Summary
- Committee advanced S.140 on an 11-9 roll-call vote after rejecting amendments to remove the roadless rule repeal and restore firefighter workforce provisions.
- Andrea Travnik said Lake Powell sits at 25 percent and Lake Mead at 29 percent, with April releases expected to raise Powell 54 feet by 2027.
- Sen. Lee pressed Travnik on restoring Flaming Gorge water released to prop up Lake Powell and consulting Upper Basin states.
- Sen. Wyden, Sen. Cantwell and Sen. Padilla called the roadless repeal a poison pill, while Sen. Lee defended it as increasing wildfire risk.
- Colorado River operating guidelines expire October 1, 2026, with Interior planning a final environmental review this summer and Congress required to approve any interstate compact.
Morning digest
Get hearings like this in your inbox
Transcript
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will come to order. Good morning to everyone. Before I uh commence with my opening statement, I wanna let senators know a little bit of it uh how we're gonna proceed this morning. Plan to start with opening statements um uh first from me and then from our ranking member, Senator Heinrich. Uh then we'll hold a business meeting to vote on a total of seventeen bills that are pending before the committee,
Mm-hmm.
which were noticed on the official agenda, the uh the official agenda that the committee released last week, um, as well as some accompanying amendments to go along with those. Finally, we'll move on to an oversight hearing, uh, uh, addressing matters related to the Colorado River Basin. I also want to accommodate the schedules of our committee members. And we've got a lot of committee members with competing committee assignments this morning. Um, uh, uh, people who will be either participating in or in several cases chairing other committee hearings this morning, uh, they couldn't be moved. So, uh, a- as soon as we have a reporting quorum present, I'll move to a roll call vote on the bills, uh, for which a roll call vote has been requested. Uh, so that, um, we'll adjust today's framework as necessary in order to make that happen. All right, while we wait for a quorum, I want to say a few words about a bill that I have on today's agenda that directs the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study on a selective water withdrawal system at Glen Canyon Dam. Glen Canyon Dam helps provide affordable reliable clean hydropower to communities across the West and its operations uh very much affect the broader Colorado River system. Over the years, questions have been raised about whether a selective withdrawal system could improve hydropower performance while also helping to address concerns related to invasive species. This bill does not alter the existing Colorado River operating guidelines. It authorizes a feasibility study so that policymakers and stakeholders can make informed decisions based on sound science and engineering. I appreciate the bipartisan interest in this issue, uh, a- uh, and the, uh, bipartisan support that it's received. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Uh, I - I wanna note that we're doing, uh, things just a little bit differently, um, this week. Since becoming chairman, I've made every effort to work in good faith, uh, with the Democrats on the committee and with the ranking member. and uphold uh and even exceed this committee's long-standing bipartisan tradition. To that end, um, we've marked up Democrat and Republican bills
Mm-hmm.
on a roughly one-to-one basis, uh, meaning one Republican bill, one Democrat bill. As the chart behind me shows, that's something that no recent chairman on this committee has done. Now, today's mark-up is a little bit different. We're marking up eleven Republican bills and six Democrat bills. Since I've become chairman, one of the goals that I've had has been to return the committee to regular order. We hear bills, we mark them up, and we pass non-controversial bills on the floor. You've all heard me talk about this, perhaps ad nauseum. We're marking up um uh uh bills, we're making progress on some of these fronts. We've held six legislative mark-ups and we've processed forty-five bills out of the committee. That's much better than the single mark-up that the previous chairman held in November of twenty twenty four, uh, where we reported over eighty bills. We can do better, uh, but, uh, this is a marked improvement on how the committee functions. Unfortunately, many of these bills that we've reported are needlessly languishing when we get to the Senate floor. Dozens and dozens have cleared the Republican hotline. Republicans are ready to go. We want to send these bills, both Democrat and Republican, to the House, um, uh, or pass the House-passed version of the same bills and get them signed into law. The minority has come up with a number of excuses as to why pairing and passing one Republican bill and one Democratic bill is generally unacceptable. Sure, a few bills have squeaked through, like Senator Cortez Masto's Sloan Canyon conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act or Senator Murkowski's Cape Fox Land Entitlement Finalization Act. But these are the exception, not the rule. I've worked with my Democrat colleagues to try to assuage concerns. I've often thought we've been on the precipice of a significant breakthrough. But very often what happens is that we make progress, uh, uh, and when we make progress it ends up being fleeting and we end up back where we started. So, uh, look, uh, uh, uh, especially until this changes, um, I can't, uh, justify the historically, uh, abnormally generous treatment that I've been providing to the minority in these committee markups. Again, uh, no chairman in modern history, as far back as we've been able to research in recent decades, uh, ha- has given this much of a balance, uh, m- essentially a one-for-one ratio. In fact, I, I believe with the exception of one bill, that was pulled at the request of Democrats, uh, in order to resolve disputes among Democrats on the committee. It has been a one-to-one path. Were I, were I to continue down this path, giving something for nothing, I'm pretty sure my Republican colleagues might jump me in the parking lot. So, look, um, this is important for us to get this worked out. Uh, to my Democrat colleagues, uh, on the committee, I'm committed to working with you to move bills on the floor. Time's running out in this Congress, and I think we ought to try to make some meaningful progress. Thank you. Thank you, Member Heinrich.
