Thanks to Jerry Gladbach, President of ACWA and Director of Castaic Water District, for that kind introduction. It’s always a great pleasure to address your group to talk about water issues of importance to California and the Nation.

Today, I want to talk about three things:

• The impact of global warming on California water;
• How CALFED fared in this year’s budget process;
• And a new and emerging threat to California water – and that is the contamination of drinking water and food supplies with perchlorate.

Global Warming

Let me begin by talking about an issue that’s in the news today and discuss how it relates to California water – and that issue is global climate change. As you may know, yesterday was the day that the Kyoto Protocol went into effect. This protocol set targets for cuts in industrialized countries' greenhouse gas emissions. It has been ratified by 141 nations around the world including the European Union, Canada, Japan, China, India and Russia. The United States did not ratify the treaty.

I really believe that global warming represents a consequential threat to our nation. And if we do nothing, it will affect all aspects of our life – from increased severe weather, to loss of critical habitat, and flooding of coastal areas. But the reason I bring this up today is not to talk about the arctic, or various cap and trade programs, or to talk about international relations. It is because global climate change will have real and profound impact on California water.

We all know that California water is scarce. That’s why Mark Twain famously said, “Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over.”

And this scarcity is only going to get worse. California will remain the number one agriculture producing state for the foreseeable future. Our population will continue to grow – up to and beyond 50 million people in the next two decades. And environmental issues will continue to be at the forefront of public policy debates.

Global warming will only tighten water supplies further. Essentially, warmer weather will mean more rain and less snow. This will reduce our snow pack, meaning that there is less water trapped and available in spring runoff.

Consider a recent report on California water and global warming: The report found that Global Warming could shrink the State's snow pack by an amount greater than the annual water consumption of Southern California's 16 million people.

Under the “rosy” scenario that assumes that industrialized nations immediately begin reducing greenhouse gases -- the temperature will rise enough to reduce the springtime Sierra snow pack by 52 percent by the year 2100. Under the "business as usual" scenario that assumes continued reliance on fossil fuels -- the rise in temperature would diminish the snow pack by as much as 90 percent by the end of the century.

If just a third of the snow pack is lost, it would mean losing more than 4 million acre-feet. That’s enough water to serve 8 million households. So this is really a major problem.

What all this means is that climate change provides yet another reason why California needs new water storage. Much opposition to storage comes from the belief that fish and rivers would be better off if they were left alone. But if we do nothing, then our winter precipitation will flow to the sea faster, with less utility and more potential for flooding.

Consequently, the water available the remainder of the year will be reduced -- not only for cities and farms, but for the environment as well. That’s one more reason why it is absolutely critical that California water interests remain unified in the effort to expand California’s water supply for all purposes.

CALFED

This brings us to CALFED. Last year, we were finally successful in getting a bill passed. But as I said my staff after the bill was approved, “Now the hard work really begins.”

Ladies and gentlemen, CALFED has been approved, but the work is not finished. It is even more important now that California water remain unified in the implementation of CALFED. The President came out with a budget last week, and, in general, the news was pretty good for California water.

For projects fully consistent with the Record of Decision (Category A), funding increased to $78.0 million in the budget from $58.7 million enacted last year, a 33 percent increase. When you consider all projects generally related to CALFED (Category B), the number is closer to $203 million.

This funding is very good, especially given the fact that most programs were cut in this budget.

• Storage, for instance, did well. In fact, the budget includes $11 million for storage feasibility studies, just short of the $11.5 million needed to move the four projects ahead at full speed.

• The environmental water account also did well, receiving $10 million, far more than in recent years.

And funding levels for science and oversight also receive increases, meeting the program need.

On the other hand, three areas where the budget is disappointing are: levee stability, conveyance and ecosystem restoration.

• On Levee Stability, there is only $1.2 million for the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta study. This is a serious concern, especially given the stress to our levees that will occur this spring.

• There are two important conveyance projects thatreceive minimal funding. There is only $100,000 for studies of possible hydraulic gates at the flooded Franks Tract to improve salinity in the Delta. This is a promising project that should receive a more meaningful funding level.

• In addition, the agencies could use more than the budgeted $600,000 for the San Luis Lowpoint Project, which would have additional storage, water quality, and conveyance benefits.

• We have a real need for more funding for ecosystem restoration projects like the Battle Creek Restoration Project, which could restore potentially superb salmon habitat in the Sacramento Valley.

• We also need to look more closely at the Drinking Water Quality budget. Some are concerned that there is no “Category A” funding for drinking water quality. However, there is more than $12.4 million in “Category B” funding, largely for land retirement and drainage management in the San Joaquin Valley. We need to carefully examine whether the water quality component of CALFED is moving forward with the program in a balanced manner.

