[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
QUESTIONABLE FISH SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWSUITS: JOBS AND WATER
SUPPLIES AT RISK IN THE INLAND EMPIRE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, October 18, 2011, in Highland, California
__________
Serial No. 112-73
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-765 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, CA, Ranking Democrat Member
Louie Gohmert, TX Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Jeff Denham, CA Jim Costa, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Paul A. Gosar, AZ John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, October 18, 2011........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Lewis, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Aguilar, Hon. Peter, Mayor, City of Redlands, California..... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Aldstadt, Stacey, General Manager, City of San Bernardino
Water Department, San Bernardino, California............... 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Anderson, Ileene, Biologist, Center for Biological Diversity,
Los Angeles, California.................................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Lohoefener, Ren, Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Sacramento, California........................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 21
Rossi, John, General Manager, Western Municipal Water
District, Riverside, California............................ 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 33
Stockton, Robert, Chairman, Economic Development Council,
Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce, Riverside,
California................................................. 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Wehr, Colonel Michael C., Commander, South Pacific Division,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California.... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``QUESTIONABLE FISH SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
LAWSUITS: JOBS AND WATER SUPPLIES AT RISK IN THE INLAND EMPIRE.''
----------
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Natural Resources
Highland, California
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:51 a.m., at
the Highland City Hall, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California,
Hon. Tom McClintock [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representative McClintock.
Also Present: Representatives Lewis and Calvert.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McClintock. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will
come to order. The Subcommittee meets today to hear testimony
on a hearing entitled ``Questionable Fish Science and
Environmental Lawsuits: Jobs and Water Supplies at Risk in the
Inland Empire.''
I ask unanimous consent that the gentlemen from California,
Mr. Lewis and Mr. Calvert, be allowed to sit with the
Subcommittee and participate in the hearing.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
To begin today's hearing, I would like to defer to my
distinguished colleague, Congressman Jerry Lewis, for a few
introductions.
Congressman Lewis?
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today, it is my pleasure to introduce Joe Martinez and his
band of ROTC representing the California Baptist University
ROTC class. The color guard is here to present the colors and
lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Gentlemen?
[Reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.]
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
I want to thank all of you for coming today. I need to
point out that this is a formal congressional hearing that has
been called at the request of Congressman Lewis and Congressman
Calvert. It is not a public forum, so testimony today is by
invitation only for the majority and minority parties.
For those of you in the audience today who would like to
have your comments put into the official record, please fill
out the forms that are located at the front entrance. Your
comments are very important to us and will be included in the
official record of the Committee's hearing. And if you just
give the form to one of our staff members, we will ensure that
it is printed with the Committee's report.
We will begin with 5-minute opening statements, and we will
start with the Chair.
In the 112th Congress, this Subcommittee is focused on
restoring abundance as the principal objective of Federal water
and power policy. A generation ago, the West was blessed with
engineering visionaries who recognized that the prosperity and
quality of life in States like California depended on
harnessing their enormous resource potential.
These giants had the foresight to construct the dams,
hydroelectric facilities, and canal systems that laid the
foundation for the thriving industry and commerce that made
this State truly golden. At the same time, these projects
greatly improved the environment by providing flood control
that tamed the devastating cycle of floods and droughts that
regularly ravaged the environment and devastated the region,
while making possible year-round cold-water fisheries that
could not exist without the dams.
Unfortunately, about a generation ago, a radical and
retrograde ideology seeped into our public policy, which its
practitioners at the time called the ``era of limits.''
Really shocking stuff.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McClintock. These ideologues abandoned projects in mid-
construction. They erected impossible bureaucratic barriers to
further development of these resources, and they began the
process of diverting vast amounts of water and power away from
human use for such pet causes as the Delta Smelt, and, as we
will hear today, the Santa Ana Sucker fish.
Throughout the West, there is a growing litany of
heartbreaking stories of the human suffering that this has
caused.
One example is the diversion of 200 billion gallons of
contracted water from the Central Valley for the enjoyment of
the Delta Smelt. This policy has laid waste to a quarter-
million acres of the most fertile farmland in America and
destroyed thousands of jobs. It is no accident that four of the
10 metropolitan areas with the highest unemployment in the
entire country are all located in California's Central Valley.
Earlier this year, this Subcommittee held a similar field
hearing in Fresno so that the local community could tell its
story directly to those responsible. This Subcommittee heard
tearful testimony of how a region that once prided itself on
producing a sizable portion of the Nation's fruits and nuts now
imported food from China to stock its food lines. Today's
hearing involves a similar situation that threatens to
permanently damage the economy of this region in the name of a
6-inch fish called the Santa Ana Sucker.
Once again, it appears we face a taxpayer-financed
environmental litigant blissfully unconcerned about the
economic suffering that it is causing to a region of millions
of people, while attaining little, if any, advantage for the
fish.
They seek to destroy the usefulness of the Seven Oaks Dam
to provide desperately needed water supplies for the people of
this region by invoking the Endangered Species Act in a manner
that the science simply does not support. Even the notorious
State Water Resources Control Board, which is hardly a bastion
of water development, recognized the need to appropriate water
rights from the dam to help provide local water for local use.
No doubt, the next step, having rendered the Seven Oaks Dam
functionally useless, will be to advocate its destruction, as
we are watching in other regions, most notably the Klamath and
Columbia Rivers.
They have found willing accomplices in this Administration.
In so doing, the Federal agencies involved have deliberately
ignored the economic and scientific arguments and insist on
designating critical habitat that has never supported the
Sucker fish before.
I note that Congressmen Lewis and Calvert, who are here
today, along with Congressman Joe Baca and others, have asked
this Administration to withdraw its flawed regulation. I
applaud them for their efforts, and I thank them for their
leadership on this issue.
In the Central Valley, a Federal court has already declared
that these agencies are acting in a, quote, ``arbitrary and
capricious manner,'' and using what can only be described as
junk science to support political objectives that are causing
vast economic damage and hardship to millions of Americans
struggling to survive in a difficult economy.
Meanwhile, this matter is also now in litigation. I want to
make it clear that when a court rules that a Federal agency has
acted not because of an honest difference of opinion, but has,
rather, abused its authority in an arbitrary and capricious
manner, and has caused enormous damage as a result, this
Subcommittee must take notice.
If I have anything to say about it, this Subcommittee will
act to identify the specific officials responsible up and down
the chain of authority, hold them accountable for the damage
they have done, and seek to separate them from the power that
they have abused
Now I will recognize Congressman Lewis for an opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Tom McClintock, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Water and Power
In the 112th Congress, this Subcommittee has focused on restoring
abundance as the principal objective of federal water and power policy.
A generation ago, the West was blessed with engineering visionaries who
recognized that the prosperity and quality of life in states like
California depended on harnessing their enormous resource potential.
These giants had the foresight to construct the dams, hydroelectric
facilities and canal systems that laid the foundation for the thriving
industry and commerce that made this state truly golden. At the same
time, these projects greatly improved the environment by providing
flood control that tamed the devastating cycle of floods and droughts
that regularly ravaged the environment and devastated the region, while
making possible year-round cold-water fisheries that did not exist
without the dams.
Unfortunately, a generation ago, a radical and retrograde ideology
seeped into our public policy, which its practitioners called the ``era
of limits.'' These ideologues abandoned projects in mid-construction,
erected impossible bureaucratic barriers to further development of
these resources and began the process of diverting vast amounts of
water and power away from human use for such pet causes as the Delta
Smelt, and as we will hear today, the Santa Ana Sucker Fish.
Throughout the West, there is a growing litany of heart-breaking
stories of the human suffering this has caused.
One example is the diversion of 200 billion gallons of contracted
water from the Central Valley for the enjoyment of the Delta Smelt.
This policy has laid waste to a quarter-million acres of the most
fertile farmland in America and destroyed thousands of jobs. It is no
accident that four of the ten metropolitan areas with the highest
unemployment in the nation are all in California's Central Valley.
Earlier this year, the sub-committee held a similar field hearing
in Fresno so that the local community could tell its story directly to
those responsible. This sub-committee heard tearful testimony of how a
region that once prided itself on producing a sizeable portion of the
nation's fruits and nuts now imported food from China to stock its food
lines.
Today's hearing involves a similar situation that threatens to
permanently damage the economy of this region--in the name of a six-
inch fish called the Santa Ana Sucker. Once again, it appears we face a
taxpayer-financed environmental litigant blissfully unconcerned about
the economic suffering it is causing to a region of millions of people,
while attaining little, if any, advantage to the fish.
They seek to destroy the usefulness of the Seven Oaks Dam to
provide desperately needed water supplies for the people of this region
by invoking the Endangered Species Act in a manner that the science
simply does not support. Even the notorious State Water Resources
Control Board, hardly a bastion of water development, recognized the
need to appropriate water rights from the dam to help provide local
water for local use.
No doubt, the next step, having rendered the Seven Oaks Dam
functionally useless will be to advocate its destruction, as we are
watching in other regions, most notably on the Klamath and Columbia
Rivers.
They have found willing accomplices in this administration. In so
doing, the federal agencies involved have deliberately ignored the
economic and scientific arguments and insist on designating critical
habitat that has never supported the suckerfish before.
I note that Congressmen Lewis and Calvert, who are here today,
along with Congressman Joe Baca and others, have asked this
Administration to withdraw its flawed regulation. I applaud them for
their efforts and I thank them for their leadership on this issue.
In the Central Valley, a federal court has already declared that
these agencies are acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and
using what can only be described as ``junk science'' to support
political objectives that are causing vast economic damage and hardship
to millions of Americans struggling to survive in a difficult economy.
Meanwhile, this matter is also now in litigation. I want to make it
clear that when a court rules that an agency has acted not because of
an honest difference of opinion, but has abused its authority in an
arbitrary and capricious manner, and has caused enormous damage as a
result, this sub-committee must take notice.
If I have anything to say about it, this sub-committee will act to
identify the specific officials responsible--up and down the chain of
authority--hold them accountable for the damage they have done and seek
to separate them from the power that they have abused.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JERRY LEWIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would take you back, Mr. Chairman, to a few years ago
when we experienced one of the major floods in recent history
in the Valley. I was a relatively young boy at the time,
standing at my back window, and I dropped a ping-pong ball out
that window. It fell 3-1/2 feet, hit the water, and floated out
through the back fence.
The potential of flooding in this Valley cannot be
overestimated. Three million people could be flooded from their
homes. More than 100,000 acres could be inundated. As many as
3,000 people could very well lose their lives by way of
drowning.
The Corps of Engineers use these figures when they outlined
for us that this floodplain is perhaps the most dangerous
floodplain west of the Mississippi. Indeed, its potential for
economic impact in the region cannot be overestimated.
When the dams that have now been completed to the east were
first thought through, it was a design to try to protect from
floods this entire Valley, and, if allowed to operate
effectively, will have a huge beneficial impact to the entire
economy.
Last year, the Fish and Wildlife Service, after a lawsuit
from CBD, expanded the critical habitat designation for the
Santa Ana Sucker.
When the original design took place for these dams, by the
way, the Sucker fish was not on the Endangered Species list. So
after the fact, we are dealing with a potential endangered
species that could radically change the value of this huge and
important design.
Altogether, the dams have cost somewhere in the
neighborhood of $1 billion to construct. If they are allowed to
go forward effectively, it will be worth every penny in terms
of life and property and economic potential.
If the action by the Fish and Wildlife Service continues,
we will not have the water to grow in this region. As of today,
the unemployment in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties are
at 13.6 and 14.7 percentage points. This just cannot continue,
but it will, if we don't give our businesses a chance to
succeed.
So, Mr. Chairman, your hearing here today is very much
appreciated. It is an opportunity for local officials to
address this issue and help us better understand especially the
economic impacts of these water control activities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jerry Lewis, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California
Three million people could be flooded out of their homes. More than
100,000 acres would be under water. As many as 3,000 people might be
threatened with drowning. The economy would be hit with a $15 billion
loss. These are the figures the Army Corps of Engineers used when they
called the Santa Ana River the worst flood threat west of the
Mississippi--mind you those numbers are from 1987. Since then, Congress
and the Corps have worked together to construct Seven Oaks and Prado
Dam at a cost of over a billion dollars. I've seen the predictive
models for a major flood event without the dams and I can tell you it
was worth every penny.
When these dams were constructed a great deal of environmental
review was done. At the time, the Santa Ana Sucker was not a listed
species. When it was listed in 2000 the agencies worked together to
designate habitat, but it wasn't enough for the Center for Biological
Diversity who made it their mission to have this splendid project
destroyed to `protect' a fish.
Last year the US Fish and Wildlife Service, after a lawsuit from
CBD, expanded the critical habitat designation for the Santa Ana
Sucker. As part of this process, the Service was required, by law, to
do a study on economic impact--a study in which they admit they didn't
really do the job. An independent economic analysis by Dr. John Husing,
who is in the room today, estimates that this designation will cost the
region $2.7 billion in lost water and jobs. The Service's report
guessed it would only be $6 to $8 million.
If this action by the Fish and Wildlife Service continues, we will
not have the water to grow. As of today the unemployment in San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties stands at 13.6 and 14.7 percent. This
can't continue, but it will if we don't give our businesses a chance to
succeed. To build something you have to prove adequate supply of
water--a requirement this part of the country already struggles to
meet. How can I tell my constituents in this room, and around my
district, that we won't create jobs because we don't have the water?
I'm convinced, that instead of spending another half trillion
dollars of taxpayer money on a questionable stimulus plan, Congress
needs to help private industry create more jobs by reducing the burden
of over-regulation.
In the House of Representatives, we've been searching for ways to
get the government out of the way of private job creation. Just before
we left Washington, the House passed legislation to stop the
Environmental Protection Agency from creating new rules that threaten
many industries--and could affect the very survival of the cement
industry in San Bernardino County and across the nation.
I believe it's time to look just as closely at the Fish and
Wildlife Service which is threatening thousands of jobs in this
community because of over-regulation on behalf of the Santa Ana Sucker
fish.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
And now I would like to recognize the distinguished former
Chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee, Congressman Ken
Calvert, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start by thanking you for convening today's
hearing. I look forward to hearing from those who have come to
testify about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's revised
critical habitat designation for the Santa Ana Sucker.
Specifically, I am concerned that the proposed designation may
have devastating and long-reaching economic ramifications.
Jerry Lewis, Joe Baca, and I all represent this area along
the Santa Ana River, and we are all joined together, Republican
and Democrat, concerned about the economic future of this
region, and so we are here today.
Just 3 years ago, the Nation watched as California farms,
as the Chairman mentioned, and the tens of thousands of jobs
they support, dried up in the Central Valley when the Fish and
Wildlife Service cut off Valley farmers from their water
supplies to protect the Delta Smelt.
Today, the Inland Empire is facing record unemployment--
14.1 percent average between Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties.
Congress and community leaders are working to revive our
economy and put Americans back to work, and so we have all
become more finely tuned and sensitive to impacts on the
environment and jobs when new critical habitat designations are
finalized.
In the instance of the Santa Ana Sucker, the revised
critical habitat designation affects an enormous urban
population and its water supply. I am concerned that the
revised critical habitat designation for the Sucker could
become the Inland Empire's Delta Smelt and cripple our region's
economic engine.
It has been projected that by 2035 the Inland Empire's
population will increase by over 2 million people. To prepare
for this population growth, local water agencies are
undertaking major efforts to expand regional water supplies and
replenish our depleted groundwater. According to some
estimates, the Service's critical habitat designation could
mean the loss of almost 126,000 acre-feet of local water every
single year. If this water could be replaced with imported
water, it would cost the region an additional $2.87 billion per
year, a cost that will ultimately be passed on to working
families and job creators in the form of ever-increasing water
rates.
However, given current limitations on pumping from the
Delta, the sad reality is this lost water may very well be
irreplaceable. And all of Southern California's future growth
must be supported by increased local water supply.
Further, I am concerned with the Service's decision to
designate new critical habitat within the boundaries of the
Western Riverside Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan,
referred to as the HCP. When the Fish and Wildlife Service
approved Western Riverside County's HCP, the Service agreed not
to designate any new critical habitat.
In return, the county committed to creating a half million
acres of habitat that hosts nearly 150 species residing in
Western Riverside County. Many people in this room worked on
that and spent a lot of dedication to get this plan completed,
one of the first major HCPs in the United States
By previously agreeing to implement an HCP, Western
Riverside County was able to establish a plan for conservation
balanced with a long-term plan for urban growth and
infrastructure development. The plan has been designed to
preserve native vegetation and meet the habitat needs of
multiple species, rather than focusing preservation efforts on
one species at a time.
Unfortunately, the Service's decision to designate nearly
3,000 acres of new land within the HCP breaks its agreement
with Riverside County, threatens the continued successful
implementation of the HCP, and increases development and
conservation costs. Without a strong landscape-level plan like
the HCP to promote development and conservation side-by-side,
Riverside's ability to build new infrastructure and promote
business investment in the Inland Empire is stunted.
I look forward to working with Western Riverside's HCP,
local stakeholders, and certainly the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to reach a resolution for this issue.
Mr. Chairman, without a reliable water supply, our cities
cannot grow. Without roads and infrastructure to get our goods
to market, our economy cannot grow, and we cannot create jobs.
