John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you. I know that your previous work before you came to Congress several years ago was in the State of New York working on the innovation economy. You certainly have ramped up innovation economy in the State of New York, and now you are bringing that experience here with legislation. The Make It In America agenda, I am going to put it back up very, very quickly here because you talked about this. The Make It in America agenda is about the middle class; it is about rebuilding the middle class. Thirty-four members of the Democratic Caucus talked last week about their legislation dealing with trade and taxes, energy, labor, education, research, and infrastructure, about how that constellation of issues comes together to boost the American middle class, to give every American an opportunity for that middle class job. So it is there. I see we are about to be out of time, or maybe we are already out of time, so I am going to say I want to thank my colleagues and Mr. Hoyer for leading us in this. Mr. Tonko, you have got 30 seconds to close.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Hoyer, none of this would be happening were it not for your leadership. You brought us together, 34 Members of the Democratic Caucus, each with one or more specific pieces of legislation to move the Make It In America agenda, so that Americans can have those middle class jobs and beyond and above and, in the process, grow the American economy. It is the fair way to do it. It is the right way to do it; grow the American economy in a fair way so that those middle class jobs are there. It is the future; it has been the past; it can be the future with the legislation, and each one of these ideas--trade, taxes, energy, labor, education, research and infrastructure--the 34 Members of your caucus brought forth legislation in each and every one of those areas.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, despite the potential for a point of order and the amendment being out of order, it really, really is a good policy. While it may not come to a vote on this House floor, it certainly ought to come to the attention of the appropriators and the administration that we have got a pretty serious drought in the West. It does affect California, Arizona, Oregon, probably parts of Idaho, and on into New Mexico. California voters last November passed a $7 billion water bond that deals with the long-term issues of the water supply in California and some of the immediate challenges that the California drought has brought to the 30-plus million citizens of the State. This amendment would direct the Department of the interior, the EPA, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense to focus the money that it would be spending in California under any circumstance, to focus that money on assisting, augmenting, advancing, and supplementing those programs that the State of California is undertaking to address the drought using the bond act money. That is a great idea, that instead of spending the money on things that are not immediately relevant, that are not immediately necessary and do not immediately help those citizens of California, those communities, those agencies in the State that are suffering from the drought, rather to spend the money on those programs. That is it. It doesn't call for any additional money. It doesn't really cause long-term problems to our appropriation processes, but, rather, it says, hey, we have got a problem. Let's focus on the problem, and let's coordinate with the State of California in solving the problem. That is it, pretty simple stuff. Unfortunately, I guess we may have a point of order, and this rather important concept won't be in the legislation. However, I do think that the administration is aware, and they are beginning to focus appropriately on the drought in California. And I would hope in other States, just as we are suggesting they do here, that they, the administration and the Federal Government, focus the money that it would otherwise be spending in the State of California and in these other States on projects that the local governments, the State governments in those States are undertaking to address the drought--pretty basic. So that I might challenge the point of order, I will reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Idaho was so right and is now so wrong. But that is the way it is. When you have got the votes, you have got the votes. Nevertheless, this is really a very, very good program. I would encourage all of us--and particularly the administration--to follow along the policies here; and I would point out that they are. So I challenge the point of order and would ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARAMENDI. My good friend from Idaho has it right. His bill ought to become law. And you did find a way to fund it: the same way we fund hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and the like--out of FEMA. Good bill--by the way, I am a coauthor of it. Thank you very much. Only you can prevent forest fires. How many times have we seen Smokey the Bear? Congress can help. I want to congratulate and I really want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle because you are in a position to lead on this. This amendment is in a position to cause action. That is all it is. Would we have a disaster? We are going to have a fire disaster; there is no doubt about it. Would we have a financing disaster? Probably, but we can solve it--we can solve it both with legislation, and then we can solve it with a piece of legislation moving through this House that would reach back to the FEMA money, where we always stack a huge stash of money for the eventuality of a disaster. We would reach back and say: Okay. That is how we are going to do it going forward. I think it is about time for me to yield. I probably don't have much more time, but I am kind of stirring the pot here. I am trying to kick this into gear, and I am delighted to work with the good language that the chairman of the committee has put into the bill. Had I the time, I would read, once again, your analysis of the problem and also your analysis of the solution. That is found in, this year, H.R. 167, a fine piece of legislation by an outstanding gentleman from Idaho. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I think I will start this discussion with the words of a rather influential individual: Pope Francis. In his recent encyclical, he wrote: ``If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us.'' That is Pope Francis. In this legislation, the appropriation bill, there are numerous efforts to deny the reality of climate change. And, specifically, what I want to deal with on this amendment is Executive Order No. 13693: Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade. The intention of this amendment is to support the Federal Government's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent over the next decade relative to 2008. This bill will save taxpayers money--about $18 billion--in avoided energy costs, and it will increase the share of electricity the Federal Government consumes from renewable resources by up to 30 percent. Twenty-six million metric tons of greenhouse gases would be eliminated. So why in the face of all of the scientific evidence and why in the face of the reality that the climate is, indeed, changing, when we have throughout the State of California and around the Nation local governments planning for the eventually, not the reality, of higher sea levels, would we put forth a bill that would prohibit the Federal Government from planning for climate change? Let me just cite some of the ways in which the current legislation, this proposal, deals with it: It prohibits Federal funds for any rulemaking or guidance with regard to the social cost of climate change. It prohibits the EPA from limiting carbon pollution from new and renovated power plants, and there has been much discussion about that on the floor today. It prohibits the funding to update and revise the EPA's ozone standards. It prohibits the funding for any change to the status of HFCs. These are fluorocarbons. It also prohibits the reporting detailing the Federal funding for domestic and international climate change programs. This is denial, denial, denial about what is really happening. My amendment would simply say that there is no money to carry out these provisions in the current bill. It is really time for all of us here to recognize that there is a serious challenge, and it is one that Pope Francis points out so clearly. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, the executive order by the President is very straightforward. It basically says that the Federal Government shall reduce greenhouse gases, and he is using his appropriate authority as the administrative agent of our government to find ways to do that. Certain goals are set in the executive order, for example, reducing greenhouse gases by 40 percent over the next decade. What could be wrong with that when you save $18 billion in the process and create more opportunities for renewable energy by up to 30 percent? Why would we pass a bill in this appropriation bill that would go in exactly the opposite direction, one that would actually create greater greenhouse gases and lead more directly and more imminently to the climate crisis? I fail to understand why we would want to take up a piece of legislation that has so many provisions in it that deny the reality of climate change, that puts this government on the course to spend more money on programs that actually create a crisis that will be extraordinarily expensive. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, which would maintain the President's executive order and keep America on a path that all the world should carry out. Pay attention to what Pope Francis said: ``If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us.'' This is not something we should deny. This is something we should, in fact, pay attention to, and we ought to be able to maintain the President's executive order. