Statement of Kirk Rodgers, Regional Director

Mid-Pacific Region

Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Department of the Interior

Before the

Subcommittee on Water and Power

U.S. House of Representatives

July 17, 2004

My name is Kirk Rodgers, and I am Regional Director of the Mid-Pacific Region of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.  I am pleased to address Reclamation’s approach on providing water certainty and resolving endangered species issues as it relates to the Klamath Project.

The Klamath River Basin has long been renowned for its strong agricultural economy, its National Wildlife Refuges, its lakes and rivers, and its fishery and timber resources.  Over the past decade, however, the Klamath River Basin has been in the forefront of national attention due to contentious water resource issues related to drought conditions, deliveries to Klamath Project irrigators, and protection and recovery of threatened and endangered fish.

In March 2002, the President created the Klamath River Basin Federal Working Group (Working Group), which includes the Secretaries of the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce, and the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality to advise the President on immediate steps and long-term solutions to enhance water quality and quantity and to address other complex issues in the Klamath River Basin.

The Working Group views the region’s water-related issues as broad and systemic, reaching far beyond management of the Klamath Irrigation Project.  Solutions must address these issues on a basin-wide basis.  This view is consistent with the recently released final report of the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council, titled “Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin:  Causes of Decline and Strategies for Recovery.”

My testimony will address the events of 2001, current actions and accomplishments, and a long-term strategy.

By 2000, the Klamath Project was providing water to 1,400 farms - about 210,000 acres - producing alfalfa, potatoes, cereal grains, and sugar beets, and fueling a $300 million agriculture-dependent economy throughout the Klamath Basin.  Before 2000 the agricultural community that depends on the Project for irrigation water had only infrequently experienced a water shortage, and when it did it was due to hydrologic conditions. 

When reduced water availability due to a drought year combined with requirements to provide water for Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance under two new Biological Opinions (BOs) in 2001, water deliveries to irrigators were suspended.

In 2001, inflow to Upper Klamath Lake (UKL) was 231,000 acre feet – about one half of average and the fifth lowest inflow recorded since 1905.  Meanwhile, irrigation water requirements increased because precipitation and soil moisture were both low due to drought conditions.   The 2001 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) BO called for minimum lake levels and the NOAA Fisheries BO recommended specific releases to provide river flows.  This required Reclamation first to meet lake levels and river flows, and then deliver the remaining water to irrigators.  There was simply not enough water to meet all the demands in 2001.

Knowledge of the habitat requirements for species listed under the ESA in the Klamath Basin was limited in 2001.  Without complete empirical data, conclusions by the agencies responsible for carrying out the ESA are drawn based on their best professional judgment.  In order to comply with the 2001 Biological Opinions required under the ESA, Reclamation severely curtailed water deliveries to the Project.

At the request of the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC) reviewed these opinions as well as the biological assessments prepared by Reclamation.  In its interim report of February 2002, the NRC found substantial scientific support for many of the recommendations made by the two listing agencies for the benefit of the endangered and threatened species.   Importantly, however, the NRC did not support the recommendations concerning higher lake levels in Upper Klamath Lake and greater flows at Iron Gate Dam.  The NRC also did not support Reclamation’s proposal to revise operating procedures, which might have led to lower mean water levels or lower minimum flows (NRC 2002). Based in part on the interim NRC report, consultation was reinitiated by Reclamation.  New BOs were issued by NOAA Fisheries and FWS and revised flow and lake level requirements were implemented for 2002. 

