[Senate Report 107-171]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 436
107th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 107-171
======================================================================
CALFED BAY-DELTA AUTHORIZATION ACT
_______
June 24, 2002.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bingaman, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1768]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 1768) to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to implement the Calfed Bay-Delta Program, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization
Act''.
SEC 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) Calfed bay-delta program.--The term ``Calfed Bay-Delta
Program'' means the programs, projects, complementary actions,
and activities undertaken through coordinated planning,
implementation, and assessment activities of the State and
Federal agencies in a manner consistent with the Record of
Decision.
(2) Calfed policy group.--The term ``Calfed Policy Group''
means a committee of State and Federal agencies referenced in
the Record of Decision and established to oversee the Calfed
Bay-Delta Program, or the appropriate successor entity created
as part of any permanent governing structure pursuant to
section 4(d).
(3) Environmental water account.--The term ``Environmental
Water Account'' means the reserve of water provided for in the
Record of Decision to provide water, in addition to the amount
of the regulatory baseline, to protect and restore Delta
fisheries.
(4) Federal agencies.--The term ``Federal agencies'' means
the following:
(A) The Department of the Interior (including the
Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Land Management, and United States Geological
Survey);
(B) The Environmental Protection Agency;
(C) The Army Corps of Engineers;
(D) The Department of Commerce (including the
National Marine Fisheries Service);
(E) The Department of Agriculture (including the
Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Forest
Service); and
(F) The Western Area Power Administration.
(5) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of
the State of California.
(6) Implementation memorandum.--The term ``Implementation
Memorandum'' means the Calfed Bay-Delta Program Implementation
Memorandum of Understanding dated August 28, 2000, executed by
the Federal agencies and the State agencies.
(7) Record of decision.--The term ``Record of Decision''
means the Federal programmatic Record of Decision dated August
28, 2000 issued by the Federal agencies and supported by the
State.
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Interior.
(9) Stage 1.--The term ``Stage 1'' means the programs and
projects planned for the first 7 years of the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program, as specified in the Record of Decision.
(10) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
California.
(11) State agencies.--The term ``State Agencies'' means the
following:
(A) The Resources Agency of California (including the
Department of Water Resources and the Department of
Fish and Game);
(B) The California Environmental Protection Agency
(including the State Water Resources Control Board);
and
(C) The California Department of Food and
Agriculture.
SEC. 3. BAY DELTA PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Record of Decision is approved as a framework
for addressing Calfed Bay-Delta Program components consisting of water
storage, ecosystem restoration, water supply reliability, conveyance,
water use efficiency, water quality, water transfers, watershed,
Environmental Water Account, levee stability, governance, and science.
The Secretary and the heads of the Federal agencies are authorized to
carry out the activities in the Record of Decision, subject to the
provisions of this Act, so that the program goals consisting of
protecting drinking water quality; restoring ecological health;
improving water supply reliability, including additional water storage
and conveyance; and protecting Delta levees; will progress in a
balanced manner.
(b) Authorized Activities--
(1) Specific activities authorized.--The Secretary and the
heads of the Federal agencies are authorized to undertake the
activities described in this subsection in furtherance of Stage
1 of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program as set forth in the Record of
Decision, subject to the provisions of this Act, if the
activity has been subject to environmental review and approval
as required under applicable Federal and State law, and has
been approved and certified by the Calfed Policy Group to be
consistent with the Record of Decision.
(A) Water storage.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2003 through 2005 under
this Act, no more than $200,000,000 may be expended for
the following:
(i) planning activities and feasibility
studies for the following projects to be
pursued with project-specific study:
(I) enlargement of Shasta Dam in
Shasta County;
(II) enlargement of Los Vaqueros
Reservoir in Contra Costa County; and
(III) in-Delta storage in San Joaquin
and Contra Costa Counties;
(ii) planning and feasibility studies for the
following projects requiring further
consideration:
(I) Sites Reservoir in Colusa County;
and
(II) Upper San Joaquin River storage
in Fresno and Madera Counties;
(iii) developing and implementing groundwater
management and groundwater storage projects;
and
(iv) comprehensive water management planning.
(B) Conveyance.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2003 through 2005 under
this Act, no more than $125,000,000 may be expended for
the following:
(i) South Delta Actions:
(I) South Delta Improvements Program
to--
(aa) increase the State Water
Project export limit to 8500
cfs;
(bb) install permanent,
operable barriers in the south
Delta;
(cc) design and construct
fish screens and intake
facilities at Clifton Court
Forebay and the Tracy Pumping
Plant facilities; and
(dd) increase the State Water
Project export to the maximum
capability of 10,300 cfs;
(II) reduction of agricultural
drainage in south Delta channels; and
(III) design and construction of
lower San Joaquin River floodway
improvements.
(ii) North Delta Actions:
(I) evaluation and implementation of
improved operational procedures for the
Delta Cross Channel to address fishery
and water quality concerns;
(II) evaluation of a screened
through-Delta facility on the
Sacramento River; and
(III) design and construction of
lower Mokelumne River floodway
improvements;
(iii) interties:
(I) evaluation and construction of an
intertie between the State Water
Project and the Central Valley Project
facilities at or near the City of
Tracy; and
(II) assesment of the connection of
the Central Valley Project to the State
Water Project's Clifton Court Forebay
with a corresponding increase in the
Forebay's screened intake;
(iv) other infrastructure improvements:
(I) evaluation and implementation of
the San Luis Reservoir lowpoint
improvement project;
(II) installation and operation of
temporary barriers in the south Delta
until fully operable barriers are
constructed;
(III) actions to protect navigation
and local diversions not adequately
protected by the temporary barriers;
(IV) facilitation of water quality
exchanges and similar programs to make
high quality Sierra Nevada water in the
eastern San Joaquin Valley available to
urban southern California interests;
and
(V) the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Comprehensive Study.
(C) Water use efficiency.--Of the amounts authorized
to be appropriated for fiscal years 2003 through 2005
under this Act, no more than $295,000,000 may be
expended for the following:
(i) water conservation projects that provide
water supply reliability, water quality, and
ecosystem benefits to the Bay-Delta system;
(ii) technical assistance for urban and
agricultural water conservation projects;
(iii) water recycling and desalination
projects, including projects identified in the
Bay Area Water Recycling Plan and the Southern
California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and
Reuse Study;
(iv) water measurement and transfer incentive
actions; and
(v) certification and implementation of best
management practices for urban water
conservation.
(D) Water transfers.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2003 through 2005 under
this Act, no more than $5,000,000 may be expended for
the following:
(i) increasing the availability of existing
facilities for water transfers;
(ii) lowering transaction costs through
permit streamlining; and
(iii) maintaining a water transfer
information clearinghouse.
(E) Environmental water account.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2003
through 2005 under this Act, no more than $100,000,000
may be expended for implementation of the Environmental
Water Account.
(F) Integrated regional water management plans.--Of
the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
years 2003 through 2005 under this Act, no more than
$250,000,000 may be expended for the following:
(i) establishing a competitive grants program
to assist local and regional communities in
California in developing and implementing
integrated regional water management plans
to carry out Stage 1 of the Record of
Decision; and
(ii) implementation of projects and programs
in California that improve water supply
reliability, water quality, ecosystem
restoration, and flood protection, or meet
other local and regional needs, that are
consistent with, and make a significant
contribution to, Stage 1 of the Calfed Bay-
Delta Program.