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to figure out where to start with this, because we are making progress. I guess the purpose of this amendment is to give this whole process a swift kick so we can actually do something that is absolutely necessary. The chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee really has it correct. And I want to read the language of the appropriations bill, which I happen to agree with this evening, but not the result. In 7 of the last 10 years, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have exceeded their wildland fire suppression budgets despite being fully funded at the 10-year suppression average for such costs. Fire seasons have grown longer and more destructive, putting people, communities, and ecosystems at greater risk. Fire borrowing has now become routine rather than extraordinary. Borrowing from nonfire accounts to pay suppression costs results in the Forest Service and Department of the Interior having fewer resources for forest management activities, including hazardous fuels management and other proven efforts, to improve overall forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildland fires. Mr. Chairman of the subcommittee, you have it right. You and your committee staff have done the right analysis but haven't completed the follow-through to achieve that goal. I see our good friend from Idaho standing nearby, and he has a very, very fine bill to deal with this. It would basically create two separate accounts. Now, understanding the necessity of proper order and being out of order, which sometimes I am, I am not proposing that we adopt the good gentleman from Idaho's bill in this bill, but I have got a different idea. I am going to take this idea from my Republican colleagues who have created so many fiscal crises, otherwise known as cliffs, to create one. Basically, what I am doing here with this amendment is saying you can't borrow from other accounts, and when you run out of money, my goodness, we have a crisis. We will have to then adopt my good friend from Idaho's legislation and solve the problem once and for all. So that is what this amendment does. It says you can't borrow from other accounts to fight wildfires, which means that we are going to have to come to grips with the reality of our funding crisis--where we cannot get ahead of the wildland fires, where there is a necessity for us to spend money on protecting the forests and forest health, thinning and other kinds of things, firebreaks and the like, so we don't just burn down all the forests to get around with the proper management. This is what you call kicking the issue into gear. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, this bill deals with the very real problem for delivering water to southern California. Those people who are familiar with the way in which the California water system works, water flows down the Sacramento River--I will just put this up here--water comes down the Sacramento River from the north and up the San Joaquin from the south. It all gets to the delta where the massive pumps at Tracy pick the water up, put it in the canals, and send it to the San Joaquin Valley and then on to southern California, Los Angeles, Orange County, and other cities in that massive urban area. There is a problem in the delta, a lot of problems. One of the problems is aquatic plants. The delta is being totally overrun by water hyacinths. Other parts of the United States and the West are also finding these invasive water aquatic plants plugging their pumps, reducing water supply, eliminating opportunities for boating, recreation, fishing, and the like. What this amendment does is address that problem by adding $3,902,000 to the aquatic habitat and species conservation fund, thereby allowing the Federal agencies to work with the State and local agencies to attack the aquatic plants. Specifically in the delta, those who want to have more water flowing south to the San Joaquin Valley and southern California's great metropolitan areas, including Orange County, ought to be in favor of unplugging the pumps and getting the water hyacinths reduced in the delta. That is what we would do. It is a very real problem; it is a problem that exists today, and it is also money that comes from some 32 million more dollars in this Bureau of Land Management oil and gas permitting account than the President thought necessary. Surely, there is a little bit of room to move around so that southern California can have the water that it needs. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, the chairman is quite correct. We do have a problem. We do have quagga mussels. We have this particular one, the water hyacinths, and there are other aquatic invasive species that are causing havoc throughout the United States--certainly, the quagga mussel in the East, along the Great Lakes, Chicago and the rest--and certainly in California. The energy systems at Hoover Dam, on the Colorado River, are impeded by quagga mussels, and there is the delta with water hyacinths, and there are other lakes and streams throughout the West. If we let this problem continue to grow, we are going to continue to have less water and less power available to us. This is just under $4 million coming out of an account that was plussed up by some $32 million over and above what the administration thought necessary. I would remind all of us that the administration has done a rather good job on permitting, so much so that we now have the greatest production of oil and gas ever in the United States, so much so that we are on the verge of becoming energy sufficient. Do we need another $32 million to do what is already being done, or would that $4 million of that $32 million be better spent in dealing with the very real problem of trying to get water to the pumps so it can go south to Orange County and to Los Angeles and to San Joaquin County? Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you, but I am going to ask for a vote on this one. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. Certainly, the chairman understands the issues of water in California, as well as anyone does, and also understands that, in order for us to meet the current and certainly any future drought, we are going to have to use the aquifers, which will require the services and the knowledge and capability of the U.S. Geological Survey to fully comprehend the potential that the various aquifers have throughout the State, those in southern California, as well as the Central Valley and coastal areas. I would be delighted working with the chairman as the process moves along and see if we might be able to find sufficient money and address the specific needs of aquifer surveys by the USGS. I look forward to working with the gentleman on that. Rather than taking a ``no'' vote on this and going to a vote, I heard the gentleman suggest that we can work together and quite possibly solve this problem. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, to everyone here, this is one of those amendments that really becomes a talking point amendment, but this is something we need to talk about. Our colleague, a moment ago, raised the question of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In addition to the words that he spoke, we need to be aware that, later this next month--in about 100 days, actually. I guess that is more than a month-- the Land and Water Conservation Fund is going to disappear. It needs to be reauthorized, and I see on the floor here today the men and women who are in a position to make that happen. We really cannot lose this program. For example, there are projects in the Sequoia National Forest, which is in the majority leader's district, that were funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. There is a Galloway Park playground expansion in Clark County, Ohio. I think we know in whose district that is--the Speaker's district. The chairman of the subcommittee here is from San Bernardino. There is the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, and there is a Santa Ana River Trail and Parkway. I am sure the chairman is familiar with that parkway. These are all Land and Water Conservation projects that, over the years, have been in place. We have 100 days, and we have got some work to do here. Is the money available? Yes. There is $18 billion in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, should it continue to exist, that has not been spent. It is sitting there. Well, I guess there is an IOU there. Actually, the cash isn't there. There is an IOU because, over the years, we have diverted money from the original purpose and law to transfer that money over to all kinds of projects. Perhaps some of it even went to debt reduction. Nonetheless, it has not been used for its intended purpose and legal purpose, which is for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Every year, over $900 million of royalties comes in from the oil and gas and energy companies for the public resources that they mine or pump out of the earth. Only a small fraction of that money has ever gone to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I want all of us to pay attention to this extraordinarily important program--a program that I was able to work with when I was Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior, overseeing the projects in all of our districts--parks, local parks, some of the big national parks, including national forests, such as the one in Mr. McCarthy's district. Why are we not moving aggressively to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund? Why is it that, every year, we deny the public, whether it is a playground or a swimming pool or a park expansion playground in Ohio, the opportunity for better lives in their own communities? I do not understand, and I don't think that if any of us were to think about this for any amount of time that we would not say, yes, let's reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Let's not let it expire. Let's make sure that the money that was intended for it--the royalties from the resources of this great Nation--be spent on providing for the projects that all of America can enjoy. That is what it is all about. I don't know if I will go to a vote on this one, but I have, in my view here, leaders in the House who really have the power and, I think, the obligation to make sure the LWCF, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, is reauthorized and that we adequately fund it. I achieved, at least, my own goal of talking about something that I believe to be important. