[Senate Hearing 113-183]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-183
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S COLORADO RIVER BASIN
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND STUDY
__________
JULY 16, 2013
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-774 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK UDALL, Colorado JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Karen K. Billups, Republican Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota MIKE LEE, Utah, Ranking
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
Ron Wyden and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Connor, Michael L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 5
Ferris, Kathleen, Executive Director, Arizona Municipal Water
Users Association.............................................. 38
Hawes, Taylor E. C., Colorado River Program Director, The Nature
Conservancy.................................................... 32
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, U.S. Senator From New Mexico.............. 4
Lee, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator From Utah........................... 1
Ostler, Don A., Executive Director, Upper Colorado River
Commission..................................................... 15
Schatz, Hon. Brian, U.S. Senator From Hawaii..................... 1
Trujillo, Tanya, Executive Director, Colorado River Board of
California..................................................... 10
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado..................... 2
Vigil, T. Darryl, Chairman, Colorado River Basin Tribes
Partnership.................................................... 19
Waskom, Reagan, Director, Colorado Water Institute, Colorado
State University............................................... 45
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 59
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 75
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Brian Schatz
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, U.S. SENATOR FROM
HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Good afternoon.
Today we are here to discuss the Bureau of Reclamation's
Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. The Bureau
and the 7 basin States including Arizona, California, Colorado
and New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming worked collaboratively
with tribes, agricultural users, municipal and industrial water
users, power users and environmental and recreational
organizations to define current and future imbalances along the
Colorado River.
This was quite an undertaking. In fact, I'm told it's the
most comprehensive basin wide analysis ever taken up by the
Department of the Interior.
The study was finalized in December 2012. We are here today
to discuss the study's findings and the next steps.
Unfortunately I have a scheduling conflict and cannot stay
to Chair the hearing, but I've spoken with my friend and
someone who knows this issue far better than I do, Senator Mark
Udall. Given the significance of this topic in his home State
of Colorado, he has agreed to chair the hearing today. I look
forward to following up with him and the others on the
committee on the next steps and anything that I can do in my
role as subcommittee chair.
At this time I'd like to recognize our Ranking Member,
Senator Lee, for his comments. Then Senator Udall can make his
opening statement followed by any other members.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Udall.
It's a pleasure to be here today with both of you. I thank
you for leading this effort and this hearing on the Colorado
River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. It was released just
a few months ago, last December.
I thank the witnesses for being here today and all of you
for joining us as well. I look forward to hearing the
testimony.
I especially want to welcome Don Ostler from the Salt Lake
City area, from Bountiful, where my sister lives, to the Water
and Power Subcommittee. So, welcome.
Water supply has been and always will be a contentious and
challenging issue in the American West. The Colorado River is
at the heart of it. The river supplies water for millions of
Americans and millions of acres of irrigated farmland. It's
also the centerpiece of Grand Canyon National Park and many
other recreational attractions.
As these varying demands grow so too will the importance of
managing the Colorado River in a responsible and circumspect
manner which necessarily includes due respect for existing
water rights.
The most important fact to consider when examining water
supply issues in the Colorado River Basin is that the river and
its usage are primarily governed by the Colorado River Compact
of 1922. As we hear the details of this report it's crucial to
keep in mind that this compact will continue to control water
supply decisions along the Colorado River. As evidence of this
I might turn attention to the substantial disclaimer in the
study that essentially states that nothing in the study is
intended for use in any proceeding, whether Administrative or
otherwise, that would impact the rights of States or tribes and
the Colorado River.
This is not to disparage the study itself, but to place
this study in proper context. The report provides valuable
information concerning the Colorado River, but does not serve
as a foundation for any new regulatory or legislative
proposals. The study seeks to inform, but not to direct.
I thank the Bureau of Reclamation for conducting this study
and also the witnesses for being here today. This subject
impacts families and individuals across the West and is
deserving of consideration by this subcommittee.
I look forward to the testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Udall [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Lee.
I want to thank as well, Chairman Schatz for agreeing to
loan me his gavel for today's important hearing. He sounded
like I was doing him a favor, but in fact he has honored me by
giving me an opportunity to chair what is a very important
hearing to the State of Colorado and to the entire Southwest.
Senator Heinrich has joined me. He and I called for this
hearing earlier in the year because we felt it would be a
perfect opportunity to bring our colleagues and the
shareholders, stakeholders of all stripes, together to work
collaboratively on a path forward. As Westerners and as avid
outdoorsmen, the importance of water to our way of life was
impressed upon us at a very early age. Much of our careers in
public office have focused on solutions to our water
challenges.
I again want to thank Chairman Schatz. I appreciate his
leadership on the Water and Power Subcommittee. His willingness
to give us time to discuss a topic that's absolutely critical
to our future.
As Senator Lee knows water has literally shaped the West.
It carved Colorado from red rock. It shaped landmarks from the
Rocky Mountains to the Gulf of California.
Water has etched green and fertile valleys into the desert
and sustained generations of Americans in the Southwest. Water
is literally what makes the West as we know it possible, from
our ski resorts in places like Vail and Powderhorn to cities
like Gunnison and Grand Junction to farmers in Utah, Arizona
and California.
But to understand the role that water has played in the
West is to grasp the whole of modern Western history. The
saying, ``Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting.''
Out West, the most important source of water we have is the
mighty Colorado, which brings us to today's hearing on the
Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand
Study.
We have an impressive list of witnesses. Two of them
hailing from my home State of Colorado. I want to welcome all
of them to the committee. I look forward to hearing from all of
you in just a few minutes.
Former Colorado Congressman Wayne Aspinall used to say,
``In the West, when you touch water, you touch everything.''
This is certainly the case for the Colorado River Basin.
The Colorado River and its tributaries span parts of 7
States and provide water to nearly 40 million people for
municipal use and irrigate nearly 5.5 million acres of land.
The Colorado River sustains at least 22 federally
recognized tribes, 7 national wildlife refuges, 4 national
recreation areas, 11 national parks and countless ecosystems
and fish and wildlife species.
This enormous demand, coupled with climate change and
population growth, pose serious challenges for the Colorado
River, our economy and our way of life. In order to meet these
challenges it is important for us first, to acknowledge that
current management and use of the river is unsustainable.
Why do I say that?
When you look at the current long term projections for
supply and demand, demand is expected to outpace supply by 3.2
million acre feet by 2060 or enough water to supply 3.2 million
homes. Rising temperatures and ongoing drought are only
exacerbating the pressure on the Colorado. Insufficient
rainfall and snow pack have led to dwindling reservoir levels,
leaving water managers with really difficult decisions about
how to meet the water needs of cities, farmers and endangered
species.
The United States Bureau of Reclamation forecasted below
average river flows for 2013, as had been the case for ten of
the last 13 years.
In my friend Senator Heinrich's home State of New Mexico,
several communities over the last several weeks have literally
run out of water due to the drought. At some point soon, there
will not be enough water to meet the demands of the almost 40
million people who depend on the Colorado River Basin for
drinking water, agriculture, energy, hydropower, recreation and
ecosystem and wildlife values.
But as a Westerner--I think Senator Lee and Senator
Heinrich would join me in saying this--I'm an eternal optimist,
and we still have time to reverse this trend.
Thanks in large part to the Bureau of Rec study, we've been
presented with promising strategies that will help to overcome
our current challenges as well as our more serious challenges
in the future. These strategies, which include reducing demand
through innovation, conservation and better management of the
supply, will help us prepare for the future and reduce the
River Basin's vulnerabilities.
In the near-term, we need to--and I think we must--focus on
conservation activities and water reuse and recycling. In
short, we need to make every drop count.
This study has been referred to as a call to action by many
and rightfully so. It is time to act.
There will, of course, be tradeoffs as we continue to
engage all stakeholders on the best way forward. But this study
and the procedure it puts forward will get the process rolling
to make decisions. It's my hope that today's hearing will
support that process and focus us on the necessary next steps.
So I thank you for your attention. I thank the panel for
being here. I want to turn to my colleague, Senator Heinrich,
for any opening remarks he would like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Senator Udall, Chairman.
I want to welcome all the New Mexicans. Senator Udall said
two of the 4 were from Colorado. I count 3 of the 4 from New
Mexico. So it's a little bit like being a Marine. Once a New
Mexican, always a New Mexican as far as I'm concerned.
But I certainly want to welcome Mr. Darryl Vigil to the
committee, a New Mexico native from Dulce and a member of the
Jicarilla Apache Nation and the former Water Manager for the
Jicarilla Apache Nation, a very important job and the current
Chairman of the Colorado River Basin Tribes Partnership.
Welcome, of course, Mike Connor and Tanya Trujillo and say
hello to Mr. Ostler. I'm looking forward to your input today as
well.
I was home over the weekend. It was just so incredibly
striking. I spent 3 days on the road in South Central New
Mexico from Socorro down to places like Alamogordo, Ruidoso,
met with folks from Cloudcroft and Magdalena.
Magdalena, their sole source well started sucking air about
3 weeks ago. That's never happened before.
We had towns like Cloudcroft that are having water hauled
to them as well.
We have towns like Ruidoso and Alamogordo that are
struggling with the impact of recent wildfires on those water
supplies.
These issues, while there are not directly related to what
is going on in the Colorado Basin, are no different than what
we see in the Colorado Basin. We're seeing more and more
demand, less and less supply. So we're going to have to show
some leadership to be able to rise to these challenges.
I want to thank everyone who is here to testify today, to
being part of that solution. Because in my view, it is the
thing, the greatest challenge for those of us in Western
States, is how to learn to live and hopefully thrive in the new
normal.
So, thank you very much for the opportunity to say a few
words, Senator.
Senator Udall. Senator Heinrich, thank you.
Let's get right to the panel.
Let me make a brief introduction of each of you and then
we'll turn to the Honorable Mike Connor to kick things off.
So we have been joined by the Honorable Mike Connor. He's
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Next to him is Tanya Trujillo, Executive Director of the
Colorado River Board of California.
Next to Ms. Trujillo, Don Ostler, Executive Director of the
Upper Colorado River Commission and as Senator Lee mentioned, a
proud resident of the State of Utah.
Next to Mr. Ostler is Darryl Vigil, Chairman of the Ten
Tribes Partnership.
All of you, welcome.
Mr. Connor, we'll kick it off with you.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lee,
Senator Heinrich.
I'm Mike Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
A New Mexican, I'm proud to say. Thank you for the opportunity
to be here today to discuss the Colorado River Basin Study and
its implications.
There's no question that the Colorado River Basin is one of
the most critical sources of water in the West. As you noted,
Chairman Udall, the river and its tributaries provide
hydropower, supply 40 million people with municipal water,
irrigate nearly 5.5 million acres of land and provide the
lifeblood for Indian tribes, national wildlife refuges,
national parks as well as providing Ag and municipal water
supplies to our neighbors in Mexico.
Today the Colorado is facing a record drought. The period
from 2000 to 2013 is shaping up to be the lowest 14-year period
in the 100-plus years of historical measurements. The
complexities of ensuring a sustainable water supply on the over
allocated Colorado River has been recognized and documented by
all 7 basin States for decades.
It was against this backdrop that the study was conducted
with input from a broad range of stakeholders. The purpose of
the study was to define the current and future imbalances in
water supply and demand over the next 50 years. The study did
not result in a decision as to how future imbalances should be
addressed. Rather it provides a common technical foundation
that frames the range of potential imbalances and solutions
that may be employed to address the situation.
The study is an unprecedented joint effort and the most
comprehensive basin wide analysis ever undertaken by the
Department. It began in January 2010 and was completed in
December 2012 at a cost of approximately $7 million, roughly
shared by Reclamation and agencies representing the 7 basin
States. The study is a model not only for other Reclamation
basin studies, but for collaborative watershed planning across
the country.
The study used a scenario planning approach to identify a
broad range of future conditions. It considers 4 different
water supply scenarios and it is the first basin wide study to
incorporate the influence of climate change on future water
supply.
A range of future demands were quantified in 6 different
demand scenarios that included varied assumptions about
economic conditions, population growth and water needs. When
the median of water supply projections is compared against the
median of the water demand projections, the basin wide
imbalance in future supply/demand is about 3.2 million acre
feet annually by 2060. The average reduction in hydropower
output under this projection is approximately 12 percent but
can vary widely under any of the future scenarios.
Over 150 ideas or options were received and organized into
4 groups.
Those that increase basin water supply.
Those that reduce water demand.
Those that focus on modifying operations.
Those that focus on governance and mechanisms to implement
the options.
While some may be too costly or technically infeasible,
many of the ideas warrant further analysis.
Ultimately this study is a call to action for all who rely
on the Colorado River. In response to and consistent with
aggressive actions that have been taken in the past 10 to 15
years, a broad group of stakeholders, led by Reclamation and
the 7 basin States are moving forward to take the appropriate
next steps. These will ensure that continued aggressive actions
are taken to address the gap in supply and demand.
These actions will be taken on a strong foundation of
recent successes that include the historic 2007 agreement on
coordinated operations and shortage sharing as well as the
recently completed Minute 319 agreement with Mexico under the
1944 Treaty. These actions, along with others, have resulted in
the conservation of over one million acre feet of water that's
currently available in Lake Mead. That's ten feet of storage on
Lake Mead, the installation of more efficient turbines on
existing hydropower units and improved environmental conditions
and endangered species populations in both the Upper and Lower
basins.
As next steps 3 multi-stakeholder workgroups have been
formed to investigate municipal and industrial water
conservation and water reuse, agricultural conservation and
water transfers and the third group will look at environmental
and recreational flows. Additionally the States and Reclamation
will lead other efforts to address the situation. For example,
Reclamation is working with the Ten Tribes Partnership in the
Basin to complete a study related to tribal water needs.
Against this backdrop of collaboration and commitments it
is unfortunate to note that the FY2014 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill passed by the House of Representatives last
week eliminates the vast majority of WaterSMART funding that
supported the study and which is key to taking actions
necessary to address its findings. Overall the House bill would
cut WaterSMART by 53 percent including the elimination of all
funding for WaterSMART grants. This action undermines the
Federal Government's ability to partner with basin States and
local communities on critical investments that are needed to
address water resource issues and improve the resilience of the
Basin against climate related impacts that threaten both
economic and environmental interests.
The Administration urges Congress to restore funding for
WaterSMART to the requested level. It is simply imperative that
we maintain our ability to respond. As we enter our second
decade of drought conditions the communities that rely on the
river are being forced to make tough choices.
Tree ring reconstructions of stream flow indicate that the
current 14-year period is one of the lowest in not just the
last 100 years, but the last 1,200 years. It is likely that
climate change will exacerbate ongoing concerns that have major
consequences on the Colorado River and those who rely on this
oversubscribed resource.
Resolving these challenges is going to take diligent
planning and collaboration as well as resources from the 7
basin States, the Federal Government, tribes, water managers,
environmental groups and others to find solutions. Fortunately
the level of cooperation among key stakeholders has never been
higher. As a result there is reason for optimism, even in the
midst of the daunting challenges that exist in this basin.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important
study. I'll answer questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior
Chairman Udall and members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael
Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) at the
Department of the Interior (Department). Thank you for the opportunity
to testify before the Subcommittee today regarding the Colorado River
Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (Study). The Colorado River Basin
(Basin) is one of the most critical sources of water in the West. The
River and its tributaries provide water to nearly 40 million people for
municipal use, for irrigation of nearly 5.5 million acres of land, and
also it represents the lifeblood for at least 22 federally recognized
Indian tribes (tribes), seven National Wildlife Refuges, four National
Recreation Areas, and 11 National Parks. Hydropower facilities along
the Colorado River provide more than 4,200 megawatts of generating
capacity, helping to meet the power needs of the West and offsetting
the use of fossil fuels. The Colorado River is also a vital component
in fulfilling Mexico's agricultural and municipal water needs in Baja
California and Sonora.
Today the Colorado River is facing a record drought. The period
from 2000 to 2013 is shaping up to be the lowest 14-year period in the
over 100-year historical record for the Colorado River. Tree-ring
reconstructions of streamflow indicate that the current 14-year period,
which began in 2000, is one of the lowest in the Basin in over 1,200
years. The challenges and complexities of ensuring a sustainable water
supply and meeting future demand in the over-allocated and highly
variable Colorado River has been recognized and documented by
Reclamation and the Basin States of Arizona, California, Colorado, New
Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming for decades. Looking ahead, concerns
regarding the reliability of the Colorado River system to meet water
deliveries, power generation, environmental and recreational needs are
even greater, given the likelihood of increasing demand for water and
projections of reduced supply due to climate change.
It was against this backdrop that the Study was conducted by
Reclamation's Upper Colorado and Lower Colorado Regions and the Basin
States with participation and input from a broad range of stakeholders
including tribes, agricultural users, purveyors of municipal and
industrial water, power users, and conservation, environmental and
recreation organizations. The purpose of the Study was to define
current and future imbalances in water supply and demand in the Basin
and the adjacent areas of the Basin States that receive Colorado River
water over the next 50 years (through 2060). The Study also included a
wide array of adaptation and mitigation strategies proposed by
stakeholders and the public to resolve those imbalances. The Study did
not result in a decision as to how future imbalances should or will be
addressed. Rather, it provides a common technical foundation that
frames the range of potential imbalances that may be faced in the
future and the range of solutions identified by stakeholders and the
public that may be considered to resolve those imbalances. Reclamation
has not taken a position on the merits of any of these actions or
whether it may ultimately support pursuing any individual actions.
The Study is one of 22 Basin Studies being undertaken by
Reclamation and non-federal cost share partners across the West as part
of the WaterSMART (Sustain and Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow)
initiative. Through WaterSMART, Interior agencies work with state and
local water managers to plan for climate change, drought and other
threats to water supplies and consider their potentially interrelated
and combined effects, and take action to secure water resources for
communities, economies, and the ecosystems they support.
The Study is an unprecedented joint effort by Reclamation and the
Basin States and is the most comprehensive basin-wide analysis ever
undertaken within the Department. It began in January 2010 and was
completed in December 2012 at a cost of approximately $7.0 million,
which was roughly equally shared by Reclamation and agencies
representing the seven Basin States. This figure does not include the
``in-kind'' services by all of the other collaborators. The Study is a
model, not only for other Reclamation basin studies, but for watershed
planning across the country.
The FY 2014 Energy and Water appropriations bill passed by the
House of Representatives last week drastically underfunds critical
investments that develop American energy sources to build a clean and
secure energy future; develop and commercialize the emerging
technologies that create high-quality jobs and enhance the Nation's
economic competitiveness; and improve resilience against current and
ongoing climate impacts that threaten our economy, public health, and
natural resources. The bill eliminates the vast majority of WaterSMART
funding that supported the Colorado River Basin Study and would
significantly hinder actions under the WaterSMART program that could
help address water supply shortages in the Colorado River Basin and
elsewhere. Overall, the House bill would cut WaterSMART by 53%,
including the elimination of all funding for WaterSMART grants, despite
already having helped facilitate the conservation of 616,000 acre feet
of water from 2010 through 2012. This action undermines the Federal
government's ability to partner with local communities on improving
resilience against climate-related impacts that threaten a range of
economic and environmental interests. The Administration urges the
Congress to increase funding for the Bureau of Reclamation to the
requested level and to allocate funding to priority conservation,
science, and technology programs.
the study builds on a history of collaboration in the basin
Water managers and water users in the Colorado River Basin have
long recognized the need to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of
shortfalls between water supply and demand. As early as the 1950s, the
estimated annual water use in the Colorado River basin exceeded the
annual yield in some years. Prior to that, early water planning efforts
resulted in the construction of significant infrastructure such as
Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams. This infrastructure--about four years of
average natural flow of the river--has helped to avoid past water
shortages and to provide substantial power generation benefits to the
region. Recently, substantial progress has been made on refining
Colorado River water management, including the 2007 interim guidelines
for shortage, surplus, and coordinated operations, and the 2012
agreement with Mexico known as Minute 319 to the 1944 Treaty with
Mexico. These efforts have resolved potential conflicts in the short
and mid-term, are providing operational certainty in that same time
frame, and are facilitating conservation actions along with increased
water storage that is already helping to alleviate the impacts of the
ongoing drought. The benefits of these agreements will continue to
accrue for the foreseeable future.
The key to these historic accomplishments was collaboration and
partnerships. It is in that same spirit that the Study was conducted.
Through monumental outreach efforts, interested parties were engaged
and their participation and input was critical to the Study.
study approach and projected range of water supply and demand imbalance
The Study adopted state of the art techniques and approaches to
incorporate science, address uncertainty, and assess risk. In
particular, a scenario planning approach was used to identify a broad
range of future conditions leading to the most robust data generation
and analysis of any planning effort in the Basin. The Study considers
four different water supply scenarios and is the first Basin-wide study
that considers the potential influence of climate change on future
water supply. A range of future water demands were quantified in six
different demand scenarios that included varied assumptions about
future economic conditions, population growth, and water needs for
agricultural, municipal and industrial, energy, mineral, and fish,
wildlife, and recreation purposes.
The Study confirms that the Basin faces a range of potential future
imbalances between supply and demand. Each of those imbalances results
in decline in the performance of water deliveries, hydropower, water
quality, ecological, and recreational resources. When the median of
water supply projections is compared against the median of the water
demand projections, the basin-wide imbalance in future supply and
demand is about 3.2 million acre-feet annually by 2060. The average
reduction in hydropower output under this projection is approximately
12%. However, the imbalance can be much greater, or less, under any one
of the multiple future supply and demand scenarios that could occur.
The Study relied upon participants, stakeholders, and the public to
provide a broad range of potential options to help resolve the water
supply and demand imbalance. The Study then organized over 150 ideas or
``options'' into four groups: 1) those that increase Basin water
supply, 2) those that reduce Basin water demand, 3) those that focus on
modifying operations, and 4) those that focus primarily on Basin
governance and mechanisms to implement options. , The Study explored a
wide range of options with the goal of incorporating all viable
opportunities, even those that that may ultimately be uneconomic or
technically infeasible. Reclamation has not taken a position on the
merits of any of these actions or whether it may ultimately support
pursuing any individual actions.
An effective adaptation strategy would likely include large
agricultural, municipal, and industrial conservation and water
transfers, and water reuse options. Longer-term solutions are still
unclear, and may or may not involve the use of large-scale
augmentation, such as ocean desalination.
The Study's portfolio exploration indicates that implementation of
a broad range of options can reduce the Basin's vulnerability and
improve the system's resiliency to dry hydrologic conditions while
meeting increasing demands in the Basin and adjacent areas receiving
Colorado River water.
moving forward after the study
This Study is not a regional or river basin plan or proposal, or a
plan for any Federal water resource project. Rather, Reclamation
intends that the Study will promote and facilitate cooperation and
communication throughout the Basin regarding the reliability of the
system to continue to meet Basin needs. However, In recognition of the
enormous challenge facing the Basin states, the Federal Government can
provide a leadership role in appropriate processes to facilitate
dialogue about addressing water supply and demand imbalances in the
Colorado River Basin. As a part of this federal facilitation process,
Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary for Water and Science
Anne Castle and I participated with representatives from the Basin
States, the Ten Tribes Partnership, and conservation organizations in a
``Moving Forward'' public event in late May. This continuing effort
will require innovative thinking, integration of many viewpoints and a
commitment to work in a positive and collaborative spirit.
Phase 1 of this process builds on the critical investigations
identified in the Study and consists of the formation of three multi-
stakeholder workgroups representing Federal, State, Tribal,
agricultural, municipal, hydropower, environmental, and recreational
interests. These workgroups will investigate: 1) Municipal and
Industrial (M&I) Conservation and Water Reuse, 2) Agricultural
Conservation and Water Transfers, and 3) Environmental and Recreational
Flows. As projects, policies, and programs are developed, consideration
will be given to those that provide a wide-range of benefits to water
users and healthy rivers for all users. In addition, Reclamation and
the Ten Tribes Partnership are jointly pursuing a study related to
tribal water use and long-term needs.
It is anticipated that Phase 1 will be completed by 2014, after
which Phase 1 efforts will be reviewed, additional phases will be
identified, and the process will be reassessed and modified as needed
to facilitate anticipated further phases of work. Of course, this new
initiative is responsive to the findings of the Study and will be
carried out in parallel with ongoing efforts such as continued
operations under the 2007 guidelines; implementation of Minute 319;
installation of more efficient turbines on existing hydropower units;
and actions to further implement endangered species recovery programs
in the upper and lower basins. Collectively, these initiatives are
critical for short and mid-term operations, even as we seek to improve
long-term preparedness in the Basin.
conclusion
The Department of the Interior and Reclamation view the Colorado
River Basin Study as a critical step to establish a common technical
foundation from which important discussions can begin to help ensure
the sustainability of the Colorado River system. As we enter our second
decade of drought conditions, the communities that rely on the river to
sustain them are being forced to make tough choices. Tree-ring
reconstructions of streamflow indicate that the current 14-year period,
which began in 2000, is one of the lowest in the Basin in over 1,200
years. It is likely that climate change and its emerging challenges
will have major consequences on the Colorado River. There is no silver
bullet to solve these challenges. Fortunately, the level of cooperation
among key stakeholders has never been higher and as a result, there is
reason for optimism, even in the midst of the daunting challenges that
exist in this Basin. The Department will continue to be a partner in
assisting the Colorado River Basin prepare for, and successfully
address, the significant issues identified in the Study.
This concludes my written statement. Thank you for the opportunity
to discuss these important topics. I am prepared to answer questions at
the appropriate time.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Commissioner.
Ms. Trujillo.
STATEMENT OF TANYA TRUJILLO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLORADO RIVER
BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you very much and good afternoon. It's
an honor to be here today. I am Tanya Trujillo, the Executive
Director of the Colorado River Board of California. My comments
will focus on the Lower Basin States of California, Arizona and
Nevada, but I very much appreciate being here with my
colleagues from the Federal Government, the Upper Basin States
and the basin's tribes as well.
I flew along the Colorado River on my way out here and
followed the river from Lake Mead, outside Las Vegas, through
the Grand Canyon and into the Western mountains of Colorado. I
started that day in Los Angeles where the Colorado River is
part of our drinking water supply. In California we appreciate
the importance of the Colorado River to our communities and our
economies. We understand the diversity of interests that rely
on it.
This hearing centers on the Basin study that Reclamation
and the States conducted. The study has been a helpful tool
that will assist us as we continue to wisely plan for the
future. Prudent water management means that we need to be as
careful as possible with how water is used and to be creative
as possible with respect to development of additional supplies.
Although the Colorado River system is a variable system we
have been experiencing a sustained drought for the past 14
years. We know that we need to be able to manage our systems
for times of drought.
The Lower Basin States have worked together over the past
20 years to develop strategies to manage the limited Colorado
River supplies. We initially developed a system for allocating
surplus water because at that time we had been experiencing a
few decades of very good hydrology. But we also moved forward
to develop a system for addressing potential shortages and
developed agreements that provide for water banking and storage
so that we have water to save for future uses.
Within California for the past 10 years, our water users
have had agreements in place that allow for the transfer of
water between agricultural uses and municipal uses. Those
agreements preserve the essential agricultural productivity in
our State, but also provide for security for our cities.
Additional tools such as lining canals and improving irrigation
efficiency are also being put into place.
Throughout the Lower Basin our cities continue to develop
water savings programs to help reduce our overall per capita
water uses. On a basin wide level the basin States and our
water users work closely with the Bureau of Reclamation to
develop guidelines for the coordinated operation of Lake Powell
and Lake Mead. We also worked with Reclamation and the
International Boundary Water Commission on a recent agreement
with Mexico to allow for flexibility in water deliveries in
that system. These types of agreements help us efficiently
manage our water supplies.
Although we don't know exactly what the future will hold we
can use the 90 years of experience that we have and our recent
collaborations to help us address our future challenges. No
single strategy will be enough. But through additional
conservation, flexible management and the development of
additional supplies, we will strive to protect the many
important uses on the river.
Although we can always revert back to our respective
corners and work to strengthen our historical positions, our
current efforts are focused on working together to develop
coordinated solutions. These coordinated efforts are not easy
and if the hydrology continues to worsen the tensions will
increase. But through the rapport and trust that we have
developed through the 2007 guidelines and our more recent
efforts working together, for example with Mexico, we hope to
continue our forward progress.