(G) Ecosystem restoration.--Of the amounts authorized
to be appropriated for fiscal years 2003 through 2005
under this Act, no more than $225,000,000 may be
expended for the following:
(i) implementation of large-scale restoration
projects in San Francisco Bay, the Delta, and
its tributaries;
(ii) restoration of habitat in the Delta, San
Pablo Bay, and Suisun Bay and Marsh, including
tidal wetlands and riparian habitat;
(iii) fish screen and fish passage
improvement projects;
(iv) implementation of an invasive species
program, including prevention, control, and
eradication;
(v) development and integration of State and
Federal agricultural programs that benefit
wildlife into the Ecosystem Restoration
Program;
(vi) financial and technical support for
locally-based collaborative programs to restore
habitat while addressing the concerns of local
communities;
(vii) water quality improvement projects to
reduce salinity, selenium, mercury, pesticides,
trace metals, dissolved oxygen, turbidity,
sediment, and other pollutants;
(viii) environmental water acquisitions to
improve fish spawning and survival in the Delta
and its tributaries;
(ix) integrated flood management, ecosystem
restoration, and levee protection projects;
(x) scientific evaluations and targeted
research on program activities; and
(xi) strategic planning and tracking of
program performance.
(H) Watersheds.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2003 through 2005 under
this Act, no more than $75,000,000 may be expended for
the following:
(i) building local capacity to assess and
manage watersheds affecting the Bay-Delta
system;
(ii) technical assistance for watershed
assessments and management plans; and
(iii) developing and implementing locally-
based watershed conservation, maintenance and
restoration actions.
(I) Water quality.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2003 through 2005 under
this Act, no more than $125,000,000 may be expended for
the following:
(i) addressing drainage problems in the San
Joaquin Valley to improve downstream water
quality;
(ii) implementation of source control
programs in the Delta and its tributaries;
(iii) developing recommendations through
scientific panels and advisory council
processes to meet Calfed's goal of continuous
improvement in Delta water quality for all
uses;
(iv) investing in treatment technology
demonstration projects;
(v) controlling runoff into the California
aqueduct and other similar conveyances;
(vi) addressing water quality problems at the
North Bay Aqueduct;
(vii) studying recirculation of export water
to reduce salinity and improve dissolved oxygen
in the San Joaquin River;
(viii) implementation of projects to enable
San Francisco Bay Area water districts to work
cooperatively to address water quality and
supply reliability issues, including
connections between aqueducts, water transfers,
and infrastructure improvements that encourage
regional approaches, including potential
alternatives related to East Bay Municipal
Utility District's contract with the Bureau of
Reclamation dated July 20, 2001, that would
improve water quality and water supply
reliability in San Francisco Bay and Sacramento
County Regions.
(ix) development of water quality exchanges
and other programs to make high quality water
available to urban areas; and
(x) development and implementation of a plan
to meet all existing water quality standards
for which the State and Federal water projects
have responsibility.
(J) Levee stability.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2003 through 2005 under
this Act, no more than $100,000,000 may be expended for
the following:
(i) assisting local reclamation districts in
reconstructing Delta levees to a base level of
protection;
(ii) enhancing the stability of levees that
have particular importance in the system
through the Delta Levee Special Improvement
Projects program;
(iii) developing best management practices to
control and reverse land subsidence on Delta
islands;
(iv) refining the Delta Emergency Management
Plan;
(v) developing a Delta Risk Management
Strategy after assessing the consequences of
Delta levee failure from floods, seepage,
subsidence, and earthquakes;
(vi) developing a strategy for reuse of
dredged materials on Delta islands; and
(vii) evaluating, and where appropriate
rehabilitating the Suisun Marsh levees.
(K) Science.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2003 through 2005 under
this Act, no more than $100,000,000 may be expended for
the following:
(i) establishing and maintaining an
independent science board, technical panels,
and standing boards to provide oversight and
peer review of the program;
(ii) conducting expert evaluations and
scientific assessments of all program elements;
(iii) coordinating existing monitoring and
scientific research programs;
(iv) developing and implementing adaptive
management experiments to test, refine and
improve scientific understandings;
(v) establishing performance measures, and
monitoring and evaluating the performance of
all program elements; and
(vi) preparing an annual Science Report.
(L) Program management, oversight, and
coordination.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2003 through 2005 under
this Act, no more than $30,000,000 may be expended for
the following:
(i) program-wide tracking of schedules,
finances, and performance;
(ii) multi-agency oversight and coordination
of Calfed activities to ensure program balance
and integration;
(iii) development of interagency cross-cut
budgets and a comprehensive finance plan to
allocate costs in accordance with the
beneficiary pays provisions of the Record of
Decision;
(iv) coordination of public outreach and
involvement, including tribal, environmental
justice, and public advisory activities under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act; and
(v) development of Annual Reports.
(2) Authorized actions.--The Secretary and the Federal agency
heads are authorized to carry out the activities authorized by
this Act through the use of grants, loans, contracts, and
cooperative agreements with federal and non-federal entities
where the Secretary or Federal agency head determines that the
grant, loan, contract, or cooperative agreement will assist in
implementing the authorized activity in an efficient, timely,
and cost-effective manner.
SEC. 4. MANAGEMENT.
(a) Coordination.--In carrying out the Calfed Bay-Delta Program,
the Federal agencies shall coordinate their activities with the State
agencies.
(b) Public Participation.--In carrying out the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program, the Federal agencies shall cooperate with local and tribal
governments and the public through a federally chartered advisory
committee or other appropriate means, to seek input on program elements
such as planning, design, technical assistance, and development of peer
review science programs.
(c) Science.--In carrying out the Calfed Bay-Delta Program, the
Federal agencies shall seek to ensure, to the maximum extent
practicable, that--
(1) all major aspects of implementing the Program are
subjected to credible and objective scientific review; and
(2) major decisions are based upon the best available
scientific information.
(d) Governance.--In carrying out the Calfed Bay-Delta Program, the
Secretary and the Federal agency heads shall undertake their activities
in accordance with the terms of the Implementation Memorandum until
such time as the Implementation Memorandum is replaced by approval of a
permanent governing structure, whereupon the Secretary and agency heads
shall undertake their activities in accordance with the permanent
governing structure. The Secretary and the Federal agency heads shall
work with their State counterparts to develop a permanent governing
structure and shall seek congressional authorization and approval of
the permanent governing structure, as necessary.
(e) Environmental Justice.--Consistent with Executive Order 12898
pertaining to Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority and Low-Income Populations, it is the intent of the Congress
that the Federal and State agencies should continue to collaborate to
develop a comprehensive environmental justice workplan for the Calfed
Bay-Delta Program and fulfill the commitment to addressing
environmental justice challenges referred to in the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program Environmental Justice Workplan dated December 13, 2000.
SEC. 5. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Report and Certification by Calfed.--The Secretary, in
cooperation with the Governor, shall submit a report of the Calfed
Policy Group by December 15 of each year to the appropriate authorizing
and appropriating Committees of the Senate and the House of
Representatives that describes the status of implementation of all
components of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program and that certifies whether
or not the Calfed Bay-Delta Program is progressing in a balanced manner
which allows all program components to be advanced, including
additional water supply, ecosystem restoration, and water quality. The
Secretary's report shall describe--
(1) the progress of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program in meeting
the implementation schedule for the Program in a manner
consistent with the Record of Decision;
(2) the status of implementation of all components of the
Calfed Bay-Delta Program;
(3) expenditures in the past fiscal year and year to date for
implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta Program; and
(4) accomplishments in the past fiscal year and year to date
in achieving the objectives of additional and improved--
(A) water storage;
(B) water quality;
(C) water use efficiency;
(D) ecosystem restoration;
(E) watershed management;
(F) levee system integrity;
(G) water transfers;
(H) water conveyance; and
(I) water supply reliability.