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, in listening to the previous debate, I would certainly agree we have made great strides in America in accessing oil and gas, so much so that we have now become almost energy independent, all for the good. All of that has happened in the last 7 to 8 years, and we are thankful for that. However, this appropriation has more money than needed. The administration has asked for about $32 million less. I would like my colleagues to take a look at where we really do need to spend some money. This amendment that I am proposing deals with this. This is California's water situation today. The great Central Valley of California is rapidly depleting its aquifers. The water resources that agriculture and communities depend upon are rapidly depleting. This amendment would move about $11,611,000 to the USGS, to Geological Survey, for the purposes of studying the aquifers of California. Now, keep in mind that the State of California voters approved a $7 billion bond act of which a good portion of that money is for underground aquifer storage. We have to have the science; we have to have the engineering to go with it, and this amendment would provide the additional money that the USGS needs in order to do the surveys and the engineering and understanding the geology of those areas where we might be able to have the aquifers replenished. That is what it is all about. This leaves plenty of money behind for the purposes that the committee has identified in the approval and the permitting of mineral and gas and oil resources. I see my colleague from California, who is well aware of these issues, including aquifers in the San Fernando and the Santa Anna aquifer area, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, we need to think in a comprehensive way about water in California. The controversial California Water Fix, formerly known as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), is an outdated and destructive plumbing system. It does not create any new water nor does it provide the water and the ecological protection that the Golden State must have. California and the federal government must set aside this big, expensive, destructive plumbing plan and immediately move forward with a comprehensive approach that includes: 1) Conservation, 2) Recycling, 3) The creation of new storage systems, 4) Fix the Delta--right sized conveyance, levee improvements, and habitat restoration, 5) Science driven process, 6) Protection of existing water rights. This combination of projects constitutes a comprehensive water plan for the state. Through a comprehensive plan that brings all stakeholders to the table, California can solve its water needs, and it can avoid the continuous water wars that have long divided our state. Unfortunately, California is once again embroiled in a bitter water war brought about by the California Water Fix (BDCP), the most recent attempt to fix California's water supply. After more than five years of study and over $200,000,000 spent on consultants, the process has become bogged down and turned into another battle pitting north vs. south, water exporters vs. environmentalists, and senior water right holders vs. new comers. A classic California water brawl is in full bloom. The governor's water plan for California is to take water out of the Sacramento River just south of Sacramento and put it into two tunnels each 40 miles long, 40 feet in diameter and with a potential capacity of moving 15,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). While the current proposal is set up to move 9000 cfs, the twin tunnels have a much larger capacity therefore setting the system up for future expansion. Pumping would also continue directly from the southern Delta at the Tracy pumps. The system will be able to deliver up to 5.3 million acre feet of water to the pumps in Tracy and then on to the San Joaquin Valley farmers and Los Angeles. So what is wrong with the Water Fix (BDCP)? It is not a water plan for California. It does not create one gallon of new water. It does not solve the long term needs of the state. With a minimum estimated construction and operating cost over 50 years of $24.5 billion, it is an extraordinarily expensive plumbing system dressed up with a coating of habitat restoration. The plan simply takes water from one region and delivers it to another while tearing up acres of prime agricultural farm land in the process. All of this while stoking the fire of divisiveness over water that has plagued our state for years. A quick look at the water flow in the Sacramento River over the last two decades shows that approximately six months out of the year there is somewhere between 15 and 20 thousand cubic feet per second (cfs) of water flowing in the Sacramento River. This proposal has the potential to suck the river dry and destroy the largest delta estuary on the west coast of the Western Hemisphere. Critical habitat for dozens of fish species like salmon, striped bass, and sturgeon would be threatened. These fish and the water they live in are crucial for jobs, agriculture and fishing businesses, and the region's economy. We should never build a water system that has such destructive potential. It is never safe to assume that ecological concerns will trump greed and thirst. We should keep in mind that in 2012 the U.S. House of Representatives voted on H.R. 1837, the euphemistically titled Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Reliability Act. The bill passed by a vote of 246 to 175 and swept away all environmental protections for the Delta while stealing 800,000 acre feet of water from the aquatic environment. Luckily, the legislation was derailed in the U.S. Senate, but H.R. 1837 in one form or another is likely to return in future legislative battles. California must move beyond a patched plumbing system. We need to think about what California really needs, and what it needs is a comprehensive water plan. Big changes are coming that threaten our water supply and our economy. A short list of these challenges include: climate change and related weather events, population growth, world food supplies, and earthquakes. Climate change is real and its effect on California will be significant. The Colorado River Basin is in a prolonged drought, and likely to be much drier in the future. Based on today's water flows, the water in the Colorado River is oversubscribed by a third and projections indicate less water in the future. This is a big, big problem for the seven states that rely on the river, and especially for Southern California. The Sierra Nevada Mountains, the Central Valley, and the coastal ranges will also be drastically impacted by climate change. We know that the timing of the precipitation is going to change and the snow is already melting earlier. As a result, the snowpack is moving up the mountains and while it may be deeper at the higher altitudes, the amount of land it covers is greatly reduced. It's the lower snowpack that has the greatest volumes of water and if that continues to recede, we will have less and less water. The 2009 ``California Water Plan,'' published by the California Department of Water Resources, estimates that the snowpack will decrease 25-40 percent by 2050. We must also anticipate more severe storms and flooding. All of this means the natural and man-made storage systems will hold less water. Putting the denial of scientific facts aside, California has to deal with the reality of climate change and its water policy implications. We know California's population will continue to grow and therefore, the demand for water will increase. We know the world will be very hungry in the future, and we know that the role of agriculture in California is going to be exceedingly important. California agriculture not only fills our own desire for diverse and nutritious foods, but it will also continue to meet basic food needs for people around the world and will continue to serve as an essential component of our nation's economy. We know the Delta is in serious trouble. The fish species are threatened with extinction and a total collapse of the estuary ecosystem is possible if the current water pumping program continues. Rising sea levels and deferred maintenance threaten the Delta levees which protect nearly 500,000 people, thousands of acres of valuable farm land, and miles of critical highways, gas and water transmission lines, and water delivery channels. Major upgrades are needed. For these reasons, California must take off its blinders and expand its scope when thinking about ways to manage its water supply. It must be a holistic approach that is applied to every project that will impact the water needs of all Californians. To achieve this comprehensive approach, here are six specific actions to provide a foundation for California's water future. If California does all of these, we will create new water supplies and better use the resources we already have: 1) Conservation, 2) Recycling, 3) The creation of new storage systems, 4) Fix the Delta--right sized conveyance, levee improvements, and habitat restoration, 5) Science driven process, 6) Protection of existing water rights The quickest and cheapest source of new water is to stretch our current supplies by conserving what we have. Californians have been at this for years in our cities, in our industries, on the farm, and in our homes. We have engaged in serious water conservation, yet more can and should be done everywhere. There are many conservation strategies. One conservation strategy is to use devices that measure the moisture in the soil to provide real time monitoring of the exact amount of water needed for ideal growing conditions. These devices are connected to a computer that automatically turns on just the right amount of water. These systems are in use and conserve at least ten percent with a financial payback in less than one year. If they were deployed widely perhaps at least 1 percent of the 30 million acre feet of water consumed by agriculture could be saved each year (300,000 acre feet). All of us are going to do a lot more water conservation, not just the agriculture community. The water conservation mandate set by the state is a 20 percent reduction per capita by 2020 which equals 1,600,000 acre feet. In a very real way conservation can create new water that was not previously available for use. To be on the conservative side, let us assume that just one quarter of the State's goal could be obtained in the next decade, thereby adding 400,000 acre feet of new water to our supplies each year. Can you name the fifth biggest river on the west coast of the Western Hemisphere? It's the water that flows out of the sanitation plants in Southern California and is dumped into the Pacific Ocean. Why would any sane government take water from the Sacramento River, pump it 500 miles south, lift it 5,000 feet in the air, clean it, use it once, clean it to a higher standard than the day it arrives in Southern California, then dump it in the ocean? California does just this as it discharges over 3.5 million acre feet of water to the ocean each year, much of which could be reused. We need to think seriously about recycling, not just in Southern California, but everywhere. The