Mankind has understood these basic concepts for thousands
of years. However, today we are gathered to discuss a decision
by the Fish and Wildlife Service that would disrupt both the
economic prosperity and water supply of one of the largest
urban populations in the United States. The Service's decision
to expand the critical habitat into areas the Service
previously deemed ``not essential'' when it first moved to
protect the Santa Ana Sucker in the 2005 report requires close
examination.
I agree that as Americans we must manage our native species
so they thrive for future generations; however, I do not
believe that managing America's natural resources and promoting
America's continued economic prosperity are mutually exclusive.
With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California
Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking you for convening today's
hearing. I'm looking forward to hearing from those that have come to
testify about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's revised critical
habitat designation for the Santa Ana Sucker. Specifically, I am
concerned that the proposed designation may have devastating and long-
reaching economic ramifications.
Just three years ago, the nation watched as California farms, and
the tens of thousands of jobs they support, dried up in the Central
Valley when the Fish and Wildlife Service cut off Valley farmers from
their water supplies to protect the Delta Smelt. Today, Congress and
community leaders are working to revive our economy and put Americans
back to work and so we have all become more finely tuned and sensitive
to impacts on the environment and jobs when new critical habitat
designations are finalized. In the instance of the Santa Ana Sucker,
the revised critical habitat designation effects an enormous urban
population and its water supply. I am concerned that the revised
critical habitat designation for the Santa Ana Sucker could become the
Inland Empire's ``Delta Smelt''--and cripple our region's economic
engine.
It has been projected that by 2035 the Inland Empire's population
will increase by over 2 million people. To prepare for this population
growth, local water agencies are undertaking major efforts to expand
regional water supplies and replenish our depleted groundwater.
According to some estimates, the Service's critical habitat designation
could mean the loss of almost 126,000 acre feet of local water every
year. If this water could be replaced with imported water, it would
cost the region an additional $2.87 billion dollars a year--a cost that
will ultimately be passed on to working families and job creators in
the form of ever-increasing water rates. However, given current
limitations on pumping from California's Delta the sad reality is this
lost water may very well be irreplaceable.
Further, I am concerned with the Service's decision to designate
new critical habitat within the boundaries of the Western Riverside
Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). When the Fish and
Wildlife Service approved Western Riverside County's HCP, the Service
agreed not to designate any new critical habitat. In return, the County
committed to creating a half million acres set aside for the
preservation of habitat that hosts nearly 150 species residing in
Western Riverside County.
By previously agreeing to implement the HCP, Western Riverside
County was able to establish a plan for conservation balanced with a
long term plan for urban growth and infrastructure development. The
plan had been designed to preserve native vegetation and meet the
habitat needs of multiple species, rather than focusing preservation
efforts on one species at a time.
Unfortunately, the Service's decision to designate nearly 3,000
acres of new land within the HCP breaks its agreement with Riverside
County, threatens the continued successful implementation of the HCP
and increases development and conservation costs. Without a strong
landscape-level plan like the HCP to promote development and
conservation side-by-side, Riverside's ability to build new
infrastructure and promote business investment in the Inland Empire is
stunted. I look forward to working with Western Riverside's HCP, local
stake holders and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reach
resolution for this issue.
Mr. Chairman, without a reliable supply of water, our cities cannot
grow. Without roads and infrastructure to get our goods to market, our
economy cannot grow and we cannot create jobs. Mankind has understood
these basic concepts for thousands of years. However, today we are
gathered to discuss a decision by the Fish and Wildlife Service that
would disrupt both the economic prosperity and water supply of one of
the largest urban populations in the United States. Their decision to
expand the critical habitat into areas the Service previously deemed
``not essential'' when it first moved to protect the Santa Ana Sucker
in 2005 requires close examination.
I agree that as Americans we must manage our native species so they
thrive for future generations; however, I do not believe that managing
America's natural resources and promoting America's continued economic
prosperity are mutually exclusive.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
We will now hear from our panel of witnesses. Each
witness's written testimony will appear in full in the hearing
record, so I would ask that the witnesses keep their oral
statements to 5 minutes, as outlined in the invitation letter
and also according to our rules.
Let me explain how the timer lights work. It is pretty
simple. When you begin to speak, the clerk will start the
timer. A green light will go on, meaning you have all the time
in the world--well, you have 5 minutes, anyway.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McClintock. When the yellow light goes on, that means
you need to speak very, very fast because you have 1 minute
left. And with a red light goes on, that means we have stopped
listening, so you might as well stop talking.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McClintock. I will now recognize the Hon. Pete Aguilar,
mayor of the City of Redlands, California, to testify. Dr. John
Husing, an economist for Economics & Politics, Inc., will
accompany the Mayor Aguilar on the panel.
Mr. Mayor?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE AGUILAR, MAYOR,
CITY OF REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Aguilar. Chairman McClintock and members of the
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you
today. My name is Pete Aguilar, and I am the Mayor of the City
of Redlands, California.
I appear before you as a representative of a city in an
area where the economy will be severely impacted by the new
Santa Ana Sucker boundaries drawn by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
But before I get to that, please let me tell you a little
bit about the Inland Empire and our local economy. San
Bernardino County is the largest county in the Nation in terms
of total land area. San Bernardino County and Riverside County,
which lies to the south, comprise the Inland Empire, which was
one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in California and
in the United States from 1997 to 2006.
San Bernardino County has a population of 2.1 million
people, with just under 608,000 wage and salary jobs. The per
capita income of San Bernardino County is just over $27,000 and
the average salary per worker is $46,000.
But because the area has suffered from large real estate
and labor market declines, the economic fallout has been severe
over the last few years. Economic growth in Southern California
declined sharply in 2008 and 2009, and job losses were the
largest on record.
In 2010, 36,500 additional jobs were lost in San Bernardino
County, representing a 5.7 percent loss of employment. The
unemployment rate increased, as Congressman Calvert mentioned,
to 13.9 percent in 2009 and reached 14 percent in 2010. Two
sectors to record positive job creation were education and
health services.
Even though the national recession officially ended in June
2009, the Inland Empire's economic output continues to shrink.
There is no question the expansion of the critical habitat
of the Santa Ana Sucker will bring dire economic consequences
for our communities, which are already suffering more than
most.
As everyone here is aware, in December 2009, the Fish and
Wildlife Service announced that it would revise the Santa Ana
Sucker's critical habitat. I believe the Service's decision
totally disregards the scientific and economic realities of the
Inland Empire and the Sucker's actual needs.
As you know, the Endangered Species Act specifically
mandates that the Service's decisions must consider the
economic impacts of a community. Unfortunately the Service's
new Santa Ana Sucker habitat designation does not include these
required considerations, and, as such, endangers the economic
well-being of an entire region.
It goes without saying that providing adequate water supply
is one of the biggest challenges in Southern California today
and for the foreseeable future. Water shortages have been
aggravated by the rulings on the Delta Smelt fish, which has
caused reductions in water imported to Southern California.
Restrictions on drawing water from the Delta have a
widespread effect, and one of the most effective methods of
compensating for the reduced Delta water supplies is the
creation of reliable local water. But the expanded critical
habitat for the Sucker directly opposes water agency efforts in
the Inland Empire to capture stormwater, recharge our basins,
and reduce our reliance on imported water.
California law mandates that local water agencies must
certify a 20-year supply of water before any major residential,
retail, or industrial project can be built. If there is no
water to buy at any costs, then the much-needed development
cannot move forward.
The region of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, with a
current unemployment rate of over 14 percent, desperately needs
economic development. The region also needs to be able to house
its growing population. According to economist John Husing, the
forecast is that over 472,000 added households will locate in
this area impacted by the new Sucker designation.
Jerry Lewis and Ken Calvert have led the effort to include
language in the Interior appropriations bill to urge the Fish
and Wildlife Service to cooperate with local agencies on
Section 7 applications that arise under the Sucker designation.
Meanwhile, Joe Baca led a bipartisan effort to Secretary
Salazar, requesting the habitat designation be rescinded. We
are extremely grateful for this leadership and request that the
agency act accordingly.
Thank you very much for your time.
Economist John Husing and I look forward to answering any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aguilar follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Peter Aguilar,
Mayor, City of Redlands, California
Chairman McClintock and Members of the Committee, thank you for
this opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Pete Aguilar
and I am the Mayor of the City of Redlands, California.
I appear before you as a representative of a City in an area where
the economy will be severely impacted by the new Santa Ana Sucker
boundaries drawn by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. But before I get
to that, please let me tell you a little bit about the Inland Empire
and its economy.
San Bernardino County is the largest county in the nation in terms
of total land area. San Bernardino County and Riverside County, which
lies to the south, comprise the Inland Empire, which was one of the
fastest growing metropolitan areas of California and the United States
from 1997 to 2006. San Bernardino County has a population of 2.1
million people, with just under 608,000 wage and salary jobs. The per
capita income in San Bernardino County is $27,387 and the average
salary per worker is $46,393. But, because the area has suffered from
large real estate and labor market declines, the economic fallout has
been severe over the last few years.
Economic growth in Southern California declined sharply in 2008 and
2009 and job losses were the largest on record. In 2010, 36,500 total
jobs were lost in San Bernardino County, representing a 5.7 percent
loss of employment. The unemployment rate increased to 13.9 percent in
2009 and reached 14 percent in 2010. Employment in the construction
sector fell by 8,150 workers, a decline of 24 percent. This contraction
was due primarily to a decline in new home production (down 90 percent
from the peak in 2004). Employment declined in both the manufacturing
and retail trade sectors by just over 7,000 jobs each. The only sector
to record positive job creation was education and health services. Even
though the national recession officially ended in June 2009, the Inland
Empire's economic output shrunk 0.6 percent last year.
There is no question the expansion of the critical habitat of the
Santa Ana Sucker will bring dire economic consequences for our
communities which are already suffering more than most, and have been
severely impacted by foreclosures.
The State of Homelessness 2011 showed San Bernardino County had a
66 percent increase from the 2009 homeless count, with almost 3,000
people counted as being homeless in 2010 compared to almost 2,000
counted in 2009. The National Alliance to End Homelessness conducted
the report and found our dismal economy was a significant reason for
the increase. Increasing unemployment, decreasing real income for the
working poor and an increase in households with incomes below the
federal poverty level were all factors associated with the data,
according to the report.
As everyone here today is aware, the Santa Ana Sucker is a small
fish that lives in the Santa Ana River and has been listed as a
Threatened Species since 2001 under the Endangered Species Act. A Task
Force was formed when the fish was first listed and has worked with the
Fish and Wildlife Service to study the fish and monitor its progress.
This Task Force has participated with federal and state agencies in a
Habitat Conservation Plan for many years. In 2005, the Fish and
Wildlife Service established an area of Critical Habitat for the fish.
At the time, they intentionally excluded the dry upper Santa Ana River
areas as critical habitat, finding that the dry areas were not
essential to the conservation of the species and the enormous costs to
the Inland Empire's economy far outweighed any benefits to the species.
But in December 2009, the Service announced that it would revise
the Critical Habitat without giving any scientific or economic
rationale for doing so. A legal settlement between the USFWS and the
Center for Biological Diversity directed the Service to undertake a
review of the Sucker's habitat, however the settlement did not require
the 2005 designated Critical Habitat be revised in any way. Moreover,
the lawsuit settlement did not override existing law.
I believe the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision totally
disregards the scientific and economic realities of the Inland Empire.
As you know, the Endangered Species Act specifically mandates that the
Service's decisions must consider the economic impacts to a community.
Unfortunately the Service's new Santa Ana Sucker habitat designation
does not include these required considerations, and as such, endangers
the economic well being of an entire region, which is already suffering
from 14 percent unemployment and other economic ills.
It goes without saying that providing adequate water supply is one
of the biggest challenges in Southern California today and for the
foreseeable future. Southern California has suffered through repeated
droughts and has experienced huge growth. In fact, 2.1 million more
people are expected to live in the Inland Empire area between 2008-
2035. In addition, water shortages have been aggravated by the
situation in California's Delta with the Service's ruling on the Delta
Smelt fish which have caused reductions in water imported to Southern
California. Restrictions on drawing water from the Delta have had a
widespread effect, and one of the most effective methods of
compensating for reduced Delta water supplies is the creation of
reliable local water supplies.
The expanded Critical Habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker directly
opposes water agency efforts in the Inland Empire to capture
stormwater, recharge our basins and reduce our reliance on imported
water. Local water agencies are undertaking projects intended to better
utilize water recycling, desalination, and flood control projects/
groundwater recharge projects which will expand our supplies of local
water and recharge our depleted groundwater basins. However, the new
Sucker Critical Habitat designation will prohibit important projects
from moving forward.
Loss of water as a result of the new Sucker habitat designation in
the normally dry, ephemeral upper reaches of the Santa Ana River would
mean the loss of up to 125,800 acre feet of water a year to the Inland
Empire. If there was a source to replace this lost water, which there
isn't, the 25 year cost would be $2.87 billion. If local taxpayers were
to put aside money today to buy this water the cost would be $1.87
billion, using a 3% interest rate. The Service did not use proper
accounting methods to arrive at their lower number; rather the Service
used several tricks, such as using an unrealistic 7% interest rate.
Still, the Service's economists ended up with a $694 million present
day cost to local taxpayers. Much more than our Inland Empire residents
can afford to pay! All this for the inclusion of a dry habitat zone
that in 2005 was deemed by the Service not necessary for the species
existence.
What is even more important to understand is that there will not be
any water to replace the lost 125,800 acre feet of local water, at any
cost. Even if we could afford to buy it, there is no water to buy. In
March 2011, with California's snow pack at 165% of normal, the State
Water Project estimated that it will only be able to supply its
regional water agencies 70% of their current water allocations. Those
allocations were 50% in 2010, 40% in 2009, 35% in 2008, and 60% in
2007. If the Service's intent is for the Inland Empire to substitute
the loss of our local water supply with State Water Project water, due
to other Service designations, it will not be available. Because of the
Service's prior actions, keeping local water supplies intact is more
important than ever.
California law mandates that local water agencies must certify a 20
year supply of water before any major residential, retail, office or
industrial project can be built. The San Bernardino and Riverside
region, with a current unemployment rate of over 14%, economic
development is desperately need. The region also needs to be able to
house its growing population. According to economist John Husing, the
forecast is that 472,104 added households will locate in the area
impacted by the new Sucker designation.
Several area lawmakers have banded together to try to halt the new
Sucker designation by placing language in House appropriations
legislation. I commend these Members in their efforts to prevent
economic catastrophe in the Inland Empire. I respectfully request your
Committee work with these Members and the Appropriations Committee to
ensure that this language stays intact as the Fiscal Year 2012
appropriations process moves forward to a conclusion.
On behalf of the struggling Inland Empire communities, I
respectfully request this Committee play an active role in oversight of
the US Fish and Wildlife Service and its use of the Endangered Species
Act and ensure the Service follow the mandates of the Endangered
Species Act that require the use of impacts to humans and economic
realities to determine habitat designations.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
We now recognize Mr. Bob Stockton, Chairman of the Economic
Development Council for the Greater Riverside Chambers of
Commerce from Riverside, California, to testify.
STATEMENT OF BOB STOCKTON, CHAIRMAN, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL, GREATER RIVERSIDE CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, RIVERSIDE,
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Stockton. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my
name is Bob Stockton. I am Vice President and Principal-in-
Charge of Rick Engineering's Riverside office. Thank you for
inviting me to testify today regarding the economic impacts of
the critical habitat designation for the Santa Ana Sucker.
I come to you today not only as a local businessman, but
also as the Chair of the Greater Riverside Chambers of
Commerce's Economic Development Council, and as past Chair of
the Riverside Board of Public Utilities, which is the water
purveyor for the City.
In short, because it would likely stall or even kill
regional infrastructure projects, the Santa Ana Sucker critical
habitat designation severely threatens to bring an already
struggling regional economy into a prolonged and deep
recession.
This is not unprecedented. Water cutbacks demanded by
Endangered Species Act protections for the Delta Smelt weigh
heavily on the Central Valley. Unemployment in parts of the
Central Valley surpassed 40 percent, and foreclosure rates have
created virtual ghost towns.
No one wants to see what is happening in the Central Valley
replicated anywhere else in our country.
The Inland Empire, one of the fastest growing regions in
the country during the last decade and, therefore, somewhat
dependent on the housing industry, has already been hit hard by
this economic downturn. The latest unemployment numbers are
from August 2011, and they show that in Riverside County,
unemployment is 14.7 percent, and San Bernardino County is only
slightly better at 13.6 percent.
But even with the collapse of the homebuilding industry and
related businesses, our region continues to grow. The Southern
California Association of Governments predicts that it is going
to be about 2.6 percent growth rate over the next 5 years and
that the region will grow from 3 million to about 4 1/2 million
by 2035.
It is crucial to note that about 70 percent of this growth
is organic. This is not a case where building roads and homes
causes growth. As John Husing has noted, unless someone
develops a policy for stopping people from having children,
inland agencies have no choice but to prepare for this growth
since it is the only area with undeveloped land.
Infrastructure agencies throughout the region have sounded
the alarm bells that the Santa Ana Sucker critical habitat
designation could force them to forgo crucial projects. That
includes bridge and road infrastructure, development, flood
control projects, and water projects.
If these projects fail to move forward, then the region is
going to take at least a double shot of pain.
First, we are going to lose the jobs that would have been
created by those projects. The best estimates are that our
already-struggling economy would lose about $320 million in
road and water infrastructure projects.
