Testimony
to the
California State Senate
Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee
November 7, 2001
By
Maureen
A. Stapleton
General Manager
San
Diego County Water Authority
For the Informational Hearing
On
Environmental
Issues Regarding Implementation
California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan
Madam
Chair and members of the Committee, I am Maureen Stapleton, General Manager of
the San Diego County Water Authority. I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss the status and current progress in
implementing California's Colorado River Water Use Plan (California Plan) on
behalf of Southern California’s major users of Colorado River water. The
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), the Coachella Valley
Water District (CVWD), Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the San Diego
County Water Authority (SDCWA), which I will refer to collectively as the
“Agencies” -- have progressed considerably in a unified and cooperative
effort to ensure that California can live within its basic apportionment of
Colorado River water established by the Law of the River.
I
am including letters from representatives of the Colorado River basin states
stating both their support and concern for the implementation of the California
Plan. These letters relate
specifically to a Congressional bill that would address federal issues, but also
convey the states’ support for the California Plan.
I respectfully request that these written statements be made part of the
hearing record.
The
Colorado River is a vital water resource for California, supporting a tremendous
agricultural industry and over 17 million residents in one of the most
economically productive regions of the world, including the cities of Los
Angeles and San Diego. The state
has a Colorado River basic annual apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet per
year. But for many years California
has used over 5 million acre-feet per year, relying on system surpluses and the
apportioned but unused waters of Arizona and Nevada. California’s reliance on water above its basic
apportionment has long been of great concern to the other Colorado River Basin
states and Mexico. In recent years,
Arizona and Nevada have begun using their full apportionments, and dry weather
has diminished opportunities for system surpluses.
California now has no alternative but to reduce its reliance on the
river.
The
magnitude of our joint effort is extraordinary. We are reducing California's use of Colorado River water by
about 800,000 acre-feet per year and must still continue to meet the region's
water needs. This reduction is equivalent to the amount of water used annually
by more than 5 million people in Southern California. Due to the junior priority of the urban coastal plain, about
700,000 acre-feet per year of the river’s surplus has been used to fill
MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct. This
represents between 33 and 40% of MWD’s entire water supply.
It is vital, therefore, that we find a way to fill the aqueduct and stay
within the 4.4 million acre foot apportionment.
Unless California can eliminate its reliance on surplus and live within
its basic apportionment through agricultural to urban water transfers and other
actions, the Southern California urban coastal plain will face massive water
shortages.
The
solution to this unprecedented challenge is made possible through the California
Plan, which has been formulated by the Colorado River Board of California.
The Board is a state agency charged with protecting the interests of
California and its citizens and agencies regarding the river, and consists of
members appointed by the Governor from the Department of Water Resources, the
Department of Fish and Game, California water agencies using river water, and
the public. The California
Plan includes programs to conserve agricultural water and transfer it for urban
uses, as well as groundwater storage and conjunctive use projects, and other
water management programs. Implementation
of the Plan will permit California to live within its 4.4 million acre-foot
apportionment, and the Agencies have been working since the Plan began to take
shape in the late 1990’s toward that goal.
California
is at a crucial juncture in terms of implementing the California Plan.
To date, the Agencies have successfully fast-tracked a wide range of
complex legal agreements and environmental documents needed to implement the
Plan. In October 1999, the Agencies
negotiated the Key Terms For
Quantification Settlement Among the State of California, IID, CVWD and MWD
(Key Terms), which describe a Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) through
which the Agencies will settle longstanding differences and transfer hundreds of
thousands of acre-feet of river water each year from the agricultural to urban
sectors. The largest of the QSA
transfers is the transfer of up to 200,000 acre-feet per year from the IID to
SDCWA.
The
following is a list of the major accomplishments (including program and project
implementation) to date that either relate to the California Plan or aid in its
effectiveness and implementation:
-
Hayfield Valley
-
Chuckwalla Valley
-
Cadiz Valley
-
Lower Coachella Valley
-
Arizona
The
Agencies have already spent millions of dollars formulating and securing
approval for vital components of the California Plan, and will commit billions
of dollars to implement the Plan’s various water conservation, transfer, and
storage projects and programs. In
addition, the State of California has appropriated $235 million for canal lining
and groundwater projects in furtherance of the California Plan.
The Plan will be complemented by efforts to aggressively promote
additional water conservation, water reuse, and local water supply development
within the service area boundaries of each agency.
While
progress so far has been dramatic, we know that the California Plan cannot be
achieved unless the QSA is implemented. The
QSA Key Terms identified 12 specific conditions that need to be satisfied or
waived prior to execution of the QSA and related documents.
