Colorado River Basin and Post-2026 Operations Negotiations

And we will proceed now, uh, to the opening of the Colorado River hearing. We'll begin that hearing, um, um, just by observing a, a, a few things. For the Colorado River Basin, the upper basin states, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and the lower ba- basin states, including Arizona, California and Nevada continued to negotiate new water management guidelines to replace existing operating agreements, agreements that in their current form are set to expire at the end of this year, at the end of twenty twenty six. The states were expected to reach an agreement by November eleventh, two thousand twenty five, and to execute a final agreement by February fourteenth of this year. Uh, regrettably, the the states were not able to reach uh, an agreement and did not meet either of those deadlines. In the absence of an agreement, the Department of the Interior was expected to impose a plan for post-twenty-twenty-six Colorado River operations. Now, whether the states reach an agreement or alternatively Interior imposes a plan, Congress may be expected to pass legislation formalizing any necessary federal authorati- authorizations or appropriations. Um, but next, uh, uh, I'll yield to, uh, a ranking member, uh, Senator Heinrich, for his opening statement on this.

Thank you, Chairman Lee, uh, and thank you for convening this hearing on the Colorado River Basin. It could not be more timely. Uh, we're joined today by witnesses who understand how high the stakes are and what our communities stand to lose if the seven basin states fail to reach a deal on the future manage. of the Colorado River. The Colorado River is the backbone of water supply for millions of people, a cornerstone of Western agriculture and energy production, and a lifeline for tribal communities, fish, wildlife, and working landscapes across the basin. In New Mexico, every drop of water matters to our communities, our tribes, our pueblos, our farms and ranches, and the rivers and wildlife that are important to us. To protect this resource, we need collaboration. solutions that benefit both people and ecosystems, and long-term investment grounded in today's hydrologic reality. That means investing in both built and natural infrastructure. As conditions across the basin become hotter and drier, investments in watershed restoration, forest resilience, and, yes, wildfire risk reduction are important for sustaining durable water supplies and protecting the system as a whole. We must invest in the watersheds and landscapes that produce and deliver water in the first place, or we risk building strategies around water that never actually reach the system we're trying to protect. That reality places significant responsibility on the Department of the Interior. Interior must uphold its tribal trust responsibilities, protect critical infrastructure, and help ensure the long-term reliability of the river system so that many that so many communities depend on. And I want to be candid here. I understand the department is working on a short-term two-year operating plan, and that's incredibly important work. But at times it feels like the department is so focused on managing the, the challenge right in front of us that it is also losing sight on the path towards a durable long-term agreement. The basin should not be forced to choose between stabilizing the present, and negotiating the future. We need both. Everyone agrees that a seven-state consensus agreement is the preferred outcome. Yet, I'm concerned that Interior has spent a great deal of time focused on short-term operations. The department has yet to articulate a clear strategy for moving the basin towards a long-term agreement, that everyone says they want. Federal leadership alone is also not enough. The states need to make some difficult decisions, and meaningful compromises to reach agreement. But the federal government also has a responsibility to create urgency, maintain momentum, and provide a clear framework for getting these negotiations across the finish line. Without a seven-state agreement, the consequences are clear: more litigation, unplanned water shortages, economic disruption, and heightened risk to communities least able to absorb it. Delay carries its own consequences, and the basin can no longer afford to wait. In twenty twenty-two, then, Commissioner, Tutin warned that this commi- this committee that the basin needed to conserve two to four million acre feet of water to protect the system. This warning was at a time when elevations in Lake Mead and Lake Powell were projected to reach historic lows. Today, Lake Powell sits at approximately twenty-five percent capacity, with projections showing continued vulnerability absent sustained action. For years, the seven basin states have been negotiating the same fundamental questions. reductions, releases, and shared responsibility. What we cannot afford is delay. If the states cannot act together, decisions will increasingly be made through crisis, the courts, or federal intervention. These outcomes bring additional uncertainty rather than stability, and make it harder to achieve the consensus solution that all of us should prefer. As Ben Franklin warned, when the well is dry, we learn the worth of water. The responsibility before us now is to act before that lesson becomes irreversible. The basin needs compromise, shared sacrifice, investment, and leadership, and it needs them now. And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.

Thanks so much, Senator Heinrich, uh, uh, for your, uh, comments on that. And we're gonna hear today now from our witnesses to better understand those issues. Our first panel, our witnesses include, you know, the Honorable Andrea Travnik. Uh, welcome. Mr. Avnik, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science at the US Department of the Interior. And Mr. David Palumbo, uh, uh, who is the Deputy Commissioner of Operations at the United States Bureau of Reclamation. And then the witnesses on our second panel, uh, uh, will be as follows. Uh, Ms. uh, Ms. Amy Haas, uh, the Executive Director of, uh, uh, Haas, uh, uh, uh, rather than Haas. Sorry. The avocados are one thing. The this name is another. Um, Executive Director of the Colorado River Authority of Utah. Uh, sorry for the mispronunciation, I hope I got it right the second time. Uh, Mister Mike Vickrey, the rancher from the Green Valley River, the Green River Valley Cattlemen's Association, who'll be introduced by our colleague, Senator Brasso. Uh, and then Mister Tom Kiernan, President and Chief Executive Officer of the non-profit organization known as American Rivers. And finally, Mister Bill Hasenkamp, the m- uh, Hasenkamp, the Manager of Colorado River Resources at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. With that, uh, I'll note that the, the Colorado River is one of the most important water systems in the United States. It provides water to roughly forty million people across Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Nevada. It irrigates more than five million acres of farmland, hydropower, generated by the river, supports cities, ranches, industries, tribes and local economies across the American West. But the river is currently facing enormous pressure, and it's under significant strain. As of Sunday, just a few days ago, the Colorado River system stood at approximately thirty-four percent of total system capacity. slightly over one-third of capacity. This is truly, truly staggering. Lake Powell and Lake Mead are at twenty-three point five percent, and twenty-nine point three percent capacity, respectively. Over the last year, Lake Powell has fallen hundred to to a hundred and seventy-two feet below full pool, and it now sits at only about thirty-seven feet above the minimum power pool needed to generate hydropower. Uh, uh, this is one that I've got a lot of personal experience with. I've been, uh, visiting Lake Lake Powell since I was a child. And I remember as a child sometimes seeing the high water mark at Lake Powell. It was sometimes ten, fifteen, twenty feet, uh, above where we, uh, uh, saw the surface of the water at the time. But now we're pushing close to two hundred feet, um, uh, below its high water mark. But this latter figure, about thirty-seven feet above minimum power pool, is truly staggering. It's very, very difficult. Once you get to that point, you dip below minimum power pool, all kinds of things go wrong. Uh, from power interruptions to our ability to maintain and preserve the dam, the generating capacity, and so forth, uh, that, n- needless to say, would be very, very bad to dip below the minimum power pool elevation. Now, it's important to remember that Uh, not every state experiences the hydrology of the Colorado River in the same way. The upper basin lives with, uh, hydrologic shortages every single year. We cannot order more water when nature provides less. We cannot draw water that does not exist. We can't will it or legislate it into existence. It's a lot more complicated than that. We take, of course, what the river gives. As a result, the upper basin states have absorbed reductions imposed by nature, consistently using less than their full compact apportionments. And yet despite already bearing those realities, upper basin states continue to face demands from the lower basin states for additional cuts. That brings us to where we are today. For years, the basin states were given the opportunity to negotiate a path forward. Senator Heinrich and I have both urged the states to reach a seven-state agreement, because we believe the most durable solution would be one developed by the states themselves. The same can be said, in fact, of all the basin states' uh, uh, Senate, um, delegations. Uh, we - we've met repeatedly in recent months and w- we all share, uh, i- i- uh, uh, to a very significant degree, uh, that same overall objective. Congress gave the states room to negotiate. The department gave the states room to negotiate. When the states asked for more time, they received it, but deadline after deadline has passed. The late May and early June target slipped, then November, then February, and here we are today, still without an agreement. Instead, we're seeing increasingly unhelpful rhetoric from some of the states. And we have lower basin state commissioners taking out ads in local newspapers, attacking The upper basin. We're reading reports that uh some of these states are preparing actively for litigation. We're seeing negotiating positions that seem more designed to further future court filings than for good faith efforts to reach a compromise. States that choose to sue their fellow basin states over Colorado River operations should not expect Congress to reward that decision, with additional federal funding. Federal taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize litigation among states. And now, as the department develops a post-twenty-twenty-six operating framework, there is a fact that should focus everyone's attention. Congress will not be a bystander in this process. The Constitution's Compact Clause, in Article One, Section ten, gives Congress approval authority and the responsibility to uh uh uh approve interstate compacts in a long-term framework for the Colorado River, will inevitably face congressional scrutiny because our Compact Clause authority is triggered any time uh the states enter into an interstate compact that alters the balance between the states and the federal sovereign. That scrutiny will include whether the department is fully accounted for the realities that are facing the upper basin. Now, n- e- any proposal that ignores those realities or asks the upper basin to shoulder even greater burdens without regard to the governing legal framework, we'll face a difficult path forward. The current guidelines expire on October first, two thousand twenty six. Time's running short. The river and those who rely on it cannot afford any more delays. Whatever happens next must remain grounded by hydrological realities, the law of the river and respect for our neighbors. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Senator Heinrich, before we go to then, uh, I recognize you.

