Senate Energy and Natural Resources (Murkowski): Business meeting to consider S.140, to address the forest health crisis on the National Forest System and public lands, S.332, to require a study on Holocaust education efforts of States, local educational agencies, and public elementary and secondary schools, S.365 and H.R.1729, bills to amend the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act to allow for additional entities to be eligible to complete the maintenance work on Bolts Ditch and the Bolts Ditch Headgate within the Holy Cross Wilderness, Colorado, S.764, to provide for the designation of certain wilderness areas, recreation management areas, and conservation areas in the State of Colorado, S.789, to require reports on critical mineral and rare earth element resources around the world and a strategy for the development of advanced mining, refining, separation, and processing technologies, S.791, to establish the Justice Thurgood Marshall National Historic Site in the State of Maryland as an affiliated area of the National Park System, S.888, to designate certain land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service in the State of Oregon as wilderness and national recreation areas, to withdraw certain land located in Curry County and Josephine County, Oregon, from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws, location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and operation under the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws, S.945, to amend the Smith River National Recreation Area Act to include certain additions to the Smith River National Recreation Area, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain wild rivers in the State of Oregon, S.1088 and H.R.2290, bills to provide that the memorial to commemorate the sacrifice and service of the women who worked on the home front to support the efforts of the United States military during World War II may be located on the National Mall, S.1288, to amend the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act to designate as a component of the National Heritage Area System the Finger Lakes National Heritage Area in the State of New York, S.1341, to amend the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 to add certain land to the Sarvis Creek Wilderness, S.1349, to withdraw the National Forest System land in the Ruby Mountains subdistrict of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the National Wildlife Refuge System land in Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada, from operation under the mineral leasing laws, S.1413, to authorize additional funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, S.1476, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Gila River system in the State of New Mexico as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, to provide for the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over certain Federal land in the State of New Mexico, S.1547, to amend title 54, United States Code, to reauthorize the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund, S.1737, to designate and expand wilderness areas in Olympic National Forest in the State of Washington, and to designate certain rivers in Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park as wild and scenic rivers, S.1870, to adjust the boundary of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area to include the Rim of the Valley Corridor, S.2437 and H.R.3857, bills to amend the Snow Water Supply Forecasting Program Authorization Act, S.2753, to amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to authorize certain extraordinary operation and maintenance work for urban canals of concern, S.3500 and H.R.3657, bills to amend the Federal Power Act to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to annually submit to Congress a report on the status of ongoing hydropower relicensing applications, S.3518, to amend the Federal Power Act to address certain alterations in, and the maintenance and repair of, project works, to provide for the licensing of micro hydrokinetic energy projects, S.3526, to provide for the protection of and investment in certain Federal land in the State of California, S.3693, to extend the authorization for a large-scale water recycling and reuse grant program, S.3723, to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a project to supply municipal, rural, and industrial water from the Missouri River to the Western Dakota Regional Water System, S.3732, to amend the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act to authorize assistance under the storage program, S.3736, to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a project to supply municipal, rural, and industrial water to the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System service area in the States of South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota, S.3743, to direct the Secretary of

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will come to order. Good morning to everyone. Before I commence with my opening statement, I want to let senators know a little bit about how we're going to proceed this morning. Plan to start with opening statements, first from me and then from our ranking member, Senator Heinrich. Then we'll hold a business meeting to vote on a total of 17 bills.

That are pending before the committee, which were noticed on the official agenda, the official agenda that the committee released last week, as well as some accompanying amendments to go along with those. Finally, we'll move on to an oversight hearing addressing matters related to the Colorado River Basin. I also want to accommodate the schedules of our committee members. And we've got a lot of committee members with competing committee assignments this morning, um, people who will be either participating in or in several cases chairing other committee hearings this morning, uh, they couldn't be moved. So, uh, as soon as we have a reporting quorum present, I'll move to a roll call vote on the bills for which a roll call vote has been requested, uh, so that, um, We'll adjust today's framework as necessary in order to make that happen.

All right, while we wait for a quorum, I want to say a few words about a bill that I have on today's agenda that directs the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study on a selective water withdrawal system at Glen Canyon Dam. The Glen Canyon Dam helps provide affordable, reliable, clean hydropower to communities across the West, and its operations, uh, very much affect the broader Colorado River system. Over the years, questions have been raised about whether a selective withdrawal system could improve hydropower performance while also helping to address concerns related to invasive species. This bill does not alter the existing Colorado River Operating Guidelines. It authorizes a feasibility study so that policymakers and stakeholders can make informed decisions based on sound science and engineering.