State of California currently recycles approximately 650,000 acre feet of water each year and has set a water recycling goal of 1.5 million acre feet of new water in California by 2020, and 2.5 million acre feet by 2030. While achievable, WateReuse California estimates this goal cannot be achieved without State regulatory changes to expand the types of recycling available that rely on existing technologies. Another option is desalination of the ocean. This is feasible and used extensively throughout the world, however it is not a viable option for all communities. It costs about 40 percent more to desalinate sea water than to recycle water using current technology. However, technological advances are being pursued for both recycling and desalination that could lower the costs of both. In the next ten years, conservation and recycling in California can create approximately 2.2 million acre feet of new water to use each year, and that can increase to 3.2 million acre feet in twenty years. This is new water that is not available today because it is wasted or pumped out to sea. It can be developed at a reasonable cost when compared to all other alternatives that might be out there. Conservation and recycling are steps one and two in a comprehensive water program for California. Water storage south of the Delta is possible and necessary. The capacity of the great Delta pumps near Tracy is 15,000 cubic feet per second. They are designed to meet maximum demand south of the Delta. They do not operate year round, only when there is sufficient water in the Delta, when threatened fish are not near the pumps, and when there is agricultural and urban demand south of the Tracy pumps. There is very limited water storage capacity south of the Delta. We must build more. San Luis and Los Vaqueros reservoirs could be expanded. New dams could be built at Los Banos Grandes, Temperance Flats, and numerous smaller off stream sites throughout the San Joaquin Valley. There are extensive and numerous aquifers throughout the San Joaquin Valley that may prove suitable to store additional water that would be used in a conjunctive water management system. With these water storage facilities in place and a smaller cross Delta facility operating year round, the need for havoc causing, excessive pumping in the Delta could be avoided. When coupled with recycling, the underground aquifers in Southern California are another key to our water future. The underground aquifers of the Santa Ana River in Orange County, the San Fernando Basin, Chino Basin, San Bernardino, San Gabriel Basin, and others have a combined capacity larger than Shasta Reservoir, the largest man made reservoir in the state. Today, some recycled water is put into the underground water basins to be stored for those inevitably dry years. When needed, it is pumped out, used, cleaned and returned to storage. On a larger scale this recycling system could create as much as 2.5 million acre feet of new water, and thereby reduce the need for shifting Colorado River supplies and imports from the Sacramento River. Surface and underground storage should be used in a conjunctive water management program. Use the rivers when there is lots of water and use the reservoirs when there is little. Another way to describe this strategy is ``big gulp'' and ``little sips.'' When there are low flows in the Delta the system would take a little sip. When there is excessive water in the Delta, the system would take a big gulp, but there must be some place to put that water when the big gulp is taken. Therefore, the surface and sub-surface reservoirs south of the Delta become an essential element in a California water plan. Water storage north of the Delta is also important, and three proposals are on the books today. An off stream reservoir at Sites, located west of Williams, has great promise for storage and for creating greater flexibility in managing the Sacramento River for salmon runs, water demand, and Delta outflow. This reservoir can deliver 500,000 acre feet of annual yield and the additional flexibility that it offers can under some scenarios save another 500,000 acre feet of water that would otherwise be released into the river systems. Raising Shasta Dam is also possible, as is better conjunctive management of the many aquifers in the Sacramento Valley. State and federal agencies have already commenced studies for these projects. A quick completion of these studies is essential. The current plan for the California Water Fix (BDCP) is a dual use facility with the main focus on the twin tunnels with a capacity of 15,000 cubic feet per second, and the continued use of the Delta channels for moving water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers to the Tracy pumps. This dual use system adds another layer of risk to the eco-system and agricultural economy of the Delta with the potential for the massive tunnels to suck the Delta dry from the north and from the south with the thirsty pumps. In scale, the cost and destructive potential of this project will rival the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River in China. The twin tunnel proposal is a large scale, destructive project that does not create one gallon of new water for a thirsty California. The location of the intakes for the twin tunnels is in the heart of the rich farm lands of the northern Delta, near the small community of Courtland. Thousands of acres of valuable farmland essential to California agriculture production will be destroyed during construction of the project, and, following completion, a vast industrial zone of pumping stations, fish screens, reservoirs, and electrical stations will impede on one of California's great agricultural regions. Along the forty mile route of the twin tunnels the construction process will produce a total of 22 million cubic yards of tunnel muck. This combination of soil and conditioning agents will have to be stored and managed and the latest draft of the plan calls for storage areas along the tunnel ranging in size from 100 to 570 acres. The amount of muck extracted would be enough to cover 100 football fields to a height of roughly 100 feet, and in the end will destroy close to 1600 acres of farm land while disrupting domestic and agricultural water wells. Go forward carefully; start small; use science to evaluate each step; then proceed to the next step. Remember the Delta is a unique and precious environmental asset. We must take care of it. A narrowly focused plumbing system like the California Water Fix/BDCP will not achieve progress in creating a water supply sufficient for California's future. We must pursue a holistic, comprehensive approach that will achieve a bigger bang for our buck. First, reduce demand on the Delta with steps one, two and three: water conservation, recycling, and strategic use of storage facilities. Use the ``Big Gulp, Little Sip'' pumping strategy. Move forward with the flood plain and fresh and saltwater marsh habitat improvements. Repair and improve the key Delta levees. Evaluate the effect on the Delta as these projects come on line. Then, and only if necessary, proceed with a conveyance system that is much smaller and with a reduced capacity to destroy. A much smaller facility with a capacity of no more than 3,000 cubic feet per second could be built to deliver water from the Sacramento River to the Tracy pumps. With the normal minimum flows in the Sacramento River above 15,000 cfs, a small 3,000 cfs facility could operate at least 300 days in most years, delivering approximately two million acre feet of water south to the pumps at Tracy where it would be pumped south to the new and expanded storage facilities. There are several alternative ways to build this smaller system. One alternative is found with a careful look at the Delta map which reveals that two thirds of this Delta friendly system is already built. Two miles from the State Capital is the Port of Sacramento and the shipping channel that ends 25 miles south near Rio Vista. From there it is thirteen miles to existing channels and the Tracy pumps. The Federal Government already owns the land along the river where an intake and fish screen could be built, allowing 3000 cfs of Sacramento River water to enter the channel and flow south to a shipping lock at the southern end of the channel. Then, pumps could deliver the water into a short 12-mile pipe beneath the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and into the existing Delta channels that lead to the Tracy Pumps. The threatened Delta fish could be protected by sealing the channel from the Delta. Such a smaller facility is less costly than two 40-foot diameter, 40- mile long tunnels that devastate large swaths of the Delta and put the entire Delta at risk. It is correct that this smaller facility like the twin tunnels is insufficient to quench the thirst of the Southern water contractors. This is where the southern reservoirs and the ``Little Sip, Big Gulp'' strategy comes into play. In normal water years there is sufficient water in the Delta to allow the pumps to take a big gulp of two million acre feet of water. This amount together with the two million acre feet delivered through the 3,000 cfs facility and the new water developed from conservation and recycling efforts could add up to six million acre feet. This plan would create far more new water than will ever be available with the current California Water Fix (BDCP) plan, which in its current state creates nothing new, except new destruction. This small 3,000 cfs proposal and the current twin tunnel proposal envision the continued use of the existing Delta levee system as water conveyance channels for the delivery of water to the big pumps at Tracy. However, the California Water Fix (BDCP) has neither a plan nor funding for the maintenance of the levees that are crucial for their proposed water conveyance system. The Delta levees must be upgraded and maintained if water is to be transported through the Delta and if the Delta agriculture, infrastructure, ecology and people are to be protected. No sane homeowner would go fifty years without maintaining their plumbing system. For more than fifty years, the Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources have used the Delta levees as a plumbing system to deliver water from the Sacramento River to the Tracy pumps. Yet, they have spent virtually no money maintaining these critical levees, the failure of which could shut down water deliveries for an extended period of time. The Federal and State agencies have relied upon the local reclamation agencies to do the repairs, literally giving the exporters a free ride. When a levee does