Table Of Content

. V CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT Y4,R 31/3:104-36 JNG , Central Ualley Project Inprovenent. . Trl£ I SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 1906 A BILL TO AMEND THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES JULY 20, 1995—WASHINGTON, DC Serial No. 104-36 Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources DEC 1 9 1995 U.S. GOVER^fMENT PKP?raf^ of^ki^tM^JffRnppT 20-370CC*» WASHINGTON : 1995 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice.Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-0A7803-0 . ^^ CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT V^ "y 4. R 31/3; 104-36 ING I Central Ualleu Project Inprovenent,. . THE > SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 1906 A BILL TO AMEND THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES JULY 20, 1995—WASHINGTON, DC Serial No. 104-36 Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINT: 2(>-370CC*» WASHINGTON : 1995 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-047803-0 COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DONYOUNG, Alaska, Chairman W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, Cahfomia JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICKJ. RAHALL II, West Virginia JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan JOHNJ. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PATWILLIAMS, Montana JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado PETERA. DeFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American KEN CALVERT, California Samoa RICHARD W. POMBO, California TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia WES COOLEY, Oregon FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, CaUfomi% LINDA SMITH, Washington CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto GEORGE P. RADANOVICH. Cahfomia Rico WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North CaroUna MAURICE D. HINCHEY, NewYork WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington SAM FARR, California JACK METCALF, Washington JAMES B. LONGLEY, Jr., Maine JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada DanielVal Kish, ChiefofStaff David Dye, ChiefCounsel Christine Kennedy, ChiefClerk John Lawrence,Democratic StaffDirector SUBCOMMnTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California, Chairman JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah PETERA. DeFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado GEORGE MILLER, California RICHARD W. POMBO, Cahfomia BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota FRANKA. CREMEANS, Ohio SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut WES COOLEY, Oregon BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Cahfomia GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, Cahfomia MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas SAM FARR, California RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona Robert Faber, StaffDirectorICounsel Valerie West, Professional Staff Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel (II) CONTENTS Page HearingheldJuly 20, 1995 1 StatementofMembers: Bradley, Hon. Bill, aU.S. SenatorfromNewJersey 4 Prepared statement 142 Condit, Hon. GaryA., aU.S. Representativefrom California 241 DeFazio, Peter, aU.S. Representative from Oregon 3 DooUttle, Hon. John, a U.S. Representative from California, and Chair- man, Subcommittee onWaterandPowerResources 1 Fazio, Hon. Vic, a U.S. Representativefrom California 10 Herger, Hon. Wally, aU.S. Representative from California 6 Miller, Hon. George, aU.S. RepresentativefromCalifornia 3 Pombo, Hon. RichardW., aU.S. Representativefrom California 4 Radanovich, Hon. George, aU.S. Representative from California 67 Riggs, Hon. Frank, aU.S. Representativefrom California 82 Thomas, Hon. WilHamM., aU.S. RepresentativefromCalifornia 8 StatementofWitnesses: Bay-DeltaUrban Coalition(prepared statement) 153 Beard, Daniel P., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department ofthe Interior 30 Prepared statement 149 Brower, Chsirles D.N., Chairman, Native Migratory Bird Working Group (preparedstatement) 220 CentralValleyProjectWaterAssociation(prepared statement) 243 Dickman, Dennis, General Manager, Calaveras Public Power Agency; and Dominic N. Salluce, Agency Coordinator, Tuolumne Public Power Agency(prepared statement) 222 Graff, ThomasJ., SeniorAttorney, Environmental DefenseFund 63 E*repared statement 171 Kenr,Jeff,VicePresident, GrasslandWaterDistrict 65 Prepared statement 183 McCovey, Pliny, Sr.,Vice Chairman, HoopaValleyTribeofCalifornia 85 Prepared statement 209 Moss, RichardM., GreneralManager, FriantWaterUsersAuthority 