The Honorable Gale Norton
Secretary of the Interior
Association of California Water Agencies
November 21, 2002
I want to thank the Association of California Water Agencies for the chance to talk with so many of California's leaders, and to share my thoughts about CALFED, the Colorado River 4.4 Plan, and other water issues.
I am pleased to be here in California once again. I had the pleasure of living in California doing post-graduate work at Stanford in the 1980s, and I have thought highly of California's beauty and diversity and wonderful lifestyle ever since.
I'm not the only one at Interior with a tie to California. California is well-represented on our Department's team. My Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks is former California judge, Craig Manson, and his special assistant Julie MacDonald also hails from here.
My Deputy Chief of Staff Sue Ellen Wooldridge and Deputy Solicitor Rod Walston both served in the California Attorney General's Office. Former California state parks director Don Murphy is the number 2 man at the National Park Service.
Another Californian, Jason Peltier is Special Assistant to Bennett Raley, and so deals frequently with California water issues. I could go on, but you get the idea. I think they have their own California caucus at the agency.
I rely on them all for their counsel and expertise particularly when the going gets rough.
Your state is the home of the world's sixth largest economy. Much of that success rises from the history of water development, which made possible the incredible private investment and economic growth you have undertaken.
When I speak on water issues, my thoughts always go first to the words of poet Thomas Hornsby Ferril who wrote these words about the West back in 1940:
"Here is a land where life is written in water."
Water policy is no less important today than it was back when goldminers, ranchers, merchants and other settlers braved the West's new frontier.
Former Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming tells the story that President Grant back in the late 1800s sent one of his loyal Cabinet members off to the West. He said to the Cabinet member: "Write me back and tell me what it is they need out there."
After an extensive trip, the Cabinet member sent a wire that read, "All this place needs is good people and water."
Grant immediately wired back, "That is all hell needs."
Nevertheless, the West has been the story of good people, and that story indeed has been written in water. Each year brings a new chapter, and many of you are co-authors.
Unfortunately these have not all been peaceful stories. The words conflict and water seem to go hand in hand through history to the present. Regardless of the river basin, there are significant similarities in the conflicts.
One constant is that, in the West, there is almost never enough water to go around. Just as the early farmers had local conflicts about small streams, today we see similar conflicts, but on a larger scale. Today's conflicts are of a magnitude that potentially places millions of residential users into competition with California's future as an agricultural powerhouse.
Another constant is that lack of clarity about ownership and control of water leads to conflict. The doctrine of prior appropriation evolved to resolve water disputes in the gold fields and the early farming communities because it provided a simple and predictable rule.
Today that simplicity has yielded to complications like the even earlier claims of Native Americans, instream flows for fisheries and other natural ecosystem purposes, endangered species needs, and water quality. Each complication represents a legitimate value, but nevertheless makes water claims less predictable. When the underlying rights to water are unclear, then future solutions are more challenging to negotiate.
Based upon our history, we can discern another similarity: water decisions almost inevitably have implications extending decades into the future. Just as we reap benefits today from those who had the foresight to implement grand visions like the Central Valley project, so too our vision-or lack thereof-will affect future generations.
My Department has played an important role in the water history of the West. The most significant Interior agency in this regard is the Bureau of Reclamation, which this year celebrates its Centennial.
Theodore Roosevelt wrote these words in his autobiography: "The first work I took up when I became President was the work of reclamation."
Reclamation changed the course of rivers, filled irrigation ditches, gave birth to new communities, and helped to feed a hungry nation. In those days, the bureau was viewed as heroic, its projects were engineering marvels and its accomplishments were unparalleled.
Well, enough of history. Let's talk about 2002.
This year has been a rough one for the state, the West, and a good part of the Nation. Drought and fire seemed to go hand in hand to wreak their twin devastation. More than 6 million acres burned on public lands across the Nation this year. That is an area as large as New Jersey and equivalent in size to 2/3rds of all the irrigated farm land in California.
Throughout the summer, our drought maps carried the words "severe" and "extreme". One-half of the country experienced drought conditions this year with some of the most severe effects in the Great Plains and Southwest.
This is the third consecutive year of below-average runoff in the Colorado River Basin. This year's summer runoff into Lake Powell was only 14 percent of normal, and storage in Lake Mead is more than 60 feet below capacity.