give way and an island is flooded, it is the local agency and Federal and State governments that foot the bill to repair the levees, often at a much greater cost than would have been necessary with basic maintenance. Legislation is necessary to require that the Federal and State water contractors, who have for years and will continue for even more years depended upon the Delta levees for the delivery of water to their fields and cities, pay a part of the levee maintenance cost. The California Water Fix (BDCP) envisions restoring flood plains and the salt and freshwater marsh habitat of the Delta in an effort to restore the fisheries. However, a series of questions are raised: where to do it, how much to do, what type, at what cost and who is to pay for the restoration? Those who have created the ecological problem should pay for the restoration of the problem. All this will require careful attention to science, and a careful balance between competing goals. Current science indicates that no amount of habitat restoration can compensate for the damage done to fish from excessive water exports. The California Water Fix (BDCP) and any other proposal must be based and driven by quality science that measures and informs decisions. California and federal law require that the Delta aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems be protected. We must do so, not just because the laws demand it, but because our status as human beings on this planet demands that we pay attention and protect precious and rare ecosystems. Also, healthy ecosystems provide a valuable asset to our communities because healthy ecosystems help to ensure we have healthy water. If we let the ecosystems fall by the wayside, our water will get dirtier making it increasingly difficult and costly to clean it up enough to use. For all of these reasons, we must let science govern. The California Water Fix (BDCP) anticipates 50-year permits from state and federal agencies to allow incidental takes of endangered fish species. Once granted, the water exporters will have assurances that the project can take covered species and pump Delta water despite changes in the environment. To date, the California Water Fix (BDCP) has not built in flexibility to address the inevitable changes that will occur and the damage that could be done if the plan does not account for climate change. We must also use science to understand our river basins in the age of climate change. Dams on California Rivers serve multiple purposes of water storage, flood protection, electric power generation, recreation, and environmental river flows. Current dam operations on California Rivers place flood protection as the first priority followed by water storage. The decisions to release water to create greater flood storage are based on the average river flows compiled from the last 60 years. Climate change and resulting river flow change is certain and one can only imagine how rare it will be for the historic average to actually occur. We have the technology today to better understand what is happening, in real time, in every river basin in this state. Satellites and unmanned aircraft using infrared and ground sensing radar, together with terrestrial stations collecting soil conditions, snow temperature and moisture content coupled with telemetry will soon be deployed in the American River basin. Collecting this data and using it in real time to predict river flows allows for better operation of the dams so that additional flood storage capacity could be available by lowering the reservoir ahead of the storm or keeping water in the reservoir if a major storm is heading for a different river basin or if it is a cold snow storm. Using the best science can simultaneously deliver increased flood protection and greater water storage. Soon after gold was discovered in California, the miners discovered that water could be used to separate gold from gravel and soon after, the right to the water flowing in the rivers became as valuable as the gold. Today, water is California's gold. The classic water war in California is usually about one group attempting to take another group's water. It is reasonable to view the current twin tunnels conflict in this way: southern exporters taking water belonging to northern water right holders and water necessary for the aquatic river environment. Any water plan that ignores the prior and existing water rights is destined to be embroiled in a vicious and contracted water war. If a project is to be built, then existing rights must be honored. California must develop a comprehensive water program. The current California Water Fix (BDCP) is an outdated and destructive plumbing system. It does not create any new water. It does not provide the water and the ecological protection the Golden State must have. California and the federal government must set aside the big, expensive, destructive plumbing plan and immediately move forward with a comprehensive program that includes: 1) Conservation, 2) Recycling, 3) The creation of new storage systems, 4) Fix the Delta--right sized conveyance, levee improvements, and habitat restoration, 5) Science driven process, 6) Protection of existing water rights California is once again embroiled in a water war. The California Water Fix/BDCP is not a comprehensive plan; it is a plumbing system that seeks to extract water from one part of the state and deliver it to another part. If history is any indication, water wars are expensive and fruitless. Only by embracing a comprehensive plan that creates new water for the entire state can we avoid gridlock and a water war. This paper presents a plan that emphasizes using the best available science and a portfolio of water projects to create a positive solution to the water challenge facing California. It's time to move forward and ensure a reliable water supply for the entire state. [From sacbee.com] Water Solution for California: `Little Sip, Big Gulp' (By John Garamendi) Don't be fooled. The dreaded twin tunnels through the heart of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta did not die. The governor's new ``California Water Fix'' plan is the same destructive twin tunnel $17 billion boondoggle, just without the fig leaf cover of habitat restoration. Not one gallon of new water supply is created for our thirsty state. California water needs can be met with a comprehensive program that over the next 10 years can create more than 5 million acre-feet of new water at a cost no greater than the twin tunnels. Here are the keys to our water future: 1. Conservation 2. Recycling/desalinization 3. Creation of new surface and aquifer storage 4. Science-driven process 5. Fixing the Delta--right-sized conveyance, levee improvements and habitat restoration Go forward carefully; start small; use science to evaluate each step; then proceed to the next step. The Delta is a unique and precious environmental asset. First, reduce demand on the Delta with water conservation, recycling and desalinization, and strategic use of surface and aquifer storage. Move forward with habitat improvements for the floodplain and fresh and saltwater marshes. Repair and improve the key Delta levees. Evaluate the effect on the Delta as these projects come online. Then, and only if necessary, proceed with a conveyance system that is much smaller and with a reduced capacity to destroy. A much smaller facility with a capacity of no more than 3,000 cubic feet per second could be built to deliver water from the Sacramento River to the Tracy pumps. With the normal minimum flows in the Sacramento River above 15,000 cubic feet per second, a 3,000-cfs facility could operate at least 300 days in most years, delivering about 2 million acre feet of water to the pumps at Tracy and on south to new and expanded storage facilities. Half of this Delta-friendly system is already built. Two miles from the state Capitol is the Port of Sacramento. A fish screen could be built at the existing opening on the Sacramento River, allowing 3,000 cubic feet per second of Sacramento River water to enter the deep water channel and flow 25 miles south to a shipping lock at the southern end of the channel. Then, pumps could deliver the water into a 12- mile pipe beneath the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and into a new aqueduct alongside the Old River channel that leads to the Tracy pumps. An alternative route could take the water out at the southern end of the shipping channel, delivering it into an aqueduct around the town of Rio Vista, across the Sacramento River at Sherman Island and through Contra Costa County to the Tracy pumps. This route would intersect six vital San Francisco Bay aqueducts, thus creating a safety system for 8 million Bay residents. The ``Little Sip, Big Gulp'' strategy completes the program to meet California's future water needs. In normal water years, there is sufficient water in the Delta to allow the pumps to take a ``big gulp'' of 2 million acre-feet of water. This amount together with the 2 million acre-feet delivered through the 3,000-cfs facility would meet the annual water demand south of the Delta. The new water developed from surface and underground storage, conservation, and recycling and desalinization efforts could add up to 5 million acre-feet, and together with an eco-friendly Delta solution would be enough to serve the future needs of a thriving California.