I think it, I already gave mine. Yeah, so I'm good.

OK, I, I'm now gonna, uh, go to our, our witnesses on our first panel, uh, to give their opening statements. Your full written statements will of course be made part of the rev- uh, the, uh, m- not part of the river. Uh, that would be fun too, but part of the record. Um, and we'll, we'll begin today, uh, with Assistant Secretary Travenick. We're grateful to have you here. Assistant Secretary Travenick is, as I mentioned briefly earlier, the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the US Department of the Interior, a position uh to which she was confirmed by the Senate in September of twenty twenty five. She has a uh decorated distinguished um uh record of public service in the water and natural resources space previously serving in various roles in the North Dakota state government um uh Assistant Secretary Trebek you're now recognized.

Great, thank you. Good morning, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on drought conditions in the Colorado River Basin, the Department of the Interior's actions this year to address them, and our approach to operating and protecting the Colorado River system over the next ten years. The Colorado River Basin is now in its twenty-seventh year of historic drought. Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the nation's two largest reservoirs, are approaching record lows, with Powell at twenty-five percent, at Mead, at twen- at twenty-nine percent of capacity. Long-term drought has reduced total system storage to roughly thirty-five percent. The basin has been exceptionally dry in twenty-twenty-six with one of the lowest April-July inflow forecasts into Lake Powell on record at approximately nine hundred fifty thousand acre feet or fifteen percent of normal. Combined with record-breaking spring heat and the lowest snowpack ever recorded, these conditions have created significant operational challenges and heightened risk to essential water and power infrastructure. In April, the department took two major actions to stabilize the system, authorizing releases from Flaming Gorge Dam of six hundred sixty thousand, up to one million acre feet through April twenty-seven, and reducing annual releases from Glen Canyon Dam by one point four eight million acre feet, down to six million acre feet. Through down to six million acre feet through September. Together these actions are expected to raise Lake Pal's elevation by roughly fifty-four feet to at least thirty-five hundred elevation feet by April twenty-tw- twenty-seven, thus helping to protect critical infrastructure, maintaining water deliveries, and preserving operational flexibility. These challenges coincide with the expiration, as mentioned, at the end of this year of the key operating agreements that have guided the river management for the past two decades. Hence, the administration has spent the past fourteen months working to develop a consensus-based proposal for post-twenty-twenty-six operations, facilitating multi-party discussions, Offering proposals and pressing basin states towards agreement, while ensuring timelines allow sufficient incorporation of feedback into the NEPA process. In addition, Secretary Burgum has met twice with the basin state governors in the past year to help reach consensus. Despite these efforts, a seven-state agreement has not yet emerged. In January, the department released the draft EIS for post-twenty-twenty-six operations. The five alternatives provided broad NEPA coverage and flexibility for the department and the seven states to establish a preferred alternative. While we continue to believe this a seven-state consensus offers the most durable path forward, the new water year begins October one. Since March, the department has been reviewing and responding to submissions, participating in government-to-government tribal consultations, updating analyses, and developing the preliminary preferred alternative. Our focus remains on protecting the system and ensuring the long-term stability s sustainability of the basin. Our proposed approach right now is a ten-year framework. We would love a longer. framework as well. But right now, being we don't have consensus, that's where we're focused on this ten year framework. So this ten year framework would allow operational guidelines to be issued at regular two year or other intervals, thus guided by a set of principles, sideboards, and defined processes. The goal is to produce an alternative that balances the need for certainty and stability with the flexibility to adjust to evolving hydrologic conditions in the absence of consensus. The preferred alternative incorporates hydrology, responsive operations, managing conservatively under low inflow conditions and transitioning to recovery measures when hydrology improves. This approach still preserves space for incorporating consensus recommendations. Over the past month, we have solicited an integrated feedback from Basin partners on the twenty-seven, twenty-eight operational guidelines. And based on this feedback, the department has provided adjustments for continued discussion regarding the twenty-seven, twenty-eight operations. The department will publish the final EIS this summer and adopt a record of decision thereafter. These guidelines will aim to protect the Colorado River system, consistent with a century-long body of laws, regulations and agreements that govern it, and we recognize the real impacts on water users throughout the basin. We will continue gathering feedback to understand these impacts and identify ways to address them. Effective management of the Colorado River requires collaboration to confront the basin's real and worsening water shortage while respecting established water rights. Over the last five years, the basin states have received over nine billion in supplemental spending. including hundreds of millions of dollars that this administration recently approved to support water conservation in the basin, and facilitate a seven-state consensus, in addition to the substantial annual appropri- appropriations that the basin receives. Ultimately, if consensus is not reached, reclamation retains independent operating authorities through various acts and Supreme Court decrees, including the secretary's established water master role. The Trump administration remains committed to the Colorado River Basin and will continue working closely with states and tribes to address the critical challenges facing the forty million people who depend on this system. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I know that we're looking forward to the discussion. Um, so thanks for having us.

Thanks so much. Uh, next we'll hear from uh, Mister David Palumbo, who again serves as the Deputy Commissioner of Operations at the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Mister Palumbo, go ahead.

Uh, Chairman Lee, I, oh, sorry.

I was uh mistaken in that regard. All right, so um Um.

Yeah, we're just gonna go through our questions.

Uh, uh, uh, thanks so much to both of you for being here and, and sorry for the redundant recognition there. Um, uh, now I wanna, I, I, I wanna know, I, I was wondering if you could tell us, so we'll start with you, um, Assistant Secretary Travnik. Tell us what this means. Like, this is, these are abnormal numbers. We're gonna be in a significant period of - of drought. We are in one. Um, and in the meantime we've got difficulty having agreement among these states. The Colorado River, uh, basin is subject to a nineteen twenty-two interstate compact that made some assumptions about water flows. Um, tell us how current realities depart from those expectations established in nineteen twenty-two.

Thank you, Senator Lee, for the question. Yeah, as we're as we're looking at the basin today, as we're looking at the situation that we're in, we know that we have the the nineteen twenty-two compact, we have the various acts that are in place that continue to guide what everybody is trying to make decisions on. And you're exactly right. So the reality is you have hydrology that has changed since then. And and, right, that's why you had folks coming together recently, too, for the the drought contingency planning. Right? As early as twenty nineteen, and then changes that had to take place in two thousand seven. So that's what's led to here, where you've had modeling and modeling, looking at forecasts. But now the reality is here is what the hydrology is telling us. So that's where it's extremely important to try to make some sound decisions, to get to consensus, so we don't have to get in front of litigation.

No, um, the, the, there have been some wish lists submitted, uh, by the states. uh, uh, to the department, um, uh, for various projects to try to deal with this. Um, and while I'm sure that this is just a, a wish list in some respects, it does end up topping fifty billion dollars. I want you to help us sort of square that up with reality. How much does the department have left currently to fund Colorado River Basin projects?

Uh, Senator Lee, as I mentioned in my testimony, right, the the seven basin states as a whole so far have received nine billion dollars within the last the last five years. Uh, so in working with Secretary Burgum, uh, we were looking to have the governors and the representatives work together, so that we can start to understand what are some of the other opportunities in the basin into the future. So looking at what are short-term progress opportunities, what are longer-term progress opportunities, uh, but we still have yet to go through and refine that a little bit more. So I would say that that list is in the very early stages. Um, as we're looking at what dollars are left, you saw that we recently put out four hundred and fifty four million dollars for the IRA funding to help with conservation right off the bat knowing that we need to work to prop up Lake Mead some more, give the opportunities in the upper basin for conservation as well. Um, also looking at uh where we've put out a hundred and fifty and hundred and fifty more, hundred and fifty million and then another hundred and forty million related to drought. Uh, so for close to seven hundred million just within the last month. Um, so that's whereas you're looking ahead to that fifty billion, we're not here looking to ask on anything at this point. We really just wanna see what is a longer-term strategy, what are some of the infrastructure projects that this basin might need to have moving forward.

Now, to what degree does it make sense to discuss federal funding when the states have yet to reach or or, as far as I can tell, even come close to reaching a consensus on the post-twenty-twenty-six operating guidelines and and And in fact, uh, some states appear to be focused far more on threatening and preparing for litigation, uh, perhaps to the exclusion or the resulting in the neglect of their n- uh, negotiating posture.