Without the reservoirs and the water the Bureau of Reclamation and others already had in storage, drought impacts would be significantly increased across the West. As Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner John Keys told me, the Colorado River has avoided drastic problems this year only because it had a cushion of a three-to-four-year supply in storage. In contrast, the Sacramento River, like a number of other western rivers, has only 6 months.
This drought year gives us pause to reflect. What would the West be today without Reclamation's projects, without the know-how and engineering expertise that has helped to turn dust and sand into arable soil, and convert brown landscapes into green? Would Boise, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, and Phoenix be the cities they are today?
While the water supply predictions are more optimistic for the coming year, this year's drought serves as a preview of the future realities in normal water years, if we don't act to increase water supplies and their reliability. Commissioner Keys and Assistant Secretary Bennett Raley and I spend a lot of time focusing on water challenges-many of which fill your lives.
They include CALFED, the operations of the Colorado River, the challenges in the Klamath Basin, the Rio Grande and its problems with the silvery minnow. They include the effects of the Endangered Species Act on all fronts, the Columbia River, facility title transfers, the constant congressional interest in water and the scores of particular issues that you and other advocates bring to our attention.
In California and across the West we face the common challenge of ever-growing demands for water and the complex and controversial challenges associated with increasing supplies.
In tackling these problems, my team at Interior starts with the same overall approach that we apply to other tough issues. I greatly appreciate the leadership and in-depth knowledge that Bennett and John bring to their jobs.
Our approach is to execute statutory obligations in a manner that is based on scientific understanding, that is fully informed as to the consequences of our decisions, and that will survive the ever-present court challenges.
Our approach is guided by the importance of working with states and local governments, and learning from those who are most familiar with the issues. Each of you probably has more knowledge of the water issues in your own area than almost anyone in Washington (perhaps even including Interior's own transplanted Californians!). We want to use decision-making models that appropriately tap into that local knowledge.
Some of you have heard me speak before and know that I label this approach as the 4 Cs: communication, consultation and cooperation, all in the service of conservation.
We know that these are common elements in the "success models" of resource issues in the West.
Without those elements, it doesn't matter how well-meaning our intentions are. It is difficult to get to the right decision when you are working from some preconceived agenda or from a Washington perspective that fails to recognize the realities or consequences on the ground.
Certainly increasing the efficiency of our existing infrastructure and harnessing market forces are ways to increase the benefits from our water systems. We also need to explore technological advances that may allow us to improve water quality, and to identify water storage options that best harmonize with environmental values.
While Interior controls significant water management assets, when we look to increase supplies, we look for local partners and strive to be a good partner to you. We have a lot of helpful tools to bring to the table.
But clearly, we are in a time when federal and state government funding is scarce. Across the federal government, we face not only the resource demands of war-but also the unprecedented need to increase domestic security. At Interior, the concept of dam safety has expanded to include protection against human sabotage and attack.
Interior has pressures on its budget beyond those shared in common with other federal agencies. We also have litigation-based mandates to address Indian trust management problems. These problems have been more than a century in the making, and can not be ignored. These demands to address Indian Country problems will greatly limit other expansions in Interior's budget.
We also bring a set of regulatory requirements that significantly can affect the projects on which we are working. We strive to implement the environmental laws under the essential elements of communication, cooperation and consultation.
Our environmental responsibilities supplement our previous responsibilities, but our traditional duties remain intact. Despite the passage of three decades since the passage of most environmental laws, the interplay among our various statutory directives is still being defined.
We recognize that environmental laws reflect widely held public values. Society continues to value plentiful, reliable, affordable and clean water supplies. Society also values the things plentiful water brings-plentiful and affordable food, economic growth and stability.
Central Valley Project operations provide an example of the challenges of balancing Interior's diverse responsibilities. CVP operations have been altered dramatically in the last decade. Considerable new demands were placed on the system and significant adverse consequences occurred in a major portion of the project.
Increasing demand and hydrologic conditions, as well as implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act, have impacted the ability of the project to meet its contractual obligations. Until corrective measures are taken, operation of the CVP will threaten shortages across all service areas of the project. These challenges must be addressed.
Let me now turn to the specifics of CALFED and the Colorado River.
These issues, while very different in scope, have much in common. They involve many people with differing needs and interests. They are complex in fact, in history and in science, and the stakes are enormous in terms of the environment, resource management and human and socio-economic effects.
CALFED
I will begin with CALFED and the fact that we share with many of you a very strong desire to see the Congress authorize the CALFED program. As you are probably aware the Senate yesterday morning passed a bare-bones version of that authorization. If this provision becomes law, it will remove one hurdle to full federal participation in CALFED.
