alone to exceed over $130 million in 2022. Colorado
River project customers now will face unprecedented volatility and
uncertainty that erodes the benefits of recently signed long-term power
contracts (40-50 year) and threatens the economic viability of these
projects.
One option to mitigate drought related hydro impacts is to
temporarily provide drought relief appropriations or other funds to be
used in lieu of hydropower revenues to cover non-power costs on a non-
reimbursable basis. Over many years, Hoover, Parker-Davis, and CRSP
hydropower ratepayers have contributed significant revenues to the
Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund and Upper Colorado River
Basin Fund to cover important non-power Reclamation programs and costs.
The programs funded by these revenues are fundamentally federal
responsibilities and requirements, and include aid to irrigation,
environmental and endangered species recovery programs, the Colorado
River Salinity Control Program, and others. While these annual expenses
can be absorbed in normal water years, requiring hydropower customers
to pay for these federal programs while confronting the massive
additional costs expected due to the extreme drought conditions and
difficult power market conditions is a significant financial hardship.
Colorado River Reconsultation
At the same time we are responding to the water and power impacts
of our existing drought conditions, the Basin States, irrigation
managers, water agencies, Native American tribes, nongovernmental
organizations, and other stakeholders are beginning the hard work of
replacing the 2007 ``Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and
the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead'' that expire
in 2026. This new set of Guidelines will largely govern how Colorado
River water is managed over the coming decades and negotiations will
involve many difficult decisions and creative solutions.
As these efforts get underway, members of the ABWC and Yuma County
Agricultural Water Coalition are working with agricultural water users
throughout the Upper and Lower Basins to ensure that farming and
ranching is properly considered in negotiations. There will inevitably
be disagreements between stakeholders as reconsultation negotiations
progress. However, we are we are working together to present
fundamental expectations of the reconsultation and are nearing
agreement on the following set of outcomes that we believe Colorado
Compact decision makers must achieve in the next set of produce
operating guidelines:
1. Recognize that Western irrigated agriculture is a strategic and
irreplaceable national resource.
2. Provide certainty to all users and interests with equitable
apportionment decisions made from a foundation of state
water law, common sense and fairness.
3. Address critical data gaps to facilitate the trust needed to make
fair operational and legal decisions related to the next
set of Interim Guidelines.
4. Manage Lake Mead to provide the Lower Basin's share of the
Colorado River Compact water to Lower Basin users. Manage
Lake Powell to meet both the Colorado Compact obligations
to the Lower Basin and protect the Upper Colorado River
Compact obligations to the four Upper Basin states.
5. Expand supply augmentation opportunities as options for meeting
growing water demands, at a time when Colorado River
supplies appear to be diminishing.
6. Emphasize that future urban growth cannot be encouraged without
locking in sustainable and diverse water supplies.
These outcome expectations build off the policy principles
developed by Basin agriculture interests in the Family Farm Alliance's
2015 publication entitled ``Colorado River Basin Water Management:
Principles and Recommendation.'' These principles include:
1. State water laws, compacts and decrees must be the foundation for
dealing with shortages.
2. Water use and related beneficial use data must be accurately
measured and portrayed.
3. Benefits of water use must reflect all economic/societal/
environmental impacts.
4. True costs of transferring water away from irrigated farms in a
managed system like the Colorado River through land
fallowing must be accurately accounted for, including
unintended consequences and third-party impacts.
Understanding these costs will assist in determining the
fair value of any land fallowing proposal.
5. Agricultural water conservation can help stretch water supplies,
but has its limits.
6. Public sentiment supports water remaining with irrigated
agriculture, and developing strategic water storage
opportunities as insurance against shortages.
7. Technologies for water reuse and recycling are proven effective
in stretching existing supplies for urban, environmental
and other uses.
8. Urban growth should not be permitted in the future without
locking in sustainable and diverse water supplies, and
using irrigated agriculture as the reservoir of water for
municipal growth is not sustainable in the long run.
Making strategic decisions based on these outcome expectations and
policy principles will prevent any systemic and permanent reallocation
of irrigation water to urban or environmental use. Such a reallocation
would not only harm U.S. food security and reduce the employment,
cultural, and environmental values of agricultural lands and rural
communities in the Basin, it would also reduce drought resilience for
urban water users in the Basin. By reducing the agricultural water
supply that could be made available to urban use on a temporary and
voluntary basis to respond to emergency shortages and incorporating it
into base supplies that are relied upon annually by growing urban
populations, we will essentially harden urban demand to the point that
there will be no flexibility during years of shortage. This outcome
would create tensions between urban and agricultural water users ending
up in a zero-sum game of urban versus rural in the Basin.
Conclusion
Thank you for holding this important hearing and for the
opportunity to testimony on behalf of ABWC and the Coalition. The path
out of the current drought and long-term management challenges on the
Colorado River will be a long one and will be successful if a
transparent and collaborative process is undertaken. To accomplish
this, Arizona agriculture--along with agricultural producers throughout
the Basin--must have a place at the table from day one and the full
value of irrigated agriculture for food production, responsible water
management, rural economies, and the environment must be considered.
The Coalition understands the growing water needs in the Basin and
supports augmenting existing supplies in a strategic way that avoids
targeting reallocation of low-cost sources including transfer of
agricultural water without consideration of the true costs and
consequences of such a reallocation.
Agricultural water users have always stepped up to work
constructively with other stakeholders to find lasting solutions. We
look forward to working with the Basin States and this Subcommittee to
do so again in the future.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Tom Davis, President,
Agribusiness & Water Council of Arizona
Questions Submitted by Representative Costa
Question 1. In the hearing, I asked about how repairing conveyance
infrastructure in other basins outside of the Colorado River could
benefit management of the Colorado River but also the State Water
Project and Central Valley Project. Since we had limited time in the
hearing, I would like to give you the opportunity to provide written
responses to this question: Could you explain how improving or
repairing conveyance infrastructure in basins outside of the Colorado
River could help with regards to managing the Colorado River's demands?
Answer. Metropolitan Water Project of Southern California has
multiple sources for its water supply. Water pumped from the Colorado
River and water imported from northern CA are two of these sources.
Logically the more water imported from northern CA the less Colorado
River water Metropolitan would be required to pump. I understand
Metropolitan is having infrastructural problems getting its water
through the Sacramento River delta area. There have been designs for a
tunnel transport or a bypass canal transport of moving water through
the delta. If an efficient transport of Metropolitan water through the
delta can be constructed, possibly less Colorado River would be
required to serve its supply.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Before we go to our next
witness, let me just clean up a little housekeeping item that I
had meant to address in my opening remarks.
We would like for Representative Susie Lee of Nevada and
Paul Gosar of Arizona to join us today as part of the hearing
to ask questions of the witnesses.
So, hearing no objection to that, it is so ordered.
We had intended to have Congressman Joe Neguse introduce
our next witness, who is Ms. Anne Castle, a senior fellow at
the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and
the Environment at the University of Colorado.
Mr. Neguse sings your praises, Ms. Castle, and regrets that
he is unable to be here for that introduction. But I want to
pass along his best wishes and recognize you to testify for the
next 5 minutes. Thank you, and welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF ANNE CASTLE, SENIOR FELLOW, GETCHES-WILKINSON
CENTER FOR NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT,
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, BOULDER, COLORADO
Ms. Castle. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, and good morning,
Ranking Member Bentz, and members of the Subcommittee. Thanks
very much for the invitation to testify.
My work focuses on western water policy issues, and
particularly the Colorado River. From 2009 to 2014, I was the
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of
the Interior.
The Colorado River Basin has been the lightning rod for
climate change shocks to the water system. Last year, Lake
Powell's water levels dropped more than 50 feet, and that
represents a loss of over 4 million acre-feet of water in just
1 year. If we have another year like the one we just had, Lake
Powell's level will drop below the hydropower turbines in Glen
Canyon Dam. So, in less than a year from now, there wouldn't be
any power generation at Lake Powell, and the Upper Basin's
ability to continue to meet its obligations under the Colorado
River Compact could also be in jeopardy soon after that. And
even that scenario could be optimistic.
You have heard about the substantial and really exemplary
efforts of the states, Interior, and the major water users in
increasing their conservation, releasing water from upstream
reservoirs, working on additional recycling, and a whole lot of
other good work. And this Committee is funding proposals for
the Salton Sea, and large-scale reuse projects will also help
to bring balance to the system.
But despite all those efforts, the reservoirs continue to
decline. What we have is a water imbalance--a math problem, as
you put it last week, Chairman Huffman. And there is really no
getting around the fact that this means that everybody has to
use even less water, just as Mr. Costa said.
So, we need a plan that shares the burden of these reduced
supplies, but does it in a way that promotes equity among the
states, between the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, among the
various sectors of the economy, including the agricultural
sector, and with the Native American tribes. And the Colorado
River Basin has a history of coming together around
collaborative agreements for management of the river, and the
water leaders in this Basin have been rightly celebrated and
admired for their collaborative efforts and the results.
If you look at those past agreements, there are two
ingredients they all had in common. One was hydrology. It has
to get really bad before there is sufficient motivation to act.
And the other common ingredient is a directive or a deadline
from the Department of the Interior. Both of those factors were
critical in spurring the agreements that led to the 2007
Guidelines and the Drought Contingency Plans.
Well, we certainly have the bad hydrology right now, but
there has not been a directive or a deadline from Interior, or
a default plan that could go into place if the collaborative
agreement that everybody wants doesn't come together quickly
enough. So, the point I want to emphasize is the need for
speed.
The urgency of what we are experiencing, and the rapid
declines in the reservoirs mean that we need all the available
tools to be deployed. And you have heard about a lot of those
tools. It is just not clear that the river will allow the
current pace of discussions to continue without devastating
consequences.