Thank you, Chairman. Um, while I am always glad to see good legislation moved through this committee, uh, I am disappointed that we have yet another business meeting where we are considering zero conservation bills that are priorities for my members. My colleagues on the Democratic side of the dais have a long and growing list of priorities that continue to be left off of the list of bills to be voted on by the committee, many of which have received bipartisan support in this committee in the past. For instance, the Oregon Recreation Enhancement Act has been reported three times, always with bipartisan support, but has been left off the list of final bills that will receive votes yet again. My own Gila River bill has been reported twice with bipartisan support, but will not receive a vote today. The Ruby Mountains Protection Act from Senator Cortes Masto has been reported by this committee in three previous congresses with bipartisan support, and will not receive a vote today. As fourteen thirteen, the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, funding authorization sponsored by Senator Padilla, moved last Congress as part of a bipartisan pair with S forty forty, the Dakota Water Resources Act amendments, sponsored by Senator Hoven. In fact, Senators Padilla and Hoven each cosponsored each other's bills in the pair to demonstrate the bipartisan tie between the two. But today we will only have a vote on Senator Hoven's bill, and Senator Padilla's bill will be once again left behind. I'm also disappointed that some newer bills put forth by Democratic senators will not receive consideration today. S seven ninety-one, sponsored by Senator Van Hollen, would establish the Justice Thurgood Marshall School as an affiliated area of the national park system. The future Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, uh, received the former Supreme Court Justice received his elementary education at this segregated school, and then grew up to argue the landmark Brown versus Board of Education case before the Supreme Court that required American schools to desegregate. Senator Van Hollen's bill would not make this site a new National Park Service unit. It would simply allow the site to be named as an affiliated area of the National Park System and to be eligible for technical assistance from the Park Service. The non-profit organization that manages the site today would continue to own, operate, and manage it. This isn't a question of even adding a new National Park Service unit to the system. It's simply a bill to allow for consideration and support for a site that commemorates one of the most significant civil rights leaders of the last century. In fact, we have another affiliated area bill that will be voted on today. It's a bill to establish the grand village of the Natchez Indians in Jefferson College as affiliated areas of the National Park System. I have no objection to Senator Hyde's legislation, and I plan to vote for it. But I am extremely disappointed that we will not have an opportunity to vote on similar legislation from Senator Van Hollen. We have very few weeks of legislative business left in this Congress. And I know that senators on my side of the aisle are desperate desperately want to see their priority bills move forward. And that's the point. This is not about controversial or non-controversial. It's about being responsive to what members' priorities actually are. I hope that we will take the opportunity to seek collaboration and compromise, so that we can move some of these bills forward.
Right. Uh, we're missing just a couple of members who, uh, I believe are en route. We do have uh, voice votes on a couple of amendments that we can do right now in the absence of that, um, of that quorum. These are some technical, non-substantive amendments that have been distributed for eight agenda items. We'll vote on these amendments and bills on block. Uh, for those amendments, um, uh, five A, eighteen A, nineteen C, twenty-one B, twenty-three A, twenty-four A, twenty-six B, twenty-seven B and twenty-seven A has a block.
Thank you.
All those in favor of these amendments say aye.
Aye. Aye.
Those opposed nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The amendments are agreed to with it. OK, we're waiting for one more and
I bet it was really long ago. I bet Don Cotton's coming.
Yeah. OK.
My part's in a little bit.
And and and that'll be enough, right? Once he gets here. He just, you know Yep. Senator Cotton's on his way, so he should be here momentarily while we we wait. If somebody wants to speak briefly on one of their bills, um
Right.
Uh, Uh, how much is it? so that we can have some entertainment while we're awaiting him. How much is it? How much is that? If not, uh we're gonna have Dave McCormick McCormick do a song and dance combination, uh I had the request to do that.
She didn't, she didn't say that.
Yeah.
She just said, " I'm not dancing."
OK. All right. Senator Murkowski has arrived, so, uh, we're in good shape. I'm not dancing. You're n- she's not, she's not dancing, you don't have to, don't have to dance if you hear votes.
Mister Chairman,
Yes.
I just have a question.
Yes.
Is Dave McCormick good at singing and or dancing?
Well, yes, it's part of his wrestling, um, i- part of his wrestling training, uh, in, in college led him to that, so, the Klee Club.
OK.
All right.
Thank you.
All right, so we'll now proceed, uh, now we've got a voting quorum. Present. And we'll proceed with a series of roll call votes. We'll begin with agenda item one, S one forty. This is from Senator Barrasso. Does any senator have a second degree amendment they wish to offer? If not, hearing none.
Mister, Mister Chairman?
Yep.
I have a second degree amendment to Barrasso.
Yes. Sorry, didn't mean to cut you off, didn't see that. Go ahead.
This amendment, colleagues, is with Senator Cantwell, Senator Padilla, Senator DiGaego, and Senator Horono. strike the provision that would nullify the roadless area conservation rule. And for decades, the roadless rule has protected some of America's most iconic outdoor recreation areas. In Oregon, we're talking about extraordinarily uh, amazing landscapes, like the scenic lakes for swimming and kayaking and the Cascade Lakes around Mount Bachelor. hiking through wildfire meadows at Iron Mountain, or camping in old-growth forests on Mount Hood, all of these beloved places would be decimated if the roadless rule was repealed. In a number of instances, more roads mean more wildfires. And repealing the roadless rule is an open invitation to destroy these recreation areas and to spark catastrophic wildfires. And I'm gonna be brief this morning, cuz I wanna let my colleagues, led by Senator Cantwell, make any remarks that they have. But I just wanna introduce one fact involving a twenty twenty-six study You're nominated, I assume. of three decades of the national forest system, wildfire data. Wildfire data. This data found that wildfire ignition density within fifty meters of roads I think it is, whatever. is roughly four times higher than in non-wilderness, non-roadless forest. wilderness and inventory roadless areas have the lowest ignition densities of any land category studied. And the point really is, Mister Chairman, and I'll close with this.
I know, what a great point.
There certainly are instances where you need active management and you ought to think it through carefully. And so often we've tried around here to proceed in that kind of way. I've been really pleased to work with Senator Budd on uh prescribed fire, because I think that's a big part of the future. But when people hear that the roadless rule is being wiped out, they say nobody's going in there with a scalpel, they're going in there more with, you know, a cannon or something. And I think we can do better. I urge members of the committee to support my amendment, to protect the fifty-eight million acres of national forest covered under the roadless rule, instead of in effect just saying we can go in there with this across the board approach without really thinking through what it means to protect these special places and do it in a thoughtful way in a manner that this committee historically has done so Mr. Chairman I yield back.
Thank you, Senator Wyden. Before we turn to Senator Barrasso um to respond, do we have any other second degree amendments, Senator Padilla? Not for an amendment, but I'd like to be uh heard after Senator Caldwell. Uh uh uh
I've got the center. Cantwell, Senator Padilla, and I believe Senator Gustav Iago are the second.
Oh, speaking on the, on the point?
Yes.
OK.
I'm on my second degree.
Yes, OK, uh, so Senator Cantwell and then Senator Padilla.
Thank you, Mister Chairman, um, I definitely am perplexed by this morning's mark-up and hearing. I would have loved to seen the Wild Olympics on this. I think we may be creating an artificial divide here this morning. I mean, it's clear, Mister Chairman, that you would like to sell public land. On our side of the aisle, we would like to continue to acquire public land and set it aside for the general public to use. This Sunday I will attend the memorial service for Jim Whittaker, the first American to summit Mount Everest and the founder of REI. It will be a great celebration of his life. But REI, and what the outdoor industry means, is that when you add public land the public gets to recreate, and we create an economy, and it grows jobs. So, what we have in this debate now on adding to the Brasso bill, a bill that we've passed out a committee prior to help us fight wildfires, and I appreciate Senator Brasso attending a hearing with me in Seattle and helping pioneer some policy that we actually got implemented and help us change the fire borrowing problem that this committee was plagued with for many years. But we have much more to do on fire prevention and we should come together. But this amendment is now offering a eradication of the roadless rule, which is simply a rule that says, aren't there some elevations of public lands that are so high and so expensive to take care of that we should not basically try to use the public dollars to do so?
