The Federal Reclamation Program’s Next Century

the subcommittee on water wildlife and fisheries will come to order. Good morning everyone. I want to welcome members, witnesses and our guests in the audience to today's hearing. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. Under committee rule four F, any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the chair and the ranking member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other members' opening statements be to be made part of the hearing record, if they are submitted in accordance with committee rule three O. Without objection, so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that the Congressman from Nebraska, Mister Smith, be allowed to participate in today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. We are here today to hold an oversight hearing titled the Federal Recl- Reclamation Programs Next Century. I now recognize myself for a five minute opening statement. Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will examine the construction and maintenance of water infrastructure in the West. Beginning in nineteen O two, the Bureau of Reclamation has transformed the American West, providing essential irrigation water for millions of acres of farmland, generating clean hydroelectric power, and securing reliable water supplies for small and large municipalities alike. After having been in place for more than a century in some cases, We continue to rely on these projects to deliver water, power the West, and feed the nation. It is now our responsibility to build new systems while also maintaining the existing ones for maximum operational benefit and to ensure that our federal reclamation programs next century is just as impactful. Numerous reclamation projects and facilities have now exceeded their expected lives with many of these structures exceeding one hundred years old. We must dedicate adequate resources to keeping these systems operating, while also eliminating those barriers that prevent the construction and maintenance of water infrastructure, including dams, canals, laterals, headgates, hydropower facilities, et cetera. We simply cannot continue to allow for the slow degradation of these facilities as endless permitting and failing bureaucracy stands in the way. We saw these failures failures play out, during implementation of the so-called Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which provided eight point three billion dollars for reclamation, including three point two billion to address aging infrastructure between fiscal years twenty twenty-one and twenty twenty-six. While many worthwhile projects received funding, the law also had a massive inflationary effect, driving up costs for much of reclamation's construction portfolio. As of twenty twenty-three, Reclamation's thirty year funding needs for major rehabilitation and replacement projects was at twenty point three billion dollars. As of twenty twenty five, toward the end of the program, that need grew to almost twenty five billion dollars. We must do better. The speed at which many of the reclamation's initial initial projects were completed is nothing short of extraordinary. Hoover Dam was constructed in just under five years and two years ahead of schedule. Likewise, in my home state of Wyoming, two of our major reclamation projects, Pathfinder Dam and Buffalo Bill Dam, were also completed in under five years. Unfortunately, the break-net pace for building an innovation that we were able to attain over one hundred years ago, has now become a relic of the past with a permitting doom loop, now hindering even the smallest and most necessary of projects. Today, federal projects face endless permitting processes, legal hurdles, and bureaucratic bottlenecks. meaning projects often spend years, if not decades, trapped in planning gridlock, all while the infrastructure itself continues to degrade with the downward spiral escalating with each passing year. Take the BF Sisk Dam, Rays and Reservoir Expansion project, which seeks to add a hundred and thirty thousand acre feet of storage to an existing reservoir in California's Central Valley, enough water to supply nearly four hundred thousand homes annually. Initiated in two thousand and seven, the project languished in a twelve year bureaucratic loop just to clear environmentally environmental and feasibility reviews. The physical construction is slated to begin until twenty twenty eight. Fortunately, under Secretary Burgum's leadership, this project is finally accelerate accelerating. But the permitting quagmire isn't the only barrier to maintaining our water facilities. The hallmark of modern infrastructure development litigation. The threat of litigation drives the paralysis by analysis approach to planning projects, and frivolous litigation against worthy projects stops them in their tracks. These days have r- real costs that are ultimately borne borne by reclamation's, water and power customers, as well as the American people as a whole. As prolonged drought continues to stress local communities, farmers and electricity suppliers, each year trapped in bureaucratic gridlock is a year of to capture, store, and deliver water. While many of today's witnesses will highlight the stark reality that so many of our farmers and communities are facing, they will also underscore which ways in which we can streamline permitting and procurement processes to restore efficiency to project construction and sh- and ensure that our water resources aren't wasted. I commend the Trump Administration's recent steps to accelerate federal procurement processes. In particular, Secretarial Order three four four six will streamline the federal procurement process by allowing qualified entities to assume greater responsibility for managing construction and maintenance contracts at reclamation facilities while maintaining proper oversight and accountability. I want to take a moment to thank Scott Cameron, Reclamation's Acting Commissioner, for joining us today to discuss the work the Bureau is doing to deliver on these priorities. We must invest in water infrastructure and eliminate the barriers to construction and reconstruction of federal water projects. If we fail to prioritize this work, catastrophic failures like the Potomac Interceptor collapse which released two hundred and forty-three, million gallons of raw sewage into the Pro Potomac River earlier this year, will become far more common. We cannot afford to let disasters like this become the new normal. With that, I want to thank all of our witnesses flying all the way to Washington to discuss this important topic today, and I look forward to a robust conversation. I now recognize uh the chair of the committee, uh uh or excuse me, the ranking member of the committee, Mister Huffman, for five minutes.

I I was about to accept the promotion there, Madam Chair. Uh, thank you. Good morning folks. I'm gonna pinch hit for the ranking member here from the cheap seats over here in right field. Um, but uh it's good to be here for what I think is a critical conversation in this subcommittee. Um, Congress created what became the Bureau of Reclamation in nineteen O two, at a time when the future of the West depended on serious public investment in water infrastructure. And throughout the twentieth century, that investment paid off with development of dams, canals, reservoirs, hydropower facilities, that helped establish cities, sustain agricultural lands, and deliver reliable power and water to millions, we still rely on that infrastructure today. But now much much of the West is facing a full-blown water crisis. The Colorado River is under extraordinary stress. Reservoirs are shrinking, snowpack is declining, infrastructure is aging. Uh, new strategies and technologies are emerging if we choose to invest in them. Meanwhile, climate-driven water scarcities make in the West's water future more dangerous, And what's been the administration's response? Well, proposing a budget that would slash reclamation funding, make deep cuts to the army core, eliminate the Water Smart program entirely, all on the heels of the administration's stubborn obsession with gutting the very agency staff who help Americans modernize water systems, move projects forward and prepare for the future. Within the last year, reclamation has lost more than two thousand roughly thirty eight percent of the workforce gone. We're hearing from stakeholders about delayed projects, delayed funding, the loss of relationships and institutional knowledge. Uh, even your own agency, Mister Acting Commissioner, um, has said that reclamation can't operate normally with these staffing levels. Now, Mister Cameron, I'm glad you're here. Uh, I don't think all of this is your fault by any means, but I gotta be candid, I have never seen an administration so weirdly divorced from the reality and needs of the American people, because while families around this country are worried about rising utility bills, losing access to health care, shelling out an app uh prices like we've never seen for gasoline because of the war in Iran. Trump and his cronies are completely consumed by ideological crusades, by bizarre vanity projects, None of which do anything to help the American people, and in the case of water, they are consumed with cuts and more cuts and more cuts. Apparently, there's always enough money for tax giveaways to billionaires, culture war nonsense, ridiculous projects to stroke the president's ego. But when it comes to helping communities drought proof their water systems, modernize aging infrastructure, lowering costs through efficiency and conservation investments, suddenly we're told, we just have to tighten our belts. Trump really thinks the American people would be happy to help pay for a massive arch that is a tribute to himself, or a gilded ballroom, um, instead of these critical priorities that will help solve the water crisis. This tells you everything you need to know about these, uh, misplaced delusional priorities at the highest level of this administration. So the president, uh, is singularly obsessed with remaking our country in his image and using taxpayer dollars to do so. Uh, but today uh, I'm glad that we have an opportunity to try to change the subject back to some real investments and policies that would help secure the long-term health of the West. Fiscal responsibility in these investments, uh, grounded in science, serious planning, all of this can help meet the reality of climate change. We need a holistic approach and a twenty-first century water strategy that the realities that we're living in, and that means maintaining critical infrastructure while investing in conservation groundwater recharge recycling and reuse water use efficiency watershed restoration better data collection, and forecasting, and smart storage. That's what forward-looking water management looks like in the twenty-first century. And we look towards um reclamations next century uh hoping that we will ensure that all communities have access to safe reliable water, which requires necessary investments today. Uh, Indian water rights have to be part of this, Indian water rights settlements. They provide certainty for tribes and other water users, and allow long overdue projects to move forward. I urge my colleagues to advance all of the pending tribal settlement bills before our committee because they have been stuck here for too long. I hope this committee can break free from President Trump's ideological narcissistic proclivities, and make investments in maintaining existing infrastructure while building a more resilient diversified water system that the West will need for the next century. And with that, I yield back.

I will now introduce our first witness panel, Mister Scott Cameron, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Water and Science, exercising the delegated authority of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation in Washington DC. Under committee rules, you must limit your oral statement

Uh, thank you, Ch- uh, Chair Hageman and uh, Mister Huffman and members of the subcommittee.

Thank you.

