Statement of Robert Johnson,

Regional Director, Lower Colorado Region

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior.

Before The

House Resources Committee

Subcommittee on Water and Power

U.S. House of Representatives, on

H.R. 5123, A bill to Address Certain matters related to Colorado River Management, Salton Sea Habitat Enhancement, and for other purposes.

July 25, 2002

The Department is very appreciative of Congressman Hunter's and this Subcommittee=s efforts to assist in resolving these very difficult issues affecting southern California as well as six other Colorado River Basin States. H.R. 5123 offers some interesting approaches to addressing some of those outstanding issues. However, because of the complexity and limited time for a comprehensive review of the bill, the Administration is not prepared to offer specific comments or positions on the bill's provisions. We would be pleased to provide a more detailed analysis in the near future.

I can report, however, that the Department remains committed to working toward resolution of the issues addressed by the proposed legislation. We continue to keep all options open regarding resolution of the issues, including legislative approaches. However, because it is unlikely that legislation will be enacted before the end of the year, we cannot rely on legislative remedies. We are focusing our energies on finding solutions within the existing legal framework and our existing authorities under federal law.

I would like to provide the Committee with a summary and update on our ongoing activities as it relates to both federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) issues along with and ongoing efforts to define a plan for Salton Sea restoration.

Endangered Species Act Activities

Significant work regarding the potential impacts of California 4.4 Plan water transfers on the Salton Sea have been conducted thus far between IID and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 10 of the ESA. Under this section10 process, IID has sought to receive ESA permits that cover up to 96 species and obtain assurances that future changes in conditions affecting any of the species will not require further commitments from IID.

As you know, this process has encountered significant difficulty. The underlying water transfer agreements call for farmers in IID to implement on-farm water conservation activities through improved efficiency in order to make water available for transfer. However, reductions in drainage and tail water caused by on-farm water conservation also reduces water inflow to the Salton Sea. Experts predict that such reduced inflow will cause hyper-saline conditions to be reached in the Salton Sea sooner than otherwise would have occurred. This Atemporal@ impact would affect fish and wildlife using the Sea for habitat, some of which are listed as threatened or endangered.

After extensive ESA discussions between IID and both the California Department of Game and Fish and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, no acceptable mitigation measures for these temporal impacts on the species have yet been identified.

IID=s efforts to secure ESA permits under section 10 of the ESA would become much easier to achieve if the water transfers relied on an alternative approach involving land fallowing within IID as the basis for obtaining the water for the proposed transfer. Analysis has shown that impacts to the Salton Sea and associated fish and wildlife from a land fallowing approach are significantly reduced or eliminated. In response, IID argues that land fallowing can trigger a number of negative outcomes and would have an adverse impact on the local economy from reduced agricultural production. To date, land fallowing has generally been found unacceptable by IID as the basis for the transfer. IID has indicated some willingness to implement a short-term fallowing program (up to 5 years) but opposes long-term programs. Short-term commitments do little to reduce the temporal impacts on the Salton Sea and its fish and wildlife resources.

In an effort to find a solution to this problem, the Bureau of Reclamation has offered to undertake a voluntary initiative that could provide IID and the other California water agencies with an alternative to the section 10 process that has proved so difficult to complete. Under this voluntary approach, Reclamation, in cooperation with some B or all B of the four California water agencies involved with the water transfers would propose a number of conservation measures under section 7(a)(1) of the ESA. In this context, and within the section 7 consultation process, it is hoped that a conservation plan to address all currently listed species in and around the Salton Sea could be developed. This conservation plan could potentially provide the basis for appropriate ESA permits for the non-federal actions of the California water agencies associated with implementing the transfer. Under this approach the conservation plan would address the impacts of the non-federal actions on the four species listed as endangered under the Federal ESA (southwestern willow flycatcher, desert pupfish, razorback sucker and the California brown pelican). By narrowing the scope of this approach to the four currently listed species it is hoped that an appropriate and acceptable conservation plan can be developed. Formal consultation for this voluntary approach under Section 7 was initiated on July 23, 2002. If appropriate agreements to undertake components of the conservation plan can be developed with the California agencies, it is anticipated that the consultation can be completed in the time provided under ESA regulations (i.e., within 135 days).

While we believe that this section 7-based voluntary approach will provide a basis for the California agencies to proceed with execution of the water transfer agreements and the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) under the Federal Endangered Species Act, additional compliance activities are likely to be required by the California agencies to achieve compliance with applicable provisions of California state law, particularly the California ESA. Discussions are ongoing with the California Department of Fish and Game to see if a more limited species list might also facilitate State ESA compliance.