Mm-hmm.
I thank my colleague from Idaho for implementing, when he was And it shows that these policies can work and can be cost-effective for the public. Why is this so important? Because we're more challenged. We're more challenged on our public lands and we have to be smarter with the taxpayer dollars. But to now, it's today, to say we're gonna get rid of the roadless rule, which is basically like saying, OK, we're we're just gonna go build a road anywhere, even where it's not cost-effective, even where it costs the public more, and instead of focusing on the backlog, and getting out of this administration the money that was promised in a bipartisan bill to continue to implement the land policies that we agreed to under uh legislation that our former colleague from Colorado and many of us worked on is like there's a divide here and it's a bad divide and let's be efficient with the taxpayers' dollars let's not kill the roadless area rule let's make sure that we're working together on fire prevention and make smart use of public policy because it's a damn big economy. And doing anything else is just wrong-headed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Uh, uh, thank you. We'll go to Senator Padilla now. Ag- again, we've got, we're running up against a clock with members with competing assignments. So, um, if you can speak, um, uh, on, on the, uh, amendment, um, and keep your remarks, uh, concise, I'll, I'll recognize you as long as you want after we've voted. Go ahead, Senator Padilla.
So, thank you. Yeah, and I'm one of those members with multiple committees, but this is important. Um. and uh as i begin to talk about the roadless ruling amendment currently before us i also wanna make a point to echo the ranking members concerns about democrats being cut out of the process for scheduling bills on this mark up and that includes colleagues my bill on the san joaquin river restoration settlement act which has historically moved together with senator hovind's dakota water resources act so moving forward i hope that uh we'd get a fair consideration not just for that particular bill of mine but also my grow smart act and my more water act um now while I always hope that we can work in good faith and find bipartisan compromises in this committee the action that the majority seems to be on the verge of taking today erodes some of that goodwill right at the deadline the majority filed an amendment to the previous previously bipartisan wildfire bill to codify the repeal of the roadless rule the last minute move destroys a bipartisan opportunity for compromise on this one and let me remind us and folks watching at home the two thousand one roadless area conservation rule was created through one of the most extensive and rigorous public rulemaking processes in history garnering over one point six million public comments with ninety five percent of them in support by the way the rule remains incredibly popular throughout the country with over half a million public comments in opposition to the administration's recent efforts to repeal the rule. And we now see the Republican majority on this committee working feverishly, uh, against the will of all of our constituents. So, let me explain why the roadless rule is so important to my home state of California. The rule helps protect almost four million acres of roadless areas in my state, from the Klamath Mountains in the north to the San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mountains in the south. These areas help keep the headwaters of our important rivers clean, protect over two hundred threatened or endangered species of wildlife and supports the state's seventy four billion dollar outdoor recreation economy now to address the growing threat of wildfires California is also accelerating projects improving practices in the wildland urban interface and using fire as a natural process through prescribed burning republicans have claimed that the role this rule has hindered wildfire mitigation efforts and it simply false in fact more than two hundred and forty thousand acres of roadless land in california have undergone vegetarian maintenance uh and treatments to reduce wildfire risk and protect those nearby communities as this committee knows every single member of this committee knows studies have also demonstrated that the fire threat increases by four times with established roads due to human caused ignitions so opening in inventory roadless areas to road construction would put rural communities at increased risk of fire. Now finally, members on both sides of the aisle in this committee have discussed the need to address our deferred maintenance backlog. There's over three hundred and seventy thousand miles of roads in our national forest. The forest service has ten point eight billion dollars of of deferred maintenance backlog backlog fifty five percent of which is due to dilapidated roads one of the main reasons the roadless rule was created was because these roads are so expensive to maintain like i can go on and on about the roadless rule what it means to my state and my constituents but i just have to go on record with my disappointment on how republicans are pushing this poison pill in what is a tremendous bipartisan opportunity
mmm
and um proud to cosponsor this amendment with senator white and senator cantwell can we both say a word and i thank them for their leadership
it's crazy let's uh it's Uh, we we need to vote on the, do you have a a a point, we need to proceed to a vote on this amendment,
Yes. Let's go.
you you need to speak to on the
I absolutely.
Can we vote first and then uh talk, and then uh
Would you be willing to take the vote first and speak after?
uh
That's not much of a debate, but
No, we've we've heard three members already.
Alright. Uh, I'll keep it to ten seconds. I'm just really disappoint- the I wanna commend Senator Brassa for working in a very partisan way, bipartisan way, on dealing with the wildfire threats that we're all struggling with. And I think putting a roadless rule uh repeal into this legislation just blows that up.
Let's proceed to a vote on the second degree amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
Mister Lee.
No. No.
Mister Barrasso.
No.
Mister Risch.
No.
Mister Daines.
No.
Mister Cotton.
Out.
Mister McCormick.
Out.
Mister Justice.
No, I can't.
Mister Cassidy. Miss Hyde-Smith. Miss Murkowski. Mister Hovind.
No.
Mister Heinrich.
Yes.
Mister Wyden.
Yes.
Miss Canwell. Miss Hirono.
Yes, by proxy.
Mister King.
Yes, by proxy.
Miss Cortez Masto.
Yes.
Mister Hickenlooper.
Yes.
Mister Padilla.
I
Mister Gallego.
Yes, by proxy.
On this vote, the nays are eleven and the yeas are nine.
Before we proceed to a vote on the measure, is there any other second degree amendments?
Excuse me, Mister uh
Senator Padilla.
Sen- Mister Chairman, uh, I'd like to uh bring up my uh bro- uh amendment number S one forty. It's a second degree amendment.
Go ahead.
Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. My uh second degree amendment to the wildfire prevention act is actually pretty simple it would add back into the bill the important workforce provisions that were negotiated and passed by this committee last year by voiceover these provisions provide critical benefits to our federal firefighting workforce just as we enter peak wildfire season these heroes protect our communities and i find it incredibly disheartening to see that my colleagues uh many of whom say they support our federal firefighters and thank them when they respond to incidents, strip out these provisions that they voted to support last Congress. Specifically, this amendment would provide direct higher authority, correct a bureaucratic error regarding federal firefighters'
Okay.
specialized retirement and ensure a federal firefighter's uh rent never exceeds thirty percent of their base and locality pay. I appreciate the work that we did last year negotiating these provisions and again approving them on a unanimous bipartisan basis and I hope my colleagues will support these same critically important provisions today.