We know that we need to coordinate with our Federal
partners on all of these efforts and with our tribes and with
the environmental interests in our States. Working together we
can address the challenges that may lie ahead. We look forward
to a productive dialog. We think the Basin studies next steps
process will be a helpful effort.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Trujillo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tanya Trujillo, Executive Director, Colorado
River Board of California
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee
regarding the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. I am
Tanya Trujillo, Executive Director of the Colorado River Board of
California. I appreciate the interest of the Subcommittee regarding
this important topic.
background regarding the colorado river basin water supply and demand
study
The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (Basin
Study) is the latest collaboration between the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation and the seven Colorado River Basin
States of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and
Wyoming. Although this testimony will focus on the perspective of the
Lower Division States of Arizona, California and Nevada, the Basin
Study is a good example of coordination among all of the basin States,
interested water agencies, and others to collectively address the water
supply challenges that the basin may face in the future.
The Colorado River Board of California was established in 1937 to
protect the interests and rights of the State of California, its
agencies, and citizens, in the water and power resources of the
Colorado River System. The Colorado River Board of California's member
agencies are Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation
District, Coachella Valley Water District, the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, the Department of Water and Power of
the City of Los Angeles, and the San Diego County Water Authority. The
Colorado River Board also includes two members of the public and the
Directors of the California Water Resources and Fish and Wildlife
Departments. California has a normal, annual allocation from the
Colorado River of 4.4 million acre-feet of water. Water from the
Colorado River is used to irrigate over 700,000 acres of some of the
most productive farmland in the country, particularly during the
winter. The Colorado River is also a very important component of the
water supply for the municipalities in Southern California, which
provide water service to around 20 million people.
The Colorado River provides similar benefits within Nevada,
providing approximately 90% of the municipal water supply for member
agencies of the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) which include
the Cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson, as well as
Clark County. SNWA has two intakes in Lake Mead at elevations 1,050 and
1,000 feet above sea level; therefore, the future levels of Lake Mead
are critical to a continued supply of water for southern Nevada.
The Colorado River is also a vital resource for the State of
Arizona. About 39% of Arizona's total water demand is met with Colorado
River water. Colorado River water is used to meet municipal,
agricultural, industrial and tribal water demands. It is stored
underground to provide protection against future droughts and shortages
and to conjunctively manage groundwater levels in central Arizona.
The communities that rely on Colorado River water in the Lower
Division States are committed to ensuring that they utilize effective
water management strategies and continue their ongoing planning efforts
to protect and preserve Colorado River resources for many years.
The Colorado River Basin States and the Department of the Interior
have worked collaboratively for many years to overcome challenges
relating to water allocation and to balance the many interests that
exist within the Colorado River Basin. The Basin Study is another
example of this successful partnership. The Basin States contributed
one-half of the funding to conduct the study and provided extensive
background information and technical input during the study. Over a
three-year period, the Basin States, individual water agencies, other
interested parties and the Bureau of Reclamation worked hand-in-hand to
produce the most comprehensive analysis of the Colorado River Basin's
prospective water supply and demands to date. This collaborative effort
compiled input from interested parties throughout the Basin including
environmental organizations, Native American tribes and communities,
hydroelectric power and recreational interests, and other federal
agencies. The collaboration continues and the ongoing efforts will
assist the Colorado River Basin managers in effectively addressing the
challenges that lie ahead.
the story of the basin study
The Basin Study is the most recent projection of the potential
imbalances between water supply and demands in the Colorado River Basin
and adjacent areas of the Basin States that receive Colorado River
water. The Basin Study incorporates projections based on an evaluation
of the potential effects of climate change on runoff within the Basin
that may result in even more uncertainty regarding the potential future
conditions the Basin may face. By analyzing four different supply
scenarios and six different demand scenarios, the Basin Study projects
that without continued proactive water management efforts in place, an
overall average imbalance between available water supply and potential
demands of about 3.2 million acre-feet by 2060, although the range of
potential imbalances varied between 0 and almost 8 million acre-feet.
The Basin Study's analysis was not a new concept for the Basin
States or the Bureau of Reclamation. Prior studies and analyses also
concluded that without development of effective water management
strategies to address growing demands for water, an imbalance between
available water supply and projected demands could exist. For decades,
communities that rely on Colorado River water have made significant
investments to conserve water, reuse water, develop supplemental water
resources and construct infrastructure designed to efficiently utilize
water. The Basin Study reinforces the continued need to implement
programs and policies to address the water management challenges
associated with the many competing needs for the river's waters.
Consistent with the ongoing practices and strategies for wise
management of the Colorado River's resources, the Basin Study
identified a broad range of options and strategies to address projected
imbalances between supply and demands. The suggestions were gathered
from hundreds of perspectives, including the general public. The Basin
Study categorized the proposed options and strategies according to
whether they were aimed at reducing demands, increasing supplies, or
modifying existing operations. All of the recommended options and
strategies will require additional review and analysis before any of
them can be implemented. None of the recommended options, on their own,
would be sufficient to address the projected imbalances, but by
grouping options and ideas together and analyzing the effects of
combined efforts, a future scenario that maintains the balance between
potential future supplies and demands is possible.
The technical team that conducted the Basin Study should be
complimented for their competent and professional approach to
completing the Basin Study's Technical Reports. The technical work will
continue to be essential as the Basin's water managers, agencies,
businesses and individuals that rely on the Colorado River, progress
forward. The Basin Study is an excellent example of a successful
collaborative effort between the Federal Government and the Basin
States that builds upon prior successful cooperation and hopefully will
lead to successful continued coordination for decades to come. In this
regard, the Colorado River Basin can be a model for other complex river
systems.
continued efforts to address the projected imbalance between supply and
demands
For more than 20 years, the Colorado River Basin States have been
working with the Department of the Interior on ways to better manage
the water supplies within the Colorado River Basin. The completion of
the Basin Study in December 2012 was another step in the right
direction. Since December, the Basin States and Interior have been
collaborating with other interested participants to map out the next
stages of cooperation. The Basin Study identifies several areas of
potential future actions and the Basin States and the Bureau of
Reclamation are working to implement each of the Basin Study's
recommendations. To evaluate some of these future actions, three
workgroups have been formed. The Municipal and Industrial Conservation
and Reuse workgroup will evaluate existing programs to refine the
estimate of potential water saved through conservation and reuse
programs. The Agricultural Conservation and Transfers Workgroup will
refine the estimated potential savings from agricultural conservation
and transfers. The Healthy Flows workgroup will evaluate potential
model improvements for simulating river flows and evaluate certain
river reaches.
In conjunction with the release of the Basin Study, the Basin
States released a statement confirming their ongoing commitments to
future actions. Acknowledging the highly variable nature of the
Colorado River system and recognizing that no single solution will be
sufficient to meet the future potential water demand and supply
imbalances, the Basin States identified a series of local, regional and
basin-wide projects that are underway or can be implemented to help
meet future demands for water within the Basin. The Basin States
confirmed the need to adhere to the ``Law of the River'', which has
served the Basin well for over 90 years and has evolved to meet ever
present challenges.
The Basin States recognize that successful ongoing water
conservation and reuse efforts have been adopted by many municipal
agencies in each State to reduce growing needs for water. In many
areas, the per capita use of water is lower now than in the past
despite higher populations. Municipalities within the Basin will
continue to implement water conservation and reuse opportunities, and
are working closely with the other members of the Basin Study's
Municipal and Industrial Conservation and Reuse Workgroup to refine the
Basin Study's assumptions.
Similarly, the Basin Study's Agricultural Conservation and
Transfers Workgroup will document the existing conservation and
transfers of Colorado River water throughout the Basin. Within
California, significant amounts of water will continue to be
transferred from agricultural to municipal uses pursuant to existing
agreements between specific water users. These types of voluntary
agreements are designed to provide mutual benefits to the participating
agencies and are important tools available to help manage finite
supplies of water.
Many of the water providers within the Lower Division States
already have been very proactive in meeting existing water supply needs
through wise management of the Colorado River's resources, and also
have developed additional sources of water, recognizing that developing
a balanced portfolio of water supply is a sound water management
practice. California's municipal water providers serve close to 20
million of the more than 30 million people who receive at least part of
their water supply from the Colorado River. California's municipal
conservation efforts include conservation, water recycling and reuse
and development of local groundwater resources to supplement water
supplies. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's 2013
Annual Progress Report to the California State Legislature documents
the agency's achievements in conservation, recycling and groundwater
recharge. In Nevada, between 2002 and 2012, the Southern Nevada Water
Authority's consumption of Colorado River water decreased by
approximately 29 billion gallons, despite the addition of 400,000
residents. SNWA has implemented a broad range of education and
incentive programs to encourage ongoing water conservation. Arizona has
also developed programs to encourage efficient agricultural, industrial
and residential water uses and has an extensive groundwater management
system in place to try to balance the surface and groundwater uses in
Active Management Areas that include the largest population centers of
the state.
Water delivery contractors within the Lower Division States, such
as the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California, and the Central Arizona Water Conservation
District are allowed to bank portions of their conserved water supplies
and have jointly funded projects to help increase the water resources
within the Basin. These States have developed proactive water
management agreements regarding how to allocate surplus water when it
is available under certain conditions and how to address shortage
conditions if the water supply levels deteriorate. On a basin-wide
level, all seven Basin States have agreed to coordinated operating
guidelines that the Bureau of Reclamation uses to manage releases of
water from Lake Powell to the Lower Basin. These types of agreements
have set the stage for the continued cooperation that exists today.
The Basin States have also been working to develop basin-wide
programs to support weather modification and vegetation management
options, and have committed to evaluate additional water supply
augmentation options such as large-scale desalination and importation
projects that will require extensive planning and research prior to
being considered for implementation. The Basin Study's ``next steps''
outline describes the ongoing commitments of the Basin States to lead
efforts to explore additional water banking, water supply augmentation
and watershed management options to address short-term and long-term
needs for water.
The Basin States will also continue their efforts to assist in
implementation of the International Boundary and Water Commission's
Minute No. 319 to the 1944 Treaty for the Utilization of Waters of the
Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande between the United
States and Mexico. Executed in November 2012, Minute No. 319 extends
some of the water management flexibilities developed within the United
States, such as water banking, to the context of the United States'
Colorado River water delivery obligations to Mexico. Collaboration with
federal, state, and local representatives in Mexico resulted in the
development of this mutually beneficial agreement. Continuing to build
off the success of Minute No. 319 would result in additional basin-wide
benefits.
The collective management efforts among the Basin States, water
agencies and the Federal Government have kept the water levels higher
in Lake Mead than they otherwise would have been, despite having
endured over 10 years of drought. In light of the looming possibility
of continued drought and the Basin Study's recent projections of
potential supply and demand imbalances, it is more important than ever
that we continue to roll up our sleeves and work together to find
creative, implementable solutions.
the role of congress
The SECURE Water Act, Subtitle F of P.L. 111-11, provided general
authority for the Basin Study and provides continued authority for the
federal agencies to work with State and local entities to plan for the
future and develop water sustainability strategies. Ongoing
Congressional support for funding for the Bureau of Reclamation's Water
SMART and Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse programs would help
continue the beneficial cooperation that currently exists within the
Basin. The Water SMART programs are cost-shared by the non-federal
participants and provide assistance to local water management entities
that are attempting to conserve water and maximize water use
efficiency. Investments in existing water supply infrastructure to
ensure that the operation of existing facilities can be as efficient
and secure as possible and continued funding for water efficiency and
conservation programs that are matched by or enhance the ongoing
efforts at the state and local levels are helpful tools that should
continue.
conclusion
The Colorado River Basin States recognize that we are part of a
complex community that relies on a vitally important shared natural
resource and involves diverse areas of responsibility. The impacts of
continued drought are being felt by all of the varied users of water
within the Basin States. The Basin States plan to continue our
successful collaborations, including the recent successes with Mexico,
to develop tools and strategies to enable us to address ongoing
challenges and meet the evolving demands on the Colorado River. The
Basin Study's technical foundation will help support that process.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this
important topic.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Ms. Trujillo.
Mr. Ostler.
STATEMENT OF DON A. OSTLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UPPER COLORADO
RIVER COMMISSION
Mr. Ostler. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and subcommittee
members. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on
this important topic.
My name is Don Ostler. I'm the Executive Director of the
Upper Colorado River Commission. My Commission was created by
ratification of the 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact.
It's comprised of members appointed by the Governors of the 4
Upper Basin States of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico
and one member appointed by the President to represent the
interest of the United States.
As we talk about the study it's important to recognize that
this is not the first study of its kind in the Colorado River
Basin. The States and Reclamation and others have been doing
studies of supply and demand for many years. For example, the
Upper Basin has completed numerous studies to determine the
safe annual yield of the Upper Colorado River to determine our
safe development levels.
It has already been mentioned that 2007 interim guidelines
is an action taken to help us manage shortage and coordinated
operations.
It's also been mentioned that Minute 319 for the Mexican
Water Treaty is a monumental action to help Mexico share in
shortage, give them tools to address shortages and mitigate
shortages, but better yet, to potentially augment the supply
for all the users of the Colorado River Basin.
These types of actions including the study that we're
talking about today are possible only by recognizing the close
relationship that exists between the Department of the
Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation and the States. The States,
after all, are the managers of the water within their
boundaries. They're the direct link to water users on the
ground.
Reclamation and the Department of the Interior is the water
manager for the Lower Basin and they operate the reservoirs
that we depend upon.
The Upper Colorado River Commission is the water manager
for the water master for the Upper Basin.
Now a word about the Study.
The Basin study is an important step to refine and help us
improve our strategies and options to address the supply and
demand imbalance. The results of this study are no surprise the
basin States. We have seen supply and demand imbalance
projections before. This is a refinement at a level that is
unprecedented, however, in terms of the level of this study.
Another thing to remember with regards to this study is
there are great uncertainty with regards to projections of the
future. A good thing about this study is that it took a
scenario approach to assume many different scenarios for
demands in the future and many different scenarios for supply
in the future. So that we have good data, regardless of which
of those scenarios turn out to be true and we can plan for all
of those scenarios which is the appropriate thing to do, in my
opinion.
Another thing that we learned from the study is that no
single strategy will solve our vulnerability by itself. We need
to implement a portfolio of actions in order to address and
reduce the vulnerability of this entire basin to shortage.
Those actions could include conservation, changing management
approaches, as well as augmentation.
Finally, even if we do that, we still will have to have
good shortage management plans because vulnerability in this
basin will not be entirely eliminated with the strategies that
we're looking at. But we can manage. We can make things
bearable as we go through extreme droughts.
I would like to just simply mention a couple of things that
are different from the strategy between the Upper Basin and the
Lower Basin.
The Upper Basin States, which I represent, have additional
water to develop from the Colorado River according to the
compact and according to the safe annual yield of the river.
Second is climate assumptions. Probably are the most
significant impactor of our vulnerabilities in the Upper Basin,
even more significant than the various ranges of development or
demand growth.
Finally the Upper Basin experiences shortages now every
year. Those shortages are in the tributaries usually where we
do not have storage. They exist now and they will continue in
the future unless we find some way to provide storage for those
tributaries. That's no possible in all of them.
So shortage is a fact of life.
The Lower Basin, on the other hand, is at full development
of all the water really that's available from the compact. They
face imminent system shortage. They face much greater problems
of serving additional growth.
So I think the importance of this is that, I think, all of
the States are lined up to initiate the next steps. No one
wants to see this study sit on the shelf. I think actions have
been taken under the leadership of the Bureau of Reclamation,
the Department of the Interior and the States to further move
toward implementation strategies.
I'm optimistic with the foundation that we have, with our
past working relationships, with proper attention to the role
of each of the entities that are represented at this table,
that we can greatly improve our future and manage through the
droughts that we are expected to see.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ostler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Don A. Ostler, Executive Director, Upper Colorado
River Commission
introduction
Good afternoon Chairman Schatz and members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the important
topic of the December 2012 Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand
Study. My name is Don Ostler and I am here today as the Executive
Director representing the Upper Colorado River Commission (the
Commission). The Commission is an interstate water administrative
agency created by State and federal ratification of the 1948 Upper
Colorado River Basin Compact (Compact). The Commission is comprised of
one person appointed by the Governor of each of the Upper Division
States of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico. In addition, the
President appoints one Commissioner to represent the United States. The
responsibilities of this Commission include performance of all
functions required of it by the Compact. Among the duties assigned
include engaging in cooperative studies; making findings of the annual
quantity of water used in the Upper Basin; making findings of the water
deliveries to Lee Ferry (the Lower Basin); making findings of the
necessity for and extent of curtailment of use required by the Compact;
making findings of the quantity of reservoir losses and the share
chargeable under the Compact to each state and finally; making findings
of fact in the event of the occurrence of extraordinary drought or
serious accident to the system in the Upper Basin which may affect the
United States' obligations under the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944. As
you can see, this Commission has been and will continue to be
critically involved along with the Upper Division States in the
administration of Colorado River water. The Upper Basin includes the
Colorado River and all tributary waters that drain into the River above
Lee Ferry Arizona, a point about 16 miles downstream from Glen Canyon
Dam. The Lower Basin includes the Colorado River and all tributary
water draining into the River downstream of Lee Ferry Arizona prior to
its passage into Mexico and includes water users in Arizona, Nevada,
California and small parts of New Mexico and Utah.
role of the states and the commission in the basin study
The Colorado River Basin States and the Commission have long been
involved in planning for development of the Colorado River water supply
including forecasting supply and demand issues and developing
strategies to address potential problems. For example, the Commission
and Upper Basin States in partnership with Reclamation have conducted
several hydrologic studies to determine the safe annual yield of the
Colorado River in the Upper Basin. These studies have been used to
guide development and use of Colorado River water in the Upper Basin.
The seven Colorado River Basin States in cooperation with Reclamation
have a history of working together to identify problems in advance and
to cooperatively craft strategies to mitigate or avoid anticipated
problems without disturbing the ``Law of the River''. Recent examples
of this include the development of Interim Shortage Guidelines and
Coordination of Reservoir Operations in 2007 to mitigate or avoid the
effects of drought. In addition, the States recently played a major
role along with the Department of the Interior (DOI) in initiating and
conducting discussions with the government of Mexico to establish
Minute 319 to the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944. This Minute allows
Mexico to participate in shortage management and mitigation along with
the United States and provides tools for conservation and possible
future augmentation of the supply to the benefit of both nations.
Throughout these processes, the States and the Commission have enjoyed
a close working relationship with the DOI, working primarily with the
Bureau of Reclamation to cooperatively identify and address problems
within the Colorado River System. Maintaining this relationship is the
key as we address future problems of supply and demand inasmuch as the
states have the primary responsibility for managing water within their
boundaries and are the principal link with actual water users. DOI is
the water master for the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and the
operator of many of the large storage reservoirs that we depend upon,
and the Commission is the water master for the Upper Basin.
the 2012 basin study (basin study)
The seven Colorado River Basin states and the Commission, being
fully aware of future supply and demand imbalances, sought funding
jointly with the Upper and Lower Colorado River Regions of the Bureau
of Reclamation for the Basin Study through the DOI WaterSMART Program.
The Basin States contributed 50% of the expense of this study and along
with the Commission, fully participated with Reclamation in management
and direction of the study. This study provided a vehicle to update and
refine information from previous studies done by the various states and
others with more specifics as we move closer to implementation of
strategies to address supply and demand imbalances. As such, the
overall imbalance identified in the study was not a large surprise to
us or to the Lower Basin States. There is considerable uncertainty in
projecting future conditions in the Basin. Therefore the study
identified numerous scenarios for anticipated future supply and demand
conditions and then provided identification and evaluation of options
and strategies to address supply and demand imbalances. The median of
supply and demand imbalances projected through the year 2060 was 3.2
million acre-feet for the entire Colorado River Basin. A large number
of options and strategies were evaluated to decrease system
vulnerability. These included many different means to reduce demand,
increase the supply and modify operations. It is clear from the study
that no single option is adequate to significantly reduce
vulnerability. It will require a portfolio of effective options and
strategies to be implemented to accomplish this. Even then, system
vulnerability will not be fully eliminated so shortage management plans
during the worst drought conditions will still be required. It is
important to note that both the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin face
challenges, but the problems are different for each basin. The Upper
Basin has yet to develop its full 1922 Compact apportionment and will
continue to develop its supply. Such development will continue to be
tempered by better knowledge of future supply, more efficient
management of water use and our ability to tolerate drought through
development of management options. The study shows that the probability
of a Compact driven curtailment of use, (or Compact call), is low for
the Upper Basin over the 50 year study period even with additional
projected growth in water use. The most significant factor affecting
this probability is the assumptions used to estimate future supply
including global climate models. It is also important to understand
that significant local hydrological driven shortages, primarily on
smaller tributaries without sufficient storage, exist now in the Upper
Basin every year and will continue. The Lower Basin, which has not had
to endure shortages to date, has already developed its full 1922
Compact apportionment and faces much more imminent potential of system
mandated shortages as well as greater challenges about how to meet the
needs of future municipal and industrial growth. Although the problems
faced by the two basins are different, many problems are common.
Because of coordinated reservoir operations, problems or shortages in
one basin can have an impact on the other basin. The seven Basin States
recognize the significant commonality of our vulnerabilities to supply
and demand imbalance and are committed to mutual coordinated efforts to
address problems.
next steps
The Basin States, the Commission and the Department of the Interior
all recognize that we must move immediately to address the
vulnerabilities identified in the Basin Study. In doing so it is
imperative that the close working relationship between DOI and the
Basin States is maintained and that all parties move forward in a
coordinated fashion respectful of the various roles and
responsibilities of the entities involved. The Colorado River Basin
remains in a very severe 14 year drought, the continuation of which
could drive Lake Powell to levels that threaten the ability to generate
electrical power and Lake Mead to levels that require implementation of
shortages within a few years. It is for these reasons that the states
and DOI are initiating a ``Next Steps'' process now to address
vulnerabilities. Plans have already been put in place to formulate
workgroups of state, DOI and stakeholder representatives to further
refine options and strategies that may be implemented in both the near
and long term. The seven Basin States and the Commission will continue
their efforts to address near and long term water supply shortages. We
will continue to need the full support of DOI as we address these
difficult issues in partnership. The modeling, technical expertise and
policy guidance of Reclamation as well as continued Congressional
support of financial resources such as the WaterSMART Program are
essential in moving forward with next steps. I am confident that in a
collaborative approach relying upon the sound relationships that we
have built in the past, we have the ability to address these problems
before us. Thank you for your time Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee
members.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Ostler.
Mr. Vigil.
STATEMENT OF T. DARRYL VIGIL, CHAIRMAN, COLORADO RIVER BASIN
TRIBES PARTNERSHIP
Mr. Vigil. Good afternoon, Chairman Udall, Ranking Member
Lee and my Senator, Senator Heinrich. I'm Darryl Vigil. I'm a
member of the Jicarilla Apache Nation and Chairman of the
Colorado River Basin Tribes Partnership. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today regarding
the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Water Supply
and Demand Study.
The partnership was formed in 1992 for the purpose of
member tribes joining together to develop and protect tribal
water resources and to address technical, legal, economic and
practical issues related to the operation of the Colorado River
that would affect the interests of the Ten Tribes of federally
recognized reserved water rights in the Colorado River and its
Upper Basin tributaries. The Ten Tribes are located in both the
Upper and Lower Basins of the Colorado River.
The tribes located in the Upper Basin are the Ute Indian
Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray reservation, the Ute Mountain Ute
Tribe, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Jicarilla Apache
Nation.
The tribes located in the Lower Basin are the Chemehuevi
Indian Tribe, the Cocopah Indian Tribe, the Colorado River
Indian Tribes, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, the Cocopah, I mean
the Quechan Indian Tribe.
One tribe, the Navajo Nation, is located in both the Upper
and Lower Basins.
The partnership is a member of the Colorado River Water
Users Association and the immediate past Chairman of the
partnership, George Arthur, serves as the current President of
the Colorado River Water Users Association in his capacity as
representative of the Partnership.
The study identified 29 federally recognized tribes in the
Colorado River Basin with claims to the use of water from the
Basin. To date there has been recognized, either through
Federal and State court decrees or Congressionally approved
tribal water settlements that tribes in the Basins have a right
to divert in excess of 2.9 million acre feet per year from the
Colorado River and its Upper Basin tributaries of which the Ten
Tribes have a right to divert an excess of 2.3 million acre
feet.
Because not all the tribes in the Basin or all the Ten
Tribes have had their water rights determined this amount will
increase in the future as final resolution of tribes' water
rights are achieved. Given that the observed historical on term
mean natural flow of the Colorado River is approximately 15
million acre feet per year, it is clear that the Tribes' rights
constitute a significant quantity of the historic long term
mean natural flow and need to be fully addressed by the basin
States and the United States in the ongoing Basin study.
The Ten Tribes in the Basin use water for multiple purposes
including irrigation, recreation, domestic, commercial,
wildlife, in stream flows, habitat restoration, municipal,
industrial, mining, power generation, cultural and religious
activities to list a few. The Ten Tribes are working hard to
put the water to which they are entitled to use for the benefit
of their tribal members. But water development on reservations
has proven to be difficult and slow frustrated in large part by
the Federal Government's general unwillingness to fund water
infrastructure for the benefit of the tribes.
The Ten Tribes are very concerned while they struggle to
put their water to use, other with far more political clout are
relying on unused tribal water supplies and will seek to
curtail future tribal water use to protect their own uses.
Stated another way, the Ten Tribes are concerned about the
impact on other water users when the Ten Tribes' water rights
are put to full use for the benefit of tribal members and how
that will affect the ability of the Ten Tribes to put their
water to use.
At the outset of the study the Ten Tribes were not
represented on the steering committee established for the
study. Membership was limited to the representatives of the
Bureau and the basin States. Nor did the Ten Tribes feel that
they had much of a role in it because they were neglected in
participation on sub--that they were relegated to the
participation on sub-teams that were used to develop technical
data for the study.
Because it appears that the study was to be a decision
document which could significantly adversely impact tribal
water rights and the tribal usage of water in the future
exclusion from the steering committee became a matter of great
concern of the Partnership. This shortcoming and other concerns
were raised with the Bureau of Reclamation reminding the Bureau
of the United States trust responsibility to them in the
protection of the water and of the tribe's sovereign status and
control of their water.
The Partnership suggests that the following steps be taken
to address their concerns about the study.
One, acknowledge and protect early priority of tribal water
rights.
Two, recognize and protect and use allocation of tribe's
quantified water rights.
Three, recognize and protect unquantified tribal water
rights.
Four, recognize the special status of tribal reserve water
rights that is embodied in Federal statutes and State case law.
Five, provide a seat on the steering committee for the
Partnership.
Six, require the Colorado River simulation system model
quantify the extent to the reliance of water users on the
decreed and undecreed rights of the tribes not being fully
exercised.
In response to the concerns by the Partnership, the Bureau,
much to its credit, undertook outreach to all the tribes to
explain the purpose of the study, acknowledged the tribes water
rights and reaffirmed the United States trust responsibility to
the tribes.
The Bureau assured the Partnership the study was not
intended to serve as a decision document, but was a first step
in identifying what the potential imbalances of the Basin water
supply and demand may be in the future and in identifying
possible solutions to resolve these--those imbalances that
deserve additional study and analysis.
Because of the limited scope of the study the matters
raised by the Partnership would not be addressed in the first
step study. But those matters would be appropriate for further
study. With that understood--with that understanding and as a
result of the Bureau's outreach efforts, a number of tribes
actively cooperated with the Bureau in providing data for the
study.
The outreach provided--proved to be successful. The results
are reflected in Appendix C9 of the study which contains a
tribal water demand scenario quantification. Although as noted,
a number of the tribes actively participated in the data
collection needed for the study, the Partnership was still wary
that the information in the study regarding tribal water might
be used to their detriment and recommended that a disclaimer
about the study be incorporated into it.
The import of which is nothing in that study is intended to
nor shall the study be construed so as to interpret, diminish
or modify the rights of any federally recognized tribe pursuant
to Federal and State court decrees, treaties, agreements,
executive orders and Federal trust responsibility. Further, the
disclaimer acknowledges that the Bureau and the basin States
would continue to recognize the entitlement and right of each
State in any federally recognized tribe under existing law to
use and develop the water of the Colorado River system. Through
the cooperative efforts of the Bureau personnel the Basin State
representatives and tribal representatives, a disclaimer was
developed and agreed upon. It is found at Executive Summary -22
in the Executive Summary of the study.