68 Prepared statement 201 Nelson, Daniel G., Executive Director, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority 35 Prepared statement 168 Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (prepared statement) 193 Patterson, Roger, DepartmentoftheInterior 30 Qviinn, Timothy H., Deputy General Manager, MetropoUtan Water Dis- trictofSouthern California 32 Smith, Robert, Assistant General Manager, Santa Clara Valley Water District 34 Somach, StuartL., Esq., De Cuir & Somach 87 Prepared statement 215 Thomas, Roger, President, GoldenGateFishermen'sAssociation 84 TrinityCounty(CA) Board ofSupervisors(prepared statement) 145 Additionalmaterialsupplied: TextofH.R. 1906 93 Communications submitted: Dixon, Stan (Humboldt County): Letter ofJuly 18, 1995, to Hon. John Doolittle 229 (HI) IV Page — Communications submitted Continued Kehoe, Mayor David (City of Redding, CA): Letter of July 17, 1995, toHon. WaUy Herger 147 Miller, Hon. George: Letter ofAugust 2, 1995, to Hon. John T. Doolittle with attachments 234 Neville, Ted: LetterofJuly 17, 1995, toWallyHerger 148 Winther, John L. (Delta Wetlands): Letter ofJuly 18, 1995, to Chairman JohnT. DooUttle 232 THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1995 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Doolittle (chairman ofthe subcommittee) presiding. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DOOLITTLE, A U.S. REPRESENTA- TIVE FROM CALIFORNIA; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTE ONWATERAND POWER RESOURCES Mr. Doolittle. The Subcommittee on Water and Power Re- sources will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R. 1906, the Central Valley Project Reform Act of 1995. Under Rule 6(f) of the Committee Rules, any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman and the ranking minority member. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner and to help members keep to their schedules. Therefore, ifother members have statements, they can be included in the hearing record. The Central Valley Project is a major Federal water project en- compassing two of California's major watersheds, the Sacramento River to the north and the San Joaquin River to the south. It is a system of 20 dams and reservoirs with a total storage capacity of over 12 million acre feet. It provides irrigation to approximately 3 million acres of farmland. The CVP provides municipal and in- dustrial water to more than 2 million Califomians. The CVP also has the capacity to produce 2,000 megawatts ofhydroelectricity. In 1992, Congress passed the Central Valley Project Improve- ment Act, CVPIA. Indeed, Senator Bradley, Mr. Miller, Mr. Beard, Mr. Graff, all of whom we will hear from today, were major pro- ponents in the adoption ofthe CVPIA. The stated intent ofthe Act was to improve the way water was managed in California. Experi- ence has shown that some ofthe provisions worked; others did not. H.R. 1906 is needed to fix the provisions that aren't working. The testimony at our April 18 hearing in Sacramento demonstrated the need for change. The testimony we hear today will further high- light critical areas where reforms are needed. We have heard from virtually every group affected by the CVPIA that it is not working. The only question is how to fix it? (1) While some problems can be fixed administratively, some cannot. It is ofinterest that the Bureau did not pursue serious administrative reforms until legislative reforms were undertaken. The Central Valley Project Reform Act, CVPRA, will preserve what must be preserved in the CVPIA, but it will also reform what must be changed to bring stability and common sense to the management ofthe Central Valley Project. The CVPIA mandated that 800,000 acre feet of vield from the Central Valley Project be primarily dedicated to fish and wildlife. The CVPRA reserves the 800,000 acre feet ofCVP water for the environment but improves efficiency by providing that after meeting Fish and Wildlife requirements any portion ofthe 800,000 acre feet can be reused, ifpossible, by agricultural or urban interests. The legislation underscores the principles of the December 15, 1994, Bay-Delta agreement by clarifying that all CVP water used to meet Endangered Species Act and Bay-Delta water quality obli- gations will be credited toward the 800,000 acre feet. The CVPIA required the Bureau to do a projectwide environmental impact statement and prohibited the long-term renewal of existing contracts until the EIS was completed. Unfortunately, it will probably take at least 10 years to complete that process. The CVPRA replaces the costly and unnecessary series of succes- sive