And I think that's why we have to be thoughtful on what those dollars may or may not be moving forward. And also the responsibility of our partners also coming to the table with funding as well. So it can't just be solely the federal government's responsibility. The drought is not our fault. Right? Mother Nature is here. She's showing us where the water is or is not. And we're gonna have to work together.

Right. Now, um, releases from Flaming Gorge, um, uh, to help Lake Palace elevation and to p- help protect hydropower generation so we don't dip below minimum power pool which, you know, would have all kinds of spillover consequences. Uh, uh, those'll be gone. The, these, um, are expected to t- total anywhere from six hundred thousand are six hundred and sixty thousand acre feet to perhaps a maximum of a million acre feet. Will the uh, will the department commit to restoring the water that's released from Fleming Gorge and other upstream reservoirs, um, and and consulting and coordinating with the upper basin states uh, with respect to these actions?

So, Senator, I think what you're seeing right now with the the use and the discussion of using those upper initial units in these type of scenarios, it shows how thoughtful how the system was set up Previously, right? So you've got the Lake Mead, you've got the Lake Powell, the the larger reservoirs, but now also these other storage areas, uh, that can be utilized in these type of situations.

Right.

Recovery is going to be extremely important. We want to make sure that we do get recovery back into Flaming Gorge. We know how important that is to the system. We want to make sure that we're not just continuing to use those and bring them down to the mud. I think they're one of those tools in the toolbox that should be used when we are in a situation like this. But it is not something that should be regularly used at any time. So we do wanna make sure that recovery is a priority.

Right. Right, and then one follow-up question to that. Can you tell me a little bit more about what what you mean when you talk about um considering quote actual hydrology in basin-wide conditions before initiating recovery actions. Tell me a little bit more about that.

Yeah, so we're in the reality where instead of the modeling you're gonna have to look at what the real conditions are. Are the real conditions showing that we can recover it or not?

Right. In other words, because we're that close to the margins on everything,

Correct.

we can't just rely on the projections because the margins are so close. You stick with those without watching what's happening from one day to the next, we could end up below minimum power pool or worse.

Exactly.

Thank you. Senator Heinrich.

Um, Assistant Secretary uh, Travnik, Um, I understand that the Bureau of Reclamation has developed a preferred preliminary alternative for post-twenty-twenty-six operations, uh, that, at least as I understand it, has been shared with the Basin States, but not with the public or the Congress yet. Can you kinda walk us through what some of the major components of that alternative are and how it's gonna fit into the department's broader strategy for long-term management?

Uh, thank you, Senator, for the question. So as we're looking at what the uh, Department of Reclamation has provided to the seven basin states as well as to the tribal nations and we've also walked through it with Mexico um, so we've we've shared it in a broader, you're right it has not been shared directly with you at this point. Uh, but what we're looking at is a is a ten year framework that lays out various bookends as relates to the shortage guidelines. So what are the shortage guidelines that we need to see within that lower basin? So giving a framework of up to that three million acre feet. Also, what do the coordinated reservoir operations look like? So what is that Lake Powell? Right, today we're at that six million acre feet. Uh, we know that we're gonna need

L let me, let me ask you about that real quick. It it seems like Lake Powell, because of the way the actual infrastructure was designed, is now sort of the thing that is defining the actions taken across the system. So the drawdown at Flaming Gorge, uh, they're obviously limitations in terms of the way water can move through glen canyon uh that that you know can lead to cavitation and other other challenges that are causing us to manage for that that reservoir um is do we need to look at the infrastructure there and consider alternative infrastructure

uh no thank you for the follow-up question on that as well so right I also think there's been some false narratives out there as it relates to some of the infrastructure. So, right, you can use some of those river outlet works. They have been tested. They will be able to be used. Uh, however, as we're trying to make sure we're managing water responsibly in this basin, I don't know why we would wanna continue to draw it down when we have other opportunities. So, at this point, I don't think you need to put in the extra dollars into that. I think we need to figure out how to manage this together first. Um, so then as we're, if I could go back just to the other pieces of the preferred alternative. Yeah. Absolutely. Um, so the coordinated reservoir operations, so we need to have that range for the Lake Pal operations which you'd mentioned. So anywhere down from five million acre feet to twelve million acre feet, right? So if all of a sudden we get lower, we're gonna have to go shorter. If all of a sudden we get some rain, we get the snow, um, having that opportunity to go higher as well. Um, also looking at more opportunities for the ICS, what are some of the other storage. So giving an opportunity in Lake Pal for up to three million acre feet. Uh, looking at Lake Mead of up to eight million acre feet. Uh, we know that ICS has been extremely helpful in propping up Lake Mead. Uh, because of what's been done down in the lower basin, uh, it's raised Lake Mead seventy-five feet. So then also having the opportunity to add more ICS within to the system. And then there's discussions of a tribal water pool as well. So making sure that we are meeting some of those firming responsibilities that we have, and also an opportunity for potential offsets to help the system as a whole. Uh, and finally, we're continuing to look at the upper initial units through the records of decisions that already exist. Um, so those are the various tools in the toolbox that lay out the ten year framework. And knowing because we're in such a critical situation with the hydrology right now, that's where we're looking at what a two year operation plan might look like. Cuz we also can't get folks to consensus because, right, we're in an extreme right now. So that's where really trying to be thoughtful of where we are at with the elevation, what are those tools in the toolbox again that we should be looking at for twenty seven, twenty eight, when do we make decisions, when to use those tools. Um, so that's what's being discussed for the twenty seven, twenty eight. And that's a lot of the dialogue that's going back and forth right now.

Um, uh, when are you able to share the details of what you just walked us through with the Congress?

Uh, Senator, I'd be glad to get those over to you.

Great. Um, talk to me a little bit in your remaining time about how the department is incorporating watershed restoration, forest health, the prod- product, wildfire resistance, the productivity side of the equation, uh, as you're looking at the overall water management in the basin.

Senator, yeah, wildfire health, ecosystem health, all extremely important to the basin, and I think that's where you have seen uh right not over not only over the last several years but just recently this year too the importance of putting um funding towards that also working collaboratively on that we know um what those impacts of wildfire might do to our reservoirs um so making sure that we are having those discussions figuring out what those projects might look like on the ground will also be important moving forward and at the same time looking for those opportunities on the hard infrastructure too so it's again it's gonna take that holistic approach.

Senator Cortez Masto.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. And I I I first, let me just start off by saying thank you to you and team. You've done an incredible job, um, working with, uh, the Basin States and trying to negotiate this. Uh, it is a tough, tough issue we are dealing with right now. Um, and one of the things I wanna talk about, because a lot of the work that you have done has been driven by the laws and the things that we have actually passed here in the Senate. And one of them was the drought. Response Operation Agreement passed in the Senate. And it it took into consideration what we are dealing with right now is the drought, and what happens. And under that agreement, it stipulated a process for coordinating releases from Flaming Gorge, Navajo, and Blue Mesa reservoirs to Lake Powell from falling below an elevation that would no longer produce hydropower. So my question to you is based on that agreement, does the department need the consent of any upper basin state to operate the upper initial units within their respective records of decision.

Uh, no, thank you, Senator, for the question. I know that there was a lot of negotiations that went into that DROA um process that - that - that came out of course during the DCP. Um, and it's been very helpful to have that collaboration across, of course, the upper the upper basin states, but also recognizing that we need to be including the lower basin states as well. Um, so I think as far as what we're doing is looking forward, yeah, how do we do that coordination? Uh, but to your initial question, we feel that reclamation the Department of the Interior has the authorities, uh, to move forward if needed, if we cannot get to consensus.

Thank you. And then in twenty twenty-three, the Supreme Court held that federally recognized tribes can pursue claims to secure reserved rights beyond what is required under the treaty. Um, this is especially relevant because, um, my colleague, Senator Kelly As you well know, introduce the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of twenty twenty five. This is important legislation and I appreciate the work of, uh, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs with, uh, that I sit on, along with Chair Murkowski and Vice Chair Schatz, for actually holding hearings on this bill. And at the hearing in the Indian Affairs Committee, the Acting Commissioner, uh, Cameron confirmed that Interior supports this piece of legislation. Can you explain how this bill would benefit the entire basin?

No, thank you for the question. Yes, we, I think we all know that Indian water rights settlements are extremely important. They, they allow for, allow for the, the sovereignty, allow for more certainty. Um, so that is where the department is supportive of trying to, uh, you know, get to where we need to go, uh, on that settlement agreement. Uh, so as we're looking at, at the basin, uh, we do believe that that, uh, settlement, and I know that, um, actually the Deputy Commissioner uh, was just recently on some conversations and probably has like kind of the latest and greatest details of where we're at on that. Um, but yes, it would help the basin as a whole.