Second, if we can't build these projects, our roads will be
jammed. We can't provide the homes, and perhaps most
importantly, we will not have a reliable water system.
Senate Bill 610 is a State law that requires water service
providers to prepare a water supply assessment for most
development projects. These assessments must evaluate whether
water supplies are sufficient to meet a project's water demands
over a 20-year period. If the water agencies cannot certify to
meet those demands, the projects can't move forward.
A reliable water system is the backbone of a healthy
economy. If these projects cannot get an approved water supply
assessment, we are not going to be able to expand or even
retain even our existing businesses, and there is no way we are
going to be able to recruit new businesses to come into the
region.
History is going to repeat itself again. The Inland Empire
is going to look and feel more and more like the Central
Valley.
There is at least one more important issue here. The
Implementing Agreement for the Western Riverside County Multi-
Species Habitat Conservation Plan, the MSHCP, clearly states
that lands within the boundaries of the MSHCP should not be
designated as critical habitat unless the Fish and Wildlife
Service says the MSHCP is not being implemented. This simply
isn't true. And the Department of the Interior signed the
Implementing Agreement.
Principle here remains an issue, and the principle is
important because it is critical to maintain public support for
the plan. If the public believes that the Fish and Wildlife
Service is pulling the rug out from under their feet, the plan
can be irrevocably harmed and subject to invalidation. The
plan's demise would increase project costs and delay placement
of crucial infrastructure and further compromise our fragile
economy.
I am deeply concerned that Fish and Wildlife chose to
ignore the potential for dire economic consequences of their
decision to expand this critical habitat designation for the
Santa Ana Sucker. It is clear to me that the Santa Ana Sucker
critical habitat designation can cripple our already struggling
regional economy.
Thank you for your time. I stand ready to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stockton follows:]
Statement of Robert Stockton, Vice President and Principal-in-Charge,
Rick Engineering, Riverside, California
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Robert
Stockton. I am Vice President and Principal-in-Charge of Rick
Engineering in Riverside, California. Thank you for inviting me to
testify today regarding the economic impacts of the critical habitat
designation for the Santa Ana Sucker (SAS). I come to you today not
only as a local businessman, but also as the Chair of the Greater
Riverside Chamber of Commerce's Economic Development Council, and also
past Chair of the City of Riverside's Board of Public Utilities, which
is the water purveyor for the City.
In short, because it would likely stall or even kill regional
infrastructure projects, the SAS critical habitat designation severely
threatens to send an already struggling regional economy into a
prolonged and deep recession.
This is not unprecedented. Water cutbacks demanded by Endangered
Species Act protections for the Delta smelt weigh heavily on the
Central Valley. Unemployment in parts of that region surpassed 40
percent and the foreclosure rates in some parts of the Valley have
created virtual ghost towns.
No one wants to see what's happened in the Central Valley be
replicated anywhere in our country.
The Inland Empire, one of the fastest growing regions in the
country during the last decade and therefore somewhat dependent on the
home building industry, has already been hit hard by the recent
economic downturn. The latest unemployment numbers we have for the
Inland Empire are from August 2011. Riverside County has 14.7 percent
unemployment while San Bernardino County fares slightly better at 13.6
percent.
But even with the collapse of the homebuilding industry and related
businesses, the region continues to grow. The California Department of
Transportation estimates an annual growth rate of 2.6 percent over the
next five years and most analysts assume the region will grow from
about 3 million today to almost 4.5 million people in 2035.
It is crucial to note that about 70% of this growth will be
organic. This is not a case where building roads and homes causes
population growth. As John Husing has noted, ``unless someone develops
a policy for stopping people from having children, inland agencies have
no choice but to prepare for this growth since it is the only area with
undeveloped land.''
Infrastructure agencies throughout the region have sounded the
alarm bells that the SAS critical habitat designation could force them
to forgo crucial projects, including bridge and road construction,
development, flood control structures, and water projects.
If these projects fail to move forward, the region takes at least a
double shot of pain. First, we would lose the jobs that would be
created by the projects. The best estimates are that our already-
weakened economy would lose about $320 million worth of water and
transportation infrastructure projects.
Second, if we cannot build these projects, our roads will be
jammed, there will not be enough homes for the growing population, and
perhaps most importantly, we will lack a reliable water system.
SB610 is a state law that requires water service providers to
prepare ``water supply assessments'' for most development projects.
These assessments must evaluate whether water supplies are sufficient
to meet the proposed project's water demands over a 20 year period. If
the water agencies cannot certify sufficient demand, the project cannot
move forward.
A reliable water system is the backbone of a healthy economy. If
projects cannot get an approved water supply assessment, we will not be
able to expand or even retain our current businesses, much less attract
new businesses to the region. History will repeat itself as the Inland
Empire starts to look more and more like today's Central Valley.
There is at least one more important issue here.
The Implementing Agreement for the Western Riverside County Multi-
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) clearly states that lands
within the boundaries within the MSHCP should not be designated as
critical habitat unless the Fish and Wildlife Service finds that the
MSHCP is not being implemented. DOI signed that Implementing Agreement.
Nonetheless, the US Fish and Wildlife Service overlaid critical habitat
for the SAS on MSHCP lands. Fish and Wildlife has done the same with a
number of other species as well, though they have never claimed the
MSHCP is not being implemented.
In fact, they can't claim this because it's simply not true. The
MSHCP has a 25-year implementation period and we are only about six
years into that period. Even in that short time, the Regional
Conservation Authority alone has spent $257 million to preserve almost
27,000 acres for the Plan. Overall, nearly $400 million has been spent
to preserve about 43,000 acres of land.
From a practical perspective, this issue has been addressed through
an updated Biological Opinion for the MSHCP that makes it clear that
the SAS critical habitat designation has no impact on covered
activities within the MSHCP.
But the principle here remains an issue. And the principle is
important because it's critical to maintain public support for the
plan. If the public believes that the Fish and Wildlife is pulling the
rug out from under their feet, the plan could be irreparably harmed,
and subject to invalidation. The plan's demise would increase project
costs and delay placement of crucial infrastructure, and further
compromise our fragile economy.
I am deeply concerned that Fish and Wildlife chose to ignore the
potential for dire economic consequences of their decision to expand
the critical habitat designation for the SAS. It is clear to me that
the SAS critical habitat designation can cripple our already-struggling
regional economy.
Thank you for your time. I stand ready to answer any questions you
may have.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Stockton.
I would now like to recognize Ms. Ileene Anderson,
Biologist for the Center for Biological Diversity from Los
Angeles, California, to testify.
STATEMENT OF ILEENE ANDERSON, BIOLOGIST, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Anderson. Chairman McClintock and Representatives
Calvert and Lewis, thanks very much for having me here today. I
am here to address the science used in the designation of the
critical habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker, which as you know is
a small native fish found in the Santa Ana River. It is a
Federally threatened species under the Federal Endangered
Species Act and the State's species of concern. Its whole range
consists of the Santa Ana River and San Bernardino and
Riverside and Orange Counties, and the San Gabriel River, and
to Tujunga Wash in Los Angeles County.
In 2004, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed a
scientifically based critical habitat for the fish and included
the Santa Ana River from just south of Colton down to Prado
Basin. In 2005, political appointees in the Bush Administration
pushed through a final designation of critical habitat that
included zero acres of the Santa Ana River. In my professional
opinion, there was no biological basis for excluding occupied
habitat supporting a successfully reproducing population of the
Santa Ana Sucker, especially in the fish's namesake river.
So we were interested to see how this came about. And in
March 2005, we did a Freedom of Information Act request to the
Fish and Wildlife Service for information associated with 2005
critical habitat designation. In those documents, we found
clear and unequivocal evidence of political meddling by the
Bush Administration appointee Craig Manson, which I submitted
as an exhibit to this testimony.
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service staff e-mails,
Mr. Manson, who is neither a scientist nor has any background
in habitat requirements of the Santa Ana Sucker, decided to
remove the proposed critical habitat units in the Santa Ana
River from the designation.
So based on that evidence, we challenged the Fish and
Wildlife Service in 2007 for their critical habitat designation
and quickly came to a settlement agreement whereby Fish and
Wildlife Service would revisit the critical habitat designation
through their typical public process, and finalize that by
2010, in December.
So in 2009, the Fish and Wildlife Service re-proposed
critical habitat and allowed for 60-day public comment. They
published an economic analysis on July 2nd, 2010. It discussed
the associated costs with the proposed critical habitat and
allowed a 30-day public comment.
I submitted comments on both of those documents. And based
on my review of the data, I found that the scientific evidence
was comprehensive in identifying areas along the Santa Ana
River that were essential to the persistence of the Santa Ana
Sucker, and also found that the designation included
incorporation of new data that had been collected since 2005.
In particular, the inclusion of the upstream areas, which
are the source of gravels that form the breeding substrate for
the Santa Ana Sucker, is biologically justified.
The 2009 proposed critical habitat designation was very
similar to the proposed critical habitat designation in 2004,
so this science has been fairly consistent through the
proposals and the final 2010 designation.
Our comments on the 2009 proposal--we did point out that
they failed to include all suitable habitat for the Santa Ana
Sucker, which is required for the recovery of the species,
which is the purpose of critical habitat designation, not just
keeping them on the brink of extinction, but actually
recovering their numbers, so that eventually they can be
delisted.
So in my opinion, the 2010 final designation of the
critical habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker is scientifically
defensible. It includes the necessary components for the
persistence of the fish in the Santa Ana River. And the
upstream portion of the designation in the Santa Ana River wash
includes areas that have ephemeral surface flows, and these
areas provide the essential gravels--wash them downstream--upon
which the Santa Ana Sucker depends for successful breeding
downstream.
And I think with that, I will wrap up my testimony today.
Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson follows:]
Statement of Ileene Anderson, Biologist, Center for Biological
Diversity
Summary of Testimony
1. The 2010 final critical habitat designation for the Santa
Ana sucker is scientifically based and utilizes the best
available science to identify the habitat requirements that the
Santa Ana sucker needs to survive.
2. In contrast, a 2005 decision to designate no critical
habitat for the fish on its namesake river was not based on any
science and was the work of political appointees in the Bush
administration.
Background and Qualifications
3. I have a Master's of Science in Biology and a Bachelor's of
Arts in Biology from the California State University,
Northridge.
4. I have 20 years of experience studying the ecology of
southern California environments, including the Santa Ana
River.
5. I have directed and participated in numerous field surveys
of federal and state-listed threatened and endangered species,
as well as other rare species. I have written results in
conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act and
the National Environmental Policy Act.
6. I have written, implemented and monitored a variety of
restoration and revegetation plans, primarily implemented as
mitigation.
7. I have published articles on these subjects in peer-
reviewed scientific journals and presented papers and posters
at scientific meetings.
8. I am currently a staff biologist with the Center for
Biological Diversity, where I focus on protecting native
natural resources primarily in San Bernardino, Riverside,
Orange, Los Angeles and Kern counties.
9. I have attended meetings of the Santa Ana Sucker Recovery
Team since 2005. I have participated in ``river walks''
organized by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in conjunction with
the Santa Ana Sucker Recovery Team. During the ``river walks,''
I helped characterize the suitability of habitat along the
Santa Ana River for the Santa Ana sucker fish.
Use of Science in the Designation of Critical Habitat for the Santa Ana
Sucker Fish
10. The Santa Ana sucker (Catostoma santaanae) is a small
native fish of the Santa Ana River. It is a federally
threatened species and a State species of concern throughout
its range, which includes the Santa Ana River in San
Bernardino, Riverside and Orange Counties and the San Gabriel
River and Tujunga Wash in Los Angeles County.
11. In 2004, the United State Fish and Wildlife Service
proposed a scientifically based Critical Habitat for the fish
that included the Santa Ana River from just south of Colton
downstream to Prado Basin.
12. In 2005, political appointees in the Bush administration
pushed through a final designation of critical habitat that
included zero acres on the Santa Ana River. In my professional
opinion, there was no biological basis for excluding occupied
habitat supporting a successfully reproducing population of the
Santa Ana sucker especially in the fish's namesake river.
13. On March 15, 2005, the Center for Biological Diversity
submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for all information associated with the
2005 critical habitat designation for the Santa Ana sucker
fish. In those documents, the Center found clear and
unequivocal evidence of political meddling by the Bush
administration appointee, Craig Manson. According to U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service staff emails, Mr. Manson, who is not a
scientist and has no background in habitat requirements of the
Santa Ana sucker fish, decided to remove the proposed critical
habitat units in the Santa Ana River from the final critical
habitat designation. Exhibit 1.
14. Based on the evidence, the Center for Biological Diversity
challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2005 critical
habit designation in federal court on November 15, 2007 and
quickly came to a settlement agreement whereby the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service would revisit the critical habitat
designation through their typical public process for critical
habitat designations by December 2010.
15. On December 9, 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
re-proposed critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker and
allowed a 60-day public comment period on the draft proposal.
On July 2, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published
the availability of the economic analysis of the economic costs
associated with the proposed critical habitat designation for
the Santa Ana sucker and allowed a 30-day public comment period
on the economic analysis.
16. I submitted comments on the proposed critical habitat
designation on February 6, 2010 on behalf of the Center for
Biological Diversity and Inland Empire Waterkeepers. Based on
my review of the data, I found the scientific evidence
comprehensive in identifying areas along the Santa Ana River
that were essential to the persistence of the Santa Ana sucker.
In particular, inclusion of upstream areas which are the source
of gravels that form the breeding substrate for the Santa Ana
sucker was biologically justified.
17. The 2009 proposed critical habitat designation in the
Santa Ana River was very similar to the areas proposed for
critical habitat in 2004, which were subsequently deleted in
the 2005 final designation by Mr. Manson.
18. Our comments noted that the 2009 proposal failed to
include all suitable habitat for the Santa Ana sucker fish.
19. The 2010 final designation of critical habitat for the
Santa Ana sucker is scientifically defensible. It includes the
necessary components for the persistence of the fish in the
Santa Ana River. While the upstream portion of the designation
includes areas that have ephemeral surface flows, these areas
provide the essential gravels upon which the Santa Ana sucker
depends for successful breeding downstream.
20. Between 2004 and 2009, more information on the Santa Ana
sucker and its habitat has become available. Unfortunately,
this data shows the Santa Ana Sucker has declined from 2001 to
2008. Data about these declines as well as new information
about the habitat needs of the species were incorporated into
the 2010 designation of critical habitat for the Santa Ana
sucker.
21. The Center for Biological receives less than half of one
percent of its total annual income from attorney fees recovered
through the Equal Access to Justice Act.
22. The majority of cases where legal costs are reimbursed
under the Equal Access to Justice Act are filed by individual
veterans and social security recipients--not environmental
groups.
Conclusions
In summary:
In 2004, the Santa Ana river was properly included in
the proposed critical habitat designation based on the best
available science and because it harbored successfully
reproducing Santa Ana sucker.
In 2005, political interference ignored the
scientific evidence and improperly excised the Santa Ana River
from the final critical habitat designation, as documented by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's emails.
The 2010, the final critical habitat was designated
based on all of the best available science including the most
recent data collected between 2005 and 2009.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Mr. Ren Lohoefener, Regional Director of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from Sacramento, California,
to testify.
STATEMENT OF REN LOHOEFENER, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Lohoefener. Good morning, Chairman McClintock,
Congressman Calvert, Congressman Lewis. I am Ren Lohoefener, I
am the Regional Director for the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, our Pacific South West region, which is
California, Nevada, and parts of Oregon.
I am happy to be with you this morning to testify on the
critical habitat designation for the Federally threatened Santa
Ana Sucker.
As pressure increases for human use of water, largely
through dams and water diversions, the amount of habitat for
the Santa Ana Sucker continues to decrease.
Today we estimate only 20 to 30 percent of the historic
habitat remains for this species. Habitat loss occurs because
water is generally diverted from the system upstream of areas
occupied by the Santa Ana Sucker. Suitable habitat for this
native fish is also being impacted by fire, off-road vehicles,
mining operations, and nonnative plants. In addition, nonnative
predators have been introduced throughout the aquatic system.
Conservation of the Santa Ana Sucker has been the subject
of litigation since it was first listed as a threatened species
in 2000. In December of 2010, pursuant to a settlement
agreement, the Service published a final revised rule that
designated 9,331 acres along the Santa Ana River and its
tributaries as critical habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker.
This revision of critical habitat was the latest in a
series of litigation-driven actions for this species that date
to 2004, which relates to critical habitat, when the Service,
responding to a court order, designated 21,000 acres along
portions of the Santa Ana and its tributaries.
To be clear, critical habitat does not create preserves,
wilderness areas, or refuges, nor does it preclude development
or use of an area. Rather, the designation of critical habitat
prompts analyses of effects for projects proposed to be carried
out, funded, or authorized--and this is important--by Federal
agencies and Federal agencies only.
This ensures the proposed activities will not destroy or
adversely modify the designated critical habitat to the extent
that it no longer retains the biological functions needed for
conservation of the species.
Since listing the Santa Ana Sucker in 2000, the Service has
completed more than 30 consultations--30 consultations--
including consultations on projects in critical habitat. Most
of the consultations addressed transportation, utility, or
other in-stream construction projects.
To date, the Service has not found any proposed project
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
adversely modify the species' critical habitat, and no water
restrictions have been imposed by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
When designating critical habitat for any species, the
Service uses the best scientific and commercial information
available to inform our decisions. We are committed to using
high-quality science to inform our decisions.