two-year interim renewals of existing water supply contracts and instead provides for a single interim renewal until the PEIS is completed. The CVPIA established a redundant Federal program to double anadromous fish in the Central Valley. Unfortunately, it targeted two species for recovery that are in conflict. One feeds on the other; not a very reasonable goal. The CVPRA replaces this du- bious goal with a requirement that the CVP participate in the larg- er and more realistic ongoing state anadromous fish recovery program which seeks to restore salmon and steelhead. The CVPIA provided firm water supplies to wildlife refuges iden- tified in the Act. The CVPRA maintains the current CVPIA obliga- tion to reduce refuge supplies by no more than 25 percent because of drought or other conditions but requires the development ofeffi- cient water management practices for refuges and clarifies that refuge reductions will be imposed whenever shortages are imposed on CVP contractors within the same division. The CVPIA requires the Secretary to complete the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study by September 30, 1996, but does not submit the science or the Secretary's subsequent decision to public review. The CVPRA maintains the study but simply requires that the Sec- retary open the studies and data for public review and any new instream flow requirement through rulemaking which allows for notice, public comment, and judicial review. It takes a common sense approach and requires that any instream flow regimes vary according to hydrologic and reservoir storage conditions. The CVPIA established a restoration fund. The CVPRA maintains the restoration fund but improved flexibility by increasing the fdnding that can be spent on physical fixes already authorized by the CVPIA. H.R. 1906, the Central Valley Project Reform Act of 1995, was introduced with strong bipartisan support from many members of this committee and several of the members you will indeed hear from today. It is time I believe for this kind of a common sense change represented by the CVPRA. And the Chair will now recog- nize the ranking member for any statement he may wish to make. STATEMENT OF HON. PETER DEFAZIO,AU.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM OREGON Mr. DeFazio. I thank the Chairman, and although Oregon's prin- cipal interest in this is to make certain there are no proposals crop- ping forth to supplement your water supply from our state, I real- ize this is a major issue in California, and I would at this point Sield to the ranking member ofthe committee, Mr. Miller, and cede im my time. STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, AU.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA Mr. Miller. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. DeFazio, for jdelding this time. Two and a half years ago, the Congress overwhelmingly approved and President Bush signed into law the Central Valley Improvement Act to address the severe inequities and failures associated with the operation of the Central Valley Project. The law was designed to reform water policy designed over 50 years ago when California was a very different place. We had a lengthy and a very vigorous debate. Not surprisingly, those who long enjoyed the massive subsidies and supplies ofthe Central Val- ley Project fought to retain their special privileges against the needs ofover 20 million other Californians. The o—ld order overwhelmingly lost that debate. Reform was de- manded reform in purpose, in distribution, in management, and in financing. Over the past two years, we have begun the effort to push those reforms into place. We have already seen major bene- fits. Last December, the comprehensive Federal-state Bay-Delta agreement was finally negotiated. Standard and Poor's has up- graded state bonds in response to unprecedented progress on end- ing our state's divisive water wars. H.R. 1906 is brought to you by those who want to reopen the war. It was drafted by those who have bitterly fought all efforts to modernize water policy and bring it into conformity with our na- tional goals on the environment, on economic growth, on jobs, and on deficit reduction. They are back for one more bite at the apple. The authors of this legislation do not speak for all Californians. Indeed, on the same day that eight Californians introduced this bill, 15 joined in a letter supporting the Central Valley Improve- ment Act and opposed sweeping amendments that would alter the goals and policies ofthe law. There is no consensus behind this bill. Changes can always be justified if they improve our ability to meet the goals of the policy. The Administration is working to address legitimate concerns through a rulemaking process and other administrative actions. But let us be very clear.