Thank you. And then you've been asked a number of questions, uh, multiple times, I think in meetings with the senators and then just right here about the the dollars that were allocated by Congress, right? And you talked about the nine billion dollars, some of it coming from the infra- uh, infrastructure bill and then some from the Inflation Reduction Act. Um, I think the critical piece for that legislation, why I supported it was We need to recognize we are in a moment of drought that is not going to stop. So we have to figure out how we supplement the water along the Colorado River. Those dollars were to help us supplement.

Mm-hmm.

And what I mean by supplementing that water is engaging in conservation, water recycling, smart water programs, all of the things that we should be thinking about as a whole. And every state, not just the lower basin states, but every state should be participating in it. In Nevada, we took up our grass.

Mm-hmm.

We limit uh fountains. We are uh really doing a job uh we recycle almost a hundred percent of our our water, uh our grey water. So let me ask you this. To the extent that you have, I and I think there's about almost a billion dollars still left, unobligated, and maybe that's less or more, maybe you can talk a little bit about that. How can we help you help the basin states understand that there's money available for this conservation or for this water recycling?

Um, so, Senator, thanks for the the question. Yeah, this allows us to just give a little bit more clarity, cuz I think there has been a narrative out there that there's a billion dollars left and there's not.

OK.

Um, so you've seen us roll out recently in the last several months, you know, over seven hundred million. Um, and so we are getting down to less than a hundred million that's left in the IRA dollars. And actually a lot of those are on some projects that, um, you know, we've been working not only with this basin, other basins as well. Um, and then as it relates to the IDA dollars, uh, two hundred and forty million that is But same type of thing. There's lots of discussions going on related to that. So I think as far as those dollars, uh, we're getting to the end of like the goal is to get the IRA dollars done by September thirtieth. We know that we have to do that.

OK.

The goal is that we will get those out and be done. Um, and then continue to work towards the two hundred and forty that's left. So there is not a billion anymore. And that's where looking at this list that has been pulled forward to start to get us looking strategically across the seven states um, so that's where just trying to figure out where we wanna move forward on that. But you're exactly right. It's gonna take everything, if we're looking at augmentation, water reuse, de-sell, um, storage, so improved conveyance. I mean, it is all the pieces that we're gonna have to look at strategically.

Yeah, and I just, I know my time is running out, but uh I I'm glad you brought up de-sell, because it is happening right now in Carlsbad, as we've heard just an agreement was entered into, and I'm actually gonna go visit the the plant there in Carlsbad. But again, this the the I think part of the focus for us here is not also just demanding what are you gonna do and why are you doing these releases when we've been part of that process all along. But most importantly, what do you need from us in dollars to help us supplement the water along the Colorado Colorado River with these projects? I think that's gonna be important and I hope we hear from you as well as the money that we have allocated is being used for that process.

Mm-hmm.

If there is more that's needed or we can play a role in that process, I I'd hope that you would let us know. So thank you again for all the work. It's not an easy issue and I appreciate it.

No, thank you. Appreciate it.

Senator Hickenlooper.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um Uh Secretary Travnik um I think we've all, upper basin, lower basin have all agreed that a uh negotiated settlement is better than winding up in litigation. Um we've been saying this for for years um but today that negotiation still has not yielded results. Um deadlines get pushed back and then pushed back and then pushed back uh most recently we've had ideas exchanged uh for proposals from the lower lower basin and the upper basin um and that the even the time frames have been communicated unclearly as deadlines have repeatedly slipped it seems like the process itself really hasn't been helpful for getting to resolution um what can we do to ensure that the i- let's call this final stretch, uh we're out of time. Uh, what can we do to make sure that, that you're able to make to c- to make sure that the right conditions are there to get a, a deal, to, to land a satisfactory deal?

So, Senator, thank you for the question, and I'm gonna just respectfully disagree that I, I do think the process that we've been going through the last fourteen months, still has been, been helpful, right? It allows an opportunity to continue to build relationships, continue to listen to ideas, opportunities to maybe listen to ideas outside of the box, innovation. So I think working to remain, to stay at the table is extremely important. So then fast forward to where we are right now. I think everybody's knowing that October one, it's here. We need to get the environmental compliance document out the door. And that's where we're working extremely hard, working with both upper basin, lower basin, tribes, Mexico. And of course, as we're trying to get to the consensus. Having everybody still being able to have a voice, but knowing that if they can't move their stakes to get closer, we are gonna have to make the decision, and the federal government is prepared to do that.

Gotcha.

OK. I, I take that optimism as something that I will take, take to heart. Um, also wanna thank you for the money for the Shoshone permanency project. That's a, a big deal. uh in colorado uh as well as other bucket two projects um still fifty million dollars of those bucket two projects remain unfunded this is you've touched on this a little bit uh with the lower basin um we're fully aware that the lower basin is seeing roughly two over two billion dollars of investment so far um sometimes for shorter term payouts um our calculations are the upper basin has received only two hundred million Um, so, how come we're not you aren't why aren't the investments being made in the headwaters in the upper basin where in some places we can really build system-wide resilience um I think the governors of all states have pointed out the need for future funding to support a basin-wide framework, as we develop it. Um, and stakeholders have called for as much as two billion dollars for the near-term investments. Um, Is, do you think there's a way we can get more equity in future investments between upper and lower?

Uh, Senator, uh, appreciate the question. So as you're looking at across the basin and trying to figure out where to infuse dollars quickly um we know that as it looks at opportunities to try to prop up Lake Mead that looking at conservation, looking at the ICS opportunities, again, like I said, it's been able to prop that up seventy-five feet. That's where, you know, the water has existed. Uh, as we look at the upper basin, right, we've consistently heard in the meetings that we've had with them that they're not able to find the significant amount of conservation, right? They have stated that there is already shortage up there. So they have stated that they might not be able to do or make sure, cuz they keep talking about the voluntary, which is which is great. Um, but is there water there that will help the system right away? Um, I know that there's been uh, right, I know that Wyoming has recently passed looking at some more of their, what, their conservation program might look like. Uh, you know, Utah as well. Uh, so I think as that continues to get those programs in place, and as they continue to identify where those conservation opportunities are, um, I think that's where you'll see that there might be more of that opportunity into the future um as we're having those holistic discussions um looking at both short and long term.

Great.

Um. Also, just quickly, the

Great.

We know that you've alluded to already how the, uh, how significant the tribes are in the basin and how important the water is to them. Um, they hold roughly almost a quarter of the water rights in, in the basin. Um, what's the consultation plan? In other words, how do you try to work out those priorities?

Uh, Senator, thank you for the question. So, uh, consultation, extremely important. Uh, I know that the department reclamation has been working on this since day one within the basin, right, so years. Uh, this administration takes it very seriously. Uh, having uh Secretary Burgum been a governor, right, how important the priority of working with the tribes was. Uh, so making sure that that remains consistent here while he's sitting in his role as as secretary. Um, so I think working with those tribes, getting the thoughtful ideas from them as well, that's where the tribal pool um has come from. And then also looking at, yeah, Is it a Indian water right settlement? Is it some of this other infrastructure that's being worked on with other tribes? Uh, is there opportunities for exchanges and and being able to to maximize working with other partners uh to utilize that water? So I think, no, they're very important to the basin as well, part of the solution moving forward.

Great. Thank you very much. I yield back to the chair. Thank you very much. Um, we will go now to Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I'll begin by uh uh talking about uh Lake Mead. In order to prepare for the shortages like the one that we're experiencing right now, California water users have banked more than one point six million acre feet of water in Lake Mead. Now I see you nodding in in uh concurrence. Uh, we've done this through intentionally created surplus. The result of significant conservation investments as well as voluntary reductions over the past fifteen years. Didn't just happen overnight, fifteen years of commitment here. The ability to access this resource down to elevation one thousand in Lake Mead is a must-have provision for California to agree to any Colorado River proposal. You've heard it from the negotiators, it's on the table, I need to reinforce it here today. And I use these strong words, uh, like must-have because this intentionally created surplus water uh in many years is essential for the twenty million Californians that rely on the Colorado River and and just for a benchmark here twenty million Californians the six other states' population combined is twenty three million so it's nearly half Assistant Secretary uh is the department willing to work with California on provisions that ensure access to this intentionally created storage water banked in Lake uh Mead after twenty twenty six when it will be needed for municipal and industrial water supply.

Thank you, Senator, for the question and and definitely agree with you on um, you know, how important that ICS has been to the system. As mentioned earlier, right, the seventy five feet that it's been able to prop up Lake Mead, right? Otherwise we would be in a much different situation right now. So looking for those opportunities to be able to continue to to utilize that and to potentially have more um is something that the department is also in favor of. Uh so as you're looking at what the requests are that we have in front of us as we're looking at this ten year framework and the two year operation is yeah, how it can it be accessed between you know that ten, twenty five and a thousand. And that's where we wanna make sure again, not just going by modeling but what is the real hydrology telling us within the basin, what does that type of decision do to the system as a whole. So that's where we've also said, yes, we're willing to, uh, be able to have a look and see what that looks like from ten twenty five to a thousand. But we also wanna make sure there's a consultation, uh, opportunity for the secretary to engage as well, uh, so that we really understand what's being asked, what are some of the emergencies that they're pointing to of why they might need that. Uh, but we really do appreciate them, um, and also what they've said, what they're willing to do for the next two years, uh, cuz they could be taking out a lot more out of their ICS. Uh, and they've come to us and said that they don't want to do that, but they just wanna be able to have the opportunity to access it if needed, in an emergency.