Inclusion of the disclaimer was an important aspect of the
study for the Ten Tribes and laid the foundation for future
work with the Bureau and the basin States in the next steps
phase of the study. Because the Ten Tribes have significant
quantities of recognized water rights which will increase as
the remaining rights are fully quantified, any study of water
in the Basin must----
Senator Udall. Mr. Vigil, your statement is very important.
The entire statement will be included in the record. I do want
to get to questions. I'm worried that, frankly, if you complete
your statement we'll be quite a bit into the time that we all
have.
So can I ask you to summarize?
Mr. Vigil. Sure.
Senator Udall. Then we can turn to questions.
Mr. Vigil. Absolutely.
Senator Udall. I would say this with all due respect and I
think I can speak for all the members of the committee. We
support the Native American community's requests in historic
access to this water. We will work with you to ensure that your
concerns are met.
Mr. Vigil. Sure. If I could read my conclusion statement,
that would be great. Thank you.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss to not
acknowledging the yeoman's work performed by Carly Jerla and
Pam Adams of the Bureau of Reclamation in reaching out to the
tribes and tirelessly advocating on the tribes' behalf and
ensuring the tribes' concerns were addressed. This effort
resulted in the tribes actively participating in the study.
Their efforts were fully supported by Commissioner Connor,
Assistant Secretary Castle and Regional Directors of the Lower
and Upper Basins, Terry Fulp and Larry Walkoviak.
I also wanted to note the cooperation and thank the Basin
State representatives in working with the Partnership in
developing the disclaimer contained in the study.
Last I wanted to thank Cathy Condon and Chuck Lawler from
the Partnership for their work in coordinating tribal and
Bureau work which resulted in an improved study and better
understanding of tribal water issues for all concerned.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vigil follows:]
Prepared Statement of T. Darryl Vigil, Chairman, Colorado River Basin
Tribes Partnership
Chairman Schatz and members of the Subcommittee, I am Darryl Vigil,
a member of the Jicarilla Apache Nation and Chairman of the Colorado
River Basin Tribes Partnership (``Partnership''). Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today regarding the
Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand
Study (``Study'').
background of the colorado river basin tribes partnership
The Partnership was formed in 1992 for the purpose of member Tribes
joining together to develop and protect tribal water resources and to
address technical, legal, economic and practical issues related to the
operation of the Colorado River that would affect the interests of the
ten Tribes with federally reserved water rights in the Colorado River
and its Upper Basin tributaries (``Ten Tribes''). The Ten Tribes are
located in both the Upper and Lower Basins of the Colorado River. The
Tribes located in the Upper Basin are: Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah
and Ouray Reservation, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, the Southern Ute
Indian Tribe and the Jicarilla Apache Nation; the Tribes located in the
Lower Basin are: Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Cocopah Indian Tribe,
Colorado River Indian Tribes, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the Quechan
Indian Tribe. One Tribe, the Navajo Nation, is located in both the
Upper and Lower Basins. The Partnership is a member of the Colorado
River Water Users Association and the immediate past Chairman of the
Partnership, George Arthur, serves as the current President of the
Colorado River Water Users Association in his capacity as
representative of the Partnership.
brief description of the tribes in the seven basin states and their
water rights and claims
The Study identified 29 federally recognized tribes (``tribes'') in
the Colorado River Basin (``Basin'') with claims to the use of water
from the Basin. To date, there has been recognized, either through
federal and state court decrees or congressionally approved tribal
water settlements, that tribes in the Basin have the right to divert in
excess of 2.9 million acre-feet-per year (``MAF'') from the Colorado
River and its Upper Basin tributaries, of which the Ten Tribes have the
right to divert in excess of 2.3 MAF. Because not all tribes in the
Basin or all of the Ten Tribes have had their water rights determined,
this amount will increase in the future as final resolution of the
tribes rights are achieved. Given that the observed historical long
term mean natural flow of the Colorado River is approximately 15
million acre feet per year, it is clear that the tribes' rights
constitute a significant quantity of the historic long term mean
natural flow and need to be fully addressed by the Basin States and the
United States in the ongoing Basin Study.
The Ten Tribes in the Basin use water for multiple purposes
including irrigation, recreation, domestic, commercial, wildlife,
instream flows, habitat restoration, municipal, industrial, mining,
power generation, cultural and religious activities to list a few. The
Ten Tribes are working hard to put the water to which they are entitled
to use for the benefit of their tribal members but water development on
the reservations has proven to be difficult and slow, frustrated in
large part by the federal government's general unwillingness to fund
water infrastructure for the benefit of tribes. The Ten Tribes are very
concerned that while they struggle to put their water to use, others
with far more political clout are relying on unused tribal water
supplies and will seek to curtail future tribal water use to protect
their own uses. Stated another way, the Ten Tribes are concerned about
the impact on other water users when the Ten Tribes' water rights are
put to full use for the benefit of tribal members and how that will
affect the ability of the Ten Tribes to put their water to use.
comments on the study as it relates to tribal water in the basin
At the outset of the Study, the Ten Tribes were not represented on
the steering committee established for the Study; membership was
limited to representatives of the Bureau and the Basin States. Nor did
the Ten Tribes feel that they had much of a role in it because they
were relegated to participation on sub-teams that were used to develop
technical data for the Study. Because it appeared that the Study was to
be a decision document which could significantly and adversely impact
tribal water rights and tribal usage of water in the future, exclusion
from the steering committee became a matter of great concern to the
Partnership; this shortcoming and other concerns were raised with the
Bureau of Reclamation reminding the Bureau of the United States' trust
responsibility to them in the protection of their water and of the
tribes' sovereign status in control of their water. The Partnership
suggested that the following steps be taken to address their concerns
about the Study:
1. Acknowledge and protect the early priority of tribal water
rights.
2. Recognize and protect the unused allocation of the tribes'
quantified water rights.
3. Recognize and protect the unquantified tribal water
rights.
4. Recognize the special status of tribal reserved water
rights that is embodied in federal statutes and federal and
state case law.
5. Provide a seat on the steering committee for the
Partnership.
6. Require that the Colorado River Simulation System model
quantify the extent of the reliance of water users on decreed
and undecreed rights of tribes not being fully exercised.
In response to the concerns raised by the Partnership, the Bureau,
much to its credit, undertook outreach to all of the tribes to explain
the purpose of the Study, acknowledge the tribes' water rights and
reaffirm the United States' trust responsibility to the tribes. The
Bureau assured the Partnership that the Study was not intended to serve
as a decision document but was a ``first step'' in identifying what the
potential imbalances of Basin water supply and demand may be in the
future and in identifying possible solutions to resolve those
imbalances that deserve additional study and analysis. Because of the
limited scope of the Study, the matters raised by the Partnership would
not be addressed in the ``first step'' Study but those matters would be
appropriate for further study. With that understanding and as a result
of the Bureau's outreach efforts, a number of tribes actively
cooperated with the Bureau in providing data for the Study.
The outreach proved to be successful and the results are reflected
in Appendix C9 of the Study which contains Tribal Water Demand Scenario
Quantification.
Although as noted, a number of tribes actively participated in the
data collection needed for the Study, the Partnership was still wary
that the information in the Study regarding tribal water might be used
to their detriment, and recommended that a Disclaimer about the Study
be incorporated into it. The import of which is that nothing in the
Study is intended to nor shall the Study be construed so as to
interpret, diminish or modify the rights of any federally recognized
tribe, pursuant to federal and state court decrees, treaties,
agreements executive orders, and federal trust responsibility. Further
the Disclaimer acknowledges that the Bureau and the Basin States would
continue to recognize the entitlement and right of each State and any
federally recognized tribe under existing law to use and develop the
water of the Colorado River system. Through the cooperative efforts of
the Bureau personnel, the Basin States representatives and tribal
representatives, a Disclaimer was developed and agreed upon; it is
found at ES-22 in the Executive Summary of the Study.
Inclusion of the Disclaimer was an important aspect of the Study
for the Ten Tribes and laid the foundation for future work with the
Bureau and Basin States in the ``next steps'' phase of the Study.
reasons for a tribal water study as part of the ``next steps'' phase of
the study that the bureau is undertaking
Because the Ten Tribes have significant quantities of recognized
water rights which will increase as their remaining rights are finally
quantified, any study of water in the Basin must reasonably include the
Ten Tribes. Further because of their sovereign status and control over
use of their water and the United States' trust responsibility
regarding protecting the tribes' water resources, tribal involvement
will be critical to any solution regarding future supply imbalance in
the Basin.
Water allocation and management of tribal water have significant
legal and policy considerations and while these issues are identified
in the Study, they were not addressed. To correct this shortcoming, at
a meeting on the 28th of May in San Diego on the ``next steps'' phase
of the Study, attended by Commissioner Mike Connor and Assistant
Secretary for Power and Water, Ann Castle, for the Department of the
Interior, the Bureau announced it will be undertaking a Tribal Water
Study as the ``next steps'' phase to address issues surrounding tribal
water in the Basin States. This phase of the Study is intended to
address tribal water issues in sufficient detail to provide the Bureau,
the Basin States and Ten Tribes with the certainty necessary for future
River management and planning.
In response to this announcement, the Partnership has created a
legal/technical team to work with a counterpart team created by the
Bureau to undertake this phase. The ``next steps'' phase will hopefully
include a study capable of evaluating full tribal development, control,
and protection of tribal water resources in the Basin.
confirmation of the partnership's commitment to work collaboratively
with the bureau of reclamation and basin states to address the
projected supply and demand imbalances in the basin
The Ten Tribes in the Basin have historically been good neighbors
and consider water to be basic to life and are committed to working
collaboratively with the Basin States, their Mexican relatives and the
United States to initiate actions to implement plans to resolve current
and future water imbalances in the Basin.
conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss in not acknowledging
the yeoman's work performed by Carly Jerla and Pam Adams of the Bureau
of Reclamation in reaching out to the tribes and tirelessly advocating
on the tribes' behalf and ensuring that the tribes' concerns were
addressed. This effort resulted in the tribes actively participating in
the Study. Their efforts were fully supported by Commissioner Connor,
Assistant Secretary Castle and the Regional Directors of the Lower and
Upper Basins, Terry Fulp and Larry Walkoviak. I also want to note the
cooperation and to thank the Basin States' representatives in working
with the Partnership in developing the Disclaimer contained in the
Study. Lastly, I want to thank Cathy Condon and Chuck Lawler from the
Partnership for their work in coordinating tribal and Bureau work which
resulted in an improved Study and better understanding of tribal water
issues for all concerned.
I would be happy to respond to any questions the Committee may
have, thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Vigil.
In the interest of letting everybody know what we're going
to do, we do have a second panel. I do have to leave for a
brief period of time at 3:25 to attend another hearing to
introduce a nominee to head the Office of Personnel Management
from Colorado.
I'm going to ask 5 minutes of questions. I'll turn to
Senator Lee and then to Senator Heinrich. I believe Senator
Heinrich will continue to Chair the committee while I'm gone
for a few minutes.
With that, I want to turn to Mr. Connor.
Respecting the roles that the States have to manage their
water resources and their current fiscal constraints, what
role, if any, do you expect the Federal Government to play in
solving the imbalances projected for the Basin?
Mr. Connor. I think the Federal Government is a valued and
necessary partner with the 7 basin States and the other
stakeholders in the Basin. I say that we're valued when we work
collaboratively with those different stakeholders and certainly
the States respecting their interest in the management and
allocation of water resources.
The Secretary is the water master in the Lower Colorado
River Basin. So we have a certain specific responsibilities in
that Basin that we don't have elsewhere in operating those
facilities and making sure that there's compliance with the law
of the River, the compact, the Treaty with Mexico.
Notwithstanding that or in addition to that, we can't carry out
those obligations without working very closely and hand in hand
with the States.
I think it was Mark Risener in Cadillac Desert who
characterized the Colorado River Basin as the most litigated
stream system in the world. Probably for a long time it was
that. Over the last 10 to 15 years I think through that
partnership collaboration with the States and including the
other stakeholders in the discussion, I think we've hit upon a
series of agreements and progress that we can all feel good
about, but can't keep up with the challenges that we face.
So we're going to have to, kind of, double down on our
efforts as we move forward.
Senator Udall. I think it's necessary and mandatory reading
for anybody who cares about the Basin to page through Cadillac
Desert. I know we don't all agree with everything that's in
there. But it certainly was a seminal work.
Mr. Ostler, let me turn to you.
Could you expand on your testimony in describing the
different supply and demand limitations between the Upper and
Lower Basin States and the possibility of water banking in the
Upper Basin could help address these systemic imbalances?
Mr. Ostler. Yes, Senator Udall.
The Upper Basin States are interested and are now in the
process of looking at water banking options that might help
solve our imbalances. Water banking may include the concept of
conservation during times when you have water so that it's
banked and available to help offset storage--or shortage.
It also may include the development of a structure which
would allow transfer of high priority water rights to low
priority municipalities who need water during droughts so that
that can be facilitated easily and without a great deal of
questions, so that we can get through droughts and manage
through the droughts.
So I think the water banking concept would include both of
those types of ideas.
Senator Udall. I look forward to you elaborating further in
any additional written testimony you may provide to the
Commission. This, I think, provides real opportunity for us.
Commissioner Connor, let me come back to you.
The study results suggest and Mr. Ostler, you spoke to this
and others did as well, that climate change could have a major
effect in the amount of water available in the Basin over the
next 50 years.
How accurate and dependable are these projections?
Should we expect and plan for even greater decreases in
water supply in coming decades?
Then a third question for you. How can States, tribes and
local entities prepare for and adapt to such conditions?
You have to answer all of those in a minute and a half.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Connor. I appreciate the challenge. It's like managing
the Colorado River.
Senator Udall. That's a good way to put it.
Mr. Connor. Overall I think with respect to climate change
projections, we already know and there is, without a doubt,
strong evidence about the increasing temperatures that have
already occurred in the Basin and that are projected to occur
over the next 10, 15, 20 and 50 years, the planning period.
Those changes in temperature, in and of itself, are causing a
change in how water resources flow within the Basin as far as
the timing, certainly in the form of that with reduced snow
packs and more rainfall events.
So we have incorporated those data points into the planning
effort. We know we've got to respond and manage differently.
Where I think the modeling is more wide open as far as
interpretation is with respect to future changes in
precipitation patterns. There's a wide divergence of views.
We've selected and tried to downscale the general circulation
model on climate and arrive at a projection that the mean
average flows at least are going to be about a 9 percent
reduction over the 50-year planning period from where we've
been historically.
I would just say right now based on the last 14 years of
drought, this period we're 18 percent below our average annual
inflows over that period than we have been over the last 100
years. So we're already below that based on the existing
drought.
Then I think, Senator Udall, I may have forgotten your last
question as part of that.
Senator Udall. How can States, tribes and local entities
prepare and adapt for changes?
Why don't you take that for the record?
Mr. Connor. Absolutely.
Senator Udall. I will stop because I want to recognize
Senator Lee and then also Senator Barrasso who has joined us. I
want to make sure everybody has a chance to direct some
questions.
I'll turn to Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Why don't we start with you, Commissioner Connor?
The study notes at page 20 of the Executive Summary that
not all stakeholders were in agreement with the results, with
the findings.
Could you elaborate on this for a minute? I'd like to know
what people were not in agreement regarding.
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Senator Lee, and yes, I'll be happy
to elaborate.
Where there was disagreement that was noted in the
Executive Summary is really on our assessment of the options,
the proposals that were put forward about how we can attempt to
resolve these imbalances.
So there were 150 proposals, options. We did a threshold
analysis as to technical feasibility, cost, yield, timing,
permit ability, so there was some subjectivity in looking at a
threshold analysis of those options. That's where there was a
disagreement amongst some folks assessing that they thought
something was more permit-able than maybe the authors did in
the study.
So that's where we're at.
Senator Lee. Were there some recommendations that were more
controversial than others among the stakeholders?
Mr. Connor. Certainly some of the large scale augmentation
programs are viewed as more controversial and more questionable
as far as feasibility. I think different people have different
views as to the feasibility of those efforts.
Senator Lee. OK.
Are those issues identified anywhere in the report, in the
study itself, that the nature of the disagreement, where there
is the most disagreement and so forth?
Mr. Connor. I'm not sure how deeply we've delved down. So
if I could answer that for the record.
Senator Lee. OK.
Mr. Connor. I'll get you more information about that if
it's internal or external to the report we can do that.
Senator Lee. OK. That's fine.
Mr. Ostler, let's turn to you for a minute.
Concerns have been expressed for several years with regard
to energy sector water usage in some areas along the Upper
Basin, in the Upper Basin in recent years. How would you
characterize the significance of this type of water use there?
How extensive is the energy sector water usage compared to
other uses?
Mr. Ostler. It's a critical question that a lot of folks
are spending a lot of time thinking about. The States, each
State, as they develop their demands, future demands, included
their anticipated energy development and its water use. So
those estimates according to the States were incorporated into
the study that we're talking about.
But it depends on the type of energy development that you
assume occurs and the amount of water that that particular
development happens to utilize. That's all an unknown. So I
think the States included the best information that they had
and included plans in their future demands for energy
development that they could anticipate.
Senator Lee. Is it your view that there are unique
features, unique aspects, of energy sector water usage that are
of particular concern or is it more just that people are
concerned about the quantity of it or that it's there?
Mr. Ostler. No.
There are certain types of energy development that maybe
use more water than other types. This is new technology. It's
changing all the time. The energy companies, I think, are
looking for ways to reduce water usage.
We're seeing many that are coming up with proposals that
are relatively new that may involve much less water use than
what the early estimates were. So yes, it's a matter of
controversy. It varies with exactly what is planned on the
ground.
Senator Lee. Both at the Basin level and at the State level
how effective are our current legal arrangements at addressing
this type of usage and the special concerns that arise from it?
Mr. Ostler. To my knowledge our current legal arrangements
are adequate to address energy water usage. They, energy
companies, need to obtain water rights through the existing
State legal process for getting a water rights permit. So
that's the way that it's done now. That's the way we expect it
to be done in the future.
Senator Lee. OK.
Mr. Ostler. They will have to acquire those by paying for
them if they don't have themselves.
Senator Lee. Finally are there any particular near term
priorities for Federal action that you would recommend to this
subcommittee?
Near term priorities relating to water usage?
Anything arising out of this study that you would recommend
to this subcommittee that we look at?
Mr. Ostler. I think the States will continue to look to
Reclamation for research and technical guidance on various
mechanisms that we can use to improve conservation and
operations.
I think the availability of funding to be able to do
studies such as this was extremely helpful and important
through the WaterSMART program.
Those are immediate things, I think, that we're utilizing
and looking at.
Senator Lee. OK. Thank you, Mr. Ostler.
I see my time is expired.
Chairman, thank you.
Senator Heinrich [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Lee.
Commissioner Connor, in the study water transfers and water
banking were found to be one of the most cost effective and
quickest ways to address the imbalance between supply and
demand in the Basin. In fact, water transfers, exchanges and
banking are predicted to cost somewhere between $250 and $750
per acre foot per year and could be implemented in as little as
5 years.
Could you talk a little bit in some more detail about why
water conservation forbearance banking exchanges are relatively
much more cost effective compared to some of the other options
that were explored in the study?
Mr. Connor. I think overall, you know, it's water transfers
and banking arrangements can be put into place without large
infrastructure or new infrastructure developments. So, once
again, I think, you know, through the institutional
arrangements that can be created from--even where there's low
cost investments for the agricultural sector say to make
investments, conserve water, so that they can be a player in
the water transfer and banking situations. Those are just more
easily permitted, easily arranged and I think provide
flexibility amongst water users to get water to those who need
it and to allow for adjustments by those who have senior
rights.
So it's just the ease, timing, permit and the low dollar
with respect to initial investments, I think, that make it much
more cost effective.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
Mr. Vigil, I wanted to ask you, Chairman Vigil, as Water
Administrator for the Jicarilla Apache Nation you participated
in the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation program.
It's been held up as a model on how to recover endangered
species.
Can you talk a little bit about that experience and that
recovery program? What lessons we might learn in some of these
other basins where we're trying to balance the needs of
productive water use while conserving our fish and wildlife?
Mr. Vigil. Sure, Senator Heinrich.
Jicarilla Apache Nation has been a participant of that
particular recovery program project for numerous years. One of
the things that, you know, I have been back to DC for the last
3 years to lobby for the continued funding of that particular
project. The success of that project, especially, because I
think there was over 2,000 water projects that are related to
the recovery program without, I think, any litigation at all
which is pretty amazing that, you know, tribes, municipalities,
State governments and the Federal Government can work together.
I think it's been the model that it can work. Hopefully,
you know, you know, we can use that as a model, you know, for
this next steps of the Basin study. We really appreciate Mike
Connor and Assistant Secretary Castle's commitment to a
separate tribal water study.
Because of the experience that we've had through programs
like the recovery program, you know, we hope to take that
knowledge and that experience that we have, you know, for that
collaborative process as well.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman Vigil. Thanks for
your work on that because it really is something we're hoping
to learn from.
Commissioner Connor, I wanted a follow up question.
Water issues are often discussed as a conflict between
diverting water for economic development or leaving water in
stream for non-economic or environmental purposes. But in fact,
high flows are critical for many rural economies that rely on
recreation jobs in economic development.
In New Mexico alone, Colorado River related recreation is
responsible for over 17,000 jobs and more than $1.2 billion in
direct spending. When you consider river management decisions,
how do you find that balance between the needs of businesses
that rely on divergence and those businesses that rely on
robust in stream flows?
Mr. Connor. All of those water uses and values are
absolutely critical. The water that is diverted to sustain the
economies that have grown up around that from the Ag sector and
also for M and I purposes as well as the ecological flows that
are important for the environmental considerations, but also
the recreational based economies.
So I think we are looking to, quite frankly, stretch the
limited water supplies that are out there in an attempt to best
balance those needs, as you said. It's one of those where we
want to work with the affected communities. We want to make
water uses as efficient as possible. We want to create buffers
so that when there are times of plenty, we've got reserve water
supplies that can be used whether it is to facilitate the
environmental and ecological flows or whether it's to provide
water during times of drought to those needed to sustain their
agricultural livelihoods.
So it's more flexibility in the system. It's more
efficiency that we've got to employ to try and sustain all
those different uses.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, chairman or thank you,
Commissioner Connor.
I want to thank all of our panel for being here today
because this is the beginning of something not the end. I
appreciate your participation.
I want to turn the gavel over to Senator Lee. He is going
to chair while Senator Barrasso pursues some of his questions.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Connor, on June 6 our Senate Energy Committee
had an oversight hearing reviewing the activities of the
programs of the Department of the Interior. Secretary Jewell,
in written testimony, addressed the Colorado River Basin Water
Supply and Demand study.
She said that she is, ``committed to continuing to work
with our stakeholders to assess the implications of water
shortages to develop flexible operational plans that account
for expected periods of drought and support projects that
conserve water and improve the efficiency of water delivery
infrastructure.''
I find this commitment very helpful. I think it fails to
recognize that creating additional water storages, to me and to
many others who live in the West, an obvious part of the
solution to addressing the imbalance between supply and demand
which the study projects will, you know, be greater than 3.2
million acre feet by the year 2060. So I don't believe that you
or any of the other witnesses on the panel believe that
conservation and implementing projects to improve delivery
efficiency are going to be able to be sufficient to close this
gap.
So what is your understanding of the Department of the
Interior's position about increasing reservoir storage capacity
in the Colorado River Basin?
Mr. Connor. It is one of the tools that in a whole
portfolio of actions, I think, needs to be looked at and
employed as part of the mix if we're going to address this
imbalance.
So I would note that we have brought online additional
storage projects in the Animas River Basin. Completed Lake
Nighthorse in Ridges Basin Dam in the 2010 time period.
We completed a regulating reservoir on the Lower Colorado
River.
I think a lot of the actions taken on the Colorado River to
the 2007 coordinated operations and shortage agreement created
a mechanism to create intentionally created surplus which is
water, additional water stored in Lake Mead which will delay
and forestall in the way the potential shortages in the Lower
Colorado River Basin.
The Minute 319 agreement with Mexico is part of that mix
too.
All told, we've got a million acre feet of additional water
in an existing reservoir on Lake Mead right now because of
those actions. So we want to enhance storage in our existing
facilities. We recognize the need for additional facilities
both above ground and below ground to try and address what I
spoke of with Senator Heinrich which is there is going to be
more extremes in our weather events. That's one of the things
we've got to take advantage of those really high flow years.
Senator Barrasso. If I could then ask you as well as Ms.
Trujillo, it's commonly understood that the lower division
States are using their entire basic apportionments as provided
by Article Three, Section A of the Colorado River Compact. So
given the fact, what are the most viable sources of supply to
meet the future water demand imbalances in Arizona, California
and Nevada that have already been identified in this December
2012 study?
What do you see as that?
Mr. Connor. I certainly think there's more room for
conservation and mechanisms to enhance water transfers by
willing participants in that effort. I, once again, it's not
the whole solution, but I think there is definitely more room
to employ that mechanism.
I think there's water supply enhancement strategies in
Southern California. I know they brought on their first
desalinization facility which I think has been fully permitted
and prepared to break ground.
So I see a mix of those items with the regulating reservoir
on the lower Colorado River. We're operating more efficiently
to capture water to be able to make that available for water
users.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Trujillo, would you mind commenting
as well?
Ms. Trujillo. I think that was a good list to start with.
In addition to that, you know, between the States we'll
continue to work on additional agreements for water banking or
water sharing.
We will work to explore new technologies. The Bureau of
Reclamation's desalinization research facilities are a good
example to expand use of brackish water, additional supplies.
Then we are looking on the demand side as well to be able
to make sure we're efficiently using everything we have and
conserving more, if we can.
Senator Barrasso. Thanks.
Commissioner Connor, just kind of given the realities of
the Federal budget, the economic situation in the Southwest and
Intermountain West, how can some of the projects to provide
additional water supplies best be financed and funded?
Any insights you could share or offer to the committee?
Mr. Connor. I think I appreciate you raising that point
because I think it's the reality of the times that we live in
that we can be a partner, a facilitator and we can
strategically invest modest resources from the Federal level.
I'll give you an example with the Yuma desalting plant. We
initiated a trial run 2 years ago, 18 months. To really see if
we could cost effectively operate that facility to produce
water in the Basin.
The trial run was a success. We invested dollars as did 3
entities, municipal entities, Metropolitan Water District,
Central Arizona Project and Southern Nevada Water Authority. We
produced 30,000 acre feet of water at about $300 per acre foot.
So we've got to partner up in those types of investments.
We've got to figure out long term financing arrangements for
the local entities that will, at the end of the day, need to
finance most of the new development and infrastructure.
Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Commissioner Connor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lee [presiding]. I want to thank our panelists. We
appreciate your testimony today.
We're going to go ahead and gavel out now prior to our
second panel beginning its round of testimony so that we can
await the return of my cousin from Colorado, Senator Udall.
Thank you.
We'll stand in recess.
[RECESS]
Senator Udall [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Water and
Power will come to order. Thank you all for your patience and
understanding as we juggle a busy afternoon here in the Senate.
I hear the subcommittee set a new standard in my absence.
Senator Lee helmed the committee which I think is very
appropriate since this has nothing to do with partisanship or
political parties. This has to do with protecting the health of
the river on which we all depend.
I also feel comfortable, I should confess, with Senator
Lee. Some of you may know he's a cousin. It's been said in the
West the Lees are related to everyone. The Udalls are related
to everybody. Senator Lee and Senator Udall are related.
But be that as it may, we have a great second panel here.
Ms. Hawes, why don't I turn to you?
You're the Colorado River Program Director of the Nature
Conservancy from Boulder, Colorado, one of the Coloradans I
mentioned that was here to join us.
So the Floor is yours for 5 minutes. We look forward to
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF TAYLOR E. C. HAWES, COLORADO RIVER PROGRAM
DIRECTOR, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Ms. Hawes. Thank you, Chairman Udall for the opportunity to
testify today. I'm the Colorado River Program Director for The
Nature Conservancy. Our work spans all 7 basin States and into
Mexico. I'm also one of the co-chairs of the Healthy Flows
Workgroup.
My testimony today addresses 3 topics.
One, the importance of the Colorado River system's
ecological and recreational values.
A few of the shortfalls in the study but also potential
remedies going forward.
The scope of work for the Healthy Flows Workgroup for the
next 6 months.