I also want to mention the need to ensure that all tribal
communities in the Colorado River Basin have clean and safe
water to drink. We have a window of opportunity with the
infrastructure bill to make meaningful progress. And the
funding that is provided there is absolutely essential to close
the gaps in drinking water infrastructure in Indian Country. We
owe it to these communities to provide them with the same basic
level of service that most Americans take for granted.
Thank you again for the invitation to speak today, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Castle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne Castle, Senior Fellow, Getches-Wilkinson
Center, University of Colorado Law School
Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and Members of the
Subcommittee, Thank you for the invitation to testify on this important
subject of shrinking flows in the Colorado River and the necessary
response. My name is Anne Castle and I am a Senior Fellow at the
Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the
Environment at the University of Colorado Law School. I am an attorney
who focuses on western water policy and, from 2009 to 2014, I was the
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Colorado River Declining Flow and Responses
The Colorado River is the lightning rod for climate change impacts
on water resources. Impacts in this basin have been relentless and
dramatic.
Since the start of the 21st century, the river's flows declined by
20 percent compared to the 20th century average. The reservoirs have
dropped as a predictable result, from 95 percent full at the end of the
20th century to 32 percent full at the end of September 2021.
The reservoirs' declines have come despite significant reductions
in water use among U.S. users in the Lower Colorado River Basin and
Upper Basin users never expanding into their full legal allocation. The
best available data suggests water use in the basin is declining. The
1922 Colorado River Compact and subsequent statutes and court decisions
allocated 7.5 million acre feet of water each from the Colorado's
mainstem for the river's Upper and Lower Basins. From 2011-2020, the
Lower Basin average use was 7.2 million acre feet of water, while the
Upper Basin averaged 3.9 million acre feet of use from 2009-2018.
Notwithstanding users taking less than they were originally
allotted, the major reservoirs have continued to decline because of an
imbalance between 20th century expectations of how much water use the
river could support and the 21st century reality. Last month, the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation's projections posited a 41 percent chance that
Lake Mead could drop to less than one quarter full by 2025, and a 34
percent chance that Lake Powell could drop so low that water would no
longer be able to reach its power-generating turbines as soon as 2023.
It is also important to note that many tribal water rights in the basin
have not yet been fully developed but likely will be in the future,
putting additional stress and uncertainty on an already over-allocated
system. Nor have environmental or ecosystem needs been historically
accounted for as part of the overall system water balance.
Hydropower generation has been and continues to be an important
element of the Colorado River system of dams and reservoirs. This
system can supply approximately 4,200 megawatts of energy annually,
reducing the use of fossil fuels in the area. The value of the
hydropower produced at Glen Canyon Dam alone has been estimated to
average over $150 million annually. But hydropower production at Glen
Canyon has decreased by approximately 16% since the year 2000, and
further reductions across the system are anticipated because of lower
inflows and releases. The loss of this power generation not only
affects customer rates but also ripples through many different sectors
as power revenues support the operation of and repayment for other
Reclamation water projects, environmental programs (e.g., Upper
Colorado and San Juan endangered fish recovery programs and basin-wide
salinity control), and the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program.
The chart below shows the progression of storage levels in Lake
Powell (in blue) and in the entire system of Colorado River Storage
Projects reservoirs in the Upper Basin (in orange). The plunging levels
over the last two years signal the need for rapid action to prevent
further unsustainable losses in these critical water savings accounts.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Action Urgently Needed
Lake Powell dropped over 50 feet in the water year that ended three
weeks ago. That represents a loss of over four million acre feet of
water in just one year. If we experience another year like the one we
just had, Lake Powell's level will drop below the hydropower turbine
intakes. So in October 2022, there would be no hydropower generation at
Lake Powell. And the Upper Basin's ability to meet its obligations
under the Colorado River Compact could be jeopardized soon thereafter.
That's just one year from right now, if this hydrology continues.
We should not allow that to happen.
The Colorado River Basin has a history of coming together around
collaborative agreements that govern the management of the river. The
basin state leaders and major water users are rightly celebrated and
admired for that work and results, and the testimony of the witnesses
at this hearing have emphasized that collaboration.
If you look at the agreements on river management reached
collaboratively in the past, there were two ingredients they all had in
common. One was hydrology--it has to get really bad before there is
sufficient motivation to act. The other common ingredient is a
directive or a deadline or a default plan from the Department of the
Interior.
In 2004, Interior officials warned the Lower Basin states that
cutbacks in deliveries would be unilaterally imposed unless the states
came to agreement. In 2005, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton
directed Reclamation to develop a plan to address low reservoir
conditions. A collaborative agreement came together in 2007 with the
adoption of the Interim Guidelines, eliminating the need for the
implementation of the federal plan.
Another example occurred in 2013, when continued low flows in the
river revealed that the 2007 Interim Guidelines provisions were not
sufficient to halt the declines in the reservoirs. Secretary Sally
Jewel told the states to come up with additional plans to address the
impacts of climate change. She stated that she had a responsibility to
take action if the states did not. That directive spurred the
discussions that ultimately resulted in the Drought Contingency Plans.
But those plans still hadn't come together five years later. So in
2018, Commissioner of Reclamation Brenda Burman warned that unless the
states were able to come to agreement by the end of January 2019,
Reclamation would develop and implement a plan on its own within the
year. The states cleared the way shortly thereafter and the DCPs were
put in place later in 2019.
All of those previous collaborative agreements were facilitated by
terrible hydrology and a directive or deadline from Interior. We
certainly have the bad hydrology right now, but there has not yet been
a federal directive or default plan that would go into place if the
states are not able to act quickly enough.
The Basin States and Interior are certainly focused on addressing
the deteriorating hydrology and rapidly declining reservoir levels.
Emergency drought response operations are being implemented now in the
Upper Basin to raise water levels in Lake Powell. But this effort will
boost the elevation by only 3 feet at a time when the reservoir
experienced a decline of 50 feet in just one year. Work is continuing
on a longer-term plan for drought response operations, but it will
likely not be in place for another year. Consultation is beginning
between the Lower Basin states and Interior, triggered by the
provisions of the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan and the
declining levels in Lake Mead, concerning additional measures to be
taken to protect against catastrophic further declines.
Interior is also devoting very substantial funding to its drought
relief efforts, including payment of compensation to induce water users
to forego use and allow the conserved water to remain in the system.
The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, H.R. 3684, would
provide the Bureau of Reclamation with tremendous additional funding of
$8.3 billion to address infrastructure, conservation, drought, and
climate change. This Committee's proposals in the budget reconciliation
bill (Build Back Better Act) will add to Reclamation's abilities. This
funding will undoubtedly assist greatly in contributing to conservation
and improved infrastructure that will help the basin adjust to the new
normal.
There is an ongoing healthy debate about population projections in
the Colorado River basin states and the resulting water demand. Issues
concerning realistic population growth, forecasts of water demand as
compared to historical actual usage, and additional water development
anticipated by the Colorado River Compact have all received
considerable attention. But the simple fact remains that the Colorado
River system is limited by supply and any additional demands imposed on
the system reduce the amount available for existing uses.
The Colorado River system is in a state of imbalance. What is
needed is a plan for sharing the burden of reduced supplies, one that
recognizes the diverse economic and investment-backed interests at
stake, but also provides equity among the Basin States, between the
Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, and for the Native American tribes.
Imposition of a federally designed river management system is not a
good outcome. A solution that reflects robust give and take among the
states, tribes, and water users is a far better result. But state
officials are challenged by their need to protect multiple interests
with sometimes competing priorities, and progress toward collaborative
solutions can be slow. The ongoing investigation of demand management
in the Upper Basin reflects those challenges and the consequent lack of
speed. It is unclear whether the river will allow the current pace to
continue without devastating consequences.
The healthy and understandable dislike of unwelcome federal
interference in river operations provides rich motivation to states,
tribes, and water users to reach their own agreement.
Having a default alternative to work against can provide additional
motivation to reach agreement on difficult compromises in a timely
manner. Federal directives have been most effective when they establish
explicit goals and deadlines. The point is not to determine winners or
losers but to provide one option designed to address and mitigate the
devastating impacts of a shrinking river. Other options may prove more
acceptable to the states, tribes, and major water users and, if so,
should definitely be adopted.
The urgency of reaching such an agreement cannot be overstated. The
relentless declines in reservoirs levels are occurring despite heroic
efforts by states, tribes, and water users to conserve, to develop
alternative sources of water, and to use water more efficiently.
Unfortunately, this means that the available options for addressing the
deteriorating conditions are narrowing. If the storage levels decline
further, the amazing resource and flexibility provided by the Colorado
River's huge reservoirs as water savings accounts will disappear.
Action is necessary now to maintain equilibrium in the system and take
advantage of the relatively small amount of stored water cushion that
remains.
Universal Access to Clean Drinking Water for Tribal Communities
In the context of water issues in the Colorado River basin, it is
critical to include the necessity of addressing the ongoing lack of
access to clean and safe drinking water for Native Americans. The need
and obligation to ensure that all tribal communities have clean water
to drink cannot be overemphasized. We have a window of opportunity with
the infrastructure bill and other funding vehicles to make meaningful
progress, and we owe it to these indigenous communities to provide the
same level of basic service that most Americans take for granted.
The coronavirus pandemic has tragically highlighted the vast and
long-standing inequities facing Tribal communities, including
disparities in water access. According to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), American Indians and Alaska Natives are
more likely than any other ethnic or racial group to be hospitalized or
die from COVID. Limited access to running water is one of the main
factors contributing to this elevated rate of incidence. According to
the U.S. Water Alliance, Native American households are 19 times more
likely than white households to lack indoor plumbing. Without a safe,
reliable, affordable, and easily accessible water supply, these
households are unable to meet basic personal hygiene, food preparation,
domestic cleaning, and other needs required for good health.
``Water is essential to every aspect of household and community
life and the economy,'' as recognized by the American Society of Civil
Engineers. Yet many tribal communities still do not have access to
clean and safe water. This lack of access reflects historical and
persisting racial inequities that have resulted in health and socio-
economic disparities. ``Race is the strongest predictor of water and
sanitation access,'' with Native Americans more likely than any other
group to face water access issues.