The report shall discuss the status of Calfed Bay-Delta Program goals,
current schedules, and relevant financing agreements.
(b) Statement of Balance.--Substantial progress in each of the
categories listed in subsection (a) shall be considered in determining
whether the Calfed Bay-Delta Program is proceeding in a balanced manner
for purposes of making the certification provided for in subsection
(a). In addition, in making such certification the Secretary, in
cooperation with the Governor, shall prepare a statement of whether the
program is in balance which takes into consideration the following:
(1) Status of all Stage 1 actions, including goals,
schedules, and financing agreements;
(2) Progress on storage projects, conveyance improvements,
levee improvements, water quality projects, and water use
efficiency programs;
(3) Completion of key projects and milestones identified in
the Ecosystem Restoration Program;
(4) Development and implementation of local programs for
watershed conservation and restoration;
(5) Progress in improving water supply reliability and
implementing the Environmental Water Account;
(6) Achievement of commitments under State and Federal
Endangered Species Acts;
(7) Implementation of a comprehensive science program;
(8) Progress toward acquisition of the State and Federal
permits, including Clean Water Act section 404 permits, for
implementation of projects in all identified program areas;
(9) Progress in achieving benefits in all geographic regions
covered by the Program;
(10) Legislative action on water transfer, groundwater
management, water use efficiency, and governance issues,
(11) Status of complementary actions;
(12) Status of mitigation measures; and
(13) Revisions to funding commitments and program
responsibilities.
(c) Revised Schedule.--If the report provided for in subsection (a)
and the statement of balance provided for in subsection (b) conclude
that the Calfed Bay-Delta Program is not progressing in a balanced
manner so that no certification of balanced implementation can be made,
the Calfed Policy Group shall prepare a revised schedule and such other
modifications, to ensure the Calfed Bay-Delta Program will progress in
a balanced manner consistent with the intent of the Record of Decision.
This revised schedule shall be subject to approval by the Secretary and
the Governor, and upon such approval, shall be submitted to the
appropriate authorizing and appropriating Committees of the Senate and
the House of Representatives.
(d) Financial Summary.--In addition to the report required pursuant
to subsection (a), no later than February 15 of each year the Secretary
shall submit to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating
committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives a financial
report containing a detailed accounting of all funds received by
Federal and State agencies for implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program in the previous fiscal year, a budget for the proposed projects
to be carried out in the upcoming fiscal year with the Federal portion
of funds authorized under this Act, and a listing of all projects to be
undertaken in the upcoming fiscal year with the Federal portion of
funds authorized under this Act.
SEC. 6. CROSSCUT BUDGET AND AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Crosscut Budget.--The President's Budget shall include requests
for the appropriate level of funding for each of the Federal agencies
to carry out its responsibilities under the Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
Such funds shall be requested for the Federal agency with authority and
programmatic responsibility for the obligation of such funds. At the
time of submission of the President's Budget to the Congress, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit to the
appropriate authorizing and appropriating committees of the Senate and
the House of Representatives an interagency budget crosscut report that
displays the budget proposed for each of the Federal agencies to carry
out the Calfed Bay-Delta Program for the upcoming fiscal year,
separately showing funding requested under both pre-existing
authorities and under the new authorities granted by this Act. The
report shall also identify all expenditures since 1996 within the
Federal and State governments used to achieve the objectives of the
Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary and the heads of the Federal agencies
$1,630,000,000 to pay the federal share of carrying out Stage 1 of the
Record of Decision for fiscal years 2003 through 2005, in accordance
with the provisions of this Act. The funds shall remain available
without fiscal year limitation.
SEC. 7. FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS.
The federal share of the cost of implementing Stage 1 of the Calfed
Bay-Delta Program as set forth in the Record of Decision shall not
exceed 33.3 percent.
SEC. 8. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.
Nothing in this Act preempts or otherwise affects any Federal or
State law, including any authority of a federal agency to carry out
activities related to, or in furtherance of, the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program.
PURPOSE
The purpose of S. 1768, as ordered reported, is to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal
agency heads to implement the Calfed Bay-Delta Program during
fiscal years 2003 through 2005.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
The Bay-Delta is the region east of San Francisco Bay,
where the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers converge. It
supplies drinking water to over two-thirds of the people of
California and irrigation water for over 7 million acres of
highly productive agricultural land. The Bay-Delta is the
largest estuary on the West Coast, and supports over 750 plant
and animal species. It is also the hub of two massive water
projects, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP),
operated by the California Department of Water Resources. These
two projects divert some 20 to 70 percent of the natural flows
in the region, depending on water conditions. The Bay-Delta
also marks the boundary between northern California, where most
of the State's water supply originates, and southern
California, where most of the population and consumptive demand
exists. On average, in normal water years, over 5 million acre
feet of water is exported south of the Delta by the two
projects.
The Bay-Delta is in decline due to the decades of competing
demands for its limited water resources. The area has
experienced serious problems relating to water quality and fish
and wildlife, raising compliance issues under both the Clean
Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Scores of species are
in decline or are threatened or endangered. Water quality
degradation makes it difficult and expensive to meet drinking
water quality standards. Water supply reliability for urban and
agricultural users is a difficult and challenging issue that
has significant ramifications for the economy of the State.
The State and Federal Government entered into a Coordinated
Operation Agreement (COA) in 1986, in order to coordinate
operations of the CVP and the SWP. The COA received
congressional approval in 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-546). Subsequent
to enactment of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(Pub. L. No. 102-575, Title XXXIV) in 1992, and in large part
as a result of issues related to water quality and fisheries
impacts, State and Federal agencies signed an agreement in June
1994 to address these issues and to seek a long-term solution
to the problems of the Bay-Delta.
In December 1994, State and Federal officials and
representatives of agricultural, urban and environmental
stakeholders signed what is known as the Bay-Delta Accord
(``Principles for Agreement on Bay-Delta Standards between the
State of California and the Federal Government''), which
provides interim measures for ecosystem restoration and
regulatory stability. The Calfed Program, a cooperative
interagency effort, commenced in 1995, which agencies relying
on existing statutory authorizations to undertake Program
activities.
The stated mission of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program ``is to
develop and implement a long-term comprehensive plan that will
restore ecological health and improve water management for
beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta.'' (``Calfed Bay-Delta Program
Annual Report 2001''). Federal agency participants in the
Calfed Bay-Delta Program are: the Department of the Interior
(including the Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey); the Environmental
Protection Agency; the Army Corps of Engineers; the Department
of Commerce (including the National Marine Fisheries Service);
the Department of Agriculture (including the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the Forest Service); and the Western
Area Power Administration. Participating State agencies are:
the Resources Agency of California (including the Department of
Water Resources and the Department of Fish and Game); the
California Environmental Protection Agency (including the State
Water Resources Control Board); and the California Department
of Food and Agriculture. The Calfed Policy Group, comprised of
representatives of these Federal and State agencies, oversees
implementation of the Program. The mandate of the Policy Group
is to ensure effective, balanced, coordinated, and timely
implementation of the Program.
Stakeholders, including representatives of agricultural,
urban, environmental, fishery, and business interest, and
Indian tribes and rural counties, all participate in the
collaborative effort. Input is provided through the Bay-Delta
Advisory Committee, established pursuant to the provisions of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement and
Water Security Act (Division E, Title 1 of Pub. L. No. 104-208;
Title XI of Pub. L. No. 104-333) was enacted in late 1996. The
legislation authorized a total of $430 million for fiscal years
1998 through 2000 for the Federal share of the costs of
developing and implementing certain ecosystem restoration
measures relating to the Calfed effort. Funds were appropriated
under this authority in the amounts of $85 million in fiscal
year 1998; $75 million in fiscal year 1999; and $60 million in
fiscal year 2000. Subsequent to the expiration of this
authority, no funds were appropriated for the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program in fiscal year 2001, and $30 million was appropriated
in fiscal year 2002.
