[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R.1869, ``ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE COST TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2015'';
H.R. 2993, ``WATER RECYCLING ACCELERATION ACT OF 2015''; AND H.R.
4582, ``SAVE OUR SALMON (SOS) ACT''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-39
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
99-892 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Louie Gohmert, TX Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Doug Lamborn, CO Jim Costa, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
John Fleming, LA CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA Niki Tsongas, MA
Glenn Thompson, PA Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Jared Huffman, CA
Dan Benishek, MI Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Duncan, SC Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Matt Cartwright, PA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Norma J. Torres, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Debbie Dingell, MI
Paul Cook, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Bruce Westerman, AR Lois Capps, CA
Garret Graves, LA Jared Polis, CO
Dan Newhouse, WA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Ryan K. Zinke, MT
Jody B. Hice, GA
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Thomas MacArthur, NJ
Alexander X. Mooney, WV
Cresent Hardy, NV
Darin LaHood, IL
Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
Sarah Lim, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Jeff Duncan, SC Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Paul A. Gosar, AZ CNMI
Doug LaMalfa, CA Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Garret Graves, LA Norma J. Torres, CA
Dan Newhouse, WA Debbie Dingell, MI
Thomas MacArthur, NJ Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, April 20, 2016........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Denham, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 12
Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Matsui, Hon. Doris O., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Statement of Witnesses:
Downen, Bo, Senior Policy Analyst, Public Power Council,
Portland, Oregon........................................... 33
Prepared statement on H.R. 1869.......................... 35
Hanson, Charles H., Senior Fishery Biologist, Hanson
Environmental, Inc. and the State Water Contractors, Walnut
Creek, California.......................................... 13
Prepared statement on H.R. 4582.......................... 15
Herberg, Jim, General Manager, Orange County Sanitation
District, Fountain Valley, California...................... 25
Prepared statement on H.R. 2993.......................... 27
Iseman, Tom, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Water and Science,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC............ 29
Prepared statement on H.R. 2993 and H.R. 4582............ 31
Ledger, Patrick F., CEO, Arizona G&T Cooperatives, Benson,
Arizona.................................................... 37
Prepared statement on H.R. 1869.......................... 38
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Denham
Northern California Water Association, prepared statement
on H.R. 4582........................................... 52
Letters of support for H.R. 4582......................... 53
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1869, TO PROVIDE FOR TRANSPARENCY
AND REPORTING RELATED TO DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS INCURRED BY
THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, THE WESTERN AREA POWER
ADMINISTRATION, THE SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION, AND THE
SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS IMPACTING THE CONSERVATION OF
FISH AND WILDLIFE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE COST TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2015''; H.R. 2993, TO AMEND
THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND FACILITIES
ACT TO AUTHORIZE FUNDING FOR WATER RECYCLING PROJECTS IN AREAS
EXPERIENCING SEVERE, EXTREME, OR EXCEPTIONAL DROUGHT, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, ``WATER RECYCLING ACCELERATION ACT OF 2015'';
AND H.R. 4582, TO EXCLUDE STRIPED BASS FROM THE ANADROMOUS FISH
DOUBLING REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 3406(b)(1) OF THE CENTRAL
VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``SAVE
OUR SALMON (SOS) ACT''
----------
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fleming, Gosar, LaMalfa, Denham,
Newhouse; Huffman, Napolitano, Costa, Lowenthal, and Torres.
Dr. Fleming. The Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
will come to order. The subcommittee meets today to hear
testimony on H.R. 1869, sponsored by our Vice Chair of the
Subcommittee, Dr. Gosar; H.R. 2993, sponsored by Ms. Matsui;
and H.R. 4582, sponsored by Mr. Denham.
We will begin the hearing with opening statements, and the
Chair now recognizes himself.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Dr. Fleming. Today's hearing is on three well-intended
bills aimed at improving situations facing water and power
ratepayers. I thank the bill sponsors for their leadership on
introducing their legislation.
There has been a long-standing debate on the role of the
Federal Government in water projects. Today will not be any
different.
For generations, the Federal Government has used the
National Economic Development process to determine the
appropriate Federal role in a project. As part of that
calculation, if the benefits outweigh the costs based on
certain criteria such as flood control, power generation, water
supply, and environment, among others, then a project was
deemed ``feasible.''
The cost for a feasible project would be allocated to the
purposes of the project. This meant that the water and power
ratepayers would pay for their portions of the project. This
policy is called the ``Beneficiary Pays'' rule, where those who
benefit from the projects pay for those projects.
That philosophy, while still in place today for many of the
Bureau of Reclamation's and Army Corps of Engineers' projects,
has been shoved aside over the last few decades when it comes
to certain projects.
One of those programs is the so-called Title XVI program,
which was enacted in 1992 and designed to help western
communities recycle and desalinate water. These are laudable
goals. But the question has always been over what the Federal
nexus is for these simple projects, especially when those local
communities are not required to pay back the 25 percent Federal
cost share, and that these projects do not undergo a rigorous
National Economic Development stress test like other projects.
To bring it home, why should the taxpayers in Louisiana
help pay for a single-purpose water recycling or desalination
project that is owned by a California city that is the sole
beneficiary?
H.R. 2993, introduced by our colleague, Doris Matsui, makes
this situation even worse by giving the Interior Secretary
discretion to create these so-called Title XVI projects. This
would allow the program to spiral out of control and create an
even bigger Federal taxpayer backlog for these projects. We
need to subject this program to the ``Beneficiary Pays'' rule,
and the National Economic Development process to start, not
loosen the rules any further, as this bill does.
The next bill actually improves how the Federal Government
operates and was borne out of a recent oversight hearing in
this subcommittee. Mr. Denham's bill, H.R. 4582, eliminates an
outdated and conflicting fish-doubling requirement imposed by
another 1992 law, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
The Federal law, as it stands today, requires the
population of striped bass and salmon to be doubled in
California. That sounds like another laudable goal. But it
simply does not pass the laugh test after we heard that striped
bass, an invasive species, are devouring vast amounts of
salmon, a native and endangered species that ratepayers devote
hundreds of millions of dollars to recover.
This is an instance where one Federal environmental law is
prioritizing non-native species over the goals of the
Endangered Species Act. That needs to stop, and that is what
Mr. Denham's bipartisan bill accomplishes at no cost to the
American taxpayer.
Last, we have Dr. Gosar's H.R. 1869, which requires four
Federal agencies to be more transparent in how Federal
environmental laws impact some electricity ratepayers. This
bill provides wholesale electric customers a mechanism to
better understand what they are paying for, and to debate
whether these costs are effective, ineffective, or somewhere in
the middle. This bill rightly shines a light on the government
by providing more information for those who pay an agency's
bills.
With that, I welcome today's debate and thank our witnesses
for being here.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. John Fleming, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Water, Power and Oceans
Today's hearing is on three well-intended bills aimed at improving
situations facing water and power ratepayers. I thank the bill sponsors
for their leadership on introducing their legislation.
There has been a long-standing debate on the role of the Federal
Government in water projects. Today will not be any different.
For generations, the Federal Government has used the National
Economic Development process to determine the appropriate Federal role
in a project. As part of that calculation, if the benefits outweighed
the costs based on certain criteria such as flood control, power
generation water supply, and the environment among others, then a
project was deemed ``feasible.'' The costs for a feasible project would
be allocated to the purposes of the project. This meant that water and
power ratepayers would pay for their portions of the project. This
policy is called the ``Beneficiary Pays'' rule, where those who benefit
from the projects pay for those projects.
That philosophy, while still in place today for many of the Bureau
of Reclamation's and Army Corps of Engineers' projects, has been shoved
aside over the last few decades when it comes to certain projects. One
of those programs is the so-called Title XVI program, which was enacted
in 1992 and designed to help western communities recycle and desalinate
water. These are laudable goals, but the question has always been over
what the Federal nexus is for these simple projects--especially when
those local communities are not required to pay back the 25 percent
Federal cost share and that these projects do not undergo a rigorous
National Economic Development stress test like other projects. To bring
it home, why should the taxpayers in Louisiana help pay for a single-
purpose water recycling or desalination project that is owned by a
California city that is the sole beneficiary?
H.R. 2993, introduced by our colleague, Doris Matsui, makes this
situation even worse by giving the Interior Secretary discretion to
create these so-called Title XVI projects. This would allow the program
to spiral out of control and create an even bigger Federal taxpayer
backlog for these projects. We need to subject this program to the
``Beneficiary Pays'' rule and the National Economic Development process
to start, not loosen the rules any further as this bill does.
The next bill actually improves how the Federal Government operates
and was borne out of a recent oversight hearing in this subcommittee.
Mr. Denham's bill, H.R. 4582, eliminates an outdated and conflicting
fish-doubling requirement imposed by another 1992 law, the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act. The Federal law, as it stands today,
requires the population of striped bass and salmon to be doubled in
California. That sounds like another laudable goal, but it simply
doesn't pass the laugh test after we heard that striped bass--an
invasive species--are devouring vast amounts of salmon--a native and
endangered species that ratepayers devote hundreds of millions of
dollars to recover. This is an instance where one Federal environmental
law is prioritizing non-native species over the goals of the Endangered
Species Act. That needs to stop and that's what Mr. Denham's bipartisan
bill accomplishes at no cost to the American taxpayer.
Last, we have Dr. Gosar's H.R. 1869, which requires four Federal
agencies to be more transparent in how Federal environmental laws
impact some electricity ratepayers. This bill provides wholesale
electric customers a mechanism to better understand what they are
paying for and to debate whether these costs are effective, ineffective
or somewhere in the middle. This bill rightly shines a light on
government by providing more information for those who pay an agency's
bills.
With that, I welcome today's debate and thank our witnesses for
being here.
______
Dr. Fleming. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Huffman for his
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the
witnesses. I am looking forward to a good discussion on these
bills today.
First on the agenda we have H.R. 4582, also known as the
Save our Salmon Act, offered by my friend, Jeff Denham. This
bill would amend the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, or
CVPIA, to exempt striped bass from the anadromous fish doubling
goals in light of concerns that striped bass prey on endangered
salmon.
The science tells us that we ought to be focused on
habitat, temperature, and flow as far greater concerns than
predation. But I do want to commend Representative Denham for
his concern about California salmon runs. And perhaps this is
the beginning of a shared interest, where we can work together
to do some good things for salmon.
As Congressman Denham and the Chairman know, California's
salmon runs sustain numerous jobs in my district. Currently, I
am sorry to say, we have what can only be described as a salmon
crisis in California. According to some estimates, 78 percent
of our native salmon will be extinct or extirpated within the
next century if current trends continue.
Last year, the mortality rate for Sacramento winter-run
salmon was 97 percent. The year before that, it was 95 percent.
Simply put, Mr. Chairman, many California fishermen are hanging
on by a thread. Boats are being scrapped because their owners
cannot pay mooring fees. Fishermen are struggling to pay
mortgages. Restaurants, hotels, and other businesses that
depend on healthy fish runs are struggling just to get by.
And even now, many are still recovering from the total
closure of the ocean salmon fishery along the West Coast in
2008 and 2009. That was because of poor California salmon
returns in those years. The closure devastated the Pacific
Coast fishing industry. Ultimately, it required many millions
of dollars in Federal disaster aid. And, just last month, in an
ominous sign, fishery managers again announced that the
commercial salmon season off the West Coast for this summer
will be severely restricted. This will be the second year in a
row because of very low population levels.
So, Mr. Chairman, Congress and the Administration need to
be proactive and bold in addressing the salmon crisis. And even
though H.R. 4582 focuses on predation, it is important to
remember that the science clearly tells us there are more
important stressors we need to address before our salmon runs
are going to recover.
Unsustainable water exports from our rivers, degraded
habitat conditions, a lack of sufficient cold water, all of
these are essential to sustaining our fisheries. And while they
are politically difficult, we have to deal with these other
stressors that everyone knows prevent salmon recovery.
Otherwise, we will just be writing off thousands of jobs that
are very important to my district and beyond, including
throughout California, Oregon, and Washington.
H.R. 4582 will not help California salmon. But, as I said,
I hope it moves us toward finally working together on things
that will help salmon recovery, including smarter water policy,
updating our reservoir operations, and working on habitat
conservation measures.
Moving to the second bill, H.R. 1869, offered by Vice
Chairman Gosar, this is a bill that would require the PMAs to
make a special note on customers' bills highlighting the cost
of complying with fish and wildlife protections.
I think Mr. Gosar's laudable goal is transparency and
disclosure of costs. If that is the case, I would suggest that
the legislation also require inclusion on bills of all costs
that affect power rates, such as the cost of irrigation,
transmission, and failed investments like the Bonneville Power
Administration's nuclear plant default, which ratepayers have
been on the hook paying back for decades. We could actually
require these bills to note what the power would cost if market
rates were being charged, like most other places in the
country, rather than taxpayer-subsidized cost-based rates.
Maybe we could also include a line item on customer bills
that shows the discount that the Power Administration customers
are getting from U.S. taxpayers subsidizing the construction of
hydro-dams that generate most of their power. While we are at
it, we could list the economic benefits of robust ecosystems
that PMA mitigation activities actually support. These are
things with huge economic benefits to the American people. They
pay for themselves many times over.
So, if we really care about transparency, let's not cherry-
pick a sliver of misleading information to include on
customers' power bills, while excluding all other relevant
information. Let's include all of it, or better yet, maybe
let's leave these bills alone.
Last on today's agenda we have H.R. 2993, offered by my
friend, Doris Matsui. This is a common-sense surgical piece of
legislation. It would remove the existing requirement that
potential water recycling projects have to first receive a
project-specific authorization from Congress. This will help us
stretch our western water supplies. That has always been
discussed as something in the national interest. I hope we will
keep that in mind today as we consider this important bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the witnesses. I'm looking
forward to a good discussion on these bills today.
Now first on the agenda we have H.R. 4582, also known as the Save
Our Salmon Act, offered by my friend Jeff Denham. Now this bill would
amend the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, or CVPIA, to exempt
striped bass from the anadromous fish doubling goals in light of
concerns that striped bass prey on endangered salmon. Now the science
tells us that we ought to be focused on habitat, temperature, and flow
as far greater concerns than predation, but I do want to commend
Representative Denham for his concern about California's salmon runs.
And perhaps this is the beginning of a shared interest where we can
work together to do some good things for salmon.
As Congressman Denham and the Chairman know, California's salmon
runs sustain numerous jobs in my district and currently, I'm sorry to
say, we have what can only be described as a salmon crisis in
California. According to some estimates, 78 percent of our native
salmon will be extinct or extirpated within the next century if current
trends continue. Last year the mortality rate for Sacramento winter-run
salmon was 97 percent. The year before that, it was 95 percent.
Simply put, Mr. Chairman, many California fishermen are hanging on
by a thread. Boats are being scrapped because their owners can't pay
mooring fees. Fishermen are struggling to pay mortgages. Restaurants,
hotels, other businesses that depend on healthy fish runs are
struggling just to get by.
And even now, many are still recovering from the total closure of
the ocean salmon fishery along the West Coast in 2008 and 2009--that
was because of poor California salmon returns in those years. The
closure devastated the Pacific Coast fishing industry. Ultimately, it
required many millions of dollars in Federal disaster aid. And just
last month, in an ominous sign, fishery managers again announced that
the commercial salmon season off the West Coast for this summer will be
severely restricted. This will be the second year in a row because of
very low population levels.
So Mr. Chairman, Congress and the Administration need to be
proactive and bold in addressing the salmon crisis. And even though
H.R. 4582 focuses on predation, it's important to remember that the
science clearly tells us there are more important stressors we need to
address before our salmon runs are going to recover. Unsustainable
water exports from our rivers, degraded habitat conditions, a lack of
sufficient cold water, all of these are essential to sustaining our
fisheries.
And while they're politically difficult, we have to deal with these
other stressors that everyone knows prevent salmon recovery. Otherwise
we'll just be writing off thousands of jobs that are very important to
my district and beyond including throughout California, Oregon, and
Washington. H.R. 4582 won't help California salmon but, as I said, I
hope it moves us toward finally working together on things that will
help salmon recovery including smarter water policy, updating our
reservoir operations, and working on habitat conservation measures.
Moving to the second bill, H.R. 1869 offered by Vice-Chairman
Gosar. This is a bill that would require the PMAs to make a special
note on customers' bills highlighting the cost of complying with fish
and wildlife protections. Now I think Mr. Gosar's laudable goal is
transparency and disclosure of costs. If that is the case, I would
suggest that the legislation also require inclusion on bills of all
costs that affect power rates, such as the cost of irrigation,
transmission, and failed investments like the Bonneville Power
Administration's nuclear plant default, which ratepayers have been on
the hook paying back for decades.
We could actually require these power bills to note what the power
would cost if market rates were being charged like most other places in
the country--rather than taxpayer subsidized ``cost-based'' rates.
Maybe we could also include a line item on customer bills that show the
discount that the Power Administration customers are getting from U.S.
taxpayers subsidizing the construction of the hydro dams that generate
most of their power.
While we're at it, we could list the economic benefits of robust
ecosystems that PMA mitigation activities actually support. These are
things with huge economic benefits to the American people. They pay for
themselves many times over. So if we really care about transparency,
let's not cherry pick a sliver of misleading information to include on
customers' power bills while excluding all other relevant information.
Let's include all of it, or better yet, maybe let's leave these bills
alone.
Last on today's agenda we have H.R. 2993, offered by my friend
Doris Matsui. This is a common sense, surgical piece of legislation. It
would remove the existing requirement that potential water recycling
projects have to first receive a project-specific authorization from
Congress. This will help us stretch our western water supplies. That's
always been discussed as something in the national interest. I hope
we'll keep that in mind today as we consider this important bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
______
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman.