In accordance with our peer-review policy, we solicited
review of our December 2010 designation by experts familiar
with the Santa Ana Sucker and its habitat.
The Endangered Species Act also requires us to consider the
economic impacts of specifying an area as critical habitat. Our
economic analysis, prepared by independent economists,
determined that incremental impacts associated with
specifically the designation of critical habitat could range
from $14.3 million to $450 million over the next 20 years in
present value terms.
The economic analysis took a conservative approach, meaning
that it is probably more likely to overestimate the cost than
underestimate the costs
Since the Santa Ana Sucker was listed, the Service has
worked with multiple jurisdictions, including the 24
participating permittees, through the Western Riverside
Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan, and also, of course, we
are working cooperatively with other Federal, State, and local
agencies on the Santa Ana Sucker Conservation Program.
Mr. Chairman, this species continues to be a focus of
litigation. Just last August, 10 water agencies and two cities
filed a formal complaint in district court, challenging the
revised critical habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker.
Unfortunately, because of this litigation, I have to be careful
in how I answer questions today. I will try to be as
forthcoming as I can, but that certainly poses some
limitations.
To conclude, we enjoy a great working relationship with the
Corps of Engineers. We will continue to work collaboratively
with all partners in the area to both conserve habitat for the
species, conserve the species, and work to ensure that human
use and human considerations are taken into account to the
fullest extent possible.
Copies of my testimony have been provided by our
Congressional Legislative Affairs Office to the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lohoefener follows:]
Statement of Ren Lohoefener, Regional Director, Pacific Southwest
Region, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good morning Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, and
Members of the Subcommittee. I am Ren Lohoefener, Regional Director for
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Pacific Southwest
Region. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. The focus of my
testimony will be on the Critical Habitat designation for the
federally-threatened Santa Ana sucker.
As pressure increases for water conservation (storage) for human
use through dams and water diversions, the amount of suitable habitat
(water) available to the Santa Ana sucker declines. This occurs because
water is generally diverted from the system upstream of areas occupied
by the Santa Ana Sucker. Suitable habitat for this native fish is also
being impacted to variable extents by fire, off-road vehicles, mining
operations and nonnative plants. Impacts from nonnative predators are
also increasing at all six locations where Santa Ana suckers exist.
Conservation of the Santa Ana sucker has been the subject of much
litigation since it was first listed as a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act in April 2000. In December 2010, pursuant to a
settlement agreement with environmental groups, the Service published a
revised final rule designating 9,331 acres along the Santa Ana River
and its tributaries as critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker. This
revision of critical habitat was the latest in a series of litigation
driven actions for this species that date to 2004 when the Service,
responding to a court order, designated 21,129 acres along portions of
the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers and Big Tujunga Wash as critical
habitat for the sucker.
Critical habitat does not create preserves, wilderness areas or
refuges, nor does it necessarily preclude development or use of an
area. Rather, designation of critical habitat prompts future analyses
of effects for projects that are carried out, funded, or authorized by
Federal agencies. This ensures such activities do not destroy or
adversely modify the designated habitat to the extent that it no longer
retains the biological functions that are essential to conservation of
the species.
Since listing the Santa Ana sucker in 2000, the Service completed
over 30 consultations on the species, including projects in critical
habitat areas. Most of the consultations addressed transportation,
utility, or other in-stream construction projects. In no instance did
the Service conclude that a proposed project was likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of Santa Ana sucker or adversely modify the
species' designated critical habitat, and no water restrictions have
been imposed by our agency.
In designating critical habitat for any species, the Service uses
the best scientific and commercial data available to inform our
decisions. I want to assure you that we remain steadfast in our efforts
to have high-quality science and scholarship informing our decisions.
In accordance with our peer review policy, we solicited review of our
December 2010 revised rule by knowledgeable scientific experts familiar
with the Santa Ana sucker, the geographic region, and conservation
biology principles pertinent to the species. We reviewed all comments
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new
information regarding critical habitat for Santa Ana sucker.
The Endangered Species Act also requires us to consider the
economic impacts of specifying any area as critical habitat. Our
economic analysis, prepared by independent economists, determined that
incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of
critical habitat could range from $14.3 to $450 million over the next
20 years in present value terms. The economic analysis took a
conservative approach--meaning it is more likely to overstate than
understate costs.
Since the Santa Ana sucker was listed, the Service has worked with
multiple jurisdictions, including 24 participating permittees, through
the Western Riverside County Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan
(Plan) which is a regional habitat conservation plan encompassing about
1.26 million acres in western Riverside County. We also have worked
cooperatively with other Federal, State, and local agencies on the
Santa Ana Sucker Conservation Program (Program).
Mr. Chairman, this species continues to be the focus of litigation.
On August 23, 2011, 10 water agencies and two cities filed a formal
complaint in U.S. District Court, challenging the revised final
designation of critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker. Because of
the ongoing litigation, I am not able to talk about the issues
specifically alleged in the complaint. However, I want to make it clear
that the Service is continuing to work cooperatively with its many
partners, including the 24 permittees to the Western Riverside County
Plan, and members of the Santa Ana Sucker Collaborative Task Force, and
the Santa Ana Sucker Conservation Program.
We will continue to work collaboratively and transparently with all
our partners, including water users, to move forward with potential
conservation actions that may help the species. Ultimately, our goal is
to realize a healthy, self-sustaining population of Santa Ana sucker
and remove it from the list of threatened and endangered species. To
achieve this goal, we will work with others to identify and apply a
conservation strategy for the Santa Ana sucker so that future projects
can be implemented without impacting the species.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be pleased to
answer your questions.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by the Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Questions from Congresswoman Grace Napolitano:
The committee received testimony from the hearing where witnesses
stated that there is no new science to justify the 2010 final rule and
that the same science has been used for both the 2005 and 2010 ruling.
Question 1: What science was used for the preliminary and final rule
for designation of critical habitat in 2005? What science was
used in 2010?
Response: Critical habitat designations are made on the basis of
the best available scientific and commercial information at the time of
designation. The science used in the 2005 and 2010 critical habitat
designations are explained in each of the final rules (70 FR 426:
January 4, 2005 and 75 FR 77962: December 14, 2010). The 2010 rule
incorporates information used in the 2005 rule and includes information
and data generated since 2005. The criteria and methods used to
identify and delineate the areas designated as critical habitat
include:
(1) Mapping historical and current digital occurrence data for
Santa Ana sucker;
(2) Delineating the width of occupied areas to include areas
that provide sufficient riverine and associated floodplain area
for breeding, feeding, and sheltering of adult and juvenile
Santa Ana suckers and for the habitat needs of larval stage
fish and connectivity within and between populations;
(3) Delineating the upstream and downstream extents of the
areas to either the point of a natural or manmade barrier or to
the point where the instream gradient exceeds a 7 degree slope;
(4) Evaluating stream reaches to determine if additional
occupied or unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation
of this species and should be included;
(5) Adjusting the width to included areas containing: (a) wide
floodplains; (b) complex channels (such as alluvial fans and
braided channels); and (c) a mosaic of loose sand, gravel,
cobble, and boulder substrates in a series of riffles, runs,
pools, and shallow sandy stream margins needed to provide
stream and storm waters necessary to transport sediments to
maintain preferred substrate conditions in the downstream
occupied portions of the Santa Ana River and Big Tujunga Creek,
respectively; and
(6) Delineating the upstream limits of some river reaches by
identifying the upstream origin of sediment transport in these
tributaries to provide stream and storm waters necessary to
transport sediments to maintain preferred substrate conditions
in the downstream occupied portions of the Santa Ana River and
Big Tujunga Creek, respectively
See the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section of the
final rule for a detailed discussion (70 FR 426: January 4, 2005 and 75
FR 77962: December 14, 2010). FWS also included the literature cited in
attached files, which are part of decisional records for each rule and
contain all the literature used in our rulemaking process.
Additionally, in accordance with our peer review policy published on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), FWS solicited review of our rule by
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included
familiarity with the species, the geographic region in which the
species occurs, and conservation biology principles pertinent to the
species. FWS reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for
Santa Ana sucker. The peer reviewers generally concurred with FWS
methods and conclusions and provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions that were incorporated into the revised
final 2010 rule.
Question 2: What did the science indicate in 2005?
Response: The decisional record and the SUMMARY of the 2005 revised
final rule (70 FR 426: January 4, 2005) identified 23,719 acres of
habitat essential to the conservation of the species.
Question 3: Why was there a change in the designation between 2005 and
2010?
Response: The 2010 final revised rule updates our 2005 final
critical habitat designation for Santa Ana sucker with the best
available data. For some areas that were analyzed in 2005, new
information led us to either add or remove an area from the proposed
revised critical habitat designation and subsequently from this final
rule. A summary of the changes between the 2005 and 2010 designation
include:
(1) Refining the primary constituent elements (PCEs) to more
accurately define the physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of Santa Ana sucker;
(2) Revising criteria to more accurately identify critical
habitat;
(3) Improving the mapping methodology to more accurately
define critical habitat boundaries and better represent areas
that contain PCEs;
(4) Reevaluating areas considered for exclusion from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act; and
(5) Adding to, subtracting from, and revising those areas
previously identified as essential to the conservation of Santa
Ana sucker to accurately portray lands that meet the definition
of critical habitat based on the best scientific data
available. One example of a change from 2005 to 2010 is the
inclusion as critical habitat of stream reaches which provide
coarse sediments to downstream occupied areas. These coarse
sediments provide habitat features required for spawning and
foraging for the species in the occupied downstream areas.
For a detailed explanation, please see the Summary of Changes From
Previously Designated Critical Habitat and Summary of Changes From the
2005 Final Critical Habitat to This Final Critical Habitat Designation
sections and Table 1 of the final rule (75 FR 77962; December 14,
2010).
Question 4: Was the 2005 final rule influenced or affected in anyway by
political interference?
Response: Under section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act
(Act), the Secretary may exercise his discretion to exclude a specific
area from critical habitat designation if the determination is made
that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of
inclusion. The rationale for any exclusion is usually included in our
final rulemakings.
The 2005 revised final rule (70 FR 426; January 4, 2005) signed by
the former Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
identified 23,719 acres of essential habitat for the Santa Ana sucker.
However, only 8,305 acres of essential habitat was included in the
final designation.
Neither the 2005 rule nor its record explain the discrepancy
between the 23,719 acres of essential habitat identified in the SUMMARY
of the final rule as essential to the conservation of the species and
the 15,414 acres of essential habitat that were excluded from
designation.
Question 5: Why was the 2005 rule challenged? What caused the FWS to
reevaluate and revisit the 2005 rule?
Response: On November 15, 2007, several environmental groups filed
suit against U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) alleging the 2005
final designation of critical habitat violated provisions of the ESA
and the Administrative Procedure Act [(California Trout, Inc., et al.,
v. United States Fish and Wildlife, et al., Case No. 07-CV-05798 (N.D.
Cal.) transferred Case No CV 08-4811 (C.D. Cal.)]. The plaintiffs
alleged that our January 4, 2005, final revised critical habitat
designation for the Santa Ana sucker was insufficient for various
reasons, including scientific interference, and that FWS improperly
excluded areas in the Santa Ana River as critical habitat.
Subsequently, FWS entered into a settlement agreement to reconsider
critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker, and to submit a proposed
revision to the Federal Register on or before December 1, 2009. The
proposed rule to revise critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker was
published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2009 (74 FR 65056).
Status of the Species:
Question 1: Testimony received from witnesses indicated that the
species has not been in a decline since its listing. What is
the status of the species now? Has there been a decline of the
species since its initial listing?
Response: FWS is required by section 4(c)(2) of the ESA to conduct
a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The
purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species'
status has changed since it was listed. In a 5-year review, FWS
considers the best available scientific and commercial data on the
species, and focuses on new information available since the species was
listed or last reviewed. On March, 10, 2011, FWS completed a 5-year
review for the Santa Ana sucker. Based on the information that the
threats still affecting the species and its habitat persist, FWS
recommended no change in the threatened status of the species.
The following text is an excerpt from the synthesis section of our
March 10, 2011, 5-year review for this species:
``At listing, Santa Ana suckers occurred at six extant
occurrences among three watersheds (two in the Santa Ana River,
three in the San Gabriel River, and one in the Los Angeles
River). These occurrences were threatened by habitat
destruction, natural and human-induced changes in stream flows,
urban development and land-use practices, intensive recreation,
introduction of nonnative predators, and risks associated with
small population size. Santa Ana suckers have persisted at the
same six occurrences, but are confined within a smaller portion
of their historical range. The number of individuals within
these areas has also declined and their remaining habitat is
highly fragmented and degraded. Since listing, threats have
continued to increase in magnitude and impacts to the habitat
have been amplified rangewide, increasing the potential
extirpation of the species in two of the three watersheds
(Santa Ana River and Los Angeles River).''
The full 5-year review has been attached and provided.
Questions from Congressman Ken Calvert:
Question 1: In 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated
critical habitat to protect the Santa Ana Sucker. What new
scientific evidence has been found that lead the service to
conclude that a new critical habitat designation was necessary?
Response: At the time of listing in 2000 (65 FR 19686; April 12,
2000), Santa Ana suckers occurred at six extant areas among three
watersheds (two in the Santa Ana River, three in the San Gabriel River,
and one in the Los Angeles River). These occurrences were threatened by
habitat destruction, natural and human-induced changes in stream flows,
urban development and land-use practices, intensive recreation,
introduction of nonnative predators, and risks associated with small
population size. Santa Ana suckers have persisted at the same six
occurrences, but are confined within a smaller portion of their
historical range. The number of individuals within these areas has also
declined and their remaining habitat is highly fragmented and degraded.
Based on information gathered since listing, threats to the species
have continued to increase in magnitude and impacts to the habitat have
been amplified rangewide, increasing the potential extirpation of the
species in two of the three watersheds (Santa Ana River and Los Angeles
River).
A summary of the changes between the 2005 and 2010 designation
include:
(1) Refining the primary constituent elements (PCEs) to more
accurately define the physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of Santa Ana sucker;
(2) Revising criteria to more accurately identify critical
habitat;
(3) Improving the mapping methodology to more accurately
define critical habitat boundaries and better represent areas
that contain PCEs;
(4) Reevaluating areas considered for exclusion from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act; and
(5) Adding to, subtracting from, and revising those areas
previously identified as essential to the conservation of Santa
Ana sucker to accurately portray lands that meet the definition
of critical habitat based on the best scientific data
available. One example of a change from 2005 to 2010 is the
inclusion as critical habitat of stream reaches which provide
coarse sediments to downstream occupied areas. These coarse
sediments provide habitat features required for spawning and
foraging for the species in the occupied downstream areas.
For a detailed explanation, please see the Summary of Changes From
Previously Designated Critical Habitat and Summary of Changes From the
2005 Final Critical Habitat to This Final Critical Habitat Designation
sections and Table 1 of the final rule (75 FR 77962; December 14,
2010).
Question 2: Areas of dry riverbed have been included in the revised
Critical Habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker. How many Santa Ana
Suckers live in dry riverbed? Why was dry riverbed included in
a Critical Habitat designation for the Santa Ana Sucker? Is
there any precedent for such an action?
Response: While there may be extended periods of time where
portions of riverbeds associated with the critical habitat designation
for Santa Ana sucker are dry, these areas are essential because they
provide for coarse sediment delivery to areas downstream that are
occupied by the species during seasonal flows or high water events.
These coarse sediments provide habitat features required for spawning
and foraging for the species. Our previous rulemakings identified
unoccupied portions of the Santa Ana Wash as essential for the
conservation of the species.
In the 2004 final rule (69 FR 8839; February 26, 2004) designating
critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker, issued simultaneously with
the 2004 proposed critical habitat designation, unoccupied portions of
the Santa Ana Wash were identified as essential for the conservation of
the species because they provide and transport sediment necessary to
maintain the preferred substrates utilized by this fish (Dr. Thomas
Haglund, pers. comm. 2004; Dr. Jonathan Baskin, Professor Emeritus,
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, pers. comm. 2004; NOAA
2003); convey stream flows and flood waters necessary to maintain
habitat conditions for the Santa Ana sucker; and support riparian
habitats that protect water quality in the downstream portions of the
Santa Ana River occupied by the sucker (69 FR 8845).
In the 2010 revised final critical habitat designation for the
Santa Ana sucker, FWS reaffirmed that spawning and feeding substrates
(gravel and cobble), which are replenished by upstream sources, are
essential to the reproductive ability and development of Santa Ana
suckers in the downstream occupied reaches (Kondolf 1997, pp. 533-535,
536-537). The sections of the Santa Ana River above Tippecanoe Avenue
in San Bernardino, City Creek, and Mill Creek (although not currently
occupied) are essential for the conservation of the species since the
Seven Oaks Dam has reduced the transport of coarse sediment and altered
the natural flow in the downstream, occupied areas of the Santa Ana
River. These sections are the primary sources of coarse sediment in the
upper Santa Ana River watershed and additionally are part of the Santa
Ana River hydrologic system (PCE1), and assist in maintaining water
quality and temperature to occupied reaches of the Santa Ana River;
therefore, these areas are essential for the conservation of Santa Ana
sucker (75 FR 77978).