In order to develop a long-term program, Calfed undertook
an extensive planning effort. This resulted in a June 1999
Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report (EIS/EIR) and a July 2000 Final Programmatic EIS/
EIR. The planning effort was based on a collaborative process,
with active stakeholder participation. On June 9, 2000, a
framework agreement entitled ``California's Water Future: A
Framework for Action,'' was released. On August 28, 2000, the
Federal and State agencies released the Record of Decision
(ROD), setting forth a programmatic long-term plan for the Bay-
Delta.
The ROD selects a preferred program alternative for the
Bay-Delta Program, setting forth the long-term, overall
direction of the 30-year Program. Under the ROD, the Calfed
agencies will proceed with the specific actions in Stage 1,
which covers the first 7 years, with overall projected Federal
costs of $2.4 billion. The ROD provides that the Calfed Bay-
Delta Program continue as a Federal-Statepartnership intended
to build a framework for managing water in California. According to the
ROD, the objectives of the long-term program for restoration and
management of the Bay-Delta estuary are four-fold: to restore the
ecological health of a fragile and depleted Bay-Delta estuary; improve
the water supply reliability for the State's farms and cities that draw
water from the Delta and its tributaries, including 7 million acres of
the world's most productive farmland; protect the drinking water
quality of the 22 million Californians who rely on the Delta for their
drinking water supplies; and protect the Delta levees that ensure the
integrity of the Delta as a conveyance and ecosystem.
Under the ROD, the Program has the following components:
water storage; ecosystem restoration; water supply reliability;
conveyance; water use efficiency; water quality; water
transfers; watersheds; Environmental Water Account: levee
stability; governance; and science. The ROD describes the
Calfed Bay-Delta Program as one of the most extensive ecosystem
restoration efforts ever proposed, the most intensive water
conservation effort ever attempted, the most far-reaching
effort to improve drinking water quality for Californians, and
the most significant investment in water storage and conveyance
in California in decades.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 976, the ``California Ecosystem, Water Supply, and Water
Quality Enhancement Act of 2001,'' was introduced by Senator
Feinstein on May 25, 2001. On July 19, 2002, the Subcommittee
on Water and Power held a legislative hearing to receive
testimony on S. 976. On December 5, 2001, Senator Feinstein
introduced S. 1768, the ``Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act''.
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources considered S.
1768 at its business meetings on May 22 and June 5, 2002. At
its business meeting on June 5, 2002, the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources ordered S. 1768 favorably reported with
an amendment in the nature of substitute.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TABULATION OF VOTES
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in
open business session on June 5, 2002, by majority vote of a
quorum present recommends that the Senate pass S. 1768, if
amended as described herein.
The rollcall vote on reporting the measure was 18 yeas and
5 nays as follows:
YEAS NAYS
Mr. Bingaman Mr. Domenici
Mr. Akaka Mr. Nickles
Mr. Dorgan Mr. Campbell
Mr. Graham \1\ Mr. Thomas
Mr. Wyden Mr. Hagel
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu \1\
Mr. Bayh
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Schumer \1\
Ms. Cantwell
Mr. Carper
Mr. Murkowski
Mr. Craig
Mr. Shelby \1\
Mr. Burns
Mr. Kyl
Mr. Smith \1\
\1\ Indicates vote by proxy.
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes the
following changes to S. 1768 as introduced:
1. Authorizes the Calfed Bay-Delta Program for 3
years as opposed to 5 years;
2. Reduces the overall authorization from $2.4
billion to $1.63 billion;
3. Limits the Federal share to no more than 33.3
percent of overall Stage 1 Program costs;
4. Requires Calfed Bay-Delta Program funding to come
through several different Federal agencies with the
specific programmatic responsibility for the activity
rather than including all funding in the budget of the
Bureau of Reclamation as had been done in the past;
5. Provides greater specificity with respect to
authorized actions;
6. Adds appropriations levels for each Program
component to ensure that the Program is proceeding in a
balanced manner; and
7. Adds a provision containing criteria to be used by
the Secretary for making an annual determination of
balanced progress in the Program.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 contains the short title.
Section 2 defines terms used in the Act.
Section 3(a) approves the Record of Decision as a framework
for addressing Calfed Bay-Delta Program components, and
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and heads of the
Federal agencies to carry out the Record of Decision, subject
to the provisions of the Act, so that the program goals will
progress in a balanced manner.
Subsection (b)(1) authorizes the Secretary and the heads of
the Federal agencies to undertake the activities described in
the subsection subject to the provisions of the Act if the
activity has been subject to environmental review and approval
as required under applicable Federal and State law and has been
approved and certified by the Calfed Policy Group to be
consistent with the Record of Decision. The subsection sets
forth activities authorized for fiscal years 2003 through 2005
and sets authorization limits under each of the listed areas.
This paragraph authorizes the lead Federal agency for a Program
component as currently designated by the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program to carry out the specific activity listed. The
Committee expects that the President's Budget will reflect this
allocation of responsibility among the Federal agencies for
carrying out the Program.
Subsection (b)(2) authorizes the Secretary and the Federal
agency heads to carry out the authorized activities through the
use of grants, loans, contracts, and cooperative agreements
with Federal and non-Federal entities where the Secretary or
Federal agency head determines such action will assist in
implementing the authorized activity in an efficient, timely,
and cost-effective manner.
Section 4(a) requires the Federal agencies to coordinate
with the State agencies in carrying out the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program.
Subsection (b) requires the Federal agencies to cooperate
with local and tribal governments and the public in carrying
out the Program.
Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to seek to ensure to
the maximum extent practicable that all major aspects of
implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta Program are subjected to
credible and objective scientific review and that major
decisions are based on the best available scientific
information.
Subsection (d) requires the Secretary to undertake the
Calfed Bay-Delta Program in accordance with the Implementation
Memorandum on governance dated August 28, 2000, until such time
as a permanent governing structure is approved. The Secretary
and the Federal agency heads shall seek congressional
authorization and approval of the permanent governing
structure, as necessary.
Subsection (e) states the intent of Congress that the
Federal and State agencies should continue to collaborate to
develop a comprehensive environmental justice workplan for the
Calfed Bay-Delta Program and fulfill the commitment to
addressing environmental justice challenges referred to in the
Calfed Bay-Delta Program Environmental Justice Workplan dated
December 13, 2000.
Section 5(a) requires the Secretary, in cooperation with
the Governor, to submit a report of the Calfed Policy Group by
December 15 of each year to Congress describing the status of
implementation of all components of the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program and certifying whether or not the Program is
progressing in a balanced manner.
Subsection (b) provides that substantial progress in each
of the categories listed in subsection (a) shall be considered
in determining whether the Calfed Bay-Delta Program is
progressing in a balanced manner. In making the certification
regarding balance, the Secretary, in cooperation with the
Governor, is to prepare a statement of whether the Program is
in balance taking into consideration items as set forth in the
subsection. The intent of the provision is to help ensure that
the Calfed Bay-Delta Program is carried out in accordance with
the principles, linkages and commitments of the Record of
Decision.
Subsection (c) provides that if the report provided for in
subsection (a) and the statement of balance provided for in
subsection (b) conclude that the Program is not progressing in
a balanced manner so that no certification of balanced
implementation can be made, the Calfed Policy Group shall
prepare a revised schedule to ensure that the Program will
proceed in a balanced manner. The revised schedule will be
subject to approval by the Secretary and the Governor and shall
be submitted to the Congress.