Dr. Gosar is now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing. Today is a step toward making common-sense, bipartisan
improvements in Federal law. I commend our committee colleague,
Mr. Denham, for introducing his bill to help protect endangered
salmon from the voracious appetites of non-native striped bass
in California.
Ratepayers and taxpayers pay to help recover these salmon,
only to see them devoured by the millions from predatory fish
that are also protected by Federal law. The conflicts between
these two fish and the laws that protect them is worthy of a
mention in Paul Gosar's Top 10 ``You Can't Believe Your
Government is This Dysfunctional'' list. Fortunately, this
bill, if enacted, will remove this policy from my list.
Another bill, the Environmental Compliance Cost
Transparency Act, from Yours Truly, requires needed Federal
transparency from the four power marketing administrations, or
PMAs. These Federal agencies sell 42 percent of our Nation's
hydropower resources to hundreds of wholesale customers
throughout the West and the South. These nonprofit utilities
comprised of cities, towns, rural electric cooperatives,
irrigation districts, and Native Americans bear the full cost
of the environmental mandates imposed on the PMAs.
The millions of retail customers served by these wholesale
utilities eat the cost of the Endangered Species Act, the Grand
Canyon Protection Act, the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act, and other Federal environmental laws. These costs result
in direct expenditures, such as environmental studies, capital
outlays, and operation and maintenance and staff costs.
Indirect costs include lost hydropower and replacement power
costs. These combined costs can be real.
In the Pacific Northwest, 30 percent of the rates are
related to environmental costs and the Glen Canyon Dam flows in
Arizona can cost its customers up to $50 million annually, due
to foregone power.
My bipartisan bill requires the PMAs to provide these costs
on a monthly basis to their customers. It does not repeal or
change any environmental laws, it simply requires transparency
and helps those who are paying for the bills to better
understand what they are actually paying for. And it focuses on
one of the most variable costs that are growing faster than
many of the more fixed cost items.
This bill is the result of years of work and input from the
PMAs and the customers they serve. As an example, the
Bonneville Power Administration testified that a prior bill
should be changed so that all fish and wildlife costs should be
included, not just Endangered Species Act costs. That change
has been made.
[Slide]
Dr. Gosar. That agency, under this Administration, even
stated--and I quote, if you will turn to the monitor--``shares
the interest in accountability that prompts this legislation.
Power bills result from complicated calculations and the public
debate about what affects power rates often strays from hard
numbers. The bill would take a step towards clarifying the
matter.''
Someone suggested this bill will increase electricity
rates. Nonsense. The PMAs have testified that it would not cost
anything, and customers support this bill.
Ms. Leslie James, the Executive Director of the Colorado
River Energy Distributors Association, testified--and I quote,
if you will look at the monitor again--``It is our
understanding that this information is readily available and
can be provided at little or no incremental cost.'' The
problem, as we will hear later, is that one agency does not
make this information transparent. To that end, let me refer
you again to another customer group that supports this bill.
If you will look to the monitor again, Mr. Joe Kay, from
the Grand Canyon State Electric Cooperative Association said,
``Your legislation will allow for a better understanding of how
those costs are derived. Moreover, through transparency and
discussion, your legislation will lead to better business
practices and improved communication between customers and
PMAs.''
Some in the so-called environmental community oppose this
bill because they fear transparency and the debate that may
happen with that transparency. Well, that debate is sorely
needed.
In closing, I welcome the witnesses before us, and I yield
back what little time I have left. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Paul A. Gosar, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Arizona
Thank you for holding today's hearing. Today is a step toward
making common-sense, bipartisan improvements in Federal law.
I commend our committee colleague, Mr. Denham, for introducing his
bill to help protect endangered salmon from the voracious appetites of
non-native striped bass in California. Ratepayers and taxpayers pay to
help recover these salmon, only to see them devoured by the millions
from predatory fish that are also protected by Federal law. The
conflicts between these two fish and the laws that protect them is
worthy of a mention in Paul Gosar's Top 10 ``You Can't Believe Your
Government is This Dysfunctional'' list. Fortunately, this bill, if
enacted, will remove this policy from my list.
Another bill--the Environmental Compliance Cost Transparency Act--
from yours truly, requires needed Federal transparency from the four
Power Marketing Administrations--or PMAs. These Federal agencies sell
42 percent of our Nation's hydropower resources to hundreds of
wholesale customers throughout the West and the South. These non-profit
utilities, comprised of cities, towns, rural electric cooperatives,
irrigation districts and Native Americans, bear the full costs of the
environmental mandates imposed on the PMAs. The millions of retail
consumers served by these wholesale utilities eat the costs of the
Endangered Species Act, the Grand Canyon Protection Act, the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act and other Federal environmental laws.
These costs result in direct expenditures such as environmental
studies, capital outlays and operation and maintenance and staff costs.
Indirect costs include lost hydropower and replacement power costs.
These combined costs can be real: In the Pacific Northwest, 30 percent
of the rates are related to environmental costs and the Glen Canyon Dam
flows in Arizona can cost its customers up to $50 million annually due
to foregone power.
My bipartisan bill requires the PMAs to provide these costs on a
monthly basis to their customers. It does not repeal or change any
environmental laws; it simply requires transparency and helps those who
are paying the bills to better understand what they are actually paying
for. And, it focuses on one of the most variable costs that are growing
faster than other more fixed costs.
This bill is the result of years of work and input from the PMAs
and the customers they serve. As an example, the Bonneville Power
Administration testified that a prior bill should be changed so that
ALL fish and wildlife account costs should be included--not just
Endangered Species Act costs. That change has been made. That agency,
under this Administration, even stated and I quote, ``shares the
interest in accountability that prompts this legislation. Power bills
result from complicated calculations and the public debate about what
affects power rates often strays from hard numbers. The bill would take
a step toward clarifying the matter.''
Some have suggested that this bill will increase electricity rates.
Nonsense. The PMAs have testified that it would not and customers
support this bill. Ms. Leslie James, the Executive Director of the
Colorado River Energy Distributors Association, testified that, ``It is
our understanding that this information is readily available and can be
provided at little or no incremental cost.''
Let me refer you to another customer group that supports the bill--
Mr. Joe Kay from the Grand Canyon State Electric Cooperative
Association said, ``Your legislation will allow for a better
understanding of how those costs are derived. Moreover, through
transparency and discussion your legislation will lead to better
business practices and improved communication between customers and
PMAs.''
Some in the so-called environmental community oppose this bill
because they fear transparency and the debate that may happen with that
transparency. That debate is sorely needed.
In closing, I welcome the witnesses before us and yield back the
little time I have left.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Dr. Gosar.
Well, since Dr. Gosar just described his bill, the Chair
will now recognize Ms. Matsui of California to describe your
bill, H.R. 2993.
You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Matsui. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Huffman, and
distinguished members of the committee, thank you very much for
holding this hearing today, and inviting me to testify on my
bill, the Water Recycling Acceleration Act.
As your subcommittee knows well, the West continues to face
severe drought conditions. In California, this has reignited
generations-old disputes over our limited water resources. The
answer to our drought challenges is not taking water from one
group or region in order to benefit another. Instead, we should
be looking at ways to generate new water sources which benefit
all water users.
When considering new sources, we should consider all
options, including water recycling. Water recycling is a proven
technology that has expanded water resources for millions of
Americans.
The Bureau of Reclamation currently supports water
recycling projects through its Title XVI program, which funds
the study and construction of projects that reclaim and reuse
wastewater and naturally impaired ground and surface water.
This program has had a record of success since its
establishment in 1992, facilitating the production of hundreds
of thousands of acre-feet of recycled water annually, and
leveraging $2.4 billion in non-Federal funding.
But while the program is strong, the project selection
process under the Title XVI is broken. Currently, projects must
be individually authorized by Congress before they can compete
for program funding. Due to the earmark ban, authorizing new
projects is nearly impossible. In fact, despite years of
devastating drought, we have not had a new Title XVI
authorization since 2009.
My bill would remove the requirement that projects funded
under the Title XVI program must receive individual
congressional authorization, thereby expanding the pool of
water recycling projects the Bureau is able to consider.
Because Title XVI is an over-subscribed program, we should be
prioritizing the most beneficial and deserving projects. The
best way to do this is to allow more projects to compete for
funding.
Additionally, my bill lays out a Title XVI program that is
earmark-free, and requires projects to meet comprehensive
criteria in order to compete and qualify for funds. These
criteria ensure that we are providing funding for projects that
have multiple benefits and serve the needs of an entire region.
This new way of distributing funding would facilitate a more
competitive process that makes our Federal water recycling
infrastructure construction dollars go further, and it
prioritizes projects in drought-stricken areas, which is
critical given the current challenges facing the West.
And, the changes made by my bill do not require Congress to
increase spending. Congress would continue to have complete
control over the Title XVI appropriations allocation. These
changes to Title XVI and the expansion of water recycling and
reuse help us to decouple the West's water supply from
unpredictable weather and precipitation conditions. By moving
toward a sustainable water supply that is more resilient to
drought, we can benefit all water users, whether urban,
agricultural, or environmental.
In Sacramento, we are exploring our own water recycling
project. If built, this recycling project in Sacramento will
provide the region with an opportunity to use wastewater in a
more beneficial way. By piping reclaimed water to farms and
habitat mitigation lands in the county, we can irrigate up to
18,000 acres of farmland and habitat.
This would help our local farmers by providing them with a
reliable water source that they can count on, even during
extreme drought. But it would also reduce our farmers' reliance
on groundwater and replenish our aquifer. And by using recycled
water for agriculture, more potable water would remain for
urban uses. Importantly, this water would be affordable. In
fact, as technologies continue to improve, the price of
recycled water will continue to drop.
In conclusion, we must continue to expand the role of
recycling as we envision the future of our water resources. As
our population grows, all types of water sources must be
considered to ensure that the West continues to prosper. I ask
that you consider supporting the Water Recycling Acceleration
Act as it moves through your committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the
committee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Matsui follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Thank you Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and
distinguished members of the committee for holding this hearing today
and inviting me to testify on my bill, the Water Recycling Acceleration
Act.
As your subcommittee knows well, the West continues to face severe
drought conditions. In California this has reignited generations-old
disputes over our limited water resources. The answer to our drought
challenges is not taking water from one group or region in order to
benefit another. Instead, we should be looking at ways to generate new
water sources which benefit all water users.
When considering new sources, I believe we should consider all
options, including water recycling. Water recycling is a proven
technology that has expanded water resources for millions of Americans.
The Bureau of Reclamation currently supports water recycling
projects through its Title XVI program, which funds the study and
construction of projects that reclaim and reuse wastewater and
naturally impaired ground and surface water. This program has had a
record of success since its establishment in 1992, facilitating the
production of hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of recycled water
annually and leveraging $2.4 billion in non-Federal funding.
But while the program is strong, the project selection process
under Title XVI is broken. Currently, projects must be individually
authorized by Congress before they can compete for program funding. Due
to the earmark ban, authorizing new projects is nearly impossible. In
fact, despite years of devastating drought we haven't had a new Title
XVI authorization since 2009.
My bill would remove the requirement that projects funded under the
Title XVI program must receive individual congressional authorization,
thereby expanding the pool of water recycling projects the Bureau is
able to consider. Because Title XVI is an oversubscribed program we
should be prioritizing the most beneficial and deserving projects. The
best way to do this is to allow more projects to compete for funding.
Additionally, my bill lays out a Title XVI program that is earmark-
free and requires projects to meet comprehensive criteria in order to
qualify for funds. These criteria ensure that we are providing funding
for projects that have multiple benefits and serve the needs of an
entire region. This new way of distributing funding would facilitate a
more competitive process that makes our Federal water recycling
infrastructure construction dollars go further. And it prioritizes
projects in drought stricken areas, which is critical given the current
challenges facing the West.
And, the changes made by my bill do not require Congress to
increase spending. Congress would continue to have complete control
over the Title XVI appropriations allocation. These changes to Title
XVI and the expansion of water recycling and reuse can help us decouple
the West's water supply from unpredictable weather and precipitation
conditions. By moving toward a sustainable water supply that is more
resilient to drought we can benefit all water users, whether urban,
agricultural, or environmental.
In Sacramento, we are exploring our own water recycling project. If
built, the recycling project in Sacramento will provide the region with
an opportunity to use wastewater in a more beneficial way. By piping
reclaimed water to farms and habitat mitigation lands in the county we
could irrigate up to 18,000 acres of farmland and habitat.
This would help our local farmers by providing them with a reliable
water source that they can count on even during extreme drought. But it
would also reduce our farmers' reliance on groundwater and replenish
our aquifer. And by using recycled water for agriculture . . . more
potable water would remain for urban uses. Importantly, this water will
be affordable. In fact, as technologies continue to improve the price
of recycled water will continue to drop.
In conclusion, we must continue to expand the role of recycling as
we envision the future of our water resources. As our population grows,
all types of water sources must be considered to ensure that the West
continues to prosper.
I ask that you support the Water Recycling Acceleration Act as it
moves through your committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentlelady. We do not do formal
questions to Members who testify, but I will open the dais for
any follow-up questions that Members may have for Ms. Matsui.
[No response.]
Dr. Fleming. If not, we will--oh, do you have one? Go
ahead. Or a statement, if you have a statement.
Mr. Costa. No, I want to commend the Congresswoman. I think
this provides flexibility for Congress to try to deal with
issues that are particular to our various congressional
districts across the country. And this measure with Title XVI
gives us that flexibility in using other management tools.
Yesterday, I pointed out that we do not have a recovery
plan for the Delta smelt. There are a host of issues, whether
it is the tertiary treatment on the city of Sacramento, as the
Congresswoman pointed out in her testimony, or whether there
are other issues in our respective districts that we can use
the ability that--in the past was an option with earmarks, but
since we do not have earmarks these days, that is no longer an
option. But this creates an opportunity, in fact, to do so.
I think that it should receive bipartisan support because,
clearly, we all have different circumstances in our
congressional districts and in regions that we represent in
which we want to try to address issues, but we are hand-tied in
doing so. I think this legislation would go a long ways toward
assisting us in that effort.
Dr. Fleming. OK.
Mr. Huffman. I also want to commend Congresswoman Matsui.
We have an awful lot of water recycling projects that are ready
to go throughout the West, and it has been a source of great
frustration that Title XVI has really been stalled for several
years now, and the Federal Government has been on the
sidelines, not partnering with states and local water districts
to move these supply projects forward.
I think some of that has just been out of stubborn
ideology, applying some sort of a rigid Beneficiary Pays
Principle to these projects. But if you look at what has
happened as we have sat on the sidelines these last few years
out of stubbornness on the Title XVI program, we have sent a
lot more money than that in emergency drought relief to the
state of California. Here are projects that have been ready to
go, that are ready to go, that will make our state far more
drought-resilient.
So, we can pay now or we can pay later. This is a bill that
will help make sure that our Federal dollars are leveraged far
more efficiently and effectively. So I commend the author, and
hope this is something that we can take a serious, objective
look at, and try to work on together.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Again, we thank the gentlelady. And
certainly you are welcome to stick around or get back to your
important duties. But we thank you.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. Our next panel can now go ahead and begin
moving forward.
As Mr. Denham is not here to give a statement--he is tied
up at the moment in another committee meeting--he has provided
a statement for the record. So I ask unanimous consent to enter
it into the record.
[No response.]
Dr. Fleming. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Denham follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Chairman Fleming, thank you for holding this important legislative
hearing today.
Over the past year, our committee has heard a recurring theme in
hearings that predation is a key stressor in efforts to protect fish
listed under the Endangered Species Act, especially in California.
In February, this subcommittee held an oversight hearing on
predation, and a National Marine Fisheries Service witness testified
that some salmonid populations in California are ``extremely low due to
an abundance of striped bass.'' As the oversight hearing highlighted,
in California, the problem of predation has been perpetuated in part by
a counterintuitive provision in the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act of 1992.
As part of an effort to protect fish populations, the CVPIA
mandated population doubling for all anadromous fish. This requirement
applies to the endangered salmon and their non-native predator, the
striped bass.
Quite simply, my bill, H.R. 4582, the ``Save our Salmon Act'' aims
to remove this doubling requirement for striped bass.
I am grateful for the bipartisan support and local interest that is
growing behind my common-sense bill. To that end, I would like to make
a motion to include these letters of support, representing 15
irrigation and water districts or associations throughout California,
in the official record.
I would like to thank Dr. Hanson and Mr. Iseman for their testimony
here today. I find your opinions and technical insights most
informative and I look forward to working with the U.S. Department of
the Interior to make the technical changes necessary to accomplish my
bill's intent.
Thank you both for your endorsement and with that I yield back.
______
Dr. Fleming. As our panel--yes, go ahead and move forward,
please, and I will be introducing you as you step forward.
First we have Dr. Charles Hanson, Senior Fishery Biologist
of Hanson Environmental, Incorporated. It is located in Walnut
Creek, California. Dr. Hanson is also representing the State
Water Contractors today. Dr. Hanson will testify on H.R. 4582.
Next is Mr. Jim Herberg, General Manager of the Orange
County Sanitation District, which is based out of Fountain
Valley, California. Mr. Herberg will testify on H.R. 2993.
Mr. Tom Iseman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Water and
Science at the U.S. Department of the Interior in Washington,
DC. Mr. Iseman will testify on H.R. 2993 and 4582.
Mr. Bo Downen, Senior Policy Analyst for the Public Power
Council, which is in Portland, Oregon. Mr. Downen will testify
on H.R. 1869.
And, Mr. Patrick Ledger, CEO of Arizona G&T Cooperatives in
Benson, Arizona. Mr. Ledger will also testify on H.R. 1869.