At least seven different federal agencies provide some type of
funding for tribal drinking water or sanitation projects through over
20 different programs. The primary agencies involved in water related
projects include: Indian Health Service through its Sanitation
Facilities Construction Program; Environmental Protection Agency
through its Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants--Tribal Set Aside and
Clean Water Act--Tribal Set Aside programs; U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Rural Development program; and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
as directed by Congress.
The Indian Health Service's Sanitation Facilities Construction
Program is the effort most directly aimed at ensuring that tribes have
clean drinking water infrastructure. This program, like many of the
others listed above, has been historically underfunded. The chart below
shows the discrepancy between the unmet need for water and sanitation
facilities in Indian country as estimated by the Indian Health Service
and the annual appropriations for the program.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Tribal Access to Clean Water Act of 2021, S. 2369, would
provide funding for each of the primary agency programs aimed at
righting this long-standing wrong. The full current amount of estimated
need for Indian Health Service construction funding, $3.5 billion, is
included in the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, H.R.
3684. This funding is an absolute necessity for Indian country.
But the need doesn't stop with construction funding. These systems,
whether new or existing, need to be operated by qualified personnel and
maintained in a manner that preserves their functionality. Multiple
tribes have attested to the desperate need for operation and
maintenance support, even for new facilities, as the remote nature of
many of these systems makes them expensive to maintain and the
available resources within tribal communities to support ongoing costs
can be lacking. Tribal communities do not have access to the same
sources of funding as other municipal water providers, lacking the
ability, for example, to impose property taxes on their lands for the
purpose of funding and maintaining capital infrastructure.
The Indian Health Service has authority to provide O&M assistance
(25 U.S.C. 1632(b)), but that authority has never received funding. The
authorizing statute contemplates the need for O&M assistance ``to
protect the Federal investment in tribal sanitation facilities.'' The
unprecedented amount of funding for construction and repair of these
facilities through the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act underscores the need to protect that investment and ensure
sustainable operation of these systems. IHS technical assistance will
help fill the gaps in tribal capacity to design, operate, and maintain
appropriate water and wastewater disposal systems.
As provided in S. 2369, $500 million is needed to fund the IHS
authority to provide operation and maintenance assistance to tribal
communities for water and wastewater infrastructure. Further funding is
necessary for tribal technical assistance, to allow tribes to
participate in the planning of the needed systems and to ensure that
tribal members are developing the technical skills required to take
over the operation and maintenance of both the physical systems and the
governance structures. S. 2369 would provide funding for the existing
technical assistance programs in IHS and the Bureau of Reclamation in
the amounts of $150 million and $90 million, respectively. These needs
are not currently funded in either H.R. 3684 or the budget
reconciliation (Build Back Better) bill, but they should be.
In addition to funding, it is also necessary to ensure that the
work of the various federal agencies that have tribal water programs
are coordinated in their approach and committed to the goal of
providing universal clean water access in Indian country. The solutions
for each tribal community will be site specific and a ``whole of
government'' approach is required to take advantage of the strengths of
each relevant agency. Tribes understandably lack the resources, both
human and financial, necessary to navigate all the potentially
applicable federal programs and access them successfully. To fully
realize the goal of universal access to clean water, the federal
government must internalize the responsibility of assessing the unique
tribal needs, determine through consultation and recognition of tribal
sovereignty which programs can provide the necessary support, assist
the tribes in navigating those programs, and help to implement the
infrastructure and services needed on the ground. Throughout this
process, federal personnel should ensure that designated tribal members
are developing the technical skills required to take over the operation
and maintenance of both the physical systems and the governance
structures.
Tribes have not historically been included in negotiations and
agreements concerning Colorado River management. The principals in the
Basin States and federal agencies have committed in good faith to
correcting that omission. Ensuring that tribal communities in the Basin
have universal access to clean and safe drinking water should be
considered a foundation for any future agreements.
A window of opportunity has opened to address drinking water
insecurity in Indian country. It is critical that action be taken
before that window closes and these issues are allowed to languish for
another decade or even another generation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on
this important subject. I look forward to your questions and further
discussion.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Anne Castle, Senior Fellow,
Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy and the
Environment, University of Colorado
Questions Submitted by Representative Napolitano
Question 1. In your testimony, you say that ``ensuring that tribal
communities in the Basin have universal access to clean and safe
drinking water should be considered a foundation for any future
Colorado River agreements.''
(a) Can you explain why you recommend linking the two critical
issues of: securing clean water for tribes, and creating a meaningful
role for tribes in Colorado River discussions?
Answer. Because access to clean drinking water is a fundamental
component of human life, it is not surprising that Colorado River Basin
leadership supports achievement of the goal of universal access, as has
been affirmed by the Western States Water Council and by the Governor's
representatives of the Colorado River Basin States in their testimony
to this Subcommittee on October 15, 2021. The Basin States and the
Department of the Interior have also committed to meaningful inclusion
of Tribes in discussions and negotiations concerning management and
operation of the river and reservoirs. The 30 tribal nations in the
Colorado River Basin will determine exactly what interests and demands
they will seek to have considered in future Colorado River agreements,
and I do not presume to speak for them. However, regardless of whether
universal access to clean and safe drinking water is a specific point
of negotiation in Colorado River management discussions, it should be
considered foundational to a broader recognition of equity throughout
the basin.
Questions Submitted by Representative Stansbury
Question 1. In your testimony, you noted that at least seven
Federal agencies provide some type of funding for Tribal drinking water
or sanitation projects through over 20 different programs. How can the
Federal Government better consult with Tribes and improve programs to
address Tribal water needs?
Question 2. How can Reclamation make programs such as WaterSMART
more accessible to Tribes and Pueblos and small rural communities where
the local cost share requirement is prohibitive?
Answer. A coordinated federal approach to deploying the
unprecedented funding provided by the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act is essential to effective use of these resources and achieving
the goal of universal access to clean drinking water in Tribal
communities. A report recently released by the Water & Tribes
Initiative (Admin Reform Report) describes in specific detail the
barriers to optimal deployment of funding to support universal access
to clean water in the programs of the Indian Health Service, EPA, USDA-
Rural Development, and the Bureau of Reclamation and provides
recommendations for operational, administrative, policy and regulatory
reforms.
The Admin Reform recommends a ``whole of government'' approach to
maximize the capabilities of each of these agencies and provides a
roadmap for implementing that approach, including the establishment of
a Cross-Agency Priority Goal by the executive branch and reinvigorating
the Federal Tribal Infrastructure Task Force established in 2007 but
dormant during the last Administration. Tanya Trujillo, Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior, also
recommended the use of this task force in her testimony to this
Subcommittee on Nov. 4. In October 2021, the EPA Office of Water issued
its report on Strengthening the Nation-to-Nation Relationship with
Tribes to Secure a Sustainable Water Future Action Plan, which also
indicates its support for this task force (which EPA heads) and for
renewing the Memorandum of Understanding that created the task force.
The Admin Reform Report provides specifics on appropriate changes
to the federal agency programs that will enhance the agencies'
abilities to effectively utilize the new funding made available by the
IIJA and eliminate constraints on assistance that are no longer
necessary. The Report also makes recommendations for the enhancement of
Tribal consultation in connection with identifying appropriate
solutions to lack of access to clean water in the Tribal communities
and improving Tribal capacity to operate and maintain these systems
over the long term.
The requirements for a local cost share in many of the federal
programs addressing safe and clean drinking water have presented
prohibitive barriers to Tribal use in the past. The report referenced
above recommends elimination of at least some of those cost share
requirements. With respect to the WaterSMART program, authority for
this program is provided by Section 9504 of P.L. 111-11, 42 U.S.C.
10364. That law provides that the federal share of the cost of any
infrastructure improvement or activity supported by a WaterSMART grant
may not exceed 50 percent of the cost of the infrastructure improvement
or activity. Reducing the cost share requirement for WaterSMART grants
to Tribes would require a statutory amendment. This should be
considered as it is unfortunately true that funding available to Tribes
for water infrastructure may frequently go unused because the
associated cost share requirements cannot be met.
Questions Submitted by Representative Neguse
Question 1. Earlier this year, I introduced a resolution that
recognizes the critical importance of access to reliable, clean
drinking water for Native Americans and Alaska Natives, and confirms
the responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure such water
access.
(a) What are the barriers that prevent a whole of government
approach to solving this tragic problem of water access for Tribal
communities?
(b) What steps can Congress take to invest in universal access to
clean drinking water in Indian Country?
Answer. Thank you Rep. Neguse for your introduction of House
Resolution 320, recognizing the critical importance of access to
reliable, clean drinking water for Native Americans and Alaska Natives
and confirming the responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure
such water access. All of the testimony of witnesses at the hearing of
this subcommittee on November 4, 2021 supported H. Res. 320 and the
concepts it propounds.