Exactly. We're, uh, negotiating in good faith, right?

Correct.

Trying to be fair, but also trying to not be punished for good behavior. Good behavior ought to be rewarded. Um, in my time remaining, let me, uh, come back to the topic of funding. I know you heard this some from, uh, Senator Hickenlooper and others, and I appreciate Reclamation's stated intention to use and not just the remaining ira dollars uh but other parts of funding to enable additional drought response uh activities across the the colorado river basin over the next few years you mentioned less than a hundred million dollars now in ira but then you made reference to a different two hundred and forty million dollars amount um i guess two part question number one can we get a list of projects that have either recently been funded or are on the verge of seeing uh their funding awarded that would be very very helpful not just for california but for all the states um and then second uh can you at least share some light here if reclamation expects to use this funding exclusively for projects that produce measurable savings in lake mead and lake powell or uh other reclamation reservoirs or there are other types of projects that are uh in the mix

uh senator we can definitely get you a list of those projects that have been so that uh you know that everybody has that um and as we're looking ahead uh the the remaining dollars like i've mentioned so the the colorado river basin remains to be extremely important uh but we also have other basins across the west that are also feeling the drought so as we're looking at the rest of those dollars that are in ira and ija dollars and the ija ones are also tied to various programs that are limiting where those dollars could go um so we are uh remaining to be thoughtful and looking at the colorado basin but also looking at those other basins

ok last one i'll make in closing that additional question just uh i know some of these funds um are due at the end of the current fiscal year we're talking a hundred and some odd days until september thirtieth whatever we can do to help uh move uh projects along and ensure that the funding isn't put in jeopardy please let us know thank you mr. chair

appreciate that

Senator Gallego.

Thank you, Chairman Leenor, and Reconnaid member Heinrich, and to our witness uh witnesses, there's no secret the future of the Colorado River remains highly uncertain and this year hydrology is just horrible. Um, although each state and basin has its own interests and priorities, I represent Arizona, so I have my interests. And so we share a need for creative solutions and certainty for our water future. And like, uh, Doctor Travenick said in her testimony, I still see, uh, seven state consensus as the most durable solution We must find ways to mitigate supply uncertainty. To that end, the lower basin states, including Arizona, submitted a proposal last month for a near-term operations, to deal with near-term operations. And this will stabilize the Colorado River alongside significant commitments to conservation from lower basin users. So I'm grateful to these states for the leadership and hope to see that plan adapted. I also appreciate my colleagues from Nevada question regarding Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act I'm very proud to collate that. And I look at her sentiment that it's time to reach a fair resolution so that tribes that have lacked water for far too long can have the the certainty they deserve. With that, my questions. Number one, uh, doctor, the Colorado River is a lifeline for Arizona. The water field is the most advanced manufacturing in the Western hemisphere now, produced ninety percent of the country's winter leafy greens. How to power from Glen Canyon and Hoover Dam helps keep the lights on all over the Southwest. Technological advancements such as domestic food supply and energy affordability are all key priorities for the United States including the President's agenda. So as you consider the the adopting the lower basin's proposal and considering the post twenty twenty six alternatives, how are you weighing these administration's priorities?

Uh, Senator, thank you for the question. So, to just circle back a little bit, yes, we appreciate what the lower basin has provided before us, uh, as they've reached consensus and I think as stated previously, right, we've had also a lot of back and forth related to it, uh, knowing that we're not able to accept that on its base value. So, uh, looking at what that level of risk is. We also appreciate what the upper basin has said, as their thoughts and ideas. Uh, knowing that, yes, you have a lot of economic development, uh, it's it's, uh, great the amount of opportunities down there in Arizona with the different economies and and agriculture and and, uh, so of course as as we're looking into the future, as how the Colorado River will be managed, uh, the Colorado River will continue to be managed based on the compact, baked up, based on the laws, based on the water rights that are in place. Uh, so I think that's why your lower basis consensus and what that looks like on how they can work to share the water. will be extremely important.

Hmm. Have you co- coordinated with other cabinet members such as, uh, Secretary of Energy or Agriculture in your, this decision-making process?

So, Senator, um, so our water sub cabinet, uh, is, is, is, is together. Uh, we actually have a meeting tomorrow where that brings together all those other departments.

Mm-hmm.

Uh, so, yes, we are doing that cross-collaboration, trying to see where opportunities are because we know that those departments are seeing some of the same concerns, and is there a way for us to maximize you know, the different authorities that we each have.

Mm-hmm. And the reason why I'm asking this is because clearly, you know, yes, we have water laws, water, and have water, prior water settlements, but those were made a long time ago, and the world has changed, and hydrology has changed, and the demands of the country have changed, the demands of what the president wants to see coming forward are definitely gonna be met more by lower basin um uh I would say lower basin resources. And so uh I I hope that there'll be some alignment I think in the president's goals as well as uh the potential outcome what the reclamation wants to do um so as you know Arizona continues to find ways to do even more with less uh and have for quite a while our industries and food benefit the whole country it would be a mistake not to clue that obviously at the end uh while making these decisions as much as we can also hope for it the basin cannot wait for perfect uh consensus and what we need to understand today is how the department will act to stabilize the system share risk fairly and deploy resources at the scale and speed this moment demands So how will the department incorporate the Lower Basin proposal as it prepares the exercise authorities to prevent the system from reaching critical uh, elevations uh, at Powell and Lake Mead? And when will those plans be made? Public?

Yep. No, thank you for the question. Um, so, so yes, that's where I've mentioned that we continue to work with the Lower Basin, what they have submitted to us, where we have some concerns and where we think that there should be adjustments, cuz again, we don't just have a Lower Basin, we have an Upper Basin as well. So that's where we will continue to have to work with everybody. Southern Basin States, tribes, and also working with Mexico.

Mm-hmm.

Uh, and also recognizing the impacts, right? We also get phone calls from landowners, from ranchers, and all the different impacts. So again, any and all ideas, we're welcoming it. Fast forward to, yes, we know that we will be needing to make a decision. We are working towards trying to see if we can still get to that consensus. The tools in the toolbox remain what we have, right? So funding. That's where the funding has gone out the door, trying to still get to that seven basin state consensus, and then recognizing what are those tools in the toolbox. So can we be doing more ICS? Can we be doing more conservation in the upper basin? Can we be looking at, we're still gonna have to use the tools that we have, looking up to the upper initial units, also looking at what those releases are out of Lake Powell, and then the tribal pool. Uh, so it's gonna be all those things, but we are on a tight timeline, right? The goal is still to get the environmental document out the door, end of July, the record decision shortly thereafter, and then we're gonna have to have the operating agreement in place ready to go October one. And there's gonna be some decisions made related to that in August.

All right. Uh, you're back.

I'd, I, I wanna thank both the Assistant Secretary Trapnick and uh, Mister Palumbo for their testimony. Uh, thank you for being here today. That concludes this. We'll uh now invite the second panel uh to come to the table.

It's better. So, Barasa was gonna introduce the second one last, this big, this sort of a great idea,

Mm-hmm.

he can't be here, so could you read his report for

Yep. All right, uh, good to have the second panel, uh, uh, here today. Let me just, uh, uh, briefly introduce the second panel before we hear from you. Um, we'll, we'll begin, uh, with Ms. Haas. Miss Haas serves as the Executive Director of the Colorado River Authority of Utah, a role that she has held for about five years, since two thousand twenty one. Previously, she served as Executive Director and Secretary of the Upper Colorado River Commission from twenty seventeen to twenty twenty one, becoming the first woman to hold the position in the organization's seventy-three year history. She's also a a former Upper Colorado River Commissioner for the state of New Mexico, and former Acting Director of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. Um, let's see. Um, why don't we go, let's let's hear from you and then I'll I'll introduce the other witnesses as as they begin. Go ahead, Miss Haas.