Chairman, just a question.
Yes.
I wanna ask uh the sponsor of this amendment. This strikes me as extraordinarily important, because in the West we are gonna be faced with an urgency with respect to enough firefighters and I think your amendment also applies to housing as well. Is that true?
That is correct.
I urge my colleagues to support the Padilla amendment.
Senator Bress.
Well thank you, Mister P- Mister P- uh, Mister Chairman, there are many members on our side who may be willing to support the amendment, We've been unable to determine the exact cost of this without knowing the budgetary impact of the amendment or a CBO score, which I believe is gonna be significant. I just can't support it at this time, so I'd urge my colleagues to vote no.
That's part of it last year.
Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
Yes, Senator Murkowski.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question, and perhaps this goes to committee counsel here, but this is obviously a very important issue, but you're talking about about not only housing, um, uh, but but, uh, uh, pension. uh retirement benefits as well so my question is whether or not this actually falls within the jurisdiction of this committee. It's I'm not disagreeing that we need to address this but I'm just curious as to whether or not within E and R we actually have jurisdiction over this.
Yes. Win?
For amendments there's no general requirement for a germaneness, however if this were offered um as an individual stand-alone bill it would go to the Senate Parliamentarian and she would look at the preponderance test.
And and and respectfully,
Thank you.
that wasn't a concern last time when we voice voted it out.
Yep. A and in addition I I might add that if uh Senator Padilla had actually introduced this as an amendment on the Senate floor, it would have been referred to the committee as a trailing amendment to S one forty, which the parliamentarian has already referred to the committee. And um uh uh there there is of course a a provision in the rules that prevent any committee from reporting an amendment that's not within the committee's jurisdiction but I think because of the of the um fact that it is a, in a sense, a trailing amendment, it uh it would it's appropriate for the committee to consider it.
OK, we need to proceed to question on this. The clerk will call the roll on the s uh uh second degree amendment.
Mister Lee.
No.
Mister Barasa.
No.
Mister Rish.
No.
Mister Daines. Mister Cotton.
No.
Mister McCormick.
No.
Mister Justice.
No.
Mister Cassidy.
No.
Miss Head Smith. Miss Murkowski. Mister Hoven.
No.
Mister Heinrich.
Aye.
Mm.
Mister Wyden.
Aye.
Miss Cantwell.
Aye.
Miss Hirono.
Yes, by proxy.
Mister King.
Yes, by proxy.
Miss Cortez Masto.
Yes.
Mister Hickenlooper.
Aye.
Mister Padilla.
Aye.
Mister Gallego.
Yes, by proxy.
On this vote, the nays are eleven, the yeas are nine.
We'll now turn to the question on Senator Barrasso's legislation. Uh, to the Barrasso first degree amendment. Clerk will call, uh, it is.
Mister Chairman.
Go ahead.
Mister Chairman, before we go to the vote at some point in time,
Yes.
and I can do it after the vote, but I would like to speak to, uh, to the roadless rule. I deferred because of uh time, but I would like to speak to that.
You've got it. You got it. Clerk will call the rule.
Mister Lee.
Aye.
Mister Barrasso.
Aye.
Mister Risch.
Aye.
Mister Daines.
Aye.
Mister Cotton.
Aye.
Mister McCormick.
Aye.
Mister Justice. Mister Cassidy.
Aye.
Miss Hyde-Smith.
Aye.
Miss Murkowski.
Aye.
Mister Hoven. Mr. Heinrich.
No.
Mr. Wyden.
No.
Miss Cantwell.
No.
Miss Hirono.
No, by proxy.
Mr. King.
No, by proxy.
Miss Cortez Masto.
No.
Mr. Hickenlooper. Mr. Padilla.
No.
Mr. Gallego.
No, by proxy.
On this vote, the yeas are eleven, the nays are nine.
We'll now proceed to the question on the legislation S one forty, the Barrasso bill, the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Lee.
Aye.
Mister Barrasso.
Aye.
Mister Risch.
Aye.
Mister Daines. Mister Cotton.
Aye.
Mister McCormick.
Aye.
Mister Justice.
Aye.
Mister Cassidy.
Aye.
Miss Hyde-Smith.
Aye.
Miss Murkowski. Mister Mister Hoven.
No.
Mister Heinrich.
No.
Mister Wyden.
No.
Miss Canwell. Miss Hirono.
No, by proxy.
Mister King.
No, by proxy.
Miss Cortez Masto.
No.
Mister Hickenlooper. Mister Padilla.
No.
Mister Gallego.
No, by proxy.
On this vote, the yeas are eleven, the nays are nine.
We'll now proceed to the question on agenda item number twenty seven. Clerk, will call the roll?
Mister Lee.
Aye.
Mister Barrasso. Mister Risch. Mister Daines. Mister Cotton. Mister McCormick. Mr. Justice.
Ar. I'm sorry.
Mr. Cassidy.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Miss Hyde-Smith. Miss Hyde-Smith. Miss Murkowski. Miss Murkowski. Mr. Hoven. Mr. Hoven.
I'm sorry.
Mr. Heinrich. Miss Hyde-Smith.
No.
Mr. Wyden. Miss Hyde-Smith.
No.
Miss Canwell. Miss Canwell.
No.
Miss Hirono. Miss Hirono.
No, by proxy.
Mr. King. Miss Hyde-Smith.
No, by proxy.
Miss Cortez Masto. Miss Hyde-Smith.
What? Third, fifth, and fifth? I would be here on the board now.
Oh. We're on the underlying bill.
What part of the bill is it?
As Or no, sorry, we're on the Oh, we're on
Broadway Canyon.
Oh.
Please, I'm sorry.
We haven't even debated that.
Oh,
OK.
I I've never heard of the legal canyon.
Proceed.
Um, Chairman, I'm not sure we adopted the voice the amendment by voice vote. Can we We did?
The call.
OK.
Yep. Yeah, we do.
I I applaud it. Thank you for the clarification. Um
Um
Miss Cortez Masto
Okay, so just so I know, is the underlying bill the length, and voice vote of the amendment passed?
Yes
No.
Thank you.
Yes.
Mister Hagen-Loper Mister Padilla Mister Gallego
No. No by proxy.