Since you've already heard quite a bit today about the
results of the Basin study and what's at stake I won't spend
more time repeating that. However, what you haven't heard much
about is what's at stake relative to our river's health and to
our recreational economy.
The Colorado River boasts more than 30 fish species found
nowhere else in the world. Yet 50 percent of our native fish in
the Basin have either gone extinct or are considered
vulnerable. The river, as most people know, no longer reaches
the sea and some of its headwater tributaries run dry on a
seasonal basis.
At the same time the river system still provides habitat
for the much prized Colorado River Cutthroat Trout and is a
draw for visitors from around the world due to its unparalleled
beauty and recreational opportunities. The Basin features a $26
billion recreational economy. There are ten national park units
including the Grand Canyon as the Basin's centerpiece. Rafting
throughout the region is a major industry. Anglers come from
around the world to fish both headwaters and our gold medal
fisheries.
More than 5 million adults visit the region each year as
tourists supporting approximately 234 thousand jobs and
generating more than $10 billion annually in wages and
earnings. Unfortunately the study showed that under all
portfolios or solution sets flow related values and resources
would likely be negatively affected in the future.
So while the Basin study's consideration of flows was
ground breaking in many regards. The study was, in large part,
limited by a couple of factors.
Reclamation's water supply study, I'm sorry, water supply
model that was used to perform the analysis, known as CRSS, was
designed to manage reservoirs and operations along with those
reservoirs. It was not designed to look at healthy flows or
track healthy flows. Consequently these healthy flow needs were
left out of the study.
Another shortfall was that the study was primarily focused
on finding solutions to meet consumptive water supply needs.
While these are very important there was no mention or
assessment of healthy flow needs and solutions associated with
those.
The conservation community hopes to remedy some of these
shortfalls in the next phase.
First, The Conservancy is already working with a broad
cross section of water interests to explore ways to improve
CRSS or create new management tools that will allow us to
evaluate solutions for both our water users and our rivers. We
are doing this with a grant through the Landscape Conservation
Cooperative.
Second, in my written testimony I provided several examples
of solutions that have been developed around the Basin that
meet the needs of people while also benefiting the river. Such
solutions are feasible, cost effective, more durable, have buy-
in and are more sustainable.
As we move forward water banking, a mechanism we've talked
about here. It's one that facilitates the temporary movement of
water from agriculture to cities and to the environment through
voluntary agreements shows great promise as a way to, not only
meet the needs of people, but also our rivers.
The workgroup will be undertaking several tasks in the
coming months. Very simply stated we will be seeking an
agreement on which rivers are the most important from an
ecological, for maintaining key ecological and recreational
attributes and exploring ways to protect these rivers.
This workgroup will also be seeking to understand how
hydropower will be affected as that's part of one of the flow
aspects and looking for solutions that might affect those
resources.
We will be preparing a report by the end of 2013 that
summarizes this information and proposes phase two activities.
It's important to remember and others have said this here today
that the study is a means to an end. Our mutual goal is finding
solutions. That's where we head next.
In conclusion, the future will not look like the past as
demands will continue to increase and supplies are expected to
decrease. We are at a crossroads in the Colorado River's
history as we--and we must all pull together to develop and
implement sustainable solutions.
Support from this committee and Congress will be critical
to our success. The conservation community strongly supports
continued funding of WaterSMART, landscape conservation
cooperative programs as well as Title 16 funding.
These programs provide vital assistance to facilitate urban
and agricultural water conservation programs as well as
environmental solutions. It's imperative to the success of our
workgroup that the other two workgroups also produce real
savings in their efforts. These efforts must be integrated for
us to succeed.
In addition it's important for this body to continue its
oversight with regard to the next steps in search of
financially prudent, realistic and timely solutions to the
imbalances in the Basin and the need to protect these important
ecological and recreational values.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. I'll be
happy to answer questions when the time is right.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hawes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Taylor E. C. Hawes, Colorado River Program
Director, The Nature Conservancy
Thank you, Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Lee and Subcommittee
members, for the opportunity to testify on the Bureau of Reclamation's
Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. I am honored to
speak to you today about the Colorado River and how we can plan for its
future to ensure it can meet the many demands it faces, including
providing water for cities, agriculture, industry, environmental and
recreational needs. I am the Colorado River Program Director for the
Nature Conservancy. The Conservancy's Colorado River Program spans all
seven Basin states and Mexico. The Conservancy seeks to find solutions
for our rivers while also meeting the needs of people. I am one of the
co-chairs of the Environmental and Recreational Flows Workgroup and
will be co-chairing that committee with representatives from the State
of Colorado and the Bureau of Reclamation.
The Nature Conservancy is a non-profit conservation organization
founded in 1951 whose mission is ``to conserve the lands and waters on
which all life depends.'' The Nature Conservancy puts great emphasis on
solutions and partnerships, and we rely heavily on science in deciding
our direction, focus and priorities. Our staff lives and works in
hundreds of communities across the U.S. and around the world. They are
supported by almost a million members and by state Boards of Trustees
made up of local leaders in conservation, business, agriculture and
ranching, academia and philanthropy.
This testimony addresses three topics:
The importance of the Colorado River system's environmental
and recreational values and why it is necessary and possible to
find solutions for the Basin that meet the needs of people and
nature.
A few of the long-term needs and opportunities coming out of
the study.
The scope of work for the Environmental and Recreational
Flows workgroup over the next six months or so.
Before I delve into the details, I want to acknowledge the
leadership of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Colorado River Basin. As
we all know, water in the West is contentious, but in the case of the
Colorado River Basin, Reclamation has successfully brought states and
other water interests together to work towards solutions.
The Nature Conservancy, along with many partner conservation
organizations, has worked closely with the Study team, the seven Basin
states and Reclamation to inform the Basin Study, serving on technical
teams and providing comments on drafts. The Study found that the
combination of increasing demand and dwindling supply, threatens our
communities, industry, agriculture, environment and recreational
economy unless we take steps now to change our current course. Without
healthy rivers, the region's economic vitality and its rich natural
heritage are at risk. Drought sets the stage for conflict between water
users. But the Basin Study seeks a path where municipalities and the
agricultural and environmental communities can find practical solutions
to the water supply and demand challenge. We look forward to working
with Reclamation, the seven States and other partners as we prepare for
a future in the Colorado River Basin that sustains agriculture, allows
cities to grow and protects our iconic rivers.
the colorado river basin's significant ecological and recreational
values
The Colorado River boasts more than thirty fish species found
nowhere else in the world. However, fifty percent of all native fish
species in the Basin have either gone extinct or are considered
vulnerable. The River no longer reaches the sea and some of its smaller
headwater tributaries run dry on a seasonal basis. Dramatic changes in
the river's flow regime have facilitated the dominance of invasive
plant species, such as tamarisk and Russian olive, which creates poor
riverside habitat and uses more water than native vegetation due to its
spread up on to the benches above the river. At the same time, the
river system still provides habitat for the much prized Colorado River
Cutthroat Trout, and the Basin's beautiful rivers, with their dramatic
cottonwood galleries, draw birds and visitors from far and wide.
The Basin features a $26 billion recreational economy, much of
which revolves around rivers. There are 10 National Park units,
including the Grand Canyon as the Basin's centerpiece, as well as other
parks and river reaches drawing hundreds of thousands of visitors
annually. There are major rafting enterprises in Wyoming, Colorado,
Utah, and New Mexico. Anglers come from around the world to fish both
headwaters streams and gold medal trout fisheries in larger
tributaries. World-class ski resorts in the region, which rely on
snowmaking, support thousands of jobs. Finally, there are many who
cannot think of a better vacation than a week on Lake Powell. More than
five million adults visit the region for recreational excursions,
supporting approximately 234,000 jobs in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New
Mexico, Utah and Wyoming and generating more than $10 billion annually
in wages and earnings. Unfortunately, the Study showed that under all
portfolios (solution sets), flow related values and resources would
likely be negatively impacted in the future.
The conservation organizations participated in the Study to ensure
that it considered healthy river flows at the same time that it
evaluated the future needs of agriculture and cities so that
stakeholders could simultaneously develop a long term plan to meet the
varied needs in and outside of the Basin. The conservation
organizations' vision was coordinated development and management of the
River and its tributaries, in order to optimize economic and social
welfare without compromising the health of the river itself. The next
steps will involve tackling these issues at the Basin level. Recent
examples in the Basin--two of which I highlight below--have proven that
this kind of approach is possible, but its implementation requires
political will and leadership.
While the Basin Study is considering basin-wide solutions, our
communities must also be creative in finding local solutions. Smaller
scale projects in the Basin demonstrate that the needs of people and
nature do not have to be mutually exclusive. For example, consider the
San Pedro River. It starts in Mexico and flows north into Arizona near
the City of Sierra Vista. The region includes two significant national
assets: a major U.S. intelligence and communications testing
installation at the Army's Fort Huachuca and the BLM's San Pedro
Riparian National Conservation Area. It provides critical riparian
habitat to millions of migratory birds, many vulnerable animal species
and an endangered aquatic plant. The combination of prolonged drought,
increasing human water demands, and other factors have reduced the
river's flows in many locations, which has adversely affected wildlife
and fish as well as the long-term reliability of water supplies for
area residents.
Finding a solution for the San Pedro started with good science and
a better understanding of the river. Every June, the Conservancy works
with more than 100 community members in the U.S. and Mexico to map over
270 miles of the river and its tributaries to define the extent of
surface water, specifically, where the river continues to flow during
the very hottest and driest time of the year. We then developed a
computer simulation model with our local, State and federal partners to
better understand underground groundwater flows in the aquifer that
help sustain the river. Using this information, we were able to
identify the best locations for groundwater recharge projects that
enhance stream flows in the San Pedro by improving the aquifer where it
is needed the most. In partnership with the Department of Defense, the
Conservancy has acquired key lands from willing sellers and is now
designing aquifer recharge projects in conjunction with our partners,
including Cochise County, local developers, private foundations and
Natural Resource Conservation Districts. By combining private and
public dollars to concurrently meet both the water needs of people and
nature, we developed innovative new technologies and infrastructure
solutions to address what were seemingly unsolvable water shortage
issues. That is the future we see for the arid West and its rivers:
collaboration between private and public interests, development of
smart science, technical tools, and infrastructure; and a commitment to
simultaneously address the water needs of all water sectors through
informed decision-making. Water issues do not have to be focused on
conflict.
opportunities going forward
The SECURE Water Act directed Reclamation to perform basin studies
that considered risks to a number of resource values. For the first
time ever, SECURE directed consideration of water-dependent recreation,
fish and wildlife habitat and ``flow and water-dependent ecological
resiliency'' on a par with Reclamation's ability to continue water
deliveries to traditional agricultural, urban and hydropower
beneficiaries. Sec. 9503(b)(3). The Colorado River Basin Study was the
first major effort of Reclamation and the States to look at flow and
water-dependent ecological resources across the Basin. As a result,
The Study recognized the importance of considering river
flows to support flow and water dependent ecological systems,
power generation, and recreation, through its adoption of
metrics used to approximate the performance of these resources,
the inclusion of an Enhanced Environment water demand scenario,
and the inclusion of an Upper Basin water bank of which the
objective specifically includes improving the performance of
ecological and recreational resources. [Chapter 10]
While this level of consideration of flows was ground breaking, the
Study was, in large part, limited by the water supply model used to
perform the study. Reclamation's basin-wide model, known as Colorado
River Simulation System (CRSS), was designed to manage water supply and
reservoir operations. It was not designed to track environmental and
recreational flow needs or develop solutions to protect or enhance
those values. In other words, the model cannot tell us whether flow
needs are being met at key locations, because it was not designed to
assess flows. Consequently, many key flow needs and solutions were left
out of the Study.
Another shortfall was that the Study was focused on identifying
solutions to meet consumptive water supply needs. It was not aimed at
developing solutions to meet ecological or recreational flow needs.
Therefore, with a few exceptions, the Study's performance measures were
not set up to guide the selection of water management actions to meet
flow needs. Moreover, many flow needs and solutions were left out of
the Basin Study because CRSS was unable to assess them adequately.
Without direct linkages between environmental flow needs and water
management actions to meet those needs, the Basin Study could not
develop flow-related solutions as it did for consumptive water needs.
Such disconnects made it difficult to prioritize solutions that meet
multiple water needs as described in the San Pedro example.
In the next phases of the Study, parties will be working to craft
solutions to meet environmental and recreational flow needs in Basin
communities, along with meeting consumptive water needs. The Basin
Study will serve as the platform to discuss such long-term solutions
that support not only communities, but the amenities everyone
associates with the West, including its rivers. The Basin Study, as
others have said, is also a ``call to action'' because it shows that
the water supply and demand imbalance for traditional water users,
including irrigators and cities, is significant. What is exciting about
the Basin Study is that it establishes a dialogue focused on finding
feasible, financially prudent solutions for cities, agriculture,
industry, recreation and the environment. We ask Congress to follow
through on the promise of the Basin Study by fully supporting the
agencies, programs and stakeholders that are working on finding
solutions to the challenge of managing such a critical river system to
the West.
Looking to the past, we can see that anything is possible with
political will. For example, the Upper Colorado and San Juan Rivers
Endangered Fish Recovery programs have shown that it is possible to
meet the needs of endangered fish while also allowing continued
consumptive water use. Specifically, the Upper Colorado River Recovery
Program has found solutions that work, such as expanding Elkhead
Reservoir, a small reservoir in northwest Colorado. The expanded
capacity can be shared among a power plant, rural community,
agricultural needs, and flows for the endangered fish. The project
sailed through permitting, because it was a true model of collaboration
with multiple benefits.
Another example is the recent agreement between the United States
and Mexico that restores water to the Colorado River Delta while
increasing water supply reliability for communities in both countries.
In the past, the international boundary stood in the way of traditional
approaches to restoring healthy river flows. When the Colorado River no
longer reached the sea and habitat was lost in the delta, many decried
Colorado River management as a failure. But water managers from both
countries were able to overcome the challenge of the border by creating
benefits for water users on both sides of the border. Flows for the
environment will be created through cooperation between the United
States and Mexico, as well as through private sector contributions.
Water will help restore healthy habitat in the delta, water
conservation will shore up supplies and both countries will benefit
during wet periods and share the pain of cutbacks during drought. While
these negotiations were arduous, and the agreement is a pilot planned
to expire in five years, the benefits are expected to motivate both
countries to negotiate for a successor agreement. Stakeholder processes
are not quick, but they often result in the best and most durable
solutions that satisfy multiple interest groups.
Additionally, river stewardship tools are necessary for the future
as the region becomes more arid. As discussed above, the current model
(CRSS) that we use to manage the Colorado River does not allow us
``see'' innovative solutions that meet multiple purposes. Through a
Landscape Conservation Cooperative grant, the Conservancy is working
with a broad cross-section of water users, federal agencies, tribes,
local communities and other environmental organizations to explore ways
to improve the existing model and create new management tools that will
better allow us to evaluate solutions for both water users and rivers.
environmental and recreational flows work group scope of work
The Environmental and Recreational Flows workgroup, with
representatives from a broad cross-section of environmental,
recreational, urban, and state interests, will undertake several tasks
in the coming months. While the scope of work will be finalized next
week at our first in-person meeting, we will be seeking agreement on
which rivers are most important for maintaining key ecological and
recreational attributes, what is the role of flows in maintaining those
rivers, what are the best tools to protect those rivers and related
attributes, and whether additional data is needed to help us develop
solutions. As mentioned above, we need 21st Century management tools
that allow us to ``see'' opportunities for river management that
protect the river's health while meeting the needs of people.
Therefore, we will consider and hopefully integrate The Nature
Conservancy's assessment of the model into the recommendations of this
group for the subsequent phase of work. This workgroup will also seek
to understand how hydropower might be affected in the future and
possible solutions for protecting those resources.
Second, we will identify locations on the priority rivers
identified through this process where opportunities exist to provide
environmental and recreational flows. If opportunities exist that have
broad support, we will focus on those opportunities first. Finally, we
will prepare a report by the end of 2013 that summarizes this
information and proposes Phase 2 activities to be conducted in 2014.
conclusion
The Basin Study has given us a glimpse into several possible future
paths. The future will not look like the past as demands will continue
to increase and supplies are expected to decrease. We need to be honest
with our communities. We all have a role in creating a sustainable
future for ourselves and this River system. To ensure a legacy of
vibrant communities, state of the art urban and agricultural
conservation, and healthy rivers, we must foster a water stewardship
ethic that extends to our rivers. We are at a critical juncture in the
Colorado River's history--we must all pull together to develop and
implement sustainable solutions.
Finally, let Australia be a cautionary tale for why water imbalance
projections should be a call to action. It was not prepared for the
extreme dry conditions it has experienced. Australia was just beginning
to plan for a 6% reduction in supplies when they experienced a 38%
reduction. It is adjusting to a new normal that has forced dramatic
changes in how it manages water for all uses. We can learn from this
experience and create a better, less contentious future for the
Colorado River and for everyone and everything that depends on this
iconic river.
Support from this committee and Congress will be critical to our
success. The conservation community strongly supports continued funding
of WaterSMART and Landscape Conservation Cooperative programs. Both of
these programs provide critical assistance to facilitate urban and
agricultural water conservation projects and environmental solutions.
Water conservation in all sectors will be crucial for meeting water
needs in the future, both for our urban and rural communities, and for
the health of the basin's rivers.
It is imperative to the success of the Environmental and
Recreational Flows Workgroup that both the Agricultural and Urban
Conservation workgroups produce real water savings. All these efforts
must be integrated for us to succeed. In addition, it is important for
this body to continue its oversight with regard to the next steps in
the search for financially prudent, realistic and timely solutions to
the imbalances in the Basin and the need to protect its important
ecological and recreation values. The SECURE Water Act established a
process where Basin Studies are the first step, followed by recommended
solutions and feasibility studies for their implementation. The
Colorado River Basin Study was ground-breaking as well as a call to
action. The Nature Conservancy looks forward to working with our
partners and the Congress to identify and implement solutions.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony and to outline
next steps on the Colorado River Basin Study. I would be happy to
answer your questions.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Ms. Hawes.
We've been joined by Kathleen Ferris. She's the Executive
Director of the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association.
Ms. Ferris, we look forward to your testimony. Thank you
for being here.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN FERRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARIZONA
MUNICIPAL WATER USERS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Ferris. Senator Udall--OK you see how new I am at this.
Senator Udall. You're doing great.
Ms. Ferris. Thank you. My apologies for taking a needed
break.
Senator Udall. That was more than appropriate. No apologies
necessary.
Ms. Ferris. OK. Thank you.
As you heard, as you said, I'm Kathleen Ferris, Executive
Director of the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association. I'm
one of the Chairs of the Municipal and Industrial Workgroup. So
today I'm going to talk to you about the workgroup and about
the role of municipal conservation and reuse in solving water
imbalances based on the Arizona experience.
Since 1980 Arizona has pursued a comprehensive approach to
water management. We've implemented many programs to reduce
consumption and increase efficiency. We've treated and reused
millions of acre feet of waste water for many beneficial uses.
We've stored underground over 8 million acre feet of water
for use in times of drought. We prohibit new residential
subdivisions that cannot demonstrate a 100-year assured water
supply.
The AMWUA members including the city of Phoenix have been
leaders in progressive water management. Our success can be
measured by the fact that while the population of the AMWUA
cities has grown by 157 percent since 1980 to more than 3.2
million, water use has increased by only 87 percent.
State wide our numbers also tell a similar story. Arizona's
population has increased a whopping 470 percent since 1957. But
total water use today is virtually the same, virtually the
same, as it was nearly a half century ago. We've done all this
without sacrificing our quality of life or our economic
prosperity.
So Arizona's experience demonstrates that conservation and
reuse are absolutely essential. But I need to offer a word of
caution here about the role that they can play in solving all
of the Colorado River imbalances.
To estimate future demand for Colorado River Reclamation
developed 6 scenarios. Then for each scenario a projected
amount of conservation was included. It ranged from 500
thousand acre feet to over a million acre feet per year.
The Basin study then assumed that progressively ambitious,
best management practices or BMPs could reduce Colorado River
demands by another one million acre feet annually by 2060. So
that would be so great. But the study acknowledges that many of
the BMPs have already been implemented throughout the study
area. It also goes on to make clear and I quote that, ``Its
conservation assumptions do not necessarily reflect realistic
or achievable local conservation goals.
So here is where the M and I workgroup comes in. Our role
is to ground truth the study.
We will quantify conservation and reuse savings to date
within the study area.
We will document successful conservation and reuse programs
already in place.
We will explore the potential for expanding those programs
to other parts of the study area.
Finally, after gathering these facts the workgroup will
analyze the potential for conservation and reuse to reduce
Colorado River water demands.
So it's tempting. I know it's very tempting to look to
conservation and reuse as the silver bullet to Colorado River
imbalances. Make no mistake they're absolutely necessary to
stretch our water supplies.
But Arizonans have learned that we will also need to
augment our water supplies and employ other management
strategies to meet our growing demands.
My 36 years as a water professional lead me to believe that
a similar comprehensive approach is going to be necessary for
solving the Colorado River imbalances. I think we have to be
unafraid to seek the truth about what will and will not work so
that the solutions we forge will have real and lasting results.
We owe that to the Colorado River and to our citizens.
Thank you very much for your interest in this issue.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ferris follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathleen Ferris, Executive Director, Arizona
Municipal Water Users Association
Chairman Schatz and members of the Subcommittee, I am Kathleen
Ferris, Executive Director of the Arizona Municipal Water Users
Association (AMWUA). Thank you for the opportunity to testify before
the Subcommittee on the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand
Study (Basin Study).
AMWUA is a non-profit association of municipal water providers in
the Phoenix metropolitan area. Our members are the Cities of Avondale,
Chandler, Glendale, Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale and
Tempe, and the Town of Gilbert. Collectively, the AMWUA members provide
water to over 3.2 million people, more than fifty percent of Arizona's
population. Since 1969, AMWUA has advocated for responsible water
stewardship that supports economic prosperity and safeguards Arizona's
water supplies for future generations.
I am also one of the Chairs of the Municipal and Industrial
Conservation and Reuse Workgroup (M&I Workgroup). This Workgroup,
comprised of conservation professionals from the Basin states,
Reclamation, and representatives of NGOs, was formed as part of the
next steps of the Basin Study.
For the past 36 years, I have devoted my professional career to
developing and implementing sound water management policies in Arizona.
I was one of the drafters of Arizona's Groundwater Management Act,
served as the Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources,
and was legal counsel to AMWUA for 24 years before assuming the
position of Executive Director. With that background, I would like to
share my views on conservation and reuse as water management tools and
their role in solving future imbalances of Colorado River water. I will
also discuss the duties of the M&I Workgroup.
conservation and reuse in the study area--the arizona example
For more than thirty years, conservation and reuse of water have
been a way of life in central Arizona. In 1980, Arizona enacted the
Groundwater Management Act\1\ to ``provide a framework for the
comprehensive management and regulation of the withdrawal,
transportation, use, conservation and conveyance of rights to use
groundwater.''\2\ Prior to 1980, Arizonans had been mining groundwater
supplies without regulation to keep up with continually expanding uses.
Groundwater mining led to land subsidence, water quality degradation,
and costly lawsuits among water users. Finally, after two and a half
years of work by a special commission and intense negotiations chaired
by Governor Bruce Babbitt, Arizona passed this comprehensive law that
is unique in the United States in its far-reaching approach to water
management. Hailed in 1986 by the Ford Foundation and the Harvard
School of Government as one of the ten most innovative programs in
state and local government, Arizona's Groundwater Management Act
continues to be one of the nation's most visionary laws for the use and
protection of water resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A.R.S. Title 45, Chapter 2
\2\ A.R.S. Sec. 45-401.B
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Groundwater Management Act applies to Arizona's most heavily
populated areas. These are known as Active Management Areas or AMAs,\3\
and encompass approximately 83 percent of the state's population and 57
percent of its water use. Within AMAs, the Act quantifies rights to use
groundwater,\4\ prohibits new agricultural irrigation,\5\ permits new
wells to be drilled only in conformance with well-impact standards,\6\
and prohibits the development of new residential subdivisions without a
proven 100-year assured water supply.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A.R.S. Title 45, Chapter 2, Article 2
\4\ A.R.S. Title 45, Chapter 2, Article 5
\5\ A.R.S. Sec. 45-452
\6\ A.R.S. Sec. 45-598
\7\ A.R.S. Sec. 45-576
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Act also requires the Arizona Department of Water Resources to
develop progressive 10-year management plans for each AMA, designed to
achieve a management goal for that AMA.\8\ The management goal for the
Phoenix, Tucson and Prescott AMAs is safe-yield.\9\ Safe-yield is a
long-term balance between the amount of groundwater withdrawn in the
AMA and the amount of natural and artificial recharge in the AMA.\10\
The management plans must contain conservation requirements for all
water users in the AMAs.\11\ Because these plans provide the blueprint
for conservation in most of Arizona, it is important to understand how
they are developed and the strategies that have been employed to
increase water efficiency in the AMAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A.R.S. Sec. 45-563
\9\ A.R.S. Sec. 45-562
\10\ A.R.S. Sec. 45-561
\11\ A.R.S. Sec. Sec. 45-564 through 45.568.02
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The management plans are developed using technical advisory
committees and multiple levels of public input. In each successive ten-
year period, the preparation of the plans provides the opportunity to
analyze the effectiveness of water management efforts. Adjustments in
strategies and conservation requirements are made, and additional
reasonable reductions in water use are specified. In each management
period, the Department of Water Resources has included incentives for
the efficient use of renewable supplies, provided technical and
financial assistance, and revised programs based on new technologies
and practices.
Since the First Management Plan was adopted in 1984, the approach
to municipal conservation has been refined, evolving in sophistication
and flexibility in each subsequent management period, in response to
the growing understanding of the complexities of water management
issues. In the First Management Plan, one program was applied to all
providers. It quickly became apparent, however, that the unique
characteristics and growth patterns within a provider's service area
greatly influence that provider's ability to reduce per capita use.
Today, there are two primary conservation programs for large
municipal providers (those serving 250 acre-feet of water or more
annually): the base Total Gallons Per Capita per Day (Total GPCD)
Program and the Non-Per Capita Conservation Program (NPCCP). In
addition to these programs, each provider must limit water system
losses to less than 10 percent and meter all service connections, and
is subject to mandatory reporting requirements.
Under the Total GPCD Program, a large municipal provider must limit
the annual per capita water use within its service area to a specified
total GPCD requirement calculated individually for that provider. Total
GPCD includes residential, industrial, commercial, and other uses
supplied water by the municipal provider. The actual amount of water
withdrawn, diverted, or received by the municipal provider in the
calendar year determines compliance. Some deliveries of treated
wastewater by the municipal provider are excluded from the calculation
to encourage the use of reclaimed water.
The alternative Non-Per Capita Conservation Program requires
implementation of specific residential and non-residential conservation
measures for interior and exterior water use and a water conservation
public education program. Conservation measures selected by the
provider must be designed to result in water use efficiency equivalent
to that assumed in the provider's total GPCD requirement. The NPCCP is
a performance-based program with compliance determined by effective
implementation of stipulated conservation measures and required water
use reductions.
Under municipal conservation programs, facilities and industries
that receive municipal water, including landscaped public rights-of-
way, turf-related properties and other non-residential customers, also
have specific conservation requirements. These requirements include
limitations on allowable acreage with turf, limitations on water-
intensive landscaping for hotels, annual water allotments for turf, and
low water use landscaping in rights-of-ways.
The AMWUA members have responded to the challenges of conserving
water. Each member has a dedicated water conservation office and expert
staff to assist its community. In addition to limiting water system
losses to less than 10 percent, repairing and replacing service meters,
and setting rate structures that encourage conservation, the members
collectively implement 305 best management practices, including:
Water-waste and irrigation ordinances
Residential audits
High water use notification and assistance
Rebates for converting from turf to water-efficient
landscaping
Training for landscape professionals
Water use plan requirements for commercial, industrial, and
institutional facilities
Retrofit programs for low-income residents
Plumbing codes
Restrictions on water features
Extensive outreach and education
These individual efforts have paid great dividends, but AMWUA has
also seen the benefit of collaborative regional conservation programs
and was the forerunner in those efforts, launching the Regional Water
Conservation Program in 1982. Through this program we share
conservation information, messaging, training and education. We count
our citizens as partners by supplying knowledge that encourages
individuals to make real changes that foster stewardship of our
resources. Because we pool resources and identify common needs, our
efforts have greater visibility, reach, consistency and impact.