The NRC issued a final report in October 2003 identifying scientific uncertainties as a problem with regard to the threatened coho and endangered suckers.  The National Research Council’s report concludes that there is no empirical correlation between water levels and endangered suckers’ mortality at Upper Klamath Lake but also finds that water levels lower than recent historical levels are inadvisable.  The report concludes that high temperatures in tributaries are probably the most important cause of impairment of coho, and also cites stream barriers and habitat degradation as contributing factors.  Depletion of cold water flows is identified as one of the causes of extreme temperatures in the tributaries.  The final report also stressed the need for a program of adaptive management, noting that little assessment has been done regarding the effectiveness of investments made to date in restoration and management of the ecosystems of the Klamath basin.  Given limited resources, it is important to systematically analyze and identify which measures are effective and which are not as a guide to future actions.  The final report’s recommendations for additional research are helping shape the future research agenda of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

When the inflow to Upper Klamath Lake is compared to the releases from Keno Dam, it becomes apparent that in some years the Project is supplementing the river flows with stored water.  For example, in 2001 releases were 170% of inflow during the April to September irrigation season.  Releases were 85%, 133% and 90% of inflow in 2002, 2003 and to date in 2004, respectively. 

Reclamation is working with all parties to improve the available science, improve the administration and implementation of the BOs, and implement near-term actions.  Improving the available science is a priority.  The National Research Council will review two ongoing efforts, a flow study and a natural hydrology study. 

According to the study the river flow analyses contained in the 2001 NOAA Fisheries BO were not without merit.  NOAA relied in part on a draft flow study by Dr. Thomas Hardy of Utah State University.  This two-phase study was designed to determine what level of flows would optimize habitat in the Klamath River for threatened coho and other salmon.  Phase I recommended streamflow based primarily on desktop methods, Phase II refined the streamflows by adding field measurements, additional modeling, and data.  Dr. Hardy’s study has not yet been finalized.

The extent of man-made changes to the hydrology of the Klamath River has never been assessed from the standpoint of what the original flows were and how much have they changed over time. Much of the debate over Reclamation's operations on the Klamath River relied on assumptions about original flow conditions, exacerbating the conflict.  Recently, Reclamation undertook a study of the historical pre-project conditions of the Klamath and adjacent basins along with anecdotal information to develop an unimpaired flow study for the Klamath River.  The intent of such a study is to develop one reference point that all of the parties can agree is the base condition prior to the development of dams and diversions on the Klamath River.

Reclamation believes that this conclusion is highly relevant for determining the biologically required flows for fish.  Dr. Hardy is nearing completion of his Phase II study and has agreed to consider using the Reclamation’s Undepleted Flow Study in his final report.

USGS is working in collaboration with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to incorporate delayed groundwater response into their Klamath basin water supply forecast procedures. USGS is currently developing a groundwater flow model for the upper Klamath basin and thus has the necessary groundwater knowledge to assist NRCS in refining these forecast procedures. Preliminary findings from the NRCS-USGS collaboration will be used to decrease forecast uncertainties for the Klamath Basin.

In review, the current (2002) FWS BO requires UKL to maintain a minimum lake level, and NOAA Fisheries 2002 BO requires specific releases to the river for each month of the year to maintain habitat.  Each BO takes into consideration the ‘year-type’ which is determined by the amount of inflow to the lake.  A major concern with this method is that the lake levels and releases change precipitously between year types.  The inflow/year type is highly speculative early in the year, becoming more accurate as the year progresses.  NOAA Fisheries, FWS, and Reclamation are currently working closely to to smooth out this process to reduce uncertainty. This is a long term solution.  In the near-term, an Incremental Adjustment Method is being tested which takes into consideration the inflows and makes small adjustments to the lake level to avoid the stair-step consequences.  Both FWS and NOAA Fisheries are evaluating this method, and are enthusiastic about its potential to avoid future water shortages.  New models are being developed, and additional water quality and life history data collected.  This new information will be used in a re-consultation, resulting in coordinated BOs supported by improved science.  The target date for completing the re-consultation is before the 2006 irrigation season.  The Federal agencies are also working to ensure greater input from stakeholder groups in this consultation.