Question 3: In December of 2010, your agency revised the Critical
Habitat Designation for the Santa Ana Sucker. Several Members
of this Congress, including myself, contacted you in advance of
your action requesting that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
take into account critically important economic and
infrastructure concerns that were raised by a group of local
stakeholders before that Critical Habitat Designation was made.
Can you explain to us why your agency disregarded these
concerns in issuing the revised habitat?
Response: All comments from Members of Congress and stakeholders
were taken into consideration when making the revised final designation
of critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker. A draft of the economic
analysis was made available for public review and comment. The final
economic analysis quantified the economic impacts of all potential
conservation efforts for Santa Ana sucker.
The economic impact of the proposed revised critical habitat
designation was analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with critical
habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The ``without critical
habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis,
considering protections that are already in place for the species (such
as protections under the Act and other Federal, State, and local
regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents costs incurred
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated.
The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes incremental costs
attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat above and
beyond the baseline costs. The Draft Economic Analysis qualitatively
discusses the potential incremental economic benefits associated with
the designation of critical habitat.
The analysis forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely
to occur if FWS finalized the proposed revised critical habitat
designation. The final analysis determined incremental impacts
associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat could
range from $14.3 to $450 million over the next 20 years in present
value terms using a 7 percent discount. After consideration of the
economic impacts, the Secretary did not exercise his delegated
discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude any areas from
the final critical habitat designation based on the economic impacts.
FWS also reviewed the ``Husing'' economic report and adjusted the
potential economic impacts in the Final Economic Analysis for the
designation. For example, the Husing report assumes that all water
projects in Unit 1 (Santa Ana River/Plunge Creek) will no longer have
access to water sources in critical habitat areas following critical
habitat designation for sucker. Some of these projects are existing,
ongoing projects, while others are planned future projects. The Husing
reports estimate that the total annual volume of water needing
replacement, beginning in 2010, is 125,800 acre-feet and then applies
the current cost of State Water Project Water (Metropolitan Water
District) Tier 2 rate of $594 ($811 less $217 treatment surcharge),
raised at a rate of 2.97 percent over inflation over a 26 year period,
to estimate the longer term costs of this loss. Husing does not
discount his estimates, arriving at an undiscounted total value of
$2.87 billion over 26 years.
Following receipt of public comments on this issue, FWS provided
estimates of the likelihood of critical habitat impacts on projects
identified in the Husing report. These are included in the Final
Economic Analysis (Exhibit 3-3). In the Final Economic Analysis, FWS
qualitatively provided its rationale as to why it concluded that the
costs identified in the report were an overestimate and did not
accurately reflect the incremental costs of the critical habitat
designation (Industrial Economics 2010). FWS believes costs identified
in the Husing report are overestimates because any projects with a
Federal nexus that would impact the Santa Ana sucker would still
require section 7 consultation with FWS. Therefore, many of the costs
are actually not associated with the designation of critical habitat.
Rather, they are baseline costs that would be incurred regardless of
critical habitat designation. Also, FWS considers the assumption that
all water diversions will be curtailed as was asserted in some of the
comments received on the proposed rule to be speculative and not
factually supported.
Significant economic and infrastructure concerns were expressed by
stakeholders regarding the proposed designation of critical habitat in
Plunge Creek above Seven Oaks Dam that is not known to be occupied by
the species. In the final revised rule, FWS removed this area from
designation.
Question 4: The Santa Ana Sucker was protected under an existing
Habitat Conservation Plan and a Critical Habitat Designation,
both of which had been in place for many years. Local agencies
were working in partnership with your agency to study the fish
and protect its future. Why was a revised Habitat Designation
necessary and why was it necessary to designate new lands
within the habitat conservation plan?
Response: Since the Santa Ana sucker was listed over a decade ago,
FWS has worked with multiple jurisdictions, including 22 participating
permittees, through the Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (Plan). FWS also have worked cooperatively
with other Federal, State, and local agencies on the Santa Ana Sucker
Conservation Program (Program).
In the 2010 revised final rule, FWS analyzed the benefits of
including lands covered by the Plan and the Program in the final
designation and the benefits of excluding those lands from the
designation. Although both the Plan and Program have established
valuable partnerships that are intended to implement conservation
actions for Santa Ana sucker, potential future activities, not
addressed by either the Plan or Program but with a Federal nexus, could
affect the sucker or its habitat and would be subject to the
interagency consultation provisions of section 7 of the Act. In
conducting the evaluation under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, FWS
determined the benefits of inclusion outweighed the benefits of
excluding these areas because the designation will assist in achieving
additional conservation not currently provided under the Plan or
Program areas. The analysis and rationale are explained in in the final
rule.
Furthermore, activities that were already permitted under the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan are
not affected by the designation of critical habitat. FWS analyzed the
potential loss or degradation of up to 376 acres of Santa Ana sucker
critical habitat resulting from covered activities under the Plan and
completed an amendment to the Biological Opinion for the Plan. Our
Biological Opinion concluded that offsetting land conservation and
adaptive management prescriptions provided by the Plan are sufficient
such that the ecological function and value of the primary constituent
elements for the Santa Ana sucker will not be appreciably diminished.
Question 5: Why did the USFWS decline to participate in the development
of the Seven Oaks Dam Project? Since Santa Ana Sucker Habitat
was being discussed, wouldn't it have been appropriate and
prudent for the Service to participate?
Response: Congressional authorization enabled construction of Seven
Oaks Dam. FWS consulted on effects of the project in 1989. A second
consultation on operations of Seven Oaks Dam for flood control purposes
was completed in 2002.
Recent hearings before the California State Water Resources Control
Board took place to grant water rights for the purpose of appropriating
water by direct diversion and storage to groundwater basins for
beneficial use. The water rights decision outlined in the STATE OF
CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD DECISION 1649 contains
several orders including:
Order: 14. Nothing in this permit shall be construed as
authorizing any diversions contrary to the provisions of the
December 19, 2002 Biological Opinion issued by United States
Fish and Wildlife Service for operation of Seven Oaks Dam, as
may be revised in the future, including flow releases for
downstream over-bank inundation to preserve State and federally
listed threatened and endangered species and their habitat.
Due to the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office having an overwhelming
consultation and litigation workload, driven in large part by deadlines
that force the FWS to set priorities, the Service was unable to
participate in the state water rights hearings.
Furthermore, because the operation of Seven Oaks Dam, in
coordination with Prado Dam downstream, is currently permitted for
flood control operations only (operations that regulate flows
throughout the year in an effort to prevent catastrophic flow events
downstream), and not for water storage purposes, the flow of water
through the dam currently provides water necessary for reaches of the
Santa Ana River downstream that are occupied by the Santa Ana sucker.
Notwithstanding the recent decision by the California State Water
Resources Control Board to allow, under certain circumstances, up to
200,000 acre-feet to be diverted from the Seven Oaks Dam reservoir,
storing water for the purpose of water conservation is not currently
permitted?? by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Seven Oaks Dam.
Should the Corps of Engineers propose a reoperation of Seven Oaks Dam
so water can be diverted for water conservation purposes, such action
would constitute a project requiring consultation under section 7 of
the ESA.
______
Mr. McClintock. OK, thank you, Mr. Lohoefener
I now would like to recognize Colonel Michael Wehr,
Commander of the South Pacific division for the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers from San Francisco, California, to testify.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL MICHAEL WEHR, COMMANDER, SOUTH PACIFIC
DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA
Colonel Wehr. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Lewis, and
Congressman Calvert, I am Colonel Mike Wehr, the Commander of
South Pacific Division for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
I am honored to be here today to testify, again, on behalf
of Major General Temple. My testimony will discuss the Corps'
approach to critical habitat management and ongoing
construction, operation, and maintenance of the Santa Ana River
Mainstem flood risk reduction project, hereon referred to as
the project.
The project consists of Seven Oaks Dam in San Bernardino
County, the Prado Dam in Orange County. It includes 75 miles of
flood protection, fish and wildlife mitigation, and
recreational features along the Santa Ana River through Orange
County, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.
In conjunction with the physical construction of our
projects, we are committed to protecting life and property, and
being good stewards of the environment, while being fully aware
of water supply requirements.
The Corps works with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
the objective of recovering the Santa Ana Sucker and protecting
its habitat. On 2 August 2010, we submitted a letter related to
the Service's Santa Ana Sucker critical habitat proposal and
draft economic analysis. In this, comment letter, we alerted
the Service of the potential impacts of the critical habitat
designation on the ongoing future construction and continued
operations of the project. The purpose of the letter was to
ensure that the Service was aware of the vital importance of
the project in protecting lives and property, and requested
that they consider these factors when making its final
determination. The Service was responsive to our concerns.
Since the recent designation of the critical habitat, the
Corps and the Service have cooperated to ensure the
construction is not delayed while we analyze potential effects
of ongoing operations. Construction of the bank revetment
consisting of sheet piles and riprap below Prado Dam remains on
schedule. We recently awarded the construction contract of the
initial phase of channel improvements as well.
The Corps and local sponsors also continue to operate Prado
and Seven Oaks Dam while completing designs for the remaining
features, including bank protection, dikes, and raising the
Prado Dam spillway.
The Corps has begun the process of evaluating whether the
construction and operation of various features of the project
individually and cumulatively may adversely affect critical
habitat. The analysis will include a review of the project with
and without the project using hydraulic and hydrologic data,
existing and predicted future habitat conditions of the Santa
Ana Sucker population.
Prior to initiating new construction in the summer of 2012,
we must complete this analysis, and if necessary, complete
formal section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act.
Potential species impacts have been addressed in previous
consultations for the project. The Corps has expended $10
million for Santa Ana Sucker habitat restoration surveys and
relocations under section 7. This investment equates to a half
a percent of the $2 billion project cost, which does in fact
provide over $15 billion in protection and flood risk reduction
within the watershed.
The Corps is also participating in a collaborative process
with resource agencies, water districts, flood control
districts, and other interested parties. The objective is to
seek potential solutions for improving conditions for the Santa
Ana Sucker without adversely impacting vital water resource
programs.
In the interim, ongoing construction and distant operations
have not been impeded by the critical habitat designation.
In terms of our regulatory program, the expanded
designation of critical habitat may increase the number of
consultations with the Service for proposed permits under the
Rivers and Harbors and Clean Water acts.
As part of the permit application evaluation process, we
must ensure the projects and project modifications comply with
the Endangered Species Act, potential impacts to critical
habitat must be considered in addition the impacts to the
species itself. Generally speaking, the presence of critical
habitat results in the Corps and Service consultation even when
there is no impact or no effect determination made for that
species.
In closing, public safety is a number one priority for the
Federal community of the Corps of Engineers. The Service works
closely with us, and we share a common goal to avoid imminent
loss of human life and property while managing flood risk,
while incorporating environmental protection and stewardship.
This concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today, and I would look forward to
answering questions, along with Mr. Brian Moore of the panel.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Wehr follows:]
Statement of Colonel Michael C. Wehr, Commander, South Pacific
Division,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am
Colonel Michael Wehr, Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) South Pacific Division. I am honored to be testifying before
your Subcommittee today. My testimony today will discuss the Corps
approach to critical habitat management and ongoing construction,
operation and maintenance of the Santa Ana River Mainstem project.
Background
The Corps supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service)
objective of recovering the Santa Ana sucker and protecting its
habitat. In a comment letter dated August 2, 2010, on the Santa Ana
Sucker Critical Habitat Proposal and Draft Economic Analysis, Docket
No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0072, the Corps alerted the Service of the potential
impacts of critical habitat designation on ongoing and future
construction of the Santa Ana River Mainstem flood risk reduction
project (SARP), as well as continued operations of project features.
The purpose of the letter was to ensure that the Service was aware of
the vital importance of the SARP in protecting lives and property, and
to request that the Service consider these factors when making its
final determination.
Effects on the Construction and Operations of Santa Ana River Mainstem
Since the recent designation of critical habitat, the Corps and the
Service are working cooperatively to ensure that construction is not
delayed while we analyze potential effects of ongoing operations.
Construction of ``Reach 9 Phase 2B'' (below Prado Dam) is on schedule,
and we recently awarded the construction contract for ``Reach 9 Phase
2A.'' The Corps and local sponsors also continue to operate Prado Dam
and Seven Oaks Dam while we are completing design work for additional
features.
The Corps has also begun the process of evaluating whether the
construction and operation of various features of the SARP
(individually or cumulatively) may adversely modify critical habitat.
This analysis will include a review of ``with and without project''
hydraulic and hydrologic data, existing and predicted future habitat
conditions, Santa Ana sucker population data, and other information.
This analysis will likely take several months to complete. The Corps
Los Angeles District's goal is to complete this analysis and, if
necessary, complete formal Section 7 (Endangered Species Act)
consultation prior to initiating new construction that would directly
affect perennial stream habitat (currently scheduled for late summer
2012).
Currently the Corps does not anticipate that the designation of
critical habitat will trigger requirements beyond those just described.
Potential species impacts have been addressed in previous
consultations, and the Corps has already expended or committed $10
million for sucker habitat restoration, surveys and relocations under
previous Section 7 consultations.
The Corps is also participating in a collaborative process with
resources agencies, water districts, flood control districts and other
interested parties. The objective is to seek potential solutions for
improving conditions for the Santa Ana sucker, without adversely
impacting vital water resources programs.
In the interim, ongoing construction and existing operations have
not been impeded by the critical habitat designation.
Regulatory Considerations
The expanded designation of critical habitat may increase the
number of consultations with the Service for proposed activities
requiring authorizations under the Rivers and Harbors and Clean Water
Acts. As part of the permit application evaluation process, staff from
the Corps Regulatory program must ensure that projects and project
modifications comply with the Endangered Species Act. Potential impacts
to both critical habitat must be considered in addition to impacts to
the species itself. The Corps will review the primary constituent
elements identified in the Federal Register final rule for critical
habitat and determine whether consultation for critical habitat is
needed. Generally, the presence of critical habitat results in the
Corps and Service undertaking consultation, even where there is a ``no
effect'' determination made for the species. Also, the 2010
redesignation of critical habitat declined to exclude the lands in the
Santa Ana River watershed covered by the Santa Ana Sucker Conservation
Program and the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan from critical habitat designation. Consequently, more
projects may now be subject to Endangered Species Act Section 7
requirements.
This concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other
Members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Colonel Wehr.
I would now like to recognize Mr. John Rossi, the General
Manager of Western Municipal Water District from Riverside,
California, to testify.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ROSSI, GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Rossi. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Lewis, thank you
for inviting me to testify today regarding the critical habitat
designation for the Santa Ana Sucker fish.
To lead with my conclusion, the 2010 critical habitat
designation for the Sucker would cause massive economic
hardship in a region already besieged by the recent economic
downturn, threatens the already-fragile California Bay-Delta
system, and fails to provide any real benefit to the species.
The Service should vacate the ruling and revert to their 2005
critical habitat designation.
Western Municipal Water District is a regional wholesale
water agency and a member of the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California. We provide wholesale water, retail water,
and wastewater services to a 500-square mile service area
within Riverside County with a population of over 800,000
people. Our region is still growing in spite of taking a
massive hit from the recent economic downturn.
Current growth projections require us to plan for huge
increases in water demand over the coming years.
Imported water supplies are facing deep and sustained cuts.
For instance, the State Water Project currently accounts for
about 60 percent of the needs of Riverside County of the Inland
Empire. But Federal court rulings on Delta Smelt left us facing
as much as 40 percent cutbacks in just the last couple of
years. Due to drought and water quality concerns, the Colorado
River is also an uncertain source of water.
Rather than simply praying for rain, our region has
undertaken a number of projects to grow in-basin water
supplies. One of the most important projects is the Seven Oaks
Dam Stormwater Management Project, a joint effort between my
agency and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District.
It is the largest new water project developed and the Inland
Empire since the State Water Project. It will help us to
capture up to 200,000 acre-feet of additional stormwater each
year from local mountains and use it for groundwater recharge
and water banking.
New water supplies created by this project would replace
imported water from the State Water Project and the Colorado
River in times of drought or other shortages.
We spent many years and millions of dollars developing this
project. We also undertook an 18-year process to secure water
rights to some of the water stored behind the Seven Oaks Dam.
Throughout that time, we worked very closely with the
California Department of Fish and Game, as well as the United
States Forest Service. As a result of these conversations and
discussions, we reached an agreement with both agencies to
protect natural resources, including the Santa Ana Sucker
habitat. Oddly, the Fish and Wildlife Service did not
participate in that process.
During the water rights process, the State Water Resources
Control Board found that the project would not harm the Sucker
since the water we would store came from areas where the Sucker
never existed and because natural water and cobble-moving flows
below the dam were sufficient to satisfy the Suckers' needs.
The board's findings were very much in line with the
Service's 2005 critical habitat designation for the Sucker.
That designation did not include the dry upper Santa Ana River
areas as habitat, finding that these areas were, and I quote
from the 2005 designation, ``not essential to the conservation
of the species.'' That designation in '05 also found that
enormous cost to the Inland Empire's economy far outweighed any
benefits to the species.
We believe that the '05 designation struck the proper
balance between species protection and infrastructure
development. The 2010 habitat designation, however, fails to
strike that balance. It ignores the best available science,
including findings by the State Water Resources Control Board
that the Sucker would not be impacted by our project. It also
fails to account for the dire economic impacts that could
result from the ruling.