I really appreciate the opportunity to spend some time with you this morning to talk about the bureau of reclamation and how we're preparing for the next century and continuing to deliver reliable water and power across the seventeen western states. Reclamation manages an extensive portfolio of water and power infrastructure, nearly five hundred dams, three hundred reservoirs, which are capable of storing a hundred and forty-nine million acre feet of water. as well as water conveyance systems and eighty-one power facilities. Some of these assets are more than a century old. Reclamation systems provide water to a hundred and forty thousand farmers, roughly one in five in the west. And they collectively irrigate over ten million acres of land. Reclamation also delivers ten trillion gallons of water annually to uh more than uh thirty-one million people. Since Reclamation's founding in nineteen O two, Reclamation has supported economic growth through major federal investments in water infrastructure. Reclamation facilities are managed under two structures, reserved works, which Reclamation owns and operates, and transferred works, where Reclamation retains the ownership but delegates O and M responsibility to local non-federal uh entities. Roughly two-thirds of Reclamation's facilities fall into the transferred works category. which we think has proven to be a model for efficient and cost-effective um delivery of water and power by empowering our local partners. Over time, federal oversight requirements have evolved. Since nineteen ninety-five, Congress has authorized the transfer of title for selected reclamation project features, dams, canals, buildings, easements, and so on, to project beneficiaries. Historically, each transfer separate legislation and followed collaborative process that included NEPA compliance and stakeholder engagement. The Dingell Act um enacted in nineteen twenty nineteen modernized the system by granting reclamation programmatic authority to transfer title for eligible facilities without separate congressional action. This streamlined approach improves efficiency and predictability for our partners. Reclamation has completed forty-seven title transfers to date, including fifteen under the Dingo Act. The agency is actively advancing seventeen additional transfers and evaluating several new proposals. On November twenty, twenty, twenty-five, as Chair Hageman observed, Secretary Burgum issued Secretarial Order thirty-four forty-six, a major shift in Reclamation's project delivery model, designed to cut red tape and reduce costs. for our water users, for our power users, for the appropriators. And uh enable us to stretch the the dollars that uh this committee and your colleagues on appropriations provide. The order encourages partner-led procurement, in which qualified non-federal entities, often transferred work operators or tribes, take the lead on delivering reclamation funded construction projects when those partners can demonstrate the necessary financial capacity, technical expertise, and management capability. Our goal is to get more work done faster, cheaper, but still done right. Our experience shows that partners, including some you'll be hearing from later on this morning, can often complete procurement processes faster and at lower cost than the federal government. Because many partners ultimately reimburse the treasury, for project costs. This means that appropriated funds can stretch further, supporting more projects across the West. Early applications are underway in California with the Friant Water Authority and the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority uh to move ahead consistent with the new secretary's order. Reclamation continues to partner with organizations such as the Family Farm Alliance and the National Water Resources Association. to raise awareness of these new procurement opportunities, including those related to maintenance work on certain reserved works facilities. Reclamation is committed to strengthening its partnerships and delivering measurable improvements for taxpayers and uh water and power users. As these reforms advance with continued input from local partners, water contractors should expect faster project starts and completions, reduced costs, clearer accountability and more resilient water infrastructure across the West. Uh, thank you very much uh for holding this hearing. Really appreciate the opportunity to interact with all of you, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mister Cameron, we very much appreciate you being here today, and I will now recognize the members for five minutes each for questioning, and I'm going to begin with myself. Frivolous litigation often leaves critical time-sensitive projects trapped in planning purgatory, delaying delivery, inflating cost, and jeopardizing reliability. Can you elaborate on how litigation and even the threat of litigation affects Reclamation's ability to efficiently and cost-effectively advance worthy projects?

Yeah, uh thank you for that question. Uh, it affects it in a a number of ways. Uh, for one thing, it slows down uh the entire process. For any really significant large uh capital investment, there's always a the risk of of environmental litigation. And what's frustrating is more often than not, that litigation is process-based as opposed to substantively-based. Uh so that inevitably slows things down. Uh under this administration, the Council of Environmental Quality has modified its existing NEPA regs to try to make things uh simpler while still substantively complying with the law and at interior uh we've issued internal policy consistent with that. Interestingly uh several weeks ago i met with the fourteen senators from the colorado river basin and on a bipartisan basis several of them said look if we have a real crisis on the colorado and we need to get things done and if there are any environmental statutes that are slowing things down tell us what they are, and maybe we can legislate to to clear out some of the unhelpful bureaucratic paperwork. So, we haven't followed up with those fourteen senators yet, but uh I I found it, you know, reassuring that um your colleagues on the other side of of the capital, you know, also recognize that sometimes these statutes can get in the way of accomplishing good things for their constituents.

Well, I appreciate that. How much time and funding are diverted toward legal management and procedural compliance rather than actual construction and modernization efforts. Do you have any kind of an estimate?

Don't have a a dollar estimate or a time estimate, but I I I will tell you just from personal observation, and I've worked in or around the department for my entire forty odd year career, um, we're constantly asking ourselves, uh, regardless of the merits of the analyses that we're putting forward what's our litigation risk and who's gonna be suing us over uh over what aspect so there's a lot of time and energy and money frankly spent on dotting every i and crossing every t to try to minimize the risk of litigation even when substantively it has no impact on on what the preferred alternative might be

ok in twenty twenty one reclamation it would need eleven point nine billion dollars over the next thirty years to fund our may to fund major rehabilitation and replacement projects. Just four years later, that estimate had more than doubled to twenty four point seven billion dollars. Despite Congress providing unprecedented levels of funding for reclamation infrastructure during that same period, do you know why there was such a dramatic increase in the estimated cost? for this kind of major rehabilitation work.

There are several. Uh, there are several factors at play, uh, chair Hageman. One is, as you observed earlier, when you throw an awful lot of money at, uh, at an issue, the, the prices that you get tend to go up, just because the sly, the supply can't, uh, expand, uh, as fast as, uh, the scope of the demand. So there definitely has been price inflation. Um, at least the last several years. That I think has uh, uh, is not as severe uh, as it has been say three or four years ago, because frankly there's less money in in the pipeline uh, at this point. So that's a mixed blessing um, of of course. Also, the delays associated with with lawsuits uh, mean that projects are delayed. And that means you can't move as fast as you might otherwise like to, on a construction project. It means sometimes you're delayed uh in entirely for moving ahead in construction. And in the meantime, inflation is happening, you know, in our economy. So the the the the prices that bidders are willing to give us uh go up. Because the price they gave us a year and a half ago isn't the same price they're prepared to give us now.

So, is there something that we could do to reverse that trend? Do you have any suggestions?

Well, I'd look forward to following up with uh with potentially of of this committee but certainly the fourteen colorado senators about what they might be able to do to uh explore you know waiving or streamlining certain environmental statutes on the colorado uh but another thing that this committee uh could do uh would be to uh not authorize new projects until we have feasibility studies as opposed to appraisal level studies almost inevitably when you go from a high level appraisal study to a detailed engineering feasibility study you discover that the price tag of a project goes up so congress would have better information about what it was getting itself into if you will if we waited until we had feasibility studies before uh authorizing uh you know a major new investments i'm not sure that would cut costs but at least it would provide better information to the Congress about what the price tag is likely to be on these things.

Alright. Thank you for that information, Mr. Cameron. The chair now recognizes Mr. Huffman for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Mr. Cameron, welcome, uh, in response to the the chair's questions about litigation as one of the factors that may complicate moving projects forward, I I did note that you you kept bringing it back to the statutes. And I've been in Congress for fourteen years now. I have watched Congress change the statutes. I mean, NEPA has been changed over and over and over. But one thing that hasn't changed is this broken record refrain that all of our problems are NEPA and that we just have to keep changing it as if there is some change that will fix the delays and the complications and the other challenges that hold projects up. Um, what I don't hear us talking about right now is the fact projects are stalled because the Bureau of Reclamation is operating on a skeleton crew. I hear this from water managers around the West. There aren't people there to answer the phones. Nothing slows a project down, like having no one home uh at an office of the Bureau of Reclamation. So, while, you know, the broken record always brings us back to the statutes, the more obvious and immediate fix if we care about immediate relief for communities that are suffering through this water crisis, would be having a fully staffed and functioning uh federal partner on water management in the west. So I wanna ask you about the the fiscal twenty-seven budget. Um, the administration's response to uh this moment is a twenty-two percent cut to reclamation uh and eliminating, again I'll I'll say eliminating, uh completely zeroing out the Water Smart program, one of the most successful and broadly supported drought resilience programs we have. So I I just wanna understand that You know, how do you reconcile eliminating programs that have a relatively small investment, but that do produce good bang for the buck, measurable returns on drought resiliency, water efficiency and ecosystems, um with a stated commitment to long-term water supply reliability?

Appreciate that uh question, Mr. Huffman. Uh, let me start off by by saying we from very beginning of its administration we've been particularly concerned about being able to maintain our relationships, particularly with our water and power user customers. And as there have been staffing changes um at the bureau over the last uh a year and a half or so, um we have done everything we possibly could to protect the positions that were associated with um water and uh and power uh delivery. Uh more broadly on your your question about the the president's budget, as as you know having seen lots of presidents over the last fourteen years are always difficult decisions are always trade-offs. Um and uh the administration uh looking at the big picture you know government-wide determined that uh you know water smart was was not a a high priority. That having been said, as always, Reclamation is very interested in implementing whatever law, ap- appropriations and otherwise, that the Congress in its wisdom decides to provide us.

Yep. That that's what I really was uh getting at, um, Mister Mister Acting Commissioner, I know that uh Secretary Burgum, when he was in here uh last week agreed that the Colorado River would benefit from additional resources not included in the budget. Um, he appeared uh, he said that in response to a question about Water Smart uh being cut. And so um, I guess what I'm wondering is this slashing of a, this elimination of a a working project with broad bipartisan support. Is that a serious proposal? Or is this something that Congress will sorta clean up uh in the appropriations process? Not to put too fine a point on it.

We uh always look forward to getting direction from the congress on what it wants us to do and how much money it wants us to spend on that. Uh I

You've done this before.

I've testified before this committee before, yes sir, and uh So it's it's not my first rodeo. Interestingly enough, you mentioned uh uh NEPA earlier, um in many cases it's no longer NEPA, it's a national historic preservation act that is is is slowing down of the these projects that Because as you've observed, there've been lots of changes to uh to to to NEPA.

Okay. Fair enough. I I uh don't have much more time, but I do wanna just ask if you could confirm the the current staffing level at reclamation and the total reduction uh since the start of this administration and also whether you're seeking to fill any of those vacancies.

Uh, we are definitely um uh seeking to to to fill vacancies uh we have some, I've forgotten the exact. number we've got something in the order of a hundred vacancy announcements you know out on on the street and uh you know we are prioritizing the areas in the country where we think we have the biggest problems right now like colorado and uh and california you know being uh among them uh it's it's also i think worth uh you know pointing out that under the one big beautiful bill act we have allocated eight hundred and eighty nine million dollars to uh water infrastructure projects um uh across the west a big chunk of which were in california as i know you know thank you

the chair now recognizes mister bentz from oregon

thank you madam chair um thank you for being here um lots of bureau of reclamation issues in my district back in oregon the klamath being one of them and i know that you were or the agency was recently sued uh, by various folks that are unhappy with the approach the agency is taking when it comes to stored water in Klamath lake. And so, I'm just curious, uh, at this particular point where what where that lawsuit is and and what the, what the agency's thought is about, if you can comment, uh, where that litigation might go.

