the 4.4 Plan recognizes that imperative.   Other states in the Basin, particularly in the lower Basin, have been increasing their diversions to match their Compact entitlements.  And demands south of the Mexican border, including waters required to preserve the remnants of the Colorado River Delta, are increasingly recognized as important environmentally and from a social justice and international relations perspective.

Implementation of the 4.4 Plan (henceforth I will use "4.4 Plan" to encompass not just the Plan itself, but all the interrelated agreements that are connected to it), however, also carries with it significant environmental risks.  Every reasonably conceivable variation for reducing California's Colorado River diversions in accordance with the 4.4 Plan, that sustains diversions to California' s south coastal urban areas at anything approaching current levels, will significantly increase salinity in the Salton Sea (absent offsetting measures).  Conversely, any reasonably conceivable variation for reducing California's Colorado River diversions that does not generally maintain diversions to California's south coastal urban areas is likely to cause adverse environmental and other economic and energy consumption impacts elsewhere, most notably in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta watershed.  This is not to denigrate wastewater reclamation, water conservation investment, voluntary water transfers outside the Colorado River purview, or even ocean desalination as alternatives worthy of pursuit.  But none of these options or even all in combination would likely forestall adverse environmental impacts from occurring if Colorado River diversions to California's south coastal areas were to be significantly curtailed.

I began my testimony here today by praising the architects of the 4.4 Plan.  Let me now qualify that praise.  For many years the agencies most involved in designing the 4.4 Plan (and its various components) have chosen to ignore (or at least to postpone addressing) the environmental impacts of their actions.  As a corollary of this strategy, for many years they chose to keep environmentalists outside the negotiating tent.  I personally experienced this phenomenon in times past, ironically once even in company with California Attorney General Dan Lungren, who was simultaneously excluded from negotiations that followed upon the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's agreement with southern Nevada interests (encouraged by Interior Secretary Babbitt) to cut Nevada in on the water savings projected from the lining of the All American Canal.

Be that as it may, here we are today with the 4.4 Plan essentially ready to go, but with its environmental impacts having unfortunately been hidden all these years in the closet.  It is past time to open the door to the closet and to admit that the environmental impacts of the 4.4 Plan need to be addressed now, in a serious way and by the beneficiaries of the Plan.  That should include the four agencies, IID, Coachella, San Diego and MWD.  That should also include the State of California and the United States as representatives of a broader public.

For this Committee, the focus is on state laws designed to protect species at risk.  Physically the most significant issue is the impact of increasing salinity in the Salton Sea on these species.  Two responses to this issue are imperative.  The responsible agencies, federal, state, and regional, must settle on a plan that addresses the health of the affected species.  And the same responsible agencies, federal, state and regional, must agree to cost-sharing arrangements that will met the objectives of the plan upon which they settle.  The Legislature (and ultimately the Congress) by necessity will have to appropriate funds required to meet any settlement's terms.  They likely also will have to authorize the settlement's terms to the extent that these terms depart from the requirements of existing state and federal law.

Timing is a complicating factor.  Some of the 4.4 Plan's component agreements specify timetables that would necessitate the adoption of the environmental plan and attendant cost-sharing arrangements on an extraordinarily urgent basis.  Ironically, while the four agencies have been the most aggressive in heralding this urgency (along with the other six Basin states), they have also been the least forthcoming in expressing a willingness to provide substantial cost-sharing for any environmental solution that is ultimately selected.  The state legislation they are promoting is silent on this score.  The federal legislation they are promoting would authorize $60 million in United States taxpayer contributions for environmental mitigation, along with a gratuitous $53 million in United States taxpayer contributions for direct water project subsidies, again without volunteering any financial contributions of their own.

            Speaking only for my own organization, Environmental Defense, but also with confidence based on a demonstration by other environmental organizations as well that they are committed to working through these issues, let me state that, should the four agencies put a serious cost-sharing offer on the table, we would commit to a strong effort to achieve consensus on an environmental plan and on its cost-sharing on an urgent basis, if not necessarily on the timetable specified in some of the component agreements.

Whatever the needed timetable may be, the State of California must step forward and commit to meeting the reductions in Colorado River diversions that MWD in its August 27 letter has indicated are well within California's capability.  The State must also assure the other three southern California agencies that the State also is committed to the basic terms of the San Diego-IID transfer and the QSA.  It also should take the initiative in bringing the United States into a public and open dialogue on the environmental and cost-sharing aspects of implementing the 4.4 Plan.  Given the environmental uncertainties, current federal and state budget realities, and competing environmental and water resource development priorities, it is clear that there will be some loss of environmental values in some places as a result of implementing the 4.4 Plan.  Even so, a creative environmental plan ought to be capable of fully offsetting any negative impact to the most imperiled of those environmental values, the species that are in danger of extinction.  We are, after all, still the wealthiest community in the world, with a strong environmental ethic and commitment, a particular commitment to avoiding the loss of imperiled species, and a tradition of democratic problem-solving give-and take.

Let us all roll up our sleeves and get this problem addressed.  The people of California and the wildlife who will be impacted by whatever decisions are agreed upon demand such a commitment.

For More Testimony