I would also like to note that the Department of Energy was
invited to testify on H.R. 1869, but once again has refused to
testify before this subcommittee.
Each witness's written testimony will appear in full in the
hearing record, and we will have 5 minutes of oral statements.
The lights work thusly: you will be under a green light for
the first 4 minutes, then a yellow light for 1 minute; and if
you have not finished by the time the red light comes on, we
ask for you to quickly conclude so we can keep things moving.
Trust me, your written statement, no matter how long it is,
will be included in the record. And we thank you for appearing
here today.
I now recognize Dr. Hanson for your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. HANSON, SENIOR FISHERY BIOLOGIST,
HANSON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. AND THE STATE WATER CONTRACTORS,
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
Dr. Hanson. Good morning, Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member
Huffman, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Chuck
Hanson. I am a fisheries biologist, and as mentioned, I am here
representing the State Water Contractors.
My background is: I studied Chinook salmon at the
University of Washington. I studied striped bass in the Potomac
and Chesapeake Bay at Johns Hopkins University. I have spent 35
years working on San Francisco, Sacramento, and San Joaquin Bay
Delta fisheries issues, and have a Ph.D. from UC Davis.
This morning I would like to speak on the CVPIA, the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, which included an
anadromous doubling goal and which was inclusive of a variety
of fish species including non-native striped bass. When the
CVPIA was being developed back in the late 1980s and early
1990s, striped bass were viewed as one of the key indicator
species of the health of the Delta. They were also a very, very
popular sport and recreational species. So it was natural to
include them as part of the consideration of various indicators
of the health of the estuary.
Starting in the 1990s and continuing to date, however, that
perspective has changed. Priority has now shifted from non-
native species to recovery of listed native populations. We
have a number of fish species that inhabit the Bay Delta
estuary that have been listed under the state or Federal
Endangered Species Act as either threatened or endangered, and
those include two runs of Chinook salmon, which I am going to
focus on this morning.
[Slide]
Dr. Hanson. In terms of fish life history, the CVPIA
includes anadromous species. Anadromous species are those fish
that live part of their life cycle in the ocean, but return to
fresh water to spawn. The adults migrate up the rivers, they
spawn in the upper reaches of the rivers, and then the
juveniles migrate back down to the ocean to rear. Next slide.
[Slide]
Dr. Hanson. This is a map that shows the geographic
distribution of spring-run Chinook salmon, a threatened species
in the Sacramento River system. The red indicates areas of
spawning activity; the greener areas are juvenile rearing and
migration. The importance of this figure is that all of the
spring-run Chinook salmon migrate through the Lower Sacramento
River and the Delta as juveniles on their way from the upstream
spawning and rearing areas to the coastal marine rearing
waters. It is an area of constriction, geographically. Next
slide.
[Slide]
Dr. Hanson. The importance of that constriction is that
these juvenile spring-run Chinook are migrating downstream
during the spring--typically, March, April, and May--and that
coincides with the period when adult striped bass are migrating
upstream into the Lower Sacramento River in preparation of
spawning.
So, we have a co-occurrence of adult striped bass, we have
juvenile Chinook salmon that are migrating at the same time and
the same location through a reach of the river that is
channelized, has riprap levies, it is about 500 feet across.
There is no cover for juveniles to avoid predators. So we have
a co-occurrence with a predatory fish and their juvenile prey.
These are results of some acoustic tag survival studies
done on the Sacramento River. These were with late fall run
Chinook. The fish were released upstream in the area near Red
Bluff, then migrated downstream and were monitored in terms of
their survival. The importance of this figure is that it shows
by the time those fish reach the Golden Gate, about 90 percent
had been lost as a result of some source of mortality. This
does not tell you what the mortality was, but we had about 90
percent loss, on average, for these Sacramento River fish.
These are similar results of survival studies conducted on
the Lower San Joaquin River. Again, for the last decade,
survival has roughly averaged 5 percent: very, very low
survival estimates.
As Mr. Huffman pointed out, predation is not the only cause
of mortality that occurs in our system. We have a number of
other stressors. We have had habitat changes. We have cold
water pool and water temperature issues. We have water project
operations. We have the dams themselves that create a physical
blockage to otherwise suitable upstream habitat. There are a
variety of factors that are all interacting that result in the
survival rates being so low that I mentioned. Next slide.
[Slide]
Dr. Hanson. We have also identified a number of what we
call predation hot spots. This is Clifton Court Forebay, and
there is 80 percent mortality across this--about a 1-mile
reach.
Striped bass have co-occurred in the Delta for 150 years.
And the question that arises is, are they the cause of the
decline of salmon? And the answer to that question is no. They
are a contributor. Next slide, please.
[Slide]
Dr. Hanson. In conclusion, increasing the population
abundance of a non-native predator as a goal under the CVPIA is
counterproductive to the goals of the ESA recovery. Salmon
survival is low on both the Sacramento and San Joaquin River
systems. Striped bass contribute to that predation mortality,
and the poor survival that we see reflects a variety of
stressors. I am an advocate of not saying we should deal with
the striped bass predation issue in and of itself, but rather
as a portfolio of diverse actions to help benefit salmon in
general.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hanson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles H. Hanson, Hanson Environmental, Inc.,
representing California State Water Contractors on H.R. 4582
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
subcommittee, I am Charles Hanson, Senior Biologist and Principal of
Hanson Environmental, Inc., located at 446 Green View Court, Walnut
Creek, California. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. I am here representing the State Water Contractors, a statewide,
non-profit association of 27 public agencies from Northern, Central and
Southern California that purchase water under contract from the
California State Water Project. Collectively the State Water
Contractors deliver water to more than 26 million residents throughout
the state and more than 750,000 acres of agricultural lands.
My academic training includes Bachelor of Science and Master of
Science degrees in fisheries from the University of Washington, College
of Fisheries, graduate studies in environmental engineering at the
Johns Hopkins University and a Ph.D. in fisheries and ecology from the
University of California, Davis. I have been involved in issues related
to the status of fish species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin-San
Francisco Bay-Delta since 1976. These issues include state and Federal
Endangered Species Act studies regarding fisheries populations,
including the biological monitoring of listed fish species, preparation
of biological assessments, preparation of habitat conservation plans,
and service as a member of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service's (USFWS) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes Recovery
Planning Team and the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS)
Central Valley Salmonid Technical Recovery Team, Santa Ynez River
Technical Advisory Committee, Kings River Technical Steering Committee,
Mokelumne River Technical Advisory Committee, and San Joaquin River
Restoration Program Technical Advisory Committee. I served as a member
of the National Scientific Peer Review Panel for Stanislaus River Water
Temperature Criteria for Salmonid Restoration. I serve as co-chair of
the Collaborative Adaptive Management Team (CAMT) Salmon Scoping Team.
This morning I would like to discuss the inclusion of striped bass
under the anadromous species doubling goal of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). As introduced, H.R. 4582 would
eliminate striped bass from the CVPIA's doubling goal. I am not here to
advocate a position on H.R. 4582, but to provide expert testimony on
the impact of predation on salmon and steelhead species in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
original goals for cvpia
The CVPIA was enacted in 1992 in an effort to improve the abundance
of anadromous fish inhabiting the Central Valley rivers and streams
including the Sacramento and San Joaquin River watersheds and the Bay-
Delta estuary. Anadromous fish are those that spawn in freshwater but
live a part of their life as juveniles and pre-spawning adults in
saltwater, including native species such as Chinook salmon and
steelhead.
Striped bass were intentionally introduced into the Bay-Delta
estuary from the East Coast to serve as a recreational and food
resource for those living in the San Francisco Bay Area. Although they
are not native to the Central Valley, striped bass were identified as
one of the anadromous fish species under the CVPIA doubling goal. At
the time the CVPIA was being developed, striped bass were considered to
be a key indicator species on the health and condition of the Bay-Delta
estuary as well as a valued recreational fish species. Part of the
appeal of striped bass as a recreational species was their large size
and aggressive predation foraging on smaller fish. Since striped bass
actively forage on small fish, including shad, smelt, salmon, herring,
anchovy, and others, they can be readily caught by recreational anglers
fishing from boats and the shoreline throughout the Bay-Delta estuary
and rivers.
growing concerns for native species
In the 1990s and later, a shift occurred in the fisheries'
management priority away from non-native fish to native fish species,
particularly those that have been listed for protection under the
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA). These listed species include winter-run and spring-
run Chinook salmon, Central Valley and Central Coast steelhead, green
sturgeon, delta and longfin smelt. For purposes of this presentation I
have focused on Chinook salmon, however, striped bass are known
predators of all of the listed fish species inhabiting the estuary.
The Central Valley supports four species of Chinook salmon
including winter-run (Endangered), spring-run (Threatened), fall-run
and late fall-run. The name of each species is based on the seasonal
time of year when the adults migrate upstream into freshwater prior to
spawning.
salmon characteristics and behavior
Chinook salmon have a life history (Figure 1) in which the adult
salmon migrate upstream from the ocean into freshwater rivers where
they dig a shallow depression in gravel deposits, known as a redd,
where the female deposits her eggs which are then fertilized by a male
and covered with gravel. Chinook salmon, unlike some of the other
listed fish, die after spawning. Incubation occurs with the eggs buried
in the gravel over a period of months depending on factors such as
water temperatures. After hatching from the egg the young salmon with
their attached yolk sac remain in the gravel for a period of weeks
while they grow and develop. As the young salmon develop into
juveniles, they emerge from the gravels and begin rearing in the rivers
near where they were hatched. A portion of the juvenile salmon, known
as fry, may disperse downstream soon after emergence, where they rear
in the lower reaches of the rivers and estuary. Other juveniles may
continue to rear in the upper reaches of the rivers for months or up to
1 year until they are large enough to undergo the physiological
transformation known as smolting which allows the juveniles (typically
2 to 4 inches in length) to migrate downstream from freshwater and
enter coastal marine waters where they continue to grow and develop.
The juvenile salmon reside in marine waters for a variable period of
time ranging from approximately 1 to 5 years before returning to the
freshwater rivers to spawn and complete their lifecycle.
Figure 1: General anadromous salmonid lifecycle.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Central Valley salmon spawn and juveniles rear in the upper
reaches of larger rivers including the Sacramento, Feather, Yuba,
American, Mokelumne, Consumes, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers
depending on salmon species. The red areas shown on Figure 2 are an
illustration of the areas of the Central Valley where spring-run
Chinook salmon spawn and are also primary areas of juvenile rearing. As
a result of their life history and habitat requirements, all of the
juvenile spring-run Chinook salmon produced in the Central Valley, in
this example, migrate downstream in the Sacramento River and through
the Delta during their passage to the ocean. The juvenile salmon
downstream migration typically occurs during the late winter and spring
months. A large portion of the Sacramento River used as the juvenile
migration route is characterized by a trapezoidal channel with very
little shallow water, riprap banks with little or no riparian
vegetation, very little to no in-channel cover or protection from
predators, with a river channel typically only 500 feet across through
which all juvenile salmon must migrate.
Figure 2: Spawning areas for spring-run Chinook salmon.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
contributing factors impacting salmon survival
Survival studies have been conducted in both the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers over a number of years. In the past, survival of
juvenile salmon was estimated based on the number of marked juveniles
that were released into the river (juvenile salmon have typically been
marked using a small metal wire implanted in the fish's nose--a coded
wire tag) and the number of marked fish subsequently recaptured at a
downstream location such as Chipps Island. More recently, advances in
tag technology have led to the development of small battery powered
tags that emit an underwater sound (acoustic tags) that can then be
detected as an individual fish passes an acoustic detector. By placing
acoustic tag detectors in a number of locations and channels in the
river and Delta, juvenile salmon survival can be estimated. Figure 3
shows an example of juvenile Chinook salmon survival as the fish
migrate downstream in the Sacramento River and Delta. In these studies,
only about 10 percent of the juvenile salmon survived the migration
down the Sacramento River to the Golden Gate. Results of similar
survival studies conducted on the lower San Joaquin River and Delta for
juvenile Chinook salmon (Figure 4) have shown a pattern in which
survival declined in the early 2000s and has been less than 5 percent
every year for the past decade.
A variety of factors have been identified that are thought to
contribute to the poor survival of juvenile salmon in the Bay-Delta
estuary including:
Changes in habitat/wetland reclamation/channelization;
Dams and water project operations;
Natural hydrology/water quality (e.g., temperature);
Food web changes;
Invasive non-native species as predators and competitors--
--
-- Inadvertently introduced (Asian clam)
-- Intentionally introduced (striped bass)
Entrainment at unscreened diversions;
Loss of riparian vegetation;
Loss of shallow channel margin habitat and seasonal
floodplains;
Reductions in suitable spawning gravels and juvenile
rearing habitat;
Ocean conditions; and
Harvest (of some species).
The relative importance of these and other factors affecting
habitat quality and availability and survival of native fish interact
in dynamic ways geographically and in response to within and between-
year biologic and environmental conditions.
Figure 3: Survival estimates for acoustically tagged late fall-run
Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
(Source: Michel 2010)
Figure 4: Estimated survival of Fall-run Juvenile Chinook Salmon from
Mossdale (MOS), Durham Ferry (DF), or Dos Reis (DR) to either
Jersey Point (JPT; CWT) or Chipps Island (CHP; AT). Intervals
are 95 percent confidence intervals, truncated to 0 if
necessary.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: SJRGA 2013, USFWS 2014
threat of non-native predators
Predation mortality has been identified as an important factor
effecting juvenile salmon survival in the rivers and Delta. Primary
predator fish species in the Delta include both striped bass and
largemouth bass (both introduced species). The geographic and seasonal
co-occurrence of adult striped bass and juvenile Chinook salmon (Figure
5) in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers is one of the factors that
increase bass predation on juvenile salmon. Adult striped bass migrate
upstream into the rivers during the spring where they stage and forage
prior to spawning (typically during April-May). During the spring
months (typically during April-May) a majority of the juvenile Chinook
salmon migrate downstream through the rivers on their way to the ocean.
The adult striped bass actively forage on juvenile fish in the size
range of juvenile Chinook salmon. The adult striped bass and the
juvenile salmon are both limited to the channelized river approximately
500 feet wide where the juvenile salmon have little or no cover or
protection from predators. The result is increased vulnerability of
juvenile salmon to predation. High levels of juvenile mortality
contribute to reduced adult salmon abundance.
Figure 5: Co-occurrence of adult striped bass and juvenile Chinook
salmon in the Sacramento River during spring.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
subjecting salmon to ambush
In addition to predation that occurs throughout the rivers and
Delta, specific locations have been identified where juvenile salmon
are particularly vulnerable to predators. For example, observations of
acoustic tags from juvenile salmon released into the San Joaquin River
showed an unusual accumulation of tags in the vicinity of several
bridge crossings that were thought to provide structure and ambush
locations for predatory fish. In other studies, evidence showed
increased predation mortality of juvenile salmon that were exposed to a
scour hole in the river channel. High levels of predation on juvenile
Chinook salmon and steelhead have been observed experimentally within
Clifton Court Forebay (Figure 6), part of the State Water Project
diversion facility, where juvenile mortality attributable to predation
was estimated to be approximately 80 percent.
Figure 6: Clifton Court Forebay: Juvenile salmon and steelhead
predation mortality is approximately 80 percent between the
radial gate and the Skinner Delta Fish Protective Facility.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
is predation a new problem?
There is no question that adult striped bass prey on juvenile
Chinook salmon (Figure 7). The question that typically comes up is why
would striped bass predation on juvenile salmon be a problem now if the
fish have coexisted in the estuary for over 150 years? As noted above,
there are a wide variety of factors that affect juvenile salmon
survival in the rivers and Delta. Predation by striped bass is one of
those factors. One potential scenario is that as a result of long-term
degradation of aquatic habitats, in combination with a variety of
sources of mortality, the Chinook salmon population resilience to
adverse conditions has been degraded and the populations are now less
able to withstand added stressors that result in greater mortality and
further reductions in abundance. A second potential scenario is that
salmon population resilience has declined as a result of cumulative
stressors such as poor ocean rearing conditions, reduced river flows
and increased water temperatures resulting from drought conditions,
increased predator abundance, and other factors that reduce the ability
of the population to withstand the incremental contribution of one or
more stressors such as increased predation mortality. The low levels of
survival observed for juvenile Chinook salmon migrating through the
rivers and Delta are a major challenge in generating healthy and robust
populations of salmon that contribute to ESA recovery and sustainable
fisheries. Doubling the abundance of striped bass as part of CVPIA
would be expected to contribute to an increase in the cumulative
stressors affecting Central Valley Chinook salmon populations and would
be expected to contribute further to low juvenile survival and reduced
adult abundance.