I appreciate the bipartisan interest in this issue, uh, and the bipartisan support that it's received. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I want to note that we're doing things just a little bit differently this week. Since becoming chairman, I've made every effort to work in good faith with the Democrats on the committee and with the ranking member. And uphold and even exceed this committee's longstanding bipartisan tradition.

To that end, we've marked up Democrat and Republican bills on a roughly 1-to-1 basis, meaning one Republican bill, one Democrat bill. As the chart behind me shows, that's something that no recent chairman on this committee has done. Now, today's markup is a little bit different. We're marking up 11 Republican bills and 6 Democrat bills. Since I've become Chairman, one of the goals that I've had has been to return the Committee to regular order.

We hear bills, we mark them up, and we pass non-controversial bills on the floor. You've all heard me talk about this, perhaps ad nauseam. We're marking up bills, we're making progress on some of these fronts. We've held 6 legislative markups and we've processed 45 bills out of the Committee. That's much better than the single markup that the previous chairman held in November of 2024, uh, where we reported over 80 bills.

We can do better, uh, but this is a marked improvement on how the committee functions. Unfortunately, many of these bills that we've reported are needlessly languishing when we get to the Senate floor. Dozens and dozens have cleared the Republican hotline. Republicans are ready to go. We want to send these bills, both Democrat and Republican, to the House, or pass the House-passed version of the same bills and get them signed into law.

The minority has come up with a number of excuses as to why pairing and passing one Republican bill and one Democratic bill is generally unacceptable. Sure, a few bills have squeaked through, like Senator Cortez Masto's Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act, or Senator Murkowski's Cape Fox Land Entitlement Finalization Act. But these are the exception, not the rule. I've worked with my Democrat colleagues to try to assuage concerns. I've often thought we've been on the precipice of a significant breakthrough.

But very often what happens is that we make progress, uh, and when we make progress, it ends up being fleeting and we end up back where we started. So, okay, especially until this changes, um, I can't justify the historically, uh, abnormally generous treatment that I've been providing to the minority in these committee markups. Again, no chairman in modern history, as far back as we've been able to research in recent decades, uh, has given this much of a balance, uh, essentially a one-for-one ratio. In fact, I believe with the exception of one bill that was pulled at the request of Democrats in order to resolve disputes among Democrats on the committee. It has been a one-to-one path.

Were I—. Were I to continue down this path, giving something for nothing, I'm pretty sure my Republican colleagues might jump me in the parking lot. So, look, this is important for us to get this worked out. To my Democrat colleagues on the committee, I'm committed to working with you to move bills on the floor. But time's running out in this Congress, and I think we ought to try to make some meaningful progress.

Thank you. Ranking Member Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. Um, while I am always glad to see good legislation move through this committee, I am disappointed that we have yet another business meeting where we are considering zero conservation bills that are priorities for my members. My colleagues on the Democratic side of the dais have a long and growing list of priorities that continue to be left off of the list of bills to be voted on by the committee, many of which have received bipartisan support in this committee in the past.

For instance, the Oregon Recreation Enhancement Act has been reported 3 times, always with bipartisan support, but has been left off the list of final bills that will receive votes yet again. My own Gila River bill has been reported twice with bipartisan support, but will not receive a vote today. The Ruby Mountains Protection Act from Senator Cortez Masto has been reported by this committee in 3 previous Congresses with bipartisan support, and will not receive a vote today. S.1413, the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act Funding Authorization, sponsored by Senator Padilla, moved last Congress as part of a bipartisan pair with S.4040, the Dakota Water Resources Act Amendments, sponsored by Senator Hoeven. In fact, Senators Padilla and Hoeven each co-sponsored each other's bills in the pair to demonstrate the bipartisan tie between the two.

But today we will only have a vote on Senator Hoeven's bill, and Senator Padilla's bill will be once again left behind. I'm also disappointed that some newer bills put forth by Democratic senators will not receive consideration today. S.791, sponsored by Senator Van Hollen, would establish the Justice Thurgood Marshall School as an affiliated area of the National Park System. The future Supreme Court— Supreme Court Justice received— the former Supreme Court Justice received his elementary education at this segregated school and then grew up to argue the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case before the Supreme Court that required American schools to desegregate. Senator Van Hollen's bill would not make this site a new National Park Service unit.