The Section 7 process will not provide the assurances that the Section 10 process does. However, it will hopefully allow the deadlines for execution of the California Plan agreements to be met, and it will offer options for the California parties to consider in moving ahead with the transfer. IID will have the flexibility to implement on-farm conservation or utilize fallowing programs, short- or long-term.

Relationship with Salton Sea Restoration

Finally, there is some confusion regarding the responsibility of the California 4.4 Plan water transfers for impacts to the Salton Sea. The transfers are not responsible for the decline of the Salton Sea. Any impacts to the Sea, as discussed above, are anticipated to be temporal in nature. The Sea is deteriorating with or without the transfers and its restoration is being addressed separately as authorized by Congress in the Salton Sea Restoration Act of 1998.

Congress recognized the impact of reduced inflow and directed that those effects be considered in developing alternatives for its consideration. Congress' recognition of the reduced inflows validates the importance of the transfers and the need for implementation with or without a restoration plan at this time.

The California Plan water transfers may, however, have impacts on endangered species and will need to be mitigated for. Mitigation measures may involve activities in and around the Salton Sea to enhance and protect the species, but that does not necessarily translate to an overall restoration of the Sea or responsibility for restoration. Mitigation for impacts to species may also occur off-site and could result in minimal involvement of the transfers in and around the Sea. We are hopeful that the Section 7 process will allow completion of the QSA by year's end with or without the legislative options included in H.R. 5123.

Salton Sea Restoration Activities

Salton Sea Restoration studies are currently under way and will identify a variety of alternatives for stabilizing salinity at the sea. As directed in the Salton Sea Restoration Act of 1998, each alternative will consider declining inflows over time. The Congress anticipated that a variety of activities, including water conservation and transfer, might affect inflows to the Sea and asked that such changing conditions be considered in developing options.

In January of 2000, pursuant to the requirements of the Salton Sea Reclamation Act of 1998, the Department released a combined Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report and an Alternatives Appraisal Report. These documents described various short- and long-term restoration features which included such options as on-land and in-sea Enhanced Evaporation Systems, large in-sea evaporation ponds, large water export options to the Pacific Ocean or the Gulf of California, and import options using Colorado River flood flows and/or brine waste water flows from the proposed Central Arizona Salinity Interceptor.

Subsequent to releasing these documents, over 1,500 comments were received from concerned governmental agencies, environmental organizations, and individuals. Although the Department believes that requirements of the Salton Sea Reclamation Act have been met, it agreed to

reevaluate additional restoration concepts and continue efforts to prepare a revised alternatives report.

Since the decision to reevaluate was made, numerous scientific and engineering technical workshops have been conducted. In addition, numerous physical and/or chemical engineering and scientific research study initiatives have been implemented. Examples of these research efforts include a 12-acre solar evaporation pond project, a physical and chemical salt research facility, a 700-hour Enhanced Evaporation System test effort, a North shore wetland research projectCa cooperative effort with the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian Tribe, and a Vertical Tube Evaporation, or VTE, pilot study using geothermal energy, in cooperation with California Energy (who owns the geothermal facilities). Furthermore, recently proposed efforts through the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory may result in additional information being collected concerning air quality, underground water resources, and desalination techniques.

Information obtained from these ongoing and proposed efforts has been, and will continue to be, important in providing an accurate description of viable restoration concepts, with realistic cost estimates.

As you are very aware, proposed solutions to restoring the Sea are often complex and potentially controversial, given other related actions involving water transfers and potential reduced inflows. These issues increase our need to be accurate with concept descriptions, performance efficiencies, and cost estimates. Significant progress has been made in developing restoration concepts, but further analysis is needed before finalizing a draft Alternatives Report and releasing it for review. Prior to the release of the draft Alternatives Report we want to assure you that Reclamation will continue to work with the Authority and the public as we move forward on this effort.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we are determined to work with the State of California and the California water agencies to facilitate completion of the proposed California Plan activities within the required time frames. Three years of record drought on the Colorado River dictate the need to find solutions. Other states will have little tolerance for failure to meet the deadlines which were proposed and agreed to by all seven Colorado River Basin states. We are keeping all options open for completing the process, including additional legislation. We must however, reiterate our concern that the issues are too complex, the consequences for California are too significant and time is too short to rely exclusively on a strategy that depends on passage of additional federal legislation. We look forward to continuing to work with this Subcommittee and Congress as we move forward with our work on these critical Colorado River issues.