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure it is going to be that controversial, but I was just looking outside the Capitol before I came in to make this presentation, and it is raining. It is a downpour. For those of us from California, it has been a long time since we have seen a downpour. The Golden State, the seventh largest economy in the world and home to over 35 million people, is in the throes of a historic drought. This is the fourth year, and it is a world of hurt in California. The economy is moving along. We are not complaining about the economy. Many parts of it are moving along. But for everyone in the State of California, whether you are in the far north up near Mount Shasta or way down here in the San Diego area, we are hurting. There is a lot of talk. Water restrictions are taking place in every city, whether you are on the coast, up in the north, or in the far south at Laguna Beach. Wherever you happen to be in the State of California, these restrictions are tightening up on the ability of communities to prosper, grow, and keep their lawns green, but more important in some communities, to even live there. In some parts of the Central Valley, down here in the Fresno area, there are communities that are out of water. Communities of 3,000, 5,000, maybe even 10,000 people, have virtually no water at all. This is a problem today. As we look to the future, we are going to see the State's economy and population grow and the demand for water will ever increase, unless we do something. What we must do is develop a water plan for all of California. Unfortunately, what we do most of the time in California is fight over water. There is the famous saying from Mark Twain: ``Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting over.'' And so it has been ever since my great-great-grandfather came to California in the early days of the Gold Rush up here in the mother lode region. You couldn't mine without water. And fighting over that water was the order of the day, and it is today. So as this entire State and much of the Southwest region--Nevada, southern Oregon, Utah, New Mexico, and even the western parts of Texas--suffer through this historic drought, we have taken to fighting in California. And I want to spend a few moments this evening talking about what we must do immediately and then a long-term solution for the State of California. Immediate, we are going to have to seek help. The State of California is using some bond money from past bond acts and some bond money from the historic passage of Proposition 1 last November to immediately try to fix problems that exist in those communities without water. And so that money will begin to flow to those communities, wherever they happen to be. There are a couple up here in the Sacramento Valley and further down in the San Joaquin Valley. The deserts have always been without water, so this is not new to them, although it is more extreme. It is good that the bond act can provide immediate relief, but the rest of the short-term solutions will come from Washington. I want to congratulate and thank the administration for providing $110 million of money for a variety of projects. Some of those projects are to dig deeper wells for those communities without water, to find ways to improve the conservation immediately, and to set about other programs that are short-term in nature--all to the good. And that should continue. In the days ahead, we are going to take up the appropriations bill for water. In that appropriations bill, we should direct the administration to do what it is doing--and to continue doing it through this drought--and that is to focus all of those resources on the immediate drought that is occurring. Whether it is aid for ranchers and farmers or cities, it makes no difference. It is broad and it needs to be done, and it should line up with Proposition 1 of the last November ballot. That is both short-term and long-term. So the Federal Government supports those projects that would be funded under that $7 billion bond act that the citizens of California voted for in an overwhelming majority. But I would also like to talk about the long-term here. Because droughts will come and go, and we must be prepared not only in California, but across the West. For many years, the Department of Water Resources in California has looked at the problem and has made many, many suggestions; but until about 4 years ago, those suggestions were never put together in a comprehensive plan. I am familiar with this. I am a water warrior in California. I have represented this part of California for nearly 40 years, the great Central Valley of California. I will put up another map so you can get a better look at it. So the plans that were put together by the California Department of Water Resources deal with the Sacramento River, which flows south, and the San Joaquin River, which flows north from the Fresno area. This is way beyond Sacramento. Mount Shasta and Oregon, it is way up there. These are the two great rivers of California, together with the Colorado, which is way to the south. It flows into an area here which is called the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This is the largest estuary of the Western Hemisphere, which is on the West Coast. From Alaska to Chile, there is no other estuary as important to fish and species of all kinds and to the environment and the economy of California. As this water flows down the Sacramento River and the San Joaquin River, it is collected here and pumped south into the San Joaquin Valley and over the Tehachapi Mountains way down here to southern California. That is the Great Southern water project and the Federal water project. But the result of that pumping is an extreme decline in the environment of the delta, Suisun Bay, and San Francisco Bay. Along with it, the salmon and other species have been largely decimated by those projects. So what are we to do? We will take the information that has been developed over these many years by the California Department of Water Resources and develop a comprehensive plan. One plan, which actually dates back some 60 years now, is one that would take the water around the delta and deliver it to the pumps down here at Tracy. That plan, first proposed in the forties and then in the fifties, was taken up by our current Governor, Governor Jerry Brown, in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was called the Peripheral Canal-- peripheral, that is around the delta, delivering water to the pumps. I represented the delta at that time, and I said: Governor, what you have managed to create here is the great vampire ditch. The Peripheral Canal was big enough to take the water from the Sacramento, depriving the delta of the freshwater that it needed for its environment, and deliver it to the pumps. So we had another great water war. It actually went on the ballot, and the people of California decided not to build that canal. And so there it sat until the second iteration of our current Governor, and he decided it was time to address this problem. And so now his suggestion is, instead of a canal, bury it underground so nobody can see it. He said: Don't worry about the canal. Don't worry. You will never see it. I said: Because it is not going to get built? He said: No, no. Because it will be underground. Two massive tunnels, each 40 feet in diameter--about as tall as this Chamber, actually, if we consider this is probably 50 feet in here--big enough to take all of the water out of the Sacramento River half of the year, creating an existential threat to the delta. Something needs to be done, no doubt about it. So by cobbling together the plans that were developed by the Department of Water Resources and others, I put together what I called, a Water Plan for All California. By the way, this tunnel was first priced at $25 billion and did not create 1 gallon of new water--not 1 gallon of new water. What it did was to create an existential threat to the delta, in that it was big enough to deprive the delta of the fresh water half of the year. I said: Governor, that doesn't work. Let's look at this in a serious way that can create water for California's future. This proposal was put together from plans that the State agencies had developed in the past. I commend this to anybody that really wants to look at what California's water future could be. Instead of a battle royal, which we are now commenced with as we fight over these tunnels, and $25 billion--oh, by the way, there is a new iteration of it, and they are throwing aside most of the habitat restoration and most of the environmental restoration and just going for the straight tunnels and just a little bit of mitigation. Let's do something different. Let's create water that California will need in its future. Let's build a system that will actually deliver more water for California, while protecting the environment, and that is what this plan is all about, a water plan for all California. There are the following elements in it: conservation; recycling; storage; fixing the delta, which actually has to be fixed; letting science run the process rather than politics; and make sure you protect the water rights that have been in existence for more than a decade and a half--excuse me--a century and a half. These are the principal elements, and we are going to go through them one at a time and explain why, if we were to spend, let's say, the full $17 billion, the current cost of the tunnels, and that is the first bid; that is not the final cost. Let's say we would spend that $17 billion. Let's allocate some of it for conservation, agricultural conservation. Now, every agriculturalist--and I am one--in California will say, Yes, but we are already conserving water. Indeed, we are, and a lot of water conservation has taken place, but that much more can be done again. There are somewhere, by the estimates of the State, 3 to 4 million acre feet of new water, available simply through conservation, and that does not include the urban conservation. Now, understand, in today's drought, conservation is on everybody's mind, and in fact, it is mandated by law and executive order, but we can do maybe 3 million acre feet of new water. That is enough for over 120,000 homes a year per million acre feet. Secondly, recycling--I often say, and I think this is more or less accurate, that the fifth largest river on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere are the sanitation plants in Southern California. Whoa, what do you mean the fifth biggest river? Well, consider this: the Colorado River, over here, abutting Arizona and Nevada, water is taken from the Colorado River, 200 miles into the Los Angeles Basin. Water is taken from northern California, the Sacramento River, in a canal, pumps here at the delta, in a canal, 5,000 feet over the Tehachapi Mountains, into the Los Angeles Basin. That water is cleaned once. It is used in the Los Angeles Basin, cleaned again, in most cases, to a higher standard than the day it arrives in southern California; and nearly all of it is dumped into the ocean. What? You do that in California? Well, we do. Fortunately, Orange County, a bastion of conservatism, is far ahead of the rest of the State and probably the Nation in water recycling. We need to do more of it. For a few million, a couple of million dollars--excuse me, a couple of billion dollars, we could recycle at least a million acre feet of new water in southern California, water that is already there, water that is not being used. In northern California, the San Francisco Bay area, for my friends in San Francisco, you are taking what you tell the world is the cleanest water in America, right out of Yosemite National Park, piping it across the Central Valley into the San Francisco area, clean it--well, you really don't have to do much cleaning because it is already clean--use it once, then you pipe it a mile