There is no clear evidence that any of the newly designated
areas have ever supported a population of Suckers. Many of
these areas are very dry, bone dry for up to 10 or 11 months
out of each year, and others are prone to flooding and do not
have the proper substrates, water temperatures, or other
environmental conditions needed for the Sucker. Simply put, the
decision would not help the Sucker.
Finally, the Service fails to provide the scientific
evidence to justify the designation and ignores key
environmental data. Again, the critical habitat in 2010 for the
Sucker would void innovative local water supply projects,
causing economic hardship. It provides no benefit, and it is
not supported by the best science.
We urge the Service to rescind the rule and revert to the
more defensible '05 action.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rossi follows:]
Statement of John Rossi, General Manager,
Western Municipal Water District
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me to testify today regarding the critical habitat designation for the
Santa Ana Sucker (Sucker). To lead with my conclusion, the 2010
critical habitat designation for the Sucker would cause massive
economic hardship in a region already besieged by the recent economic
downturn, threatens the already-fragile California Bay-Delta system,
and fails to provide any benefit to the species. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) should vacate the ruling and revert to their
2005 critical habitat designation.
Western Municipal Water District is a regional wholesale water
agency and a member of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California. We provide wholesale and retail water and wastewater
services to a 527 square mile service area with a population of over
800,000 people. Our region is still growing in spite of taking a
massive hit from the economic downturn. Current growth projections
require us to plan for huge increases in water demand over the coming
years.
Even while we plan for this growth, imported water supplies are
facing deep and sustained cuts. For instance, the State Water Project
currently accounts for about 60 percent of the water needs of Riverside
County. But federal court rulings on the Delta Smelt left us facing as
much as a 40 percent cutback in recent years. Due to drought and water
quality concerns, the Colorado River is also an uncertain source of
water.
Rather than simply praying for rain, we have undertaken a number of
projects to grow in-basin water supplies. One of the most important
projects is the Seven Oaks Dam Stormwater Management Project, (Seven
Oaks Project), a joint effort between my District and the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. It would be the largest new
water project developed in the Inland Empire since the State Water
Project. It will enable us to capture up to 200,000 acre-feet of
additional stormwater each year from the local mountains and use it for
groundwater recharge and water banking.
New water supplies created by the Seven Oaks Project would replace
imported water from the California State Water Project and the Colorado
River in times of drought or other shortages.
By better managing our precious imported water supplies, it
supports the Secretary of the Interior's role as Watermaster of the
Lower Colorado River. We believe the project is integral to the State
of California's effort to implement the Quantification Settlement
Agreement, a key foundation for future Lower Colorado River management
by the Secretary.
Further, the project will be integral to the implementation of the
``Seven States Agreement'' in the Colorado River Basin. We are all very
pleased that this accord has been signed and we now build projects
which help address shortages on the Colorado River.
We spent many years and millions of dollars developing the Seven
Oaks Project. We also undertook a 18 year process to secure rights to
some of the water stored behind the Seven Oaks Dam. Throughout that
time, we worked very closely with the California Department of Fish and
Game as well as the United States Forest Service. As a result of these
discussions, we reached an agreement with both agencies to protect
natural resources, including Santa Ana Sucker habitat. Oddly, the US
Fish and Wildlife Service declined to participate in that process.
During the water rights process, the State Water Resources Control
Board (Board) found that the project would not harm the Sucker since
the water we would store came from areas where the Sucker never existed
and because natural water and cobble-moving flows below the dam were
sufficient to satisfy the Sucker's needs.
The Board's findings were very much in line with the Service's 2005
critical habitat designation for the Sucker. That critical habitat
designation did not include the dry upper Santa Ana River areas as
critical habitat, finding that these areas were, and I quote from the
2005 designation, ``not essential to the conservation of the species.''
The 2005 designation also found that the enormous costs to the Inland
Empire's economy far outweighed any benefits to the species.
We believe the 2005 critical habitat designation struck the proper
balance between species protection and infrastructure development. The
Service's 2010 critical habitat designation, however, fails to strike
that balance. It ignores the best available science, including findings
by the State Water Resources Control Board that the Sucker would not be
impacted by our project. It also fails to account for the dire economic
that could result from their ruling. Let me flesh these issues out a
bit.
There is no clear evidence that any of the newly designated areas
have ever supported a population of Suckers. Many of these areas are
bone dry for up to eleven months out of the year and others are prone
to flooding otherwise do not have the proper substrates, water
temperatures or other environmental conditions needed for the Sucker.
Simply put, this decision will do nothing to help the Sucker.
But the consequences of the critical habitat designation could be
enormous. The critical habitat designation threatens our rights to
water behind the dam and could spell the end of our Seven Oaks Dam
Stormwater Management Project. The impact of that cannot be
understated.
You will hear testimony from others on the potential for economic
damage, so I will not dwell on that other than to say that imported
water is far more expensive than local supplies. We could lose up to
125,800 acre feet of water a year to the Inland Empire. Importing this
amount of water each year for 25 years would cost nearly $3 billion.
And that assumes that imported water is even available. In March
2011, with California's snow pack at 165% of normal, the State Water
Project estimated that it will only be able to supply its regional
water agencies with 70% of their current water allocations. In recent
years those shares were 50% in 2010, 40% in 2009, 35% in 2008 and 60%
in 2007. If we need more water from the State Water Project, we will
very likely not be able to get it. Therefore this local supply is
critical to our region.
The 2010 ruling, couched as environmentally sensitive, is actually
an environmental loser. The Sucker's critical habitat designation will
force us to curtail water conservation, recycling, and conjunctive use
projects. Instead we will have little choice but to rely on whatever
imported water is available, including water from the already fragile
By-Delta system.
Finally, the Service fails to provide scientific evidence to
justify the critical habitat designation and ignored key environmental
data. The agency's key argument that high water flows are beneficial to
the species is belied by studies that show such flows actually harm
Sucker habitat. The Service also ignored the species conservation
efforts undertaken by the water agencies, efforts that included
monitoring surveys, invasive species removal, and enhanced project
management.
Again, the 2010 critical habitat for the Sucker could void
innovative local water supply projects thus causing massive economic
hardship, threatens the Bay-Delta system, provides no benefit to the
species, and is not supported by the best science. We urge the Service
to rescind their ruling and revert to their more defensible 2005
decision.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by John Rossi,
General Manager, Western Municipal Water District
1. Mr. Chairman, conservation efforts for the Santa Ana Sucker
were discussed as part of the hearings and meetings related to
our water rights application to the State Water Resources
Control Board. The Service declined to participate in that
process. Let me provide a timeline of events.
In 2002, the Service issued a Biological Opinion that found
that the operation of Seven Oaks Dam for flood control would
not have an adverse effect on the Santa Ana Sucker. When
Western Municipal Water District and San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District prepared the Draft EIR for our water
conservation project in 2004, we met with the Service. We
explained that the water conservation operation of Seven Oaks
would keep the maximum water level below the level analyzed by
the Corps of Engineers and found not to adversely effect the
Santa Ana Sucker. The Service then chose not to participate in
the State Water Resources Control Board hearings on the water
right application. Unlike the U.S. Forest Service or the
California Department of Fish & Game, the Service did not
protest our application, did not appear at the hearing, and
never indicated they were concerned about the project's effects
on the Santa Ana Sucker. A reason was not forwarded as to why
F&S did not participate in the state water resource control
board process. Then, in 2009 they agreed to reconsider the
critical habitat for the species.
2. Mr. Chairman, Section 7 consultation would have been
required for actions that may have affected the Santa Ana
Sucker even without the expanded critical habitat designation
for the species. However, the designation does add another
dimension to a Section 7 consultation. In addition to reviewing
a proposed project's effects on the species, we will now have
to address impacts to the critical habitat. This higher
threshold clearly threatens crucial water supply projects.
3. Mr. Chairman, I question how the Service can claim that
infrastructure project delays resulting from ``regulatory
uncertainty'' are only ``indirect, incremental impacts of
critical habitat designation.'' Our ratepayers struggle to
understand why we are spending millions of dollars of project
planning and design if that project may not move forward due to
the ever-changing federal rules. In the real world, the effect
of the critical habitat designation is neither ``indirect'' nor
``incremental.''
4. Mr. Chairman, under California state law, water service
providers must evaluate whether water supplies are sufficient
to meet the proposed project's water demands over a 20 year
period. The projects cannot proceed if the water agencies
cannot certify sufficient supplies. The Sucker's critical
habitat designation could make it extremely difficult for us to
certify that sufficient water exists for projects. In that
case, our region will not be able to expand our current
businesses, much less attract new businesses to the region.
This would kill our already struggling local economy.
5. With the uncertainty that the critical habitat designation
causes, it could imperial the agencies ability to fund the
improvements necessary to capture the water for storage and
distribution. Otherwise, the stormwater, an important source of
water, will flow out to the ocean and be lost as a water
supply.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Rossi.
Our final witness is Ms. Stacey Aldstadt, General Manager
of the City of San Bernardino Water Department from San
Bernardino, California, to testify.
STATEMENT OF STACEY ALDSTADT, GENERAL MANAGER,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO WATER DEPARTMENT, SAN BERNARDINO,
CALIFORNIA
Ms. Aldstadt. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lewis, and
Mr. Calvert. My name is Stacey Aldstadt, and I am the General
Manager for the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water
Department.
As reported yesterday in the San Bernardino Sun, our
community is one of the poorest in the country, second only to
Detroit in those living below the poverty level.
Despite its ranking as one of the poorest cities in the
United States, the Federal Government now wants San Bernardino
ratepayers to pay even more, more money for mitigation, more
money for recycled projects, more money for recharge, without
any guarantee that more money will help either the habitat or
the existence of the Santa Ana Sucker.
Since 1996 when San Bernardino began discharging highly
treated wastewater into the semi-dry stretch of the Santa Ana
River below La Cadena Drive in Riverside County, wastewater
from our RIX facility has created abundant habitat for the
Sucker.
The amount of treatment that San Bernardino uses at the RIX
facility is so extensive that the water entering the riverbed
is crystal clear, free of pollutants, and very, very high
quality.
The people who pay to recycle this water, the ratepayers of
San Bernardino, Highland, and Loma Linda, also pay for water
from the Bay Delta to recharge our local groundwater basins.
San Bernardino wants to reduce the amount of wastewater
that is discharged into the river and recycle it to replenish
our groundwater basin. San Bernardino also wants to reduce the
amount of water it draws from the Bay Delta, as that water
source is unreliable and subject to environmental restrictions.
It isn't enough that some of the poorest people in this
Nation support the cost of high-level wastewater treatment. The
Center for Biological Diversity would have them shoulder the
costs of sustaining the Santa Ana Sucker, the costs to purchase
water from the Bay Delta, and the costs of an unsustainable,
unstable water supply
For decades, the San Bernardino Water Department and other
regional water agencies have been doing our job in making plans
for a sustainable, cost-effective, local water supply. Despite
all of the planning that has been done and all of the money
that has been spent by regional taxpayers, we might still be
left in an artificial drought by the recent actions taken by
the United States Fish and Wildlife in expanding the area of
critical habitat.
The ultimate irony, of course, is that we all thought we
were doing the right things. Our agency's plan for decades to
provide sustainable water supplies so that we could reduce our
dependence on water from the North and, not coincidentally, to
reduce impacts to the Delta Smelt. My agency and others began
working on sustainability of the Santa Ana Sucker back in 1999.
We have spent money and valuable staff time doing fish
population and breeding surveys, water temperature testing, and
habitat restoration projects.
We sat at the table side-by-side with the United States
Fish and Wildlife for over 10 years and relied on their
assurances that we were good stewards and that our efforts
would be appreciated. And in fact, in the original 2005
critical habitat designation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service excluded the areas that were under our management in
the Santa Ana Sucker Conservation Program for that very reason.
At that time, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognized that
our team knew what it was doing.
Pushing the costs of preserving a species onto the
shoulders of the poorest people in the United States might make
sense if the science said that the fish is truly in decline or
that there were particular things that would help it. However,
after the many hours that we have spent studying the subject, I
can say that there is no credible scientific evidence that the
Santa Ana Sucker is truly in decline.
The Center for Biological Diversity as a latecomer to the
conservation team and a hit-or-miss attendee has absolutely no
credibility on this issue. In fact, the numbers are all over
the board.
There is no evidence to indicate what if anything is
causing a problem for the Suckers. And there is absolutely no
plan whatsoever regarding how to increase those numbers.
This is not a case of man vs. fish. Our agencies acted in
good faith, used good judgment, and did the right things for
both man and fish. We should not be the poster children for the
saying, ``no good deed goes unpunished.''
Members of the Committee, I thank you for this opportunity
to testify, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Aldstadt follows:]
Statement of Stacey Aldstadt, General Manager,
City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
Chairman McClintock and Members of the Committee, thank you for
this opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Stacey
Aldstadt, and I am the General Manager of the City of San Bernardino
Municipal Water Department. Your oversight of the Fish and Wildlife
Service's Final Rule on the Santa Ana Sucker's Critical Habitat is
critically important to my Department. In short, the Service has
overreached in issuing their December 2010 Final Rule and the Final
Rule must be rescinded.
My Department provides retail water service to over 150,000
customers in the City of San Bernardino, and wastewater service to over
200,000 customers. We own and operate a secondary wastewater facility
located in San Bernardino. Secondary wastewater is treated and then
piped down to our tertiary wastewater treatment facility, known as the
Rapid Infiltration and Extraction or ``RIX'' facility, which discharges
highly treated effluent into the otherwise dry riverbed known as the
Santa Ana River. Since we began discharging into the Santa Ana River in
1996, portions of the population of the Santa Ana Sucker have moved
into and inhabited the river reach downstream of the RIX facility.
My Department has been involved in the Santa Ana Sucker (SAS)
Conservation Team since the group formed in 1998. That multi-agency
organization includes federal, state and local partners with the common
goal of engaging each agency and the private sector in a river-wide
approach to the conservation of the Santa Ana Sucker. Over the years,
the SAS Conservation Team has spent over a million dollars
collectively, and my agency alone has spent over $100,000 toward the
team's efforts. I have participated in the development of the SAS
Conservation Program and, in fact, served as chairperson for the
Conservation Team in the early years of its implementation.
The SAS Conservation Program is a regional program that encompasses
the Santa Ana River and the lower reaches of its tributaries extending
from Tippecanoe Avenue in San Bernardino County downstream to Chapman
Avenue in Orange County. It is intended to conserve the Santa Ana
Sucker and protect its habitat through: (1) implementation of a
systematic approach to conducting routine operations and facilities
maintenance; (2) education and outreach; (3) conducting annual surveys
to monitor the status of the Sucker and conducting a quantitative
assessment of habitat conditions within the program area; (4)
conducting surveys for Suckers prior to undertaking routine operations
and maintenance; (5) funding research actions to increase the
understanding of Sucker biology; and (6) developing and implementing
habitat restoration activities that benefit the Santa Ana Sucker.
The SAS Conservation Program has generated significant research on
the Santa Ana sucker, including the completion of reproductive
monitoring surveys, the development of population estimates, increased
project management, pit tagging, invasive species removal, and habitat
surveying and mapping. The Conservation Team's efforts are ongoing.
Among other things, it is responsible for the continuing restoration of
Sunnyslope Creek in Riverside County. It is interesting to note that,
although invited to attend, the Center for Biological Diversity has
never attended any of the Conservation Team meetings, nor has it
contributed either funding or staff time to our efforts.
During the same timeframe that the above described efforts were
taking place in California, the Fish and Wildlife Service was moving
forward with a variety of federal actions related to the Sucker. In
2005, the USFWS established an area of Critical Habitat for the fish, a
process in which my agency and many others in the Santa Ana Sucker Task
Force participated and remember well. At the time, the Service proposed
that most of the Santa Ana River be included in the designation.
Ultimately, the Service decided not to designate the dry upper Santa
Ana River areas as critical habitat, finding that these areas were not,
and I quote, ``essential to the conservation of the species'' and that
the enormous costs to the Inland Empire's economy far outweighed any
benefits to the species.
Additionally, the Service determined that those segments of the
Santa Ana River that had been included in the Santa Ana Sucker
Conservation Team's efforts were being managed for the benefit of the
fish and, therefore, excluded those segments from the 2005 Critical
Habitat designation.
Our water agencies have been conserving the Santa Ana Sucker
successfully since 1998, and will continue to do so. Our efforts have
included fish surveys, and habitat restoration pilot projects, and we
have submitted work plans to build fish spawning grounds in conjunction
with other conservation efforts. In addition, we have clearly and
repeatedly expressed to the Service our willingness to cooperatively
design and protect habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker because we care
about the health of the fish.
After the 2005 process concluded, everyone in the region considered
the issue to be well-settled. My agency and many others undertook long-
term planning for construction of infrastructure and water supply
projects which are critical to our region. However, in December 2009,
the Service announced that they would revise the Critical Habitat. This
was done without giving any scientific or economic rationale for doing
so. Certainly, nothing in the biological data showed the species to be
in decline, and the Service has not produced any such data. A legal
settlement between the Service and the Center for Biological Diversity
directed the Service to undertake a review of the Sucker's habitat, but
it did not require a habitat expansion. Moreover, the lawsuit
settlement did not override existing law.