These conditions include completing related environmental reviews,
implementing interim surplus guidelines, implementing an inadvertent overrun and
pay back program relative to Colorado River water consumptive use, completing
the SWRCB water transfer petition review process, and obtaining conserved water
and a means to deliver the water for the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights
Settlement Act. Almost all of the
conditions have been or are achievable within the required time frame for
executing the QSA and related documents. The
remaining challenges, and the critical path for satisfaction of the conditions,
are the successful completion of the environmental reviews and the subsequent
SWRCB water transfer petition review process for the IID/SDCWA and the IID/CVWD/MWD
water transfers.
California
was given the time necessary to implement the water conservation and transfers
when the Secretary of Interior, the River’s water master, adopted the Interim
Surplus Guidelines (Guidelines) in January 2001. The Guidelines are essentially rules for operating Lake Mead
that allow California to receive additional surplus water for 15 years, or until
2016. During this interim period,
California must implement the necessary water transfers and other programs to
eliminate its reliance on guaranteed surplus.
California has already received great benefit from the Guidelines,
receiving enough water this calendar year to maintain a full Colorado River
Aqueduct for urban water use. The
Guidelines are contingent, however, upon California's successful completion of
certain deadlines and milestones. The
federal government, at the behest of other states with Colorado River
apportionments, has insisted on these conditions to ensure that California
actually makes steady progress toward its goal.
The
first critical deadline that must be met is the execution of the Quantification
Settlement Agreement (QSA) by December 31, 2002. The Guidelines specifically provide that unless the QSA is
executed by that date, the surplus provisions that benefit Southern California
will be suspended until such time as California completes all required actions
and complies with reductions in water use reflected in the Guidelines.
This is the single most important issue facing us today.
If the QSA is not executed by this deadline, the additional surplus water
provided under the Guidelines could be revoked as early as calendar year 2003,
resulting in the loss of up to 700,000 acre feet per year of water to urban
southern California. Loss of the
surplus at that point would likely result in serious economic disruption,
renewal of controversy among the Agencies, and an unraveling of the California
Plan.
Environmental
Compliance Issues
Because
the QSA involves actions by both state and federal agencies, we must comply with
all state and federal requirements, including endangered species laws, in order
to implement the program. Endangered
species components must be included in the Environmental Impact Reports and
Environmental Impact Statements required for the QSA, and we must resolve
endangered species issues before the drafts of those documents are circulated
for public review. Further, State
Water Resources Control Board hearings regarding needed water transfer permits
cannot be conducted until those drafts are issued.
The Agencies have worked diligently with the regulatory agencies to reach
agreement on how to address the environmental impacts of changing the point of
river diversion and location of water use for 400,000 acre-feet of water
transfers. The impacts will be
addressed using an on-river habitat and backwater mitigation plan.
Agreements will also be in place for measures to mitigate impacts of the
water conservation programs in the Imperial Valley Project specific
environmental reviews are addressing the impacts of each major water transfer or
conservation project. This includes canal lining projects and water storage and
conjunctive use programs.
The
remaining major unresolved issue regarding execution of the QSA is how to
address potential environmental impacts of water transfers on the Salton Sea.
The transfer of conserved agricultural water from to the urban sector is
essential in order to allow California to live within its 4.4 million acre-foot
basic apportionment. However, water
conservation in agricultural areas using Colorado River water, specifically the
Imperial Irrigation District, may cause reduced agricultural drainage inflows
into the Salton Sea.
The
Salton Sea and its fishery are man-made. The Salton Sea was created shortly
after the turn of the last century when the entire flow of the Colorado River
accidentally flowed into the Salton Sink for almost two years. The fish species
which inhabit the Salon Sea were subsequently introduced to create a sport
fishery. With no outlet, the Salton Sea's elevation is maintained by
agricultural drainage from irrigation in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys in
California and the Mexicali Valley in Mexico.
Today
the Sea is used by many species of migratory birds, including certain endangered
species. Some of these birds rely
on the fish in the Sea for their food source. Because of evaporation, the Sea’s salinity has increased
steadily over the years, and will continue to increase absent intervention.
Now at a salinity of 44,000 parts per million, which is 25 percent
saltier than the Pacific Ocean, the Sea's hyper saline environment is
jeopardizing the survival of fish. It
has been estimated that under current conditions, the Sea will reach a salinity
level unable to support a fishery in 7 to 25 years.
The
causes of increasing salinity and environmental decline of the Salton Sea extend
far beyond any effect of the transfers. Congress
recognized this fact in the federal 1998 Salton Sea Reclamation Act (Public Law
105-372) and directed that the transfers be included in the baseline condition
in the development of Salton Sea reclamation options.