Recognizing that between 50 and 70 percent of residential water use
in central Arizona occurs outdoors, the Regional Water Conservation
Program has focused extensively on developing educational brochures to
inspire and assist homeowners to design, install and maintain low-
water-use landscapes. We have distributed more than 4 million of these
brochures and developed award-winning, interactive websites, helping to
popularize the shift to water-efficient landscapes across our region.
Research showed that our customers didn't want to be told to
conserve--they wanted to learn how to conserve--so our members also
developed the multi-media campaign Water--Use It Wisely. We have
devoted more than thirteen years to this campaign, increasing public
consciousness and empowering individuals to conserve, and over 400
public and private entities across our country have followed Arizona's
lead. Today, Water--Use It Wisely is the largest water conservation
awareness campaign in North America.
Since passage of the Groundwater Management Act, the AMWUA cities
have also become leaders in the reuse of wastewater, reclaiming 100
percent of the wastewater produced by their citizens and putting it to
beneficial uses such as energy production, turf irrigation,
agriculture, environmental restoration, and recharge.\12\ The uses of
this wastewater are many and varied, but one striking example shows the
long-lasting and innovative nature of our reuse efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In Arizona, reclaimed wastewater is not groundwater or surface
water and the entity that treats the wastewater is free to contract for
its disposition. Arizona Public Service Co. v. Long, 773 P2d 988 (1989)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1973, AMWUA negotiated an agreement with Arizona Public Service
Company to provide reclaimed wastewater to the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station (Palo Verde) for cooling purposes.\13\ Located
approximately 50 miles west of Phoenix, Palo Verde is the largest
nuclear generating station in the western hemisphere, producing 4.0 gwh
of energy, and supplying power to the grid for the entire southwestern
United States. It is the only nuclear plant not located on a large body
of fresh water for cooling purposes, and the only nuclear plant in the
world to use recycled wastewater for cooling. The 91st Avenue
Wastewater Treatment Plant, operated by the City of Phoenix for
Phoenix, Glendale, Mesa, Scottsdale and Tempe, provides up to 80,000
acre-feet of reclaimed wastewater annually to Palo Verde through a
dedicated pipeline. The plant itself uses water efficiently, recycling
it 25 times for cooling purposes. Unlike other nuclear plants, Palo
Verde maintains ``zero discharge,'' with no liquid waste discharged to
rivers, streams or oceans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Agreement was renegotiated in 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AMWUA members also work with commercial and industrial
facilities to create opportunities to recycle process water and advance
efficiency and sustainability. Through an innovative partnership, the
City of Chandler and Intel built and operate a facility that uses state
of the art technology to treat industrial process water from Intel's
semiconductor manufacturing plants to bring it up to drinking water
standards. The water is then recharged back into the ground, providing
a renewable water supply for the City. Since the beginning of
operations, the Chandler Reverse Osmosis Facility has pumped over five
billion gallons of recycled water back into the ground, enough water to
supply 45,000 households. Intel also uses recycled water in its cooling
towers and reclaimed wastewater from a nearby Chandler reclamation
facility to irrigate landscaping. This partnership has allowed
industrial growth to occur in the City, creating thousands of high-
paying jobs, increasing City tax revenues, and boosting the area's
economy, while maintaining a healthy water supply.
Water management innovations in Arizona did not end with passage of
the Groundwater Management Act. Since 1980, Arizona has enacted
progressive laws prohibiting the use of drinking water in man-made
development lakes,\14\ requiring water conservation plumbing,\15\ and
encouraging the underground storage of excess water supplies for use in
times of drought.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ A.R.S. Title 45, Chapter 1, Article 3
\15\ A.R.S. Title 45, Chapter 1, Article 12
\16\ A.R.S. Title 45, Chapter 3.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The impacts of these laws on water use in Arizona have been
substantial. Demand for water is flattening, despite the dramatic
growth of the region. While the population of the AMWUA cities
increased by 157 percent between 1980 and 2010, water use increased by
only 87 percent. Individual municipal records are equally impressive.
The City of Phoenix is the sixth largest city in the country with more
than 1.4 million residents. Between 1980 and 2010, the City's
population increased by 83 percent, yet the City's total per capita
demand increased by only 35 percent and its total water production
increased by only 18 percent.
Conservation and reuse efforts outside of the AMAs tell a similar
story. Cities in other parts of Arizona have also implemented programs
and measures to promote water efficiency, including limits on landscape
watering and expansion of turf, tiered rate structures, rebates for low
flow appliances, and prohibitions on the use potable water for golf
course irrigation. The numbers are dramatic. Statewide, Arizona's
population has increased by 470 percent since 1957, but total water use
is virtually the same today as it was more than a half century ago.
Water is not just about supporting the population, it drives the
economy. In Arizona, we have found that we can have water efficiency
and a healthy economy. The attached info-graphic shows that our
domestic income continued to increase even as water use became more and
more efficient.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Graphic has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Arizona, codes, ordinances, pricing, and incentives have led new
development to build in efficiency on the front end. Efficient fixtures
continue to improve interior water use. Desert-adapted landscaping has
gained in popularity. Smart irrigation technology is becoming more
common. Clearly, Arizonans embrace conservation and reuse to stretch
all of our water supplies to ensure sustainable growth and economic
prosperity. We are eager to share our successes with the other Basin
states.
conservation and reuse in the basin study
Conservation and reuse are essential to our Colorado River basin
economies, but while further implementation of evolving technologies
and proven practices can continue to help maximize the use of our
existing water supplies, it is doubtful that the projected Colorado
River imbalances can be satisfied through conservation and reuse alone.
To estimate the future demand for Colorado River water, Reclamation
developed six water demand scenarios. These scenarios include current
projected demand, demand based on slow growth or rapid growth, and
demand based on enhanced environmental uses. The amount of M&I
conservation included in each demand scenario varies, from 478,000
acre-feet for the current projected demand scenario to 1,114,000 acre-
feet for the enhanced environment scenario.\17\ Reclamation then
examined the potential for additional conservation (over and above the
amounts estimated in the demand scenarios) by considering three levels
of increased conservation ``based on assumed levels of reductions and
adoption rates'' of progressively ambitious best management practices
(BMPs).\18\ Using this approach, the Study estimates that additional
conservation could reduce Colorado River demands by as much as another
1 million acre-feet by 2060.\19\ This robust savings figure should be
evaluated in light of the following considerations noted in the Basin
Study:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, Appendix
F9-10, Table F9-4
\18\ Id., Appendix F9-6
\19\ Id., Appendix F9-11, Table F9-5
The assumed levels of reductions and adoption rates for best
management practices were derived from Colorado and California
approaches and applied to the total Study Area demand to result
in a Basin-wide estimate of potential savings. ``The
assumptions were derived for purposes of the Study and do not
necessarily reflect realistic or achievable local conservation
goals.''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id., Appendix F9-6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the BMPs considered in the levels of increased
conservation ``have already been enacted throughout the Study
Area.''\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id., Appendix F9-3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``The potential M&I conservation measures are assumed to
apply to the overall Study Area, but significant differences in
potential water savings exist between geographies based on the
current level of conservation adoption, commercial and
industrial base, and climate.''\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id., Appendix F9-8
These considerations clearly indicate that the 1 million acre-foot
figure should not be relied upon too heavily.
Additionally, the Basin Study makes a distinction between
conservation savings for ``in-Basin'' locations, and conservation
savings for ``out-of-Basin'' locations, such as Southern California and
Denver.\23\ The Study states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ While most of Arizona is located within the Colorado River
Basin, municipal uses of Colorado River supplied by the Central Arizona
Project are more similar to uses in out-of-Basin areas, since central
Arizona is located more than 300 miles from the River. Municipal and
industrial uses of Central Arizona Project water were treated like out-
of-Basin uses for purposes of this Study.
In many of the major urban areas receiving Colorado River
water, the overall water supply provided to communities
consists of a significant portion of other supplies (other
surface supplies, groundwater supplies, reuse, etc.) in
addition to Colorado River water. In most of these out-of-Basin
areas, the supplies are commingled in the water supply and
distribution systems before delivery to the consumer. Because
conservation measures are end-use water demand reductions, the
water savings result in a net demand reduction. In these areas,
the net M&I demand reductions may not result in the same amount
of demand reduction for Colorado River water. This is the
result of the distributed nature of conservation efforts and
the inability of conservation to target one type of supply in
regions that have diverse water supply portfolios. . . . Water
conservation will reduce the overall demand on these supplies
collectively, but is not likely to result in a one-for-one
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
reduction in Colorado River demand.
As the next steps of the Study move forward, it will be important
to gain a better understanding of how much Colorado River water can, or
cannot, be saved by conservation in out-of-Basin urban areas.
The Basin Study also estimates that greater municipal wastewater
reuse could potentially reduce Colorado River demands by 930,000 acre-
feet by 2060.\24\ The Study points out that, ``Given the complexity of
regional and local water management decisions, it was simply assumed
that increased development of reuse reduces water demands
proportionally to the magnitude of supply from Colorado River and non-
Colorado River sources.''\25\ This assumption and the role of reuse in
reducing demands on the River warrant greater exploration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Id., Appendix F6-3
\25\ Id., Appendix F6-2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From my experience with water conservation and reuse in Arizona, I
offer the following perspectives. While GPCD rates can be useful in
tracking water use trends over time within a service area, such
absolute metrics should not be used to judge relative water use
efficiencies among different water providers. These metrics cannot take
into account geographical differences, such as climate, and differences
in development patterns, lot sizes, cultural and socio-economic
conditions, and industrial and commercial uses within a provider's
service area, all of which significantly impact water use. There is no
industry standard for how per capita use is calculated. A further
complicating factor is that providers meter, categorize, and track
customer accounts and end uses in dramatically different ways. There is
no apples-to-apples approach that is used by all providers. In short, a
provider's progress is best measured in light of the history and future
potential within its specific service area.
Efficient water use must also consider the need for viable economic
development. Efficiency must allow for uses of water that provide high-
paying jobs, increase a city's tax base, provide goods and services to
the nation, and improve overall standards of living.
Conservation and reuse are necessary, desirable, and effective
water management tools, but they must be supplemented with other
measures. In central Arizona, we have found that a comprehensive
approach is necessary. Even as we conserve and reuse, we must also
augment our supplies and employ other strategies, such as underground
storage of water, to ensure that our water supplies are secure,
reliable and sustainable. The same can be said for Colorado River
water. We must conserve and reuse Colorado River supplies, but we must
be mindful of the limitations of these tools. We must explore all of
our options, including augmentation, to ensure a balanced and
sustainable approach to this complex issue.
duties of the m&i workgroup
The M&I Workgroup consists of representatives of all of the Basin
states, Reclamation, and several Non-Government Organizations. Carolyn
Schaffer, of the Metropolitan Water District in Southern California,
and Marc Waage, of Denver Water, serve with me as chairs. We have
developed a proposed scope of work for the first phase of the
Workgroup's activities. We intend to quantify conservation and reuse
savings to date within the Study Area by gathering and examining more
detailed data from existing reports, studies, planning documents and
other information sources. We will also document successful
conservation and reuse programs that have been implemented in the Study
Area and assess the potential to expand these programs to other parts
of the Study Area. Ultimately, we will analyze the potential for
additional conservation and reuse to help reduce Colorado River water
demands.
This is a big undertaking in a short period of time, but we are
committed to completing our task. For Arizona, addressing potential
Colorado River imbalances is of the utmost importance. For the AMWUA
members, it is critical. The Central Arizona Project (CAP), along with
Nevada and some Arizona municipal providers on the River, share the
lowest priority to Colorado River water in the Lower Basin. In times of
shortages, we take the first hit. My members hold contracts to almost
300,000 acre-feet of CAP water, nearly half of the CAP M&I supply. As
municipal water providers, we know the necessity of reducing
vulnerabilities so that we may continue to provide reliable supplies to
our citizens, businesses and industries. We recognize the need to
balance competing interests and the value of a healthy River system. We
understand the importance of dealing with Colorado River imbalances,
just as we have long understood the urgency of managing all of our
water resources efficiently.
Arizona and AMWUA appreciate Reclamation's leadership on this
crucial issue and look forward to working with Reclamation and the
other Basin states to find comprehensive and lasting solutions.
Thank you for your interest in this important issue.
Senator Udall. Ms. Ferris, thank you for that very
insightful commentary. I look forward to directing a couple
questions your way when Dr. Waskom concludes his remarks.
The third member of our panel, a fellow Coloradan, is Dr.
Reagan Waskom. He's the Director of the Colorado Water
Institute, Colorado State University at Fort Collins.
Doctor, welcome. We look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF REAGAN WASKOM, DIRECTOR, COLORADO WATER INSTITUTE,
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Waskom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the record my name is Reagan Waskom. I serve as the
Director of the Colorado Water Institute at Colorado State
University. I'm providing my comments today in my role as the
co-chair of the Agricultural Conservation Transfers Workgroup
of the Basin study.
These comments are my own and they may or may not reflect
the comments of my current or my fellow workgroup members.
So my testimony today will focus on the importance of the
Colorado River for sustaining agriculture in the Southwest.
I'll talk a little bit about the direction of our
workgroup.
Then the challenges inherent in agricultural water
conservation, particularly for transfers to other uses.
So as was already mentioned, the Basin study confirms that
without further actions we face growing shortages. One of the
options that's been explored in the study and has been
mentioned today already is the idea of agricultural
conservation and transfers. Certainly this is not a new idea.
We've been doing this in the Western U.S. for some time now.
Hundreds of thousands of acres of previously irrigated lands
have already been dried up in the West, to me, growing
municipal, industrial and environmental needs.
This trend of transferring agricultural water has real and
far reaching implications on our future agricultural
productivity and the viability of rural communities.
Agriculture in the Colorado River Basin is driven by
irrigation. Roughly two million acres irrigated in the Upper
Basin and roughly two million in the Lower representing 15
percent of all U.S. crop receipts and about 13 percent of all
livestock in the United States. Much of our winter vegetables
as well, I might mention.
So the Basin study estimates that we may be able to capture
a million acre feet of water through conservation by the year
2060 to fill the gap. This would be done by implementing a
number of measures specifically advance the irrigation
scheduling, to have opposite irrigation, on farm irrigation
system improvements, controlled environment agriculture
conveyance system efficiencies and fallowing of irrigated
lands.
So in order to encourage the adoption of these measures two
possible implementation strategies have been considered.
The first calls for conservation through incentive based
programs. So this would be voluntary conservation, increasing
water use efficiency and thereby reducing agricultural demand.
The other approach is voluntary agricultural conservation
that will result in conserved water available for transfer to
other uses to meet supply demands, if you will.
So as you've heard these basin study workgroups are being
set up to dig deeper into the details. I'll be co-chairing the
agricultural workgroup with Tina Shields, of the Imperial
Irrigation District and Ken Nowak of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Our workgroup intends to develop a report that quantifies
agricultural conservation and transfer of Colorado River water
to date.
So it's been done through this mechanism. We want to
document impacts and tradeoffs that have occurred and then
determine any future plans for further conservation and
transfer activities.
Then estimate what sort of savings can we really expect to
get?
What could be transferrable?
Then from that baseline information we want to move
forward.
So I think it's important that we be aware that
agricultural interests are concerned with the future scenarios
that have been identified in the Basin study. I believe that
irrigation districts in the Southwest, they appreciate the
collaborative effort that's been done to date between
Reclamation and the States that has led to the completion of
this first step. I think a key overall benefit is that now all
the parties can more or less be on the same technical platform.
We're on the same page.
However, I do know that many agricultural interests are
concerned about virtually every scenario that's been assessed
in the Basin study. They all show a loss of irrigated lands as
well as those concerned about the quantity of agricultural
water that realistically can be conserved.
So once our workgroup has a firmer hold on the number that
we think is realistic through conservation savings, I'm hoping
the workgroups will spend its time really focusing on the
incentives and solutions that we need to meet the gap. Some of
that will certainly come from improved infrastructure. Some
will come through involuntary transfer mechanisms such as have
been mentioned already.
I'm pleased that Reclamation and the 7 States are committed
to continued refinement of the Basin study as part of a long
term tool for robust planning and implementation. The western
irrigated agriculture is really an important component of our
food supply. We need to think about that. As a society we need
to think about the tradeoffs that are associated with transfer
and water that's currently being used to produce our food
supply.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waskom follows:]
Prepared Statement of Reagan Waskom, Director, Colorado Water
Institute, Colorado State University
My name is Reagan Waskom and I serve as the director of the
Colorado Water Institute at Colorado State University. The Colorado
Water Institute is one of the 54 state water resources research
institutes funded through the US Geological Survey and organized under
the National Institutes for Water Resources (NIWR), the organization
that collectively represents the state water resources research
institutes. Our Institute has been working on agricultural water
management and Colorado River issues, among many other pressing water
problems, since 1965. Currently, we are deeply engaged in dealing with
drought and its associated problems such as fire and crop failure in
the state of Colorado. For the record, this year I'm serving as the
president of the National Institute for Water Resources and as the
president of the Colorado Water Congress, but I am providing comments
today solely in my role as a Co-Chair of the Colorado River Water
Supply and Demand Basin Study Agricultural Conservation and Transfers
Workgroup. My testimony will focus on the importance of the Colorado
River for sustaining agriculture in the Southwest, the direction of our
workgroup and the many challenges inherent in conserving agricultural
water for transfer to other uses.
importance of the colorado river to the southwest usa
The Colorado River is one of the most important resources in the
Southwestern U.S. and it is a critical water resource for the State of
Colorado. The Colorado River spans parts of the seven states of
Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming
(basin States), and it provides: 1) the municipal water supply for more
than 30 million people; 2) the irrigation supply for nearly 4 million
acres of land; and, 3) hydropower to generate more than 4,200 MW.
Water supply and demand imbalances already exist in some geographic
areas in the Basin and these imbalances are projected to increase in
both magnitude and spatial extent in the future. The Colorado River
system has storage capacity that is greater than 60 million acre-feet,
which is approximately four times the average inflow (14.9 maf), and
this storage has allowed most demands in the lower Colorado River Basin
to be met, even over periods of sustained drought. In the upper
Colorado River Basin shortages exist somewhere in the upper basin in
most years, due to variability of snowpack and rainfall. However,
studies indicate that droughts of greater severity have occurred in the
far past and climate experts and scientists suggest that such droughts
are likely to occur in the future.
nature of colorado river basin agricultural water use
Agriculture in the Colorado River Basin is driven by irrigation,
with about two million acres of land irrigated in the Upper Basin
(including tributaries and transbasin lands) and another two million in
the Lower Basin, representing about 15 percent of all crop receipts and
13 percent of all livestock in the U.S. A wide variety of crops are
grown in the basin, including corn, sorghum, wheat, barley, cotton,
peanuts, sugarbeets, soybeans, potatoes, lettuce, onions, chilies,
alfalfa hay, grass hay, cauliflower, broccoli, carrots, honeydews,
cantaloupes, watermelons, grapefruit, oranges, lemons, tangerines,
grapes, tomatoes, apples, cherries, apricots, and peaches. Production
of sheep, goat, dairy and beef cattle are large contributors to the
basin's agricultural output.
California has the greatest number of irrigated acres of the seven
states, with its largest user the Imperial Valley, which irrigates
almost 500,000 acres. In Colorado, there are approximately 600,000
acres of agricultural lands in the Basin plus another 900,000 acres
outside the basin that are partially irrigated with transbasin
diversions. The San Juan River (the Colorado River's largest tributary)
irrigates nearly 100,000 acres in New Mexico. Nevada does not directly
use water from the Colorado River for agriculture; however, in Utah and
Wyoming, the Colorado River and its tributaries provide irrigation
water for over 500,000 acres.
Previous research indicates that strong support exists among those
who live in the western states for keeping land and water in
agriculture and limiting water transfers that create adverse impacts on
rural communities (Western Governors' Association and Western States
Water Council, 2012). Local food and fiber production, protecting open
space and wildlife habitat, maintaining agricultural jobs and
businesses, and preserving western heritage are among the reasons for
ensuring there are adequate land and water resources for agriculture
production.
The Colorado Water Institute is currently working with the Water
Research Institutes from the six basin states to survey and interview
farmers and ranchers who use Colorado River water to determine their
preferences for meeting future water shortages. They indicated a strong
preference for water conservation and efficiency (77 percent); working
towards public policy that supports keeping land and water in
agriculture was ranked second highest at 75 percent. Findings from in-
depth telephone interviews we conducted in late 2012 with agricultural
water users and managers in all seven states suggest that agricultural
irrigation efficiency and conservation are major concerns for farmers
and ranchers. Yet significant technical, institutional, legal,
economic, and social barriers to conservation are seen to exist across
the Basin. Some water managers spoke of the technical complexities of
efficiency and conservation, wherein the type of crop cultivated and
irrigation technology employed shape how much water can be produced by
conservation. For many farmers, conserving agricultural water is
perceived as potentially harmful to their interests and to their
future. Many fear, correctly or not, that under their state's water
law, conservation may reduce their water rights and even subject them
to legal abandonment.
background on the basin study
Recently, the Colorado River Basin States (``Basin States'') and
the Bureau of Reclamation completed the Colorado River Basin Study
(``the Basin Study''), to assess future water supply and demand
imbalances over the next 50 years and develop and evaluate
opportunities for resolving imbalances. The study has been under
development for nearly three years by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) and the Basin States, in collaboration with stakeholders
throughout the Basin. Reclamation officials have emphasized that this
is a planning study; it will not result in any decisions, but will
provide the technical foundation for future activities. In addition,
the Study explored various options that could be used to reduce the
anticipated supply/demand imbalances. A scenario planning approach was
used for this study to examine the full range of possible water supply/
water demand projections. The Study, a compilation of seven technical
reports and two overview documents, is available in its entirety at
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/index.html.
The Basin Study's four different supply scenarios and six different
demand scenarios present a broad range of possible imbalances. However,
when comparing the median of the six demand scenarios combined with the
median of four different water supply scenarios, a Basin-wide imbalance
of approximately 3.2 million acre-feet per year by 2060 is plausible.
Moreover, the greatest increases in demand are projected to occur in
the Lower Basin. The Basin Study also illustrates that because of the
magnitude and distribution of the imbalances, no single solution will
be adequate to meet all future water demand and supply imbalances.
The Study confirms that without future actions, the Basin faces a
range of potential future imbalances between supply and demand. A wide
range of future imbalances is plausible and each of those imbalances
results in the decline in the performance of Basin resources including
water deliveries, hydropower, water quality, ecological, and
recreational resources.
The Study also demonstrates the implementation of a broad range of
options that can reduce Basin resource vulnerability and improve the
Colorado River system's resiliency to low and variable hydrologic
conditions. The Study identifies a series of next steps that should be
taken to begin to discuss what actions should be pursued to ensure the
sustainability of the system. One of the options that the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Basin States explored within the Study was pursuing
additional agricultural conservation and water transfers. This is not
surprising or a new concept in the western United States. Many
thousands of acres of agricultural lands have already been dried up
within Colorado and throughout the West to meet growing municipal and
industrial demands. This trend of transferring agricultural consumptive
uses to growing municipal and industrial uses has real and far-reaching
implications and effects. In Colorado alone, the trend has prompted
policy makers to fund studies that explore and potentially provide
alternatives to agricultural transfers. Tools like interruptible supply
agreements, temporary fallowing arrangements, deficit irrigation
techniques, water banks, improved infrastructure, and other tools are
being developed and used throughout Colorado and the other western
states.
next steps
While the Colorado River Basin Study provides new tools and answers
a number of critical questions about the future of the Colorado River,
it has raised new and different questions. The Bureau of Reclamation
and the Basin States recognized that with the completion of the
Colorado River Basin Study, their work was not done, but rather it was
just beginning.
The Bureau of Reclamation and the Basin States agree that there are
three key areas where additional work is immediately necessary: 1)
municipal conservation; 2) agricultural conservation and transfers;
and, 3) recreational and environmental flows. Thus, the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Basin States formed three workgroups to tackle
specific scopes of work associated with each of these subject matters.
The Basin Study estimated that one million acre-feet of water can
be conserved from agriculture by the year 2060 to fill the estimated
gap that will exist between water supply and demand. Agricultural water
conservation has been proposed to reduce the overall water demand in
areas currently relying upon water supply from the Colorado River
system. The concepts received were first organized into six
agricultural water conservation measures reflecting different types of
activities that could generate water savings in the agricultural
sector. The six agricultural water conservation measures consist of:
Advanced irrigation scheduling
Deficit irrigation
On-farm irrigation system improvements
Controlled environment agriculture
Conveyance system efficiency improvements
Fallowing of irrigated lands
In order to encourage adoption of the targeted water conservation
measures, two possible implementation approaches were considered: (1)
Basin-wide agricultural water conservation through a federal or state
incentive-based program to encourage agricultural water use efficiency
without specific legal transfer of water or water rights, and (2)
Basin-wide agricultural water conservation with water transfers between
a willing transferor and willing transferee that promotes water
conservation and/or short-term or permanent fallowing of irrigated
lands to transfer conserved water to the transferee for a similar or
different use.
The six agricultural water conservation measures have been
conceptualized into two implementation approaches: 1) incentive-based
programs to reduce agricultural demands and 2) water transfers to
augment supplies. Because the conservation measures could produce
different amounts of savings depending on the location in the Basin,
implementation approach, and combination of conservation measures, the
total quantities were estimated as an aggregate for each implementation
approach rather than a summation of individual conservation measures.
Up to 1 million acre feet of potential savings by 2060 was considered
for both approaches combined with potential of roughly 500,000 acre
feet under each approach category. By comparison, the summation of
potential water savings for each conservation measure totals 2.44
million acre feet per year when accounting for non-consumptive use
savings outside the Basin and ignoring return flow impacts, and is
reduced to 833,000 acre feet per year when only consumptive use savings
are considered under each approach category.
agriculture conservation and transfers workgroup
The ``post-Basin Study'' workgroups are being set up to dig deeper
into the details. A ``coordinating committee'' will oversee and
coordinate the activities of these three work groups. The result will
be a draft report that is scheduled to be released later this year.
I will be co-chairing the Agriculture Conservation and Transfers
Workgroup, along with the Bureau of Reclamation's Ken Nowak and Tina
Shields, of the Imperial Irrigation District.
The Agricultural Conservation and Water Transfers Workgroup is
intending to collect information and prepare a report that: quantifies
agricultural conservation and transfers of Colorado River water (both
in and outside of the Basin) that have occurred to date, documents
programs that have been successful to date, documents impacts and
tradeoffs, lists any existing future plans for these types of
activities, and estimates what potential savings could come from these
existing plans. From this baseline information, this workgroup will
also propose Phase 2 activities to be conducted in 2014 to the
Coordination Team.
Members of the Workgroup include:
Co-Chairs
Ken Nowak, Reclamation
Tina Shields, Imperial Irrigation District
Reagan Waskom, Colorado State University
Members
Doug Bonamici, Colorado River Indian Tribes
Astor Boozer, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Grant Buma, Colorado River Indian Tribes
Aaron Citron, Environmental Defense Fund
Chuck Cullom, Central Arizona Project
Aaron Derwingson, The Nature Conservancy
Anisa Divine, Imperial Irrigation District
Eslton Grubaugh, Welton-Mohawk Irrigation District
Jeff Johnson, Southern Nevada Water Authority
Mark Johnson, Coachella Valley Water District
Janine Jones, California Department of Water Resources
Dave Kanzer, Colorado River District
Dan Keppen, Family Farm Alliance
Randy Kirkpatrick, San Juan Water Commission
Eric Klotz, Utah Division of Water Resources
John Longworth, New Mexico Office of the State Engineer
Jan Matusak, Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
Lee Miller, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Don Ostler, Upper Colorado River Commission
Pat O'Toole, Family Farm Alliance
Halla Razak, San Diego County Water Authority
Russ Schnitzer, Trout Unlimited
John Shields, Wyoming State Engineer's Office
Ed Smith, Palo Verde Irrigation District
TBD, Western Governors' Association/Western States Water
Council
Tanya Trujillo, Colorado River Board of California
Warren Turkett, Colorado River Commission of Nevada
Grant Ward, Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation and Drainage
District
Erin Wilson, Colorado Water Users
Brad Wind, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Ed Yava, Colorado River Indian Tribes
concerns of basin agricultural interests
Agricultural interests throughout the Basin, from headwater areas
in my state to the fruit and vegetable producers in the Imperial Valley
and Yuma, are concerned with the future scenaros identified in the
Basin Supply. I believe that Basin irrigation districts appreciate
Reclamation and the Basin states for their collaborative effort that
led to the completion of this important study. A key overall benefit of
this study is that, from now on, all Colorado Basin parties can work
from the same technical foundation. However, I also know that many
agricultural interests are concerned that virtually every scenario
assessed by the Basin Study shows a loss of Colorado River Basin
irrigated acreage by the year 2060.