Um, as I'm sure you understand, I can't comment directly on the status of litigation. That's the justice department's call. Uh, I will make the observation that as as you know better than I do, the the Klamath system is very complex. There are lots of different stakeholder groups. There are lots of different uh structures. Uh, there are multiple Indian tribes for which the department has a trust responsibility. Uh, and uh, we've got endangered species uh in in the mix um a as well. This last year, kind to us and there was ample water in the Klamath system. In the coming year it looks like nature is being much stingier. Uh, so there are going to be uh a lot of people who are a lot unhappier this coming year than they they were in in the last year, were and constantly in touch with uh with the stakeholders in the Klamath Basin. And uh I'm I'm pleased for instance that with salmon having uh, found themselves in places where they haven't been for many years. Our colleagues in the National Marine Fishery Service have been able to make sure there's no regulatory impact under the ESA if uh salmon stray into places where they haven't been for an extended period of time so we're doing what we can to work with all the stakeholders to forge a path forward but ultimately, we're at the mercy of mother nature.

Uh, thank you for that. Uh, attention and concern is a super important a part of my district. Uh, let's talk about tidal transfer for just a moment. The Klymouth irrigation district has been asking for years for assistance in that space. I understand the complexities of it. My understanding now is that the department is trying to determine how much is owed by that uh, particular um, irrigation district. Uh, I just would encourage uh, whatever you can do to um, advance that, uh, we would, I would hope you do. The, those folks are, are terrifically uh, interested in this. I wanna shift to One other thing, but before I go, I just wanna mention uh, Ranking Member Huffman mentioned something about uh, a NEPA being amended uh many times, and that would be incorrect. It's been amended twice in the last thirty years. Uh, he may have been talking about agency changes, cuz the agencies change approach to NEPA all the time. But when it comes to Congress actually weighing in on NEPA twice in the last thirty years. Um, and and um, so I just wanna call that out. It's a tough, tough tough challenge uh to try to reel in uh the overreach that's occurred under that particular statute. Um, let me just shift to Canadian water for a moment. I know we're renegotiating the Canadian treaty and the, but there is immense amounts of storage available in Canada, which is kind of the focus of of those discussions. And I would hope that the Bureau is involved in some way in in trying to figure out how to use that enormous amount of storage to the benefit of the uses of water by the Bureau in the United States. Um, this is a tough issue. State Department's pretty much involved in it. Are you involved in those discussions?

The uh, the Bureau of Reclamation and uh, my boss, the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science are both involved in in in those discussions. You know, um, a as you've observed, the State Department has a role, Army Corps of Engineers has a role, Bureau of Reclamation has a role. So uh, And I know one of the the the primary, the two primary issues are uh flood control and power. Uh, so those are among the the critical things that are on the negotiating uh, you know, table. Um, so yes, we're very much involved and uh paying close attention as things evolve up there.

My last point, it has to do with with the biomass bill that we uh uh brought the last two weeks ago. And it's an extraordinarily important bill for many, many reasons, has bipartisan support. And, but it, it focuses on how to generate additional money to remove uh, unneeded fuel from forests. This is incredibly important because it appears to me, if you have two thousand trees growing per acre, they're using a lot of water that could otherwise make its way into our system. So I'm hopeful that the agency will support our efforts on the biomass bill because I think it has a lot to do with additional water. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mister Gray.

Thank you, uh, Madam Chair. Welcome, Mister Chairman. Adam Gray from California. I represent the northern San Joaquin Valley, most productive agricultural region in the world and, uh, home, uh, to the CVP, an important project, uh, that we depend on, that, uh, delivers water in seven of the top ten agricultural counties in California. And I've got all kinds of concerns. You know, I grew up, my family's in the dairy business. We had a dairy supply and feed store and uh my father used to say that uh success is simple. Find things that work and do more of them. And find things that don't work and do less of them. And You know, the ranking member talks about the broken record refrain of just cut environmental regulation, uh, streamline, et cetera. But after my first year and a half in Congress, I oftentimes feel like I'm stuck between two sides. On my left, I've got the talk more, spend more crowd. And on my right, I've got the cut everything, and then change the subject crowd. The cuts that have occurred under you are concerning in that we're not able to operate these projects. And, and even more concerning, I thought I heard you say earlier that we should stop authorizing projects, that that's the answer to our problems. Um, I think our, our, our, the answer to our problems is to, i- i- is to cut out the talk more, spend more, and, and, and the just cutting everything, even when it's not working, right? We need to be able to deliver projects, we need to actually be building, uh, and expanding upon our water infrastructure and, you know, a year and a half in, frankly, I've seen very little out of this Congress or this administration, that shows any signs of seriousness about addressing this problem. So I, I guess I would ask you, how can Congress work with reclamation to build new water infrastructure, uh, and to upgrade, you know, the technologies, the formulas, uh, the regulatory uh schemes etcetera uh so that we can actually get to a goal here instead of just perpetually uh being ineffective on both sides of the conversation.

uh thank you congressman for that for that question um i hope i didn't misspeak earlier i wasn't saying congress should not authorize new projects what i was saying is it would be better if congress had feasibility studies in hand as opposed to appraisal level studies in hand uh before you authorize new projects cause you just have better information on what the cost of the thing was going to be um but uh to your to your your broader question one of the things uh secretary uh um has suggested is that we take better advantage of technology particularly artificial intelligence So for instance, uh this year we have uh earmarked within our appropriate dollars about four million dollars to figure out how we can use artificial intelligence, better data, more science, to more intelligently understand the San Francisco Bay Delta and uh what the real uh implications are for the fish that we're trying to protect. So we're hoping, working cooperatively with the state of California, better science, better data, leveraged by artificial intelligence, uh, will uh give us uh more flexibility in the Bay Delta and enable us to uh to make better uh dec decisions. So that's one thing I wanted to share with you. Um, an- another is as I've um I mentioned briefly to Congressman Huffman earlier, we're looking forward in uh just a few weeks to be meeting with the governor's staff to figure out if there's a path forward on uh working together uh for greater consistency between uh oops i do something wrong ok um uh and we're also very interested in working with the department of water resources in california to see if we can get the state water resources control board to take what i think both the the state government and reclamation think a a more intelligent approach to d sixteen forty one which i think has been um you know perceived as uh unnecessarily rigid and producing uh unintended negative results uh i'd also point out under the one big beautiful bill act uh we we simply provided five hundred and forty million dollars to improve um uh infrastructure in california the vast majority of that um uh south of the bay delta um toward dealing with conveyance issues um uh and with um you know a number of our our water districts uh in in that area so those are a few thoughts i wanted to share

appreciate that uh and i yield back

thank you the chair now recognizes mister crank

madam chair i i just would request unanimous consent to enter something into the record if i might

yes

um this is a july twenty twenty five uh crs

report on the subject that, Mister Bentz brought up, um, apparently claiming that, uh, NEPA has only been modified two times in the last, uh, generation. In fact, uh, this report shows that categorical exclusions and other, uh, streamlining, uh, have happened over a dozen times just in, in recent years.

Without objection, so ordered. Mister Crank?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Acting Commissioner Cameron,

Thank you. Thank you.

I wanna ask you about the ongoing Colorado River negotiations. The city of Colorado Springs relies on this river for half of its water supplies, and so the outcome of your ongoing uh NEPA analysis and final uh rot are critical to my home district. Uh last week, Reclamation's preferred preliminary alternative that you shared with the seven basin states was leaked. Um, I wanna commend your team because this looks like a real operating plan that I think water users in Colorado have been eager to see uh from the feds. That said, I've heard two concerns about the plan. One, that it could expand federal influence over upper basin reservoir operations, despite the secretary not serving as the water master in the upper basin. And two, given how long these negotiations have already taken, uh a ten year framework with operating these details revisited every two years, may create continued uncertainty for water users across the basin. Uh, Commissioner, what's your response to both of these concerns from water users in my district?

Um, you know, Congressman, uh, I was able to brief Secretary Burgum, I think about six weeks after he was confirmed by the Senate on the situation in Colorado. And, um, he he gave me three marching orders. One was he wanted to be constantly, intensely involved in talking with the seven basin states. And as a result of that, between early April and around Christmas, I was flying out west for a day or two, talking to those seven commissioners pretty much every other week. And if we we have Zoom calls, it seems, uh, at least twice a week, uh, at this point. The second um um direction was he really, really, really preferred a seven state deal. as opposed to being forced to rely purely on his statutory authorities, either as Water Master or within the records of decision on the upper initial units. Um, and the third was, don't forget, I've got significant trust responsibility for Indian tribes. So as these discussions move ahead, make sure we're mindful of the implications for for Indian tribes. On on on your on on your point, We'd love to have a twenty year deal, uh, or even longer. Uh, mother nature has put us in a predicament where there's an awful lot of uncertainty. Both Lakes Powell and Mead are at very low elevations. And, uh, frankly, the the the seven states are are not in a position where they could agree today, right now, to a four year deal, let alone a twenty year deal, because of of of of of the uncertainties that we're dealing with. Um, and I realize that anyone in the business community, whether it's a farmer or a banker across those seven states, would really like to have twenty years of certainty, so that they can make uh capital investments. But um, we're we're we're we're not there at this point. And in terms of the upper initial units, there are different perspectives between interior and the upper basin states on what the secretary's authorities are or are not. Uh, our current posture is we're gonna be operating within the records of decision, um, uh, with regard to the, um, uh, upper initial units, recognizing that the secretary does have emergency authority, uh, if if necessary, but we're hoping that, uh, we can simply operate within the rods for the time being at least.

OK. Yeah, as as these discussions continue amid a a backdrop of, you know, the drought that we have, is the bureau evaluating how investments in some of these aging water uh, storage and conveyance infrastructure uh that's out there now could improve drought resilience.

Um, uh, yes, sir. So the secretary met in person with the seven governors, or in the case of California, Secretary Crowfoot, uh, a few months ago, and he had a teams meeting um with them all, all seven of them very recently. And he said, look, if you have ideas for projects that would involve federal investment with non-federal cost share, that would help alleviate the situation in the Colorado, give me a list. Uh, and uh, he said preferably a list that all seven of you agree to. Well, such a list has not manifested itself. We we've gotten bits and pieces. That having been said, uh, it's pretty clear that uh, more water recycling is part of the future of the Colorado, more desal is the future of uh uh of the Colorado, and in a few limited instances, uh, more water storage may be practical. Um, so it's a, it's a difficult situation.

Alright. Thank you. Thanks, Madam Chair.