Finally, there is only $14.7 million for recycling. This is down from $15.7 million last year.

So, what we’ve got to do is work through the budget and appropriations process to ensure that funding is ultimately appropriated – and where there are gaps in funding, try to shore up the gaps.

Also, it is absolutely critical that CALFED be implemented in a balanced manner – so that we can avoid another round of water wars.

I pledge to you – as I’ve pledged over the past decade – that I will continue to be a champion for California water interests. But I will need your help in reaching out to members on the Appropriations Committee. This will be absolutely critical in the coming months.

Colorado River

There’s another problem I’d briefly like to mention: the Colorado River basin. It’s a major source of water for 7 states, and for more than 25 million people. It’s an absolutely critical resource for the people of the Southwest. We are now entering the fifth year of drought. And it could get worse before it gets better.

In 1968, legislation was signed which gives the Central Arizona Project secondary priority of Colorado River rights to California in times of drought. It is key and critical that we maintain our priority rights to the Colorado.

I know there are efforts that are going to be made by certain forces in Arizona to see if we would give up those water rights. We should not. But we should work cooperatively with Arizona.

A step towards this goal was a letter from the Governors’ Representatives of all seven basin states to their 14 Senators, sent last week. [attached] The letter noted that a first step toward drought management is constructing regulating reservoirs on the Lower Colorado to manage water on a real time basis.

From January 2000 to December 2003, Reclamation lost over 722,000 acre-feet of water that was released from Lake Mead and could not be stored anywhere lower on the river, even temporarily. If we could have this water back, Lake Mead would be over 7 feet higher than it is today.

The 7 states would like to construct a small regulating reservoir near the All-American Canal and excavate sediments that have accumulated behind Laguna Dam.

This would store water when released from Lake Mead if it is not needed at the time and hold it when it is needed.

The State’s (California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Arizona) asked for $37.6 million for these two projects. This letter follows a letter that I wrote asking for a similar amount. Unfortunately, the President’s budget only has $2.4 million for these projects. My colleagues and I have our work cut out for us to increase this funding, but I stand by to help in any way I can.

Perchlorate

Let me talk briefly about perchlorate.

For those of you who don’t know, perchlorate is a chemical used in rocket fuel and munitions. It was widely used by the Defense Department and its contractors in the 50s and 60s. And it has seeped into the water supplies of at least 34 states.

What perchlorate does is impede thyroid operation (by interfering with iodide uptake), and it may affect the physical and mental development of children. In California, it’s been found in more than 350 drinking water sources. It’s seeped into the Colorado River from a Kerr-McGee site in Henderson, Nevada.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Perchlorate is beginning to be found in the food supply as well. In November, the FDA reported that perchlorate was detected in 90 percent of lettuce samples taken in California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, and New Jersey.

It was also found in 101 of 104 milk samples taken at retail stores around the country. So this is potentially a major health problem.

That’s why it’s time to comprehensively address the perchlorate problem, so that it doesn’t turn into a national health crisis 10 years down the road. So what I believe we need to do is:

• First, identify the scope of the problem. We need to know the true extent of contamination across the country. We need to do this even before there is a national standard, so we can move quickly to address the problem when a standard is established.

• Second, it is critical that EPA set a national standard as soon as possible. The National Academy of Sciences has just completed a study on perchlorate. The National Academy of Sciences made a recommendation about how much perchlorate could be safely consumed – now EPA must determine how that translates into a drinking water standard.

• Third, the Defense Department needs to acknowledge its role and take steps to remediate the problem. At the same time, Congress needs to begin to fund clean-up efforts.

That’s why I plan on introducing legislation that will:

• Establish an Interagency Task Force that would coordinate federal activities (EPA, DOD, DOE, NASA and others) regarding water sources nationwide.

• Require the Environmental Protection Agency to set a national primary drinking water regulation no later than July 31, 2007.

• Authorize $200 million for the Perchlorate Cleanup Fund and provide grants for cleanup of contaminated water supplies, including wellheads.

• And it would provide grants for research and development of new, cheaper, more efficient cleanup technologies.

I hope that this bill is a good first start at bringing this problem under control.But if we are to be successful in this effort, I will need your help in reaching out to your colleagues in other states who are just beginning to have a perchlorate problem. I want you to urge them to speak with their representatives in Congress to let them know how serious an issue this is. This is not just a California problem. It is a national problem.

Conclusion

California water continues to face many challenges. But I am confidant that working together, cooperatively, that we can confront them before these challenges become crises. This is our task – and I look forward to continuing to work with you to accomplish it.