My Department has acted in good faith, voluntarily and without
prompting, to study, monitor and protect the Santa Ana Sucker. We
recognize that the fish is in our area, and we wanted to do the right
thing under the law and for our environment. My colleagues and I
contributed substantial time, money and other resources in
collaborative efforts with federal and state agencies. In doing so, we
developed expertise about the fish and its needs. I believe that our
knowledge about the Santa Ana Sucker is second to none.
When the time came for the Service to take our views into account,
our efforts and expertise were ignored. The Santa Ana Sucker Task Force
organized in early 2010 in response to the Service's announcement that
it would re-visit the Critical Habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker. We
were alarmed at the announcement because of the lack of justification
for change by the Service. Our group participated in the administrative
process at every available opportunity. We hired an experienced
biologist who specializes in the Santa Ana Sucker to provide biological
data. Furthermore, we commissioned an economic analysis which provides
detailed information on the devastating economic losses that we will
incur because of the Final Rule.
With the Service's announcement of the Final Critical Habitat
Designation for the Santa Ana Sucker in December of 2010, our worst
fears were realized because the decision totally disregards the
scientific and economic realities which should have been central to the
agency's decision, based on the requirements of the Endangered Species
Act. In short, the Service did not follow its own rules or Federal law.
Because the Santa Ana Sucker inhabits areas potentially affected by
my Department's operations, we will be heavily impacted by the Final
Rule. For example, we have a petition pending with the California Water
Board seeking to reduce the volume of current discharge from the RIX
facility, because we want to begin a recycled water project from our
plant in San Bernardino. The Service and the Center for Biological
Diversity have each filed separate protests to our change of use
petition based on alleged impacts of the water recycling project on the
Santa Ana Sucker.
Recycled water is the only truly reliable future source of water
for irrigation and groundwater recharge in our area. Historically, when
our groundwater basin has needed artificial recharge (as opposed to
natural recharge from rain and snowmelt), we have purchased recharge
water from Northern California, which is conveyed via the State Water
Project from the San Francisco Bay/Delta. Our planned recycled water
project is one that is economically viable and provides for a permanent
solution to our need for artificial recharge water.
Currently, we do not use any recycled water in our service area.
After thorough (and costly) treatment, around 32 million gallons per
day are currently discharged to the Santa Ana River. As envisioned, the
Clean Water Factory would be located in San Bernardino and employ
advanced technologies to produce quality water that meets or exceeds
reuse requirements. The costs of treating and moving this recycled
water are less than the current price for additional water from the
north. Initially, 18,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water can be
used for groundwater recharge and non-potable use, off-setting a
portion of the demand on the local groundwater basin. Thus, recycled
water would offset demands on the State Water Project and would be
reliable and cost-effective.
In addition to the potential impacts to the recycled water projects
planned by my agency and others, the new expanded critical habitat
designation has potentially devastating impacts to planned water
conservation efforts by San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
and Western Municipal Water District for water stored behind Seven Oaks
Dam.
Availability of water supplies is among our region's highest
priorities, and this project will provide a reliable supply of water
for generations to come. At least six water agencies, representing
populations in excess of a million, draw from the aquifer that this
project will replenish. Cities that would see a direct benefit include:
San Bernardino, Loma Linda, Highland, Colton and Riverside.
The Clean Water Factory and the conservation pool for Seven Oaks
Dam are two projects that are critically important to the future of
this region. There are others that would be similarly impacted and were
described in the materials that we provided to the Service before they
made their final determination. We demonstrated that the Final Rule
would prevent local water agencies such as mine from using a reliable
local water supply and, instead, would force us to rely even more
heavily on an oversubscribed water supply imported by the State Water
Project from the Delta.
We also described in detail to the Service the devastating economic
impacts to Southern California, as the result of losing these supplies,
including: (1) the loss of access to 125,800 acre-feet per year of
local water, which will force local water providers to spend at least
$2.9 billion over the next 25 years for imported water; (2) loss of
development and an inability to meet projected population and economic
growth resulting from the inability of cities and counties in San
Bernardino and Riverside counties to verify that sufficient water will
be available for proposed development for the succeeding twenty years
as required by California law (Government Code section 66473.7); (3)
lost flood control capability; and (4) more than $326 million in
expenses due to the regulatory uncertainties related to permit
issuance, mitigation measures, and lost water production, including
related construction losses.
My Department is willing to work cooperatively with the Service,
but the Service does not seem willing to work cooperatively with us. We
know that decisions concerning the Santa Ana Sucker must be based on
the best available science and economic analysis, and unfortunately
that did not occur when the Service promulgated its Final Rule
designating the expanded critical habitat. Accordingly, the December
2010 Final Rule should be rescinded as soon as possible, which in turn
will help foster our ability to create new local water supplies.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Ms. Aldstadt.
That concludes the formal testimony, and we will now begin
the series of 5-minute questions from each of the members. And
I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lohoefener, you just testified to this Subcommittee
that the National Fish and Wildlife Service uses, quote, ``the
best scientific and commercial information available to make
its decisions.'' That is explicitly not what the Federal court
ruled when it reviewed your Service's work with respect to the
Central Valley issues. Judge Wanger called one scientist a
zealot who didn't let facts get in the way of her goals, called
another an untrustworthy witness. He accused Fish and Wildlife
Service scientists of lying to justify a dramatic reduction in
the amount of water being diverted from the Central Valley.
How do you square that review of the Fish and Wildlife
Service's work with your assurances to this Subcommittee?
Mr. Lohoefener. Chairman McClintock, I am so glad you asked
this question.
In your opening remarks, you said you wanted to know where
the responsibility for those decisions lay. And the buck stops
right here with me.
I was the one that signed the 2008 jeopardy and adverse
modification agreement. I was the one that approved the
declaration that the Fish and Wildlife Service employed. And I
have reviewed the declaration of both the Bureau of Reclamation
and Service and stand behind them 100 percent. I disagree with
the judge's conclusions.
However, that is not enough. The Department of the Interior
takes the judge's allegations very seriously. We have
implemented the Department's scientific integrity process. At
this moment, we have independent review going on of the judge's
allegations and what the consequences may be. I expect those
results will be made in a very short period of time.
Mr. McClintock. I want to assure you, Mr. Lohoefener, that
this Subcommittee also takes the judge's words very, very
seriously. As I said in my opening statement, this goes far
beyond an honest disagreement over the facts. When a judge uses
words like ``arbitrary and capricious,'' accuses the national
Fish and Wildlife Service scientists of lying for political
goals, we take that very, very seriously.
And I can assure you that that goes well beyond
disagreement. That goes to a question of abuse of power.
I appreciate your taking responsibility for that. And I can
assure you that you have not heard the end of that issue from
this Subcommittee and quite likely from this 112th Congress.
To Mr. Rossi and Ms. Aldstadt, the Center for Biological
Diversity has just charged that the 2005 critical habitat
designation was politicized by political appointees who were
not scientists under the Bush Administration. Of course, the
current demonstration also had a nonscientist in that same
position.
They changed the critical habitat designation without any
scientific or economic rationale being used, to use Ms.
Aldstadt's words. That invites the question of whether this new
critical habitat designation is political, if it is not
scientifically justified.
Has the Fish and Wildlife Service ever explained its
rationale for settling with the Center for Biological Diversity
on this issue?
Ms. Aldstadt. Not to my knowledge, no.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Lohoefener?
Mr. Lohoefener. The----
Mr. McClintock. Just yes or no, have you offered a public
justification for settling with the Center for Biological
Diversity on this issue?
Mr. Lohoefener. Our justification for doing the 2005
biological opinion can be found in both the proposed and final
critical habitat rules.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Aldstadt, is it true that there is
bipartisan opposition to this reversal of course?
Ms. Aldstadt. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Is it true that even the State Water
Resources Control Board felt that the 2005 habitat was
justified?
Ms. Aldstadt. That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, yes.
Mr. McClintock. Was there any independent peer review of
this Administration's decision?
Ms. Aldstadt. Not that I am aware of, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Is there a recovery plan?
Ms. Aldstadt. No.
Mr. McClintock. Do you believe the 2005 critical habitat
designation was scientifically justified?
Ms. Aldstadt. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. The 2005?
Ms. Aldstadt. I am sorry, yes. The 2005 critical habitat
designation, in my opinion, was valid and was supported by
scientific information.
Mr. McClintock. Now, both you and Mr. Rossi made statements
that the Fish and Wildlife Service did not use the best
available science in its latest critical habitat decision, yet
the Agency and the Center for Biological Diversity think they
did.
You mentioned that you hired an independent biologist. What
did that biologist find?
Ms. Aldstadt. Our biologist, the biologist that we hired,
who, by the way, does have a specialty in fish, determined that
the 2005 critical habitat designation was supported by the
evidence, but that the, at that time, 2010 proposed and now
final critical habitat designation were not.
Mr. McClintock. That concludes my 5 minutes.
Congressman Lewis?
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to focus for a moment upon the potential flooding
impact of the non-function of the Seven Oaks Dam upon the
community of Redlands. Since we are pleased to have the Mayor
of Redlands with us today, perhaps he can help us understand
what the City of Redlands is thinking about relative to the
Seven Oaks Dam not being able to do its job.
The City of Redlands is in a floodplain. The potential for
loss of life and property is very, very real.
Has this been an item of discussion within the City of
Redlands? And if so, would you share with the Committee?
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
The City of Redlands has had discussions about this topic
from a policy perspective. We have been a part of regional
efforts that have included Ms. Aldstadt's organization, and we
look forward to continued partnerships regionally to try to
address this issue.
From our perspective, we are absolutely focused on
maintaining our reliability of our water delivery system. And
we feel that these current rules will--we will continue to make
that a priority for our residents.
Mr. Lewis. You may be interested to know that in light of
last year's hearing with the Appropriations Subcommittee
dealing with the Interior, present that day were a combination
of David Hayes from the Department and Secretary Salazar
himself. I had the pleasure of asking the Secretary
specifically about the Santa Ana Sucker and the focus of the
Subcommittee discussion was we do not want to have a Delta
Smelt challenge or problem as it relates to the Santa Ana
Sucker along the Santa Ana River Basin.
The Secretary suggested to us that he was somewhat
hamstrung at that moment, for he had never heard of the Santa
Ana Sucker before. Well, it is apparent from testimony today
that we had at least 10 years of discussion back and forth
between the local leaders in the water arena and the potential
impact on the Santa Ana Sucker.
I hope that that discussion with the Secretary has raised
this to a level now that will allow us to make sense out of the
pathway ahead of us. We do not need to put the Inland Empire in
the same condition that we have found in the Central Valley.
And if we work together, we can solve those problems.
Today, Mr. Chairman, I am most concerned about the division
or diversity that appears to exist between anticipated or
proposed economic impacts of the Santa Ana Sucker expressed by
local experts who seem to know a lot more about the economy
than perhaps our Department of the Interior.
I would like to add Dr. John Husing, if he would, summarize
for us his findings, since he probably the most extended
expertise in the entire room regarding this subject.
Dr. Husing?
Dr. Husing. Thank you, Congressman.
First of all, to put some of this in context, the Inland
Empire, which is affected, most of it, by what we are
discussing here has 4.2 million people. That makes it 400,000
people larger than Oregon and larger than 24 of the 50 States.
This is not a minor backwater piece of the United States that
the decision potentially impacts. And as you heard repeatedly,
the unemployment rate in this area is 14.1.
To put that in context, in the United States, there are 49
areas with 1 million or more people. Of those, we were ranked
second-highest to Las Vegas in August in unemployment rate. So
these issues are quite serious here.
If you look at what is going on within this region, you end
up with the following situation: Southern California is
growing; 70 percent of its growth is simply births over deaths.
This is not migration. This is not immigration. As I laughingly
say in my speeches, we haven't stopped sex just yet.
The Inland Empire is really the only part of Southern
California that it is capable of accommodating a huge part of
the Valley, because this is where most of the available spaces
is for expansion. As a consequence, the Southern California
Association puts our potential growth between now and 2035 at
1.3 million people, 472,000 households, and 745,600 jobs--a
massive increase, if we can accommodate it.
My instinct, as I have followed this discussion now for
several years, is there is a three-prong strategy coming at us,
essentially aimed at slowing growth in Southern California that
may or may not have anything to do with the fish.
First of all, there is a California law that you have heard
cited repeatedly to require 20 years of water certified by the
agency before you can build a major housing project, industrial
projects, retail projects. That sort of starts the issue.
Then you cut off the flow of water to Southern California
to a large extent with the Delta Smelt, which reduces that
access if you need to get it from up North. To put in context
exactly what that means, the municipal water district in this
area actually stopped a lot of projects because of the unknowns
that that situation created. This is not a theory. That has
already happened once.
The Santa Ana Sucker now comes along to finish the job by
cutting off our access to our own water, which represents
roughly 30 percent of all water currently used in this area.
When you look at what the local agency said, they indicated
125,800 acre-feet of water potentially could be lost. I will
say that the economists working for the Service did not accept
that number. They took a lower number. That was their judgment
vs. the judgments of the local water people.
At $594 an acre-foot, which is the current price that is
going for, and looking at how much water prices have been going
up beyond inflation, that is a $2.87 million hit over a 25-year
timeframe, which is most of the planning horizons we use in
Southern California. If you discount that at 3 percent, that is
a $1.873 billion current value. What that means is if you put
that current amount of money in the bank right now at 3
percent, withdrew it each year and paid for the cost of what
you would be having to buy, it would come out to 1.87.
The Service numbers that you heard cited a minute ago very
simply said one thing. What they said was, at a 7 percent
discount rate--you tell me where you can get 7 percent right
now. That is how you get much lower numbers.
That is assuming you can get replacement water. As you have
heard repeatedly here, and I will finish with this, with that
20-year in place, one of the things I said to their economist
is you absolutely have to study was the effect if we couldn't
get the water.
Now again, to put that in context, we had last year in
California a snowpack that was 165 percent of normal. Even at
that, the water resources agency only allowed 80 percent of the
existing contracts, not asking for more, to be filled. The
water won't be there. It is very simple.
If that is the case, what I said to their economist, you
had better study the effect on lost construction, lost jobs,
lost economic activity, if we cannot replace the water that you
are going to take. They treated that at zero.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert?
Mr. Calvert. I would like to expand, Mr. Chairman, and on
what Mr. Husing was talking about. I had the privilege of
chairing the Water and Power Subcommittee some years ago and
worked on the Delta, which as you know has been worked on for a
long time. And I am sure we will be working on it for a long
time in the future.
And I think we can all agree up here, I think we can all
agree in the audience, additional water deliveries from the
Delta is not certain. There is talk about a bond to build
additional projects, which I think need to be built, expand
the--build the site's reservoir expansion, storage, Shasta, the
Upper San Joaquin, more efficient utilization of the pumps,
diversion around the Delta, et cetera. But again, that is
prospective, and it is hard to know that that will occur.
We also know that the Colorado River, which I was involved
in the negotiation on the quantification settlement agreement,
Arizona and the lower basin States, the upper basin States,
doggone it, want their water back under the adjudications that
were taking place a number of years ago. That means California
will have a diminished water supply of a million acre feet per
year from the Colorado River.
So a number years ago, these local agencies, wanting to do
the right thing, went about conserving water, using water
reclamation, doing the projects that were necessary to make
sure that we had a stable water supply. And when I hear from
Fish and Wildlife as of to date no restriction, you know, I
think people look at the Delta and they look at the Delta Smelt
and say, there is no certainty. That is what they look at, no
certainty.
So people who may want to come to the Inland Empire to
expand or build a business may choose not to.
And I want to ask a question of Mr. Stockton.
Do you anticipate, because of this issue--and by the way,
this is on page 3 of the Wall Street Journal this last week--
when people read about the lack of certainty of a water supply
in this part of Southern California, do you think that that
would have a negative impact on trying to bring job development
to the Inland Empire?
Mr. Stockton. Well, absolutely. If you think, for years we
talked about trying to transition the Inland Empire from a
bedroom community supplying jobs to the coastal communities,
with the idea that we want to bring businesses with the
restriction on water supply assessments and the inability to
bring forward any new projects of any significance, if you were
a business from out of state or out of the country looking at
an area where you would want to come to, you would want to make
sure that you have a reliable water supply. Water is so
precious.
So it would absolutely have an impact.
Mr. Calvert. Add to that, Mr. Husing?
Dr. Husing. There is no question that California already
has a tough time convincing companies to consider us. You add
this on top of it, and you have eliminated a whole group of
companies from even considering us.
And 20 percent of the people who live in this area
currently have to commute; 80 percent work locally, but 20
percent don't. And we are trying to lower that, frankly, for
the environment, to reduce our jobs-housing balance issue. This
interferes with that.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, this project that Mr. Lewis and
myself and others over the years have protected and tried to
get completed, the all-river plan, and I want to ask a question
from the Colonel, is primarily a flood control panel project,
as you know, Colonel.
We had severe floods in the 1930s and certainly 1969. And
so we went about, the Federal taxpayers, over a billion-dollar
investment in a significant infrastructure project to protect
the people of San Bernardino, Riverside County, and Orange
County from devastating floods.
And as part of a benefit of that, we want to have water
storage behind the Seven Oaks Dam. And you will be getting an
application--I am sure you are ready aware of--to expand
additional water behind the Prado Dam.
Now you say to date, there is no effect. Do you believe
there could be an effect on how you operate this billion-dollar
enterprise that the taxpayers pay for?