As many have said , CALFED represents a new approach to reaching common objectives and taking actions needed for balanced progress. Our plan is to continue working through the CALFED process to increase water supplies and their reliability, improve the environment, and increase the flexibility and accomplishments of our systems. We are committed to making CALFED work for the long-term, because I believe we must look many decades into the future when water issues are involved. That is what the CALFED program has done, and it is a grand vision.
The CALFED agencies have continued their thoughtful approach to engaging the many diverse and historically competitive interests. CALFED has been held up by some as a model for how to make progress nationally in enormously complex and contentious natural resources issues.
A public advisory body has been established and is functioning. The CALFED science program is in place and active, funds continue to flow to environmental improvements, and planning work on large scale infrastructure improvements is proceeding-albeit at a slower pace than contemplated in the Record of Decision.
Clearly, implementing the program will be significantly more complex than creating it on paper. The budget pressures I described above are among the challenges we face.
We greatly appreciate the hard work of the Water and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert and Senator Dianne Feinstein on trying to get CALFED authorized. We will continue to work closely with them and with the people of California.
COLORADO RIVER
Let me turn now to the Colorado River where the Supreme Court has designated the Secretary of the Interior the water master of the lower river. I take this responsibility very, very seriously.
I am enjoined by the Supreme Court Decree from delivering water to California beyond its 4.4 million acre-feet allocation unless surplus water is available or there is unused water from Arizona or Nevada. Until recently, the lack of demand in other states allowed California to obtain significant amounts of Colorado River water. This scenario is changing today and a lot of work has gone into deciding how to most sensibly reduce California's reliance on surplus water.
Given the rocky history between the states on Colorado River issues, you can imagine the intense focus on California's ability to fulfill its obligation to execute the Quantification Settlement Agreement for any continued access to surplus water in the river.
The seven basin states have been bound together over the decades through their reliance on the waters of the Colorado. They have learned an enduring truth --that a common commitment to recognize the needs of others on the River and work together is the quickest route to reliability and certainty.
No Secretary of the Interior wants to choose winners and losers. Every Secretary wants to deal with the Colorado River States in a fashion of cooperation and collaboration where the needs and interests of all are served in the best possible fashion. The alternative is the all too common scenario of litigation.
I have been involved in U.S. Supreme Court water litigation battles between states and it is not a palatable alternative. It is incredibly-- glacially-- slow, and it isn't pretty.
Having said that, we know that the Metropolitan Water District, San Diego County Water Authority, Coachella Valley Water District and Imperial Irrigation district have worked very hard to reach agreement and proceed on a sensible course.
While over the past year we have been very firm in publically reminding the California entities of the commitments they made to reduce their use of Colorado River water, we have been working internally on contingency planning.
This work, of preparing to operate the river in 2003 in the absence of a Quantification Settlement Agreement and without the Interim Surplus Guidelines, is grave and sobering. I don't have to explain to you the impacts on California of abruptly losing as much as 800,000 acre feet of water. We are especially concerned about the situation if serious drought continues in the basin.
This planning fully demonstrates why it is so imperative, so essential, that the entities execute the QSA.
We are aware of the gravity of the many decisions facing the different entities. We are acutely aware of the anxiety in the Imperial Valley. If you listen to the people of the Imperial Valley, you can hear the voices of people all across the West who fear for the future of their water supplies and understand why large scale water agreements are so difficult to accomplish.
We understand the competing interests of growing urban and suburban communities and rural farmers. In addition, we realize the difficulties posed by the Salton Sea and the Endangered Species Act.
Today, we are hopeful. We are confident that the California districts have approached their work with honest good intentions and a high sense of purpose. We have seen a number of positive developments and constructive overtures. I appreciate the active involvement of California state officials, especially the legislative leaders who devoted considerable efforts to broker necessary deals.
The reward for this hard work and commitment to the sensible management of the river is the dream and responsibility of every water manager: predictability and reliability.
I am so confident that your California districts will successfully accomplish our mutual objectives by the end of the year that I am prepared to extend congratulations today-qualified as they must be.
But along with this praise comes the buzzer that warns of the impending end of the game. We are now only one month plus one week away from mandatory action and there are no time outs left. Let's not wait until the final buzzer to clear a decision.
I look forward to working with you toward a solution and to seeing California achieve the soft landing envisioned in the agreement. It is the only answer. Thank you.
-DOI-