It would simply allow the site to be named as an affiliated area of the National Park System and to be eligible for technical assistance from the Park Service. The nonprofit organization that manages the site today would continue to own, operate, and manage it. This isn't a question of even adding a new National Park Service unit to the system. It's simply a bill to allow for consideration and support for a site that commemorates one of the most significant civil rights leaders of the last century. In fact, we have another affiliated area bill that will be voted on today.

It's a bill to establish the Grand Village of the Natchez Indians in Jefferson College, as affiliated areas of the National Park System. I have no objection to Senator Hyde's legislation, and I plan to vote for it. But I am extremely disappointed that we will not have an opportunity to vote on similar legislation from Senator Van Hollen. We have very few weeks of legislative business left in this Congress, and I know that senators on my side of the aisle are desperate— desperately want to see their priority bills move forward. And that's the point.

This is not about controversial or non-controversial. It's about being responsive to what members' priorities actually are. I hope that we will take the opportunity to seek collaboration and compromise so that we can move some of these bills forward.

Right. We're missing just a couple of members who I believe are en route. We do have voice votes on a couple of amendments that we can do right now in the absence of that, of that quorum. These are some technical, non-substantive amendments that have been distributed for 8 agenda items. We'll vote on these amendments and bills on block.

For those amendments, 5A, 18A, 19C, 21B, 23A, 24A, 26B, 27B, and 27A has a block. All those in favor of these amendments say aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes appear to have it.

The ayes do have it. The amendments are agreed to.

Okay, we're waiting for one more.

And—. Okay. And that'll be enough, right? Once he gets here. Yeah.

Senator Cotton's on his way, so he should be here momentarily. While we wait, does anybody want to speak briefly on one of their bills?

So we can have some entertainment while we're awaiting him. If not, we're going to have Dave McCormick do a song and dance combination. I have no questions.

Oh, good. All right. Senator Murkowski has arrived, so we're in good shape. She's not dancing. You don't have to dance if you're here to vote.

Mr. Chairman? Yes. I just have a question. Yes. Is Dave McCormick good at singing and/or dancing?

Well, yes, it's part of his wrestling, part of his wrestling training in college led him to that. So the glee club. Okay. Thank you. All right.

So we'll now proceed. We've got a voting quorum present. We'll proceed with a series of roll call votes. We'll begin with agenda item 1, S. 140. This is from Senator Barrasso.

Does any senator have a second degree amendment they wish to offer? If not, hearing none. Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I have a second-degree amendment to Barrasco. Sorry, didn't mean to cut you off.

Didn't see that. Go ahead. This amendment, colleagues, is with Senator Cantwell, Senator Padilla, Senator Gallego, Senator Hirono to strike the provision that would nullify the roadless area conservation rule. And for decades, The Roadless Rule has protected some of America's most iconic outdoor recreation areas. In Oregon, we're talking about extraordinarily, uh, amazing landscapes like the scenic lakes for swimming and kayaking in the Cascade Lakes around Mount Bachelor, hiking through wildfire meadows at Iron Mountain, or camping in old-growth forests on Mount Hood.

All of these beloved places would be decimated if the roadless rule was repealed. In a number of instances, more roads mean more wildfires, and repealing the roadless rule is an open invitation to destroy these recreation areas and to spark catastrophic wildfires. And I'm going to be brief this morning because I want to let my colleagues led by Senator Kentwell, make any remarks that they have. But I just want to introduce one fact involving a 2026 study of 3 decades of the National Forest System wildfire data. This data found that wildfire ignition density within 50 meters of roads is roughly 4 times higher than in non-wilderness, non-roadless forest.

Wilderness and inventory roadless areas have the lowest ignition densities of any land category studied. And the point really is, Mr. Chairman, and I'll close with this, there certainly are instances where you need active management and you ought to think it through carefully. And so often we've tried around here to proceed in that kind of way. I've been really pleased to work with Senator Budd on prescribed fire, because I think that's a big part of the future. But when people hear that the roadless rule is being wiped out, they say nobody's going in there with a scalpel.

They're going in there more with, you know, a cannon or something. And I think we can do better. I urge members of the committee to support my amendment to protect the 58 million acres of national forest covered under the roadless rule. Instead of, in effect, just saying we can go in there with this across-the-board approach without really thinking through what it means to protect these special places and do it in a thoughtful way, in a manner that this committee historically has done so. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you, Senator Wyden. Before we turn to Senator Barrasso to respond, do we have any other secondary amendments? Senator Padilla. Not for an amendment, but I'd like to be heard after Senator Cantwell. I've got Senator Cantwell, Senator Padilla, and I believe Senator— Oh, speaking on the point.

Yes. Okay. On my second—. Yes. Okay.