The Basin Study assumes that irrigated acreage in the Colorado
River Basin will decrease by 300,000 to 900,000 acres during the time
period 2015 to 2060. Policy makers and Colorado River stakeholders must
understand the critical implications of taking existing irrigated
agriculture out of production. We are already behind the curve when it
comes to meeting the future food needs of the world. Every single acre
of land that is taken out of production reduces our capacity to meet
that demand.
Irrigated agriculture is one of the largest economic engines in the
Western U.S., according to the 2012 Family Farm Alliance report, ``The
Economic Importance of Western Irrigated Agriculture''. For a region
that spans the 17 Western states, the total household income impacts
derived from the ``Irrigated Agriculture Industry'', made up of direct
irrigated crop production, agricultural services, and the food
processing and packaging sectors, is estimated to be about $128 billion
annually.
There are concerns about how the quantity of agricultural water
that can be conserved was developed in the Basin Study. Once we have a
firmer hold on that number, I'm hoping we can spend our time focusing
on incentives and solutions to actually fill the gap. Some of that will
certainly come from improvements and expansions in infrastructure and
some will come from temporary, voluntary transfer methods like the
water bank concept included in the Study.
We need to ensure that in-basin agriculture has the tools to remain
resilient and profitable in the face of reduced supplies and increased
pressure from cities to buy up agricultural land and water. Those tools
can be directed to provide healthy flows benefits without permanently
taking land out of production. Diversion and infrastructure
improvements that can improve flows without drying up land are a good
example. Healthy irrigated agriculture in the Basin provides value for
water in place and gives environmental interests a partner to work with
on conservation projects.
past history can predict future actions
Several of the entities who are represented on the Ag Workgroup
participated in the Colorado River Ag/Urban/Enviro Water Sharing forum
a few years ago. Water used for agriculture in the Colorado River Basin
and the western United States is increasingly seen as a potential
supply for growing urban and environmental needs. In 2008, the Western
Governors' Association, working through their water arm, the Western
States Water Council (WSWC), issued Water Needs and Strategies for a
Sustainable Future: Next Steps. One of the next steps identified in the
report was that``...states, working with interested stakeholders,
should identify innovative ways to allow water transfers from
agriculture to urban use while avoiding or mitigating damages to
agricultural economies and environmental values.'' In direct and
independent response to the WGA's call to action, a diverse Water
Sharing Work Group of highly knowledgeable and influential water
leaders representing the sectors of agriculture, urban interests, and
the environment, set aside parochial positions to collaboratively take
on the governors' challenge.
One of the first issues the group resolved focused on the very
nature of water transfers. Some in the group did not want to
participate in any process that would somehow encourage additional
water to be transferred out of agriculture. An essential first step in
building the collaborative process was to come to the decision that the
group would focus on ways to improve sharing of water between multiple
sectors, and would not seek to find more ways to unilaterally transfer
water out of agriculture.
This group also recognized that there was a need for additional
dialogue on the role of storage. Faced with mounting demands to provide
water for urban growth and other beneficial uses, including
agriculture, some members of the group identify themselves as pro-
storage. Others remain leery of the potential adverse impacts and costs
associated with some storage projects. However, the group generally
accepted the concept that there may be benefits to properly sized and
located storage in certain circumstances, especially when such projects
are part of a larger, multiple-benefit strategy. The group also
generally agreed that when projects have the support of multiple
entities, including agriculture, environmental, and urban players, the
regulatory process for approval of such projects should be better
integrated, more conducive to moving forward, and less embroiled in
redundant action by multiple agencies.
I helped facilitate the Ag/Urban/Enviro effort, and based on that
experience, I think I have a good sense of the issues that we will
tackle in the Workgroup I will be co-chairing. Colorado Basin
agricultural interest will advocate that States and local governments
consider the impacts of continued growth that relies on water transfers
from agriculture and rural areas and to identify feasible alternatives
to those transfers. Also, I'm certain the topic of aging infrastructure
will come up. Aging Federal water infrastructure in the West must be
addressed, as failure to reinvest in critical facilities will negate
economic gains of past generations and create a failed legacy for
future generations. It is imperative that we find creative ways to
provide for the operation, maintenance, and modernization of existing
water supply infrastructure. And, Colorado River Basin farmers and
ranchers have long advocated for new water and power supplies, which
they see as necessary to satisfy recreational and environmental needs,
allow for population growth, and protect the economic vitality of the
West. They would like the federal government to adopt a policy of
supporting new efforts to enhance water supplies and management
flexibility, while encouraging state and local interests to take the
lead in the formulation of those efforts.
Irrigated crop production has a long history of innovation and
adapting to changing conditions. New technologies and more efficient
use of water are constantly being developed and voluntarily implemented
throughout the irrigation belt of the West. The recent drought has
certainly accelerated new technology and these advances in irrigated
agriculture are most often first introduced to producers through the
USDA Farm Bill programs. EQIP and the other programs target proven
conservation practices and provide technical and financial assistance
to farmers and ranchers as they continue to voluntarily reduce water
use and improve irrigation efficiencies. Farmers need conservation
programs such as EQIP and the CREP to assist, not subsidize, them as
they face extremely difficult water conservation challenges caused by
both drought and growth.
conclusion
I am pleased that Reclamation and the Basin States are committed to
the continued refinement of scenario planning as part of a robust long-
term planning framework for the Basin. Policy makers and elected
officials must clearly understand the importance of Western irrigated
agriculture and the implications associated with transferring the water
currently producing food in the Colorado River Basin and elsewhere.
At the appropriate time, federal authorizations or appropriations
may be recommended or suggested as a result of the deliberations by the
Workgroups and the States. We look forward to working with the Congress
as we address these future challenges.
Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony to you.
Senator Udall. Dr. Waskom, thank you.
Let me recognize myself for 5 minutes to direct some
questions to the panel. We've been joined by my colleague and
friend, Senator Flake from Arizona. When I've completed my 5
minutes, I'll recognize him for questions he may have.
Dr. Waskom, in your testimony you suggested it may be
possible and encourage more conservation on Ag lands. Can you
give us some examples of how the industry can work with less
water, but still maintain the productivity required to feed our
country? Can you explain in a second section how the Farm Bill
programs like EQIP and CSP are helping conservation efforts in
Ag?
Mr. Waskom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That's a very important question. So we know that we can
conserve water in agriculture. You state that well. The
question is can we do that and still maintain productivity,
right? That is the difficult question as well as can we do
that, maintain productivity and transfer water to other uses.
That's where the complexity and the tradeoffs really fall in.
So yes, there's mechanisms. We can do that by fallowing
marginal lands, by upgrading our infrastructure, by improving
diversions, canal structures on farm irrigation. There's a
number of tools in the bag of tricks.
But what we have to keep in mind is that irrigation is a
risk minimization strategy, right? We use that water to produce
food with. When we get tighter and tighter on the amount of
water that we have to use, the greater the risk that producers
face.
Relative to farm programs I think EQIP, the Ag Water
Enhancement Program, the Conservation Stewardship Program. All
of those have been very important in incentivizing producers,
helping them with assistance to get some of these practices on
the ground, so through both technical assistance as well as
financial assistance.
Senator Udall. Let me turn to Ms. Hawes.
You highlighted the Basin's, I think $26 billion is the
number you used, recreational economy. That's generated by 5
million adult visitors, 2,034 thousand jobs are supported.
Can you provide some insight on the ecological and
recreational areas that are most at risk in the River Basin?
I'm sure you have some sense of what the potential economic
impacts might be given various thresholds of effects.
Ms. Hawes. Certainly.
A lot of the impacts are very local in nature. So there are
endangered species, threatened species throughout the Basin on
smaller tributaries like the Delores, the San Pedro. They're
certainly impacts all throughout.
There's booming recreational economies throughout the
Basin. In your home State lots of places like Aspen, Vail that
depend on a healthy river system for their economy and for
their tourism.
So there are some places in the Basin that we want to focus
on first, what we consider Integrator Rivers. If you can
protect those rivers they have a bigger bang for their buck, so
to speak. Some of those might be places like up the Green
River, the San Juan River, the Upper Colorado, the Yampa.
Some of those Upper Basin tributaries really impact the
whole system and provide recreational opportunities all the way
down. We owe that water down to Lake Powell anyway. So we're
just trying to figure out ways to see how we might enhance
those resources as they go down to Lake Powell.
In terms of some of the impacts I think there's quite a
few.
First there's the impact to businesses that rely on the
river whether that's rafting companies, angling, you know,
fishing guides, wineries. In Grand Junction there's lots of
different businesses that rely on the river. There's also
communities along the river that rely on helping a healthy
river for their tourism, as I mentioned.
There's also a recent study out. That just came out
yesterday about real estate values and how they're linked to
having a healthy river. So I think we'll see things like as
rivers, I think the study said and I have not had a chance to
look at it yet, that the headline was, ``As Flows Drop How Does
That Affect our Real Estate Values?'' The idea is that it's a
negative one. People like to live along a healthy river.
Also there's an avoidance cost I think when it comes to
endangered and threatened species. It costs a lot of money to
recover a species. It's much easier to find proactive ways to
protect a species before they're threatened.
So there are some species that are on the edge. Our goal
would be to make sure that those species don't fall off the
edge. That has benefits for all of us because if you have an
Endangered Species Act compliance program that reduces the
flexibility of water users.
So we want to make sure we're not creating that situation.
But that means having a healthy river system.
Then last I would mention hydropower. That's a flow benefit
in many parts of the Basin. That's a big driver. In fact I met
the head of the Regional WAPA, Western Area Power, person on
the plane yesterday who was coming out here to talk to folks
about flows and how they're concerned about Lake Powell and
Lake Mead.
So I think there's a lot of different things that we don't
necessarily think about when we think about healthy flows. But
they're all connected in having a healthy river system.
Senator Udall. Let me recognize Senator Flake. I know he
has a fellow Arizonan here. Ms. Ferris I also think my family
had some involvement in the good work you all have done in
Arizona.
Ms. Ferris. Yes, indeed, Senator Udall. I was thinking
about my last visit here was 30 years ago when I was coming
here to save the CAP by passing a ground water code. I had the
great privilege of meeting your Dad at that time. It was
terrific.
Senator Udall. He had a long history with the CAP. I know
Senator Flake's family does as well.
Ms. Ferris. Yes.
Senator Udall. I think I said earlier, Senator Flake, that
it was said in the West that the Lees and Udalls are everywhere
and we're related. But the Flakes are everywhere as well.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. It's great to have----
Senator Flake. I was watching in my office and I was quite
offended I was left out there.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. I appreciate that.
Senator Udall. What was yours?
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Ms. Ferris, you have obviously a long history and have done
so much good work in the State Ground Water Act. What? Thirty-
three years ago now?
Ms. Ferris. Yes.
Senator Flake. It has stood the test of time and then some.
I can tell you people who fly into Sky Harbor and look around
and see the amount of development that has happened. They all
ask the same thing. How are you able to do it in a desert like
this?
It was because of a lot of foresight and a lot of actions
taken early on and sticking to the plan. I commend you for the
good work early on and for all the good work since.
Ms. Ferris. Thank you.
Senator Flake. You mentioned in your testimony and I'm
sorry, I listened to part of it and had to run over here. That
you don't believe that conservation will be able to make up for
the deficiencies in the future. It's going to take
augmentation. Do you want to elaborate on that and in what way,
what kind of augmentation are you talking about?
Ms. Ferris. Mr. Chairman, Senator Flake, yes, I do believe
that we need a comprehensive approach. As I said in my
testimony conservation and reuse are essential. But we have to
expand our thinking and look at what other possibilities are
out there.
I know that in Arizona we look locally first and then we
try to look regionally at what we can accomplish regionally. I
think that's what we're going to have to do in this situation
as well. I'm not sure we can find a silver bullet to the whole
problem. We're going to find regional and local approaches.
But one of the things that's been discussed is
desalinization. There is an option to look at desalinization
along Southern California and in the Gulf of Mexico and use
that water to meet Southern California's demands in a trade for
using some other Colorado River elsewhere.
So and that got pretty high remarks, I think, in the study
in terms of economic viability. There's a lot of permitting
required. I know that.
But we also have the Yuma desalter in Yuma that has been
mothballed for a long time. We know there was a trial program.
We've got to explore them. We've got to explore all of them.
Senator Flake. With regard to where direction ought to come
from, like I said, I think all of us praise what has been in
Arizona. A lot of forethought went into it.
What role do you see for Congress to take place? It looks
as if local expertise is where it's at here. But what to you
see as a role for Congress moving ahead?
Ms. Ferris. Mr. Chairman, Senator Flake, I think that we
need to complete the next steps of this study and try to sort
out if there is a role to played at the Federal level. I think
first though it's really up to the States working with
Reclamation to try to develop solutions that everyone can agree
upon and that we can then, if we need Federal or congressional
help then we come forward with the ask.
But I'm not sure we're there yet. I know that it's going to
take a lot of work at the Basin level, with the States, working
together with Reclamation to really figure out those solutions.
Senator Flake. Thank you. That's certainly what I prefer
because I've seen the good work locally. If we're a last resort
and obviously there are functions that Congress needs to
perform here.
But to the extent that can be done locally that's certainly
the preference.
Mr. Waskom, Ms. Hawes, do you want to talk about how these
proposed solutions being talked about will be crafted in a way
to protect some traditional agriculture. I know there's always
concern in some of the agricultural communities that plans and
moving ahead, in terms of water resources, will somehow leave
them out.
What can we do to make sure that doesn't happen?
Ms. Hawes. You go first.
Mr. Waskom. Thank you, Senator.
My response to that would be part of what we're doing with
the workgroups is really engaging a broad base of stakeholders
from the top to the bottom of the Basin, agricultural
stakeholders, folks that manage water on a day to day basis.
I think really to answer your question we need to work
closely with the irrigation districts in the Basin. They manage
the water. They will know what the degrees of freedom are to
move water around and where we can conserve and perhaps where
we can augment it for the sake of agriculture as well.
So that would be my response.
Senator Flake. OK.
Ms. Hawes.
Ms. Hawes. Yes, thank you, Senator.
In the State of Colorado we're looking at water banking in
the State of Colorado as a mechanism to deal with compact
compliance. But I think it has broader ramifications and the
way that we're working with irrigators and cities and
Reclamation and the tribes. We've hired an Agricultural
Outreach Coordinator just to be talking to agriculture because
without agriculture there is no solution.
Senator Flake. Right.
Ms. Hawes. It has to be voluntary. It has to be something
that works for them. When we talk about the water bank in
Colorado our first line is if you're not on board this can't go
forward.
So we're really spending a lot of time exploring what their
local concerns are. What, you know, there's economic issues.
There are environmental issues within their own property
sometimes.
It has to work for them economically. I think we're
spending some time trying to understand the technical issues
that they are facing through fallowing and deficit irrigation
and crop rotation. All those things have to be explored and we
have to make sure their concerns are addressed.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Ms. Ferris, do you have anything to add to that or I know
you're limited in time for your opening statement. Is there
anything else that you'd like to cover?
Ms. Ferris. Mr. Chairman, Senator Flake, you know it's
always a balance. That's how it feels to me. After all these
years I've spent on this issue you really have to have
collaboration among all the affected parties or nothing works.
Senator Flake. Right.
Ms. Ferris. So I'm a really big believer in that. I'm a
really big believer in bringing everybody to the table and
trying to forge the necessary solutions.
Senator Flake. It is a tough balance. Property use and
protecting property owners and conservation and supply,
everything, it's a tough balancing act and manage to do it
pretty well in Arizona. Thanks for all of your hard work here.
So, thank you.
Ms. Ferris. Welcome.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Flake.
I, too, want to acknowledge the visionary work you've done
in Arizona. I think many other States have taken a look at what
you've accomplished and said, ``what can we apply in our
State?''
I know you work closely with most of the time, Ms. Mulroy,
up in Las Vegas.
Ms. Ferris. Yes.
Senator Udall. Senator Flake, I'm inclined to think if we
turn Ms. Ferris and Ms. Mulroy loose they might figure this all
out for all of us.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Ferris. Just put us in a room together we'll do fine.
Senator Udall. But anyway, I wanted to follow up a little
bit on what Senator Flake was discussing with you about some of
the successes you've had.
Your working group, I think, is examining reuse as one of
the future supply options. How do you take that into account as
you examine the impact of enhanced reuse on downstream water
users, most notably agriculture?
Ms. Ferris. Senator Udall, really good question. It's
really why we have these workgroups, I think, because if you
read the study, especially on the reuse part it's pretty thin.
There are some assumptions made that we can achieve 930
thousand acre feet of savings through reuse, but it's very
global. It acknowledges that we have to dig deeper.
So that's really what the workgroup will do.
I think again, we have to look regionally and locally
because laws vary, as you know, from State to State. So in
Arizona, for example, cities that treat waste water, that waste
water becomes theirs. They can contract for it.
That's part of the reason we've been so successful in
reusing waste water in Arizona. Because we've been able to sign
contracts with power plants and use the water for riparian
areas and use it for industrial purposes.
The laws in other States are very different. So obviously
you've got to protect property rights as we go along. So we're
just going to have to dig deeper into what is the existing law
and the existing structures in different areas and really
determine what we can really get from reuse and how we can do
it in a way that doesn't impact vested water rights.
Senator Udall. I look forward to hearing more about that.
We're beginning to do more of this in Colorado. You're
probably familiar with the city of Aurora, the second largest
city. They've just opened a significantly sized reuse plant.
Prairie Waters, I believe, is the name of the plant. It's
raised some of those legal questions you just surfaced as well.
But it's where we have to go as one of the solutions.
In the end, though, augmentation is going to be important
as how you augment and the effects that Ms. Hawes touched on.
I want to turn to you, Ms. Hawes, for the last question
before we conclude the hearing.
Can you share some examples of a situation where multiple
needs have been balanced between municipal, power,
recreational, environmental and Ag users? If you could, include
any of the key factors that resulted in those successes?
I'm assuming you have a few or I wouldn't ask that
question.
Ms. Hawes. Thank you, chairman.
As I described in my testimony we have some great examples.
I think that's what gives me such hope. I'm definitely an
optimist, as well, but if we didn't have so many great examples
I think it would be harder to make the case.
There's an example in Northwest Colorado where through the
Upper Basin Recovery program which as we heard earlier is such
a model for success.
We enlarged a small reservoir so it was an existing
reservoir. It didn't have to go through huge permitting hoops.
But they raised the level of the reservoir to get another, to
achieve an increased yield of about 15,000 acre feet of water.
They then divided that in thirds.
One third for the fish, for the endangered fish.
One third for a local power plant.
One third for local communities and agricultural interests
available by contract.
So I think that's one example, kind of a local one, but
where again the key factor was political will. Everybody
recognized that it was necessary. We needed better base flows
in the region. All the parties came together. They did the
financing was easy and the permitting was a breeze by today's
standards.
So once you have all those parties in agreement it makes it
a lot easier to, kind of, push the project forward and meet all
those multiple purposes.
Another recent example is the bi-national agreement, Minute
319. My point I'd like to make is if we can do that with
Mexico, we can do that with recreational interests and
environmental interest around the Basin. So in that example
there was multiple benefits being met.
It was tourism in Mexico. It was environmental flows and
restoration for migratory bird habitat in Mexico. There was
shortage sharing between the two countries as well as surplus
sharing if we're ever so lucky to have that day again.
There was also investment from the cities in the U.S., in
Mexico's infrastructure and then they got real water in
exchange in Lower Basin cities. So I think that's another great
example.
In my testimony I also describe an example in the San Pedro
River in Arizona where ground water levels were dropping. It
was affecting the river, but it was also affecting the
community. So through good science and a lot of time spinning
out, figuring out exactly what was the problem.
They were able to identify key recharge locations that
could be used. It can use effluence and storm water to recharge
in these key locations, recharge the ground water which not
only benefits the communities, but it also benefits the river.
We've been able to track that progress along the way.
So I think there are great examples out there. I could go
on, but I think that we can see all around the Basin that there
are good examples of us finding ways to meet all these multiple
purposes. The key factor, in my opinion, is political will.
Senator Udall. Political will.
That's very helpful. You all have provided some
fascinating, crucial testimony. It may not be as fascinating to
people who live east of the 100th meridian, but it's very
fascinating to us who live beyond the 100th meridian, which, of
course, was the title of a well-known book that talked about
the original belief on the part of the settlers. The Native
people were a little wiser than the settlers were. But the rain
follows the plow.
We're now looking for a new construct in the 21st century
that combines your optimism with the realism that this study
lays in front of us. I'm confident we can, through technology
and ultimately through political will, get to where we need to
be. The very way of life we all love in the Southwest depends
on it.
So thank you again for your important testimony. We will
keep the record open for two more weeks to receive any
additional comments. Some of the committee members may want to
submit additional questions in writing, and I know you all will
be happy to submit answers for the record.
I also want to thank the first panel which was an important
part of this hearing as well.
With that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Mike Connor to Questions From Senator Udall
Question 1. As climate change could have a major impact on the
amount of water available in the Colorado River Basin, how can states,
tribes, and local entities prepare for and adapt to such conditions?
Answer. While climate models do not definitively agree upon the net
impact climate change may have on Colorado River flow, annual (natural)
historical data of the past 20 years averages nine percent below the
long-term mean (1906-2013). Further, considering the past 14 years,
annual average flow has decreased by twice that amount (down to 82
percent of long-term mean). Recent measured flow reductions, coupled
with a considerable number of climate models projecting further
reductions in flow, suggest that it is prudent and essential to plan
for future decreases in water supply.
As we continue to encounter significant drought conditions, the
communities that rely on the river to sustain them are being forced to
make tough choices. It is likely that climate change and its emerging
challenges will have major consequences on the Colorado River system.
There is no silver bullet to solve these challenges. Fortunately, the
level of cooperation among key stakeholders has never been higher and
as a result, there is reason for optimism, even in the midst of the
daunting challenges that exist in this Basin. The Department will
continue to be a partner in assisting the Colorado River Basin to
prepare for, and successfully address, the significant issues
identified in the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Supply
and Demand Study (Study). The Study, along with the wide array of
adaptation and mitigation strategies proposed by stakeholders and the
public, is an important step towards facilitating much needed
collaboration amongst States, tribes, local entities and stakeholders
in order to identify and move forward with practical solutions.
Question 2. Can you describe the role of the National Park Service
with respect to the Basin Study? What, if any, will their role be in
quantifying recreational and environmental flows in National Parks?
Answer. The National Park Service (NPS) played a role in the Study
through its involvement in the collaborative development of the Study's
system reliability metrics for ecological and recreational resources.
These metrics were the measure of how well the Colorado River system
may perform in the future under different water supply and demand
scenarios, with and without the implementation of options to help
resolve future imbalances.
The NPS will continue to be a key partner in the Study's next steps
process. This continuing effort will require innovative thinking,
integration of many viewpoints and a commitment to work in a positive
and collaborative spirit.
The first part of this process builds on critical investigations
identified in the Study as next steps and consists of the formation of
a Coordination Team and three multi-stakeholder workgroups representing
Federal, State, Tribal, agricultural, municipal, hydropower,
environmental, and recreational interests. These workgroups will
investigate: 1) Municipal and Industrial Conservation and Water Reuse,
2) Agricultural Conservation and Water Transfers, and 3) Environmental
and Recreational Flows.
NPS representatives are members of the Coordination Team as well as
the Environmental and Recreational Flows workgroup. The Environmental
and Recreational Flows Workgroup has recently begun the process of
preparing its work plan outlining near-term activities. The NPS Natural
Resource Stewardship and Science Directorate includes technical experts
in water resource management and climate change who will continue to
support efforts to examine water supply, utilization, and ecological
needs within the basin.
Question 3. As you examined the Basin Study's findings and the
Bureau's storage infrastructure, how can existing infrastructure be
better utilized? Please quantify the cost of these improvements, as
well as the potential effect on regional supply or demand in the Basin.
Answer. Several ideas were received from the public related to the
modification of current reservoir operations and construction of new
storage. These options were not addressed quantitatively in the Study
due to their complex legal and technical nature and their respective
costs.
Reclamation recognizes that modified reservoir operations and
infrastructure have been and will continue to be important tools used
to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of future imbalances. These tools
have been used in the past, which continue to provide benefits through
the 2007 Interim Guidelines for Shortage, Surplus, and Coordinated
Operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Brock Reservoir, completed in
2010, was collaboratively constructed by Reclamation and stakeholders
in the Lower Basin States to respond more effectively to changing
weather and river conditions, and conserve water.
Question 4. Are there ways the Bureau can help promote more
effective and cost-efficient water use in coordination with its project
beneficiaries?
Answer. Reclamation has made substantial progress in addressing
Colorado River water management over the past several years, including
the 2007 Interim Guidelines for Shortage, Surplus, and Coordinated
Operations of Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the 2010 signing of Minute 318
and the 2012 signing of Minute 319 to the 1944 treaty with Mexico, the
High Flow Experimental Protocol and Non-Native Fish Control programs
adopted in 2010 at Glen Canyon Dam, and the WaterSMART (Sustain and
Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow) initiative focused on prudent
water management and new technologies to address upcoming gaps in
supply and demand.
Through WaterSMART, Interior agencies work with state and local
water managers to plan for climate change, drought and other threats to
water supplies and consider their potentially interrelated effects,
taking action to secure water resources for communities, economies, and
the ecosystems they support. In July 2013, Reclamation announced $8.2
million in WaterSMART funding for projects to assist the Colorado River
Basin by augmenting water supplies, conserving and reusing existing
water supplies and planning for the future of the Basin. Interior
awarded $2.8 million in Water and Energy Efficiency Grants for seven
projects, $1.8 million for one Basin Study and one plan of study and
$3.6 million for water reclamation and reuse projects in Albuquerque,
NM and Long Beach, CA.
Question 5. Do you anticipate that further studies will show that
the location of water demands will not always correlate well with the
location of potential supplies, resulting in a need for additional
transport infrastructure?
Answer. The system reliability analysis conducted as part of the
Study indicates that Basin resources (water deliveries, hydropower
production, and ecological and recreational resources) in locations
throughout the Basin are vulnerable on some level to future supply and
demand imbalances. However, the nature, timing, and magnitude of the
future vulnerability are complex and dependent on a number of factors
including the resource need and its location.
Although the Colorado River system is one of the most complex
networks of water conveyance in the world, many other situations exist
where the location of supply does not correlate with the location of
demand. In some cases, existing stream and river channels or
infrastructure can be used to achieve the necessary conveyance of
water. Many of the augmentation-type options to resolve future supply/
demand imbalances considered in the Study require additional transport
infrastructure. The Study's portfolio analysis demonstrated that many
resource vulnerabilities can be decreased considerably with a wide-
range of solutions in place. The Study does not result in a decision as
to how future imbalances should or will be addressed, and Reclamation
has not taken a position on the merits of any of these actions or
whether it may ultimately support pursuing any individual actions.
Question 6. The Basin Study identified a greater-than-zero chance
of a Colorado River Compact ``call.'' Would Reclamation be prepared to
participate in such an administrative effort within the confines of the
Colorado River Compact? How would you see Reclamation's role in such an
event? Does Reclamation believe the Basin States are appropriately
prepared?
Answer. The Colorado River Compact is the foundation of the Law of
the Colorado River as well as a key element of applicable federal law
that establishes the framework for Reclamation's Colorado River
operations. The Compact establishes rights and obligations between the
States of the Upper Division and the States of the Lower Division. It
has long been recognized that in certain circumstances a ``Compact
call'' could be invoked by one or more of the affected states. Working
closely with the Department of the Interior, the seven Colorado River
Basin States--as a group--have been aggressively engaged and successful
in dealing with emerging challenges on the Colorado River in a
cooperative and consensus-based fashion, particularly over the past 15
years. This effort has resulted in adoption of numerous proactive
measures designed to reduce the likelihood of disruptive events,
including circumstances such as a Compact call. Reclamation will
continue to work to ensure that accurate and objective information is
available for decision makers and stakeholders, and Reclamation will
continue to work to facilitate cooperative solutions that can meet the
challenges ahead, including those identified by the Study.