Certainly. Thank you, Chairman Lee. Um, Ranking Member Heinrich and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to hear my testimony today. My name is Amy Haas. I am the Executive Director of the Colorado I'm the Attorney for the Colorado River Authority of Utah, and I have spent almost two decades working on Colorado River issues. I have worked across the table from every basin state. I have negotiated directly with Mexico. And I'm here this morning to tell you that the window to solve this without lawyers, judges, and generational damage to basin relationships is shrinking faster than Lake Powell. of Utah's population depends on water from the Colorado River system. The communities along the Wasatch Front, the farms and ranches of eastern and southeastern Utah, the tribal nations who have called this river home for centuries, all of them are watching. They are watching and hoping that it's not too late. Utah has almost three and a half million people and a growing economy. We cannot afford to get this wrong. And frankly, neither can anyone else in the basin. I say this during one of the worst years on record with the lowest spring inflow into Lake Powell since the reservoir began filling in the nineteen sixties and with some of the oldest water rights in Utah being naturally curtailed this year. Today, I want to share with you what Utah is doing, what the federal government should stop doing, and what needs to change. First, Utah asks that you fund solutions, not lawsuits. Some states in this basin are preparing to sue their sister states. Some have made a public display over hiring high-dollar law firms. Litigation funds are being set aside. Positions are being taken that, if brought to court, could tie up this river in legal battles for years to come. What does this have to do with Congress? You have a choice about whether and what you fund. Utah's position is straightforward. Federal dollars should go f- toward infrastructure improvements, storage, and conservation. Dollars should go to real on the ground solutions that move the needle on supply, not to enrich lawyers. Compact litigation on the Colorado River will be unprecedented, will involve all seven basin states, and will be orders of magnitude larger than any interstate water case ever brought. It will potentially take multiple decades to resolve. Utah is calling for a legal detente now, before the first briefs are filed before positions harden that make compromise impossible. We urge Congress to send a clear signal. States that choose courtrooms over cooperation should not expect Washington to bankroll it. States that sue other states should not be rewarded. Second, we ask that the upper division states be given credit for what are we contribute. Utah's doing the hard work. In twenty twenty five, we launched a program using state dollars to pay to voluntarily forgo irrigation, tracking every acre foot as it moves downstream to Lake Powell, and building the framework and the infrastructure to account for that conservation. To those that contend that Utah and the other upper division states are unwilling to put anything on the table, that is simply untrue. I'm here today to say that Utah is willing to secure commitments to conserve up to twenty-three thousand acre feet, in twenty twenty seven and twenty twenty eight through our state conservation program. Will we get twenty three thousand acre feet? That depends on federal support in the form of dollars dedicated to conservation and recognition for our contributions. It will also depend on Mother Nature. Third, upstream releases will not save the system. The Bureau of Reclamation is taking unprecedented measures to protect Lake Powell from falling below critical elevations as the Assistant Secretary mentioned. To do that, Reclamation is relying in part on releases from Flaming Gorge reservoir in Utah and Wyoming. Flaming Gorge will not save the system. It is good for one, maybe two major releases. Reclamation is currently drawing that reservoir down by more than a third of its capacity over the next year to rescue Powell. We are proposing that releases from Flaming Gorge and other facilities upstream are capped. fully recovered and effective in protecting Glen Canyon Dam, not simply used to increase downstream releases. This prevents the reservoir from being treated as an unlimited emergency backstop every time Powell drops and guarantees a supply in Flaming Gorge for future use. And finally, I'll end with this, Utah is still at the table and we call on others to join us. We cautiously supported the release of water from Flaming Gorge to protect Powell, We funded conservation programs out of our own state budget. We've showed up to every negotiation willing to deal, and we're still here. We still want to strike a seven-state agreement. We ask that Congress fund the solutions and defund the fights. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I welcome your questions.

Thanks so much, Ms. Haas. I appreciate your remarks and, uh, your insights at all all the work you you do for our state. Uh, next I'll be introducing Mr. Vick- Mr. Vickrey. Now, um, he was going to be introduced by Senator Barrasso. Senator Barrasso has been, uh, unavoidably detained. At the last minute he was summoned to a meeting across town. I'm not gonna tell you everything about where he is, but I will tell you he is in a in a white building. That building serves a dual purpose. It is at once a residence and also a public, um, uh, uh, meeting, and it has an office in it that is, uh, sort of oval-shaped. I'm not gonna tell you any more than that, but it w- it's an important meeting. Uh, so I will deliver the introduction that he left uh uh for us, um um as as he knows Mister uh Vickery. Um, Mike uh Mike Vickrey is a fifth generation rancher from Pinedale, Wyoming. He's a member of the Green Valley uh, the Green River Valley Cattlemen's Executive Committee, and he also serves on the Governor's Colorado River Advisory Committee for Wyoming. He runs a cow, calf and yearling operation with his parents. his daughter and his son-in-law. The Vickery's operate on sagebrush pastures and uh its irrigated uh and and irrigated hay fields west of the Wind River Mountains. The chief tributary of the Colorado River is the Green River Basin. It begins in the Wind River range of Wyoming. Their ranch is at the headwaters of the Green River in Sublette County. Their ranch supports numerous wildlife and uh blue ribbon fisheries. I'm excited to welcome him here, uh, this morning to hear about his perspective as someone, yeah, who was actively engaged in agriculture from Wyoming. Thanks for joining us today. Mister Vickrey, you're now recognized for your opening statement.

Thank you. I'm a fifth generation rancher from the headwaters of the Green River in Sublet County, Wyoming. In the late eighteen hundreds, ranchers started developing irrigation in our area. With irrigation came the ability produce harvestable feedstuffs that could make our ranch sustainable year-round. We've been able to grow mostly grass hay in an environment that gives us a growing season of get this forty-five to sixty days. Animal agriculture is the backbone of every community in my part of Wyoming, and others along the Colorado River system. It is the stability and foundation in an ever-changing demographic of our Western way of life. Decades of flood irrigation in the upper basin have allowed our ranches to produce some of the country's best source of protein on ground and in climate not suitable for production of other crops. With the ability to flood irrigate large areas of land came some other benefits not considered in the eighteen hundreds. Large herds of elk, deer, and antelope now use those same riparian areas that were created and sustained by our ranching industry. Streams that once dried up mid-summer are now now able to withstand drought and continue to run year-round. In turn, the fishing and tourism that goes along with these fisheries has become a boon to the economic base of our small communities. While our water in the upper and lower basin is shared water, the best mana- management of each area is vastly different. In the upper basin we have relatively small lakes, with only a few that have structures capable of storing water. The main stem of the Green River on our ranch has no dam on it, and is a free river through Sublet County. I've heard the Lower Basin talk about the need to have some security in the allotment of water they expect to get over time. They have in fact experienced that security for many years, because of Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Those of us in the very Upper Basin don't have that luxury. Each year, our expectations of how much water we'll have to irrigate with are based on Mother Nature. We wait each winter in hopes of getting enough snowfall to sustain us for the next summer. No certainty, no promises, just hope weather patterns will take care of us. When the water is short in Wyoming, mandatory regulation goes into effect. Mandatory by state law, and mandatory by the environment. Flood irrigation, once seen as a waste of water, does something that state and federal governments cannot do. Some two hundred and seventy-five thousand acres in the Upper Green are flood irrigated. As we fill up the ground like a large sponge, we help to replenish and build a huge reservoir underneath the surface. Little cost to build, little to maintain, and very little government intervention. It's stored in a cool, dark environment with little loss to evaporation. One study on the New Fork near Pinedale suggested that as much as seventy percent of the water applied to the ground returned to the river somewhere downstream. Other studies in different drainages have shown similar but still significant return flows of twenty-five to forty percent. Because of geography and climate, our portion of our water right is used as consumptive use to grow crops. A portion is used for beneficial use to maintain those riparian areas for livestock, wildlife, and fisheries. Water not used by the plants becomes part of the underground storage, then comes back to the river system. It then goes downhill to our lower basin neighbors. I often hear the Lower Basin talk about the amount of salad they produce to feed the nation and I've heard that today I applaud that fact. Well, here in the Upper Basin, on ground not suitable for other crops, we're able to produce enough protein in the form of beef and lamb in Sublet County and the surrounding area to feed our share of the country. In our part of Wyoming alone, in that small southwest corner, we produce enough beef to feed one point three million people each year. The question comes from the lower basin, what are you doing for conservation? All upper basin states have participated in system conservation pilot programs. For example, in Wyoming, sixty-four projects in twenty twenty-three conserved about thirty-eight thousand acre feet of water. In twenty twenty-four, one hundred and ten projects were funded with an estimated conserved consumptive use of sixty-three thousand acre feet. We will participate. We in the upper basin know all too well that poor hydrology makes for tough decisions. We deal with that on a yearly basis. In order to s- to survive, we must adapt. Our insurance policy for water is a term policy. It runs year to year with no guarantees for the future. The lower basin, however, has had the luxury of a long-term policy. thanks to storage from Lake Mead and Lake Powell. They are now looking at further upstream units for more protection. The only way forward is a shared pain as hydrology worsens. From my perspective, a supply-driven model of the river is imperative. As conditions continue to change, we must adapt to the actual amount of available water and continue to search for new sources of usable water. Thank you, Chairman Lee.