—H.R. 1906 is not about fixing the CVPIA. It is about destroying it repealing the reforms and giving back control of our water to subsidize agriculture at the expense of our cities, our suburbs, our businesses, our recre- ation, our commercial fishing interest, and the environment, and millions oftaxpayers who subsidize this project. I look forward to these hearings, and I have no doubt we will demonstrate that there is no consensus in support ofthis sweeping repeal ofthe Central Valley Improvement Act as represented in the bill before us, H.R. 1906. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The following statement was submitted for the record:] StatementofHon. RichardW. Pombo,aU.S. Representative fromCaufornia Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today on H.R. 1906, the Central Valley Project Reform Actof 1995 (CVPRA). I appreciate you providing—this Subcommittee with the opportunit—y to review and discuss the CVP reform bul of which I am an original cosponsor and look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. — As you know, Mr. Chairman, P.L. 102-575 the Central Vallev Project Improve- ment Act (CVPIA)—made a substantial number of changes to the implementation ofCalifornia's major Federal reclamation project, the CVP. Among its major provisions, the CVPIA mandated that 800,000 acre feet ofyield from the CVP be dedicated exclusively for fish and wildlife purposes. It also established the CVP restoration fund, mand.ated several specific construction activities designed to mitigate im- pacts on fish and wildlife, ana required the Bureau ofReclamation to do a system- wide Environmental Impact Statement. These changes were in an effort to achieve the stated goal "to protect, restore and enhance fish and wildlife habitat within the CentralVaHey ofCalifornia while maintainingthe productivity ofother project purposes." It has now been over two years since Congress passed the CVPIA. In that time it has become abundantly clear that, as writte—n, this law desig—ned to "improve" the tCiVvePpirsoiptosseallfidnensiegendedoftiompdroovjiunsgt.tHh.aRt.—1p9r0e6servIefitrhmelyinbteelgireivtey oifs athseouCnVdPIleAgisbluat- achieve its goals in a more realistic and workable manner. Again, Mr. Chairman, I applaud your efforts in introducing this bill and will enthusiastically workto both improveit andmove itthrough the legislative process. 1 understand that a number ofenvironmental organizations, and their supporters in Congress, are opposed to this measure. Undoubtedly, we will hear a great deal from them today and in the future as we debate this bill. Mr. Chairman, there they go again. I have heard from these otouds that this proposal is an effort to repeal the critical features of the CVPIA. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill disrupts neither tiie 800,000 acre feet set-aside for wildhfe nor the efforts ofthe CVPIA to double the number ofanadromous fish in CaUfomia. Instead, it serves to streamline and clarify these requirements. Simply stated, it will make the CVPIA an all aroundmoreworkable law. It has been said that this proposal will derail the fragile Bay/Delta agreement of December 15, 1994. This is yet another falsehood. The fact of the*Tnatter is, this proposal is intended to be consistent with the environmental requirements under the Bay/DeltaAccord. Ifadopted, this proposal will meetthe environmentalbenefits moreqviicklyand efficientlythanthe status quo. Given that the environmental extremists have already filed a lawsuit against this historic agreement, maybe it is they who should ask themselves who is more likely tojeoparmzethe Bay/TDelta agreement. Mr. Chairman, those who claim that this legislation would eviscerate the CVPIA are dead wrong. The onlythingdivisive aboutthis measure is thefalse rhetoric that isbeingtossed aroundinoppositionto thiswell meaningproposal. Again, I am proud to be in support ofH.R. 1906 andTook forward to today's testimony. Thankyou. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. We have some of our distinguished members as witnesses, and first on the list is the Honorable Bill Bradley, U.S. Senator. Senator Bradley. STATEMENT OF HON. BILLBRADLEY,AU.S. SENATOR FROM NEWJERSEY Senator BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee today and share my thoughts on H.R. 1906. As one of the authors of the Central Valley Improvement Act, I still retain a strong interest in all bills and regulations that £^ect the implementation of this Act, and I