Figure 7: Juvenile Chinook salmon preyed upon by an adult striped bass.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
swp and cvp inflow:export ratio operations and salmon survival
As part of the overall effort to improve juvenile salmon and
steelhead survival in the Central Valley and Delta, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) has identified a number of management actions
related to SWP and CVP export operations. One of those actions specific
to the lower San Joaquin River is the regulation of export rates as a
ratio of San Joaquin River flow at Vernalis during April and May. The
action, which was outlined in the 2009 Biological Opinion, is intended
to improve survival of juvenile steelhead produced in San Joaquin River
tributaries. Although steelhead survival studies have been conducted in
the lower San Joaquin River over the past 6 years, a complete set of
results from these studies is not yet available for use in assessing a
potential relationship between the I: E (San Joaquin River inflow: SWP
and CVP export) ratio and juvenile steelhead survival. Available
results from lower San Joaquin River juvenile salmon survival studies
(Figure 4) have shown no improvement in survival (survival has been
less than 5 percent) during the spring in every year since the mid-
2000s despite variation in river flows, export rates, inflow-export
ratios, and other environmental variables. Although more rigorous
statistical analyses of the survival study results are currently
underway, preliminary results suggest that the consistently low
survival of juvenile salmon from the San Joaquin River over the past
decade has occurred despite implementation of management actions
targeting SWP and CVP export operations outlined in the 2009 Biological
Opinion.
cvpia should support species protections
The CVPIA specifically identifies striped bass as part of the goal
of doubling abundance of anadromous fish inhabiting the Central Valley
and Bay-Delta estuary. Policy and management priorities have changed,
however, since enactment of CVPIA to include:
In the later 1990s priorities shifted in response to the
Endangered Species Act to emphasize protection of depressed
native fish species;
The Bay-Delta estuary provides spawning and rearing
habitat for several ESA protected salmonid species;
Results of juvenile salmon survival studies have shown low
survival on both the Sacramento River (typically survival
less than 10 percent) and San Joaquin River (typically
survival less than 5 percent);
A variety of factors interact to effect habitat conditions
and survival of juvenile and adult salmonids including
predation mortality;
Striped bass are a predator of juvenile Chinook salmon and
other listed fish species;
Predation mortality by striped bass and other non-native
fish has been identified as a major stressor;
Research by California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, NMFS, and others on
predation is underway; and
Increased striped bass abundance in response to CVPIA
goals is expected to increase the risk of predation
mortality for juvenile salmon and other protected species
and contribute to reduced abundance of native fish species.
conclusion
In conclusion, increasing the population of non-native species that
prey on protected species is counter-productive to species recovery
efforts currently underway in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and
surrounding watershed. Therefore, striped bass, a known predator of
endangered native species, should be excluded from the doubling goal
for anadromous species in the CVPIA and initiatives should be
undertaken to address other stressors impacting these protected species
to improve their chance of survival.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important
topic. I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Dr. Fleming. Yes, thank you, Mr. Hanson.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lowenthal for an introduction.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am very pleased to
introduce today, Jim Herberg. Jim Herberg is the General
Manager of the Orange County Sanitation District, the OCSD,
managing a staff of 626 employees and serving 2.5 million
people, including many in my district.
Prior to becoming the General Manager, in 2013 Jim was the
Director of Engineering responsible for OCSD's biosolids
program, environmental compliance, and source control
permitting, in addition to managing the planning, design, and
construction of the agency's $2.6 billion capital improvement
program.
Jim has been with the Orange County Sanitation District
since 1995. Jim is a registered civil engineer in the state of
California, and is board certified as an environmental engineer
by the American Academy of Environmental Engineers. He holds a
bachelor of science degree in civil engineering from the
University of Oklahoma, and a master's degree in engineering
from my institution, Long Beach State, where I taught for many
years.
Jim, we are happy to have you here today to talk about all
the leadership role that OCSD has done in water recycling, and
about how we can do even more in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Herberg, you are
now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JIM HERBERG, GENERAL MANAGER, ORANGE COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Herberg. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal, for that
introduction; and good morning, Chairman Fleming, Ranking
Member Huffman, and members of the committee. I am Jim Herberg,
and I appear before you today as the General Manager of the
Orange County Sanitation District, located in Orange County,
California. I want to express our appreciation for the
opportunity to testify on the important need to accelerate the
way in which we support water recycling.
I also want to acknowledge our partner agency, the Orange
County Water District. Orange County Water District's first
vice president, Dennis Bilodeau, is currently testifying before
the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works on the
vital role that water recycling and other innovations can play
in delivering a safe and reliable water supply for the arid
West.
It is also important to highlight that a number of other
organizations, including the California Association of
Sanitation Agencies, the National Association of Clean Water
Agencies, the Water Environment Federation, Water Reuse, and
the Association of California Water Agencies have worked to
advance water recycling policy. Clearly, this is an issue that
crosses the divide between water and wastewater.
The Orange County Sanitation District serves the needs of
2.5 million citizens in 20 cities. We are the sixth largest
county in the United States, in terms of population. We believe
that today's hearing into H.R. 2993 is especially timely
because of the era of scarce water resources and the need to
develop new ways to deliver sustainable water supplies.
As former Department of the Interior Secretary Lujan noted,
the last great river to tap is wastewater. At Orange County
Sanitation District, working with Orange County Water District
and the Federal Government, we are harnessing this resource.
Our commitment to using wastewater as a resource led us to
partner with the Orange County Water District and construct the
internationally acclaimed groundwater replenishment system.
This would not have been possible without this committee's
support, and we thank you for that support.
A little background on the project. In the midst of the
drought of the late 1980s and early 1990s, facing population
growth, groundwater depletion, seawater intrusion, and
uncertain imported water supplies, we looked for an innovative
solution. This is the groundwater replenishment system.
We took a valuable but underused resource, wastewater, and
developed a breakthrough technological approach. Today the
partnership between the two agencies delivers more than 100
million gallons of treated water each day, serving the needs of
850,000 citizens. And with the expansion, we plan to deliver up
to 130 million gallons a day to more than 1.1 million citizens.
The system provides multiple benefits--most notably
reducing our dependence on imported water supplies and
improving the region's environment through the diversion of
effluent that would have otherwise been discharged to the
Pacific Ocean, and producing this highly purified water locally
requires only one-half of the energy that it would take to move
water from the Sacramento Delta to Southern California.
This accomplishment would not have been possible without a
Federal partner. Congress appropriated $20 million through
Title XVI. This assistance helped us to reduce the product
water costs and increase public acceptance. Our project is just
one of the successes under Title XVI. Title XVI has contributed
to the development of projects contributing $369,000 acre-feet
of water per year across the arid West.
One important lesson we learned was the sustainable water
projects are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Different
technologies will be required to address the new challenges
that were not envisioned in the past. And this lesson is what
makes us believe that the new approach needs to be implemented
to fund promising solutions. This would be H.R. 2993.
H.R. 2993 provides a road map to restructure the
partnership between the Bureau of Reclamation and local
agencies like ours. This new approach would ensure that the
most promising projects are funded. Under the old way of doing
business, a project undergoes a feasibility study, and the
study is reviewed to determine if it is feasible. Assuming a
positive finding, then the project sponsor would seek a
constructive authorization. Then, if successfully authorized,
an appropriation from Congress would be sought. This is a
several-year process with no certainty of success.
H.R. 2993 recognizes that we are in a changing world and we
need to accelerate the process, and it is a responsible
acceleration. If a project is deemed feasible, then the
Secretary would have the authority to fund construction,
assuming that Congress appropriated funding for the overall
Title XVI program. This acceleration is a timely response to
the new normal of heightened water scarcity. A series of
criteria are spelled out to ensure that any project funded
would be grounded in the purpose to support regionalism,
multiple benefits, public acceptance, and water resource
flexibility, among other purposes.
In short, this new competitive approach would ensure that
the biggest benefit is gained for the dollars provided by the
Federal Government. An annual report to Congress on the status
of the program and its implementation would also be useful.
Again, we hope that the subcommittee and the committee will
consider the value that H.R. 2993 would deliver to our shared
interest of drought-proofing the West. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions and, again, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you on this important and timely
matter.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Herberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. James D. Herberg, P.E., General Manager,
Orange County Sanitation District, Fountain Valley, California on H.R.
2993
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman and members of the
subcommittee, I am Jim Herberg, General Manager of Orange County
Sanitation District (OCSD). I appear before you today as one half of a
local partnership that developed and constructed an internationally
acclaimed sustainable water supply project known as the Groundwater
Replenishment System or GWRS. Our partner agency, the Orange County
Water District (OCWD) operates GWRS and I want to acknowledge their
leadership on this effort. I also want to acknowledge OCWD's First Vice
President Denis Bilodeau, who is currently testifying before the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works on the vital role that water
recycling and other innovations can play in providing a sustainable
water future.
The Orange County Sanitation District is a public agency located in
Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach that provides wastewater
collection, treatment, and recycling for approximately 2.5 million
people in central and northwest Orange County. OCSD is a special
district that is governed by a 25 member Board of Directors comprised
of 20 cities, four special districts, and one representative from the
Orange County Board of Supervisors. Orange County is the sixth largest
county by population in America. This distinction is important as it
drives our priority to find sustainable water supplies for our growing
region.
OCSD is pleased to be part of today's hearing to highlight ways in
which we can develop cost-effective water recycling solutions. Indeed,
in California, we have taken steps with the help of the Federal
Government to tap what former Secretary of the Interior Lujan termed
the last great river, wastewater. Today's hearing is especially timely
because we are entering an era of water resources needs that demands a
new way of developing sustainable water supply projects. Similar to the
digital revolution, the technology revolution in water is changing the
way we develop projects to meet our municipal, agricultural and
environmental water demand. OCSD would like to note the efforts to
advance the Nation's commitment to sustainable water practices through
the activities and efforts of organizations including the California
Association of Sanitation Agencies, National Association of Clean Water
Agencies, Water Environment Federation, Association of California Water
Agencies, WaterReuse, and its state chapter California WateReuse.
OCSD has always taken pride in advancing the treatment of
wastewater through the use of innovative technologies. In fact, it was
this dedication that led us to a decision to work with our water
agency, OCWD, to design and construct a sustainable water supply to
address a growing population and changes in precipitation patterns.
This commitment is demonstrated vividly by the expansion of the GWRS.
The GWRS is the world's largest advanced water purification system for
potable reuse. The project receives OCSD's treated wastewater that
otherwise would be sent to the Pacific Ocean and purifies it using a
three-step advanced process. I would like to express our gratitude for
the committee's past support that helped make GWRS a reality.
Today, I would like to address how OCSD and its partner OCWD have
developed a meaningful response to the drought conditions and what
policies need to be implemented for the future to assure that projects
can be constructed to address our changing environment. I want to
emphasize that the past winter's El Nino has only served to validate
the value of Federal programs and projects that we pursued. El Nino
brought above average snowpack and almost brimming reservoirs to
northern California. But in our region, the record rainfall we
anticipated did not occur. Clearly, the new normal of rainfall and
snowfall events along with accelerated evaporation and melting means
that it is incumbent to develop and implement policy approaches to
advance sustainable water supply. It has often been stated that
California has always met challenges and succeeded, defying the
conventional wisdom that our state is too big and the problems are too
big to find a long-lasting solution. In our circumstance, OCSD and OCWD
designed a solution and with the vital support of Congress and the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, we constructed GWRS, a project that has won
international acclaim and helped establish the United States as a
leader in the field of sustainable water projects. This solution can be
replicated throughout arid and semi-arid regions of our Nation and the
world.
In Orange County, our climate is becoming more arid. The base flow
of the Santa Ana River, our main source of surface water, continues to
decline. Imported water supplies from Northern California and Colorado
River are restricted. We expect droughts to occur 3 out of every 10
years. Population growth within our region is expected to increase and
so will water demands. There was and is a need to address these
multiple matters.
In the late 1980s, it became apparent that to preserve our region's
economic and social vitality, the challenges of our groundwater
depletion, seawater intrusion and unreliable surface water supplies
demanded an innovative solution. An aggressive program was implemented
to develop a novel water treatment process with the GWRS.
Unlike traditional approaches to water treatment, our approach
recognized that wastewater is a valuable resource. The ability to
design a technological approach that would capture this resource,
remove the impurities and recycle it back into the environment would
address multiple needs ranging from supplementing water supply to
protecting our natural resources.
The GWRS takes treated wastewater from OCSD that would otherwise be
discharged into the Pacific Ocean. It implements a sophisticated
process to purify this water. The process involves using a three-step
advanced treatment system consisting of microfiltration, reverse
osmosis, and ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide. This treatment
and purification process produces high-quality water that exceeds all
state and Federal drinking water standards. Let me emphasize this
point. OCWD is able to exceed public health standards in developing a
sustainable water supply.
GWRS was achieved through a partnership with Federal and state
agencies that provided vital assistance in making this project a
reality. The $20 million in assistance under Title XVI leveraged over
$70 million in state and local funding to provide for the $481 million
construction cost of the GWRS. Today, the partnership is responsible
for delivering enough drinking water for 850,000 people with a
production of 100 million gallons of water per day. When GWRS became
operational it was a project that delivered on the promise of providing
a safe and reliable water supply.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to water reuse. The GWRS
establishes a technology foundation to design and build individual
approaches to sustainable water supply needs. Water needs of a specific
community, water sources, public health regulations, costs, and the
types of water infrastructure in place, such as distribution systems,
man-made reservoirs or natural groundwater basins, determine if and how
your reused water becomes part of the drinking water supply. And these
factors are driving our belief that we need a new approach to funding
promising water recycling projects.
As the state of California and the entire West faces severe drought
conditions, increased attention must ultimately turn to locally
developed projects and programs like GWRS that provide reliable water
supplies. But the risks in developing projects require partnerships and
the Federal Government is a vital partner. The support provided through
Federal assistance helps to reduce project costs through lower
borrowing rates and public acceptance.
Today, the West faces challenges to our urban and rural economies
that we never envisioned as drought conditions persist with greater
frequency and extend for longer periods of time.
The changing hydrological conditions in the West demand a new model
to spur on innovation that can lead to sustainable water supplies. OCSD
and OCWD are currently in the process of taking on the challenge of
finding new ways to develop the last river in the West. We recently
completed a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation supported feasibility study to
leverage our wastewater supply by reconfiguring and expanding our
facilities to reuse nearly 100 percent of the wastewater generated by
the 2.5 million residents of our service area. This final expansion
would generate an additional 30 million gallons of water per day for
groundwater recharge. When added to our current capacity, the total
will be enough to serve a total population of 1.1 million. We are
hopeful that the results of this study will position us to move forward
with construction as our area continues to suffer the worst drought
conditions since rainfall records have been recorded. I would also like
to note that water agencies throughout California are currently
generating approximately 750,000 acre-feet of water through reuse
operations, and are planning for reuse projects that would more than
double that total.
We seek to accelerate the development our project, however, the
current Title XVI program imposes procedural delays on feasible
projects at a time when expeditious project approvals would help us
meet the water scarcity challenges that we face. Therefore, like
changes in technology that have reformed and restructured the way in
which we work, we need to reform and restructure the way in which the
Federal Government supports the clear need for a meaningful partnership
to develop water supply projects.
One approach that we believe offers a road map to restructure this
partnership is the Water Recycling Acceleration Act of 2015 (H.R.
2993). Under H.R. 2993, the old approach of conducting a feasibility
study and then requiring project sponsors to secure an authorization
for a project deemed feasible would be reformed to accelerate
construction of critical water infrastructure. If a project is deemed
feasible, it would then be allowed to proceed to actual construction
with Federal assistance, if selected by the Secretary of the Interior
assuming Congress approves the budget for such programs.
Any assistance must be targeted to achieve maximum benefits from
Federal assistance to reduce the adverse consequences from today's
water scarcity impacts. H.R. 2993 would facilitate this objective by
establishing a series of criteria that address the challenges of today
and thus to allow a project to receive construction assistance.
These criteria include:
Deliver a reliable water supply
Protect, restore, and enhance ecosystems
Improve water resource flexibility
Regional in nature
Multiple stakeholders
Multiple benefits including groundwater management and
water quality improvements
Each of these criteria would create an approval process through the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program. It would enable project
sponsors to develop projects that would guarantee multiple benefits to
the greatest degree possible. The criteria would also ensure that when
a project is selected to proceed to construction, Congress would be
assured that the investment of Federal resources would enjoy broad
support from stakeholders and that the project has regional benefits.
Again, OCSD deeply appreciates the subcommittee convening today's
hearing on this important policy issue and specifically H.R. 2993. OCSD
and our sister agency OCWD look forward to working with you to advance
H.R. 2993 through the legislative process.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Herberg. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Iseman for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TOM ISEMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF WATER
AND SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Iseman. Thank you, Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member
Huffman, and members of the subcommittee. I am Tom Iseman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the
Department of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify on two of the three bills before the subcommittee
today: H.R. 2993 and H.R. 4582. I will briefly summarize my
written statements, which have been submitted for the record.
H.R. 2993, the Water Recycling Acceleration Act, would
amend Title XVI of Public Law 102-575, the Reclamation,
Wastewater, and Groundwater Studying Facilities Act. Under that
statute, the Bureau of Reclamation works with local partners to
investigate opportunities for the reuse of municipal,
industrial, and agricultural water. Reclamation administers
Title XVI as a competitive grant program incorporated into the
WaterSMART program. Funding opportunity announcements are
posted every year, and project sponsors apply for finite
amounts of planning, design, or construction funding that are
awarded once appropriations are received.
Since 1992, Reclamation has provided approximately $637
million in Federal funding to congressionally authorized Title
XVI water recycling and reuse projects. This funding has been
leveraged with non-Federal cost share of over $2.4 billion to
make available almost 370,000 acre-feet of water in 2015.
A central requirement of that program is that the applicant
projects must be authorized for construction funding by
Congress. H.R. 2993 would remove that requirement by amending
Title XVI to state that any project for which funding may
otherwise be made available shall not be required to have been
previously authorized for such funding.
The Department believes it is timely to examine program
eligibility as contemplated by H.R. 2993. A wider base of Title
XVI applicants could bring more worthy projects into the
program. Given that no new Title XVI projects have been
authorized since 2009, it is possible that newer projects can
enhance the effectiveness of Title XVI in addressing drought,
reducing dependency on imported water, and making local water
supplies more reliable.
That said, it must be noted that Title XVI is an over-
subscribed program, and each year brings many more applicants
for Reclamation funding than can be accommodated. There are
presently 53 authorized Title XVI projects, 21 of which are
active projects that have not yet received their full Federal
cost share.
If H.R. 2993 were enacted, it should be made clear to
project sponsors that competition for limited resources would
increase, and the dollar value of awards per project may need
to be revisited.