Another requirement of the current BOs is a water bank.  Reclamation proposed the formulation of a water bank to be used to help maintain lake levels and augment river flows while meeting Project purposes of water delivery to farmers.  The NOAA Fisheries BO included the concept of a water bank not as a means of meeting the required flows, but as a way to augment minimum flows.  Reclamation has developed a water bank which compensates land owners who forego their use of Project water through either idling crop land entirely or pumping ground water.  Water accrues to the bank monthly, in the amount of use foregone.  In the hottest, driest months, July and August, water accruals to the bank are large; during cool spring months, banked water accruals are small.  However, the salmon need large quantities of water in the spring.  In order to provide high spring flows the project borrows against future water bank accruals.

Realistic, creative proposals to increase water storage need to be a high priority.  Some options being tested are to store water, which would normally have spilled in late winter/early spring on the National Wildlife Refuges’ seasonal marshes.  This water could then be pumped off the refuge to keep the river flows higher when seasonal marshes need to be drained.  Reclamation would then replace a portion of the water in the fall.  This would provide benefits to all the resource users, including fish and wildlife.

Another possible storage option involves holding water longer on those lands which are normally flooded in the winter and drained in time for spring planting.  The lands would be drained later in the spring, after any spill of the reservoir has occurred.  The water being drained could then be used to supplement the river flows, allowing Reclamation to wait longer before starting to draft UKL.  Depending on timing, this could make it impossible to get a crop off of the flooded lands in some years, and compensation for lost crops would be required.

Finally, study of the Long Lake off-stream storage reservoir is being reviewed and updated.  Long Lake would be capable of storing winter flows for release during the summer months.  Long Lake would be a deep cold water reservoir, providing fairly high quality water to the river. Reclamation is exploring the possibility of this option, and is evaluating serious technical problems identified in previous studies; however, study completion, NEPA compliance, and construction would take approximately 10 years, even assuming that federal and non-federal funding for such an option would be available, which is highly uncertain. 

Reclamation, the Tribes, the States of California and Oregon, NOAA Fisheries, the FWS and others have been working on a suite of additional activities including habitat restoration and access that will help the Klamath situation.  The most notable are:

· Chiloquin Dam removal – Removal of this diversion dam will restore access to approximately 80% of the historic spawning area for the two endangered suckers, and allow the young to stay in river habitat longer, which would increase survival.  The BIA has the lead on this effort and Reclamation is doing the engineering and design. Once this dam is removed additional work will be accomplished to restore upstream habitat.

· Rangeland Trust – A consortium of land owners is being compensated to forego irrigation of pasture lands and reduce stock numbers by 80%.  This allows the unused water to flow into UKL and reduces phosphorus loading to improve water quality.  This has been a pilot research type project in which Reclamation is gathering data to determine how viable these actions are to assist in meeting project demands.

· Lands returned to the Upper Klamath Lake – Over the years, large acreage surrounding the upper portion of UKL were diked off and put into agricultural production.  This reduced the storage capacity of the lake and emergent marsh habitat for young sucker fish.  Reclamation is working with willing sellers to obtain easements to return these lands to the lake.

· Agency Lake Ranch/Barnes Ranch – Reclamation purchased the Agency Lake Ranch (ALR) and is using it to return land to UKL storage.  However, if ALR were fully flooded water would seep onto and flood the adjacent Barnes Ranch property. The FY 2005 President's Budget for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service includes $4.6 milllion to purchase the Barnes Ranch, adjacent to the ALR to store excess winter flows for use later in the season. 

The current water status at Klamath is as follows.  Water being delivered to the Project irrigators is approximately 1025 cubic feet per second (cfs); no water is being delivered to the refuges, however, the refuges are receiving some return flows.   Iron Gate Dam releases are currently at 600 cfs.  Inflow to Upper Klamath Lake  from the Williamson River is approximately 400 cfs;  net inflow is approximately 115 cfs (net inflow is change in lake storage minus outflow where outflow is to both the river and the Project); Upper Klamath Lake  is 2/10 of a foot above the required BO level; river flows are 175% of inflows because Reclamation is using stored water to attain the release;  Reclamation is also working with the NRCS and the USGS to improve forecasting methods in this complex and varied basin.