As documented in the report of the Colorado River Water and Tribes
Initiative on Universal Access to Clean Water for Tribal Communities,
there are at least seven different federal agencies with over twenty
different programs that provide some type of drinking water or
sanitation funding for Tribes. Each agency has unique strengths and
challenges in effectively implementing its programs to address some or
all of the forms of lack of access to clean drinking water in Indian
Country. Every program provides different types of assistance and
levels of funding, and has its own eligibility, cost share, and
application requirements. The multiplicity of programs and requirements
creates a very difficult navigational challenge for Tribal communities
and water/wastewater providers. Limited historical funding for these
programs has also meant that the responsible agencies have prioritized
and circumscribed the projects and efforts to which agency funding will
be directed. These limitations are not necessary or appropriate now
with the infusion of funding for these programs in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
A new report released on November 16, 2021 by the Water & Tribes
Initiative (Admin Reform Report) describes in specific detail the
barriers to optimal deployment of funding to support universal access
to clean water in the programs of the Indian Health Service, EPA, USDA-
Rural Development, and the Bureau of Reclamation, and provides
recommendations for operational, administrative, policy and regulatory
reforms. This report recommends a ``whole of government'' approach to
maximize the capabilities of each of these agencies and provides a
roadmap for implementing that approach, including the establishment of
a Cross-Agency Priority Goal by the executive branch and reinvigorating
the Federal Tribal Infrastructure Task Force established in 2007 but
dormant during the last Administration. Tanya Trujillo, Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior, also
recommended the use of this task force in her testimony to this
Subcommittee on November 4. In October 2021, the EPA Office of Water
issued its report on Strengthening the Nation-to-Nation Relationship
with Tribes to Secure a Sustainable Water Future Action Plan, which
also indicates its support for this task force (which EPA heads) and
for renewing the Memorandum of Understanding that created the task
force. The Admin Reform Report provides specifics on appropriate
changes to the federal agency programs that will enhance the agencies'
abilities to effectively utilize the new funding made available by the
IIJA and eliminate constraints on assistance that are no longer
necessary.
Congress can ensure that the funding provided by the IIJA for
Tribal access to clean drinking water is appropriately and
expeditiously utilized and effectuates real solutions on the ground.
Oversight hearings on the deployment of this funding can be useful to
establish deadlines and spur progress. The House Natural Resources
Committee can require accountability and request regular reporting on
plans for deployment of funding and progress made. Specific milestones
and metrics can be established, e.g., number of Tribal households newly
provided with access to clean water, number of households where the
reliability of water supply was substantially improved, etc.
In addition, funding is required to support operation and
maintenance (O&M) of clean and safe drinking water systems for Tribal
communities. Multiple Tribes have attested to the desperate need for
O&M support, even for new facilities, as the remote nature of many of
these systems makes them expensive to maintain and the available
resources within Tribal communities to support ongoing costs can be
lacking. The Indian Health Service is currently authorized to directly
provide O&M support for Tribal water, sewage, and solid waste systems
(25 U.S.C. 1632(b)). However, Congress has never appropriated any
funding for IHS to provide assistance to Tribes for the day-to-day
expenses related to effectively running a drinking water system. This
funding should be appropriated in the amount of $500 million, as
provided in S. 2369, the Tribal Access to Clean Water Act of 2021. IHS
should also develop a method of identifying any systems in service that
have ongoing challenges meeting their long-term O&M costs.
Question 2. You mentioned in your testimony the existing history of
officials in the Colorado River Basin and the Federal Government coming
together to develop plans and address the low water levels in the basin
in the past, but that there has not yet been a similar agreement
reached for this year, despite the impending water cutbacks that will
begin in January of next year for Lower Basin states.
(a) What additional action should the Federal Government take in
order to support these collaborative efforts?
(b) How do we ensure that all states, tribes, and communities that
will be impacted will be represented in those discussions?
Answer. As my testimony pointed out, directives or deadlines from
the Secretary of the Interior to the Colorado River Basin States have
been critical in the past to spurring agreement among the States and
interested water users. In some cases, the Secretary proposed a default
plan that would go into place if the collaborative agreement everybody
wants did not come together quickly enough. That has not yet occurred
in connection with the crisis now unfolding in the Colorado River Basin
with precipitous declines in the major reservoirs and low flows in the
river. The urgency of what the river basin is currently experiencing
and the rapid declines in the reservoirs mean that we need all
available tools to be deployed. It is simply not clear that the river
will allow us to continue the current pace of discussions without
devastating consequences.
There are multiple communities that are affected by agreements
concerning the operation and management of the Colorado River, and the
impacts on those communities must be considered in any proposed
management regime. Because of the significant quantum of water owned or
controlled by Tribal communities and their historical exclusion from
these discussions, however, it is particularly critical that a formal
process be followed to ensure Tribal participation. Daryl Vigil of the
Jicarilla Apache Tribe in his testimony to this Subcommittee on Day One
of this oversight hearing on Oct. 15 suggested the formation of a
Sovereign Governance Team that would include the sovereigns in the
Colorado River Basin (both states and Tribes) and provide a forum for
substantive discussions. This or some similar type of formal structure
would integrate tribes in a meaningful way into planning and problem-
solving before decisions are made and provide an opportunity for all
stakeholders, experts, and the public to be more meaningfully involved
in an inclusive, open, and transparent process. I support this concept
and the proposal for a formal structure to ensure meaningful
involvement.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Ms. Castle.
I want to remind Members that Committee Rule 3(d) imposes a
5-minute limit on questions, and the Chair will now recognize
Members for any questions they may have.
I will start by recognizing myself for the first 5 minutes
of questions.
Mr. Hagekhalil, I would like to begin with you. Thanks for
your testimony, and I have appreciated the testimony we have
heard about the regional recycled water project that your
agency is advancing with partnerships in Nevada and Arizona.
And despite the regional benefits that this project promises,
it also builds on something a little different and new from
Metropolitan. And I want to ask you a little about that.
We think of Metropolitan as this giant wholesaler that
imports distant water supplies and wholesales them to the
entire Southern California region. But in recent years, you
have actually begun investing in developing local supplies. And
I want you to, if you could, please talk about how this
regional water recycling project fits into that strategy of
local water supply development, and why that strategy is so
important for reducing reliance on imported water supplies from
places like the Colorado River and the Bay Delta.
Mr. Hagekhalil. Thank you, Chairman, for the question.
Actually, I come to Metropolitan with a history of the last 32
years of integrated water solutions, and I believe strongly
that for us to really meet the challenge of the changing
climate, the issues with the shrinking water supply, we need a
new Metropolitan, and we need what I call a new Mulholland
moment for the future that is not importing water.
What I tell people, what made Southern California great is
the three aqueducts we have coming in for the last 100 years.
We need right now a fourth aqueduct, which is not going to be a
pipeline. It is going to be a combination of a puzzle, a number
of things that is really providing more local water supply.
For us to be resilient for the future, to be able to deal
with the drought, which is going to be with us for the future--
this is the new normal--we need to start investing in a number
of things, especially recycling our water: conservation,
recycling, and reuse. So, stormwater and wastewater are
critical.
For the last many years, I think the last decade, we have
invested in over 100 local projects that we were investing in
the subsidy for agencies to build recycled water, to build more
local water supplies. But Metropolitan now is in the business
of providing and creating new water.
This project we have, Regional Recycled Water Project, that
hopefully we will rebrand as Pure Water Metropolitan, is a
partnership of recycling 150 million gallons of wastewater into
clean, pure water that we can recharge our aquifers, we can
reuse across the region. And this is in partnership with our
partners in Arizona and Nevada.
So, investing in us here, and creating more local water
supply, creating more storage, more connectivity, conserving,
capturing every drop, and storing it for the future is going to
help us here reduce the dependence on the imported water, and
then provide this ability to put more water in Lake Mead to
reduce our dependence on Colorado, allow for this ability to
resolve the issues that we are negotiating right now with the
seven states and the country of Mexico and the five tribes.
Because I believe we need this holistic solution.
And your help at the Federal level is critical. So, really,
One Water Southern California is a new thing that we are
embarking on. We have finished our integrated resource plan to
show the gap between demand and supply. And we are right now
building the road map to really create more local water supply
here, and store it together.
It is an exciting time, and this is all about One Water and
collaboration.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Hagekhalil, 150,000 acre-feet
every single year, drought-proof water supply. That is a big
deal. That is a lot more water than some of the large, new
surface storage projects that we sometimes fight about in this
Committee.
So, I think it is important for everyone to understand
exactly what you are proposing here, and the possibility that
it could be a model for other opportunities. And let me just
ask you about that. Do you see other possibilities for large-
scale water recycling as something that could be pursued by
yourself and others in the West?
Mr. Hagekhalil. Yes. I mean, as you know, in our region, in
Los Angeles, the ratepayers passed Measure W, which is
stormwater capture, infiltration, and reuse program. We want to
make sure that our groundwater basins are healthy and safe. So,
the investments in cleaning up our groundwater is critical.
Building storage in our groundwater basins so we can store
water when we have water available, and be able to use it when
we have a drought, that, what I call the pieces of the puzzle,
is there. We are working with San Diego. San Diego is starting
their Pure Water San Diego, a program similar to what we are
doing here. We have folks up in Las Virgenes, in our area, are
building Pure Water Las Virgenes. This collaboration is going
to be great.
And Los Angeles is building a similar project. We are
partnering with the City of Los Angeles on building Operation
NEXT, which is going to double this 150,000 acre-feet of water.
It is going to be done also at the Hyperion plant. So, imagine
now we have two rivers, two aqueducts, locally here. It is
going to be great for us.
And this is not just for Southern California, this is for
the entire Southwest. And to me, this is the message I am
sending--investing in Southern California is investing in the
entire Southwest, and your help is critical for us on the
Federal level.
Mr. Huffman. Well, thank you for that, because that was the
last thing I was going to ask you.
You have explained why this is such a valuable part of a
water supply portfolio for the region. You have talked about
the broader regional benefits. But in the remaining time that
we have, let's talk about why it is important for the Federal
Government to be part of this partnership.
And, you know, you do have partners in this. It is not just
Metropolitan going it alone. But why do we need the Federal
Government to step in and to do more?
Mr. Hagekhalil. In 2016, as part of developing the water
resiliency report for the United States, and it was critical to
know that water security is a homeland security issue.
Without water, there is no business. Without water, there
are no jobs. And for us to resolve the issues we have in the
Bay Delta, the issues we have around the Colorado that we are
talking about today, and having to get agreements around the
allocation of water with the seven states and the country of
Mexico and the five tribes, we need to make the pie bigger,
right? We need to make the pie bigger, and we need investments
in creating more local water supply.
To me, helping us--and I want to acknowledge Representative
Napolitano, and her bill, H.R. 4099, on the large-scale water
recycling projects and continuing to invest in Title XVI water.
