The letter was sent today to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne by four members of California’s Congressional delegation: George Miller, Mike Thompson, Sam Farr, and Ellen Tauscher. In the letter, the lawmakers ask for an explanation of the current status of the missing water and the Department’s strategy for overcoming the shortages.

“The law is very clear: the Interior Department must take critical steps to protect the fish, birds, and wildlife of California,” said Miller, the author of the 1992 law, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. “But they’ve had more than fifteen years to get much-needed water to these Pacific Flyway wetlands, and from what we’ve seen, the agencies simply haven’t done enough. We’re simply trying to understand why the law has remained an unfulfilled promise, and what the Interior Department will do to turn this around.”

The full text of the letter follows.

February 27, 2008

The Honorable Dirk Kempthorne

Secretary of the Interior

Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240

Re: Implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement

Act; Refuge Water Supply

Dear Secretary Kempthorne:

As you are aware, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA) mandated the delivery of water supplies to critical Pacific Flyway wetlands when it became law over a decade and a half ago. Specifically, it required that the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), in cooperation with the State of California, provide full Level 2 supplies to key wetlands, two thirds of the water needed for mitigation of agriculturally contaminated wetlands pursuant to the Kesterson Action Plan, and incremental Level 4 supplies by 2002. This would have resulted in optimum conditions for certain then-existing federal refuges, state wildlife areas and private wetlands, notwithstanding the fact that these affected lands would only represent a small portion of the original Valley wetlands historically reduced by the federal Central Valley Project.

In accordance with the requirements of the Act, the Bureau reported back to Congress (Central Valley Wetlands Water Supply Investigations, CVPIA 3406 (d) (6) (A,B), A report to Congress; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000) that some significant progress was made in complying with these mandates over the initial eight years of activity. Most Level 2 and some Level 4 water were made available to key wetlands due to efforts by the Bureau and other conservation partners.

But seven years later, according to the recently released 2006 Central Valley Joint Venture Implementation Plan, it appears that full refuge water supplies — essential for meeting agreed-upon conservation targets — are still far from reality. It also appears that prospects for significant progress are not encouraging, considering the dwindling resources devoted to these activities by the Bureau.

It is our understanding that since 1995, acquired refuge water has increased from roughly $30 per acre foot to more than $200 per acre foot, and that the Bureau’s overall expenditures on refuge water have risen as high as ten-fold during that time, while the actual water obtained has decreased by as much as 50,000 acre feet.

It is certain that securing these water supplies will only get more difficult over time. Yet we are also aware that both temporary and permanent water rights do become available on the market from willing sellers, but many such opportunities have not been pursued.

While we recognize that there are competing demands on an ever-constrained water resource, the water supply targets of the CVPIA were not goals; they are a requirement of the law that necessitates aggressive implementation by the Bureau. It is therefore essential that we understand why Section 3406 (d) has remained an unfulfilled promise and what steps will be taken by your agencies to ensure full compliance.

With this in mind, we respectfully ask you and your staff to respond to the following questions:

1. What is the present status of Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies available to the CVPIA-identified Central Valley wetlands?

2. Where full Level 4 supplies have not been acquired, what is the current strategy to overcoming that shortage?

3. Are there funds available to purchase water supplies — that is, either permanent water rights or temporary quantities — when they become available on the market? If not, what are your plans to request such funds in the budget for Fiscal Year 2009?

4. What staffing resources has the Bureau devoted to refuge water acquisition and is it sufficient to meet the Act’s mandates in this regard — both now and in the future?

5. How does the Bureau officially interpret and implement the language found in Section 3406 (d) (2), which requires consultation with the Central Valley Joint Venture (CVJV) when acquiring such water supplies? As you know, the CVJV’s voting members are non-governmental conservation organizations, not agencies, and we therefore do not agree that a non-voting federal agency member should concurrently represent its own interests and those of the CVJV. We would strongly encourage Interior to identify a structured communication process with the CVJV that is consistent with the Act and encourages on-going dialogue with the principle organizations that guide the habitat objectives of the CVJV and therefore have the best on-the-ground understanding of wetland water needs.

6. What is the status of discussions with the State of California relating to the Bureau’s cost share obligations towards achieving Level 4 water supplies?

7. How will the Department implement the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process related to refuge water assessment? We have heard reports that this process may seek to “grade” refuges on progress made with their CVPIA supplies, yet full and sustained supplies have yet to be delivered by the Bureau. This would be patently unfair to the wetlands that benefit from the CVPIA and have been awaiting their full supplies. In this regard, we request an explanation of your interpretation of OMB’s requirements of Interior. We assume the Fish and Wildlife Service will serve in a co-equal role with the Bureau in this process; deferring that agency’s responsibilities to outside parties who “evaluate” refuges yet have no experience in wildlife and water management would seem highly inappropriate and would call into question the credibility of the process’ conclusions.

We hope that in reviewing and answering our questions, Interior will refocus on the commitment and legal mandate to provide refuge water as required under the CVPIA, and that your reply will provide Congress with sufficient information to determine what further investigation and oversight may be needed to ensure compliance with CVPIA’s refuge water supply provisions.

As the budget and appropriations processes have already begun for Fiscal Year 2009, we would appreciate your response to our questions by March 14, 2008.

We look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,

GEORGE MILLER, M.C. MIKE THOMPSON, M.C.

7th District, California 1st District, California

SAM FARR, M.C. ELLEN O. TAUSCHER

17th District, California 10th District, California

CC: Commissioner Bob Johnson, Bureau of Reclamation

Acting Regional Director Mike Finnegan

Director Dale Hall, Fish and Wildlife Service

Regional Director Steve Thompson

California Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman

Central Valley Joint Venture Management Board

###