The chair now recognizes Mister Soto.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Assistant Secretary Cameron, thanks for being here today. Uh, you know, we've talked about some western water, but I'm gonna turn your attention to the southeast. It may surprise you, but Florida's in a historic drought right now. Uh, we see heading t into the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of our nation, that the state is already warning people about fireworks and uh the potential for wildfires. Um we're also home to a lot of major water bodies that are um in critical uh state right now. We have the Northern Everglades, the Kissimmee Channel Lakes, we appreciate the partnership with Interior on the work we've done so far on uh on restoring the Kissimmee Channel Lakes, including Big Lake Tohopokaliga, which we're working on now together. the Kissimmee River, and also East Lake Topicalaga, which has already been restored. Um, we also see some work on the Indian River Lagoon, nine point four million over the last couple of years to help on the federal level, along with state partners. And then of course, this budget, um, does prioritize some Everglades funding, which we're very grateful for. Um, but we've seen over twenty one hundred wildfires in state and federal lands, consuming about a hundred and three thirty six thousand acres. It's also affecting our farmers, our growers, and our our ranchers. And so, uh, what can be done through either the reclamation program or through other areas of the budget that you're working on to help with this major drought and to help our, our local farmers?

Um, uh, reclamation, uh, is not active in in in Florida. Uh, but I know at a broader level, I'm aware of the fact that, uh, the administration is unifying under new um wildland fire service, forest service and interior department activity to uh to deal with wildfire. And you're absolutely right Congressman, uh wildfire is a serious problem across the west. There is a significant fire going on in California, you know uh right now, you know as as as we sit here. Um and uh while I'm I'm a little bit out of my jurisdiction based on my past I think it's a combination of proper fuels management, effective suppression, uh, better data and and scientific information, um, and, uh, working with the local communities, uh, so that there's a more coordinated approach to, to, to deal, uh, uh, with, uh, with fire. But, uh, I'd be happy to, um, flag for the, the new chief of our fire service, your interest in this issue and, and encourage him to, to follow up with you, sir.

And we did have Secretary Burgum here who, where we talked extensively about the importance of the Northern Everglades, the Everglades, Indian River Lagoon and others. So we do appreciate prioritization of some of that and certainly, as you know, the Congress may come in to help with some of that funding as well, which has been discussed already. Um, you also had talked about uh Indian country. You know, we have the Seminoles and the Miccosukee in Florida and some of them do very well, but others are struggling. And so What what do you think the vision is to help out with some of these projects? You had touched upon it already a little bit, for some of these physically constrained tribes, for us to help with economic development for agriculture, for uh other areas that they're trying to pursue.

Um, I can, I'm really most familiar with the the tribes in the Colorado River Basin, uh you know to be honest with you Congressman. And one thing that struck me, and there are about twenty-nine tribes in the Colorado Basin. in my conversations with the tribes, and I've had probably ten or more in-person meetings and lots of of teams' meetings, I'm really struck by the fact that the tribes, almost down to an entity, really are taking the big picture view. They say, look, uh, there are forty million people in this basin and we need to work together, Indian and non-Indian, to to deal with the problem. So I'm really im- impressed by their very positive, constructive of your big picture um attitude of the of the tribes. In particular situations uh we have um enacted water rights settlements with tribes, uh that we are doing the very best to uh to honor, given the difficult difficult hydrological situation. Uh some tribes have senior water rights, some have junior water rights. We've been working very closely with the Colorado River Indian tribe,

And and

which is

if I may, cuz my time is limited, Mister Secretary, I because of the drought a lot of these tribes are going to be detrimentally affected. And so as we look to both local farmers and growers and local business owners, um, we wanna continue to make sure we're we're keeping our local tribes in Florida in mind, too. It's similar to the issues that you're gonna see in other areas of the country, and I appreciate you being here. And I yield back.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes uh Miss Stansbury from New Mexico. Good morning.

Mister Cameron, it's great to have you here. Uh Assistant Secretary, as you know we go way back and others on the committee may not know this, but I've known you for fifteen years because in addition to your current role working in water and science you are a former OMB-er like me and at one point you even had the same portfolio I had uh working on USGS and it was actually a conversation with you that ultimately enabled me to draft the bipartisan water data act and get it passed in New Mexico. cuz we based it on the geospatial data uh program that you helped to spearhead. So I appreciate that you're there at Interior and I appreciate that you're a steady hand, especially in this moment. So where I wanna focus is on the drought that's happening in New Mexico right now, and especially in the Rio Grande Basin. Certainly the Colorado River Basin gets a lot of prime time and it does affect New Mexico because we are one of the upper basin states. But we are truly facing a catastrophic drought right now in New Mexico. I got briefed yesterday by the weather service on their latest updates, as well as our Middle Rio Grande Conservancy district, which is a pr- a quasi-government entity that's local, but was, is a reclamation project. And basically, as I'm sure you're aware, we're in severe drought conditions across the Southwest through May and June right now. This is New Mexico's outlook for the next two months. This is the fire outlook. We are looking at one of the worst fire seasons for the next two months that we're likely to have. But there is some good news, which is that the weather service told us yesterday that due to a strong El Nino, they are expecting monsoon rains to hit around mid-July or August. So that will give us some relief, hopefully later in the summer. But what I wanna emphasize right now is that we have literally No one that I have spoken to has seen this low of snowpack, this low of water flows, and this severe of drought in our lifetimes. No one. In fact, right now there is a surge of water going through Al- Albuquerque in the middle of Rio Grande, because of environmental flows that they had to release from one of our dams, from Abiquiu Dam. But the river is predicted to go dry on Sunday. It's May. No one remembers this in modern history. July, we've had a few drying episodes, June, late June, but never in May. And our conservancy district, which is our largest irrigation district in central New Mexico, has already cut water off for our irrigators. It's May. If you're a farmer, you're literally just putting your crops in the ground right now. Our chili growers, our onion growers, our irrigators, they don't know how they're gonna get through this season. People are talking about having to tap wells that were dug in the nineteen fifties, in the most severe drought prior to this, in modern history. It is going to be a potentially catastrophic year if we don't get those monsoon rains. And as you all know, the weather does what the weather does, and so we can't even predict that. And so, the reason why I'm bringing all of this to your attention today is that we need the Bureau of Reclamation. We're gonna need your help to get through this drought, and we also need your commitment to actually address the infrastructure problems on the system so that we can operate the system to meet the requirements. So in particular, what I wanna make sure that I get a commitment to today is to fix El Vado Dam. It is a dam that was built to store water for our irrigators that the Bear of Reclamation tried to and the repair failed, and because that repair failed, our irrigators are not getting water during the worst drought in recorded history. And the Bureau of Reclamation has started the entire process over. Like they're, they, they went back to ground zero. And everybody back home is like, what are we gonna do if they don't fix El Vado Dam? And so, I'm asking you, please expedite the consideration of repairing that dam and getting it operational as soon as possible because literally the livelihoods of our communities will depend on that. Can I get your commitment to that?

Uh, uh, yes, Congressman, we will, when I get back to the office, I will arrange a more detailed briefing on the status of Avado. And I really appreciate the predicament your constituents have. And, uh, they are lucky to be served by a fellow OMB alum, if I if I can be so bold as to as to say that.

Absolutely.

Uh.

And Uh, because I only have a few more moments, I was grateful to hear that you are working with tribes. Can I also get your commitment that the Bureau of Reclamation will directly consult with our tribes in Pueblos on the operations of this system? Because we have had some challenges over the last few months.

Um, yeah, yes certainly. Usually we uh we ask to, we wait for the tribes to ask us, but we will do some outreach if you feel that we have not been proactive enough.

Oh, they have been asking. Yes, absolutely. So we need the Bureau of Reclamation to go directly to our Pueblos. Uh, it is not sufficient to just go through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We need Bureau of Reclamation to go directly to the Pueblos and Tribes and Consult. And, uh, Madam Chair, I know I'm out of time, but let me just say the proposed cuts in Water Smart are not feasible. So I hope, Mister Cameron, when Congress passes that Water Smart money, please help us get it to the Rio Grande Basin. We need that money. Thank you. I yield back.

Th thank you. Uh, I wanna thank you, um, uh, Mister Secretary Cameron for your testimony and the members for your questions today. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witness, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. And now we're going to move on to our second panel for the day. And while the clerk is resetting the table, I will introduce the witnesses for this panel. Mister J. Scott Petersen, Director of Water Policy for the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority from Las Benos, California. Miss Jennifer Patrick, Project Manager for the Milk River Joint Board of Control from Javera, Montana. And Mister Shiviji Deishmukh, General Manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California from Los Angeles. And finally, Miss Samantha Barncastle, Executive Director of the Family Farm Alliance from Las Cruces, New Mexico. Let me remind the witnesses that under committee rules you must limit your oral statements five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the button on the microphone, and as you probably heard a few moments ago, we use timing lights. When you b begin the light will turn yellow. When you have one minute li uh when you begin the light will turn green. When you have one minute remaining, the light will turn yellow. And at the end of five minutes the light will turn red. And I will ask you to please complete your statement. I will also allow all of you to complete your testimony before the members begin their questioning. I now recognize Mister Peterson for five minutes.

Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, members of the subcommittee, thank you. I'm Scott Peterson, Chief Strategic and Administrative Officer of the San Luis and Delta Mindota Water Authority. The Water Authority's twenty-seven members serve approximately one point two million acres of the nation's most productive farmland, nearly two million Silicon Valley residents, and over a hundred thousand acres of managed wetlands critical importance to the Pacific flyway. You asked what the federal reclamation program should look like in its second century. My answer is simple. It should look like what Congress envisioned when it passed the reclamation act. The original bargain was clear. Congress would finance the capital to build the infrastructure. Contractors would repay those construction costs. And once repaid, except for the major dams, the water contractors would take operational control under section six of the reclamation act. Federal investment, local repayment, local stewardship. This is not a radical idea. This is the law. We're not here asking for a major overhaul of reclamation. We're asking Congress to honor the framework it created, and to remove the obstacles that have prevented it from functioning. A fact that should alarm this subcommittee. Right now, California's major reservoirs are essentially full. Shasta's at ninety percent, Folsom's at ninety-seven percent, New Melonis is at seventy-eight percent. Yesterday, reclamation updated its allocation to provide twenty-five percent of agricultural contracted water supply. This is not a drought. This is a structural failure, a mismatch between water that exists and a regulatory framework that prevents its delivery. South of built agricultural contractors have averaged less than forty percent of their contract supply over the last decade. In the last fifteen years, they received zero water four times, full allocations only twice. The CVP was built to deliver reliability. That was the promise and it's not being kept. The affordability challenge is real and it's getting worse. The Reclamation Act was also built on the beneficiary pays principle. Those who receive water bear the cost of delivering it. It's a sound principle, but it's breaking down and Congress needs to acknowledge why. First, the funding model underlying reclamation projects has fundamentally changed. Congress no longer provides the full up-front capital investment that defined the reclamation partnership. Increasingly, water contractors are being asked to finance major rehabilitation and infrastructure investments for federally owned facilities. What was once a manageable long-term repayment obligation has become a staggering up-front capital burden that many water users simply cannot absorb. Second, water contractors are being asked to bear the full cost of operating and maintaining a system that's increasingly operated for environmental purposes. Operational constraints imposed by biological opinions and water quality requirements have redirected enormous volumes of water away from contractors who are still paying O and M costs calibrated to full project deliveries. The public benefits from food security, improved public health, and environmental uses provided by the CVP. The public is not paying for them. Contractor rate payers are. This is not what the beneficiary pays principle contemplates. It's time to update the arrangement, to reflect modern realities and to rebalance obligations accordingly. If the CVP is now a multi-purpose environmental management system, and in significant measures it is, then the cost sharing framework needs to reflect that. The Delta Mendota canal was built in nineteen fifty one. It's experiencing land subsidence that has reduced its conveyance capacity by twenty percent. It's the only conveyance pathway for our entire service area. Its full rehabilitation carries a price tag of approximately two billion dollars. Congress needs to treat these facilities as the critical infrastructure they are. The same way that Congress reacts to major bridge failures. Congress and the administration acknowledge this reality by awarding funding from the one big beautiful bill act, but more is needed. Across the CVP alone, documented rehabilitation needs exceed three point four billion dollars. What about the fish? Thirty years of increasing operational restrictions have not recovered the species those restrictions were intended to protect. Both water users and fish deserve a science-based framework that adapts when results are not being achieved. The partnership framework is one of the most underutilized tools in reclamation. The Water Authority already operates and maintains key CVP facilities. We know these facilities, we're accountable for their performance, and we have a direct interest in delivering projects faster and more cost-effectively. Congress should build on secretary-level order thirty-four forty-six by giving reclamation statutory authority to use cooperative agreements, joint project delivery, and contractor-led implementation for planning, operations, and transferred works rehabilitation. That means reducing duplicative reviews, establishing standard agreements, and allowing qualified operators to help deliver the infrastructure they already operate. This is not a departure from the Reclamation Act's original vision, it is its fulfillment. What are we asking for? First, fund the infrastructure at the scale of the documented backlog demands. Provide multi-year, stable funding, so that projects can be planned and built. Second, fix the cost sharing framework, align O and M obligations with actual water deliveries. Appropriate sufficient funding so the public pays its share of the benefits the CVP provides. The beneficiary pays principle only works if all beneficiaries are at the table. Third, build the partnerships into statute. Give SO thirty four forty six the legal foundation it needs, and power contractors to fulfill reclamation's mission as genuine partners, and manage CVP operations with current science, real performance metrics, and a framework that adapts when operational restrictions are not producing results. The communities, farms, and ecosystems that depend on this project, and the fish that share the same watershed, are counting on you to do exactly that. Thank you.

Thank you. I now recognize Miss Patrick for five minutes.

Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jennifer Patrick, and I serve as the Project Manager for the Milk River Joint Border Control in North Central Montana. For those of you unfamiliar with the the Milk River project, it was authorized by Congress in nineteen O five, and is one of the oldest Bureau of Reclamation projects. It delivers water across approximately a hundred and twenty-one thousand acres of irrigated farmland which supports farms, ranches, towns, tribal communities, wildlife habitats across all of north central Montana. Our system depends heavily on a trans-basin water delivery transfer between the Saint Mary's River and the Milk River Basin. Without this transfer, parts of the Milk River would run dry six out of ten years. As the project stands, much of the federal infrastructure is now more than a hundred years old, and well beyond its original design life, forcing us to continually patch uh the aging facility in the efforts to prevent a major failure. In June of twenty twenty four, the catastrophic failure of the Saint Mary's Siphon underscores just how critical this system is. The failure involved the loss of two ninety inch siphons that are essential for moving water through a gravity-fed system. When the failure happened, water deliveries across seven hundred and twenty nine river miles were immediately threatened. Under normal federal processes, a project of this magnitude would have taken years to restore. Instead, through the type of stakeholder-led partnership model, we're talking about today in secretary order three four four six. The Milk River Joint Border Control was able to take the lead in the coordination and project delivery. Through strong partnerships with bureau of reclamation, contractors, tribal coordination, state agencies, and local stakeholders, we were able to move quickly under extremely difficult circumstances. What is being proposed in this order is not new to the Milk River Joint Border Control. In fact, we already operate under similar provisions through a facility transfer agreement. That framework has built, helped us build really strong working relationships with the Bureau of Reclamation, based on shared responsibilities. As a result, decisions have been made quickly, problems were resolved, and construction moved forward without unnecessary delays. Because of this partnership, the system is once again delivering water during a time of extreme drought, restoring a critical life-land in north central Montana. Our experience demonstrates that when federal agencies and local project sponsors work together with flexibility, trust, infrastructure projects can move more efficiently. I need to be very clear, this isn't about bypassing requirements, it's about improving project delivery so agencies and local partners are respond more efficiently. In rural areas like ours, construction already comes with significant obstacles, including long transportation distances, harsh weather, limited supplies, and short construction season. Delays only increase cost through the inflation, remobilization, and contractor contingency pricing. Today, many federal construction projects, because they're so administratively complex, that contractors add substantial contingency costs to simply to account for uncertainty and delays and those costs are ultimately borne by the stakeholders and taxpayers. As we look ahead, we cannot continue waiting for failures to happen before investing in critical water infrastructure. As I mentioned earlier, much of the remaining Milk River system is still more than a hundred years old, And infrastructure failures do not wait for delays. The Milk River project is a is a clear example of both the challenges and the opportunities before us. While significant progress has been made, approximately three hundred million in addition in additional work remains to fully rehabilitate and modernize the rest of our system. We cannot afford to wait uh for another catastrophic failure before making this investment and necessary to protect all of our critical water infrastructure. The Saint Mary's Siphon um project replacement effort serves as a real world example of the type of collaborative and flexible project delivery model that you're encouraging under secretarial order three four four six this order establishes a framework that encourages strong partnerships to address infrastructure and create opportunity for critical projects to move forward before failure occurs but partnerships and flexibility alone are not enough the federal government must also make strategic investments in these critical infrastructure systems like ours to ensure they remain reliable for future generations. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I would be happy to answer questions.

Thank you, Miss Patrick. And I now recognize Congressman Min to introduce Mister Deschmuck.

Uh, thank you so much, Chair Hageman, for the opportunity. I wanna I have the privilege of introducing uh a constituent of mine, uh Mister Shivaji Deschmuck, uh who has served as General Manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California uh since january first of this year and for those of you who don't know the metropolitan water district is the largest provider of drinking water in the united states uh delivering water to not just my constituents in orange county but nearly nineteen million people across southern california mister brings over twenty five years of experience working to ensure reliable water uh access to water in one of the most populated areas in our country and prior to this current role uh served as program manager of the orange county water district in my district, uh where he helped lead the design and construction of the historic groundwater replenishment system the world's largest water purification system. Thanks to his leadership, Orange County has become a national model model of water uh reuse, creating a reliable water supply in an area that's obviously prone to drought. As his testimony will make clear, Shibachi is committed to securing Southern California, uh has access to water now and in the future by addressing some of the most persistent challenges, facing water systems today, including extreme weather, aging infrastructure, and workforce shortages. I'm grateful for his leadership and pleased to welcome him before the committee today.

Thank you. I now recognize Mister Deschmuck for five minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Hageman, uh, Ranking Members Hoyle and Huffman, and Congressmember Min for that kind introduction. Uh, appreciate the opportunity to testify today on Metropolitan's Pure Water Southern California Water Recycling Project and the benefit of the grant we've from the Bureau of Reclamation's large-scale recycled water program. This federal grant program helps fund projects that increase the resilience of Western water supplies and ensure communities have water to meet their needs today, and for the next one hundred years. We serve drinking water to approximately nineteen million people and businesses in more than three hundred cities and communities throughout Southern California we provide the water that sustains Southern California's one point six trillion dollar economy. about half of our region's water supply is imported from metropolitan by metropolitan from northern California and the Colorado River. The remainder comes from the Los Angeles Aqueduct and local sources, including groundwater, recycled water and desalination. We are very proud of our work to reduce region-wide demand, water demand, while continuing to grow our economy and keep water rates affordable. Since nineteen ninety, metropolitan has reduced per person potable water use by forty five percent, driven by nearly one billion dollars in local investment. Still, as Southern California's imported water supplies from both northern Sierras and the Colorado River are increasingly challenged by extreme hydrology we must continue investing in more water efficiency, as well as new local supplies. And we must take action now to ensure the people in the economic engine of Southern California have the water they need for the next century. Our federal partners have provided critical support. to our region's water supply reliability for the past one hundred years, and we look forward to the next one hundred. The State of California and Metropolitan are renowned for our complex and integrated water systems as well as our commitment to water use efficiency. This combination of water reliability has l- long worked with efficiency has long worked together to s- sustain the well-being of our communities, and make California's significant contribution to the national economy possible. However, the challenges we face today are enormous. Over a five year period, we've swung from record levels of water in storage to record-breaking drought conditions and back again. As our precipitation becomes more erratic, the Colorado River is enduring increasingly significant droughts. Metropolitan was founded nearly a century ago to bring Colorado River into Southern California and the river has been the backbone of our supply ever since. Thanks to our strong conservation ethic, long-standing partnerships with agricultural contractors, and funding assistance from the federal government, Metropolitan has added more than two million acre feet into Lake Mead since two thousand seven. So our Pure Water Southern California project, uh, a large regional recycled water project is precisely the kind of large-scale drought-proof supply that Southern California needs to help us manage through these changing hydrologic conditions. It's not just a new supply for Southern California, it's a way to reduce dependence on a river system that supports forty million people in the southwest of the United States. Not only are the, is the Colorado River Basin to benefit from this project, um, more specifically, the states of Nevada and Arizona have expressed uh, not only interest but financial support for the planning of this program. If they were to invest in the actual construction of the project, Metropolitan would be leaving a portion of its Colorado River supply in Lake Mead to be reserved for future access by these states. This is a creative exchange framework that we've been advocating for through our negotiations um um on the Colorado River. But as we all know, planning design and building a recycled water project at the scale of pure water is complex and takes time. it requires close coordination with many partners, including our main partner, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District. Historically, Metropolitan has paid for its capital improvement projects through its tax base and rate payers however the cost and range of major projects needed to adapt to an increasingly volatile hydrologic condition is outpacing our rate payers' ability to afford them even with significant contribution from strategic partners. Metropolitan is grateful for the hundred and twenty-five million dollar grant awarded from the Bureau of Reclamation's large-scale water recycling program for our pure water project. This funding is matched three to one by our own investment in the program, and we only receive grant payments as reimbursement after the agreed-upon work is completed. Staff is dedicated at the uh Bureau of Reclamation staff have been dedicated, responsive, and collaborative, and we appreciate their hard work. In addition, um, and in conclusion, both recycling water grant programs, um, administered by the Bureau of Reclamation require robust annual appropriations, sustained federal support for these grant programs that advance these projects, like Pure Water, are very appreciated and critical at a time like this. Thank you again for the opportunity to present today.