On this vote the yeas are eleven, the nays are nine.
We'll now proceed to agenda item number thirty-two. Are there Cuz you don't wanna have any second agree amendments to agenda item number thirty-two.
I don't think so. we have a first agree amendment. You've got a first agree amendment, so You have two points of base. Right. This is your time. OK. I'm at thirty-two.
It's on, it's on, it's on Farland's. It's like, there's a plane, a plane on the fire plane. Oh.
I have an amend meant to offer, uh, Mister Chair.
Yes, sir, alright, proceed.
Uh, I appreciate the improvements made, uh, in this, hold on. I have an amendment number thirty-two A that I'd like to call up. And, um, I understand that HR thirty-eight seventy-two is intended to allow hard rock mineral development on acquired lands uh where there's no current authority to lease hard rock minerals for development. military installations, corps of engineer projects, uh, or do e lands. Uh, the bill doesn't affect public domain lands, which are most of the public lands in the west, and doesn't affect acquired national forests in the east, which are governed by a separate statute. Uh, I'm not opposed to developing hard rock minerals on military or corps of engineer's lands as long as the mineral development does not interfere with the main mission of those lands uh whether national defense or for that matter flood control. I am concerned, however, that this bill also opens up hard rock mining on lands that were acquired with funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or from the, uh, from FLIPFA, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act. These funds acquire public lands for conservation and for recreational use. But because they are acquired lands, minerals on them are governed by the Mineral Leasing Act for acquired lands, the law this underlying uh bill amends today. Now, while the MLA for acquired lands excludes areas within national parks, national monuments, uh that exclusion does not cover many LWCF acquisitions, especially those targeting recreational access to public lands, which open up new trailheads or new stream access, new uh access for hunters and fishermen. And we want to be able to protect those acquisitions and maintain that access. Many LWCF REC access projects are just effectively regular BLM or forest service land, but they facilitate those access points. Uh, my amendment simply ensures that lands acquired for the public with Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars or FLIPFA funds, lands acquired for the purpose of recreation, conservation, and wildlife habitat are not unintentionally opened to hard rock mining by this bill. Uh, I know that was not the sponsor's intent, but if we can adopt this amendment, it will close a potential loophole, and I would be happy to vote for the underlying bill.
I'd I'd love to respond to Heinrich Amendment thirty-two A. I'm gonna defer my comments until afterwards. I'd like the clerk to call the roll on Heinrich Amendment thirty-two A.
Mister Lee.
No.
Mister Barrasso.
No.
Mister Risch.
No.
Mister Daines.
No.
Mister Cotton.
No.
Mister McCormick.
No.
Mister Justice.
No.
Mister Cassidy.
No by proxy.
No by proxy.
Miss Hyde-Smith. Miss Murkowski. Mister Hoven.
No.
Mister Heinrich.
Aye.
Mister Wyden. Miss Cantwell. Miss Hirono.
Aye by proxy.
Mister King.
Aye by proxy.
Miss Cortez Masto. Mister Hickenlooper. Mister Padilla.
Aye.
Mister Gallego.
I by proxy.
On this vote, the yeas are eleven, the nays are nine.
OK, Senator Heinerich, you have another amendment
Oh, well.
to thirty two.
Mister Chair, the uh, I have an additional amendment to H R thirty eight seventy two that is titled amendment thirty two B um the mineral development enabled by H R thirty eight will pay a royalty, uh, just like all minerals produced under federal mineral leases. For budget purposes, that revenue is new revenue. Uh, my amendment would take that revenue from this newly authorized hard rock mining, and it would dedicate it to the abandoned hard rock mine reclamation program that this committee created in the bipartisan infrastructure bill. That program, which Senator Daines and I worked together to create, provides funding to clean up old abandoned hard rock mines uh these mines are in almost every state in the nation uh they're particularly um numerous in new mexico colorado utah uh montana idaho uh and they continue to leak pollution into our streams and rivers uh poisoning fish habitat contaminating farm fields in some cases um these are mines that have not operated in decades and any previous owner of them no longer exists. The estimated clean-up costs for all of them nationwide is roughly fifty billion, billion with a B, dollars. Uh, and currently there is no dedicated funding source for the reclamation program that all of us created in twenty twenty-one. My amendment would make uh would take the new royalties that will be generated by H R thirty-eight seventy-two and dedicate them to cleaning up these abandoned mines.
Uh, thank you. Uh, uh, we will, uh, now proceed to the question on Amendment thirty-two B. The clerk will call the roll.
Mister Lee.
Nope.
Mister Barrasso.
No.
Mister Risch.
No.
Mister Daines.
Sisk.
Mister Cotton.
No.
Mister McCormick.
No.
Mister Justice. Mister Cassidy.
No, by proxy.
Miss Hyde-Smith.
Yep.
Miss Murkowski. Mister Hoven. Mister Heinrich.
Aye.
Mister Wyden.
Aye. Aye.
Miss Cantwell.
Aye.
Miss Hirono.
Aye, by proxy.
Mister King.
Aye, by proxy.
Miss Cortez Masto.
Aye.
Mister Hickenlooper.
Aye.
Mister Padilla.
Aye.
Mister Gallego.
Aye, by proxy.
On this vote, the nays are eleven and the yeas are nine.
Now we have the bill, H R thirty eight seven eight two, the clerk will call the roll on the bill.
Mister Lee.
Aye.
Mister Barrasso.
Aye.
Mister Rish.
Aye.
Mister Daines.
Aye.
Mister Cotten.
Aye.
Mister McCormick.
Aye.
Mister Ca- Justice.
Aye.
Mister Cassidy.
I'm not quite sure what's going on here. What's
i got proxy
miss hyde-smith
i
miss merkovsky
i
mister hoven
i think it this one is a little bit too
mister heinrich
no
too much too much too much
mister wyden
no
miss cantwell
no
miss harona
no by proxy
mister king
no by proxy
miss cortez masto
no
mister hickenlooper
oh no
mister padilla
hmm
mister gaego
no by proxy
On this vote, the yeas are eleven, the nays are nine.
Now we'll go to agenda item number thirty-three. Does anyone have any amendments on thirty-three?
Mr. Chair, I have one.
Go ahead.