Subsection (d) requires the Secretary to submit a financial
summary to the Congress by February 15 of each year.
Section 6(a) requires the President's Budget to include
requests for the appropriate level of funding for each of the
Federal agencies to carry out its responsibilities under the
Calfed Bay-Delta Program. The funds shall be requested for the
Federal agency with authority and programmatic responsibility
for the obligation of the funds. At the time of submission of
the President's Budget, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget is to submit to the Congress an inter-
agency budget crosscut report that displays the budget proposed
for each of the Federal agencies to carry out the Calfed Bay-
Delta Program for the upcoming fiscal year. The report is to
identify all expenditures since 1996 within the Federal and
State governments used to achieve the objectives of the Calfed
Bay-Delta Program.
Subsection (b) authorizes to be appropriated to the
Secretary and the heads of the Federal agencies $1,630,000,000
to pay the Federal share of carrying out Stage 1 of the Record
of Decision for fiscal years 2003 through 2005, in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. The funds are to remain
available without fiscal year limitation.
Section 7 provides that the Federal share of the cost of
implementing Stage 1 of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program as set
forth in the Record of Decision shall not exceed 33.3 percent.
Section 8 states that nothing in the Act preempts or
otherwise affects any Federal or State law, including any
authority of a Federal agency to carry out activities related
to, or in furtherance of, the Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
The following estimate of the costs of this measure has
been provided by the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2002.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1768, the Calfed
Bay-Delta Authorization Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Julie
Middleton.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
S. 1768--Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act
Summary: S. 1768 would authorize the appropriation of $1.63
billion to implement the first seven years (known as Stage I)
of the Calfed Bay-Delta program (CALFED). Assuming
appropriation of the authorized sums, CBO estimates that
implementing S. 1768 would cost $1.2 billion over the 2003-2007
period. S. 1768 would not affect direct spending or receipts;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
A consortium of 18 federal and state agencies in California
participate in the CALFED program, which is designed to
increase water yield and environmental benefits, as well as
improve water quality, the reliability of water systems, the
efficiency of water use, watershed management, water transfers,
and levee protection in the San Francisco Bay and the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (known as the Bay-Delta
watershed).
S. 1768 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments. The funds authorized by this bill would benefit
the state of California and local governments in that state.
Any spending by those governments to participate in the CALFED
program would be voluntary.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 1768 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
(natural resources and environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
CALFED spending by the Bureau of Reclamation under
current law:
Budget authority................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays............................... 50 55 0 0 0 0
Proposed changes:
Authorization level............................. 0 543 543 544 0 0
Estimated outlays............................... 0 54 163 299 353 353
CALFED spending by Federal agencies under S. 1768:
Authorization level............................. 0 543 543 544 0 0
Estimated outlays............................... 50 109 163 299 353 353
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes S. 1768
would be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2003 and that
the authorized amounts would be appropriated each year. Based
on information from the Bureau of Reclamation and the
historical spending patterns of similar programs, CBO estimates
that the resulting outlays would total $1.2 billion over the
2003-2007 period and an additional $0.4 billion thereafter.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1768
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments. The funds authorized by this bill would
benefit the state of California and local governments in that
state. Any spending by these governments to participate in the
CALFED program would be voluntary. The bill would limit the
federal share of CALFED projects to one-third of the total
cost.
Previous CBO estimate: On February 8, 2002, the CBO
transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 3208, the Western Water
Security Enhancement Act, as ordered reported by the House
Committee on Resources on November 7, 2001. The cost of the
Senate bill is lower than that of the House Resources
Committee's version because the former would not authorize
funding for the Small Reclamation Loan Program, a new
competitive grant program, an environmental mitigation project
at the Salton Sea in California, or feasibility studies, as the
Resources Committee version did. In addition, the Senate bill
would authorize the appropriation of $1.6 billion for CALFED
implementation while the House Resources Committee's bill would
authorize $600 million for the same purpose.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Julie Middleton;
Impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Marjorie
Miller; Impact on the private sector: Cecil McPherson.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out S. 1768. The Act is not a regulatory measure in
the sense of imposing government-established standards or
significant responsibilities on private individuals and
businesses.
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
privacy.
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of S. 1768.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
On December 11, 2001, the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of
the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget setting
forth Executive agency recommendations on S. 1768. These
reports had not been received at the time this report was
filed. The testimony provided by the Secretary of the Interior
at the hearing on S. 976 as well as a letter received from the
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science
relating to S. 1768, follow:
Statement of Gale A. Norton, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior
I am pleased to appear before this subcommittee to provide
the Department's testimony on S. 976, the California Ecosystem,
Water Supply, and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001.
S. 976 would authorize funding through the Secretary of the
Interior, as well as governance and management authorities, for
the implementation of a comprehensive, balanced, and timely
water management and environmental restoration program in
California commonly referred to as the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program, as reflected in the Federal Record of Decision (ROD)
issued August 28, 2000. The purpose of the program is to
increase water yield and environmental benefits, as well as
improved water system reliability, water quality, water use
efficiency, watershed management, water transfers, and levee
protection.
As the Committee can imagine, our new Administration faced
a substantial number of major resource issues of high priority
upon assuming office. In the area of water, virtually every
western state has issues of concern and controversy demanding
our attention. With the confirmation of Assistant Secretary for
Water and Science, Bennett Raley and Commissioner of
Reclamation, John Keys we are able to begin dealing
substantively with many of the issues before us. We await the
nomination and confirmation of an Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks and a Director for the Fish and Wildlife
Service to further assist interagency efforts.
On the Columbia River, the Colorado River and in the
Central Valley of California, among others, we are beginning
our examination of the results of multi-year, multi-million
dollar planning and negotiation efforts. We are looking not
only at the results of these enormous work efforts but also at
the process used, both internal and external, and the
information that was relied upon to make decisions. In addition
we are examining the data which provided insight on the
biological and socio-economic consequences of these major
initiatives.
On all of the matters before us, one conclusion is
uniformly applicable: we will continue to work toward solutions
and we will make decisions that reflect the President's
commitment to the balanced and sensible resolution of resource
issues across our Nation.
In the case of CALFED, we find the comprehensive and
integrated nature of actions proposed and the commitment to the
development of a credible science program in support of the
decisionmaking process are all laudable. The manner in which
federal and state administrations have worked may be considered
a model for solutions to resource management problems.
Likewise, we feel that we can secure similar success in
achieving the goals of CALFED in the context of our
responsibilities in all western states.
Clearly, significant progress has been made in the
dedication of state and federal monies for ecosystem
improvements in the watersheds that constitute the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta and the San Francisco Bay. On the Federal
side, Congress has appropriated nearly $500 million for CALFED
related efforts, for Central Valley Project Improvement Act and
CALFED initiatives focused on improving the aquatic and
terrestrial habitats of the CALFED solution area.
A Record of Decision is in place that captures years of
planning on all program elements of ecosystem restoration,
levee system integrity and improvement, water supply and
reliability improvements, water quality improvement, improved
water use and efficiency, improvements to the upper watersheds,
water transfers, storage, and conveyance.
Congress needs to authorize the CALFED program so we can
proceed with balanced progress on all resource fronts. The
Department also recognizes that outstanding issues are still in
need of resolution and we are committed to finding those
solutions expeditiously and in concert with this Committee,
with the Congress, the administration of Governor Davis and the
stakeholders who have been so actively and constructively
involved.
I would like to express my deep appreciation to the
Committee for your obvious commitment to making significant
progress with the CALFED program. I also appreciate the
consistent concerns demonstrated by this Committee that
progress be made and for your work efforts in developing the
bill being considered today. Your continued willingness to work
with the Department and the Administration on this matter is of
real and continuing importance to us.