Thank you for your testimony, and I now recognize Miss Barncastle for five minutes.

Good morning, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Samantha Barncastle. I'm the Executive Director of the Family Farm Alliance. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I'm a seventh generation New Mexican from an agricultural family that has called the Rio Grande Valley our home for nearly two hundred years. Like many of the families our organization represents across the West, my family's history is tied directly to water, infrastructure, conservation, and the challenge of making agriculture survive in an arid landscape. Today the Family Farm Alliance is asking Congress to focus on three simple but critical priorities, modernizing and expanding water infrastructure, aligning regulatory and permitting systems with the realities of today's water crisis, and providing the long-term federal partnership and investment necessary to keep agriculture alive and productive. And when you study the history of the West you realize something important, the challenges we face today are not entirely new. From California's Central Valley to the Rio Grande, Western communities once rebuilt diversion structures year after year after floods destroyed them. They fought and litigated over water, and eventually they realized something bigger. None of them could solve these problems alone. That realization led to one of the most transformative moments in Western history. When Congress passed the Reclamation Act in nineteen O two, many people thought the idea of building massive reservoirs, canals, and irrigation systems across the arid west was impossible. But those people were visionaries. They understood that water infrastructure was foundational to food security, economic growth, and community stability. And they understood that local communities needed a federal partner willing to help build what no individual community could build on their own. Today we stand at a very similar moment, but with more data and more experience. The West is once again facing a defining water challenge. Hydrology is changing, infrastructure is aging, drought cycles are intensifying, and at the same time we are seeing more extreme storm events that Our current storage and conveyance systems often cannot capture effectively. Meanwhile, Project Delivery is simply not keeping pace with the urgency of the crisis. Professionally, I have spent my career representing irrigation districts and agricultural water users throughout the West, as a Water and Natural Resources Attorney. I have worked on interstate litigation before the United States Supreme Court, managed a federal reclamation district, and spent years navigating the intersection of water law, environmental compliance, federal permitting, and infrastructure delivery. And after years of doing that work, I came to one simple conclusion. We cannot litigate our way to water security in the American West. Court orders do not create water. Infrastructure, innovation, and collaboration do. I saw that firsthand during Texas versus New Mexico's litigation involving the Lower Rio Grande. Instead of remaining trapped in endless conflict, local agricultural interests, federal agencies, and other stakeholders came together to develop practical infrastructure and operational solutions designed to stretch limited supplies further. And were it not for the Bureau of Reclamation, my district would not have a future right now. The problem was not a lack of solutions, the problem was deployment. Projects that had broad support and funding still became trapped in layers of overlapping review consultation contracting delays permitting uncertainty, and administrative decision making bottlenecks. Costs increased while timelines stretched longer and longer, and that problem is not unique to New Mexico. Across the West, our members are building new storage, modernizing canals, improving groundwater recharge, deploying precision irrigation, restoring watersheds, automating delivery systems, and partnering on habitat improvements. Farmers are among the most adaptive and resilient people you will ever meet, because agriculture requires constant adaptation to uncertainty. I wanna take a moment to commend the recent efforts within the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation to improve efficiency and empower local partners through the secretarial order. The partnership we have seen in the last year is unmatched, and we are encouraged by that direction, a direction that recognizes something local communities have understood for generations. Often the people closest to the problem are the best equipped to solve it. But local innovation alone cannot overcome a system that too often moves at the speed of paperwork instead of the speed of crisis. What we are asking for is a regulatory and permitting framework that is coordinated, predictable, and capable of delivering projects before the underlying conditions change. Too often today, duplicative reviews across multiple federal agencies create years of delay on projects that have already received strong local support and clear public benefits. We need a system that better aligns NEPA review, ESA consultation, permitting, and federal procurement timelines, so projects can move efficiently while still maintaining accountability and environmental protections. We need agencies empowered to partner with local project operators instead of micro-managing them and we need Congress to recognize that water infrastructure is national infrastructure, because food security is national security. The people who built the West through the Reclamation Act believed big things were possible. The people I represent today still believe that. Now it's our turn to think boldly again, and I look forward to your questions.

I want to thank each and every one of you for your testimony today. Very helpful, uh very enlightening, and I will now begin recognizing members for five minutes each questioning and i'm going to begin with myself uh miss patrick i wanna come to you as you know deliveries from the saint mary siphon constitute sixty to eighty percent of supplies to the milk river basin in most years when congress was initially briefed on the siphon's catastrophic failure reclamation projected irrigators would most likely be entirely dependent on natural flows in the twenty twenty-five irrigation season and possibly into twenty twenty-six as well As your testimony notes, the system is back online and delivering water already. Would this have been possible under a traditional delivery model?

Uh, thank you for the question. Um, i- i- you know, it's it's really hard to say, but no, no, it wouldn't be. Um, you know, we would have had delayed timelines. We would have had, um, procurement problems. We would have had layered, um, the deliverables that we have to produce. And so I would say no, without the the partnership with Reclamation, um, we we wouldn't have been able to do it.

So what can the committee take away from the partnership between the Joint Board of Control and the Montana Area Office to serve as a model across the West? What can you do to educate us about how it worked with your particular project, and what can we do better?

Yeah, so I have I have probably a Unicorn area office of Bureau of Reclamation. They are wonderful to work with. um they they work with us on everything um we've got a little bit of a divide and conquer situation where sometimes it's easier for us for the local stakeholders to take the lead and do the the procurement and do all of these things but also it's easier for them as a federal government uh entity to work through like the the local tribes and through other uh we have the canadian government and so they take the lead on things and so the biggest the biggest thing is we're partners on the entire on the entire project. It's not us or them.

It sounds like flexibility is kind of built into the program or the process that you're following.

Yes, flexibility and partnership is so important in what we're doing.

And Miss Barncastle, I I really appreciated your words and your description of how we can do things better. I was also a Water and Natural Resource Attorney before coming here and enjoyed working with the irrigation districts and I'm very familiar with the interstate disputes that you recognized. But as you note in your testimony, modernizing our infrastructure requires modernizing the federal permitting system as well. Can you elaborate on the permitting bottlenecks or problems that are created by statutes such as NEPA, the ESA, and the NHP NHPA?

Yes, Chairwoman, thank you for the question. We often see across the West inconsistencies in process and timing. And so while the statute isn't necessarily unclear, in certain areas, we see expense and delays caused by arbitrary decisions that aren't necessarily the same decisions that a different sector are making somewhere else in the west. And so that lack of predictability, lack of transparency makes it difficult to actually plan for your project and get it across the finish line. So what we're asking for is a predictable and stable environment for permitting, uh, across the board. NEPA, national historic issues, um, the ESA issues, it's all the same. we see the lack of predictability and that drives up cost.

So both with the SPEED Act that is passed out of the House, it is sitting in the Senate, and also the recent endangered species recovery act that we're attempting to move to the floor right now, there is substantial litigation reform. And having been a trial attorney addressing these issues, I can tell you that I believe those are some of the most significant aspects of the modernization or reform that we are attempting to do. Have you had an opportunity to review at least some of the work that we have done. And do you have other advice of of how we could uh make the process work more effectively while at the same time continuing to protect our environment and our species?

Yes, you're absolutely right, Chairperson. I I have reviewed all of what you've referred to, the Speed Act, the ASA reform bills, and the Family Farm Alliance has engaged on those issues. We will continue to engage on those issues. And you're right, court orders don't create water. Um, partnerships do though, and in my area of the world, we're we're well versed in how to partner with conservation groups, municipalities, tribal interests to actually get water projects across the finish line. And we do believe that some of the bills before Congress will be very helpful in that regard, um, in other areas of the country as well.

So one of the things that we're also looking at is equal access to Justice Act reform. Uh, I think that a lot of people don't realize, but it's the federal government and the American taxpayer that have funded many of these lawsuits against these projects over the years. i think it's important to expose that and i think it's also very important that we either reform or repeal the ea j i uh uh entirely because i think that's largely responsible there's too much money by these environmental ngos uh sitting out there whenever they oppose a project or try to prevent us from being able to maintain or construct projects like what you're talking about today so that's another one i would ask for your assistance in looking at to see what kind of reform we can do with the ea j a to stop funding litigation and actually build projects. With that, I recognize uh, Mister Huffman for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Mister Deschmuck, uh, I wanna ask you about the Pure Water project. Um, we really need projects that can stretch our water supplies and bring drought resilience. And so I wanna give you a chance to say a little more about how Pure Water would fit into an all of the above approach to Western water management.