The legislation also acknowledged the transfers' importance to
California, the other Colorado River Basin states, and Mexico.
Under the Act, a Feasibility Study, which includes the reclamation
options, was directed to be submitted to Congress by January 1, 2000, so that a
decision on reclamation of the Sea could be made.
However, the Feasibility Study has not yet been completed. The QSA, and
its 2002 deadline for execution, is therefore ahead of the Salton Sea
reclamation effort. Because of this, the Agencies must separately address
environmental compliance related to the water transfers at the Salton Sea.
This is difficult because the environmental impacts related to the
Endangered Species Act are temporal in nature and not easily quantified.
The best scientific analysis available has shown that the Salton Sea will
reach a hyper saline environment 1 to 9 years earlier if the QSA transfers are
implemented. Absent a comprehensive
solution, the Salton Sea will soon reach a salinity level unable to support the
fishery with or without the QSA water transfers.
These
matters are beyond the Agencies’ direct control to resolve, but at the same
time we must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, the
California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and laws relating to “fully
protected species” in order to implement the QSA.
Accordingly, the Agencies have met extensively with state government
representatives to find a means of realizing these vital water transfers while
meeting our environmental responsibilities.
Within
the Administration, we are working with the California Resources Agency, the
Department of Fish and Game, the Department of Water Resources, the State Water
Resources Control Board, and also with environmental organizations to address
the issues and determine how the QSA may be executed within the time frame
required. We are very appreciative
of their assistance and the recognition that this is an urgent matter.
We are especially grateful for the personal interest and participation of
the Secretary of the Resources Agency, Mary Nichols; the Deputy Secretary, Mike
Spear; the Director of the Department of Fish and Game, Bob Hight; and the
Director of the Department of Water Resources, Tom Hannigan.
We
also must thank the members of our State Legislature for their critical
assistance, most recently evidenced by the convening of this Committee Hearing.
Madam Chair, your involvement and the work of your Committee staff has
been instrumental in placing the QSA at the forefront of State water issues and
bringing together the groups necessary to find fair and workable solutions.
We also thank Assemblymember Kelley for introduction of a bill that
addresses the QSA issues, and Assemblymember Florez for introduction of a bill
that deals with fully protected species. These
bills provide a framework for discussion, and can be refined through the current
discourse to help achieve results that enjoy a broad base of support.
The
Agencies have also pursued a similar course of action with the federal
administration and Congress to address compliance with the federal National
Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act. The federal government places a high priority on implementing
the California Plan and the associated QSA, and we have been working the
officials of Congress, the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of
Reclamation, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to that end.
Madam
Chair, I believe there is a recognition, and rightfully so, that the State of
California has a large stake in the California Plan and QSA and shares with us a
responsibility to effect their implementation. Unless we can maintain a full Colorado River Aqueduct within
our 4.4 million acre-foot apportionment, the resulting water shortages would
have a devastating effect on the economy and force southern California to look
elsewhere, most likely to the State Water Project, to make up the lost water.
To accomplish implementation of the QSA, we are suggesting the following
course:
First,
we must continue and intensify discussions among the stakeholders to find fair
and practical solutions to the endangered species and fully protected species
issues regarding potential impacts of the QSA on the Salton Sea.
These solutions must be achieved with the realization that the Sea is an
already deteriorating resource and that its values can be sustained only through
a national and statewide commitment to a comprehensive reclamation plan.
The effect of the QSA is to accelerate somewhat the increase in the
Sea’s salinity, and our challenge is to formulate an appropriate response to
that temporal impact in light of the Sea’s uncertain future.
Each of the Agencies has passed a resolution in support of expeditiously
addressing the reclamation of the Salton Sea, and we will continue to work
toward that goal, but to meet the Guidelines’ QSA deadline, we must devise the
response to our temporal impact now.
Secondly,
because of the unique circumstances of the temporal impact of the QSA on the
Salton Sea, there is a general recognition that the mitigation response to that
impact will require legislative ratification to ensure compliance with the
Endangered Species Act and Fully Protected Species statutes.
Further, in order to meet the conditions required to execute the QSA by
December 31, 2002, and avoid the threat of loss of 700,000 acre-feet of water to
the urban coast, the legislative ratification must come in the form of urgency
legislation early in 2002. All the
participants are aware of these needs, and are working to produce a package for
the Legislature’s consideration at the beginning of next year’s session.
In concluding, I would like to restate the Agencies’ commitment to executing the QSA, maintaining the Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines for the full interim period, implementing the California Plan to allow California to live within its basic apportionment, and restoring the Salton Sea. And finally, we want to express our appreciation for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today to discuss these very important matters. We look forward to addressing any questions you may have.