Responses of Mike Connor to Questions From Senator Lee
Question 1. The study (page ES-20) noted that not all stakeholders
were in agreement with the results. Please elaborate on this statement.
What results were stakeholders not in agreement with? Which
recommendations were the most controversial among stakeholders?
Answer. As noted on page ES-20, not all stakeholders in the Study
were in agreement with the option characterization results. The Study
explored a broad range of options to help address future water supply
and demand imbalances. Between November 2011 and February 2012, more
than 150 ideas were received from stakeholders and interested parties
to be included in the Study. A group of representative options,
designed to represent the submitted ideas, were then ``characterized''
against a set of 17 criteria (e.g. cost, timing, technical feasibility,
energy needs, etc.). These criteria were used to describe the options,
provide a relative comparison of their attributes, and support the
development of portfolios or groupings of options.
Although the characterization process strove for objectivity and
consistency, there were limitations including geographic challenges due
to the Basin's large size and regional variety, the appraisal level of
the analysis, potential subjectivity during the characterization
process, and significant uncertainty due to limited data. It was
recognized by all stakeholders that future efforts will result in a
more in-depth assessment of the criteria, opportunities for additional
research and development, and the improvement of available data.
Question 2. The Colorado River Supply and Demand Study indicated
(page ES-21) that in early 2013 Reclamation would consult and work with
tribes regarding tribal water rights issues reflected in the report.
What consultation with tribes has occurred and what is planned for the
next few years?
Answer. On May 28, 2013, in San Diego, Assistant Secretary for
Water and Science Anne Castle and Commissioner Mike Connor joined
dozens of stakeholders for a public event outlining a path of next
steps for the Basin based on the findings of the Study. Darryl Vigil,
Chairman of the Ten Tribes Partnership, provided an essential
contribution to the event by presenting the tribal perspective on Basin
needs. The next steps have included the formation of a Coordination
Team and workgroups that will focus on the critical investigations
identified in the Study. There are two Ten Tribes Partnership
representatives on the Coordination Team as well as tribal
representatives on the workgroups.
In addition, Reclamation is committed to its ongoing support of
Tribal Nations. For example, jointly with the Ten Tribes Partnership,
Reclamation will conduct a study related to tribal water use.
Reclamation is currently discussing the objectives and scope of this
study with the Partnership. Additionally, Reclamation is engaged in
discussions with the Intertribal Council of Arizona to better
understand their issues raised during the Study related to tribal water
and is committed to continuing to seek resolution on these issues.
Question 3. What is Reclamation or Department of the Interior doing
to bring in other federal agencies and programs during the
identification of next steps for the Colorado River basin? Are U.S.
Department of Agriculture programs (e.g., EQIP) that affect how water
is used, drought resiliency, and agricultural water demands integrated
into the next step efforts in the basin? Similarly, are U.S. EPA
programs related to municipal water investments and water efficiency
being evaluated for their potential contribution?
Answer. A process has begun which moves beyond the Study to address
projected water supply and demand imbalances in the Basin. This
continuing effort will require innovative thinking, integration of many
viewpoints and a commitment to work in a positive and collaborative
spirit.
The first part of this process builds on the critical next
investigations identified in the Study and consists of the formation of
three multi-stakeholder workgroups representing Federal, State, Tribal,
agricultural, municipal, hydropower, environmental, and recreational
interests. These workgroups will investigate: 1) Municipal and
Industrial Conservation and Water Reuse, 2) Agricultural Conservation
and Water Transfers, and 3) Environmental and Recreational Flows.
Federal members on these teams represent a broad spectrum of
federal agencies: Department of the Interior (Reclamation, National
Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service),
and Department of Agriculture (Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Forest Service) agencies.
Near-term activities include documenting the success of municipal
and agricultural conservation programs, estimating the amount of
additional water saving each program may achieve by 2060, and compiling
a listing of best practices. Savings occurring from USDA and/or EPA
programs will be addressed through this task.
Question 4. No cross-cut budget for federal activities in the
Colorado River basin affecting water demands and supply is publically
available. Cross-cut budgets for a wide variety of federal agencies are
regularly produced for the Florida Everglades restoration, California
Bay Delta restoration, and the Great Lakes. Would there be value for
producing a similar budget for the Colorado River water supply and
demand in order to better understand the current federal role?
Answer. Reclamation already closely coordinates with a number of
federal agencies on Colorado River operations, planning, and
ecosystems. These include the National Weather Service, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
several agencies within the Department of the Interior including U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the National
Park Service.
Question 5. Among individual ``representative'' options included in
each of the portfolios, how does current spending in the basin compare
with the estimated range of costs for these actions in the recommended
portfolios? (i.e., What would be the required increase in investment in
individual areas?) For example, how much is currently spent per year on
desalination compared to the recommended investment in portfolios A and
B? How much is spent on weather modification, which is recommended in
all portfolios?
Answer. The Study considered four portfolios, each different in
options, potential yield and associated costs. For a given portfolio,
the actual investment was variable, depending on the demand and supply
scenarios. This variability, coupled with uncertainty regarding current
spending on option-type programs makes determining the ``suggested
additional investment'' challenging. Ultimately, Basin-wide investment
``need'' is likely to exceed current funding levels (both federal and
non-federal) for most options considered in the Study. The exact amount
will depend on a variety of factors, including but not limited to
region, option type(s) and desired yield.
As part of the Study's next steps, work groups are actively engaged
in activities that examine existing agricultural and municipal
conservation programs. Conservation was among the most frequently
proposed options considered in the Study. Significant conservation
efforts are already underway, but additional efforts could reduce
supply-demand imbalances. Products from these workgroups will quantify
previous efforts (in both water savings and dollars) and illuminate the
additional effort, financial and otherwise, to achieve the additional
levels quantified in the Study.
The other major category of options can be broadly described as
augmentation: developing other water supplies to ease the burden placed
on the Colorado River. Currently few projects exist that fall into this
category. The Yuma Desalting Plant (Yuma, AZ) was completed in the
early 1990s and has a capacity to conserve approximately 100,000 acre-
feet/year. In Carlsbad, CA, a 56,000 acre-feet/year desalination
facility is scheduled to be completed in 2016. For comparison,
desalination options modeled in the Study offered a potential yield of
about 1.5 million acre-feet/year by mid-century. Thus, in the case of
desalination, the maximum rate of development would constitute an
approximate 10-fold increase relative to the past ?35 years. Given
increasing costs per acre-foot associated with option implementation
and the potential for imbalances to increase over time, it is prudent
to assume that additional Basin-state investment beyond current levels
will be required.
Question 6. How confident is Reclamation in its estimates of the
potential costs for the portfolios? Please elaborate further on the
basis for these estimates and the major assumptions used. The costs
appear to range from $4 billion to $7 billion annually in 2060 (in 2012
dollars).
Answer. As part of the option characterization process, all
submitted options were characterized using 17 evaluation criteria and
the relative cost of an option was one of the characterization items.
The cost criterion included capital and annual costs expressed in terms
of unit costs in dollars per acre-foot. The option costs were estimated
based on limited and high-level analyses. Therefore, knowledge of items
such as costs, permit requirements, and long term feasibility are
highly uncertain. For example, cost estimates for infrastructure-type
projects are based on similar past projects with adjustments for
parameters such as scale and location. These adjustments are
approximate, especially for projects where the scale of the project is
larger than any previously completed similar project. Past studies by
the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering show that
concept-level estimates can typically have an expected error range of
between 30 to 50 percent. Cost estimates for non-structural type
projects are often even more uncertain because historical documentation
of costs for similar past projects are often not fully applicable or
fully documented, or such projects are based on changes in human
behavior. Despite the uncertainties in estimating the magnitude of
costs, a significant effort was made to provide cost estimates that are
useful when considering relative costs.
Question 7. Of the specific options and strategies outlined within
the portfolios, which options are the most and least viable? Was there
any effort to quantify which options were the most and least cost
effective, in terms of cost per acre-foot?
Answer. As part of the option characterization process, each option
was characterized using a set of 17 criteria, including both
quantitative criteria such as timing of implementation, annualized cost
per acre-foot, yield, and energy use, and qualitative criteria such as
technical feasibility and implementation risk. The cost criterion
included capital and annual costs expressed in terms of unit costs in
dollars per acre-foot, however the option costs were estimated based on
limited and high-level analyses. Therefore, knowledge of items such as
costs, permit requirements, and long term feasibility are highly
uncertain.
The Study shows that no single option or project will be adequate
to meet the varied needs of the Basin under the range of future
scenarios considered. Indeed, the four portfolios (groups of options)
evaluated in the Study indicate that a diverse combination of options
has the potential to reduce resource vulnerability. Future planning
will require careful consideration of the timing, location, and
magnitude of anticipated future Basin resource needs. The purpose of
exploring the options and portfolios is not to identify a ``best''
portfolio or strategy, but to acknowledge that there are various ways
to address the water supply and demand imbalance and to recognize that
each approach has implications to be considered in future planning
processes and decisionmaking.
Question 8. What is the current status of federal salinity
management issues in the basin, and how are salinity concerns being
integrated into the decisions about next steps for water supply and
demand?
Answer. Reclamation partners with the seven Colorado River Basin
States (Basin States) and other federal agencies to meet the target
objective of reducing the annual salinity load in the Colorado River by
1.8 million tons by the year 2030 under Title II of the Salinity
Control Act (PL 93-320) (Act). Currently, federal agencies and their
salinity control programs prevent about 1.3 million tons of salt from
the Upper Colorado Basin from entering the Colorado River system each
year. Reclamation's salinity control programs control about 570,000
tons of that annual total.
The Act also authorized funds deposited into the Upper Colorado
River Basin Fund and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund
(Basin Funds) from a surcharge on power produced at Reclamation
facilities to be advanced to cost share 30 percent of the cost of the
Title II salinity control programs authorized by the Act. In recent
years Reclamation has received about $8 million in appropriations for
its Basinwide Salinity Control Program to fund with the cost share from
the Basin Funds the installation of the salinity control measures with
an average unit cost of about $55/ton.
Under Title 1 of the Act, Reclamation constructed salinity control
facilities to meet United States' obligations under Minute 242 of the
1944 Treaty with Mexico. These facilities and programs currently enable
Reclamation to maintain acceptable salinity levels in the water
supplies delivered to Mexico, including the collection and analysis of
data and reporting of salinity compliance. The Study's next steps
process do not address salinity concerns explicitly, however, the
extent to which salinity concentrations are impacted by agricultural
conservation and water transfers will be documented.
Question 9. How does Reclamation envision the future federal role
in the Colorado River Basin? Is the federal role expected to change?
Answer. The Secretary of the Interior, through Reclamation, serves
as the water master for the Colorado River in the Lower Basin and is
the responsible federal official for the many water and power projects
throughout the Basin, delivering water and power to the recreational,
agricultural, environmental, and municipal communities that depend on
the river. As such, Reclamation and Interior are well positioned to
provide leadership to work towards the goal of sustainable water
supplies in the Basin. The collaborative approach adopted by the Study
was paramount to its success. As in the past, Reclamation and Interior
can provide a leadership role in furthering these partnerships so as to
be well poised when new challenges and opportunities arise.
Question 10. In your opinion, what is the best model for basin-wide
decision making and coordinated implementation of programs such as the
``portfolio'' options? Is there a comparable example of a decision
making entity that takes into account all levels of interest and
implements a coordinated strategy?
Answer. Reclamation does not believe there is a single ``best''
model for basin-wide decision making and coordinated implementation of
programs, and recognizes the broad range of interests that would have
to be considered in any such analysis. During preparation of the Study
Reclamation received input comprising over 150 options from Study
participants, interested stakeholders, and the general public. Some of
the options focused on Basin governance and mechanisms to facilitate
option implementation (Governance and Implementation). Reclamation
noted that the governance/decision making concepts that related to
water management and allocation (including Tribal water issues) have
significant legal and policy considerations that will require future
consideration and discussions and were beyond the scope of the Study.
Responses of Mike Connor to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. Sections 201 and 202 of the Colorado River Basin
Project Act direct the Secretary of the Interior to address the future
water needs of the Western United States.
Section 202 declares that the--
``satisfaction of the requirements of the Mexican Water
Treaty from the Colorado River constitutes a national
obligation which shall be the first obligation of any water
augmentation project planned pursuant to section 201 of this
Act and authorized by the Congress.''
Does Section 202 of the 1968 Act have relevance or a bearing on
what will be accomplished during the next phase of the Colorado River
Water Supply and Demand Study?
Answer. The Colorado River Basin Project Act is an important
element of applicable federal law and part of the overall Law of the
River. Reclamation does not anticipate that Sec. 202 will directly
affect or be determinative with respect to the multi-stakeholder fact-
gathering efforts envisioned in the Study's next steps process. Current
effort builds on findings for critical next investigations described in
the Study and consists of the formation of three multi-stakeholder
workgroups to investigate and provide additional factual detail
regarding: 1) Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Conservation and Water
Reuse, 2) Agricultural Conservation and Water Transfers, and 3)
Environmental and Recreational Flows. Additionally, in an effort
parallel to these activities, Reclamation-led activities will include a
joint investigation with the Ten Tribes Partnership, related to tribal
water use in the Colorado River Basin.
Question 2. It seems highly unlikely that augmented water supplies
in the Colorado River Basin will be dedicated to going to Mexico. How
should we address Section 202 of the 1968 Act?
Answer. The question of how Congress should address Section 202 of
the 1968 Act goes beyond the scope and analysis of the Study. During
preparation of the Study, Reclamation received input comprising over
150 options from Study participants, interested stakeholders, and the
general public, including options related to small and large scale
augmentation concepts. A number of the options focused on Basin
governance and mechanisms to facilitate option implementation
(Governance and Implementation). Reclamation noted that a number of the
governance/decision making concepts that related to water management
and allocation (which would include issues involving augmentation under
applicable law, including the 1968 Act) have significant legal and
policy considerations that will require future consideration and
discussions and were beyond the scope of the Study. In any future
consideration of augmentation programs, the United States' obligations
to Mexico under the 1944 Treaty will have to be fully considered and
integrated.
______
Response of Kathleen Ferris to Question From Senator Udall
Question 1. In your testimony, you highlighted that the potential
water saving figures included in the study do not capture the
complexities of how municipalities manage their water, especially in
regards to ``out-of-Basin'' cities like Denver and Los Angeles.
Therefore, it becomes much more difficult to evaluate potential water
quantity impacts on the Colorado River Basin as municipal water savings
are likely not directly proportionate to their different sources of
water. What information would it be useful for municipalities to
provide in order to have a greater understanding of the impact their
water management decisions have on the Basin?
Answer. A municipal water provider considers many different factors
if it has multiple sources of water to meet demands within its service
area. Some of these factors include the volume of water in storage in
surface water reservoirs, hydrologic forecasts of water supply
availability, environmental issues that may impact the availability of
supplies, water right restrictions and contractual requirements, cost
of delivery of raw water to treatment facilities, cost of treatment to
potable standards, quality of the raw and potable water, and cost to
pump groundwater (if part of a supply portfolio). Consequently, there
is variability in how providers choose to use their supplies from year
to year.
Municipal providers should be able to provide historic data
identifying how much Colorado River water they have used. In many cases
municipal providers have forward looking water resources plans that can
inform us as to how their future use of Colorado River water might
shift over time.
The Municipal and Industrial Conservation and Reuse Workgroup will
collect and analyze the necessary data, but it will take some time to
accomplish this task.
Responses of Kathleen Ferris to Questions From Senator
Question 1. While Arizona's population increased from 5.1 million
in 2000 to 6.3 million in 2010, water use remained relatively constant
at 7.6 million acre-feet. Water use in 2010 was only 7% greater in 2010
than in 1957. What are the lessons from the Arizona experience for
dealing with the demand-supply imbalance identified by the Colorado
River Water Supply and Demand Study?
Answer. Arizona's experience demonstrates that a comprehensive
water management program will yield the best results. All water
sources--surface water, Colorado River water, groundwater and reclaimed
water--must be addressed conjunctively. Arizona's approach employs
regulatory and non-regulatory measures that often result in financial
or other incentives for efficient use of water. This approach allows
flexibility for water users to choose management options that work best
for them, including balancing costs and rates.
Arizona's municipal conservation program, for example, has a
regulatory requirement to reduce per capita consumption, but how
reductions are achieved is left to each water provider. This has
enabled each provider to create water savings programs that meet the
unique circumstances of its service area and to allow its customers to
choose from a menu of water conservation options rather than dictate
specific measures. The resulting partnership between water providers
and their customers that has been effective in reducing Arizona's water
use over time.
An example of the value of more direct regulation is the Assured
Water Supply program that requires new residential development to be
served largely with renewable water supplies. Since the water resources
and infrastructure to achieve compliance with this program are more
expensive than using non-renewable supplies, such as groundwater, water
providers are incentivized to use less water simply to control their
costs. Arizona law also encourages the reuse of reclaimed water because
the entity that treats the water is allowed to reuse that supply or
contract with another for its reuse.
Question 2. Arizona's municipalities have combined strategies for
providing water for decades through innovations in groundwater storage
and water banking. What will the demand-supply imbalance in the
Colorado River basin mean for the ability and cost of reliably
delivering water to water users in Maricopa County? What actions and
investments are your members undertaking or preparing for meeting
future water needs? How are these investments being financed? What role
can groundwater management play in improving water supply reliability?
Answer. The Central Arizona Project (CAP) shares the lowest
priority for Colorado River water (along with Nevada) in times of
shortages. If the projected shortages of Colorado River become a
reality, Maricopa County water users, like many other water users in
the Basin, will likely be required to curtail water use more often and
will see increased costs.
Because we have always known that CAP water has a junior priority,
Arizona and municipal water providers have invested in measures to
prepare for shortages. The legislature established the Arizona Water
Banking Authority in 1996 to store excess CAP water (water not used by
other Colorado River entitlement holders) underground for use by
municipal water providers in times of shortages of CAP water. To date,
the Banking Authority has stored over 3 million acre-feet of excess CAP
water underground.
AMWUA's members have undertaken and continue comprehensive efforts
to enhance supplies and manage demand in order to meet future needs.
These efforts have included:
Ongoing long-range planning, including extensive research to
understand future water demand trends, service area growth
patterns, supply availability, impacts of drought and climate
change, and potential regulatory impacts.
Full reuse of reclaimed water for beneficial uses such as
energy production, turf irrigation, agricultural irrigation,
environmental restoration and enhancement, and recharge,
offsetting potable supplies.
Storing excess surface water supplies underground for use in
times of shortages. To date, this storage amounts to over 1.6
million acre-feet.
Protection of groundwater supplies to ensure availability in
times of surface water shortage.
Development of necessary infrastructure to store, recover,
treat, and distribute supplies.
Continued investment in programs to increase water use
efficiency and conservation, including aggressive system leak
detection and repair; increasingly sophisticated metering and
tracking; customer outreach, education, and assistance; rebates
and incentives; ordinances and codes; and conservation-based
rates.
Examining options for augmentation, including opportunities
for water and water rights transfers on a willing buyer--
willing seller basis; development and acquisition of additional
supplies from outside the county; treatment of brackish
groundwater; and the potential for direct potable reuse of
reclaimed water.
Drought planning, including strategies for curtailing demand
during shortage.
Often, these actions and investments are best implemented on a
regional level, with local water providers partnering with each other
and, in some cases, state and federal governments, providing more cost-
effective, efficient, flexible, and successful solutions. Ongoing
regional dialogue and discussion will continue to be critical to
identifying and developing opportunities and initiatives to enhance
water management and meet future water demand.
These investments are primarily financed through bonding and water
rates. Other funding mechanisms include:
Impact fees on new development.
Ad valorem property taxes assessed in Arizona's three most
populous counties for the purpose of constructing recharge
projects and paying for excess CAP water to be stored
underground by the Banking Authority to offset future
shortages.
Water Infrastructure and Finance Authority (WIFA). WIFA is
an agency of the state of Arizona and is authorized to finance
the construction, rehabilitation and/or improvement of drinking
water, wastewater, wastewater reclamation, and other water
quality facilities and projects. Generally, WIFA offers
borrowers below market interest rates on loans. As a ``bond
bank,'' WIFA is able to issue water quality bonds on behalf of
communities for basic water infrastructure. WIFA also manages a
Planning and Design Assistance Grant Program. This program
offers planning and design grants to eligible wastewater and
drinking water systems. The purpose of the grant program is to
help prepare water and wastewater facilities for future
infrastructure project construction.
The Arizona Department of Water Resources Water Management
Assistance Program provides financial and technical resources
and assists in the development and implementation of
conservation programs, augmentation programs, and programs to
monitor hydrologic conditions and assess water availability in
the Active Management Areas (AMAs) of the state. The program is
funded through a portion of the groundwater withdrawal fees
paid annually by those who withdraw groundwater in the AMAs.
Competitive funding opportunities, such as the Bureau of
Reclamation WaterSmart Program.
AMWUA members have often pooled funding to accomplish regional
objectives. Examples include:
Expansion of Roosevelt Dam.--Roosevelt Dam was modified in
the 1990's to increase storage capacity on the Salt River to
capture additional flows in wetter years. A coalition of six
AMWUA members, along with the Bureau of Reclamation, Federal
Highway Administration, Salt River Project, Central Arizona
Water Conservation District, Arizona Department of
Transportation, and Maricopa County Flood District, funded the
$424 million dollar expansion that increased the dam's capacity
to nearly 1.7 million acre feet (of which nearly 305,000 acre-
feet is new conservation space allocated to the six AMWUA
members).
Construction and operation of underground storage
projects.--Underground storage is a cost effective alternative
to surface water impoundments to store excess renewable water
supplies for future withdrawal and use. In most cases, a water
provider's existing well system can be used to withdraw water
which has been stored underground when it is necessary to
recover the stored water.
CAP/Salt River Project (SRP) Interconnection Facility.--The
CAP/SRP Interconnection Facility (CSIF) allows for the
conjunctive management of water supplies from the Salt and
Verde Rivers and the Colorado River--the watersheds that
provide the majority of Arizona's renewable surface water
resources. Completed in 1990, in partnership with six of the
AMWUA members and at a cost of $10 million, the CSIF provides a
link between the CAP and SRP water delivery systems, increasing
the Valley cities' ability to take their Colorado River
allocations and put them to direct use or store them
underground at local recharge projects. The CSIF has also
facilitated water exchange agreements between SRP and CAP that
has allowed SRP to supplement its surface water supplies during
low-runoff years on the Salt-Verde system.
Groundwater management has played an enormous role in improving
water supply reliability since the State's adoption of the Groundwater
Management Act in 1980. In an effort to reduce reliance on groundwater,
the AMWUA members have developed diversified water supply portfolios
consisting of multiple surface water sources, as well as extensive
reuse of reclaimed water. Today, AMWUA's members rely on groundwater
for only seven percent of their water supplies. As a result,
groundwater is largely preserved for use when there is a shortage of
surface water supplies in the future.
______
Responses of Taylor E. C. Hawes to Questions From Senator Lee
Question 1. What do the study's projections of water supply and
demand suggest for the future for threatened and endangered species in
the basin? How might these changes impact ongoing water project
operations and related conservations programs? Are there certain
endangered species or conservation programs that you expect to be more
imperiled by these trends than others?
Answer. There is no question that the Basin Study's projections
suggest increased competition for limited water resources in the
Colorado River Basin, if no action is taken. Increased use of the flows
of the Colorado River Basin could pose risks to currently listed
species and those at risk of listing. The Conservancy currently sits on
the management committees of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
Recovery Program, the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation
Program and the Lower Colorado Multi-Species Conservation Program. We
are not involved in the Grand Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program.
Consequently, my responses will focus on the former three programs and
in particular the Upper Basin Recovery Program, where we have been
involved since its inception.
The successes of the Upper Colorado Recovery Program and San Juan
Recovery Program and related state specific efforts show that we can
meet all needs, including those of fish and wildlife, with careful and
flexible water management, good science and a collaborative approach.
Because water rights management is largely governed by state laws, it
is vital to have early federal/state cooperation on the issues
identified by the Basin Study.
The Upper Colorado Recovery Program and the San Juan Recovery
Program are critically important forums that have demonstrated
cooperation, commitment and success in conserving threatened and
endangered species while allowing water development and management
activities to continue. They have been shown to be adaptable to
changing conditions and we hope they will continue to receive strong
federal, state and tribal support. I have attached the 2012 Briefing
Book from the two programs documenting their progress and success. They
are model programs demonstrating that protecting the environment and
water supply do not have to be in conflict.
At the state level, Utah established a model water rights leasing
program designed to keep native fish off of the endangered species
list. Under this law, passed in 2008 and amended earlier this year,
private groups may lease water rights from landowners and agricultural
producers for use instream to benefit native trout. This state program
uses the free market to foster collaborations that can benefit both
irrigators and the environment.
Water users and conservation stakeholders must work together to
explore additional management tools, such as an Upper Basin Water Bank,
that could benefit cities and rivers and protect the region's
agricultural economy. Reclamation's Basin Study follow-up process
provides a viable path forward to address these challenges. Moreover,
proactive action is the key to avoiding any new species listings.
Question 2. In your opinion, are conservation programs in the basin
adequately coordinated on a basin-wide scale?
Answer. There are four major recovery programs in the Basin. The
Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are involved
in all four programs, so there is cross-over and coordination across
those agencies. In addition, there are organizations like The Nature
Conservancy, water providers, and tribes whose representatives
participate in multiple recovery programs. This overlap in membership
provides additional informal coordination. Several years ago, there was
also a basin-wide researchers' conference that included all four
recovery programs, and the Upper Colorado and San Juan Recovery
Programs hold an annual researchers meeting. Gatherings like these
facilitate sharing of information, techniques and lessons. It would be
valuable to hold basin-wide science meetings periodically to ensure
that we can learn from each other's successes and failures.
In addition, it may be worthwhile for the federal agencies to
ensure there is coordination among related programs of the Department
of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including
water, habitat and soil conservation and salinity management programs
of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service
and Natural Resources Conservation Service. There may be ways to
simultaneously reduce red tape for agricultural producers and achieve
greater conservation benefits if these programs are more closely
coordinated. Such coordination could help avoid duplication of effort
and maximize the use of limited federal resources.
Question 3. How would you characterize the implementation of
adaptive management in the basin to date? Has it been successful? What
are the challenges for adaptive management, and how what do they tell
us about the prospects for the options outlined in the Supply & Demand
study?
Answer. The recovery programs mentioned above are all adaptive
management programs. Monitoring and adaptation are critical elements of
successful recovery. In particular, the Upper Basin and San Juan
recovery programs have diverse participants who bring their science and
technical expertise to bear to understand fish population and habitat
trends and develop solutions for species recovery. In the two Upper
Basin programs, we are seeing signs of recovery, especially in Colorado
pikeminnow populations. There are no perfect strategies. Therefore,
monitoring and then adapting offer our best chance at recovering the
Basin's endangered and threatened fish species.
There is one major challenge relative to adaptive management and
results of the Supply and Demand Study. Water supplies are expected to
decline over time and demand continues to increase. The combination of
these factors means that we will likely have less flexibility in water
management. This will require federal, state, tribal and municipal
agencies and non-profit conservation groups to be even more creative
and collaborative in finding ways to meet the needs of cities and
wildlife while also maintaining a viable agricultural sector.
______
Response of Tanya Trujillo to Question From Senator Udall
Question 1. In your testimony, you mentioned that the Basin States
have confirmed their ongoing commitment to take further action in
conjunction with the Basin Study. Can you describe some of those
proposals?
Answer. In conjunction with the release of the Basin Study in
December 2012, the Basin States prepared a document summarizing their
ongoing commitments to address supply and demand issues within the
Colorado River Basin. A copy of the Basin States' Commitments to Future
Actions Following Release of the Basin Study is attached for the
record. As was noted during the July 16 hearing, the Basin States and
our water users have long recognized the potential for an imbalance
between supply and demand in the basin if proactive measures were not
taken to conserve and otherwise efficiently use water and/or to
continue to develop additional supplies of water. The Basin Study was
another tool to help the states and water users plan for the future. It
provided another opportunity for the Basin States to work together and
to confirm their ongoing commitments to encourage more conservation and
develop additional supplies.