Thank you, Congressman Huffman. Uh, Southern California has a long history, a successful partnership with the federal government in developing local supplies. About thirty years ago, a a strong focus by Metropolitan not only to invest in reducing the amount of water used by, our nineteen million residents, but also an investment in looking at ways to produce drought-proof supplies. As Congressmember Min mentioned, I had the opportunity to work on orange county's groundwater replenishment system which is the world's largest potable reuse project uh in other words that means taking treated wastewater or sewage and turning that into potable water and putting it back into the environment for future consumption what we're looking at metropolitan as the largest water district in the nation is to leverage our size and our success in building projects and use a model that's existed for more than a couple of decades and recycle a significant amount of water that right now is being wasted out to the pacific ocean um this is not a novel concept um this would be the biggest uh if if we were able to complete at full stage and right now it's very important that we look at drought proof supplies um import metropolitan has always been a reliable water provider but we were changing the way we see water fall stored in the snow packs stored in reservoirs And we are doing our best to adapt to that in a number of areas, including increased storage along the state water project, opportunities to partner uh with other states to store water in lake Mead, and then also continuing to be focused on reducing our demand. The partnership that we see with LA County Sanitation District is rooted on and is based on years of recycled water experience, uh, and so we look forward to expand on that. and see this as a great opportunity uh to to develop a new drought proof supply for Southern California.

Yeah, I couldn't agree more that um reclamation and reuse have to be uh an increasingly important part of our water portfolio you alluded to this, but um maybe could you say a little more about how this pure water project, the biggest of its kind um would benefit not just California, but Arizona and Nevada.

Thank you. Yes, our supply portfolio in Southern California is essentially, uh, for those nineteen million people, half supported by supplies from the Colorado River and from the State Water Project of water flowing from the Northern Sierras, down the California Aqueduct. When we experience a drought within the state of California, we shift over to increased use on the Colorado River and vice versa. Um, in the case of developing a base load or a guaranteed supply of water, we're able to reduce our demand and allow that water to be available for other partners, like not only within the lower basin but all along the Colorado River. Um, that's why for since Title sixteen was developed, there's been a strong support and investment in projects like this, not just in Southern California but throughout the Southwest.

Yeah, and and lastly on Title sixteen, Uh, you did mention that, uh, this large-scale water recycling, uh, flagship legislation is set to expire. Uh, why is it important for, uh, Congress to reauthorize these programs?

It it really goes back to all those reasons that I mentioned before in terms of increasing the water resiliency and reliability for Southern California, but it's not limited to local impacts. Um, for us to have a uh a successful thriving economy um throughout the nation, it's really important that we keep that water supply reliable. Local sup local supply projects um require additional investment and partnerships. Um that is the only way they've been successful um not just in Southern California, but in in the recycled water environment. So those partnerships and that investment from the Bureau is crucial right now. um to to help uh reduce the cost of these projects and not transfer all of that cost to the rate payers

alright thank you you're back

the chair now recognizes mister bentz for five minutes of questioning

thank you madam chair and thanks uh to the panel for being here with us today mister peterson you you um in your testimony uh talk about uh lack of water supply reliability and then you call out how much water is stored in Shasta, Oroville, Folsom and um Melonis, all all of these reservoirs. But you say they're they're almost full, which is, which is really good news. But then you say twenty percent of that water comes to those who, who thought they were going to have most of it. What, where's the rest going? You don't really call that out. You talk about regulation, but where's the water going?

Yeah, so the, the most recent biological opinions that uh govern the operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project, uh impose parameters uh associated with uh cold water pool, uh and maintaining uh very high reservoir storage levels, uh year over year to protect against uh future drought out years. Um so uh for instance Shasta Reservoir's uh operational framework, it's about a four point five million acre foot reservoir, uh effectively in different year types depending upon what the hydrology is, that reservoir uh can be two point four, two point one uh million acre feet of reserved space. So effectively it makes the reservoir half the size of what it is.

Right well so I guess I'm not understanding uh what it is that the the biological opinion suggests then that this water needs to be held back so that it can be released to preserve the fish species below the dam, is that what you're saying?

That's correct.

OK.

Yeah.

So so would is there some link between what would have been happening naturally without the dam as compared to what is going to happen with the dam?

I I think it really speaks to proportionality, Congressman. Um, the the operation of the dam is substantially uh not what is causing uh the the challenges for the fish species. And so when you get into uh that particular conversation, Um, the the impacts to the stakeholders are substantially larger, uh, than the proportionality of of the action that's actually being taken.

So what we need in order, what I've learned in this job is that anything that isn't as clear as a bell goes nowhere. So you would if you wouldn't mind, after this hearing at some point sharing with us something that that a third grader could understand that explains what you just said, I need it. So so moving on. uh, to Executive Director Barncastle, you say in your first page here of your testimony, uh, that every state in the west has experienced some level of drought, long-term water stress. Uh, these conditions are not temporary. They reflect changing hydrology, require requires long-term planning, modernization, and investment. I don't know how many people have come to me and said, " Hey, we've got a drought, what are you gonna do about it?" So, why don't, this is your chance. Tell me what these big words, planning, modernization, investment mean.

Yeah, sure, it starts in the watershed, and we have to be doing um the right things in the watershed to make sure the water gets into our systems. And so when we are dealing with fire impacts, those impacts can cause problems within our infrastructure when you have debris and flooding that runs off.

So let me just, let me let me hop ahead because I'm gonna run out of time. It seems to me that every solution that we have been suggesting over the six years I've been here well, not quite six years. Um, is is in some fashion going to be thwarted by litigation. So when we say let's go into the forest and do something, oh, oh my goodness, a lawsuit. So tell me how this is going to happen without some modification of the foundation for these litigational barriers.

Certainly that's an undertone. Um, in my testimony you're absolutely right, that litigation stalls good projects all of the time. And we can't have that anymore. We need watershed protection. We need increased

But are you calling out, are you calling out to the broader population as loudly as you possibly can, what it is that's stopping us from A, having a much, more reliable source of water and B, actually helping the environment? Because if we don't call it out, we will be constantly thwarted over and over again, with with uh the unfortunate structure of our of our litigation system. So I'm just asking, The solution, at least at one level, is to let everybody in the world know, are you guys doing that?

Yes, collaboration is key. Coalition building is key. You cannot build a project under someone's nose without talking to them about it. Um, we have a very strong history in New Mexico of environmental and tribal engagement. And I would like to see more of that across the West, because when you're leaving people behind in those conversations, that's when the litigation starts. But when everyone's at the table, and everyone can agree on a good project, but then the federal government's paperwork is holding it up, that's a separate problem. So we really need to deal with the problem in two different ways.

Thank you. Thanks thanks all of you. Yield back.

The chair now recognizes Ms. Hoyle for five minutes of questioning.

Uh, thank you Madam Chair. Mister um Deschmack, um I think you spoke well to the importance of diversifying our water supply portfolio to include modern drought resistant water infrastructure. But what I'd like to hear more about is um about the economic input output and jobs, the Pure Water Southern California project is expected to generate, and how federal funding is helping drive these benefits in combination with uh local funding as well.

Thank you, Congressmember. Uh, this is a significantly large project. almost ten billion dollars um that that in itself reflects um the magnitude and potential impact it has according to a twenty twenty one study by the los angeles economic development corporation that construction of our pure water program could create almost fifty thousand new jobs and generate eight point seven billion dollars in economic output this project alone would generate six billion dollars in labor income as well as uh just over seven hundred million in state on the pure water southern

california project but you've also noted growing interest from other states can you share more on why this project had has garnered support from outside the state and the benefits it can provide beyond your service area. And also, if you could go into more specifically what you are doing, um, for outreach and workforce training and development.

Great, thank you. Recycled water projects have always been a a result of partnerships. Um, typically it's finding common benefit between a wastewater operator who needs to handle how to discharge that water into the in a safe way to protect the environment, mixed with a water supply entity that's looking for a new drought-proof supply. We've seen this successful partnership um a number of times uh with projects within our service area. What we're recognising now is that partnership can expand uh outside the political boundaries of the the service area we have, because with such an integrated system like we have in the Southwest where southern california resident could be using water that's either from that started in the upper watershed of the colorado river or lake shasta or in the northern sierras um everything is connected so the more we're able to reduce our demand on imported supplies locally the more benefit and availability there is for other partners like nevada and arizona what nevada and arizona have committed to is financially supporting supporting and partnering on this project um with investment and funding related to our environmental compliance and planning work in addition to that they've got interest in investing into the project um while we haven't specified exactly how with a commitment that we would take less from the colorado river and that demand that we would shift from the colorado river to our recycled water supplies would then result in more stored water for those two states So that's really their their interest in this. Um, we see a lot of the same interest and support from Northern California as well, um, who's been a partner to us on how we look at, um, the water supply market. When it comes to finding the staff to, uh, not only operate this but to build it, um, that is a high priority for us. Workforce development in the water and wastewater sector has been an industry wide approach, we really don't wanna look at it agency by agency. but this is an amazing field um for all our generations to be a part of. And so Metropolitan takes this as a very high priority. Um there's a lot of information, we have a lot of creativity that's going into how we communicate um the the benefits of working in this industry, and happy to share more and follow up with you after.

Excellent. Thank you, and I'll back. The chair now recognizes Mister Crank for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. Um, Congress established these timelines in the uh NEPA process to help ensure timely uh environmental reviews. And section one O six of uh NHPA, which is similarly procedural, uh but it does not contain statutory timelines for key consultation steps such as defining the area of potential effect uh historic properties identifying those, or completing consultation with uh consulting parties. Uh, Miss Barncastle, from your experience, can section one O six, consultation, contribute to delays in advancing water infrastructure projects?

Absolutely. Full stop.

Would would the timelines in the process help agencies complete reviews more efficiently?

Again, absolutely. Certainty is key.

So oversight over NHPA at the Senate ENR uh committee uh seem to prompt achp to review the regulations uh implementing section one O six miss barncastle are there specific regulatory changes or clarifications that could help preserve the goals of the act while improving efficiency and predictability for water infrastructure projects

certainly there are and we'd be happy to make those recommendations more directly in follow-up but absolutely as i sit here today i can give you a couple of ideas First, um, having a definite idea of when your project can move forward, based on when reviews are due, helps manage costs. And so the longer these timelines stretch on, the higher the costs get, and the more outside of our original budget we end up. And so, just nailing down what to expect helps people plan.

'Kay. Did you have another one?

I, I can go on for days. Um, arbitrary decision making happens across the west, right? What might happen in New Mexico, what we might understand is the process there. is not the same in other states. And so, um, some sort of uniformity will help us because many of our projects span multiple political boundaries and and state boundaries. The the watersheds do not care what our political boundaries are.

