Daily Archives: August 15, 2013

Senate Asks: What Should We Do on Water? Here’s One Answer

By Jimmy Hague

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Earlier I wrote about a Senate hearing on the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. In case you missed it, the complete hearing is archived and worth watching.

Members of the committee had a recurring question about the projected 3.2 million acre-foot* shortfall between supply and demand in the Colorado River BasinWhat – if anything – should the federal government do about it?

In his opening remarks, Sen. Lee (R-UT) approvingly read from the study’s disclaimer that said the study is not to be used as a foundation for any legislative or regulatory action by the federal government. Sen. Udall (D-CO) directly asked the first panel of witnesses what the federal government’s role should be. Sen. Flake (R-AZ) reiterated this question to the second panel of witnesses, saying it was his preference that the federal government be the “last resort” when it comes to solving water problems in the basin.

These statements reflect an appropriate hesitance in Congress to tell Western states what to do with their water. Management of water resources has always been the province of the states, a responsibility they vigorously defend. But it is wrong to think the federal government doesn’t have a role to play or Congress a responsibility to act.

Mike Connor, commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, called Reclamation a valued partner to the states in water management. Don Ostler, executive director of the Upper Colorado River Commission, was more explicit. He said Reclamation provides essential technical support, guidance and research to the states. He also testified that funding for programs such as WaterSMART makes the Colorado River Basin Study possible. Taylor Hawes, Colorado River program director for The Nature Conservancy, asked for support for WaterSMART in her testimony.

The federal role in responding to our water resources management challenges is broader than what these witnesses testified, however. Leaving aside the fact that issues between states that also impact other countries (e.g., Mexico in the case of the Colorado River) have a necessary federal nexus, the problems in theColorado River Basin are a bellwether for issues coming to all parts of the country.

The northwestern and southeastern United States are already facing water conflicts analogous to those in the Colorado River Basin, the U.S. energy sector is vulnerable nationwide to projected water shortages andfloods, and water for fish and wildlife is too often an afterthought among other competing uses.

If you care about having water to drink in Atlanta or lights that come on in Seattle or wetlands that support wildlife in the northern Great Plains, you should be interested in lessons being learned right now in theColorado River Basin.

There is one action sportsmen and Congress can take in the short term to address these disparate challenges: support WaterSMART. This program and similar federal efforts are competitive cost share programs that develop local solutions to national problems. According to the Bureau of Reclamation, WaterSMART grants have already led to 616,000 acre-feet of water saved through conservation.

In 2013 alone, WaterSMART gave the following:

● $1 million to the Hoopa Valley Tribe in northern California to install over 20,000 linear feet of new pipeline to address inefficiencies in the existing delivery system of open ditches and pipes. The project will save 379 acre-feet of water annually, which will be left in Soctish and Captain John Creeks, eventually feeding into the Trinity and lower Klamath Rivers where it will benefit threatened Coho salmon and green sturgeon.

● $200,000 to the Fort Shaw Irrigation District in Montana to upgrade 10,800 feet of open ditch canal to pipe and install six new center pivots, allowing growers to switch from flood irrigation and increase efficiency. The project will save 2,628 acre-feet annually, which will be left in the Sun River to help maintain and improve minimum stream flows.

● $1.5 million to the Central Oregon Irrigation District to upgrade 4,500 linear feet of canal to pipe, an improvement that will save 2,552 acre-feet each year. The conserved water will become permanent instream flows in the middle Deschutes River and in a reach of the Crooked River that is critical for the endangered Middle Columbia River steelhead.

● $1.5 million to the Cub River Irrigation Company in northern Utah to upgrade 6.5 miles of open ditch canal to pipe. The project will save 2,800 acre-feet of water each year, which will be left in the Bear River and benefit the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge downstream.

In fiscal year 2013, the federal government spent a little over $52 million on the WaterSMART program. For 2014, President Obama has asked Congress for $35 million for the program, a 32 percent cutfrom last year. The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that would fund WaterSMART at $16.6 million, a 68 percent cut from last year. As part of that cut, the House bill would completely eliminate funding for the competitive grants, like those listed above, that have led to significant on-the-ground water conservation in partnership with local communities.

The bright spot is the Senate, which has legislation funding WaterSMART at $51 million. This is essentially the same level as last year, 45 percent above President Obama’s request and three times the House level. When the House and Senate meet to resolve their differences and fund the government for 2014, they can demonstrate to sportsmen how important water conservation is by the level of investment they make in WaterSMART.

Congress can also show its support for sportsmen by extending the successful WaterSMART partnerships with state and local entities. The authorization for water conservation grants is about to run out, which is part of the reason funding is in jeopardy. At a minimum, Congress needs to reauthorize these grants and renew its commitment to water conservation.

The TRCP Center for Water Resources will be taking this message to Congress. Stay tuned for ways you can get involved to let your representatives in Congress know that investments that conserve water for fish and wildlife are important to hunters and anglers.

* An acrefoot of water is approximately as much water as a family of four will use in a year.

House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee Proposes Cuts to Grant Programs

House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee Proposes Cuts to Grant Programs.

Last month the House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee proposed eliminating funding for the following popular and highly successful grant programs for next fiscal year:

·         State & Tribal Wildlife Grants Program

·         North American Wetland Conservation Fund

·         Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund

·         Forest Legacy Program

·         Land and Water Conservation Fund

These programs have conserved some of our nation’s rarest and most cherished fish and wildlife, restored vital wetlands and protected priority forests, grasslands, coasts  and other important habitats. Complete elimination of funding for these programs is unprecedented.

The Association of Fish and Wildlife Associations (AFWA) has drafted a letter (read below) in support of these programs that calls for funding to be restored for FY2014, which is set to begin on October 1. 


Dear Senators Reed and Murkowski and Congressmen Simpson and Moran:

On behalf of the millions of outdoor recreationists our organizations represent, we wish to express our support for the State & Tribal Wildlife Grants Program, North American Wetland Conservation Fund, Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, Forest Legacy Program and Land and Water Conservation Fund. We are concerned that the House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee proposed to eliminate funding for these successful and important fish and wildlife conservation programs next fiscal year. Elimination of funding will have significant impacts to collaborative on-the-ground conservation in communities nationwide resulting in more federal endangered species listings, fewer restored wetlands, further imperiled migratory birds, less protection for forests and other key habitats and diminished outdoor recreation opportunities.

We appreciate the need to reduce the size of the federal deficit and the difficult choices that you face. However, these programs are priorities and we believe they have done their fair share to help balance the budget after being cut by more than 25% in the last several years. Continued disproportionate cuts in the current budget under consideration will further rollback conservation work that serves the national interests of fish and wildlife conservation, creation of non-exportable jobs and delivery of essential services such as clean water and air and storm protection to current and future generations 

Investments in natural resources conservation and outdoor recreation total less than 1% of all discretionary spending, a percentage that has been declining for decades. Grant programs represent an even smaller percentage of this total but are unique in that they leverage hundreds of millions in state, local and private dollars.  According to the US Census Bureau, 90 million US residents participate in fish and wildlife recreation, spending over $150 billion annually. Federal grant programs help ensure these consumers have sustainable fish and wildlife populations to view, hunt and fish.  

We strongly encourage you to work in a bipartisan manner to find solutions to the budget problem that do not further harm successful and publicly supported conservation grant programs that help fuel the outdoor recreation economic engine.  Thank you for your time and consideration.   

Sincerely,