The Basin States have noted that regional solutions such as water
banking and joint funding of projects that conserve and more
efficiently utilize water are effective mechanisms that should be
continued and expanded. The states and certain water users have also
jointly funded programs to increase supplies within the basin.
Additional projects will continue to be developed in conjunction with
the Basin Study's ``next steps'' process and other ongoing efforts.
Responses of Tanya Trujillo to Questions From Senator Lee
Question 1. Salton Sea restoration played a role in the
negotiations of the 2003 Quantitative Settlement Agreement. What is the
current status of Salton Sea restoration efforts?
Answer. The Colorado River Board of California is not directly
involved with the restoration of the Salton Sea. The Salton Sea
Authority, a Joint Powers Agency within California (Saltonsea.ca.gov),
has been established under California law and is actively working on
Salton Sea restoration issues. The status of Salton Sea restoration is
also the subject of the most recent ``River Report'' produced by the
Water Education Foundation, (Summer 2013 ``Finding a Solution for the
Salton Sea'', http://www.watereducation.org/doc.asp?id=876).
Question 2. Legal challenges began soon after the adoption of the
Quantitative Settlement Agreement. Are those challenges over with the
June 2013 ruling that upheld the validity of the 12 contract
agreements, or are there outstanding legal challenges? Are there any
lessons to draw from the QSA experience for the future of efforts to
manage future water supply and demand in the Colorado River basin?
Answer. On July 31, 2013, the Superior Court of California issued
its final Statement of Decision affirming the Quantification Settlement
Agreement (QSA), in a state court proceeding consolidating several
cases relating to the QSA (QSA Coordinated Civil Cases, No. JCCP 4353).
As of the date of this response, the County of Imperial has indicated
that it may appeal that decision but the deadline for filing appeals
has not yet expired.
A federal court lawsuit relating to the QSA is awaiting a decision
by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was filed by the County
of Imperial and Imperial County Air Pollution Control District. They
have appealed a judgment granted in favor of the federal defendants by
the district court. (People of the State of California ex rel Imperial
County Air Pollution Control Dist. et al. v. United States Department
of the Interior, et al., Ninth Circuit Case No. 12-55856.)
The QSA and the quantification of water entitlements within
California have allowed the California agencies to implement many of
the very successful programs that continue to assist California in
meeting its critical water supply needs. Negotiation, compromise, and
cooperation from diverse interests can lead to comprehensive programs
that can have widespread benefits throughout the Colorado River Basin.
______
Response of T. Darryl Vigil to Question From Senator Udall
Question 1. I understand that Reclamation is now conducting a
tribal water study as part of their next steps. What is your
recommendation for the best way to include tribes in the on-going
planning process?
Answer. The best way to include tribes in the on-going planning
process is for the Bureau of Reclamation to establish a formal meeting
process that includes the Basin States and the Tribes. When the Ten
Tribes Partnership was initially formed in 1992, the Tribes were
invited to attend and to participate in meetings with the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Seven Basin States regarding water issues in the
Colorado River Basin. While this practice was never formally adopted,
over time, the practice of including the Tribes ceased. We recommend
the initial process be reinstituted and that the Bureau establish a
formal meeting process that includes the Basin States and the Ten
Tribes. This will ensure that the Tribes will be included in all future
water planning processes.
Responses of T. Darryl Vigil to Questions From Senator Lee
Question 1. The Colorado River Supply and Demand Study indicated
(page ES-21) that in early 2013 Reclamation would consult and work with
tribes regarding tribal water rights issues reflected in the report.
What consultation with tribes has occurred? What are the Ten Tribe
Partnership's priorities for federal action to address Colorado River
water supply and demand?
Answer. Representatives of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Ten
Tribes' legal/technical committee have held meetings this year
regarding tribal water rights issues but there have not been any formal
``consultations'' between the Bureau and Ten Tribes. The meetings that
have taken place centered on defining the scope of work that the
Bureau's technical staff and the Ten Tribes' legal/technical committee
will focus on during the tribal water study as part of the ``next
steps'' to implement solutions to resolve imbalances in the Basin.
Agreement has been reached by the Bureau's technical staff and the Ten
Tribes' legal/technical committee on having future meetings regarding
the tribal water study.
The priorities of the Ten Tribes Partnership's for federal action
to address Colorado River water supply and demand include the need for
the Bureau to:
1. Acknowledge and protect the early priority of tribal water
rights.
2. Recognize and protect the unused allocation of the tribes'
quantified water rights.
3. Recognize and protect the unquantified tribal water
rights.
4. Recognize the special status of tribal reserved water
rights that is embodied in federal statutes and federal and
state case law.
5. Provide a seat at the table for the Partnership for
participation in meetings between the Bureau and the Basin
States.
6. Require that the Colorado River Simulation System model
quantify the extent of the reliance of water users on decreed
and undecreed rights of tribes not being fully exercised.
7. Provide a mechanism for voluntary transfers of water such
as leasing.
Question 2. What lessons about future tribal water challenges in
the Colorado River basin can be drawn from the current drought
conditions and experience with federal programs and basin water
management?
Answer. The drought and the Tribes' experience with federal
programs and with basin water management highlight the following
challenges:
1. The Tribes cannot develop future tribal water use with
non-existent or failing infrastructure and limited funding.
2. The Tribes' need enhanced opportunities to gain economic
benefit from their water resources.
3. The Tribes need to participate in dialogue at the Basin
level by sitting at the table with the Bureau and the Basin
States.
4. The Tribes must be treated more equitably relative to the
Basin States and Mexico.
5. Congress must continue to support financial resources for
the on-going study such as the WATERSMART Program and the
Secure Water Act.
6. The Tribes must be allowed to investigate conservation
practices, augmentation of supply, ground water storage, water
banking, desalinization, environmental, power generation,
agricultural, municipal, industrial, domestic, recreational and
cultural practices in order to address these challenges.
______
Response of Reagan Waskom to Question From Senator Udall
Question 1. When you examine agricultural transfers as a potential
future supply to meet growing municipal and industrial demands, how do
you see the diverse needs of these stakeholders being met, given the
long term certainty desired by municipal and industrial users versus
the reliable supply also needed by the agricultural community?
Answer. Permanent voluntary transfer of agricultural water to
municipal and industrial interests is the most common transfer
mechanism and is generally deemed mutually beneficial for the buyer and
individual seller. It is the third party interests that are most likely
to not have all of their needs addressed in these transfers. Examples
might be remaining shareholders lower in the ditch system that see more
shrinkage losses on their water supply, or the local community that
experiences a loss of jobs, or a local agricultural supply operation
that loses an important customer from an already thin market base.
Temporary transfers can work very well and actually benefit both
agriculture and M&I interests and when local water markets function
well, providing agriculture with a source of revenue and a spot market
for those needing additional water during or following drought. There
are a few examples of this in the Basin, such as the Arizona Water
Bank. However, it should be noted that cities need a permanent source
of water to meet demands and that temporary transfers are useful mainly
for coping with drought or refilling reservoirs following drought.
These temporary mechanisms are not well suited for base supply if other
options are available.
Bottom line is that there is not enough water to meet all of the
needs in the Colorado River Basin, particularly when you factor in the
need for enhanced environmental flows. Market based solutions are
desirable, but public policy solutions that can lead to augmented water
supplies are also important, particularly for sustaining our ability to
produce food in the Colorado River Basin.
Responses of Reagan Waskom to Questions From Senator Lee
Question 1. The Colorado Water Institute is partially funded
through the programs authorized under the Federal Water Resources
Research Act; the Colorado Legislature also provides financial support.
How have recent federal funding issues affected operations at the
Colorado Water Institute? How have recent federal funding issues
affected the federal data being collected (e.g., stream gages) in the
state?
Answer. The USGS chose to apply a greater percentage of the FY13
sequestration cut to the Water Resources Research Institutes, cutting
our base funding by approximately 40% and completely eliminating the
competitive national grant program. In the case of the Colorado Water
Institute, these FY13 federal budget cuts resulted in the elimination
of funding for one research project and a reduction of funding for an
additional project at my Institute. The net result is that several
students did not receive funding for their graduate work, and there
were important research questions that could not be addressed this
year. Our Institute also had to eliminate part of our technology
transfer activities as a result of these cuts. Funding from Colorado
State University and the State of Colorado allowed our Institute to
fare much better than many of the other smaller Institutes that do not
enjoy the support that we do in Colorado. If FY14 budget cuts are
similar or worse, significant harm or closure will result for many of
the Institutes. I expect the Colorado Water Institute will be harmed
but will survive.
Stream gaging data and other critical water and natural resource
data collection efforts will also be harmed by these cuts, hampering
our ability to efficiently manage water resources during a difficult
period of drought in the West. Retrograding our water infrastructure
and information systems at the same time that water scarcity grows will
eventually lead to crisis based decision-making, likely harming
agriculture and other important sectors of our economy.
Question 2. From the Institute's perspective, what are the priority
research needs in the basin? What would be the appropriate federal role
in this research?
Answer. We need research based information on:
1. Development of policy and economic incentives for
agricultural water use efficiency within the current legal
framework of Basin states.
2. Development of advanced tools for measuring, monitoring
and modeling crop consumptive use and irrigation return flows
as we implement efficiency and conservation measures.
3. Determination of food production impacts and appropriate
substitutions as water is voluntarily transferred out of
agriculture in the Basin.
4. Management techniques to enhance use of marginal water and
reused water for agriculture in the basin.
5. Development of policy and economic incentives for
establishment of robust water markets that can move water
across the Upper and Lower Basin states.
6. Quantification of base flow and flushing flow needs for
specific reaches of the river that are likely to have future
disruptions based upon species listings. Development of
flexible arrangements to avoid further listings and provide
adequate habitat and refuge for species in these specific
reaches.
7. Desalination technology
The appropriate federal role in this research is providing federal
funding through the existing programs such as WaterSmart and the Water
Resources Research Act, leadership in establishing research priorities,
coordination across federal agency research programs to avoid
duplication and optimize data sharing, and providing incentives for
state and local matching funds.
Question 3. Given your research on municipal and agricultural water
conservation and efficiency efforts, how can investments in
conservation and efficiency most effectively address the imbalance in
water demand and supply in the basin? What are the most effective means
to prompt these types of investments?
Answer. In the case of agricultural water conservation, the most
effective investments are likely to be economic incentives based upon
developing functioning markets targeted for specific irrigation
districts where a market based solution can result in significant
quantities of transferable water.
Irrigated agriculture is going to need technical and financial
assistance to implement conservation measures that benefit sectors
other than agriculture, particularly when expensive upgrades in
diversion structures and irrigation equipment are the best mechanisms
to achieve greater efficiency. This assistance has historically been
provided through various USDA and USBR programs. Federal cost sharing
programs are historically the most effective mechanism to leverage
local and state investments. In addition, federal attention to the
aging infrastructure needs associated with federal water storage
projects and irrigation canals is important to maintaining and
increasing overall water use efficiency.
Question 4. Your research has included research on water quantity
and quality issues associated with coal bed methane in Montana and
Wyoming. From this experience, what are some priority data or research
needs associated with energy sector water use in the Colorado River
basin?
Answer. We must move forward aggressively to develop technology and
incentives for cost effective recycling of produced water and hydraulic
fracturing flowback. Additionally, technology to reduce water use for
energy production and cooling is needed. Impaired and produced waters
must be treated and put to beneficial use to the full extent
practicable so that fresh water is not used in energy exploration and
production processes where marginal water can be substituted. Efforts
to collect data tracking the amount or percentage of produced water and
frac-flowback water that are recycled by the energy industry would be
helpful.
______
Responses of Don A. Ostler to Questions From Senator Lee
Question 1. Concerns about energy sector water use have increased
in some areas of the Upper Basin in recent years. How would you
characterize the significance of this water use compared to the other
water supply and demand challenges in the basin? Are there unique
features of energy sector water use that are of particular concern, and
how effectively are the current institutional and legal arrangements
both at the basin and state levels addressing this water use?
Answer. The energy sector of water use in the Upper Colorado River
Basin has the potential to become very large and significant, however
the amount of development and the pace of development are extremely
uncertain. There are widely varying estimates of future energy sector
water demands. Conversely, it is also possible that certain portions of
the energy sector (deep oil and gas wells which produce water) could
introduce new water sources from deep aquifers into the basin if
properly treated for quality purposes. Added to these uncertainties is
the fact that water demands for various activities in the energy sector
are also rapidly changing with new technology. In my opinion, the legal
and institutional requirements are in place in the states to properly
regulate water use within the energy sector now and into the future.
Energy projects must acquire legally valid water rights from the States
to use water for their projects. If water is not fully allocated in the
area, they must follow the same process as any other entity to develop
a new water source. If water is fully allocated, they must acquire or
purchase valid existing water rights in order to proceed. Market values
and existing laws govern such developments. I personally do not believe
that water use regulation is the proper vehicle to determine the type
of land use that is allowed in a given region. That should be done
through proper planning and zoning. There are no basin-wide water
requirements that are imposed on any given sector. Water is allocated
basin-wide to each state and the states regulate individual water uses.
Question 2. Are there any Upper Basin near-term priorities for
federal action to address Colorado River water supply and demand?
Answer. The Upper Basin continues to need financial assistance and
technical support from the Bureau of Reclamation through the Water
Smart program to assist us in development of a basin wide plan to
address supply and demand imbalance in the entire Colorado River Basin.
The Department of the Interior needs to continue to push and assist the
Lower Basin States to address their current lack of sustainability in
water use. The current imbalance of supply and demand in the Lower
Basin, even absent drought, will have negative effects on water use in
the upper basin as well due to coordinated reservoir operations. The
lower basin currently uses more water than a normal compact allotment
provides on an annual basis.
Question 3. Which federal programs in any federal agency most
influence how water is used in the basin by either influencing the
demand for water or how water is supplied?
Answer. The NEPA program and Endangered Species Act have
significant impact on the ability to supply water to meet growing
demands. The Salinity Control Program within the Bureau of Reclamation
has a positive influence on how water is supplied to insure the quality
is suitable for downstream uses.
Question 4. What data collected by the federal agencies would be
most helpful in improving basin water management decisions?
Answer. The federal government has recently decreased funding for
USGS stream gages and snow measurement stations (SNOTEL). This data is
needed to help make sound supply management decisions. Additional
climatological stations are also needed to better assess water use from
agriculture.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Correction ``For the Record'' of the Prepared Statement of Kathleen
Ferris, Executive Director, Arizona Municipal Water Users Association
A small but significant error exists in the information we provided
regarding their water use trends on page 8 of Kathy Ferris' July 16
testimony on the Colorado River Basin Supply & Demand Study.
It currently reads:
``Between 1980 and 2010, the City's population increased by
83 percent, yet the City's total per capita demand increased by
only 35 percent and its total water production increased by
only 18 percent.''
It should state:
``the City's total per capita demand decreased by 35
percent''.
______
Statement of the Governor's Representatives on Colorado River
Operations: States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming
the seven basin states' commitments to future actions following release
of the basin study
Background
The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (Basin
Study) is the most recent example of the Seven Colorado River Basin
States (Basin States) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)
working together to address Colorado River water supply and demand
issues. The possibility of future water supply and demand imbalances
has been identified since the 1960's. For example over 30 years ago,
the study, The Westside Study Report on Critical Water Problems Facing
the Eleven Western States (Reclamation 1975), concluded that in spite
of conservation, the Basin faces future water shortages unless its
natural flows are augmented by more than 2.5 million acre-feet/year, or
water-dependent Basin development is limited. With this knowledge, the
Basin States and Reclamation have taken several actions to begin to
address the potential for imbalance between future supplies and
demands.
The Basin Study is the most comprehensive effort to date to
quantify and address future supply and demand imbalances in the
Colorado River Basin. The Basin Study evaluates system reliability and
also outlines potential options and strategies to meet or reduce
imbalances that are consistent with the existing legal framework
governing the use and operation of the Colorado River. A range of
future water demands are quantified in six different demand scenarios
that include varied assumptions about future economic conditions,
population growth, and water needs for agricultural, municipal and
industrial, energy, minerals, and fish, wildlife, and recreation
purposes.
The Basin Study considers four different water supply scenarios and
is the first Basin-wide study conducted by the Basin States and
Reclamation that considers the potential influence of climate change on
future water supply. As described in Technical Report B--Water Supply
Assessment, the climate change scenario, called the Downscaled Global
Climate Model (GCM) Projected scenario, was developed using 112
downscaled GCM projections and shows a median projected decrease in
mean flows of about 9 percent on average over the 2011-2060 period as
compared to the 1906-2007 period. For comparison sake, the 25th and
75th percentiles show a decrease of 1 percent and 16 percent,
respectively. Although this variation indicates the need for additional
research to better project climate changes on the Colorado River Basin,
the results strongly suggest that the Colorado River system is
vulnerable to possible changes in water supplies resulting from a drier
climate.
The Basin Study's four different supply scenarios and six different
demand scenarios present a broad range of possible imbalances. However,
when comparing the median of the six demand scenarios combined with the
median of four different water supply scenarios, a Basin-wide imbalance
of approximately 3.2 million acre-feet/year by 2060 is plausible.
Moreover, the greatest increases in demand are projected to occur in
the Lower Basin. The Basin Study also illustrates that because of the
magnitude and distribution of the imbalances, no single solution will
be adequate to meet all future water demand and supply imbalances.
The Basin Study confirms that the Basin faces a range of potential
deficits between future water supply and demand and that these possible
deficits will require diligent planning and implementation of water
supply and demand management programs to help avoid severe shortages
and provide necessary supplies for future demands throughout the
Colorado River Basin. The flow of the Colorado River is highly variable
and given this fact, diligent planning and implementation of water
supply programs will need to include portfolios that combine options
and strategies that both address supply and demand imbalances and also
take advantage of higher flow years. Local, state, regional, and Basin
wide projects will all be needed to meet demands over the 50 year
planning horizon to ensure that the Basin can develop to its full
potential.
The Basin Study identifies a range of measures to address the
supply and demand imbalance. Several options proposed during the public
comment phase of the Basin Study raise serious legal and policy issues.
Without the foundation of existing law, some options and strategies
would require significant changes impacting a wide variety of local,
state, and federal entities and resulting in increased uncertainty and
risk. The Basin States will discuss all options submitted, however,
they are committed to taking future actions that fit within the ``Law
of the River''.
the seven basin states' commitments
Additional Conservation and Reuse
The Basin Study recognizes that many municipal agencies in each
state have implemented water conservation and reuse to meet the water
needs of their growing populations and have incorporated comprehensive
conservation programs into their planning to meet future demands. These
conservation reductions are included in the forecast of future demands
in the Basin Study. Municipal conservation can only be implemented step
by step, providing a balance between water rates, demand elasticity,
and demand hardening during droughts. Municipalities will continue to
evaluate additional conservation and reuse, over and above what is
already reflected in the Basin Study demand scenarios, and implement
necessary programs on a case by case basis considering local
conditions.
In many states, significant agricultural conservation programs are
already in place. Additional agricultural conservation, above that
already included in the calculation of demands, will require
significant additional investment. Agricultural water transfers are
being implemented within the Law of the River, represented for example
by forbearance of agricultural water use, and new transfers are under
evaluation in many states. Many of the states are also exploring
alternatives to permanent agricultural transfers, and these types of
alternatives are being further analyzed and implemented. Only projects
that actually reduce consumptive use will reduce the imbalances between
future supply and demands. This Basin Study identifies additional
conservation and transfer opportunities that will be considered by
entities as appropriate through local and/or state measures. While
these local and state programs will offer a partial solution in some
areas of the Basin, they may be, in many cases, problematic because
much of the water diverted for use within the Basin returns to the
river or a tributary for use by others downstream.
Regional Solutions
Water banking has been ongoing in the lower Basin for many years. A
number of water banking options were submitted for consideration by the
Basin States and Reclamation. A representative water banking option was
included within the Basin Study to conceptually explore water banking.
This option demonstrated that there are a number of legal, policy, and
institutional barriers to implementing an Upper Basin water bank,
however, the benefits associated with this option clearly demonstrate
the need for additional exploration and analysis of this and similar
concepts.
There are many watershed and regional solutions already being
implemented and explored by the states and water agencies. For example,
the states and water agencies have jointly been funding weather
modification pilot programs for over five years as well as land and
vegetation management options. All of these regional solutions are
outlined in the Basin Study. The Basin States and relevant water
agencies are committed to evaluating and implementing programs and
options that have the greatest potential to yield additional supply.
Although generally observed to be effective, the potential to generate
additional water can vary significantly from year to year, and it is
often very difficult to quantify the additional amounts of water
generated at particular locations within the river system. Accordingly,
regional implementation of these options would likely need to be used
to augment the river on a Basin wide basis.
Desalination and Importation Solutions
The large demand and supply imbalances projected at the latter part
of the planning horizon can realistically be met only with
implementation of a variety of options and strategies. Of the options
analyzed, only large scale desalination and importation projects
provide the reliability and quantity of water necessary to meet many of
the plausible projected supply/demand imbalances. Future population
growth in the Basin, the uncertainty of the reliability of the Colorado
River supply and long lead times for implementation of projects,
dictate that the Basin States and the Federal Government must start
evaluating options for developing such project(s) immediately. For
example, permitting and construction of large scale desalination
projects may take 20 years or more before the projects become
operational. The Basin States, in cooperation with appropriate Federal
agencies will form a partnership to immediately begin developing a
process to consider feasible options for developing large scale
desalination and/or importation project(s), with the goal of having
such project(s) in operation before the end of the planning horizon (by
2060).
Other Commitments
Modification to the operations of Lakes Powell and Mead was
implemented in 2007 through the ``2007 Guidelines'' and will be
effective through 2026 with re-consultation to occur no later than 2020
or if Lake Mead reaches an elevation of 1,025 feet. The Basin Study
does not contemplate any changes to the 2007 Guidelines. Within the
context of the 2007 Guidelines, Basin States' representatives will
begin discussions of additional measures or approaches to be taken at a
Lake Mead elevation of 1,025 feet.
The Basin Study has again demonstrated to Reclamation and the Basin
States the great interest in the future of the Colorado River by a wide
variety of stakeholders--tribes, recreational entities, power
providers, environmental organizations and conservation groups. As work
continues following the completion of the Basin Study and based on its
recommendations, the Basin States and Reclamation will continue to work
with key stakeholders to explore solutions.
The Basin Study provides tools for water resource planning for the
Colorado River Basin. The Basin States will work with Reclamation to
evaluate progress regarding consideration of options listed in the
Basin Study, evaluate the ability to use the tools developed for the
Basin Study, and update water demands and supply scenarios on a five-
year time frame. In addition, the Basin States will work with
Reclamation to support improvements in the modeling and analytical
tools used in the Basin Study and the information developed to support
those tools, including those improvements specifically described in
Appendix C5 of Technical Report C--Water Demand Assessment.
The Basin States will work with local, state, and federal
representatives, and a wide array of diverse and interested
stakeholders, to obtain funding to aid in the assessment and
implementation of the above listed initiatives.
arizona department of water resources
The Colorado River is a critical resource for the long-term health
and economic welfare of the State of Arizona and its citizens. The
Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) is charged with promoting,
protecting, and managing Arizona's annual apportionment of 2.8 million
acre-feet of Colorado River water. ADWR represents all mainstem water
users including the Central Arizona Project (CAP). Arizona's
apportionment is used for municipal, industrial, agricultural, Tribal,
and wildlife refuges purposes. Annually, the mainstem Colorado River
users utilize approximately 1.2 million acre-feet of Arizona's
apportionment. The CAP diverts the remaining 1.6 million acre-feet of
Colorado River water for its customers in Central Arizona (Maricopa,
Pinal, and Pima counties).
Arizona, in particular CAP and many mainstem users, is unique among
the Basin States due to its vulnerability to the impacts of shortages
from its junior priority status consistent with the Law of the River.
In total, 6.2 million Arizonans, most of whom live within the CAP
service area, and nearly 800,000 acres of irrigated agricultural land
rely on Arizona's Colorado River allocation. Therefore, Arizona,
especially CAP and other mainstem entitlement holders, are vitally
interested in enhancing the current and future reliability of Colorado
River system through augmentation and other means to meet current and
future Arizona water needs.
APPROVED:
Sandra Fabritz-Whitney,
Director.
colorado river board of california
The Colorado River Board of California has authority under
California law to investigate, coordinate, collate, and preserve
information, facts, and data bearing upon the Colorado River System and
to confer with representatives of other States in the Colorado River
Basin, representatives of the United States, and other concerning the
development of water within the Colorado river Basin and the use of the
water of the Colorado River System.
APPROVED:
Bart Fisher,
Chairman.
colorado water conservation board
The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) was established in
1937 to guide the development and protection of water resources for the
benefit of present and future Coloradans. Through policy
implementation, financial support for water projects, and participation
in statewide as well as nationwide programming, the CWCB strives to
most effectively utilize this valuable resource. This fifteen member
Board and professional staff work with the federal government,
neighboring states, and water users within Colorado to strike a balance
between necessary development and environmental protection. The CWCB
serves as Colorado's primary guide for water policy in all of the
state's river basins, as well as administration of major compacts,
decrees, and treaties.
APPROVED:
Jennifer Gimbel,
Director.
colorado river commission of nevada
southern nevada water authority
The State of Nevada participants in the Colorado River Basin Study
include the Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRCN) and the Southern
Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). The CRCN is a State authorized agency
responsible for securing and protecting Nevada's rights and interests
in the Colorado River and in electric power generated by the river. The
SNWA is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada and is
responsible for addressing Southern Nevada's water needs on a regional
basis. The SNWA represents seven member agencies including the Big Bend
Water District, the City of Boulder City, the City of Henderson, the
City of Las Vegas, the City of North Las Vegas, Clark County Water
Reclamation District, and the Las Vegas Valley Water District. The CRCN
and the SNWA work cooperatively to effectively manage Colorado River
water resources for the State of Nevada and water users in Southern
Nevada.
APPROVED:
Jayne Harkins,
Executive Director, Colorado River Commission of Nevada,
Patricia Mulroy,
General Manager, Southern Nevada Water Authority.
new mexico interstate stream commission
The New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission (NMISC) is authorized
by statute to do any and all things necessary to protect, conserve and
develop the waters of the state, including representing the state of
New Mexico's interests in the allocations made to New Mexico under the
Colorado River and Upper Colorado River Basin compacts. In addition,
the NMISC looks after the interests of all Colorado River water users
within the State of New Mexico. The use of Colorado River water is
vital to the economic health and public welfare of the state of New
Mexico and its citizens and includes water used for municipal and
industrial, irrigation, and tribal purposes while providing fish and
wildlife, recreational and environmental benefits within the San Juan,
Little Colorado, Gila and Rio Grande basins.
APPROVED:
Estevan Lopez,
Director.
utah division of water resources
The Utah Board of Water Resources (Board) and the Division of Water
Resources (Division) were established to develop and protect the water
resources of the State of Utah for the benefit of present and future
citizens of Utah. Through policy implementation, water resource
planning, and financial assistance for water projects, the Division and
the Board work to effectively utilize this precious resource. As the
Governor's representative for interstate streams, The Division
represents Utah to coordinate work with the federal government,
neighboring states, and water users within Utah to achieve the goals of
protecting our scenic natural environment while maintaining the vital
use and development of water to promote the wellbeing and economic
vitality of Utah on behalf of its citizens.
APPROVED:
Dennis J. Strong,
Director, Utah Interstate Stream Commissioner.
state of wyoming
Water in Wyoming belongs to the State. The Wyoming State Engineer
is a constitutionally-created office and is Wyoming's chief water
official with general supervisory authority over the waters of the
state, and of its appropriation, distribution and application to
recognized beneficial uses. The State Engineer is entrusted with the
duty to preserve Wyoming's water allocations to safeguard the State's
current and future water supplies. The Wyoming legislature has
conferred upon Wyoming officers the authority to cooperate with and
assist like authorities and entities of other states in the performance
of any lawful power, duty or authority. Wyoming and its State Engineer
represent the rights and interests of all Wyoming appropriators with
respect to other states.
APPROVED:
Patrick T. Tyrrell,
State Engineer.