offshore and dump it in the ocean. Recycling is necessary in every part of California. Another million, perhaps, more acre feet of water could be available through recycling. So conservation, recycling, 3, 4 million acre feet--we are getting close to what California needs in the future. So where are you going to put the water? Even in the midst of a drought, we have had heavy rain flows--no place to put the water. My colleague from northern California, the Sacramento Valley, Mr. LaMalfa and I have introduced a bill to build an off-stream storage reservoir here on the west side of the Sacramento Valley, a reservoir that could hold 2 million acre feet of water--well, slightly less--and that water would be available when needed. It could flow down the Sacramento River, sweetening, pushing back the saltwater in the delta; or it could be used for agricultural purposes in the Sacramento Valley or down in the San Joaquin Valley. It also gives flexibilities to the great reservoirs of Shasta, the Oroville Reservoir on the Feather River, and the Folsom Reservoir here on the Sacramento River, giving flexibility to the water managers. When it is needed for salmon and other species, you could use the water out of Sites Reservoir. When it is needed for agriculture or for water quality in the delta, you could use it out of Sites Reservoir, keeping the cold water in Shasta, Oroville, or Folsom that is necessary for the salmon that spawn in those rivers. Storage, off-stream storage, off-stream storage here, just east of Contra Costa, in Los Vaqueros Reservoir, off-stream storage further south down here in Los Banos at the San Luis Reservoir, and the biggest off-stream reservoir of all, the great aquifer of the Sacramento, San Joaquin Valley, the great Central Valley of California, arguably, the second or third largest aquifer anywhere in the world, one that is now seriously overdrafted, as Californians, agriculture, cities, and others thirst for the water in this drought. These storage reservoirs in northern California are just one part of the storage systems that are needed for the future. The other part actually exists here in southern California, out here along the coast, the West Basin, the San Fernando Valley, the San Gabriel Valley, the Santa Ana in Orange County, and as you move east into Riverside and San Bernardino. These are all historic aquifers that could be available to take that recycled water, put it back in the ground, pull it out, clean it, and recycle and recycle and eventually, these aquifers, many of which are contaminated, would be clean and available for the future. We could probably add all of the capacity of these aquifers in southern California and have greater storage capacity than the largest reservoir in the State of California, which is Shasta Reservoir, way up here in northern California. By using the aquifers as a storage facility in what we call conjunctive water management, when you have a lot of rain, you store it--store it off-stream, store it below ground in the aquifers. Then when you have your dry periods, as California historically does, you can take that water out, but you cannot take out as much as currently being taken from these aquifers in California. We are seeing the collapse of the aquifers in the San Joaquin Valley. We are seeing the land subsiding in some places, as much as a foot a year as the water is extracted, so we have to stop that, and so water management becomes extremely important in the process. I want to now turn to the delta, put this delta map back up and remind us, the Sacramento River coming down, the San Joaquin River coming north. From the north, the Sacramento, from the south, the San Joaquin, meeting here in the great delta of California--this delta is seriously at risk, as I said a moment ago. What to do about this? The Governor's plan, to take water around it, to deliver it to the pumps down here, I think, creates an existential threat. Don't build something that could destroy the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. Instead, build something that is the right size, recognizing that while the delta is imperiled, perhaps by earthquakes, perhaps by sea level rise, nonetheless, all the plants call for water to be pumped out of the delta, even if it is taken around the delta. The first thing to do, right now, is to armor, strengthen those key levees in the delta that are necessary for the transfer of water to the pumps, for the protection of the cities here on the eastern side, and to make sure that you are able to always be able to take that water through the delta. It is called the armored delta. Under the Governor's plan or my plan or any other plan, those levees are going to be used for at least the next two decades, if not for a much longer period of time. Improve the delta, levees, and that is a job for the Federal Government. I talked earlier about what could be done immediately by the Federal Government, and that is to secure some of these key delta channels by improving the levees on those channels. That is step one. Step two is what I call science. This area, the richest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere, home and nursery to salmon, to other species, such as the delta smelt and many other species, requires very careful attention and very careful scientific study. We are talking over here, in a place called Rio Vista, about building a science center, bringing together all the State and Federal agencies so they can work in a collaborative science program. That is a great program called the Rivers Program. There are other science studies that are underway. You have to let science drive this process. You cannot allow politics to drive it; otherwise, you put at risk the communities in this area; you put at risk the environment; you put at risk the fish species, and you put at risk the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. Keep in mind that the Congress of the United States, twice in the last 4 years, has passed legislation that removes the environmental protections for this estuarine system and simply grabs 800,000 acre feet of water that was meant for the environment and sends it into the southern valley, into the southern valley here. It is a rip-off. It is part of what has taken place in California since the gold miners came in the 1850s, and that is, if you want water, you simply take it from somebody. In this case, you are taking it from the delta, from the environment, from the agriculture; and you are pushing aside the environmental protections. Don't do it. It is not necessary. There is another thing, in addition to fixing the levees, and I call it the ``Little Sip, Big Gulp.'' Here it is. This is a map of the delta of California. Sacramento is up here, the confluence of the American River and the Sacramento River. That is the State capital. This is the delta here. We were talking about it in the larger map. San Francisco Bay is over here, Suisun Bay and the rest. This is the heart of the delta. Stockton is down here. Tracy and the big massive pumps at Tracy, capable of taking well over 15,000 cubic feet per second, are down here in this area. The tunnels that the Governor wants to build would start here, travel through some of the richest agricultural land in the delta, or in the Nation, agricultural land that has been in production since the 1850s and 1860s, along the Sacramento River, displacing, oh, maybe 4 or 5 miles of habitat and agriculture and communities along this area. The tunnel would come down into this--the tunnels would come down into this area. $17 billion--why would you do something that, first of all, is large enough to allow for the destruction of the delta? Why would you spend all that money, when a good portion of that project is already built? This is it. This is the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, an ocean, a channel that begins at San Francisco Bay, comes up the Sacramento River, and then, in a channel that was built by the Army Corps of Engineers, all the way up to the Port of Sacramento here in West Sacramento, on the other side of the State capital. This is a deep water shipping channel. Ocean ships come into San Francisco Bay and come all the way up here. It is a pretty good economic activity. Agricultural products are shipped out. I was over that way this last weekend, and they have log decks. I guess these are logs from the various fires that have occurred in California, and those are going to be shipped off to China. I sometimes wonder why we don't use those logs for the things that we should be making in America, but that is another subject for another day. So what is an alternative? I call this the little sip solution, ``Little Sip, Big Gulp solution.'' Take the water out of the Sacramento River here, 3,000--not 15,000--3,000 cubic feet per second. We know how to do that. Fish screens are already built to do that. Let it flow down the Deep Water Channel to about here, just north of Rio Vista. Put in a single ship lock and a pump. Alternative one: put it in a small pipe through the delta down here to this area; and then, in an open channel along what is called Old River, take it down to the pumps at Tracy, 3,000 cubic feet per second. You could do that most every day of the year, and it could deliver 2 million acre-feet of water to the pumps at Tracy in most years. In this drought year, it wouldn't be possible. A second alternative would be to take it down the Deep Water Channel, 3,000 cubic feet, to the shipping lock and the pump, put it into a canal that goes behind Rio Vista here, crosses Sherman Island at the confluence of the Sacramento and the San Joaquin Rivers, and over to Contra Costa County to the pumps. This is a very interesting solution because this solution creates a fail-safe solution for about 7 million people that live in the San Francisco Bay area, because this particular route intersects six aqueducts: the Solano aqueduct here, this would intersect it down here in Contra Costa; East Bay Municipal Utility aqueduct; the Contra Costa County aqueduct; the Los Vaqueros aqueduct for the Los Vaqueros river; zone seven, down here in the Livermore area, over here in this area; and also the South Bay aqueduct, going all the way down to Silicon Valley. What has happened, if this solution were chosen, should the need ever arise for some reason, these critical water districts that supply the water to this entire Bay area could get access to the Sacramento River water. So if, for some reason, the delta was to become saline as a result of a collapse of a levee system or any other reason, we have a fail-safe solution for the entire Bay region, except Marin County, which