Thanks so much, Mr. Bickford. We'll hear next from Mr. Tom, uh, from Mr. Tom Kiernan, uh, he's the President and CEO of American Rivers. This is a role that he's held since two thousand twenty one. Uh, he's also a former CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, President of the National Parks Conservation Association, and President of the Audubon Society of New Hampshire. You may proceed, Mr. Kiernan, with your opening statement.

Thank you very much, Chairman Lee, and Ranking Member Heinrich. other members of the committee thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on the colorado river basin as the chairman said my name is tom kerrin and currently present ceo of american rivers and yes served in similar roles with other energy and conservation organizations and also by the way served as a senior official uh with president george herbert walker bush in his environmental protection agency american rivers as you mentioned is a national conservation organization working to ensure that every river is clean and healthy for people and for wildlife. For more than fifty years, our staff and partners have moved forward with the common belief that life depends on rivers. To ensure a future for the Colorado River, in the face of the current crisis, both Congress and the administration must act quickly and boldly. American Rivers urges this Congress the following four things to do. First, encourage the Bureau of Reclamation to finalize durable operating guidelines grounded in the hydrologic reality of the basin. Second, affirm the importance of the voluntary transactions, the flexible management, and conservation programs that the new framework will depend on. Third, authorize an appropriate significant federal investment to bridge the transition to a durable and more resilient future. And fourth, maintain environmental principles and maximize the use of natural infrastructure. As the Department of Interior knows well and the Assistant Secretary commented, the expirating expiring operating uh agreements without a path forward will lead the basin into a period of profound economic, environmental, and operational uncertainty that no emergency measures can bridge. The path forward must not only avoid near-term system failure, but also reduce the basin's long-term structural deficit while improving resilience. With this in mind, American Rivers urges the department to ensure that this successor framework they're working on, first recognizes and responds to the Colorado River as a single, interconnected system, with management decisions reflecting the conditions and impacts across the basin. Two, that it provides sufficient flexibility to respond to changing hydrologic conditions without relying on recurring emergency negotiations. Third, that it ensures meaningful tribal participation, so that tribal nations are integral partners in future basin decision-making. And fourth, incorporates environmental and ecolo- ecological needs, not as uh needs as a core component of basin management rather than a secondary consideration. Regarding our recommendation that Congress authorize additional funding, both the Congress and the Tar- Department must recognize that the Colorado River Basin cannot transition to a resilient, secure future without significant additional federal investment. Funding is not a temporary solution, it is a bridge to a long-term, durable solution. Many of the tensions that emerge within the basin stem not only from water scarcity, but also from the uncertainty regarding how communities, agricultural producers, tribal nations, and water users will adapt to reduce supplies. Hence, strategic federal investment can help stakeholders move beyond the uncertainty and then create the conditions necessary for a durable agreement. As well, federal funding should not be limited to protecting reservoir elevations alone. It should strengthen the natural and built systems that support long-term water security throughout the basin because that is the most cost-effective thing to do. Specifically, funding the restoration of natural infrastructure doesn't just mitigate the risk against catastrophic wildfire or drought. It makes economic sense. For example, wetlands, flood plains, and riparian corridors capture and slowly release snow melt. Healthy forests, stabilize soils, and maintain vegetative cover that prevents erosion and reduces evaporation. Wildfire risk is mitigated by maintaining moisture in the watersheds. And existing federal dollars are already at work with great programs like the Water Smart program. In closing, Congress has a generational opportunity. at the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of this nation to be remembered for saving the Colorado River Basin, which is the economic and cultural lifeblood of the Southwest of the United States. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to questions.

Thank you so much, Mr. Kiernan. We'll hear next from Mr. Bill Hasenkamp. Mr. Hasenkamp is the Manager of Colorado River Resources for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,

Thank you, Chair Lee. Ranking member,

Mm.

member Heinrich and members of the committee. Um, Metropolitan is the largest provider of drinking water in the country. We provide water to nineteen million people in Southern California. We get about half of our imported water from the Bay Delta in Northern California. and half from the Colorado River. Our supplies from Northern California have been marred with litigation, making effective planning difficult. On the other hand, the Colorado River has been known for our c- collaboration, consensus, and it's an example in California of what seven states can do when we all work together. Given the history of collaboration on the Colorado River, Metropolitan was confident we'd have a seven-state agreement this summer. We stepped up and supported California's contribution of four hundred and forty thousand acre feet per year plus more when needed as part of a long-term seven state deal, even though we are the senior priority state in s- in the lower basin. It was not easy to accept that. We had to but the reason why we put that on the table and supported that was because we recognized we need to compromise we recognize that if all states and all sectors participate, the cuts to any one state can be smaller, and a seven-state path is the only path to avoid or to to minimize the risk of litigation. And Senators Metropolitan is just as ap- disappointed as you that we don't have a seven-state deal today. As the Assistant Secretary said, we're moving forward with a short-term deal, but the door should be kept open on a seven-state plan. California has gone through some similar difficult negotiations that I think could provide uh a road map to help in this seven state process. Back in two thousand, California had to reduce its use by twenty percent of water that it had been relying on for fifty years. The states and the federal government gave us flexibility in making that reduction, but it came with a deadline to have the agreements done by a date certain. California worked hard to meet that deadline, but we missed it. The federal reaction was swift and harsh. The next day, Metropolitan's Colorado river supplies were cut by sixty percent. And the Department of Interior went after Imperial Irrigation District f- over wasting water. With that federal threat over our heads, we continued to negotiate We brought in a mediator from Sacramento and ultimately assigned the necessary agreements that allowed for transfers in California. When those agreements were sti- assigned, the federal action stopped. Unfortunately for Metropolitan, Mother Nature gave us away that flexibility that we had relied on, and we quickly had to develop a plan to reduce our use. Our sixty percent cut became permanent. We did three things. One is we ramped up our urban conservation water recycling, which today our demand for imported water is half of what it was twenty-five years ago. But we recognize the urban sector can't do it alone. We partnered with some of the highest priority agricultural districts in the nation, funding conservation with uh numerous types of programs, and the key with our agricultural partners is it's not one size fits all. Every agency had a different way of participating with different financial needs but ultimately all every single agricultural agency and tribe in California partnered in conservation to help reduce use. Finally the State of California stepped up with infrastructure funding to line the All-American and Coachella canals which provides a hundred years of water savings. All this was done without any federal funding. And it w- It allowed us to reduce our use, continue to thrive, and put an extra ten percent on the table during these negotiations. We think there are three lessons learned in California that apply to the states today. One is strong federal leadership, perhaps with mediation either by the feds or outside mediation, with meaningful deadlines. Two is, uh, creative thoughts of how to come up with programs, conservation programs, that it's not a one size fits all, recognizing different states, different agencies have different ways of conserving, not dictating how conservation has to be done, finding out how it can be done that works with each agency, and then finally federal funding to provide some longer term savings on infrastructure projects that I think is best served when it's coupled with local funding to make dollars go even farther. Metropolitan looks forward to working with Congress on how to implement such a funding plan. Thank you.

Thanks so much. Appreciate uh each of your opening statements. We'll now proceed to five minute rounds of questions in order of seniority subject to the early bird rule. Ms. Haas, I'd like to start with you. Um, notice there are those out there who have claimed that the upper basin states have somehow refused to put anything on the table. Could you tell the the committee why that's wrong and what the uh the state of Utah and the upper basin states are offering?

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I'm happy to dispel that notion. Um, just I think as a fundamental premise, uh, the upper division states have promoted a plan that is focused on actual available supply, rather than a demand driven regime, which is currently what we've experienced since two thousand seven. There are three pillars, if you will, to the upper division state proposal. The first is the operation of Lake Powell. operate the reservoir conservatively when the actual conditions on a date certain, in this case October one dictate, reduce releases out of Lake Powell, and ratchet those releases up as the reservoir begins to to recover, with an opportunity for a true up, as it were, in the spring, right, when we can observe the runoff conditions, and either increase or decrease releases from Lake Powell accordingly. So again, Operating Lake Powell prudently means operating based on actual conditions and supply. The the second pillar is um the use of the upstream initial units. We've heard a lot of testimony about that today, both Assistant Secretary Travenick and I have testified uh to it. Um we will continue to support future releases from Flaming Gorge and these other upstream reservoirs on three conditions. Number one, that they be capped. there's some limit, there isn't the sky isn't the limit in other words. Secondly, that they be recovered. In our case, we are going to require or demand full recovery, uh and I think I heard the Assistant Secretary today commit to recovery of any water released from these upstream facilities. And the third is that they must be effective for their intended purpose, which is to protect elevations at Lake Powell, not simply to pad or provide extra water for downstream release purposes. The third and final pillar of the upper division state plan is upper division state contributions. Now the upper division states have committed to conserving one hundred thousand acre feet in the first two years uh of operations of the river post twenty twenty six, so that would be twenty seven and twenty eight. Uh, Utah is willing to play our part uh with a commitment of twenty three thousand acre feet. Um, so those are, those are essentially the three elements of the upper division state plan. And I'd also like to note that, um, the upper division states have really been outgunned in terms of the messaging, right? We are not making headlines in terms of what we've put on the table, but that doesn't mean we don't have a plan, which is what I've articulated to you today. Thank you.