H.R. 4582, the Save our Salmon Act, would amend the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act, or CVPIA, to remove striped
bass from the fish doubling goal provisions of the CVPIA. While
the striped bass is an anadromous fish, it is not native to the
Sacramento San Joaquin Bay Delta, or even to California.
Implementation of the CVPIA has focused on improving
populations and habitat for native fish, and the striped bass
is a predator of native Delta fish species, including Delta
smelt and various runs of salmon and steelhead.
Given that the striped bass contributes to mortality for
listed species and is not native to the Bay Delta or even
California, the Department does not object to the removal of
striped bass from the CVPIA's fish doubling goals.
My written statement contains recommendations for some
technical modifications to conform the bill to striped bass
references contained in the CVPIA statute, and better assure
that the bill's intention is met. The Department would be glad
to work with the subcommittee and Representative Denham to
provide more detail on these recommended changes.
In closing, Reclamation and the Department appreciate the
interest in reducing threats to the survival of listed fish in
the Bay Delta. We believe that the CVPIA has been successful in
promoting the recovery of fish species in the Bay Delta and its
tributaries. With the changes noted in my written statement,
the Department would be pleased to support H.R. 4582.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
subcommittee today. I would be pleased to answer questions at
the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Iseman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Iseman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water
and Science, U.S. Department of the Interior
Statement on H.R. 2993
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman and members of the
subcommittee, I am Tom Iseman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science at the U.S. Department of the Interior (Department). I am
pleased to provide the views of the Department on H.R. 2993, the Water
Recycling Acceleration Act of 2015. With consideration for the points
described in my statement, the Department supports the goals of H.R.
2993.
Title XVI of Public Law 102-575 created the Reclamation Wastewater
and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.). That
statute authorizes the Department, acting through the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation), to investigate opportunities for the reuse
of municipal, industrial, and agricultural wastewater, and fund the
planning, design, and construction of demonstration and permanent
facilities. The statute has been amended several times, and, in
general, Title XVI projects are funded at 75 percent or greater local
funding, with a Federal cost-share of no more than $20 million or 25
percent of the total project cost. Some projects, including six of the
original Title XVI projects, have been authorized with a Federal cost
share that exceeds $20 million. And while Congress provided blanket
authorization for the funding of feasibility studies and demonstration
projects under Title XVI, the statute and subsequent amendments
contemplate that Federal funding for actual project design and
construction must be individually authorized.
Today, Reclamation administers Title XVI as a competitive grant
program incorporated into the WaterSMART Program. Funding opportunity
announcements (FOAs) are posted every year and project sponsors apply
for finite amounts of planning, design, or construction funding that
are awarded once appropriations are received. Eligibility criteria and
prioritization measures for the award of funding are public and part of
every FOA, and the total funding request has exceeded the available
appropriations in every year since 2011. Applicant projects must be
authorized for construction funding by Congress.
H.R. 2933 would remove that requirement by amending Title XVI to
state that any project for which funding ``may otherwise be made
available'' shall not be required to have been previously authorized by
law for such funding. The bill also directs that priority for the award
of funding be given to projects located in areas experiencing drought,
or having been a designated disaster area between 2014 and 2018.
Section 2 also provides for criteria to be applied to applicant
entities.
The Department believes it is timely to examine expanding program
eligibility to any projects that are determined to be feasible and
which compete well under Reclamation's existing prioritization
criteria. These criteria were submitted for public review in 2010, and
are consistent with the program's statutory origins in Public Law 102-
575.
Title XVI is an integral part of the Department's efforts through
the WaterSMART Program to increase water supply sustainability. Over
the past 20 years, projects have been developed under the Title XVI
program that are now contributing an estimated 369,000 acre-feet of
water annually to address water demands in drought-stricken states like
California. This has reduced demands on the oversubscribed Colorado
River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta, and proven to be one tool
in building regional resilience to drought.
The Department recognizes that a wider base of Title XVI applicants
potentially brings more merit to the limited pool of projects eligible
for funding. With no new Title XVI projects having been authorized
since 2009, it is possible that newer projects can further enhance the
effectiveness of Title XVI in addressing drought, reducing dependency
on imported water, and making local water supplies more reliable.
Having said that, it must be noted that Title XVI is an
oversubscribed program, and as stated above, each year brings many more
applicants for Reclamation funding than can be accommodated in this era
of limited budgets and Federal deficits. There are presently 53
authorized Title XVI projects, 21 of which are active projects that
have not yet received their full Federal cost share. If H.R. 2933 were
to be enacted, it should be made clear to project sponsors that
competition for limited resources would increase and the dollar value
of awards per-project may need to be revisited.
This concludes my written statement. I would be pleased to answer
questions at the appropriate time.
Statement on H.R. 4582
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman and members of the
subcommittee, I am Tom Iseman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science at the U.S. Department of the Interior (Department). I am
pleased to provide the views of the Department on H.R. 4582, the ``Save
our Salmon Act''. My statement today will detail technical changes that
should be amended into H.R. 4582 in order to assure that it meets the
bill's stated intent. The issues addressed by H.R. 4582 are
significant, and if amended, the Department could support the enactment
of this bill.
The Central Valley Project (CVP) is one of the largest and water
management projects in the United States--extending from the Cascade
Range in northern California to the semi-arid but fertile plains along
the Kern River in the south. Initial features of the project were built
primarily to protect the Central Valley from water shortages and
floods, but the CVP also improves Sacramento River navigation, supplies
municipal and industrial water, generates electricity, conserves fish
and wildlife, and creates opportunities for recreation. The CVP serves
farms, homes, and industry in California's Central Valley as well as
major urban centers in the San Francisco Bay Area; it is also the
primary source of water for much of California's wetlands.
In October 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed Public Law 102-
575, which included Title 34, the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act (CVPIA). The CVPIA amends the previous authorizations of the CVP to
include fish and wildlife protection and mitigation as project purposes
having equal priority with irrigation and domestic uses, and makes fish
and wildlife enhancement a project purpose equal to power generation.
Section 3406 of the CVPIA directs the Department to implement a
``fish doubling goal'' for anadromous fish, and this provision is
addressed by H.R. 4582. Anadromous fish are defined in Section 3403(a)
as those stocks of salmon, steelhead, striped bass, sturgeon, and
American shad that ascend the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to reproduce after maturing in San
Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean. The statute directs that the
Department ``implement a program which makes all reasonable efforts to
ensure that, by the year 2002, natural production of anadromous fish in
Central Valley rivers and streams will be sustainable, on a long-term
basis, at levels not less than twice the average levels attained during
the period of 1967-1991[.]'' An Anadromous Fish Restoration Program and
associated Restoration Plan guides the implementation of the CVPIA's
fish doubling goal.
Implementation of the CVPIA by Federal agencies and their non-
Federal partners has focused on improving populations and habitat for
native fish, which are key to a healthy ecosystem. While the striped
bass is an anadromous fish, it is not native to the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Bay Delta,\1\ and it is actually a predator of native Delta
fish species, including Delta smelt (threatened under the Endangered
Species Act, or ESA) and various runs of salmon and steelhead. As has
been noted in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's biological opinion
for the operation of the CVP, striped bass are likely the primary
predator of juvenile and adult delta smelt given their spatial overlap
in pelagic habitats.\2\ The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
has also noted that striped bass show a strong preference for juvenile
salmon in their studies.\3\ In testimony before this subcommittee on
February 10, 2016, NMFS detailed the impacts of predation on Pacific
coast salmon, including ESA-listed salmon in the Bay-Delta. And a wide
body of evidence from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
shows similar findings that point to striped bass as a stressor on fish
species that are threatened or endangered under the ESA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Inland/Striped-Bass#35540374-
history.
\2\ Page 183 and throughout, U.S. FWS Biological Opinion for the
Proposed Coordinated Operation of the Central Valley Project and State
Water Project. 2008. www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/documents/SWP-
CVP_OPs_BO_12-15_final_OCR.pdf.
\3\ Page 147 and throughout, National Marine Fisheries Service
Biological Opinion for Proposed Long Term Operations of the Central
Valley Project and State Water Project. 2009.
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov / publications / Central_Valley /
Water %20Operations /Operations, %20Criteria %20and %20Plan/
nmfs_biological_and_conference_opinion_on_the_long-
term_operations_of_the_cvp_and_swp.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In consideration of the striped bass's function as a fish that
contributes to mortality for listed species and is not native to the
Bay-Delta or even California, the Department has no concern with the
removal of striped bass from the CVPIA's fish doubling goals.
However, in order to address the intent of the proposed
legislation, there are some technical modifications that are necessary.
First, the introduced wording of H.R. 4582 requires changes to conform
to the enacted language of the CVPIA. For example, the bill only amends
Section 3406(b)(1) of CVPIA, and makes no change to other relevant
subparagraphs such as Sections 3406(b)(18), (19), and (21), which also
provide for taking actions to protect and assist ``anadromous'' fish.
Section 3406(b)(18) states that, if requested by the state of
California, the Bureau of Reclamation will assist in management
measures to restore the striped bass fishery of the Bay-Delta estuary
and its tributaries. While no agency has requested that Reclamation
perform this action, a change to this subsection would seem to be
intended by the language of H.R. 4582.
In addition, Section 3406(b)(19) requires re-evaluation of
operational criteria at the CVP's Sacramento and Trinity River
Reservoirs to protect and restore the anadromous fish in accordance
with the requirements of 3406(b). Section 3405(b)(21) requires
Reclamation to assist the state of California in efforts to develop and
implement measures to avoid losses of juvenile anadromous fish
resulting from unscreened or inadequately screened diversions. The
language in H.R. 4582 adding the ``except striped bass'' language to
the fish doubling goal does not impact these other provisions, thereby
creating an internal conflict in the language of the CVPIA and in the
responsibilities of Reclamation toward all anadromous fish. In order to
fulfill the legislative intent, the bill should be modified to address
these potential conflicts. The Department would be glad to work with
the committee to provide more detail on these recommended changes.
In closing, Reclamation and the Department appreciate the interest
in reducing threats to the survival of listed fish in the Bay Delta. We
believe that the CVPIA provides a useful framework for promoting the
recovery of fish species in the Bay Delta, and its tributaries, and
with the changes noted above, the Department would be pleased to
support the CVPIA amendment provided by H.R. 4582.
This concludes my written statement. I would be pleased to answer
questions at the appropriate time.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Iseman.
Mr. Downen, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF BO DOWNEN, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, PUBLIC POWER
COUNCIL, PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. Downen. Good morning, Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member
Huffman, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1869, the Environmental
Compliance Cost Transparency Act of 2015.
I am here today representing consumer-owned utilities of
the Pacific Northwest with statutory first rights known as
preference rights to purchase power that is generated by the
Federal Columbia River Power System and marketed by the
Bonneville Power Administration.
These preference rights were granted to publicly- and
cooperatively-owned utilities because they have a mandate to
pass the benefits of the system through to the citizens of the
Northwest, the consumers who are their owners, and as consumer-
owners are responsible for the costs of BPA power, not the
American taxpayer.
These utilities, being both some of the largest and
smallest in the Northwest, serve approximately 40 percent of
electricity consumers in the region. And these utilities are
committed to preserving the value of the Columbia River System
for clean, renewable hydropower, and for the system's multiple
other uses.
We appreciate the initiative of Representatives Gosar and
Newhouse in proposing this bill as the consumer-owned utilities
of the Northwest have a long history of support for fish and
wildlife mitigation for the dams of the Columbia River system,
and we believe this legislation would result in the production
of useful information that would offer greater understanding of
that mitigation.
The fish and wildlife costs associated with the rates BPA
charges for wholesale power are approaching $1 billion
annually. At $757 million last year, this single category of
costs accounted for about 30 percent of the power costs charged
in BPA rates. While customers in the Northwest often ask about
the nature of the costs that make up their electricity rates,
some have little to no knowledge about the level of fish and
wildlife costs affecting these rates.
Local control over management of the utility is a
fundamental priority of each consumer-owned utility in the
Northwest, and this bill offers the opportunity for ratepayers
to be better informed managers and consumers. While this bill
is narrowly tailored to require that power marketing
administrations display costs related to compliance with
Federal environmental laws impacting fish and wildlife
conservation on the monthly wholesale power bill sent to
utilities, it is then up to the local utility to decide what to
do with that information.
Support for this bill should not depend on whether or not
you believe these expenditures in the name of fish and wildlife
should be lower, higher, or just about right. The issue here
really is information. More knowledge about fish and wildlife
costs is not an impetus to do less for fish and wildlife.
Rather, it is an opportunity to create ownership in the efforts
currently underway, and serves as an inducement to create
better, more effective means of assisting fish and wildlife in
the future.
Highlighting the costs on power bills could lead to more
scrutiny over the effectiveness of fish and wildlife mitigation
measures. But that is a good thing. Better information yields
greater understanding, and the resulting information discussion
would improve the processes in place where programmatic
decisions related to fish and wildlife are made. That would
benefit fish and wildlife, as well as ratepayers, by ensuring
the greatest impact for the funds being spent.
There may be a question of why fish and wildlife costs are
of specific interest. Well, there are very few, if any, costs
in BPA's power rates that are both of this magnitude and this
level of volatility. In addition, these costs are particularly
driven by Federal laws that do not directly relate to the
business of producing power. This distinguishes them from many
of the cost categories that flow into the rates of power
marketing administrations.
H.R. 1869 is a straightforward approach to providing more
information and accountability regarding a major factor in the
power rates of consumer-owned utilities. Timely release of
useful information is a worthy goal, in and of itself. Just as
important is the potential that this information may create
incentives for better management of our natural resources that
could benefit fish and wildlife and ratepayers alike.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to working with you on this matter and addressing any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Downen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher (Bo) Downen, Senior Policy Analyst,
Public Power Council on H.R. 1869
introduction
Good morning Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and members
of the subcommittee. My name is Bo Downen. I am a Senior Policy Analyst
of the Public Power Council. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on H.R. 1869, The Environmental Compliance Cost Transparency Act
of 2015.
The Public Power Council is a trade association representing the
consumer-owned electric utilities of the Pacific Northwest with
statutory first rights (known as ``preference'') to purchase power that
is generated by the Federal Columbia River Power System and marketed by
the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). These preference rights were
granted to publicly and cooperatively owned utilities because they have
a mandate to pass the benefits through to the citizens of the
Northwest, the consumers who are their owners. Our member utilities
have service territories in portions of seven western states and serve
approximately 40 percent of the electricity consumers in the region.
These utilities, being both some of the largest and the smallest in
the Northwest, are committed to preserving the value of the Columbia
River system for clean, renewable hydropower and for the system's
multiple other uses. Customers pay for all of the power costs incurred
by BPA; the agency is a pass-through entity of its costs and
obligations. Because the utility members of PPC are owned by and answer
directly to their customers, they are very sensitive to the rates they
pay for wholesale power and transmission of electricity.
We appreciate the initiative of Representatives Gosar and Newhouse
in raising this issue, and for proposing this legislation. H.R. 1869 is
narrowly tailored to require the power marketing administrations to
display costs related to compliance with Federal environmental laws
impacting fish and wildlife conservation on the monthly wholesale power
bill sent to utilities. Local utilities can then decide what to do with
that information.
Local control over management of the utility is a fundamental
priority of each consumer-owned utility in the Northwest, and this bill
offers the opportunity for ratepayers to be better informed consumers.
Our members provide retail electricity service to millions of citizens
throughout the Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
parts of Montana, California, Nevada, and Wyoming. While these
consumers often ask about the nature of the costs that make up their
electricity rates, some have little knowledge about the level of fish
and wildlife costs affecting those rates.
fish and wildlife costs
In the case of BPA, the fish and wildlife costs in the rates the
agency charges for wholesale power are inordinately large. At $757
million last year alone, this single category of costs accounted for
about 30 percent of the BPA power costs charged in rates. The total BPA
ratepayer cost for fish and wildlife since 1980 is more than $15
billion. That does not count the amounts contributed through other
Federal, state, and local entities.
The latest assumption for fish and wildlife annual costs in the BPA
power rates for the period that started on October 1, 2015 is likely to
include $736 million annually, broken down as follows:
$271 million for direct expenditures under the Integrated
Program;
$6 million for internal costs of the Northwest Power and
Conservation Council related to fish and wildlife;
$33 million for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
$49 million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
$6 million for the Bureau of Reclamation;
$200 million of indirect operational costs; and
$171 million in capital investments.
The efficiency and effectiveness of some of the specific projects
and methods for salmon recovery are questions with which the region has
struggled significantly over the last two decades as the underlying
science continues to develop. Certainly, highlighting the costs on
power bills could lead to more scrutiny over the effectiveness of
salmon mitigation measures. If it does, then that would be a useful
byproduct of H.R. 1869 that would benefit fish and wildlife as well as
ratepayers. In the meantime, the Federal agencies overseeing salmon
recovery efforts, along with most of the states and tribes in the
region, have collaborated in support of a scientifically sound plan
(``biological opinion'') under the Endangered Species Act. This
biological opinion commits to an enormous sustained effort for the
region's salmon and steelhead.
More knowledge about fish and wildlife costs is not an impetus to
do less for fish and wildlife. Rather, it creates ownership in the
efforts underway and serves as an inducement to create better, more
effective means of assisting fish and wildlife in the future.
providing valuable information
Support for this bill should not depend upon whether you believe
these expenditures in the name of fish and wildlife should be lower,
higher, or are just about right. The issue here is information.
Certainly, it would make the understanding of these costs clearer if
they were displayed directly on the power bill each month. What happens
to the information after that, or to the opinions of consumers
receiving that information, will vary greatly from utility to utility
and from customer to customer.