has its own water system. Either of these is a system that would be right-sized. That is a Little Sip big enough to provide 2 million acre-feet of water, which is roughly 40, 45 percent of the amount of water needed south of the delta for southern California, for Los Angeles, and for the San Joaquin Valley. That is the Little Sip solution: a route through the delta, a pipeline from here to Old River, and then an open channel on the east side of Old River to the pumps, or a canal across Contra Costa and Solano County. Either of them would work. And it would be a fraction of the cost of the massive twin tunnels that would come this direction, destroying the agricultural communities here in Portland and Clarksburg and putting at risk the entire delta because of the enormous size. This is a 15,000-cubic-foot-per-second tunnel system. Now, granted, they are only going to build three of the intakes here on the Sacramento River. Okay. It is good to have only three. That gives you 9,000, which is roughly two-thirds of the water going down the Sacramento River half of the year. So what does that mean for the delta? It means the delta is going to be salty and deprived of the freshwater that this estuary needs. And all they need to do is to put in one more intake, and then they can take all of the water half of the year. Don't do it. Never build something that could be so destructive of such a precious natural resource as the delta. So this is the Little Sip. Where does the rest of the water come? It is called the Big Gulp. Even in this drought year, there have been two very heavy rains that have sent a surge of water down the San Joaquin and down the Sacramento. The pumps were turned on--not to their full might, but the pumps were turned on, and the water was shipped to the south. Okay. It worked. Can it work in the future in normal years? There is sufficient water in the delta in a normal year to get another 2, 2.5 million acre-feet of water out of the delta, itself, and that is the Big Gulp. So you combine a small facility with a Big Gulp when the water is available in the delta. Now, keep in mind, this project and the twin tunnel project that the Governor is proposing both require storage south of the delta. Neither project will work. And, in fact, the California water system today will not work without storage south of the delta. That is why--to back up to a map of all California--we have to have storage offsite, at Sites Reservoir. There is talk of enlarging Shasta Reservoir, way up here in this area. There is talk of building a new reservoir here on the San Joaquin River at Hanford's flat. There is talk of enlarging--in fact, this one is almost certain to happen-- enlarging Los Vaqueros Reservoir. The San Luis Reservoir down here needs to be rebuilt because of earthquake safety, and it could be expanded. There is another reservoir site just south of it, Los Banos Grande. That is another large reservoir. And, of course, the aquifers in the entire Central Valley of California, and we have already talked about the aquifers in southern California. So you have to have storage south of the delta. If you have storage south of the delta, then the Governor's plan or my plan, the Little Sip, Big Gulp plan will work. Storage is absolutely essential in all of these configurations. Fail to do the storage, and nothing is going to work. Let me just review what we have been talking about here. We have been talking about a water plant for all California. Conservation, to be sure, the great agricultural areas--even over here in the Salinas Valley--conservation along this entire area, conservation in southern California, the great metropolitan areas, and in the Bay area. In doing so, the State's own estimate was 5 million. Let's just say you get 3 million acre-feet. Agricultural conservation, urban conservation, 3 million acre-feet of new water, water that is currently unavailable but there. Recycling, we talked about recycling here in southern California. A $2 to $3 billion investment will give you 1 million acre-feet of water, and you already have the storage systems in place, the underground aquifers of southern California. Similarly, recycling in the Bay area. Sacramento, right here, starting just a month ago, a new recycling program, a $2 billion recycling program in Sacramento to recycle water--some for that area, the rest to put clean water down the river rather than some of the water, which is a little shady. So recycling, another million acre-feet at least, maybe more, as you bring on the recycling in the Bay area. Now we have got 3 to 4 million acre-feet of water. Storage systems, it is estimated that the Sites Reservoir can add in this drought here, were it available, would have been 900,000 acre-feet of water in this drought year. Of course it is not built; it is not available. But on average, it should provide some 500,000--400,000 to 600,000 acre-feet of water annually out of Sites Reservoir; plus, as I described earlier, the ability to reoperate the great reservoirs and, together, be able to perhaps get even more water as a result of Sites Reservoir. The other reservoirs can provide additional water also. So we ought to be able, through these processes, to get somewhere near 5 million acre-feet of new water for California. If we have conservation, if we have the storage and we are able to get through the current drought, it is a safe bet that 5 million acre-feet of annual water yield will carry California into the next 30 to 50 years and beyond that, depending on population growth and technologies. I had not mentioned the use of this water out here. Well, that is the Pacific Ocean. Desalinization and recycling use exactly the same technology. Recycling happens to be cheaper, in that it takes less energy to clean recycled water than to clean the ocean water because the ocean water has a lot of salts and other things in it, and it is just more expensive. But clearly, desalinization is also in our future. Down here, in the San Diego area, a new recycling plant is going online this year. They have been talking about one in Santa Barbara that actually was built but then mothballed because it rained again. But that one in Santa Barbara is likely to go back online as a result of the current drought and in anticipation of future droughts. So desalinization is also in California's future. Those are the basic elements: conservation; recycling; creation of new storage systems; fixing the delta, the levees; Little Sip, Big Gulp strategy; science-driven process. Keep in mind, you have got to be right on the science; otherwise, you are going to destroy this extraordinarily valuable habitat of the delta and other places. Finally, you had better be paying attention to the water rights and the laws of California, which, unfortunately, in the first iteration of the bill that passed Congress 4 years ago, just blew aside California water rights. So if you want to start a big, big water war, if you want to heighten and enflame a water war in California, push aside the water rights which, incidentally, is now taking place as a result of the drought. That is a Water Plan for All of California. It is here. It is available. My Web site has it. I recommend it to anybody that is interested in a solution for California's long-term water problems; and also, I recommend to people that we have the Federal Government in the short term align its water policy programs from the EPA--the Environmental Protection Agency--the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the Army Corps of Engineers, that those water programs in the short term be aligned with the State of California's bond act so that we can promote, augment, and advance the projects that would be undertaken in the $7 billion water bond that the California voters passed last November. My plea to those who think the tunnels are the solution is: stop, take another look. Take another look at the Little Sip, Big Gulp solution. This actually was something that was first proposed by the Natural Resources Defense Council. We were working with this about 5 years ago. They came up with the Little Sip, Big Gulp name, and with some modification, it is now a proposal that would cost a fraction of what the twin, massive, 40-foot-in-diameter tunnels would cost. So, for California, there is a future. It is the Golden State. It is an economy unmatched by any other in the United States. It is an economy particularly--well, actually, the entire State's economy is stressed as a result of the drought. And if we take the kind of steps that I have been talking about here, we will be able to provide the water that California needs in the next drought and in the years to come as the population grows and as the economy grows. So that is the water plan for all California. There are many other pieces of the puzzle, one of which I am going to take just a second to talk about. And that is this week, as we take up the appropriations for water programs in the State of California--actually, water plans for the United States, not just the State of California--we ought to be mindful of a project called the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that has been in effect for half a century. It takes the royalties from the offshore oil and minerals onshore and allows much of that royalty to be spent on preserving the special places of America-- the wildlife refuges, very unique habitat areas--setting aside those areas, using that money to buy up the land and, in some cases, to buy up easements so that the land will forever remain available to future generations in a more natural state. That is the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Unfortunately, the authorization for it expires this year, and at the moment, there is no perceived movement by the Congress of the United States to reinstitute and reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. When I was deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior in the mid-nineties, we used this fund to set aside redwood forest off along the coast of California, to protect the Everglades of Florida, to set aside some of the land along the sand dunes on the Great Lakes. This is a project for all of America, one that is worthy of being reauthorized and properly funded. With that, Mr. Speaker, perhaps enough about California's drought. No, I will take that back. Mr. Speaker, we have got a problem in California, short term and long term, and it deserves the attention of the Congress of the United States because California is the seventh largest economy in the world and critically important to the future of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order.