To me, that is essential. It is not for Southern California, as
we talked about, Congressman and Chairman. This is about us
resolving the issue and making the pie bigger. When you have
more water--and local water supply is part of it--we can
resolve the issues, and really help us put more water in Lake
Mead. So, it is essential for the whole Southwest.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Hagekhalil, for putting that in
context. That is very important. And I am going to go to the
Ranking Member now for his 5 minutes.
And Ranking Member Bentz, my clock was doing funny things
in the middle of that last 5 minutes. I think I might have
magically gotten some extra time. I didn't do it on purpose. I
apologize. But we will recognize you for 5 minutes or whatever
the clock may give you.
Mr. Bentz. Mr. Chair, I am hardly one to complain about
taking too much time, so I won't.
My first question is for Mr. O'Toole, and it has to do with
the fact that, as a farmer/rancher myself, I often am asked how
to protect the water for farmers and ranchers. And many times I
will respond by saying, ``Well, what, farmers and ranchers, are
you doing to conserve water, to advance your, or our,
conservation approaches?''
And what I am met with many times is this, ``Yes,
Congressman Bentz, we farmers and ranchers would love to invest
big piles of money in much more refined conservation
application techniques, but without the certainty of having the
water, why would we ever do it?''
Can you talk about that problem, and why it might, without
that type of certainty, result in a continuation of the wrong
type--or perhaps not the most efficient uses of irrigation
systems?
Mr. O'Toole. Thank you, Ranking Member Bentz, and I
appreciate the question.
As I said, our family are the first irrigators off the
national forest at the headwaters of the river, so we have an
opportunity to use our water in an efficient way. We are
actually a demonstration for the Fish and Wildlife Service on
how you irrigate and meld fisheries and irrigation. So, we are,
our whole community has done a series of processes throughout
all the head gates to make sure that that efficiency is being
done.
But if we are going to be honest with ourselves, part of
the future is assessing watersheds and having small storage as
part of the mix. Just like forestry is going to have to have a
whole bunch of tools, the water community has to have tools
based on the amount of water that could be available.
Our community is working right now on a very small storage
project, which would have huge implications to us. But as the
Family Farm Alliance knows, and as you know, in the Klamath
Basin, the inability to have sufficient predictability is
death.
And I tell people I wish bankers cared about climate and
conservation, but they care about getting paid back, and they
get paid back because a farmer has the predictability of the
water supply.
Mr. Bentz. There is much discussion, Mr. O'Toole, about the
fact that cities can buy up ranchers' and farmers' water,
because the value to people in the cities is greater, there are
more people in the cities, and they can raise more money. We
saw the outcome in California of that, drying up communities
that surround Los Angeles, and the damage that occurs to the
agricultural industry, as a result.
Do you think that, ultimately, this is going to happen in
the Colorado Basin? Are we going to see the cities buy up all
of the ranchers' and farmers' land?
Mr. O'Toole. It certainly is happening now in a way that we
are watching people buy water in Colorado, for example, that
they intend to turn around and use for urban growth.
And recently, Pat Mulroy, who fought as hard for water for
Las Vegas as anybody, said that LA, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and
Denver or Phoenix are no longer sustainable. What that means is
the only water for growth that is left is Ag. We are the
reservoir for growth.
And as I mentioned earlier, we are expected to produce 50
percent more food in a world that is demanding more food and,
at the same time, we are taking water away. And on the western
slope of Colorado, I am on what is called the Yampa Roundtable,
and we feel very strongly that more diversions away from here
for an eastern slope of Colorado that wants to double their
population and their growth is not sustainable.
And, I think, the cities, as I have watched over my career,
have built up reserves, and they need to figure out
conservation on a much bigger scale. I applaud the--we are
looking at technology to develop more water, to reuse water.
That is going to have to be the future. But we have to realize
that the systems that we all count on are being depleted, and
further depletions have an incredibly rolling thunder effect.
Mr. Bentz. They certainly do. And Mr. Chair, I know I am
growing close to the end of my time, so with that I will yield
back.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Ranking Member Bentz. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Soto of Florida for the next 5 minutes.
[Pause.]
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Soto, I didn't mean to surprise you. Our
batting order has been moving around a little bit, but are you
ready to go?
[No response.]
Mr. Huffman. All right. Since Mr. Soto may not be with us
just now, we will go to Representative Lee from Nevada.
Representative Lee, are you ready to go?
[No response.]
Mr. Huffman. I apologize, folks. We have had some confusion
in our batting order here.
Thankfully, the Chairman of the Full Committee,
Representative Grijalva, is on my screen, and he is always
ready to go, spontaneously, and always ever so articulate. So,
we look forward to hearing from him for the next 5 minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of quick
questions. Mr. Hagekhalil--and I apologize, I really do. Having
a lot of vowels in my name, it is always frustrating----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Grijalva. The regional recycling project that you
talked about, and people have lauded, in that it is for the
entire river basin--you talked about the Federal Government
increasing its investment in these large-scale recycling
programs, and the Chairman pointed out the net benefit at the
end.
You talked about Representative Napolitano's bill. Talk a
little bit about--it is overdue, and I think another panelist
said there is an issue of speed being an imperative, and
urgency being the imperative. How do you see, in terms of the
investment, how quickly this needs to be done?
Mr. Hagekhalil. Chairman Grijalva, thank you very much. And
thank you for your leadership on your efforts in Congress.
We all understand that for us to really deal with this
changing new normal on shrinking water supplies, and where the
snowpack is no longer our storage system, we are seeing very
small amounts of runoff coming from the snowpack because of
this extra heat. So, what we need to do is create our local
water supply, and our local water supply is every drop that we
can recycle is critical.
We are looking at expediting our regional recycled water
project. I actually tasked my team to look for alternatives to
expedite the design construction of this project. Our board,
the board of Metropolitan, earlier this month authorized us to
start the process of getting and approving alternative delivery
methods for design build to get this going.
We are also looking for alternatives to see if we can build
small, decentralized recycled water project to get going fast
enough where the supply is there, the demand is there, and we
can put the supply closer to the demand. So, we are moving on
that one, and we are going to get----
Mr. Grijalva. Is that where the--if I may--that is where
the investment, in terms of the Federal arm of this discussion,
needs to be, right?
Mr. Hagekhalil. It is the money that we need--actually, we
need investments, the $3 billion. And we are saying the $3
billion that needs to be invested here, it is a benefit for the
entire Southwest, the entire country, and it should be helped
by the Federal Government.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Ms. Castle, thank you for your testimony. States, tribes,
and the Federal Government must develop and make use of the
best science and climate data to inform water management along
the Colorado River, and as that date of 2026 approaches, I
don't think we have the luxury of time here. You said about
speed, and I agree with you.
In dealing with management plans, the role of science, the
role of climate data, and the role that that needs to play as
we lead it into 2026, plus all the intermediate interventions
that we need to do around important issues like recycling and
other things--where are we at on that?
And then the second part of the question is, who is at the
table? Legitimately, Indigenous people and tribes have been
kept off that table, and need to be an integral part of it.
We heard from agriculture, and from Mr. Davis from Arizona,
about how we need to be at the table because of the importance
of the resource we bring. Urban users, conservationists,
environmentalists, and other extractors in industry.
So, who has to be at the table? Because at least my
experience in Arizona, that table has been unbalanced. There
have been significant groups of stakeholders that have not been
part of that process. And how can the Federal Government ensure
that there is equity, there is balance, and we are hearing all
the opinions, going forward?
Ms. Castle. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, and I will try to
give brief answers to your questions.
With respect to science and data, there are a number of
things that we can invest in and improve our ability to manage
the river. Our stream gauge networks need to have continuous
investment and need to be amplified and improved.
Several of the witnesses have mentioned things like OpenET,
which gives us a much better handle on the consumptive use of
water throughout the entire Basin.
There are things like the Airborne Snow Observatory that
tells us much more precisely how much water we can expect from
runoff in these systems.
And Mr. O'Toole's testimony mentioned the need to have
better quantification of the water supply benefits that come
from better forest management.
And I think all of those are important. They are long-term
fixes, and with respect to the participation of tribes, I will
just be very brief. And I don't speak for any of the tribes,
but I will note that the testimony of many of the state
representatives that you heard from last Friday specifically
mention their commitment to involve tribes in these river
management discussions. And Daryl Vigil's testimony last week
suggested the formation of a sovereign governance team to be
the formal process for making that happen.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
I yield back, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we will now hear
from Representative Gonzalez-Colon for 5 minutes.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, all the witnesses, for coming today. I have a question for
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis, you said in your testimony there is a narrative
suggesting that the current Colorado River drought conditions
may require a reduction in agricultural water to relocate or
reserve more water for cities and environmental uses. Can you
tell me why?
And in your opinion, this will be a wrong approach, and
what alternatives or solutions we should be considering
instead?
Mr. Davis. Thank you for the question. I think that is a
narrative that is being promoted not only by the folks that
represent cities, but also there is a movement on the Colorado
by hedge fund managers to actually purchase agricultural water
along the river and transfer it to cities.
Obviously, cities in the Southwest are all growing, as we
all know. They are growing like crazy. But even if all the
agricultural water is moved to cities, eventually that growth
will outstrip the water that is moved there. So, again, there
will be a shortage of water.
I like the approach Met is taking with re-use. I think the
cities really have to look at re-use and any other method to
stretch their water supplies, just like agriculture is doing.
And if there is a silver lining to this drought, it is
requiring us all, Ag and city users, to take a look at how we
use our water and become much more efficient. I know
agriculture is doing it.
Water is just another cost input that agriculture producers
have to have to figure in, along with fertilizer, fuel, labor,
and all the other cost inputs. So, by nature, to have a
productive business, to make a profit, they have to spend less
on water every year, if it is possible, and produce the same
amount of yield. So, I think that we all have to look inward at
our uses and become much more efficient.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Just as a matter of transferring water from one
use to the other certainly impairs the economy in one method or
another.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I do have some
questions for Mr. O'Toole, but I will yield the remaining time
to Ranking Member Cliff Bentz.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon, for
your generosity.