Turning to the future, we are optimistic that the problems facing the Klamath Basin can be resolved.  A key reason is the Conservation Implementation Program (CIP). Many who have attempted to resolve issues in the Klamath River basin have lamented that a basin-wide effort is needed.  The National Research Council, the President’s Cabinet–level Working Group, and speakers at both the upper and lower basin science conferences have called for greater coordination and synergistic thinking.  Reclamation is leading the CIP effort to develop a process based on science, stakeholder involvement, and Basin-wide cooperation to serve as the mechanism for the many restoration efforts to be coordinated.  CIP will work with and through existing programs, not duplicate or supplant them, and fill the gaps in research and restoration.  The collective authorities and funding of the states of California and Oregon, Tribal governments, other Federal agencies, and private stakeholders will be assembled to prioritize and implement long and short-term solutions.

Water rights in the upper Klamath basin in Oregon have, for the most part, not been adjudicated and – except for the Klamath Tribes – it is not known which water right claimants have seniority.  The United States’ claims on behalf of the Klamath Tribes have been determined to have senior priority, but their water rights have not been quantified because diversion and use rights have not been quantified for any of the claimants.  There is, thus, no set of institutionalized property rights that can be used to allocate water in times of shortage.  In addition, while water rights for some individual tributaries in California have been established, there has been no basin-wide adjudication related to potential claims of downstream tribes.  Under such circumstances, water in the Klamath basin has more claims on its use than can be sustained in many years.  Because of these circumstances, water shortages under average and worse water conditions in the basin are currently endemic.  An adjudication of the Oregon water rights is in process – but has been underway for about 28 years, and could easily take another decade or more to complete.  The absence of legally-recognized water rights poses a significant impediment to resolving the issues in the Klamath River basin.  This situation, combined with recent severe droughts and numerous environmental concerns, has resulted in shortages and uncertainty, which in turn has had negative environmental, economic and social consequences.  The detrimental effects, which have accumulated over the last century, are not limited to drought years.  In the meantime, economic uncertainty faced by farmers and those dependant on healthy fish populations for their livelihood and subsistence is expected to continue.

Finally, the Department of the Interior is taking a West-wide approach to future water concerns to prevent conflict and crisis over water as occurred in the Klamath Basin in 2001.  Water 2025, initiated by Secretary Norton in 2003, identifies four key tools to help prevent future conflict and crises over water in the West, including (1) conservation, efficiency, and markets; (2) collaboration; (3) improved technology, and (4) removal of institutional barriers and increased interagency collaboration.  These principles are being applied to the complex issues of the Klamath basin.  A challenge grant program within Reclamation helps fund on-the-ground improvements to water management that will help stretch water supplies to meet the many water needs and will help head off these types of crises in the future.  This year four Water 2025 challenge grants were announced in Oregon alone.  One was to the Klamath Irrigation District, Klamath Falls - with a Water 2025 contribution of $116,517 to a $233,000 project to line a canal to stop leakage.  The project will save up to 2,000 acre feet per year of water.

In summary, we are working hard to protect Project operations and provide water levels that, based on sound, peer reviewed science, are necessary to meet ESA requirements. 

Representatives of the President’s Klamath River Basin Working Group have been working with the Environmental Protection Agency and the States of California and Oregon  to address the need for better coordination and are laying the groundwork for establishing a Klamath River Watershed Coordination Agreement.

This Agreement will formalize interagency coordination and will bring to bear science-based attention to both short-term and long-term objectives to address the environmental, economic, agricultural, and Tribal trust needs of the Basin and its communities using the CIP discussed previously.  We recognize that resolution of the complex issues of the Klamath Basin will take many years, close coordination, and consistent, focused application of available programs and resources. 

We welcome the opportunity to work with this committee and appreciate the opportunity to address these important issues. 

That concludes my prepared remarks.  I would be pleased to answer any questions.