S. 976 is an important step forward. Clearly, additional
authorizing legislation is required to proceed with the
complete program. We support the purposes and many of the
provisions of the bill. However, we also have a number of
concerns with the bill as written, and we believe some
modifications are necessary. We would like to continue working
with the Committee to achieve a bill we can fully support and
which will implement the CALFED program consistent with the ROD
and agreements reached in the Bay-Delta Accord of 1994 and the
CALFED framework agreement. We note that S. 976, like other
CALFED legislation before the Congress, would be quite
expensive.
The results of the CALFED planning process reflect an
attempt to balance competing needs and interests. The CALFED
planning process brought together agricultural, urban,
environmental and business stakeholders with the state and
federal agencies in an effort to build agreements on the
approaches to managing California's complex water and natural
resource issues. We recognize that solutions to any set of
problems as large and interconnected as those facing California
will be complex. However, all interests must respect the needs
and concerns of others. The CALFED ROD attempts to recognize
the core interests of all the parties and build a solution that
reduces the conflicts in the existing and long-established
system and to balance competing interests for comprehensive
progress. In addition, consideration should be given to
analysis of impacts of the ROD on tribal trust assets, as
discussed in the ROD. With the support of Congress and the
State of California, CALFED can lead the way in a collaborative
process that includes extensive participation of all
stakeholders to provide many long-term solutions to
California's water management and infrastructure improvement
needs.
The ``Fed'' side of the CALFED Program demonstrates a
cooperative planning and coordination effort among ten Federal
agencies, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the
Bureau of Land Management, within the Department of the
Interior, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Forest Service, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and Western Area Power Administration.
CALFED history and background
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a response to the water
management and ecosystem problems that came so clearly into
focus in the drought of 1987 to 1992 experienced within the
Bay-Delta system. Furthermore, the historic and ongoing
conflicts between water management for supply and fishery
protection give rise to the urgency of the CALFED program. The
waters of Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers converge in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which is the largest estuary in
the West Coast, and discharges into the San Francisco Bay and
to the Pacific Ocean. The Bay-Delta is a maze of waterways and
channels that carry over 40 percent of the State's total runoff
to the Bay and provides drinking water for more than 22 million
Californians, important habitat for over 750 plant and animals
species, irrigation water for most of the $27 billion
agricultural sector, and water essential to the manufacturing
and commercial sectors of the State. Over the past decades,
California has witnessed declines in water quality, fish,
wildlife and associated habitat, and the reliability of water
supplies. The goals of CALFED, which the Administration fully
support, are to reverse all these trends.
In December 1994, the State and Federal governments signed
the Bay-Delta Accord, which signaled a new approach to managing
the Delta and finding solutions to longstanding problems in
California. In 1995, CALFED was initiated as a cooperative,
interagency effort to reduce conflicts in the Bay-Delta,
modernize water management and infrastructure, and to make
investments aimed at reducing stressors for species and
improving the habitat. The CALFED Program has been envisioned
as a three-phase process:
Phase I objectives were to identify and define the
problems confronting the Bay-Delta System and develop a mission
statement, program objectives, and alternative actions for
further study. During Phase I CALFED concluded that each
program alternative would include a significant set of program
actions which were grouped into elements to address problems
associated with the ecosystem and water management
infrastructure.
Phase II objectives were to develop a preferred
program alternative, conduct a comprehensive programmatic
environmental review process, and develop an implementation
plan focusing on the first 7 years (Stage 1 of implementation).
Phase II objectives were achieved through issuance of the Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report (IS/AIR) in July 2000 and a Record of Decision
signed on August 28, 2000.
CALFED is currently in Phase III, a long-term
process implementing specific actions to achieve the goals of
the CALFED program. Phase III objectives are to implement the
plan selected in the IS/AIR over the next 25 to 30 years. State
1 of implementation, for the first 7 years, is underway. Site-
specific, detailed environmental review and feasibility level
analysis will occur during Stage 1 prior to implementation of
each proposed action.
CALFED program accomplishments
In the past several years substantial progress has been
made on a number of complex water and natural resource issues
through the combined efforts of the public and state and
federal agencies working together as CALFED. The greatest
accomplishment of the CALFED effort so far is bringing all the
State and Federal agencies together to produce the CALFED
Record of Decision, signed August 28, 2000, which documents the
comprehensive plan for improving California's water supply and
water quality, as well as restoring ecological health in the
Bay Delta. This Committee has received copies of the most
recent annual report of accomplishments which details progress
in many CALFED program areas. We particularly would like to
bring your attention to the many creative approaches to
addressing historic areas of conflict such as the Environmental
Water Account.
Also of interest is the CALFED Science Program. We expect
this program to provide peer review of the science and
information underlying all elements of the CALFED program from
adaptive management, to ecosystem improvement projects, to
project operations and beyond, we expect CALFED to be supported
by a strong and credible science program.
Public workshops have been and are being undertaken by the
program on scientific components of public controversies and
are clarifying the state of scientific knowledge, thereby
reducing the level of controversy. In the near term, these
workshops include issues associated with Delta Cross channel
operations, effectiveness of the Environmental Water Account
for salmon and Delta smelt, salinity effects of levee breaches,
and the use of scientific adaptive management. Additional
workshops will be undertaken as topics are identified.
CALFED funding
From FY 1998 to FY 2000, Congress appropriated $190 million
for the CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program and an additional
$30 million for other program elements, including projects to
improve water supply reliability. These funds were provided
through an account in the Bureau of Reclamation budget, but
funding for specific projects or programs has been transferred
to participating Federal agencies based on plans developed by
CALFED. As noted above, CALFED agencies have used these and
other funds to screen water diversions for the benefits of fish
and farmers, restore degraded habitat, establish an
environmental water program, develop conjunctive use projects
and develop a state and federal water operations plan. No funds
were provided for this account in FY 2001, largely because the
appropriations committees deferred to the authorizing
committees to review the Program and develop any needed
legislation.
The ROD outlines a partnership of State, Federal, and
private funding, and estimated that a total of $8.7 billion
from state, federal, and private sources would be needed for
the Program's implementation. According to Governor Davis, the
State is moving forward to finance implement actions called for
in the ROD. In order to support the Federal side of this unique
partnership, it is important that appropriate legislation be
enacted to authorize Federal Government participation as
contemplated by the ROD.
Benefits of S. 976
The Bay Delta is the hub of the State's water supply system
and an area of unsurpassed ecological importance. Single-
purpose efforts to solve problems in the past have failed
adequately address the comprehensive nature of the Bay-Delta
resources and problems and the conflicts between supply and
demand. S. 976 would provide authorization for continued
Federal participation in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and to
meet Record of Decision commitments. As such, the
Administration supports many elements of this bill, recognizing
that some modifying language may be needed.
In particular we are supportive of three primary principles
outlined in the bill.
Balanced Approach.--The authorizing language needs the
CALFED principal of comprehensive planning by outlining and
providing authority to carry out a water supply plan to promote
the ecological health and improve water management in the Bay
Delta.
Measurable Goals and Objectives.--The legislation would
provide for developing measurable goals and objectives for
implementing and documenting ``significant'' progress in
achieving the ROD's program elements and the proposed ecosystem
enhancement and water supply program actions. Further, the
legislation calls for utilizing credible and objective
scientific review and basing decisions on the ``best available,
independently peer-reviewed information.''
Governance, Local Coordination, and Public Involvement.--
The legislation affirms that the participating Federal agencies
would help operate the Bay-Delta Program through a permanent
governance structure that encourages local and regional
partnerships in implementing the Program. The legislation also
specifies that State area-of-origin rights would be preserved.