Colonel Wehr. Well, Congressman Calvert, thank you for the
question. That is certainly under study at the moment. There
certainly could be an effect. No doubt about that. The review
of that will take some time. We have an ongoing water quality
and conservation study underway for Seven Oaks, in fact, that
will look at that in terms of the impact of the designation.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. We'll go to the second round of questions.
And I will begin with Mr. Rossi.
The Center for Biological Diversity's testimony, included
Fish and Wildlife Service e-mails obtained through the Freedom
of Information Act. Clearly, the Agency provided them with
these e-mails.
It is my understanding that a number of water utilities
have requested e-mails relevant to the Agency's critical
habitat decision-making quite a few months ago. Yet there has
been no substantive response from the Agency.
Is that correct?
Mr. Rossi. That is correct.
Mr. McClintock. Well, Mr. Lohoefener, do you understand how
this lack of transparency gives the impression that your Agency
is taking sides and only willing to provide information to one
side?
Mr. Lohoefener. The FOIA requests that have been referred
to have been replied to in part. It is true we have not
completed that process. Many of the requests are still under
review in our solicitor's office.
Mr. McClintock. Well, when can we expect that information
to be provided?
Mr. Lohoefener. We can get back to you on that, because,
like I said, it requires the coordination of our solicitor's
office, which is not under my purview. We will be happy to give
you some information on that.
Mr. McClintock. Consider this a request from the
Subcommittee that you provide this Subcommittee with that
information as well, and that you do so expeditiously.
Ms. Aldstadt and Mr. Rossi, the Fish and Wildlife Service
testimony is, essentially, you don't need to worry about the
critical habitat decision. All is well, since critical habitat
is not going to lead to water supply limitations.
What is your response to that?
Mr. Rossi. Well, it is very difficult for us to understand
what the change in operation of the dam might be. As we said 20
years ago, saw that the world was changing in terms of
uncertainty in water supplies and started working on this
project, spending millions and millions of dollar. So to
include dry riverbed for the purpose of moving gravel, we can't
yet understand the kind of massive flows that would need to
come out of the dam to move that gravel down.
And as an example, one last piece of that answer, is we
have developed very complicated water budget rate programs to
tell each of our customers throughout the region that every
gallon is precious to us, we must conserve and do our part, in
addition to other water supply projects. And the potential loss
of billions of gallons of water each year is just something we
can't understand.
Ms. Aldstadt. Also, with respect to the proposed recycled
water project that my department is spearheading, the Center
for Biological Diversity and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service have both filed protests against a change of
use petition that we submitted to the State Water Resources
Control Board, which was one of the necessary prerequisites to
our being able to move forward with environmental planning. So
they have in fact already protested our ability to use recycled
water in the way that we want to use it.
Mr. McClintock. Well, Mr. Stockton testified that the
Administration's critical habitat designation is pulling the
rug out from underneath local officials who put a lot of time
and money into a multi-species conservation plan that will help
the Sucker fish. Is it true even that State Water Resources
Control Board approved a local water project in light of all
this and previous critical habitat designations?
Could you or perhaps Mr. Rossi or Mr. Stockton elaborate?
Mr. Rossi. Yes, Mr. Chairman, in 1991, we started a process
with the State Water Resources Control Board to get a permit
for that water as we saw that project going on, the Seven Oaks
Dam. In 2007, we had hearings for a week in Sacramento in front
of the board and they made their final ruling that included the
lack of that impact in 2009.
Mr. McClintock. Well, with this added critical habitat help
the Sucker fish?
Mr. Rossi. I do not understand how it would.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Aldstadt?
Ms. Aldstadt. Based upon the scientific information that I
have reviewed through my experience on the Santa Ana Sucker
conservation team, the science right now is in such flux that
it is difficult to understand how all of the critical habitat
designation, the new one, will help significantly over the old
one.
Mr. McClintock. Mayor Aguilar, you represent the people who
are directly affected by these decisions. Mr. Lohoefener has
just said that he takes responsibility for these decisions.
What would your constituents say to him as he goes back to
Sacramento, where there are no water shortages?
Mr. Aguilar. I am sure the 68,000 residents of my city that
he takes responsibility for that, so----
Mr. McClintock. What would they want to say to him, if they
had the opportunity? You speak for them; you are their Mayor.
What do you want to tell this man right now?
Mr. Aguilar. I think you need to base it on science. And I
think we need to--I think my residents would be shocked at the
inclusion of dry riverbed, as Mr. Rossi mentioned.
The City of Redlands is adjacent to dry riverbed for more
than 10 months of the year, and I think my residents would be
shocked that that is designated as critical habitat.
I think that our job as local officials is to build
attractive, thriving, and sustaining communities. And I think
that is what our residents expect. They expect certainty.
And this rule does not create the certainty that my
residents would expect.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis?
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Anderson, the center's website clearly states that the
long-term goal of--the removal of Seven Oaks Dam is one of
their goals. To say the least, I am distressed by that
communication. How does the center justify that when the long-
term dangers of flooding in the region are so real?
And further, Ms. Anderson, when I see something like that,
it makes me wonder if it is not just about fish. It may be more
than just about fish and more about a fundamental objection to
growth.
How do you respond to those two lines of thinking?
Ms. Anderson. Well, the organization is dedicated to the
preservation of rare and endangered species and their habitats.
And as has been pointed out on this panel, there has been a lot
of development within the Inland Empire, and, therefore, many
of the species that rely on the Santa Ana River, not just the
Sucker, but things like Least Bell's Vireo, Southwestern Willow
Flycatcher, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, all of these animals
are directly affected by development pressures.
I guess part of our position is, you know, why are we
developing in a floodplain anyway? If there are threats of
flooding, why would you put people in harm's way? It just
doesn't make any sense.
And why not keep that area for species that have evolved
over ages to deal with that sort of flooding threat?
Mr. Lewis. I guess that perhaps Mayor Aguilar constituents
and my constituents would suggest that the threat of flooding,
if the Seven Oaks Dam were eliminated, could very well impact a
very important species they are concerned about. That is human
life. It is one of the species I think that maybe you are
concerned about protecting.
Ms. Anderson. Absolutely.
You know, the situation now is that the floodplain has been
built-in and Seven Oaks Dam is there. What we are now left
trying to deal with is how to save the species in what remains
of the floodplain.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Calvert?
Mr. Calvert. I would to carry on, on this subject.
On the Seven Oaks Dam, Colonel, if that didn't exist this
last season, what would the impact have been on the Prado Dam?
Colonel Wehr. Well, certainly that dam protects up to $540
million worth of property and livelihoods of those downstream.
Mr. Calvert. Well, I guess what I mean by that is I was
told by others in the Corps that if the Seven Oaks Dam did not
exist in this last flood season, it very well could have--water
could have gone over the spillway.
Is that correct?
Colonel Wehr. I would have to provide a more detailed
answer for the record, but I suspect that is possible.
Mr. Calvert. If water did go over the spillway at the Santa
Ana River, how much of Orange County has been built on a
floodplain over the years? Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach,
how much of that area was flooded in the 1939 flood?
Colonel Wehr. I would have to check the history, to be
honest. But I know that there is $15 billion worth of
protection provided below Prado Dam.
Mr. Calvert. As I remember the history of that, what is now
Fountain Valley was underwater. Huntington Beach was
underwater. Good parts of along the Santa Ana River and the
Santa Ana was underwater.
And for that reason, they built the dam in 1939. Isn't that
correct?
Colonel Wehr. Correct.
Mr. Calvert. And for the same reason, with the floods of
1968 and 1969, we decided to expand that flood protection,
because of development, primarily not in Riverside, San
Bernardino Counties, but in Orange County, to develop the Prado
Dam to where we are trying to get it to, and the Seven Oaks
Dam. Isn't that correct?
Colonel Wehr. That is correct. The feature that is being
elevated for the Prado Dam is----
Mr. Calvert. You know, I want to make a point about Judge
Wanger. I am glad the Chairman--his reputation is unblemished.
And I want to make that point very clear. He has had a long and
distinguished career. He is highly respected by everyone, as I
know. And he is retiring and we wish him well.
I don't want any question of the fact that he thought
through these decisions very carefully. I mean there was
frustration on both sides of the issue, as the judge went
through this whole Delta issue very carefully. And I think he
acted in a manner that gives credit to fellow judges, who he
is.
And I certainly want to make that point, Mr. Chairman,
before this hearing is over. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. An important point to make. And I might add
that his language left no question what he thought of the abuse
of power within the Fish and Wildlife Service and the abuse of
science by using junk science in a manner that concluded
exactly the opposite of what the real science was pointing to.
And with that, we will begin the third and final round of
questioning. And I would like to begin with Ms. Aldstadt.
You testified about the efforts that the Santa Ana Sucker
conservation team has pursued on the ground. What efforts are
underway for captive breeding of these fish? Why doesn't
somebody just build a fish hatchery if we need more of these
Sucker fish?
Ms. Aldstadt. Well, I am not a fish scientist, but I am
aware that there are currently fish raceways that are located
in the Riverside conservation nonprofit agency, and we also
offered to--we, the water agencies involved in the Santa Ana
Sucker Task Force--we have all--in fact, San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District took the lead in developing a proposal
to go to U.S. Fish and Wildlife and California Fish and Game,
proposing to expand the breeding raceways for the Santa Ana
Sucker.
To my knowledge, that proposal has not gone anywhere yet.
However, the water agencies remain committed to sponsoring that
proposal still.
Mr. McClintock. Let me ask--this all started on behalf of
the City of San Bernardino, or for Mr. Rossi on behalf of
Western Municipal Water, or Mayor Aguilar on behalf of the City
of Redlands, where are you going to get the water?
My friend Mr. Calvert is absolutely right. I represent the
headwaters of the Sacramento Delta. And I can assure you
without additional storage, additional conveyance is a
nonstarter. Where are you going to get the water, if you don't
use the local sources that you have available?
Mr. Rossi. We know it is a very precious resource and very
limited. We are going to have shortages. We have had shortages
over the last 3 years in Southern California, and without--one
of the things we recognize is stormwater, allowing it to go
into the ocean is just wrong. And we have worked on this for 20
years and spent millions of dollars, so it just should not
happen.
Mr. Aguilar. We are going to have to look at additional
strategies, recycling and--and those are the issues that I
think are important to us as local communities.
Mr. McClintock. What is that going to do to your water
costs?
Mr. Aguilar. Oh, and it is going to increase them, without
a doubt. We are going to have to be less reliant on the State
water. And that is one of the reasons why we are here, because
we need to develop more strategies to capture those local
sources and to percolate those in our existing system and to
deliver those to residents. And I think those strategies are
limited by these decisions.
Mr. McClintock. And, Mr. Stockton, you pointed out that we
human beings do lots of things as hobbies. We build stuff, we
grow stuff, we do stuff. But what we actually do for a living
is we make more living human beings. We have been doing it for
a long time. We are getting pretty good at it as a species. And
the population is going to grow regardless of the impediments
that are imposed by public officials that are supposed to be
watching out for the people's interests.
What would those skyrocketing prices for water do to the
economy of the region?
Mr. Stockton. Well, I think as Dr. Husing testified, over a
25-year period, something close to $3 billion in rates. And if
you extrapolate that over time, that is a huge costs to the
ratepayers.
Additionally, you talked about delivering homes for this
growing population. What is a bit discouraging to me is my
business is, I am a consulting civil engineering company. And
finally, after 3 years, we are actually looking at projects,
industrial projects, commercial projects, major residential
projects, starting to come back online.
Virtually all the projects I have now dusted off after 3
years are subject to a WSA. And 80 percent of them are within
Western Municipal Water District; probably not going to be able
to do them.
Mr. McClintock. OK, let me get to one final question.
As I said my opening statement, it is no coincidence that
four of the 10 metropolitan areas throughout the country with
the worst unemployment rates are in the Central Valley. Mr.
Lohoefener's decisions, which he has taken responsibility for,
blissfully unconcerned about the suffering going on in the
Central Valley, appears to now be attempting to impose the same
decisions here in this region.
What would the small, struggling businesses that you
represent want to tell him if those shopkeepers were here
today.
Mr. Stockton. Please stop. You're killing us.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Lewis?
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lohoefener, to be gentle with you as a witness, I am
interested in knowing, or having you tell us for the record,
when a critical habitat is designated, the Service is required
to submit potential economic impacts to that designation.
Have you ever received an economic statement and found it
to be lacking, maybe send it back for further review?
Mr. Lohoefener. Yes.
Mr. Lewis. Have you done that in this case, with the Santa
Ana Sucker?
Mr. Lohoefener. I came into this region in 2008. I signed
both the proposed rule and the final critical habitat rule. I
cannot tell you whether or not the interchange between the
independent economist we had and the Service as a whole
resulted in changes. I did not personally request any changes.
Mr. Lewis. It strikes me that when you are faced with the
kind of economic impact being on the surface described here
only relatively lightly today, that you as a public servant of
all people would worry about real impact in terms of jobs, in
terms of the communities' economic ability to survive. Are
those considerations that would be a part of your
responsibility? And have you asked for additional information
that would help you better understand those impacts?
Mr. Lohoefener. In terms of critical habitat, Mr.
Congressman, the Service has two responsibilities. One, we have
the responsibility of implementing the Endangered Species Act.
Critical habitat is an area where the economic assessment--the
economic cost is taken into cost. That is part of the decision
process. The decision process on critical habitat is vetted all
the way up to the Assistant Secretary of the Department of the
Interior.
Mr. Lewis. The early information I received indicated that
your first guesstimates of economic impact kind of pointed the
finger at something like $700 million or $800 million. That has
been adjusted somewhat upward by the Department. But between
now and then, the huge gap between that and the information we
get from local experts causes at least this Member to not just
scratch his head but say, for God's sake, why doesn't the
Department, in a sensible way, go back and ask for additional
information and find experts who don't just rely upon giving
them the answers they want to hear as they go about making a
designation?
Mr. Lohoefener. Is that a question, sir?
Mr. Lewis. Sure it was.
Mr. Lohoefener. The question I think is--let me put it this
way. And again, I am mindful of the litigation we are under
here.
The proposed economic analysis and the final economic
analysis--and I am no--by no stretch of imagination am I any
expert in the realm of economics whatsoever, unlike Dr. Husing.
However, if you look in our final economic analysis, you
will find the comments we received, including the analysis by
Mr. Husing, responded to in the economic analysis.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Calvert?
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When you mentioned, Mr. Lohoefener, that you went up to the
Assistant Secretary of the Interior, do you mean David Hayes?
Mr. Lohoefener. No, the Assistant Secretary at that time
was Tom Strickland.
Mr. Calvert. Because I know that Mr. Lewis and myself had a
hearing with Mr. Hayes not too long ago, and he never heard of
the Santa Ana Sucker fish. He has heard of it now, I suspect.
Ms. Anderson, what is your position on desalinization from
seawater? What is the position of the Center for Biological
Diversity?
Ms. Anderson. You know, I don't know what the position is.
Mr. Calvert. Well, isn't the center opposed to the
desalinization project in Santa Cruz? Didn't they come out
against that?
Ms. Anderson. I don't know. I will have to get back to you
on that.
Mr. Calvert. Is there any water project, that you are aware
of, that you have been in favor of?
Why don't you get back to the Committee in writing and
submit a list. I am sure it won't take very long.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Anderson. Thank you. I will do that.
Mr. Calvert. I would say she is a straight talker.
Mr. Husing, we have known each other for a long time. And
as you know, I don't care what kind of development or what kind
of--without water, you can't do anything. Without energy, you
can't. Those are the two primary necessities for human life.
Obviously, clean air and all the rest. But energy and water are
just kind of basic commodities.
In the Inland Empire we suffer--my friend mentions the
Central Valley. But, second only to the Central Valley, this
area has suffered.
What damage has this done to this region, just the problem
of this being out there?
Dr. Husing. It adds to the general view that this is an
area that, if I am a firm, I am going to very seriously
consider avoiding.
If I might, I would like to add a couple of other quick
things on some other points that were brought up, if you don't
mind?
Mr. Calvert. Sure. I have 2 minutes.
Dr. Husing. One of which is, Representative Lewis is old
like I am, and I remember being evacuated in a tractor blade in
1969 with 20-foot waves going down that canyon, because there
was no Seven Oaks Dam.
The second point, buried in the appendix of this work that
was done by the economists for the center was a second look at
the data. And their upper number of their own analysis exceeded
$1 billion, not including anything for the billions and
billions and billions of dollars that would be lost if the
combination of the Sucker, the 20-year requirement for water,
and the Delta Smelt are allowed to come into existence.
I consider, as an economist who has studied this area for
47 years, this to be the single most important issue in this
area's long-term economic future, because it could shut us
down.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Calvert
That concludes the questioning and the Chair now yields to
the gentleman from California, Mr. Lewis, for a few closing
thoughts.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to take just a moment to express the
Committee's deep appreciation to the City of Highland for their
extraordinary effort in helping put this meeting together. I
especially want to mention Alayna Rodriguez, Betty Hughes,
Dennis Barton, David Dinali, Brendon Littleton, and Jack Avon.
All of you have gone way above and beyond the call of duty in
helping this be very successful and, I think for our region, a
very important hearing today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
And, of course, I would add my thanks for the hospitality
to the City of Highland today and to each of our witnesses for
their time and their valuable testimony.
Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions
for witnesses, and we would ask that you respond to those in
writing. The hearing record will be kept open for 10 business
days to receive those responses.
Mr. McClintock. And if there is no further business,
without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]