Thank you. No, that's, that's helpful. Uh, now, Mr. Hasencamp, um, the upper and lower basin states have gone back and forth on a number of proposals over the last few years. Obviously, uh, no agreement's been reached yet, and uh, it's one of the reasons for our discussion today. Was there anything in the upper basin proposals, uh, that you thought the lower basin could negotiate around?

Well, I, I can't speak for the lower basin, I can't speak for Metropolitan, and um, w- we did have meetings both with the Colorado River Board of California and individually with all of the seven states, including all the upper basin states, and uh we found that um what Amy is describing is something that we think is is uh is worth looking into. Um we were disappointed uh in twenty nineteen that the upper basin was given storage that they haven't yet filled. Um but what the upper basin asked was give us a chance, give us benchmarks to to meet goals. And if we meet those goals, then the agreement stays in place. If we stays in place, and if we don't meet those benchmarks, then you can say we failed. So from our perspective, giving them a chance to meet those benchmarks makes sense. Uh, we know that the hardest part is starting. And once, once we start, just like in California it was very difficult, but once we started, the next step was much easier.

Thank you. No, that's helpful. Um, Mister Vickrey, uh, the, uh, some of the lower basin of

Mm.

compared agricultural production in the lower basin to that in the upper basin is kind of an argument in favor of their desired desired outcome in these negotiations. Can you explain or describe the the economic value that the upper basin, um uh, particularly the the upper green river basin provides?

Sure. Thank you, Senator. Um, as I said before, just our small area in wyoming and wyoming controls about fourteen percent um of the river basin and i'm not including what little snake river is now cause i don't have their numbers but um again one point three million people are fed with beef raised in our country um besides that one of the nice things we have with by-products in beef is we provide about two million shoes out of that same amount of cattle to the country uh multiple and multiples of medicines, adhesives, everything you do, eat, and touch as a by-product of beef in it somewhere. OK, it's all over the place. So to - to put a value on those is probably a little tough. But it's a huge thing from the beef industry. Um, the Trona mines in southwest Wyoming near Green River have a value placed on them, contributing to the economy of about two billion dollars. And I'm, I'm representing upper basin agriculture. But, serving on this committee, I've got a chance to get out a little more and see what else is going on. And that comes through thousands of jobs, paychecks, uh, taxes that go into the state of Wyoming and to the federal government. The Trona in southwest Wyoming, ninety percent of all Trona comes from our area. And they require some use of water. And their water rights are all junior water rights. So it's gonna take some real flexibility. to try to keep them up and going. This also includes power units that we have in two or three different places. The value on those, uh, shut your lights off, we'll figure out the value real quick. And, uh, so those things are big, and then tourism has become a huge thing in our area. And, uh, what people come to Pinedale, Wyoming for, they used to go through Pinedale, Wyoming to get to Jackson Hole. We're about sixty miles away. Uh, now they stop in Pinedale. And they stopped to go fishing and experience the outdoors. And one of the things people always will tell you, always will tell you, is how beautiful it is here with the green meadows, the riparian areas, the wildlife that we've created there. Uh, it's all been done through agriculture. It's, uh, I don't think it was meant to be when my great grandparents helped settle that part of the world. But that's what's happened. And so our small towns thrive on, you know, but we're twenty five hundred people, we have six. Six great big motels in Sublette County. OK, just to handle the tourists that go back and forth, and most of them are there to experience the outdoors and the fishing. Um, so it's, you know, just in our area, it's a big thing, for sure. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Heinrich.

Thank you, Chairman. Um, Mister Kiernan, water users, tribes, recreationists, agricultural producers, conservation groups, uh, don't always agree on uh colorado river priorities but i was struck by uh a letter that you sent the chairman uh that a number of groups sent the chairman and myself and the chair and ranking member over in the house um just because of how broad the signers on this are uh we get a lot of these kind of letters as you can imagine in this committee but we don't usually get the diversity of of interest um calling on the congress to fund roughly two billion dollars a year in additional federal funding to address drought in the basin um i would ask unanimous consent to enter it into the record

without objection

uh and ask you how significant is this and if we're able to produce this kind of funding in the congress how should we think about how to focus it how to deal with the tradeoffs measure the efficiencies

mmm

uh, and, and still recognize that, uh, you know, Utah's, uh, approach to conservation, California's approach to conservation are gonna be different.

Well, let me start with the letter. I think it's an exciting moment where the breadth of stakeholders throughout the basin, as you mentioned, whether it's from cattlemen to conservationists, water utility to ag, and everybody and everyb- in between, came together found common ground, built some trust, and is making to Congress in the administration a proposal. I think it it's setting the stage for a coming together, and the proposal is for near-term drought mitigation of two billion dollars. As you well know, and everybody has spoken to this, there is deep um anxiety, uncertainty, stress in the watershed, one point four trillion dollar economy, forty million people counting on the Colorado River, that uncertainty is causing some of the challenge in reaching a durable long-term agreement that everybody says we need. So the two billion dollars for near-term drought mitigation is to help bridge across this uncertainty while everybody's as anxious to be able to meet some of the near-term needs so that we can create an environment to create a durable agreement. Now this would go to a suite of activities, whether it's active forest management, uh, forest restoration, floodplain, uh, connection, conservation, efficiency measures, a breadth of efforts, um, so that we can make some progress towards a - a more durable, resilient future.

I think historically, um, it's been fairly intuitive for a lot of members, the investments in hard infrastructure and - and plumbing effectively, uh, in the basin. But talk a little bit about the importance and role of the forests, watersheds, flood plains in uh in managing the the current hydrology that we see.

Yep. Well, first let me say the built infrastructure obviously extraordinarily important.

Right.

The natural infrastructure is also extraordinarily important. It is allowing, if you will, nature to work for us, and Mike alluded to this when you've got wetlands or flood plains that are able to, I'll use a a flood plain as example, adjacent to river, the lowland that during higher water, the water spreads out, slows down, sinks in, and is held there, and is then released throughout the summer in a very predictable way. So, it's a natural storage system. So, the natural systems work for us, help us in both retaining that water, releasing it in a measured way over time. They also, um, by being in the soil and, and obviously feeding some plant life, reduce just the straight-out evaporation, some of the water also seeps down into the ground water and comes back up lower in the basin. So again, these nat- this natural infrastructure is extraordinarily important tool in the toolbox, if you will, it's allowing nature to work for us, and so we would hope that the two billion dollars, part of it very much goes to this natural infrastructure that's so important, along with the built infrastructure, but the natural infrastructure is so important throughout the basin.

So, uh, I wrote down a few things that I heard several times today to try and come up with some, some principles. Um, you know, we heard about the need for strong federal leadership and a willingness to make tough decisions. Uh, but for the basin states themselves, shared sacrifice, live within the actual hydrology, uh, of the basin today, and for us here, don't fund litigation, do fund conservation, and try to have some transparency so we make good good investments in that conservation. Is there anything in that sort of list that any of you disagree with? That's a good start. All right, I want to thank you all.

Sir? Sir, can I speak?

Yes, go ahead, Mike.

One of the thing I think we need to really recognize is that the upper basin and even parts of the upper basin are completely different than the lower basin and they can't be managed the same.

Right.

And when we try to put on a, a one size fits all, it is not gonna work, and it will crush both systems fairly quickly. So I would encourage you as we look forward, and I, I think the, Andrea has done a great job of pushing that out there. Uh, I enjoy listening to her talk and she's a strong leader there, so I'm, I really would encourage that.

Point well taken, and I wanna thank all of you for your, your testimony today, we really appreciate it.

Um, I wanna thank each of you for your testimony. This has been a great hearing. Your input has, uh, uh, been remarkably helpful, um, we've learned a lot today. Uh, Senator Heinrich and I have to go vote. Uh, otherwise they're gonna send people after us with big sticks that they'll use. That's a little known tradition we have in the Senate. Anyway, um, so this will conclude today's hearing. Uh, I wanna thank my colleagues for their contributions, uh, for being here and th- and for their patience. Any Senator wishing to submit additional questions for the record may do so. The deadline for submitting those questions will be six p m tomorrow, Thursday, June the the eleventh. Senators also will have until six p m uh this coming this next Wednesday, uh June seventeenth, to add additional statements for the record for today's hearing. So thanks again uh to my colleagues for their participation and for our witnesses uh for your uh, uh, testimony and for answering our questions today. The hearing stands adjourned.