A question for Ms. Hawes of Nature Conservancy, and the
question has to do with one of the solutions that we could
actually scale up, if we could get litigation out of the road,
and that means getting back into the forests.
What can Nature Conservancy suggest that we might do to
stop the litigation that is preventing us from repairing the
watersheds that would do so much to help the Colorado system?
Ms. Hawes. Yes, thank you for the question. I understand
there has been controversy in parts of California and Oregon
over forest management. I think, in the Colorado River Basin,
we do have a track record of working together. And I think that
the last few fire seasons have really put a spotlight on this
issue and our need to work together.
So, I had a fire across the valley from us just a few weeks
ago. This is an issue that affects us all, and there are so
many co-benefits of good forest management.
So, for right now, the Nature Conservancy is doing research
to map some of these forests that really have the right
combinations of benefits that could be for forest health, but
also retention of snowpack. Not every forest will operate the
same way, and so we first have to identify those forests that
will have the greatest return on investment.
And, I think, we have a long history of working with Family
Farm Alliance and others. This is the time. We need to get in
the room, start figuring out where is our common ground, and
how can we find these solutions together, put money on the
ground, and start to treat our forests so that we can improve
our watersheds.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you so much.
And since I have, I think, used the balance of
Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon's time, I want to yield back, but
thank her again for her generosity. I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. All right. I thank the gentleman. I will now
recognize Congressman Costa for the next 5 minutes.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and both the
Subcommittee and the Full Committee. This is an important
hearing. We had 3\1/2\ hours last week, and everybody is moving
around with a lot of stuff going on here.
I would like to kind of talk about the inter-relationships
between water and the West, where multiple sources receive
water from, and then make a point.
While the hearing is focused on the Colorado River, One
Water management decisions and infrastructure repairs on one
basin impact water basins in another region. As an example,
California, we are trying to restore our canals that will help
improve our drought resistance and bring groundwater supply
into balance. I am dealing with an important piece of
legislation that the Chairman knows about, which is SIGMA, to
get our groundwater management in place.
Given our conveyance infrastructure, and given the efforts
on both the bipartisan infrastructure package and
Reconciliation, where we are having funding for drought relief
and for repairs and infrastructure, Mr. Hagekhalil and Mr.
Davis, could you explain how improving or repairing conveyance
infrastructures in basins outside the Colorado River could
help, with regards to not only the Colorado River's demands,
but also dependence on the CBP and the State Water Project?
Mr. Hagekhalil, welcome. I think you must be the fourth or
fifth General Manager for Metropolitan Water District that I
have now worked with. So, thank you.
Mr. Hagekhalil. Thank you for your leadership, and it is an
honor to work with you.
And, really, in Southern California we have two major
sources of water: the Northern California and the State Water
Project.
Mr. Costa. Right, and the Colorado.
Mr. Hagekhalil. So, really, the same issue we are having is
shrinking water supply when it comes to the State Water
Project. But the biggest issue we have is the 20 percent of the
capacity of the State Water Project, we lost it because of the
need for repairs.
And I think this is important, that we restore the capacity
in the State Water Project, that we build storage, that we
continue collaborating, and find ways to ensure----
Mr. Costa. Well, the bottom line is we could do that, and
because my time is limited to 2:30, I don't want to go into
that, but the Subcommittee Chairman and I are working on that.
We are working on something that will limit the
transevaporation and also create more energy through a concept
of the use of solar panels. And we would like you to embrace
that and work with us on that effort.
Mr. Hagekhalil. I will.
Mr. Costa. Mr. Davis, obviously, you are in the Arizona
situation. But to the degree that we can--and Metropolitan, but
frankly, California--if you look over the last 30 years--and I
have been a part of all of that, with the Quantification
Agreement and other things--has gone from 30 percent state
water, 30 percent Colorado River, and 40 percent local
supplies. In the 1980s, local supplies for Met was zero. So, it
has been a tremendous, I think, effort that has taken place
here.
But Mr. Davis, do you think we have to use all of the water
tools, all of the above, when we talk about the Colorado River
System, Upper Basin and Lower Basin?
Mr. Davis. Why, certainly. And one of the things we are
constantly concerned with here on the Colorado, being at the
lower and the last diverter on the river----
Mr. Costa. Right.
Mr. Davis. We are constantly aware of water that is
transferred out of basin for Met's use, for the City of
Denver's use. We are constantly hoping that they do these
practices just outlined----
Mr. Costa. And we are trying to do that. I guess I would
take issue with--as a third-generation farmer, Mr. Davis, water
is more than an input cost--where water flows, food grows, and
without the water we don't have to worry about the other input
costs.
Mr. Davis. Exactly. Without the water, we have a desert,
right?
Mr. Costa. Right.
Ms. Hawes, the drought continues in the Colorado River
Basin, and for California. What projects is the Nature
Conservancy looking at to prevent the depletion of groundwater
aquifers in water-stressed areas?
And could you stress any best practices you have identified
to help communities, whether it is in the Colorado River Basin?
I am, obviously, concerned about the San Joaquin Valley and the
extreme drought conditions we are facing.
Ms. Hawes. Thank you for the question. We do have multiple
projects addressing the groundwater issues.
In California, we certainly have been working in the
Central Valley to restore rice fields with additional
groundwater that can be recharged, but also provide habitat for
migratory birds. In those----
Mr. Costa. And it is very important, grasslands and such.
My time has expired, but if you could provide a list for
the Committee of those projects, I think that would be helpful.
Ms. Hawes. Absolutely.
Mr. Costa. Mr. Chairman, thank you with the Subcommittee,
and we will continue to work on all of the above, this hearing,
and I will submit my questions that I didn't get a chance to
ask.
Mr. Huffman. Yes, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Costa.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gosar for 5 minutes.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding
this important hearing.
The water on the Colorado River has been the source of
ongoing challenges, near shooting battles between states, and
generations of legal wrangling. The past, in many ways, is the
future. We will see these fights continue, state versus state,
Federal Government versus states, urban versus rural,
agriculture versus household, species versus everyone. In this
mix are real people, communities, tribes, and others who are
working on eeking out a living from their water rights.
I have a question for Mr. O'Toole and Mr. Davis. By the
way, good seeing you, Tom.
Water in the West has been a blood sport battle between
layers and layers of different players. Unfortunately, water
battles have reached a zero-sum game, meaning there are winners
and losers. But the future appears increasingly a negative sum
game, meaning there are only losers and worse losers.
While urban water agencies talk about efforts to reduce per
capita consumption of water use, the fact is the regions are
still growing. We heard that earlier. As a result, we see
demand continue to rise. Meanwhile, drought, species
conservation, and increased demand all result in agency,
supports, and water masters looking to cut water allotments.
Isn't the real solution new supply things like creative
desalinization, potential advances in atmospheric water
generation, and other options like resettling, like the lower
Santa Cruz water system with Mexico to grow our water
resources, instead of finding ways to do with less?
Mr. Davis first.
Mr. Davis. Yes. Obviously, augmentation methods such as
desal, cloud seeding, all of those should be considered.
Long term--and there is beginning to be some discussion--
there needs to be probably some imported water from other
watersheds. We have just outgrown the supply in the Colorado
River Basin. And as growth continues to occur here, it puts
more pressure on taking Ag water to other uses. And that, as
you heard, impairs our food production and our food supply.
So, I think we need to look long-term into other sources
that we just mentioned.
Dr. Gosar. Yes, and I think collaboration with Mexico is a
golden opportunity to win, win, win.
Mr. Davis. Certainly.
Dr. Gosar. And then the second part is creating
desalinization. When you look at subsurface water, particularly
in southern Arizona, we have heavy metals and a lot of arsenic.
So, why can't we clean water as we are utilizing water and
creativity?
And if sea level is rising, why won't we take advantage of
the desalinization?
Mr. Davis. Yes, I certainly agree with that. Desal from the
Sea of Cortez, exchanging that water with Mexico for their Mead
water is certainly something that is being considered and
looked into. Reclaiming and cleaning underground water supplies
that are somewhat contaminated, some of that is located in the
western part of Maricopa County. That can be done. We have a
groundwater mound here in Yuma that can be considered as a
resource for the Yuma area.
We need to look at all sources, obviously, and I think the
thinking has come around to do that, although that takes time
and planning, and this drought bites a little harder every
year. So, immediate results are needed. And sometimes those
solutions are more long term.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. O'Toole?
Mr. O'Toole. Thank you, Representative Gosar. It is curious
you ask the question. I had people in this room at my house 2
days ago, who are looking in the Upper Colorado River, we are
taking coal bed methane water that is developed in the Upper
Colorado, and injecting it to 7,000 feet, tens of thousands of
acre-feet--it is good water--without a tremendous amount of
intervention.
Voice. In New Mexico, we are looking at the same thing.
Mr. O'Toole. Yes, there are opportunities everywhere, we
just have to become more aggressive.
And, as I told you, I am humbled to be here, but I can only
tell you we have to have an accelerated process to be able to
get things done. So, thank you for the question.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I think we can do two things at the same
time. I think that is what the advantage is. We have to be
creative about this. I have worked with the Nature Conservancy
over and over again looking at the Southwest forests,
particularly in Arizona.
There is a win-win situation with the replenishing of our
aquifers, looking at creative solutions that help us, not
divide us.
From that standpoint, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit
for the record a letter on behalf of Stephen Lewis, the
Governor of the Gila River Tribe. They wanted to make sure that
everyone knew that they have been participating, they are
looking at solutions to try to help out. So, I would like to
submit that for the record.
Mr. Huffman. Without objection, that will be submitted.