Yeah. Section one O six of NHPA requires agencies to, uh, only take into account effects on historic properties. Uh, while ACHP's implementate uh, implementing regulations uh resolving adverse effects through avoidance minimization uh or mitigation miss barncastle are there instances where the consultation process or uh mitigation requirements extend beyond addressing the direct effects of the proposed project uh and then create additional delays or cost for water infrastructure projects

yes and i can give you examples of projects that have both been scrapped

Please.

because those go those those requirements go a little too far beyond what the project scope is. And I have I can give you instances where projects have moved forward and by surprise, we have been taken off guard by the fact that there are new requirements we have to consider outside of the project scope. And while everybody has an interest in protecting historic properties, one thing we have to remember is something that the chairperson started this hearing with. These are aging infrastructures, in some cases over a hundred years old, they are all historic. And so how do we preserve that properly, while also preventing loss of life and loss of property? Because in southern New Mexico, if I can't repair a canal, that might mean that the next storm is drowning people.

Yeah. You said you could give us a couple of examples. Can you give us a couple of examples?

I can give you some examples in southern New Mexico where we have walked away from projects that were a benefit to habitat in the local area. Uh, we were capturing water off of the water, essentially the arroyos that float in. from the mesas into our valley, we were going to capture, slow that water down, put it through our boskies that we love, and slow it so that it, when it hits our system, we can then capture it and more effectively use it. And we have scrapped a bunch of those in the last few years, because the process to get those done was impossible. We were going to have to essentially look at things like our impacts to the canal system, um, in terms of the local communities and their cemeteries at times. Um there might be a historic cemetery that runs next to a canal, and now we've gotta look at our impacts related to a cemetery, has nothing to do with the canal or the flood control problem that we're working on. In New Mexico we are fortunate, the Bureau of Reclamation has negotiated a programmatic agreement that will allow us to more more streamline that process in effect, um but the rest of the West needs to be looking at solutions like that as well.

Yeah, this is uh our process and our laws getting in the way. of uh of these projects. So,

Yeah,

alright.

we need to get our priorities straight and sometimes our priorities are absolutely straight across all sectors um but the process is what holds us up. And so if we can get away from these process litigation-based issues and um focus more heavily on the substance of what the communities are trying to achieve, I think we get across the finish line that way.

Great, thank you and I yield back, Madam Chair.

I think sometimes we forget that as humans we're part of the natural environment as well. So, the chair now recognizes Miss Stansbury for five minutes.

All right. Well, good morning. Thank you all so much for traveling across the country and joining us today. Um, I was particularly excited to see another New Mexican in front of the committee. It's always a good day when we have a New Mexican here in Congress. But I also do wanna congratulate you, Miss Barncastle. Um, you walk in the footsteps of a great Oregonian, actually, uh, Mister. We will miss him, um, but we're grateful for his service and we know that a proud New Mexican's gonna do the family farm alliance proud, so congratulations.

Thank you very much, Congressman.

Yeah. Um, and I was actually excited to hear your testimony this morning, and I wanted to make sure that some of the nuance of it wasn't lost on the committee because there's been some focus on the legal and the permitting aspects of water management but what I actually heard you emphasize this morning, the real challenges are are around operational flexibility, modernizing the infrastructure to make it operable in real time and collaboration. And, you know, everyone loves to quote the much quoted quote that water is for fighting for, but in New Mexico, water is for collaborating over, water is for sharing, water is for making sure that our communities are OK, because water is life. And I think it's notable that um we're here to talk about the next century the beer of reclamation and nobody has mentioned this morning that the oldest reclamation dam in the united states is elephant butte um which is actually in new mexico and it really was the promise of the federal government getting involved to make sure dams were safe the irrigators had access to water and i noted um that you um miss barncastle are from the mississa valley which is the irrigation district that is actually served by Elephant Butte. And the reason why I'm diving into all of this detail is because one of the most innovative irrigation districts in the United States right now is the Elephant Butte Irrigation District.

Yeah.

And so it does not surprise me that in your testimony that you are emphasizing this operational flexibility in using modern technology. In fact, in your written statement you talk about precision irrigation technologies, canal automation, using real-time data systems, aquifer recharge, water recycling, because EBID has such a sophisticated system. It's like it rains, water hits those canals, sensors are going, they're measuring the groundwater for compliance with the compacts, and they can literally pick up the phone and tell irrigators, alright, water your crops. Um and it's really I think the future of what we're gonna have to do, especially as we look at climate change and having to do real-time operations. So, uh, Miss Barncastle, we got about two minutes left. I'd love for you to tell us more about some of the things that you feel the federal government should be investing in to make these innovative practices possible.

And thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. I appreciate the background there. I would like to note for the committee that one of my great grandfathers was instrumental in helping get the Reclamation Act across the finish line, and then building Elephant Butte Dam. Um, this is very important to my family and to our surrounding area. And collaboration is the way we've gotten everything done in New Mexico. While we um subscribe to the doctrine of prior appropriation and we believe heavy heavily in that we also are very community driven it is our culture to make sure that no one's left behind and we've done that in a variety of ways within the Elephant Butte Ergation District I'll also point out in my testimony that the district that I was general counsel for for several years in addition to water council for others but I also managed it for a certain term of time, was the Elephant Butte Irrigation District. And um during that time, that was um when we received a large federal investment in some of our infrastructure, and I believe you were with us at that announcement. So thank you for that. But some of the things that we have done include partnering with Environmental to ensure that the environmental community is managing our Bosquey parks, so that when the water hits them first, it's not crashing through our system and destroying it, destroying homes, destroying farms in the process. And we have a very strong partnership through our environmental water transaction program within the Elephant Butte Irrigation District. We have also automated canals, we have piped and um basically improved conveyance in some of our least efficient canal systems. And we could do lots more of that to make our water stretch further. Um but even on-farm technologies and how that interfaces with the district is in some places light years ahead of where other of my districts are in the west. And I look at the Elephant Butte Irrigation District as an example to set for the rest of the west. I spent seventeen years working for them on those projects, and I'm very proud of all of those.

Well, we're proud of you and your current role, and I would just encourage anyone listening today, go visit EBID, see what they're doing. It's very impressive. This is exactly what we need to be doing across the country, and I yield back.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mister Downing,

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here. Uh, Montana's second district, it's uh central and eastern Montana, the Bureau of Reclamation, Water Infrastructure is absolutely essential. Uh, I'm gonna start with you, Miss Patrick. First of all, thanks for traveling. I I I know the pain of getting here from Montana, but more so I wanna thank you for all of your hard work with the Milk River, uh, Joint Board of Control. You know, your your testimony highlights the critical role that the Milk River Project plays in distributing water across the High Line. So first I wanna start. Can you please elaborate for us on the importance of the Milk River Project for farmers and rural communities in Northern Montana?

Yes, thank you for the question. Um, uh, you know, simply we call it the the lifeline of the High Line. You could look at the map of Montana, rip the entire top half off, and that's what uh we serve uh as the the Milk River Project. Um, I said in my testimony earlier it was about seven hundred and twenty-nine river miles. Um, and we start in Glacier National Park and go all the way to the end of the state in, in the Glasgow Nash, Nashua area. So that's farms, ranches, economy, everything all the way along that as well.

You elaborate why was its initial construction needed?

Uh, because the, the Milk River Prod, the Milk River itself goes dry six out of every ten years.

Right. So, what were the underlying causes of the twenty twenty four failure of the St. Mary's siphon?

So we actually um had a failure in twenty twenty, which was one of the drops, and then in twenty twenty four we had a failure on the large siphon. And um the system is a hundred years old. Um we have we have been putting band-aids on it, we've been trying our best. Um the the irrigators are on on the hook for seventy five percent of the cost. of that system and so when you're looking at it they're putting their their money into their on-farm infrastructure versus putting it into the the system and so it's it's kind of a a very tough balance with the hundred year old system

well thank you yeah i spent some time meeting with our irrigators along the high line but i'd love to hear your thoughts on the downstream impacts of this failure for water users and agriculture in northern montana

well the normally we we have about two acre feet of water we had about a quarter of an irrigation that year Um, and so the the impacts to farms was, you know, if you were were predominantly hay up there, but it was uh one irrigation, and then it was it was shut off in July, which is a very tough time. And so right now we also are shut off, but our lower lower restrictions because of the drought. Um, but what it's doing is those crops that have always been there, uh, our farmers are having to change what crops they're actually planting because of these these conditions.

Thank you. Under the standard federal procurement process for reclamation projects, how long do you believe it would have taken to repair the St. Mary's Siphon? Under the standard procurement process.

If I'm being honest, five years.

Five years? Uh, I was actually very impressed at how quick this went. So, uh, as you noted in your testimony, the Milk River Project Joint Board of Control was able to bypass traditional red tape and remarkably complete repairs by approximately one year after the initial siphon failure. So how were you able to work with reclamation to secure and carry out this expedited uh repair time length?

We have the same goals with with our reclamation office. We're both in a partnership. Um, their goal is to deliver water, uh, and our goal is to to receive that water. And so I would say it's the same goal. We were we all came to the table with one mission. Um, we have the the Blackfoot tribe, um, we're a hundred percent on the Blackfeet reservation as well with this project. And so they were a very big part, and the state of Montana. as well. So, so all of those partnerships together, everyone was at the table for one common goal.

Right. So broadly, in what ways does the St. Mary's Siphon repair project demonstrate the value of delegating increased authority over reclamation projects to local infra- infrastructure agencies?

Uh, like uh my previous comment, yeah, it allows us to divide and conquer uh the situation. Reclamation can handle what they're good at and we can um handle the things on the ground. consultants and engineers and move forward quickly. And so that's

And what further steps are needed in order to support repair

what

and maintenance of the Milk River project going forward?

Well, I I think we're all sitting here and and saying that, you know, we need strategic investments in infrastructure. And so that's that's the biggest thing all of us are sitting here on in the Western water saying please invest into the infrastructure.

Thank you, Miss Patrick, for these answers and and for testifying today and for traveling so far. You know, the Milk River project is not only critical infrastructure for my district, its resiliency is also a testament to the important role that local partnerships play in the maintenance of federal water projects. So I really appreciate uh, uh, Madam Chair for hosting this, and uh, I thank the witnesses for being here, and on that, Madam Chair, I yield back.

Thank you. I again want to thank each of the witnesses for coming here today. Some of you, well, all of you traveled quite the distance. to be able to provide us with the information that you did. Uh the members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. Under committee rule three, members of the committee must submit questions to the subcommittee clerk by five PM Eastern, on Tuesday, May twenty sixth. The hearing record will be held open for ten business days for your responses. Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you. mmm