Further, the legislation recognizes the need for participating
Federal agencies to cooperate with state, local, and tribal
governments, non-governmental organizations and the public to
obtain input on program implementation planning, design,
technical assistance, ecosystem restoration, and peer review of
science efforts.
Concerns with S. 976
Despite the progress that has been accomplished through the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, the Administration has some
significant concerns relative to the legislation before the
Subcommittee today. In addition to the major concerns noted
below, we would like to work with the Committee to address
technical and other changes as it considers this legislation.
Cost Sharing.--One of the central components of the ROD is
the notion of ``beneficiary pays,'' whereby users who benefit
from investments in the infrastructure should pay for those
benefits. The ROD contemplated the Federal Government, the
State, and project beneficiaries each sharing roughly one-third
of the costs of implementation. S. 976 generally establishes a
maximum Federal cost-share of 50% for each project or activity,
but does not otherwise indicate how the cost-share should be
determined. We do not object to the 50% ceiling, however, we
believe that the cost-sharing should otherwise be consistent
with current law or policies. Depending on the project purpose,
under current law local sponsors are required to provide up to
100 percent of a project's cost (e.g., for costs allocated to
municipal and industrial water supply projects). We wish to
stress the importance of clarifying and integrating cost-
sharing measures into the program. We would like to clarify
that assignment of operation and maintenance costs will be
consistent with general policies.
Project Authorizations.--We are also concerned about
provisions of the bill that seem to authorize construction of
projects before they have completed the normal Administration
review of economic and environmentally feasibility. Some
language also circumvents Congressional oversight of individual
projects. Consistent with longstanding policies, we believe
that authorization for construction should be provided only
after the Administration and Congress have completed a full and
favorable review of project economics and environmental
feasibility.
Authorization of Appropriations.--Sections 3, 4, and 5 of
the legislation state that appropriations are authorized ``* *
* in such sums as are necessary * * * '' to carry out the
actions authorized by the particular section. This appears to
imply that there is unlimited funding authority for
implementing the CALFED Program. Further, it is not clear
whether all appropriations will be coming through the
Department of the Interior, or whether the concept of a cross-
cut budget will be employed and appropriations will be made
directly to the participating Federal agencies which, in some
instances, would lead to greater efficiency.
Reporting and Oversight.--In general, the reporting and
oversight requirements are unclear; it is not apparent which
agency is specifically responsible for the compilation of data
for submission to Congress. The ROD states that the CALFED
staff would be responsible for associated program reporting
requirements, however the legislation implies that this would
be the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior.
Conclusion
The history of the settlement of California and the
ensuring development of its water resources is replete with
political and legal battles. Although agreement on water
management may not be immediately achievable, the CALFED
Program is a step in reaching a common vision of actions needed
for progress. CALFED represents a new approach to an old
problem by combining the interests of state and federal
agencies with regulatory power over the Bay-Delta together with
urban, environmental, and agricultural users, who each have a
vested interest in the maintenance and improvement of the Bay-
Delta. The CALFED Program has shown water managers, policy
makers and the public how to move California toward more
equitable and efficient water and ecosystem management.
Continued implementation of the CALFED plan offers the
opportunity for a long-term solution to the critical problems
confronting the Bay-Delta. Specifically, the Department will
continue to operate the Central Valley Project in accordance
with the provisions of the State's Water Quality Control Plan,
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the Endangered Species
Act, and other applicable statutes. The Department is aware of
the importance of meeting its environmental commitments, and
the importance to the water users of adequate water supply
reliability. For these reasons, the Department will continue to
work through the CALFED process to improve the environment, and
increase the system's water management flexibility.
We believe that the bill attempts to offer a balanced
approach toward implementing the ROD commitments and would
allow the Federal government sufficient authority to continue
to participate in the CALFED program. We look forward to
working with the Committee and others in Congress to address
the Administration's concerns. Mr. Chairman, I would like to
reiterate my appreciation to the Committee and others for
continuing to work with the Department to address the
significant water and environmental issues facing the West.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
------
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, May 14, 2002.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: In response to your request, I am
pleased to provide an update on our views of the CALFED program
and on your bill, S. 1768. First, I would like to express my
deep appreciation for your commitment and leadership, as well
as that of Congressman Calvert to making significant progress
with the CALFED program. I also appreciate your efforts in
developing legislation to authorize funding for the CALFED
program. The Secretary and I have pledged that the Department
will continue to work through the CALFED process to improve the
environment and increase the system's water management
flexibility. Let me reiterate that sentiment and reaffirm that
the Department is committed to making CALFED work.
We firmly support the CALFED program and the concepts
embedded in the Record of Decision (ROD) which set forth the
activities to be undertaken under CALFED. We recognize there is
a long history of conflict over many of the issues CALFED
addresses. However, absent CALFED we believe the result would
be conflict and stalemate where all stakeholders and resources
suffer. By addressing a broad range of complementary programs
in a balanced manner, CALFED can ensure that the interests of
all the stakeholders are recognized and addressed.
The CALFED program holds great promise for those who
benefit from the use of the Bay-Delta and for restoration of
the Bay-Delta's ecological health. However, our ability to move
forward on a broad basis is limited until the CALFED program is
authorized. The Administration believes it is critical to
authorize the program and begin implementing it so that we can
show improvements to the water management infrastructure,
conditions for fish and wildlife, and water quality. This is
one of the reasons why your legislation is so important.
While we support S. 1768 and moving forward with
implementing the CALFED program, we must note that the
Administration has significant concerns regarding the
implementation of the following program elements.
Language in the existing Implementation Memorandum
stating that the CALFED program should have no significant
redirected impacts will likely make implementation of the
CALFED plan difficult to manage. It is not realistic to assume
that changes to the ecosystem and an integrated water delivery
and storage system will not have effects which ripple
throughout the system. To address this concern, we believe the
authorizing legislation must ensure the comprehensive and
balanced nature of the CALFED Program, with strong and clear
beneficiaries pay provisions.
We are also concerned that the programmatic
language concerning cost-sharing and beneficiaries pay
arrangements may invite future conflict. Project beneficiaries
should pay for project benefits; beyond that, a \1/3\ federal,
\1/3\ state, \1/3\ local cost share should prevail, except in
those situations where the local cost-share, under existing
agency laws and regulations, is higher.
It is important that any CALFED legislation
authorizes funding for the participating federal agencies and
ensures that these funds are spent in accordance with the
mission of the CALFED program.
We are concerned about the cost of the program and
believe that legislation needs to authorize an integrated
program that can fund balanced implementation in the current
fiscal climate.
Finally, regardless of the exact form of the
authorization process, any project submitted as part of a
CALFED project authorization bill must first go through the
normal Administration review process, as spelled out in
Executive Order 12322.
We have discussed these issues at various times and look
forward to working with you to address them. We believe that if
legislation authorizing CALFED does not pass, the existing
problems and challenges of managing water in California will
continue to produce significant economic and environmental
conflicts.
Sincerely,
Bennett W. Raley.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR KYL AND SENATOR CRAIG
We appreciate the efforts that the Senator for California
has made to address the concerns raised with this legislation.
We have had several discussions and considerable progress has
been made in providing some definition to what is a very
expensive initial commitment to what will likely be an even
more expensive multi-year program
We still have some concerns, however.
While we would prefer to continue work on the legislation
in Committee so that we can present a complete package to the
Senate, we understand the desires of the Senator from
California to have some action in Committee before we become
tied up in the Energy Conference. We believe there is an
understanding that we will continue to work on concerns
previously raised as we proceed to the floor, and with that
understanding, we do not object to moving this legislation at
the present time.