Some may argue that a utility and its ratepayers could gain this
information without this bill. This is not necessarily the case. In the
case of BPA, only the agency itself is in the best position to
determine with accuracy the costs it expends on fish and wildlife. The
processes in place to determine those costs and inform customers about
them are lengthy and complex. Utilities would benefit from having one
official estimate that is produced by the agency and disclosed on the
actual power bill.
Some might question why only fish and wildlife related costs should
be displayed on the bill. There are very few costs in BPA's power rates
that are of this magnitude and this level of volatility. In addition,
these costs are particularly driven by Federal laws that do not
directly relate to the business of producing power. This distinguishes
them from many of the cost categories that flow into the rates of power
marketing administrations. Existing accounting systems would allow the
agency to produce the amount of fish and wildlife costs with little
additional administrative burden.
defining costs related to compliance with federal environmental law
Under H.R. 1869, some may argue about whether the number that a
power marketing administration displays is the correct reflection of
fish and wildlife costs. Those arguments are inevitable, and there are
plenty of venues in the region for all of us to voice our concerns to
the agency. That discussion, however, should not inhibit the agency
from making a final determination and getting that information to
customers.
H.R. 1869 correctly includes the indirect costs as well as the
direct costs of compliance with Federal environmental laws. To a
ratepayer they are one and the same. Water spilled over a dam rather
than creating electricity impacts ratepayers just as much as direct
projects, capital costs, or operations and maintenance. Whether the
action causes a loss of generation or whether it is a direct
expenditure, the impact is pressure on rates to be higher than they
otherwise would be.
conclusion
H.R. 1869 is a straightforward approach to providing more
information and accountability regarding a major factor in the power
rates of consumer-owned utilities. Timely release of useful information
is a worthy goal in and of itself. Just as important is the potential
that this information may create incentives for better management of
our natural resources that could benefit fish and wildlife and
ratepayers alike. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I
look forward to working with you on this matter and addressing any
questions.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Downen. The Chair now
recognizes Dr. Gosar to introduce our final witness.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to
introduce Mr. Patrick Ledger, the Senior Vice President and
Chief Executive Officer of Arizona's G&T Cooperatives.
Patrick Ledger oversees 250 employees and $200 million in
annual revenues. He is also the Executive Manager for three
associated electric generation cooperatives. Patrick received
his law and master's degree from the University of Arizona. He
has served on multiple boards and has presented at professional
conferences throughout the country.
As a corporate counsel and then the CEO of multiple
cooperatives, Patrick has a wealth of experience and can
provide a unique perspective on both regulatory and technical
challenges.
Throughout his career, Patrick has improved management
structures, reduced base rates, and streamlined efficiencies.
It is an absolute pleasure to have his testimony here before
this committee, and I yield the floor to Mr. Patrick Ledger.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK F. LEDGER, CEO, ARIZONA G&T COOPERATIVES,
BENSON, ARIZONA
Mr. Ledger. Thank you very much, Vice Chairman Gosar, Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member Huffman. On behalf of Arizona
Electric Power Cooperative, I am appearing today to discuss
H.R. 1869, the Environmental Compliance Cost Transparency Act
of 2015. I have provided a written statement, as well, that
will be submitted into the record.
As the Chief Executive Officer and a customer of the
Western Area Power Administration, which is what we call
Western--we are both a hydropower customer and a transmission
customer of Western--I am supportive of the objectives of the
legislation and encourage its passage.
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative is a not-for-profit
wholesale power and transmission provider for six Class A
cooperative members, with service territories in Arizona,
California, and New Mexico. We provide transmission and energy
services to multiple cities and districts around Arizona, as
well.
Based in Benson, Arizona, we own and operate a 605 megawatt
power plant. We operate over 600 miles of transmission. We
schedule over 1,000 megawatts of energy throughout the state.
We are also a power and transmission customer of Western.
In recent years, Arizona electric power, like much of the
electric utility industry, has faced some serious challenges,
particularly on the regulatory front with ever-widening
compliance requirements to increasingly strident environmental
regulations. We face the difficult task of managing mounting
cost impacts resulting from these challenges, while continuing
to ensure that our customers have a reliable and affordable
electric power supply.
Unlike investor-owned utilities, every cost impact on real
cooperatives or public power utilities is passed on directly to
our customers, residents of rural parts of Arizona who are
already struggling. Our responsibility, therefore, is to do
everything in our power to manage these risks and costs.
Arizona Electric Power has generally succeeded in managing
external threats and controlling costs with one recent
exception: our relationship with the Western Area Power
Administration.
We have a long history with Western, stretching back more
than 50 years. More than just a long-standing partner, they are
intertwined in our business model, because historically we
could rely on them, just as many other cooperatives and public
power utilities do to help us manage risks and keep costs down.
Today, however, we can no longer rely on them in the ways
we once did. They have become one of our more significant
risks. In recent years, we have seen rates for power and
transmission services charged by Western increase with little
correlation to market fundamentals. Unlike a traditional power
supply counter-party that relies on the same market
fundamentals that we can observe, we do not have the insight
into their fundamentals that underlie the Western operations.
For example, we cannot adopt a hedging or trading strategy
to compensate for Western price increases. Our best option to
address Western price increases is to anticipate when and how
prices will increase, and plan our internal strategies
accordingly. This approach, however, is limited by the
information that Western provides in support of its rates. We
do not have details on certain trends, such as the need for
staffing increases at headquarters or adjustments in the use of
budget authority. Moreover, we also do not have a sense of how
operational changes within Western's sister generating agencies
are affecting power supply and associated pricing.
While many of the dedicated personnel at Western are
willing to share anecdotal information on how environmental
compliance affects hydro-generation, the precise cost breakdown
is missing from the public domain. H.R. 1869 would help address
this information gap by requiring the disclosure of compliance
costs with Federal environmental laws impacting the
conservation of fish and wildlife.
In this context, we believe it is important to gather and
disclose both direct and indirect costs. Moreover, because the
legislation will require a line item in each monthly billing,
customers, including APCO, would have a better understanding of
the true cost of the resources they are buying.
My fundamental concern with Western in recent years has
revolved around transparency and understanding the basis for
rate increases that I must pass along to my members and
eventually to their customers. Western faces many of the same
compliance costs that my organization has to shoulder, but it
is not always clear to me or other Western customers how these
costs are calculated. A paragraph or two in the Federal
Register notice does not always reveal the same impact that a
line item in a bill would convey. Indeed, the proposed
legislation would provide valuable insight into an important
cost driver that has affected Western's power marketing in
recent years, and Arizona Electric Power encourages its
passage.
This concludes my testimony.
I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to appear
today, and I am happy to answer any questions that Members may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ledger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick Ledger, Chief Executive Officer, Arizona
Electric Power Cooperative on H.R. 1869
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, on behalf of Arizona Electric
Power Cooperative, I am appearing today to discuss H.R. 1869, the
Environmental Compliance Cost Transparency Act of 2015. As the Chief
Executive Officer of a customer of the Western Area Power
Administration's (``Western'') marketing area, I am supportive of the
objectives of the legislation and encourage its passage.
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative (``AEPCO'') is a not-for-profit
wholesale power and transmission provider for six Class A cooperative
members with service territories in Arizona, California, and New
Mexico. Based in Benson, Arizona, we own and operate a 605 MW power
plant and over 620 miles of transmission lines. We are also a power and
transmission customer of Western.
Over the course of a year, we purchase about $2.4 million in energy
from Western that is generated at Bureau of Reclamation (``Bureau'')
projects. To serve our distribution members and wheel the power
supplied by the Bureau projects, we also buy transmission service from
Western. Over the course of a year, we pay Western about $5.5 million
for transmission services. They are a significant partner in our
operations.
In recent years, AEPCO, like much of the electric utility industry,
has faced serious challenges, particularly on the regulatory front,
from ever widening compliance requirements, to increasingly strident
environmental regulations. We face the difficult task of managing
mounting cost impacts resulting from these challenges while continuing
to ensure that our customers have a reliable and affordable electric
power supply.
Unlike investor-owned utilities, every cost impact on rural
cooperatives or public power utilities is passed-on directly to our
customers--residents of rural areas who are already struggling. Our
responsibility, therefore, is to do everything in our power to manage
these risks and costs. When, several years ago, the railroads doubled
our fuel transportation costs, we fought them at the Surface
Transportation Board and won. When the EPA unexpectedly imposed a
Federal implementation plan on Regional Haze that would have forced us
into bankruptcy, we developed an alternative that was $180 M less
costly and produced better results. And, when new compliance
responsibilities required significant operational changes, rather than
adding new full time employees, we shifted staff and found a way to
make those changes cost neutral.
AEPCO has generally succeeded in managing these external threats
and controlling costs, with one recent exception. We have had a
relationship with one power and transmission supplier that goes back
more than 50 years. More than just an important partner, this supplier
is intertwined in our business model because historically we could rely
on them, just as many other cooperatives and public power utilities do,
to help us manage risk and keep costs down. Today, however, we can no
longer rely on this supplier in the ways we once did, rather they have
become one of our more significant risks. This power and transmission
supplier is the Western Area Power Administration. In recent years, we
have seen rates for power and transmission services charged by Western
increase with little correlation to market fundamentals. Western is a
one of its kind power supplier in the West. Its statutory mission is to
market and deliver power to customers in Western's marketing area from
a broad fleet of largely paid for hydropower projects.
Yet, today, Western customers, including AEPCO, face any number of
challenges in addressing costs. Unlike a traditional power supply
counterparty that relies on the same market fundamentals that we can
observe, we do not have the insight into the fundamentals that underlie
Western's operations. For example, we cannot adopt hedging or trading
strategies to compensate for Western price increases. Our best option
to address Western price increases is to anticipate when and how prices
will increase and plan our internal strategies accordingly.
This approach, however, is limited by the information that Western
provides in support of its rates. We do not have details on certain
trends such as staffing increases at headquarters or adjustments in the
use of budget authority. Moreover, we also do not have a sense of how
operational changes with Western's sister generating agencies are
affecting power supply and associated pricing. While many of the
dedicated personnel at Western are willing to share anecdotal
information on how environmental compliance affects hydropower
generation, the precise cost break down is missing from the public
domain.
H.R. 1869 would help address this informational gap by requiring
the disclosure of compliance costs with Federal environmental laws
impacting the conservation of fish and wildlife. In this context we
believe it is important to gather and disclose both direct and indirect
costs. Moreover, because the legislation would require a line item in
each monthly billing, customers including AEPCO would have a better
understanding of the true cost of the resource that they are buying.
My fundamental concern with Western in recent years has revolved
around transparency and understanding the basis for rate increases that
I must pass along to my members and eventually their customers. Western
faces many of the same compliance costs that my organization has to
shoulder but it is not always clear to me or other Western customers
how those costs are calculated. A paragraph or two in a Federal
Register notice does not always reveal the same impact that a line item
in a bill will convey. Indeed, the proposed legislation would provide
valuable insight into an important cost driver that has affected
Western's power marketing in recent years.
Before concluding my testimony today, I should note that in the
last few months Western's focus does appear to have shifted toward
greater transparency. They have, for example, developed a page on their
Web site called ``The Source.'' While it is a work in progress, it may
show promise in providing some of the information that we have long
been requesting. Western has also indicated that they are assembling
background cost information and some of the underlying data that have
driven rate increases in recent years. These are positive developments
that may help us understand some of the fundamentals driving the rate
increases. The passage of H.R. 1869 would provide another important
tool in helping us manage costs for our customers and we would
encourage its passage.
______
Dr. Fleming. OK. Thank you, Mr. Ledger. And we thank you,
panel, for your valuable testimony today. At this point we will
begin our questions of our witnesses. To allow all Members time
to participate, we will limit questions to 5 minutes.
If we have further questions we may do a second round, just
depending on the time and amount of questions and interest. I
now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Iseman and Mr. Hanson, the subcommittee heard a few
months ago that non-native striped bass predation has a
substantial direct impact on native species like salmon and
Delta smelt. In some parts of California, up to 97 percent of
ESA-protected juvenile salmon were consumed by striped bass.
Yet we have a Federal law that has a goal of doubling these
non-native predators in California. Do you believe that
increasing the population of non-native species that prey on
endangered species is counterproductive to recovering that
species? Mr. Iseman and Dr. Hanson?
Mr. Iseman. Yes. In this case, as we testified, we agree
that the striped bass is causing predation on endangered
species, and we think it is appropriate to remove them from the
fish doubling goals in the CVPIA.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Dr. Hanson?
Dr. Hanson. And I agree with that position. But just to be
clear, you cite some numbers with regard to incremental
survival, or mortality. And it is difficult. Those mortality
rates vary substantially from year to year, so it is very
difficult to attribute a certain mortality rate to striped bass
predation. We know that they are a predator, we know that they
consume juvenile Chinook salmon. They are an incremental stress
on the population, as a whole. And, therefore, I agree that
doubling the abundance of striped bass would be
counterproductive to recovery of ESA-listed species.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Does this bill help reverse the counter-
productivity at the Federal level?
Dr. Hanson. This bill would remove the incentive to achieve
a doubling goal. And, therefore, I think it would shift the
priorities within the CVPIA with regard to allocation of
resources and the types of resources that get allocated to
improving fishery habitat and other conditions.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Mr. Iseman?
Mr. Iseman. Currently, our priorities do focus on trying to
restore the native fish species, and that is where we are
investing our resources. As I said, I think it makes sense to
remove the striped bass from the doubling goals. But I don't
think it will significantly change the way that we are
investing in recovery activities in support of the CVPIA.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Again, back to Mr. Iseman. The Central
Valley Project Improvement Act, which has a fish doubling goal
for both non-native striped bass and native ESA-listed salmon,
has perpetuated one stressor to salmon and smelt. This bill
proposes one change to that Act. You suggest making additional
changes to that Act.
You testified in support of the intent of the bill, but
would the Administration support that bill if we made the
additional changes to that 1992 law that you suggested?
Mr. Iseman. I believe the only change that we suggested was
to agree with the legislation, which would remove striped bass
from the doubling goals in the CVPIA. If you wanted to engage
in a discussion on broader amendments or changes to the CVPIA,
we would be willing to have that discussion. We would need to
involve our departmental leadership, certainly, including
Deputy Secretary Connor and Commissioner Lopez, as well as
other parts of the Department. And I think it is appropriate
that that conversation would need to include many other
stakeholders, as well.
Dr. Fleming. OK, thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Huffman for questions.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So we are here
talking about a 26-year-old goal that was in the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act signed by President Bush in 1992 that
refers to doubling of all anadromous fish. And by the fact that
it did not exclude striped bass, that included the striped
bass.
And Dr. Hanson, it is good to see you again.
Dr. Hanson. Nice to see you, as well.
Mr. Huffman. I think I agree with the premise of your
testimony, which is that if we have these very low salmon
populations, and we are trying to increase striped bass
populations, knowing that it is one of many stressors, the
predation issue, that that does not make any sense.
Dr. Hanson. Correct.
Mr. Huffman. But we are having that discussion as if that
is happening. The working premise of this discussion is that we
are actually trying to increase striped bass population, when,
in fact, since the passage of that law in 1992, we have never
done a single thing to try to increase striped bass population.
Now, I am happy to have a witness correct me on that, but I
know that the law originally called for the development of a
fish-doubling plan that never happened. I know that still on
the books we have this standard that says we have a goal of
doubling all anadromous fish. Yet, I am not aware of a single
thing the Department of the Interior or any other Federal
agency has ever done in a program or even a single activity to
increase striped bass population.
So, let me start with you, Mr. Iseman. Can you correct me
if I am wrong about that?
Mr. Iseman. I cannot correct you. I agree with the point,
certainly, that recently our activities have focused on
enhancing native fish populations, and that some of those may
have incidental benefits for striped bass. But that certainly
has not been our focus or our intention--investing in striped
bass doubling.
Mr. Huffman. Dr. Hanson, did I miss something? Are there
Federal programs or activities underway right now that are
focused on increasing striped bass population?
Dr. Hanson. There are a couple of activities that have been
implemented. There are certainly regulations that have been
imposed on recreational harvest of striped bass, in part
intended to protect the population. And specifically----
Mr. Huffman. Those would be state----
Dr. Hanson. Those are state regulations.
Mr. Huffman. Right. So this is not----
Dr. Hanson. Not at a Federal level.
Mr. Huffman [continuing]. Federal activity or program, as I
believe to be the case. So----
Dr. Hanson. I think that is true.
Mr. Huffman [continuing]. It is really an interesting
discussion, but it is also an enormous strawman, because we are
not doing anything to increase striped bass. So, my friend, Mr.
Gosar, if this makes your top 10 list of government dysfunction
outrage, it is a pretty hollow list, because there is nothing
going on. And as much as I am glad to be talking about salmon
here in this subcommittee, it would be great if we could focus
on real threats to salmon, instead of fictional ones like
increasing striped bass population when, in fact, there is
nothing like that happening.
I want to turn, Mr. Iseman, to the issue of Title XVI. And
actually, let me start with Mr. Herberg. Thanks for joining us
from Orange County. I am a big fan of the recycling and advance
water treatment work you have done there. You mentioned 21
active authorized projects that are waiting for their Federal
cost share. Do you have any approximation of how much water
could be generated if we would step in and provide that cost
share?
Mr. Herberg. For those 21 projects? I think that might be a
better question for Mr. Iseman.
Mr. Huffman. I am happy to direct it to Mr. Iseman, so
thanks.
Mr. Iseman. I am sorry, I don't actually have that number
with me. We did look at that list, but I don't recall that
number. I would be happy to provide that number for the record.
Mr. Huffman. OK. Fair to say that we are probably looking
at well over 100,000 acre-feet of water, maybe in the multiple
hundred thousands of acre-feet?