Uh, I have an amendment number thirty-three A that I would like to call up. And this amendment is pretty simple. Uh, usually when Congress passes legislation to sell small parcels of national forest land, it directs the money received from the sale to a special fund in the treasury. That fund was created by the SISC Act and it was used to acquire replacement national forest land in the state where land sale uh produced rep or where the land sale produced those revenues. Uh, so in this case, because HR thirty nine thirty seven sells national forest land in Wisconsin, the SISC Act would insure that the proceeds of that sale are used to acquire replacement land in the state of Wisconsin. Uh, this insures that small, reasonable land sales like uh, do not reduce the amount of public access to public lands for all Americans, and keeps the funding in the state where the revenues were created.
You're asking for a roll call vote on this amendment.
Mm-hmm.
Clerk, we'll call the roll on the amendment.
Mr. Lee.
Nope.
Mr. Barrasso. Mr. Risch.
No.
Mr. Daines. Mr. Cotton.
No.
Mr. McCormick.
No.
Mr. Justice.
No.
Mr. Cassidy.
No, by proxy.
No.
Miss Head-Smith.
Yes.
Miss Murkowski.
No.
Mr. Hoven. Mr. Heinrich.
Aye.
Mr. Wyden.
Aye.
Miss Cantwell.
Aye.
Miss Hirono.
Aye, by proxy.
Mr. King.
Aye, by proxy.
Miss Cortez Masto.
Aye.
Mr. Hickenlooper. Mr. Padilla.
Aye.
Mr. Gallego.
Aye, by proxy.
On this vote, the nays are eleven, the yeas are nine.
Any additional amendments on agenda item number thirty three? Seeing none, we'll proceed to a roll call vote on agenda item thirty three H R three nine three seven, court
Mister Lee.
Aye.
Mister Barrasso. Mister Risch. Aye. Mister Daines. Mister Cotton. Aye. Mister McCormick. Aye. Mister Justice. Alright. Mister Cassidy. I'll go first. Miss Hyde-Smith. I agree. I agree. Miss Murkowski. I agree. Mister Hoven. Mister Heinrich.
No.
Mister Wyden. No. Mister Cantwell. No. Mister Horono.
No, by proxy.
Mister King.
Yes, by proxy.
Miss Cortez Masto.
No.
Mister Hickenlooper.
No.
Mister Padilla.
No.
Mister Gallego.
No, by proxy.
On this vote, the yeas are twelve, the nays are eight.
Committee will now vote on thirteen bills by voice vote, which the chair presents to the committee to consider and block. They are S three thirty two, S seven seventy nine, S twelve eighty eight, S twelve twenty four thirty seven with H R three eight five seven, S twenty seven fifty three, S thirty five hundred with H R three six five seven, S three five one eight, S three six nine three, S seven three seven two three. S three seven three six, S three seven nine two, S three eight seven eight and S four O four O. The clerk, uh, uh, all those in favor?
Aye. Aye. Aye.
All those opposed, say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. Uh, these bills will be reported favorably. to the Senate. Now at this time I wish to recognize any Senator who wants to be heard on any of the bills that we voted on today, and again uh uh yeah go ahead. Yes, Senator Rish.
Um, Mister Chairman, I uh you know, anybody uh I I wanna talk about the one that has the roadless rule, cuz I have a particular interest in that, but anybody watching this from the outside would think that the two sides here are deeply deeply divided on these issues, and and we really aren't. Uh, I have found every time we've worked on these There's very little daylight between us, and almost always there's some middle ground that you can get to. Now, we haven't done that uh on the votes we have this morning, but uh obviously I think as we're going forward we ought to re- double our efforts to try to get these things through to where we can get everybody behind it. I wanna talk for just a minute about the roadless rule. Um, and I wanna explain the way I voted on this, Idaho doesn't have a dog in a fight on the roadless rule. And the reason is We've resolved this in Idaho. Um, in uh two thousand six uh the president at that time invited every state to take up the question of the roadless rule and see if they could develop their own rule, because the federal government had uh dealt with this since uh the wilderness uh pieces were uh put uh on the books. And these were pieces that were left over that they couldn't agree on and said well we'll take it up later. And as a result of that when the Republicans were in, they passed a rule where it could be used more. When the Democrats were in, that said it would be used less. And in the meantime, there were hundreds of lawsuits filed over this. N- none of which were actuall actually resolved because the new administration would come in before the suits were resolved. In any event, in two thousand six, the president uh said, state see if he can do it. Idaho was uh one, and Colorado was the other uh who took this up. In Idaho uh we had uh a governor who had a vision at the time and even more wisdom. And uh brought together at the table a collaborative group that represented the entire spectrum.
What's that going, what's that?
Uh well it's history history will record that, history will record that.
Jim Rish.
But in any event um we we sat at the table and hammered the thing out. We had two hundred uh parcels that we uh signed five different uh uh themes to. Uh we voted on them, we all agreed we'd stick together on the thing. Uh, everybody got something. We walked away from the table with a rule. They went to the district court, it was affirmed. Went to the ninth circuit, it was affirmed. Went to the Supreme Court, they declined uh to take jurisdiction, so it is the law in Idaho. And uh every time now a a roadless uh rule comes up, Idaho's always excluded. The president when he did his uh uh he did an executive order on this, as we all know, he excluded the Idaho rule. Um, and uh, in this particular bill, the Idaho rule uh was also excluded. This can be done, but it takes real hard work and it takes a collaborative effort. And uh, I would urge that everyone uh, every state that has uh road lists uh in it, you get a collaborative movement going and, and get a deal done. And so we stop these lawsuits and we w- and we stop wasting our time on this as we fight back and forth. And again, as I, as I said, when you sit down at the table and talk about this, you find that there's very little uh
I don't know the next senator.
Will the senator yield for question?
The senator will.
Um, Senator Rich, isn't the essence of this trying to figure out the best strategy for our our lands and to be efficient? And isn't isn't that discussion in Idaho, wasn't it about there are some areas where you just really, it was inefficient to build roads. It just was. And you made those decisions.
That's true. And what we found with the two hundred and some parcels, and with the five themes that we set out, that they felt that each parcel fell pretty naturally into one of those. There were some that were very close to general forest. And they should be general forest and should be able to harvest trees on it. There were oth other ones that nobody's gonna build a ro a road in there, and and almost no one would wanna see the land develop because it was prime wilderness kind of ground. And uh We we we actually uh got through this and it was it was Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, and we reached an agreement uh to where we could all live with uh, and and most importantly, this is nine million acres we're talking about that we wrestled away from the federal government wrote our own rule for it, and it is managed today by a committee of Idahoans that is appointed by the governor. Time remains with the United States government uh on the ground. But we manage it. And it, and you know what? Since this happened, not one lawsuit regarding uh our uh our uh roadless area in Idaho. This can be done. And it would save a lot of time. And, and like I said, all of us want the same thing for the public lands. We love our public lands. We wanna use them, we wanna protect them, uh, and, and each piece is different and it should be treated differently. This can be done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before we conclude the business portion of our meeting and proceed to the hearing, I wanna make sure we, allow anybody who wants to speak to do so. Senator Murkowski, thanks for your patience. Uh, I know you wanted to speak and i- may anyone else could speak afterwards before we proceed to the hearing. Go ahead.