We do want the Committee report to reflect some of the
issues that we and other Members have with the amendment before
us, and that we will try to work out those concerns before the
legislation is brought up in the full Senate. Those concerns
fall into several areas.
Our first concern is the need for balance between
conservation and environmental objectives and the need for
additional water supplies, including additional storage.
Senator Feinstein has been very up-front in her belief that
California must have additional storage to meet its needs and
we should ensure that this program guarantees that. We need to
have balance in this interim program as well as in the overall
multi-year program if we later authorize it. We have the
experience of the CVP legislation and the original CALFED
authorization where those expectation were not met.
Our second concern is past commitments to water users.
Section 3408(j) of the CVP legislation required the Secretary
of the Interior, within three years, to develop a plan to
replace the water taken from them under that legislation and
actually replace that water within 15 years. That hasn't
happened. We are now seeing portions of the CVP Restoration
Fund going to CALFED and some of the project improvements that
will increase yield, such as raising Shasta Dam, also being
considered as part of CALFED. We know Senator Feinstein is also
concerned about the effect on water users and only reluctantly
backed off from her earlier assurance language, but we do need
to keep some faith with our past promises.
Quite frankly, we think we need some better understanding
of where California is going and how much the federal
government will ultimately be asked to pay. This measure
focuses on the Bay-Delta, but it has implications for
California's water future. Some of the House measures go much
further and include provisions in other parts of the State,
although none have so far tackled Salton Sea.
We certainly understand the politics of water, and don't
think it would be helpful to the Senator from California if we
got into how California will meet its 4.4 requirement. However,
in fairness, we need to know that California will abide by its
promise to reduce Colorado River water to its 4.4 million acre
feet entitlement before we commit the federal government to
funding yet more water projects for California.
A final concern is the overall cost. We appreciate that
large and complex water problems can be very expensive.
Nonetheless, we must make certain we don't commit ourselves to
a multi-billion dollar program for the Bay-Delta only to find
that we need a somewhat smaller program in Northern California,
a somewhat more expensive program in Southern California, and
an enormously more expensive program for the Salton Sea.
We also have a fair-sized delegation from the Pacific
Northwest with concerns on the Columbia River Basin, a number
of Upper Basin Members who have ecosystem concerns as well as
authorized but unfunded storage programs, and other members
with their own specific concerns. At some point, we need to
take stock of where we are going.
The cost to the federal government in the latest amendment
is $1.6 billion over three years, but that may not be the
entire tab since we have seen both the Administration and the
Appropriations Committees allow other authorities to be used to
further the CALFED program. The language in the amendment that
calls for a cross-cut budget and requires any agency
obligations to come from appropriations to that agency and be
reflected in that agencies' budget will help. It would be nice
to have that information now so we could determine with some
greater precision exactly what we will be spending and whether
we really need an additional $1.6 billion to make certain that
all parties interested in this program remain at the table when
the feasibility studies come in.
We have made considerable progress and we again want to
express our appreciation to the Senator from California for her
willingness to continue to work on our concerns.
Jon Kyl.
Larry E. Craig.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR KYL
The ability of the State of California to live within its
Colorado River entitlement of 4.4 million acre feet in years of
normal supply has implications far beyond the borders of
California. As the single largest user in the lower basin of
the river, California's continued use in excess of its
entitlement draws down the large water reservoirs shared by
Arizona and Nevada. In an already over-allocated system, the
Colorado River basin states are experiencing severe drought
conditions this year. In the lower basin, Arizona and Nevada
are both absolutely dependent upon a well-managed Colorado
River system to supply our citizens with the municipal,
industrial and agricultural water upon which our economies
depend.
The California Colorado River Water Use Plan, or ``4.4
Plan'' as it is sometimes called, was intended to create a real
incentive within California to solve its own water problems by
making reasonable transfers from the large agricultural demand
in the southern deserts to the municipal demand of Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California on the coastal plain.
Indeed, Arizona agreed to voluntarily forego some of its own
precious Colorado River water supply to insure California a
``soft landing'' as it worked its way through the
implementation of the California Colorado River Water Use Plan,
because we were committed to seeing these transfers occur. Now
that plan is threatened by a lack of consensus among
Californians to make these transfers in the manner originally
contemplated. While we must sympathize with Californians, and
do our best to assist them in this time of difficulty, Arizona
cannot continue to allow California to exceed its allotment in
these dry years without an effective step-down plan in place.
The Interim Surplus Guidelines, adopted by former Secretary
of the Interior Bruce Babbitt on January 25, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg.
No. 17, p. 7772), specifically provide that if the California
Colorado River water contractors have not executed the
necessary agreements to implement the California 4.4 Plan by
December 31, 2002, the Interim Surplus Guidelines will be
suspended and water allocations will be made instead on the
Bureau of Reclamation's ``70R'' strategy. That means no surplus
water for either California or Nevada in 2003 from the Colorado
River. Without surplus, California will be forced to cut back
to 4.4 million acre feet, regardless of the consequences. Most,
if not all of that burden will fall on Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California. The Interim Surplus Guidelines
can only be reinstated if California ``completes all required
actions'' and manages to reduce California agricultural demand
to 3.74 million acre feet in calendar year 2003. That reduction
action will not occur without a major agreement in place to
effectuate the agricultural-to-urban transfers.
Arizona supports the California Colorado River Water Use
Plan because it represents a solution to a long-standing
problem that will fix the problem once and for all. We cannot,
in these times of drought and full demand for the Colorado
River resource, continue to apply band-aid solutions. Arizona
and the entire Colorado River basin need the certainty that
comes with a comprehensive California plan. Without that
certainty, Arizona will have no choice but to strictly enforce
its rights under the 1964 allocation decree in Arizona v.
California.
Jon Kyl.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR BURNS
During the hearing and mark up of this bill, I expressed
several concerns including its overall cost, the need for water
storage as a primary goal, and its effects on agricultural
producers in the Central Valley. While Senator Feinstein worked
with my colleagues and I to limit the authorization to $1.6
billion over three years, that is a huge commitment of taxpayer
dollars. I have worked on a number of rural water projects and
Indian water settlements for Montana, and I know how difficult
these are to authorize and pay for. I would hate to see rural
Montanans go without drinkable water as a result of this
project, and I will be watching to make sure the immediate
goals of CALFED are achieved before we go any further.
Beyond my concerns over cost and project priority, one of
the reasons I have taken an interest in this bill is due to its
impact on farmers. This bill does nothing to ensure reliable
water supplies to farmers in the Central Valley. I appreciate
Senator Feinstein's willingness to work with the producers and
her understanding that this country relies upon farmers for our
safe, affordable food supply.
The CALFED Record of Decision and this bill take a very
broad approach to water quality, but I believe they are both
missing a very important element. Neither addresses the issue
of how, or why, reliability of Central Valley Project contract
Supplies for south-of-the-Delta Central Valley Project
contractors has diminished since CVPIA was implemented in 1992.
Or, more importantly, how those reliability and supply issues
will be improved as we move forward.
It is vital that the Secretary of Interior prepare a report
describing what agreements and commitments have been made by
Interior officials to address the water deficiencies for
Central Valley Project contractors since October 1992, and a
plan of action to further improve the current situation. A
second report should identify specific fish, wildlife, and
restoration requirements that have reduced water availability
for Central Valley Project operators, and the observed
population effects of those policies. it would be a mistake to
move forward without addressing the supply issues we currently
face.
This bill does not do all it could for farmers. But I will
continue to work with Senator Feinstein until we get closer to
where we need to be.
Conrad Burns.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no
changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 1768 as ordered
reported.