[The information follows:]
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
Sacaton, Arizona
October 20, 2021
Hon. Jared Huffman, Chairman,
Hon. Cliff Bentz, Ranking Member,
House Natural Resources Committee,
Water, Oceans & Wildlife Subcommittee,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member Bentz,
I am writing on behalf of the Gila River Indian Community to
commend you for holding important oversight hearings on Colorado River
drought conditions and engaging with stakeholders to present the
tribal, state, and federal actions around this crisis.
As a result of our 2004 water settlement, which at the time was the
largest water settlement reached between the United States and a tribal
nation, the Gila River Indian Community has the largest entitlement to
Colorado River water delivered through the Central Arizona Project
canal system. As such, the Community is keenly aware of the need for
immediate action as a result of the drought crisis impacting states and
tribes along the Colorado River.
The Community was a key stakeholder in the negotiations of the
Drought Contingency Plan that was enacted in 2019, and we recently
brought together a key group of stakeholders to coordinate a plan to
bolster the supplies of water available in Lake Mead (see attached
letter). Those discussions have been ongoing for the past several weeks
so we have watched the subcommittee hearings with interest.
The Community will be providing a statement for the record that I
hope will provide relevant information as the subcommittee considers
next steps in addressing the drought. The Community would also be
willing to provide a briefing for the subcommittee to understand the
current state of discussions that are occurring with the key tribal,
federal, state, and other stakeholders as this may be instructive as
you move forward on any congressional recommendations or actions.
Thank you again for the attention on drought conditions along the
Colorado River and I look forward to discussing this important issue
with you soon.
Sincerely,
Stephen Roe Lewis,
Governor
______
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Gosar, your time has expired, but thank
you.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Soto for 5
minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. Fires, droughts, low
snowpack, we see the drastic and terrible effects of global
climate change deeply hurting the western United States.
The American West has a real, long-term water challenge,
and we are excited that, in the bipartisan infrastructure
package, that there is $50 billion for western water storage,
and there is more we could do in the Build Back Better Act, as
well as the legislation proposed here today, for farmers, for
tribes, for so many communities, for habitat, of course.
And I am really excited about the measures that the
Committee is proposing for drought response relief, for short-
term Federal drought relief, for implementation of tribal water
rights and settlements, for large-scale water recycling, for
Federal priority stream gauges, for Drought Contingency Plan
implementation funding, endangered species recovery, and
conservation programs, desalinization projects, and WaterSMART.
I also wanted to see if Representative Costa or if
Representative Huffman would like additional time, knowing that
this is affecting your districts deeply.
Chairman, would you like some additional time?
Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that. I don't see Mr. Costa right
now, but I will take the gentleman up on his courtesy.
Mr. Soto. I yield to the Chairman.
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Costa, are you still there?
[No response.]
Mr. Huffman. All right, well, I am going to move ahead with
a question for Ms. Hawes, because I wanted to bring fish and
wildlife into this conversation.
We have heard about some of the drought's impacts on fish
and wildlife and the tourism industries that depend on them.
But I want to ask Ms. Hawes to tell us a little bit more about
why preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife must be a
key consideration now and in the upcoming negotiations over
what the Colorado River is going to look like post-2026.
Ms. Hawes?
Ms. Hawes. Thank you for that question, Chairman. I think
there are three different real important pieces of this.
First, is just the inherent value of our wildlife. This is
an area that gets billions of dollars from tourism. So, there
is an economic benefit, in addition to just protecting and
preserving the species that call this area home, along with us.
We also, I think, can avoid endangered species conflicts
that we have seen in other places. This Basin has a history of
working together on very effective recovery programs. We are
seeing downlisting of two species right now. That means our
work is successful, and we want to continue that work so we can
avoid conflicts.
And then lastly is the health of our river systems and our
species are a canary in the coal mine. If we start seeing those
species die off, the system is crashing. So, our hope would be
that we can develop the interim guidelines and the next river
operations to include those environmental benefits on the front
end, so we don't end up with these conflicts on the back end.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Ms. Hawes. And I will
yield the balance of time and, again, thank the gentleman from
Florida.
The Chair next recognizes the good-looking gentleman from
Idaho. Please don't tell Mike Simpson I introduced him this
way.
But Mr. Fulcher, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
those comments very much. I have a comment and a question for
Mr. O'Toole.
Mr. O'Toole, I am from Idaho, and we are facing some
challenges in my home state. There is a debate happening where,
potentially, there could be the removal of four of the Lower
Snake River dams. And the investigations continue on that.
The argument in general is, by removal of these dams, that
there could be increased salmon flow, which is highly
questionable. So, whatever we do with the Colorado River system
has implications in the Pacific Northwest, in terms of
precedent.
First of all, you mentioned, I believe, that your family
had been operating on your existing farm and ranch for more
than 140 years. Could you tell me if this drought that we are
going through right now is an anomaly, or are you aware of
drought conditions that have existed in previous decades?
Mr. O'Toole. Well, my lifetime has been--thank you,
Representative Fulcher--but going back and forth drought. And I
was asked one time, ``Would you rather have drought or lots of
water?'' And, obviously, lots of water is better, even though
it has issues, too.
This is different. And our family right now is drilling
four wells, and putting pipelines for our livestock operation
to replicate the springs that we have lost. So, in my view,
from a personal perspective, this is an anomaly that hopefully
won't be the clear future.
We did have some rains this fall that really saved us and
our operation, but this is different than what we have
experienced in the past.
Mr. Fulcher. And I assume part of that struggle is the
increased demand on the water, correct?
Mr. O'Toole. Yes, sir, the demand is part of it. And, as I
mentioned earlier, the trans-basin diversion from the western
slope is for growth, and for example, the people in Colorado
that, when they are requested to build a new subdivision, that
is their legal responsibility, is to find that water. Well,
what we are finding is that water only exists from agriculture.
And when you try to figure out who is driving this growth,
it is the guys with the big hats with a feather that are
wanting to build a subdivision, make a lot of money. But there
is no understanding of the farm issues, the food issues, the
wildlife issues, all the things that are co-existing with that.
I think we have to have a broader view of what our society is
going to be.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. O'Toole, and thank you to you
and your family for your work and perseverance there.
Shifting to Mr. Martinez before my time is up. Mr.
Martinez, there is a significant infrastructure along the
Colorado, in terms of water retention systems, and irrigation
retention systems, power supply systems. Does your organization
view that system as a homeland security issue at all? Can you
speak to that, Mr. Martinez?
Mr. Martinez. Certainly. Thank you for the question,
Representative Fulcher.
Yes, this infrastructure has been built over 100 years, it
has been operating, basically, to provide vital water here for
the district and all its farming activities, as well as to
cities that we serve along the Mexico-U.S. border. Within this
area we have also military installations that are vital to the
United States, as well as large reserves of lithium, which is
another critical element that the Nation is looking forward to
produce domestically.
So, from the perspective of food supply, again, the health
of the economy here, in the southern part of the state of
California, and military installations, as well as new products
of lithium, it is definitely a situation where we see a water
being vital to maintaining those securities going forward.
Mr. Fulcher. Great. Thank you, Mr. Martinez.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Lee for 5 minutes.
[Pause.]
Mr. Huffman. I think you may be muted.
Mrs. Lee. OK, sorry about that. Thank you, Chairman Huffman
and Ranking Member Bentz, for hosting these hearings on drought
conditions on the Colorado and for, once again, providing me
the chance to participate.
As we discussed last week, southern Nevada and the entire
desert Southwest is facing an unprecedented drought. And in my
district, Congressional District 3 in Nevada, Lake Mead, which
provides water for 25 million people across Nevada, Arizona,
and California, is at its lowest level since its construction
in the 1930s.
On Monday, I was pleased to visit with Vice President
Harris and appreciated her commitment to the very issues we are
discussing here.
To help address this crisis, much more must be done to
accurately measure consumptive water use, including programs
like OpenET, and I want to thank Ms. Hawes and Mr. Hagekhalil
for recognizing this program in their testimony and supporting
the passage of my bill, the Open Access Evapotranspiration Data
Act, a very long name.
But I introduced this legislation with fellow colleagues on
this Committee to establish a program that uses publicly
available data from satellites and water stations to provide
estimates of consumptive water use. This data will support
water conservation and management efforts of farmers, ranchers,
and water utilities.
And I have also been working to secure Federal funding for
large-scale water recycling projects. My colleagues and I have
successfully secured Federal funding to advance large-scale
water recycling projects in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill
and Build Back Better.
Mr. Hagekhalil, as you mentioned in your testimony, the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is
participating with the Southern Nevada Water Authority and
others to develop a multi-billion-dollar regional recycled
water project. How will this project and your partnerships with
Nevada and Arizona help bring water supplies in demand into
better balance on the Colorado River?
Mr. Hagekhalil. I appreciate your leadership,
Representative Lee. And one thing I want to say is you cannot
manage what you don't measure, and thus appreciate your
leadership on that.
This is about partnership. And I tell you, when we start
now, we need to open ourselves up to look at the region as a
whole. And Metropolitan is partnering with southern Nevada and
Arizona on finding ways to really collaborate on generating
more local water supply in Southern California, and
conservation here, and partnering with the agricultural
community. Because every drop we can save here, every drop we
can recycle will be a drop that we can put back in the river,
in Lake Mead, to help recover from this new normal.
So, to me, it is all about partnership. And without the
Federal Government and your support in investing in us, we
cannot do it. And this is about the Southwest, and we are
meeting next week in your state, as the seven Basin states, to
talk about this and how we are going to work together. But I
will tell you, the collaboration and the level of collaboration
from the agencies, I haven't seen more collaboration. But we
can't do it alone. We need you to help at the Federal level.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you. I agree. I can't emphasize more how
important these partnerships are.
Ms. Hawes, I just wanted to speak--you talked about what
should be done through better forecasting and modeling,
tracking water availability. How can innovative tools like
OpenET, stream gauge monitoring, and other programs through the
USGS and the Bureau of Reclamation help farmers, ranchers, and
water utilities better manage their usage?