Mr. Iseman. Yes, I think that is fair to say, but as I
said, I would like to check and confirm.
Mr. Huffman. There has been some criticism by the Chair and
others of this program for the lack of beneficiary pays, a sort
of fiscal concern that has been levied at it. But my
understanding is that 75 percent or greater of the cost of
every one of these projects is borne by the locals. Is that
correct?
Mr. Iseman. Yes, Representative Huffman. As I mentioned, at
least 75 percent would be borne by the local participants. And
in fact, our cost share has actually exceeded that.
Mr. Huffman. I think that is important, because if we are
concerned about beneficiary pays, that is a pretty strong
beneficiary pay component, much greater than we see for the
surface storage and other traditional Federal water projects
that my colleagues across the aisle consistently support.
In the case of those projects, we are continually looking
to redefine public benefits, which creates a subsidy that does
not have a local cost share. We are giving them generous
repayment terms over long periods of time at zero percent
interest, and we are forgiving those repayments when there is
no ability to pay. None of that applies in Title XVI.
So, I think it is important to note, if beneficiary pays
and fiscal responsibility is a concern, this program is a
shining light. And I appreciate your testimony.
Dr. Fleming. The Ranking Member yields. Dr. Gosar is
recognized.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ledger, your testimony refers to the associated risk
and lack of transparency from Western. How would H.R. 1869 help
customers like Arizona Electric Power Cooperative?
Mr. Ledger. As I said in testimony, Western's costs are
unique in the industry. They have to supply power and
transmission services at cost. But they are driven by costs
that sometimes are not transparent.
So, whereas in the market we are often able to ascertain
the direction of costs based on fuel prices, for example, the
costs at Western are very unique. So, it is very difficult for
us to sort of unpack the components of those costs. And as cost
increases occur, we are sometimes befuddled by the origins of
those cost increases.
Dr. Gosar. Are the Endangered Species Act compliance costs
one of the top concerns for your organization?
Mr. Ledger. It is among the top concerns. We, as a utility
that operates transmission throughout the state, from time to
time, as we site new transmission or we are doing O&M work, we
have to be very attentive to the ESA. Obviously, we are
concerned about the ESA impacts, the analysis that is done and
the management of the hydropower projects that we are customers
of, particularly the Crist project. But it is among a sort of a
myriad of compliance requirements that we have and we operate
every day. So it is certainly very important to us.
Dr. Gosar. My next question is to both you and Mr. Downen.
Much of the West has experienced multiple consecutive years
of drought, and oftentimes releases from the dams for ESA-
listed species and other environmental mandates further
constrains and already-dwindling supply of water. This bill
mandates that the Federal power agencies report costs due to
spills, fish flows, and other actions that cause loss of
hydropower generation.
When the generation is lost, replacement power has to be
found. That replacement power is almost always more expensive
and/or fossil fuel based. Are these costs borne by the
utilities you represent?
Mr. Downen. Representative, yes they are, is the short
answer. All Bonneville Power costs are recouped by their
ratepayers, and/or paid for.
Mr. Ledger. I would repeat that.
Dr. Gosar. And are these fixed costs? Do they fluctuate
from year to year?
Mr. Downen. Yes, they do, in large part due to these fish
and wildlife costs.
Mr. Ledger. Yes, they can be volatile.
Dr. Gosar. Now, both Mr. Ledger and Mr. Downen, some claims
here have been made that your rates are subsidized, and that
these so-called costs should be listed on customers' bills.
What are your thoughts on that claim?
Mr. Downen first, and then Mr. Ledger.
Mr. Downen. Well, subsidization, we don't see that at all.
In fact, all the costs that Bonneville has are paid for by
their ratepayers. So, I suppose that if we want to go back
historically during the work project era over 75 years ago, the
dams were built in assistance with the Federal Government. But
those have long been paid out by the region's ratepayers. So,
every cost borne by Bonneville is actually borne by that end-
of-line ratepayer.
Dr. Gosar. Would you agree with that, Mr. Ledger?
Mr. Ledger. I would.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Downen, you testified--and I quote--``In the
case of BPA, the fish and wildlife costs in the rates the
agency charges for wholesale power are inordinately large. At
$757 million last year alone, this single category of costs
accounted for about 30 percent of the BPA power costs charged
in rates. The total BPA ratepayer cost for fish and wildlife
since 1980 is more than $15 billion. That does not count the
amounts contributed through other Federal, state, and local
entities.''
These costs are passed down to the consumer-owned electric
utilities you represent, correct?
Mr. Downen. That is correct.
Dr. Gosar. Now, while I personally disagree, some people in
this room may think these costs are not high enough, and that
we should be spending more on fish and wildlife at taxpayer
expense. My bill does not repeal a single environmental law or
take a position on the amount of money being spent. All it says
is customers have a right to know these costs. Is there
anything wrong with allowing those paying the bills to better
understand what they are actually paying for?
Mr. Downen. No, Representative. I don't think there is
anything wrong with that. In fact, as I had mentioned, the
ratepayers of the Northwest are proud of the investment made in
fish and wildlife mitigation. However, we believe that greater
transparency would lead to better management of the resources
and longer partnership between fish and wildlife mitigation and
the ratepayers that cover those costs.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Downen, I thank you so very much. I yield my
time.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Lowenthal.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to our
witnesses for being here today, and the Chair for including
H.R. 2993 in this hearing, which I believe is vital legislation
to stimulate new water recycling projects in the West.
Let me reiterate a few of the many reasons why water
recycling is so important to California and the arid states of
the West.
First, recycling is a secure and resilient source supply.
This is a time of changing and more variable precipitation
patterns: hotter and dryer years, as we know, and reduced snow
packs. On the other hand, water from reclamation and recycling
is not, and I repeat not, subject to supply disruptions in the
ways that imported waters can be.
Recyclable water is one of--and I think this is critical
across the aisle--is one of the cheapest ways to increase water
supplies, as was recently found by the non-partisan
Congressional Research Service. It is important for our side of
the aisle, also.
Finally, recycling water can be done with minimal
ecological impact, compared to increasing other kinds of supply
sources. So, I fully support water recycling as a key piece of
the water solutions in the West.
I also want to take this opportunity to really highlight
the true leadership work that my local communities have
accomplished. It has been said, but I want to repeat the Orange
County Sanitation District, in particular with the Orange
County Water District, have built the largest potable water
reuse facility in the world--in the world. The system now
produces 100 million gallons per day of local drought-proof
water supply, which is enough water for 850,000 people.
Other nations come all the way to Orange County to
understand the engineering feat accomplished in Southern
California. And just to the north, Long Beach Mayor Robert
Garcia is working to increase storm water capture in the San
Gabriel River, and to complete a recycled water purification
plant that will reduce imported water demands by 1.9 billion
gallons per year.
These investments have helped to protect my district in
Southern California from drought and import dependence, and I
have set up an internationally-recognized standard for
sustainable water use. But these infrastructure achievements
took time, planning, and lots of capital, and many times
Federal Government support.
Mr. Herberg, my question to you is, under bill H.R. 2933,
what is your understanding of how the new process would look
for authorizing and funding new water recycling project
constructions that have a Federal cost share? What would happen
to the existing authorized projects?
Mr. Herberg. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. As
I understand it, there would be a solicitation for projects,
and agencies, such as the Sanitation District would submit our
projects for consideration by the Secretary. Those projects
would be considered alongside the projects currently residing
in the backlog, and those projects would be evaluated based on
the criteria that are contained in H.R. 2993.
Dr. Lowenthal. How would this bill affect your future
plans? Do you think it would stimulate more water recycling
projects in the future and in the West?
Mr. Herberg. I think it has the potential to do that
because the bill, as we read it right now, would accelerate the
approval process, and there would be more certainty as to the
ability to get grant funding. That grant funding is important
in reducing the cost per acre-foot of recycled water, so that
it would not take as long as the current process. I think it
would give us more certainty, going forward.
Dr. Lowenthal. I want to thank you, and I want to thank the
Chairman for holding this hearing on H.R. 2993, and I hope to
see our committee act on a bipartisan manner in a markup on
this bill soon.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. Mr. LaMalfa is
recognized.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of issues
are really important for my area, as well.
Much money is being spent on the CVPIA to improve
conditions for salmon. One such plan that is even touted was,
like, a $50 million idea to truck salmon around the Shasta Dam,
put them above in Lake Shasta, which is something I think even
environmental groups have said would not be very successful.
We are seeing that there was a threat earlier this year to
not allow diversions from the Sacramento River to senior
contractors until June 1 if the Lake did not reach a particular
level. Then they started dumping water out of the lake to keep
it from reaching the level so that farmers would not receive
diversions until June 1. And if anybody knows anything about
the spring and when you plant, that is an extreme hardship.
Now, the lake reached the level they needed to, so the
water will be delivered. But there was a threat that it may not
happen. So, bringing up an earlier subject, under CVPIA, again,
it is tasked with doubling the population of striped bass. How
much is being done on that, I am not sure how much our striped
bass deniers want to dispute that, but there is a very robust
population of them, and they have devastating effects on the
salmon population that we are trying to save.
So, any effort that would continue to want to double that
striped bass population, whether it is being expended, or
whether the government is following its law or not, we have a
problem as is.
So what I would like to ask is, Mr. Iseman, what actions
are Federal agencies already taking to address the predation of
salmon in the river, whether it is striped bass or other means?
What proactive actions are being done to do that?
Mr. Iseman. Well, we know, under the CVPIA and the
biological opinions, that we are taking a suite of actions to
try to recover the fish species that includes dealing with
predation, but also other activities to promote habitat and
recovery of the species.
If you would like more information about specific
investments in dealing with predation on endangered species, we
could provide that for the record.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, just off the top of your head on
predation itself, can you give an instance of efforts that are
being used on the predation of the salmon?
Mr. Iseman. Well, as I said, I would prefer to consult with
our biologists in the field and get you a more complete and
accurate response on our----
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. So nothing for the committee today. All
right.
Mr. Iseman. Sorry.
Mr. LaMalfa. What additional actions that are not being
done that you know of could be done on the predation?
Mr. Iseman. Again, I would like to consult with our
biologists, I apologize. I am just not the expert on non-native
predation.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right. Very good. Do you think that
fishing regulations, if they were allowed to be updated in
order to increase the take, removing or opening up the number
of striped bass that can be taken by fishermen, would that be a
positive component of the overall need?
Mr. Iseman. Well, we know, as I said, predation is a
significant issue. Fishing regulations are decided by the
state----
Mr. Costa. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaMalfa. Certainly.
Mr. Costa. To your point, as was noted earlier, there is a
state regulation on the limits of catch, as you are noting.
But, for the record, I think we should state that the catch is
two fish per day, and the length is 18 inches. That is the
current limit.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Costa. That is kind of
where I am going with that, is that maybe that catch number
should be larger, and the type of fish you could take, the size
should be expanded as well, if we want to make significant
gains. So I appreciate that.
Switching gears to a different topic under CVPIA. Western
Power, their administrator testified just a few weeks ago that
environmental costs by the CVPIA have driven the power prices
to twice the market rate of approximately $30 per megawatt.
Constituents that I have in Reading, Gridley-Biggs, and other
contractors are paid approximately $60 per megawatt, and yet
have little information, which alludes to Mr. Gosar's bill
about how revenues are used, or even less input on the
decisionmaking process. So, over a billion dollars spent, and I
better hurry here.
Mr. Downen, do you think these purchasers of Federal power
have made clear to them what the value is in knowing these
costs? Or should they be in on knowing what these costs are?
Mr. Downen. I think any transparency creates a lot better
discussion in the Northwest or any region of the country. So,
yes, I think that these costs should be put on the PMA power
bill.
Mr. LaMalfa. My understanding is that these contracts could
run out fairly soon, and they can see other contractors to get
this power from, leaving the CVP.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. Will we have a second
round a little bit later?
Dr. Fleming. We do not have a plan for a second round.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK.
Dr. Fleming. Do you have a quick question you want to go
ahead and dispatch, or we will go to Mr. Costa next, but I want
to make sure you are----
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. I appreciate the indulgence on
that.
Dr. Fleming. Yes.
Mr. LaMalfa. So, as it is, the contractors who CVPIA--they
receive little more than just a bill. If there was greater
transparency--do you think the ratepayers receive enough
information, as is?
Mr. Downen. I think that this additional information would
be very useful, because per your earlier comment, the
ratepayers, the utilities in the Pacific Northwest currently
have long-term contracts that are 20-year contracts but 12
years from expiring. And at that time, yes, they can leave
Bonneville Power to have their electricity loads met in other
ways. If we continue to see these cost trajectories with fish
and wildlife, utilities could leave Bonneville Power and that
would essentially negate a fish program, because without
ratepayers to pay for the fish program, it is very difficult
for Bonneville to find funding. So, yes----
Mr. LaMalfa. So, perhaps they would feel a little bit
better about the process if it was disclosed and maybe continue
to be contractors in the future. All right. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, I appreciate the extra time.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Mr. Costa is recognized.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member. I want to confine my comments and questions to the Save
our Salmon Act, H.R. 4582, that Congressman Denham has
introduced, and that Congressman Garamendi and I are co-
sponsors of. And my comments or questions will be confined to
Dr. Hanson and to Mr. Iseman.
As we deal with the salmon recovery, Salmonid Recovery Act,
that was noted by Mr. Iseman, that NOAA has been attempting to
implement with the CVPIA program, what are the percentage of
numbers that you used for native and non-native species within
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta? How much are native, how much
are non-native? Dr. Hanson?
Dr. Hanson. In terms of abundance, I would say there are
probably 80 percent non-native species and about 20 percent
native species, currently.
Mr. Costa. Would you agree with that number, Mr. Iseman?
Mr. Iseman. I don't have any reason to disagree, and I
could check with our biologists in the field for the record.
Mr. Costa. All right. When we talk about the Save our
Salmon Act and the predator problem that we are dealing with,
and in essence, acknowledging that 80 percent of the fisheries
there are non-native to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River
systems and that 20 percent are native, this makes a very
difficult challenge that we face.
Richard Pool with the Salmon Fisheries Federation testified
last month before the committee that there had been 31 pilot
programs proposed. I believe that was the number. And none of
them have been implemented. Dr. Hanson, Mr. Iseman, can you
indicate why none of these predator control programs, as part
of the recovery plan, have been implemented? Mr. Iseman?
Mr. Iseman. Representative Costa, I was trying to address
this question earlier. I am not aware of the specific
information----
Mr. Costa. Well, become aware of it and provide the
information to us----
Mr. Iseman. Yes, we will provide the information for the
record.
Mr. Costa [continuing]. Because I want to enter it for the
record. I have here the winter-run Chinook salmon stressor
matrix that is part of the recovery plan that was prepared by
NOAA in July 2014. This is part of the recovery plan. And it
states in here the various impacts of trying to deal with
native species and recovery. It lists them very high or high,
in terms of the overall stressor category. And high on the list
are loss of habitat, predation, predation, loss of habitat,
water quality, water temperature, loss of spawning
availability, water temperature, harvesting and angling
impacts. Although it is an impact, and we have always
acknowledged it as an impact, it is 24th on the list before you
get to the level of entrainment by the Delta pumps, either the
Central Valley or the State Water Projects.
So, it is amazing that we have a recovery plan, but all the
other impacts as a part of recovery plan are not being done. We
are using one management tool, as I was told yesterday by the
head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and that is the pumping
issue that is a problem.
Do you think politics might be a problem with this, Dr.
Hanson? You are familiar with legislation that was introduced
in the State legislature to increase the catch, and that did
not go anywhere.
Dr. Hanson. That did not go anywhere. We have had a number
of discussions with Dick Pool and others regarding these
various actions, and there is support for these actions. But I
do believe there are politics----
Mr. Costa. Why do you think we could implement either our
politics--and, Dr. Iseman, we have predator programs on the
Columbia River that have been implemented, but not on the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River. I am at a loss to figure out why.
When you are responding to us, could you do that comparative
analogy?
Mr. Iseman. Absolutely, we will provide that information.
Mr. Costa. Yes. It is very frustrating, because we look at
trying to do all the tools in our management toolbox during
devastating drought conditions that have affected the San
Joaquin Valley, ground zero, and yet we continue to play
politics with this, in terms of our regional approach.
My time is running out, but Peter Moyle, noted biologist,
has indicated that, in his view, as a result of climate change,
which we have not even talked about, that a lot of the native
species in this area, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River, will
probably go extinct in the next 20 to 40 years. Do you agree
with that, Dr. Hanson?
Dr. Hanson. I agree with Dr. Moyle, that climate change is
a huge issue facing salmonid populations in the Central Valley.
I do not have an opinion with regard to the specific time
frame. But Chinook salmon in the Central Valley are on the
southern edge of their geographic distribution. Hydrology,
drought, and water temperature are all major drivers of
population success. And to the extent that climate change, over
time, increases seasonal water temperature, that will be
devastating to Chinook salmon spawning.
So, I agree with the philosophy, I just don't know
specifically about the time frame.
Mr. Costa. Which begs the question, what are we trying to
do here in a recovery plan, it seems to me, in terms of logic?
My time has expired, but just a note for the subcommittee,
because Congressman LaMalfa and I get into the weeds in this
kind of stuff, along with my other California colleagues. Last
year, we stopped the movement of water because of 1 degree of
temperature on the Sacramento River between 56 and 57 degrees
of water temperature in which we had to curtail our ability to
move water.
So, it begs the question. How do we make this thing work,
given the constrictions that we are facing in trying to provide
water for an entire state?
Thank you. I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Newhouse is
recognized.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here this morning and discussing these three important
bills. I want to focus first on H.R. 1869, which I think is a
good step in transparency.