Thank you, thank you, Mister Chairman, and I I I really appreciate the comments from Senator Risch because uh for us in in Alaska, the roadless rule has been um has been a real challenge for us for decades. Um most Alaskans maintain that the roadless rule should never have applied to Alaska. We didn't asked for it, we consistently opposed it. It's never been a good fit for us. Um, when you think about, particularly i- in the Tongass, because this is, this is where most of the attention is directed, but, uh, uh, with or without the roadless rule, um, the, the forest areas within the Tongass remain fully, fully protected through existing laws and through other regulations. So you can have a roadless rule come in But in terms of the areas that have been protected, and it's what, some nine point nine point two million acres that just off the top, um, i- i- are not subject to uh, to application uh of the roadless rule. And I think there are some who believe that if you if you remove the roadless rule that somehow or other then everything in uh in our forest is is available uh for for access and that's simply not the case. Um, in our situation, in in the Tongass, um, the concern has been with with, uh, an overlay of the roadless rule, um, it makes it near impossible to be able to to provide for what we would determine to be necessary projects. And that's when you're trying to to allow for a transmission, a hydro transmission, two small islanded areas um so that they can receive power. Pretty basic stuff. We're not asking for for permission to to clear cut an area. We're not asking, it's not about harvesting. It's basically being able to access for whether it's energy um uh or or renewable energy resources it just makes it um more expensive they say well yeah you can do it, but it's all helicopter logging. You tell me how you're going to put in a transmission line when you're literally taking one tree at a time by helicopter logging. And and then to Senator Rish's point, this is something that I think should be left to the individual states. If if you want a roadless rule, go for it. If you don't, um, you should be able to say no or you should be able to work the deals, and they are hard, because every acre is important. Certainly I know in the Tongass every acre is precious, so Uh, uh, w- we, we have been battling this for years and, uh, in fairness what happens is we see this, this, this kind of a ping pong effect between administrations in terms of what can happen within the Tongass, and then what is taken off the table in the Congres, in the Tongass. And that stalls out any level of economic activity, whether it is limited timber harvest or whether it is opportunity for for a more renewable uh uh power to proceed or for for tourism. And speaking of renewable power to proceed, and I will be very quick, Mister Mister Chairman, but I wanna I wanna thank you and and the ranking member for bringing the Flows Act before the committee today. I wanna thank Senator King for his help on this, his partnership. Um, for us in Alaska, it's hydro power in Southeast, this is what makes it happen. But, uh-huh, so often our operators face these unnecessary and, and oftentimes just really ridiculous delays when they're trying to maintain or or to upgrade existing facilities. We've got short construction season, we've got project sites that are remote. Um, you can lose a full season with a, a simple permitting delay. So there's real consequences there. So what we do is we preserve FERC's authority over major project modifications and dam safety. But we provide greater certainty that routine maintenance, uh, the repairs, the replacements, the temporary operational adjustments can move forward without unnecessary delay. And and this is helping us really unlock this next generation of of water power technologies. So what we have is a licensing pathway that is better suited for these smaller, innovative projects. And I know Senator Cortes Masto has been, uh, uh, working on some of these other hydro initiatives. We appreciate that.
Uh, uh, yes, uh
Just if I could make one quick comment.
Yes.
I I think that what Senator Risch said is so prescient, which is to listen to the people in in that state. And I think a roadless rule is a public process, and you do hear from people. in your state and you do take that information and you figure out how to make the best decisions. And so I'm not saying rich for governor of Alaska, but anyway, I am a, I am definitely
You see, I don't have a running up.
But I am say but I
It is.
But I, I am saying it is proof that the process can work. Thank you, Mister Chairman.
I mean, it's got a nice ring to it. I, we, we gotta admit. All right, let's see. Uh, so, uh, on the, on the order right now, we, we've got Senator Hickenlooper, then Senator Padilla, then Senator Heinrich. Now, Senator Daines' uh recognition, were you making a point uh in response to this, or do you wanna get in the speaking order?
No, to to this here. We're talking, it's current dialogues.
Yes, all right. If if it's OK, we'll hear from Daines and then we'll go to you,
Yeah.
Jeff.
J- just briefly, um, uh, Senator Rish, thank you for, uh, your words of common sense and reason. Um, I would hope that the Idaho model will continue to spread throughout the West. And, uh, I sure don't wanna spoil the broth here that we've had in this committee, of really making great bipartisan progress as it relates to force management reforms. I mean, So, um, I I think this is one of these difficult moments in the committee today, on the roadless rule. Uh, and I think there's frustration. We have over three hundred million board feet of timber tied up in litigation, as we speak, in Montana. And I think there's just this, the pendulum swings kind of back and forth too far at times. And, um, as the chairman and the ranking member, um, I do hope we can continue the the spirit of, uh, of dialogue and cooperation and, uh, maybe, um, maybe Governor Risch could insert himself and and help uh help us see the better path forward as it relates to being better stewards here and better outcomes on policy.
Great.
Sure.
Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm grateful to you and to ranking member Heinrich for including several priorities that benefit Colorado in today's mark-up, helping us manage water in the face of the severe drought that we're dealing with is comes from building capacity of water managers to develop projects that make the most of the supplies we have, and we're making sure that we stay at the cutting edge of water forecasting by understanding our snowpack. A year like this one, we have to make the most of every drop. As just one example, the Ute Mountain Tribe in southwestern corner of Colorado is expected to receive less than fourteen percent of its typical water allocation or supply this year. That's a dramatic cut that we see play out on the fields of the tribe's farms and ripples across the states. and the region's uh uh economy. We see the severity of this crisis in farms, in the communities across the Colorado River Basin, which I'm glad we'll get a chance to discuss later this morning. In in the basin, we're breaking records for how low we can go. Projected inflows into Lake Powell will be roughly thirty-five percent of normal for this water year. So I want to thank Senator Lee for giving us a chance to address this drought by working with us on water management tools through the Water Project Navigators Act and the Stillwater Supply Forecasting Reauthorization. Uh, I would hope that the bipartisan work we've done on our water bills can translate into work on other issues we face. I care deeply about our response to wildfire, not just because of the decades-long drought in the Colorado River Basin, but because of the way that the fire has negatively affected communities, water coli- quality, and even insurance costs in Colorado. As I know, we can work on wildfire in a bipartisan way because we've done it. with our Fix Our Forests Act. One of the bills on the agenda today uh addresses wildfire, and I've v- voted for that bill in a previous form. Unfortunately, the amendment um in the process, that was added late in the process, would add that full-on repeal of the roadless rule uh on that bill. When I first came in as Governor of Colorado, we were going through our process of the roadless rule, and what Senator Rich described, the collaboration between Republicans and Democrats between various industries and citizens, uh, outdoor recreationists, that effort, uh, and we had hundreds of thousands of people participate in that, and like Idaho, we have a roadless rule. So this doesn't affect us, but the, the, the, the, the random cancellation of that is, is not a, uh, a constructive idea that I would support. Uh, a rule that thir- seventy-five percent of the voters supported a poll or earlier this year. Seventy-five percent rarely support anything. Um, they support the roadless rule. I know how important the protections of the roadless rule are for ecosystems, for watersheds, for western lands we all love. I stand with my colleagues who will vote to try to strip this poison pill out to do something that should help us respond to wildfire. Um, I am also collating an amendment with my colleague, Senator Padilla, here to use the approach we took in our Fix Our Forests Act for several sections of this bill uh, we'll be able to find a bipartisan path on several elements, uh, that appear in both bills. Uh, we won't be asking for a vote on our amendment today, but we will be laying, we're laying out a marker, we're ready to reject partisan point scoring, and let's collaborate and work constructively on real solutions. I yield back to the chair.
Senator Padilla.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I want to echo some of the the sentiment of, uh, my colleague, Senator, uh, Hickenlooper from Colorado. And I moved by Senator Rich's comments earlier, for folks watching at home, uh this committee may not be as divided as it appears to be today. And I think exhibit A of that is the work that Senator Hickenlooper and I did, together with Senator Sheehy, Senator Curtis and others, as we crafted the Senate version of the Fix Our Force Act. True, bipartisan, substantive, meaningful legislation. And I think that's why I'm so dispirited with today's committee hearing, because that goodwill is being undermined by what we saw happen and how it happened. Couldn't agree more in terms of bringing stakeholders together on some of these um uh natural resource and land use decisions. It's how California has approached our proposals for national monument designations, for example, all to hear that that's potentially being revisited by the administration for no good reason. It's how we have improved air quality in California through the previously clean air act waivers authorities that the state of california had which the republican majority stripped from california on a partisan basis so i clearly am registering my frustration with the way the committee has operated today regarding several forestry provisions including the amendment in the nature of a substitute to s one forty not only does it include a poison pill in the form of codifying the role this rule repeal but clearly it makes a partisan change to the provisions that uh many of which are included in the fix our forest act as senator hickenlooper just highlighted we worked hard on that and the edits adopted today actually move us backwards in the goodwill and the progress made uh in the senate version of the fix our forest act it all remind us three Republican members of this committee sit on the Agriculture Committee and voted for the Senate version of the Fix our Forest Act after extensive discussion and debate. And their actions here today undermine the progress and the momentum of that bill. We um had an amendment offered today to uh fix some of that language and realign with the fix our forest act senator hickenlooper and i did and we chose not to bring it up um but we are waiting for that good faith to reappear with our public and colleagues to bring the measure adopted today back to its true bipartisan form to remind ourselves to remind the folks watching remind the general public that bipartisan legislative packages are indeed still possible. They're seemingly increasingly rare today. But if we can, uh, channel that goodwill, channel that spirit, I think we can re-engage in good faith to move along the Senate version of our Fix Our Forest Act and, uh, other previously bipartisan, many unanimous measures put through by this committee in the past. Thank you, Mister Chair.
Thank you. Senator Heinrich.
Thank you, Chairman. Um, I I wanna reinforce the comments of my colleagues. Um, we had a very bipartisan, wildfire-focused bill here. And, uh, now we have a very partisan bill. Uh, in part, we do need to make sure that this is consistent with Fix Our Forest, which an enormous amount of very positive bipartisan effort has gone into that legislation and I wanna commend my colleagues for their work on it. Uh, the workforce provisions were seemingly completely uncontroversial in the previous Congress. And if you don't think we have workforce problems with our firefighting uh readiness on the ground across the West then you haven't sat down at your local uh district manager office and talked to people cuz it's it's concerning. Uh, but the biggest issue here, I think the elephant in the room, is the fact that uh the wildfire legislation became a Trojan horse for repealing the roadless rule. That's the tail wagging the dog. That is a huge change for our country. And in my state at least, uh, I went to those hearings. They were overwhelmingly positive. I engaged across the board with my sportsman, uh, recreational interests, uh, grazing interests, you name it, in in New Mexico, and we've, it's not broke in New Mexico. So don't let DC come tell me that - that we have a problem in New Mexico when our biggest problem is just getting enough resources and enough staff to get into our force to do treatments because we do treatments hazardous fuel treatments in roadless areas, and we should. So we took a previously largely bipartisan constructive wildfire effort And now it has become a partisan, pitched battle over repealing the roadless area. That is a poster child example for how not to get successful legislation done. And I am disappointed.
All right, before we wrap and wrap this up, I wanna just say, look, the the roadless rule was a bad idea in two thousand one, and it remains a bad idea today, a quarter of a century later. The the rule restricts access for multiple use in on on nearly fifty-nine million acres of forest service lands uh i- i- in ways that in in different respects have a tendency to increase wildfire risk and danger communities and and limit economic activity. And there's no explicit statutory authority directing the forest service to do this, to to create inventoried roadless areas. The the rule has wreaked havoc on a lot of Western communities. including a lot of communities in my state, in the state of Utah. And, um, anyway, that's my point. With - with that, um, unless there's anybody else that wants to speak, before we conclude our business meeting, seeing, uh, no one seeking recognition on that part, we, uh, hereby conclude the business, uh, uh, business meeting portion of our gathering today. 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 Vickery, 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 Kierman, 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 Cortes-Mastro.
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,
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 Kaljago.
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. Vickery. 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 Vickery 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 Vickery, 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. Hasenkamp, 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
Thank you. No, that's helpful. Um, Mister Vickery, 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 Heidrich 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.
Morning digest
Start every morning briefed on yesterday’s hearings
A free weekday email covering yesterday’s hearings and transcripts newly unlocked in the archive.