Ms. Hawes. Thank you very much for the question, and thank
you for your leadership on that bill.
I agree, we can't manage what we can't measure. So, these
tools are critical for helping everyone in the system, from a
farmer on an individual farm, to an irrigation district, to the
Bureau of Reclamation, to be able to get a better handle on
what is actually happening on the ground.
Where is our water being used? How is it impacting a
particular river system? What is happening in that sub-basin?
And all of that can help us craft better decisions, better
solutions, and manage this resource more carefully. Because if
we have learned anything, we are going to have to have more
awareness of just how all these things interconnect. So, we are
very supportive of the OpenET program and the other tools.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you. With that I am finished with my
questioning.
I think a combination of both looking at innovative
solutions, but also all of this data, which, to me, is
surprising that we don't have it so far at this point in time.
So, very important pieces of legislation.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Boebert for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see
Mr. O'Toole here today, who has a lovely ranch in Craig,
Colorado, which is in my district.
Thank you so much for testifying today and for all the work
that you do.
The drought has forced us to start thinking long-term about
the availability of water in the West. Too often, the
discussion focuses on how agriculture, energy, and rural
Americans must change their livelihoods, while largely
neglecting the shared responsibility or urban city dwellers.
I think an important piece of this discussion needs to
revolve around active forest management, especially on our
Federal lands. It is no secret that our forests are not
properly managed. A healthy forest is an actively managed
forest. And active forest management activities, such as large-
scale thinning of trees, will reduce water stress in forests,
and ease the severity of droughts as more water will end up in
our rivers and reservoirs.
It is by no means the end-all-be-all solution, but it is a
major part of the solution. And that is why I have introduced
my Active Forest Management, Wildfire Prevention, and Community
Protection Act, which requires the Forest Service to harvest a
minimum of 6 billion board-feet per year.
My bill also removes incentives for extremist groups to
file frivolous lawsuits that slow down projects. Democrats like
to pretend that climate change is to blame for everything. And,
yes, the climate is changing--four times a year, in fact. But
these same alarmists fail to take active measures that can
address the changing climate. It is too often the case that
radical environmentalist groups will sue in court to stop any
active forest management activities. What is the Democrats'
response to this? Nothing. They are too scared to go against
these powerful special interests.
Just yesterday, the 10th Circuit ruled against a b.s.
environment lawsuit trying to stop a logging project within the
White River National Forest in my district. In 2015, the Forest
Service began holding meetings to harvest timber and manage
long-term health of the forest. Out of 2.3 million acres of the
National Forest, the Forest Service allotted 1,061 acres for
logging.
What were the plaintiffs alleging? Apparently, the
government failed to consider the efforts of climate change on
fungi in the reason. After a district court dismissed this
lawsuit, the plaintiffs appealed. And, thankfully, the 10th
Circuit upheld that decision. We all know that logging on 1,000
acres in a forest that has 2.3 million isn't increasing climate
change.
And if that is really our focus, then we need to start
harvesting this timber. Because just one wildfire burning in
Colorado alone, like we saw last year, produces more carbon
emissions than all of the vehicles in the state of Colorado
running 24/7 for an entire year, and that is produced in just a
few days. So, if we want to stop these massive tinderboxes that
we are creating with the more than 6 billion standing dead
trees, we need to begin by addressing that.
Now, Mr. O'Toole, I have a question for you, and I want to
talk about desalinization. In your testimony, you mentioned
that it needs to become part of the discussion. It is my
understanding that Israel has made large-scale investments in
these operations, and currently receives roughly 80 percent of
the country's drinking water from it. The technology is very
popular in Saudi Arabia, where 5 million gallons are produced
every day, which accounts for 50 percent of the freshwater
usage. Is this a scalable technology that could be used in
Colorado for agriculture or hydropower generation?
Mr. O'Toole. Thank you, Representative Boebert, for the
question. Yes, absolutely, and I mentioned a specific project
in northwest Colorado and southern Wyoming taking coal bed
methane water and minimally cleaning it and putting it into the
system. We have been working on that for 10 years. I actually
testified to this Committee about it, with Representative
Napolitano, years ago. So, yes, it is scalable.
And, obviously, the lessons are that Israel is doing some
phenomenal stuff. I will tell you that the Israelis come and
meet with Family Farm Alliance farmers in California about the
technology they are using, also.
Mrs. Boebert. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Toole.
Mr. Chairman, I am running out of time, so I don't have my
question for our other witness, Ms. Hawes. Maybe I will submit
that to the record.
But I would like to ask for unanimous consent to add this
Reuters article titled, ``Desalinization Advances in
California, Despite Opponents Pushing for Alternatives'' to the
record.
Mr. Huffman. Without objection, that will be entered in the
record.
Mrs. Boebert. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentlelady for expressing her
concerns about extremist groups. Maybe not the right ones, but
it is a good start.
Mrs. Boebert. Oh, shut up, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huffman. I want to thank all the witnesses for their
valuable testimony, and the Members for their questions.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions. We will ask the witnesses to respond to those in
writing.
Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must
submit witness questions within 3 business days of the hearing,
and the record will be held open for 10 business days to allow
for responses.
If there is no further business before the Subcommittee,
then, without objection, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Huffman
Statement for the Record
Stephen Roe Lewis
Gila River Indian Community
Chairperson Huffman, Ranking Member Bentz, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for holding two days
of oversight hearing on ``Colorado River Drought Conditions and
Response Measures'' on October 15, 2021 and October 20, 2021.
The Gila River Indian Community's (``Community'') 583.7 square mile
Reservation is located along the southern boundary of the Phoenix
Metropolitan Area and is home to approximately 15,000 of the
Community's 23,000 members. As a result of the Community's 2004 water
settlement, which at the time was the largest water settlement reached
between the United States and a tribal nation, the Community has an
annual entitlement of 311,800 acre-feet of Colorado River water
delivered through the Central Arizona Project (``CAP''). The Community
was forced as a condition of its settlement to accept this Colorado
River entitlement in lieu of water from its claims to the Gila and Salt
Rivers in the same way all other settling tribes in Arizona have been.
The Community's entitlement to Colorado River water delivered through
the CAP is held in trust by the United States on behalf of the
Community and its allottees.
Water delivered through the CAP supplies many municipalities,
industrial users, tribes and non-Indian farmers located in central and
southern Arizona. Water delivered through the CAP has a lower priority
than many other Colorado River water rights, making entitlement holders
like the Community more vulnerable to drought than many other
entitlement holders of Colorado River water.
Given the vulnerability of its Colorado River entitlement delivered
through the CAP, the Community has closely monitored the current
hydrology of the Colorado River, which, over the last two years, has
been one of the worst on record. Forecasts now indicate a very real
risk of Lake Mead falling below 1,025 feet in the next five years. As a
result, the Community is keenly aware of the need for immediate action,
and why we watched the two subcommittee hearings with interest. With
this testimony, the Community seeks to make the subcommittee aware of
our efforts to bring together the some of the relevant stakeholders,
many of whom testified in front of the subcommittee, to create short
and long-term solutions to the drought conditions on the Colorado
River.
On September 29, 2021, we invited the Bureau of Reclamation,
Arizona Department of Water Resources (``ADWR''), CAP and Salt River
Project (``SRP'') to the Community to discuss our mutual interest in
developing a series of Arizona conservation agreements this year and
the need to act quickly in the Lower Colorado River Basin, and the
Upper Basin as well. At this meeting the Community expressed our deep
concern that if Arizona, other Lower Basin States, and Mexico do not
act quickly we may lose an important opportunity to galvanize action
and put resources into Lake Mead in time to stave off a deeper drought
in 2023 and beyond.
As a result of this meeting and subsequent conversation among
Arizona stakeholders the Community has committed up to 111,000 acre-
feet of its CAP water for conservation in 2023 with a similar amount in
2023 provided the Lower Basin States can avoid a Tier 2 shortage in
2023. The Community is hopeful that its actions will encourage other
parties in the Basin to commit to additional conservation efforts to
help reduce the future risk of extreme drought for all of those who
rely on this precious resource.
The Community's participation and leadership in any Arizona plan
for more conservation is guided by the same principles that drove our
discussions in Arizona regarding the adoption and implementation of the
Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan:
1. Equal treatment for all parties involved in these system
conservation or forbearance agreements, thereby
facilitating an expeditious negotiation and ensuring
parties are working for a common good and not just one-
party's gain or loss;
2. Protection of existing tribal water settlements in Arizona; and
3. Voluntary limits on deliveries from Lake Mead to the greatest
extent possible while we are making conservation an urgent
priority overall.
The Community believes speed is important if we are to be
successful, but any plan should be broadly inclusive and transparent as
possible.
The Community has also been meeting with Colorado River Basin
Tribes, all of whom believe that the inclusiveness and transparency in
near-term actions and long-term actions, like the development of the
next Colorado River operating guidelines, is something Basin Tribes
will demand. On October 28 and 29 the Community hosted a meeting with a
number of leaders and representatives from ten other Tribes located in
the Upper and Lower Basin to discuss forming a loose ad hoc coalition
to express common agreement on key issues among Basin Tribes. The
participants at this meeting expressed a desire to be more involved in
ongoing decisions, as well as early involvement in developing the next
Colorado River operating guidelines. The participants at this meeting
also agreed that federal trust responsibility requires that the United
States ensure Basin Tribes are included in the development and
implementation of the policies and rules that will govern how the
Colorado River will be managed from this point forward.
This ad hoc group of Basin Tribes may provide a more formal
position in the near future, but the subcommittee should be aware that
Basin Tribes as a whole expect to be much more involved in helping find
solutions to protect water supplies in the entire Colorado River Basin.
[all]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117hhrg45892_chrg-117hhrg45892.htm
- Size
- 675,327 bytes
- SHA-256
- 21c8aa3d4329d262bde21ecc796f013b60b24a9c5de5084ad5d2a8c1518d281d
- Original
- No public link identified.