I have heard some people claim that this potentially could,
as it requires reporting of costs, be considered an attack on
the Endangered Species Act and would question also why other
costs are not included in this bill.
So, to Mr. Downen, could you respond to those claims? Are
they valid, in your opinion?
Mr. Downen. No, we do not see this as an attack on the
Endangered Species Act. We realize that is a Federal law, and
the biological opinion on the Columbia River meets the
requirements of that law and is a federally-created plan for
mitigating for the dams there. So, there is no effort to shirk
any duties that we have regionally to comply with the ESA.
I apologize, your second question?
Mr. Newhouse. Well, I just want to let you expound, I think
I heard you say that people in the Northwest take some
ownership or pride in the fact that we are doing some good
things.
Mr. Downen. Yes. The Northwest does take some pride and
ownership in that. And I believe that, by exhibiting this on
the Bonneville Power bill, there would be greater discussion as
to what is actually being accomplished for those ratepayer
dollars, and there would be greater efficiencies made if that
conversation was held a little more broadly across the region.
Mr. Newhouse. So, if people actually knew what their money
is being used for. Some may also argue that a utility and its
ratepayers could find this information without this kind of a
requirement. Is that the case? And do some utilities maybe not
even possess this information?
Mr. Downen. There is currently no specific codified process
in place that allows utilities to find this information out.
Bonneville, to its credit, does like to work with its customers
to help its customers be as informed as possible.
However, we do believe that this bill would be beneficial
to the Northwest in codifying this, as well as our neighbors to
the south and elsewhere who do not perhaps have that same
opportunity to work with their PMAs and find out this
information in a more transparent manner.
Mr. Newhouse. OK. And then just quickly, Mr. Downen, public
utilities face a certain amount of litigation from
environmental groups. But I would think that most of the public
at this point, maybe because they do not see what they are
paying for, is unaware of the work that is being done by public
utilities on fish recovery.
I don't know if that is a fair statement in your
estimation, but could you talk a little bit about some of that
work, some of the survival rates of some of the fish species in
Central Washington, and maybe highlight ways in which the BPA
and the mid-Columbia PUDs are actually pretty good stewards of
our natural resources?
Mr. Downen. Thank you, Congressman. The utilities in the
Northwest make a huge investment in that federally-designed
plan that I was talking about, and are good stewards of the
river and the region. I cannot give you, off the top of my
head, survival rates of passage, both for juveniles and adults
at each project along the Columbia and Snake Rivers, but the
biological opinion requires those to be in the high 90 percent.
And to date, those are being met or close to being met at all
of the projects.
There are miles of stream that have been improved over the
last several years for fish. There are spawning grounds that
have been improved. A number of things are being done by the
state and Federal agencies, but funded by the utilities in the
Northwest.
Mr. Newhouse. Good. Thank you very much.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield some of
my time to Mr. LaMalfa, if that is possible.
Thank you, Mr. Downen.
Mr. Downen. Thank you.
Mr. LaMalfa. I will go ahead and yield the time back. Mr.
Denham is here. I think he would like to probably weigh in
pretty well on his bill, so I will defer back. Thank you, Mr.
Newhouse.
Dr. Fleming. Yes, well, we are out of time for Mr.
Newhouse. So the Chair now recognizes Mr. Denham.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of quick
follow-up questions.
Mr. Iseman, in your written testimony you indicated a few
other changes to the CVPIA that would be necessary to
accomplish my bill's intent to remove the striped bass doubling
goal. Can you please explain?
Mr. Iseman. Yes. We believe there are other references to
anadromous fish throughout the bill that we would want to
correct. We think these are minor technical corrections, and we
would be happy to work with you and your staff to help provide
those proposed changes.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Is it your understanding that the
Administration would support the bill if we made the additional
suggested changes that you have offered in your written
testimony?
Mr. Iseman. Yes, that is correct. We would support the bill
if we made those additional changes.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back.
Again, we thank the panel for your participation, your
valuable testimony, and for answering questions. There could be
follow-up questions in writing. We would ask that you respond
within 10 days.
If there is no further business before this subcommittee,
we are hereby adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of David Guy, President, Northern California Water
Association on H.R. 4582
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
subcommittee, my name is David Guy. I am the president of the Northern
California Water Association (NCWA), representing the water suppliers,
rural communities and landowners that beneficially use both surface and
groundwater water resources in the Sacramento Valley. The precious
water resources in this region are managed for multiple beneficial
uses, including domestic deliveries to cities and rural communities and
supplying water for farms and habitat for the magnificent fish and
birds that grace the region. Nowhere are the natural and human
resources more closely integrated and cared for than the Sacramento
Valley.
For the past several decades, water resources managers,
conservation organizations and Federal and state agencies have been
collaborating and working hard to advance both environmental and
economic stewardship across this special region. This includes an
aggressive implementation program to recover endangered and threatened
salmon and steelhead, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Recovery Plan and the Sacramento Valley Salmon
Recovery Program.
We appreciate the opportunity today to submit this testimony in
support of the Save Our Salmon Act (H.R. 4582) as an important
incremental step forward for the recovery of salmon and steelhead. From
our perspective, removing striped bass from the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act's (CVPIA) doubling goal is important for several
reasons. The Save Our Salmon Act will:
1. Acknowledge that predation is a serious problem affecting
endangered salmon and steelhead. It is well known and
documented that striped bass, which are not native to
California, prey on native salmon and steelhead and thus
pose a serious threat to their existence and survival. Both
the NOAA Fisheries and independent research has shown that
predation from non-native species, such as the striped
bass, is a significant stressor on salmon and steelhead
populations and threatens the existence of these species.
It is therefore important that Federal policy reflect this
dynamic and not encourage the proliferation of these
introduced predators.
2. Make the Federal fish doubling objective more consistent with the
state of California's salmon doubling objective in Water
Code Sec. 6902.
3. Help protect the significant investments that will continue to be
made to recover endangered and threatened salmon and
steelhead in the Sacramento Valley.
To be sure, predation is not the only stressor on salmon and
steelhead and this bill will not recover salmon as a stand-alone
measure. The Save Our Salmon Act, however, is an important incremental
step forward to address one of the obvious stressors on salmon and
steelhead during various life-stages. Until significant progress is
made to address predation issues, we will not realize the full benefit
of upstream actions that have and will continue to be taken in the
Sacramento Valley as part of the Sacramento Valley Salmon Recovery
Program.
The CVIPA's requirement to protect both introduced predatory
striped bass and federally-protected native salmonids is a
contradiction of statute and science. Recovery efforts for endangered
and threatened salmon and steelhead will continue to be undermined by
contradictory and counterproductive striped bass recovery objectives as
long as the Federal agencies are required to support a top-level non-
native predator that is devastating the species the Federal Government
is obligated by law to protect.
We respectfully urge the subcommittee's favorable consideration of
this important bill to end the contradictory doubling goal for striped
bass. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our perspective through
this testimony.
______
Letters of Support for H.R. 4582
Association of California Water Agencies
April 6, 2016
Hon. Jeff Denham
U.S. House of Representatives
Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: ACWA Support for H.R. 4582, ``Save Our Salmon Act''
Dear Representative Denham:
The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) is pleased to
support your legislation, H.R. 4582, the ``Save Our Salmon Act.'' ACWA
appreciates your leadership on this issue. As you know, ACWA's 430
public water agency members supply over 90 percent of the water
delivered in California for residential, agricultural, and municipal
uses.
H.R. 4582 eliminates the doubling requirement established by the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA) for striped
bass, a known predator fish of threatened and endangered salmon and
steelhead. By eliminating the doubling requirement for striped bass,
federal policy will no longer spend money on both fish that need to be
saved and fish that want to eat them.
Again, ACWA is pleased to provide support for H.R. 4582 and we look
forward to working with you to secure its passage.
Sincerely,
David L. Reynolds,
Director of Federal Relations.
______
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
April 5, 2016
Hon. Jeff Denham
U.S. House of Representatives
Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Denham:
Metropolitan is pleased to support H.R. 4582, the Save our Salmon
Act of 2016 which would exclude striped bass from the anadromous fish
doubling requirement in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of
1992 (CVPIA). This legislation helps advance California's co-equal
goals of improving water supply reliability and ecosystem restoration
and is consistent with our Board's previous policy directive to reduce
stressors impacting listed species in the Delta in accordance with
Metropolitan's Delta Action Plan.
Metropolitan has long advocated for legislative policies to reduce
predation among the many stressors harming California's native and
endangered species, including helping to advance state legislation, AB
2336, in 2010 by then Assembly Member Jean Fuller.
The striped bass in the Bay-Delta region is a non-native species
and a major predator of several listed species in the Delta and Delta
watershed, including salmon and Delta smelt. Predator control and
effective reduction will help protect these species and achieve
significant conservation objectives within the scope of California
WaterFix and California EcoRestore objectives.
Removing striped bass from the anadromous fish doubling goal in the
Central Valley Improvement Act of 1992 would also remove from Federal
law a goal that is inconsistent with the Endangered Species Act and the
California Endangered Species Act, which aim to take all conservation
measures to recover listed species to the point they can be de-listed.
Metropolitan, along with other Delta water stakeholders, believes
the current requirement for doubling this predator could lead to the
extinction or extirpation of listed prey species. If striped bass
populations were doubled in the Delta, it could lead to additional
pumping restrictions for the State Water Project and Central Valley
Project as listed prey species further decline, further reducing water
supply reliability for urban and agricultural water providers.
It is our hope that H.R. 4582 will move expeditiously through the
114th Congress and be enacted into law this year.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Kightlinger,
General Manager.
______
Modesto Irrigation District
& Turlock Irrigation District
March 9, 2016
Hon. Jeff Denham
U.S. House of Representatives
Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Support for H.R. 4582, the Save Our Salmon Act of 2016
Dear Representative Denham:
The Modesto Irrigation District (MID) and Turlock Irrigation
District (TID) support your newly introduced H.R. 4582, the Save Our
Salmon Act of 2016. Predation by striped bass and other non-native fish
is causing a significant decline in the number of native salmon
migrating from the Tuolumne River, and we appreciate your continued
efforts to identify common-sense solutions to this problem.
Though MID and TID are not involved in the Central Valley Project,
we support your efforts to remove the doubling requirement for striped
bass from the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. H.R. 4582 will
bring greater awareness of the impact of predation on native salmon
evident throughout California. This is critical to addressing--and
hopefully reversing--the ongoing salmon decline in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta, as well as the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.
MID and TID are currently in the process of relicensing the Don
Pedro Project with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Through the relicensing process, we have conducted 33 studies to
provide an accurate representation of the current condition of the
reservoir and the lower Tuolumne River. One study to note is our 2012
predation study, which FERC required us to perform in order to evaluate
the impact that predation by non-native fish is having on the migration
of salmon from the lower Tuolumne River. This study determined that
more than 90% of the out-migrating smolts were consumed by non-native
largemouth, smallmouth and striped bass prior to reaching the San
Joaquin River. MID and TID continue to advocate for solutions that
rationally address the proven threat of predation.
Again, we strongly support H.R. 4582, and appreciate your ongoing
efforts to curb the effects of predation on the salmon population. We
look forward to working with you and your staff on this legislation.
Cordially,
Greg Salyer, Int. General
Manager, Casey Hashimoto, General Manager,
Modesto Irrigation
District. Turlock Irrigation District.
Northern California Water Association
March 31, 2016
Hon. Jeff Denham
U.S. House of Representatives
Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Support for the Save Our Salmon Act (H.R. 4582)
Dear Representative Denham:
The Northern California Water Association (NCWA) would like to
express its support for the Save Our Salmon Act (H.R. 4582). Water
suppliers, conservation organizations, and federal, state and local
governments have invested millions of dollars into the recovery of
endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead in the Sacramento River
basin and we will continue to advance the Sacramento Valley Salmon
Recovery Program. By removing the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act's (CVPIA) doubling goal for striped bass, the Save Our Salmon Act
will help ensure that investments made to recover endangered and
threatened salmon and steelhead in the Sacramento River basin are not
undermined by contradictory and counterproductive striped bass recovery
objectives.
Striped bass, which are not native to California, prey on native
salmon and steelhead and pose a serious threat to their survival. Both
the National Marine Fisheries Service and independent research has
shown that predation from non-native species such as the striped bass
is not only a significant stressor on salmon and steelhead populations
but also a threat to the existence of the species. Until significant
progress is made to address predation issues, many benefits of upstream
actions, such as those taken by NCWA, Sacramento Valley water suppliers
and conservation organizations.
Removing striped bass from the CVPIA's doubling goal will also make
the federal fish doubling objective more consistent with the State of
California's salmonid doubling objective in Water Code section 6902.
The CVIPA's requirement to protect both introduced predatory
striped bass and federally-protected native salmonids is a
contradiction of statute and science. Recovery efforts for endangered
and threatened salmon and steelhead will continue to be hindered so
long as the federal government is required to support a top-level non-
native predator that is devastating the very species the federal
government is obligated by law to protect.
Predation is not the only stressor on salmon, but the Save Our
Salmon Act is an important step toward addressing the serious predation
problem affecting important native anadromous fish populations in the
Sacramento River basin. We appreciate your efforts to end the arbitrary
doubling goal for striped bass and will continue to express our support
for this important legislation.
Sincerely yours,
David J. Guy,
President.
______
Oakdale Irrigation District
& South San Joaquin Irrigation District
February 29, 2016
Hon. Jeff Denham
U.S. House of Representatives
Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Save Our Salmon Act
Dear Representative Denham:
Our agencies commend you for the introduction of the Save Our
Salmon Act of 2016, which provides necessary and responsible relief
from illogical goals for striped bass populations in California. You
have our full support in your effort to remove the doubling requirement
for striped bass contained in the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act of 1992.
As H.R. 4582 states, the CVPIA mandated doubling the population of
all anadromous fish as part of an effort to protect fish. That may have
made sense in 1992, but certainly does not today. The CVPIA is not
supported by the science that has been conducted that clearly shows
striped bass to be a voracious predator and a prime contributor to the
decline of endangered salmon and steelhead populations in California.
In fact, a study on the Tuolumne River indicated that striped bass eat
more than 90% of young salmon and steelhead before they can make their
way to the Pacific Ocean.
We also agree with you that the CVPIA has required millions of
acre-feet of water to be wastefully sent down Central Valley rivers to
the ocean. By itself, more water is not the solution to helping
endangered fish populations. Efforts to reduce predation and restore
spawning habitat are equally vital.
Finally, during a time of serious drought in California, we join
with other agencies in support of sensible water management policies
that balance the needs of agriculture, families and environmental
needs.
We applaud your consistent efforts to combat predation that
devastates salmon and steelhead populations as well as your ideas to
responsibly manage California's water system.
Please let us know what else we can do to assist you.
Respectfully,
Steve Knell, Peter Rietkerk,
Oakdale Irrigation
District. South San Joaquin Irrigation
District.
______
April 11, 2016
Hon. Jeff Denham
U.S. House of Representatives
Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Denham:
We are writing to inform you of our collective support for your
bill, H.R. 4582, the Save Our Salmon Act. We believe your bill
represents much-needed common sense reform to the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act (CVPIA).
As you know, the enactment of CVPIA in 1992 set a goal of doubling
the number of striped bass, a non-native species that, ironically,
feeds on endangered listed species. This predation is one of the
primary stressors that negatively affects the effort to recover
endangered Chinook salmon and Delta Smelt. Additionally, regulatory
actions associated with this doubling mandate and the desire to
``save'' other Delta species has resulted in the startling and absurd
mismanagement of California's water supply at a time when project
operators should be maximizing water deliveries to enable the state to
recover from the past three years of drought. Therefore, as you
rightfully stated in your press release, ``We must stop the crazy cycle
of spending money on both the fish we want to save and the fish that
kill them.''
We appreciate your bipartisan efforts to bring this issue to light
and look forward to working with you to move the legislation through
the Congress.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Birmingham, Gen.
Manager, Steve Chedester, General Manager,
Westlands Water District. SJR Exchange Contractors.
Curtis Creel, General
Manager, Dave Orth, General Manager,
Kern County Water Agency. Friant North Authority.
Jason Peltier, Exec.
Director, Jason Phillips, CEO,
San Luis & Delta-Mendota
Water Authority. Friant Water Authority.
Dan Vink, Executive
Director,
South Valley Water
Association.
______
Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority
March 8, 2016
Hon. Jeff Denham
U.S. House of Representatives
Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Tehama Colusa Canal Authority for H.R. 4582--The Save Our Salmon
Act
Dear Representative Denham:
On behalf of the Tehama Colusa Canal Authority (TCCA), I wish to
report the unanimous vote of my Board of Directors in support of your
recent legislation, H.R. 4582--The Save Our Salmon Act. We applaud your
efforts to pursue this simple, straightforward, but desperately needed,
common sense reform to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(CVPIA).
The continued statutory mandate in the CVPIA to set a goal of
doubling the number of striped bass, a non-native, predator fish
species, that feeds on listed fish species, and is one of the primary
stressors that is negatively impacting California's effort to recover
endangered populations of Chinook salmon and Delta smelt, is an
exercise in the absurd. Regulatory actions associated with recovering
these endangered species have crippled the effective management of our
water supplies in California. Yet, unbelievably, we continue to retain
a legal requirement to increase their numbers. This irrational policy
is the equivalent of ``trying to fix a leaky roof by punching more
holes in it.''
The TCCA greatly appreciates your efforts to reform this outdated
and misguided policy. Also, we greatly applaud your bipartisan approach
to effectuate this reform, and likewise thank your cosponsors:
Congressman Costa, Congressman Garamendi, and Congressman McClintock.
In conclusion, TCCA again reiterates its unwavering support of H.R.
4582--The Save Our Salmon Act.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey P. Sutton,
General Manager.
[all]