So Senator Cantwell and then Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I definitely am perplexed by this morning's markup and hearing. I would have loved to seen the wild Olympics on this. I think we may be creating an artificial divide here this morning.

I mean, it's clear, Mr. Chairman, that you would like to sell public land. On our side of the aisle, we would like to continue to acquire public land and set it aside for the general public to use. This Sunday, I will attend the memorial service for Jim Whittaker, the first American to summit Mount Everest and the founder of REI. It will be a great celebration of his life. But REI and what the outdoor industry means is that when you add public land, the public gets to recreate and we create an economy and it grows jobs.

So what we have in this debate now on adding to the Barrasso bill, a bill that we've passed out of committee prior to help us fight wildfires, and I appreciate Senator Barrasso attending the hearing with me in Seattle and helping pioneer some policy that we actually got implemented and help us change the fire borrowing problem that this committee was plagued with for many years. But we have much more to do on fire prevention, and we should come together. But this amendment is now offering a eradication of the roadless rule, which is simply a rule that says, aren't there some elevations of public lands that are so high and so expensive to take care of that we should not basically try to use the public dollars to do so. I thank my colleague from Idaho for implementing, when he was governor, a roadless rule. And it shows that these policies can work and can be cost effective for the public.

Why is this so important? Because we're more challenged. We're more challenged on our public lands, and we have to be smarter with the taxpayer dollars. But to now, today, to say we're going to get rid of the roadless rule, which is basically like saying, okay, well, we're just going to go build a road anywhere, even where it's not cost effective, even where it costs the public more. And instead of focusing on the backlog and getting out of this administration the money that was promised in a bipartisan bill to continue to implement the land policies that we agreed to under legislation that our former colleague from Colorado and many of us worked on.

Is like there's a divide here and it's a bad divide. And let's be efficient with the taxpayers' dollars. Let's not kill the roadless area rule. Let's make sure that we're working together on fire prevention and make smart use of public policy because it's a damn big economy and doing anything else is just wrongheaded. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. We'll go to Senator Padilla now. Again, we've got— we're running up against the clock with members with competing assignments. So if if you can speak on the amendment and keep your remarks concise. I'll recognize you as long as you want after we voted.

Go ahead, Senator Padilla. So thank you. Yeah, I'm one of those members with multiple committees, but this is important. And as I begin to talk about the roadless rule in the amendment currently before us, I also want to make a point to echo the ranking member's concerns about Democrats being cut out of the process for scheduling bills on this markup. And that includes, colleagues, my bill on the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, which has historically moved together with Senator Hoeven's Dakota Water Resources Act.

So moving forward, I hope that we'd get a fair consideration, not just for that particular bill of mine, but also my Grow Smart Act and my More Water Act. Now, while I always hope that we can work in good faith and find bipartisan compromises in this committee, the action that the majority seems to be on the verge of taking today erodes some of that goodwill. Right at the deadline, the majority filed an amendment to the previous— previously bipartisan wildfire bill to codify the repeal of the roadless rule. The last-minute move destroys a bipartisan opportunity for compromise on this one. And let me remind us and folks watching at home, the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was created through one of the most extensive and rigorous public rulemaking processes in history, garnering over 1.6 million public comments, with 95% of them in support, by the way.

The rule remains incredibly popular throughout the country, with over 500,000 public comments in opposition to the administration's recent efforts to repeal the rule. And we now see the Republican majority on this committee working feverishly against the will of all of our constituents. So let me explain why the roadless rule is so important to my home state of California. The rule helps protect almost 4 million acres of roadless areas in my state, from the Klamath Mountains in the north to the San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mountains in the south. These areas help keep the headwaters of our important rivers clean, protect over 200 threatened or endangered species of wildlife, and supports the state's $74 billion outdoor recreation economy.

Now, to address the growing threat of wildfires, California is also accelerating projects, improving practices in the wildland urban interface, and using fire as a natural process through prescribed burning. Republicans have claimed that the Roadless Rule has hindered wildfire mitigation efforts, and it's simply False. In fact, more than 240,000 acres of roadless land in California have undergone vegetarian maintenance and treatments to reduce wildfire risk and protect those nearby communities. As this committee knows, every single member of this committee knows, studies have also demonstrated that the fire threat increases by 4 times with established roads due to human-caused ignitions. So opening in, uh, inventory roadless areas to road construction would put rural communities at increased risk of fire.

Now finally, members on both sides of the aisle in this committee have discussed the need to address our deferred maintenance backlog. There's over 370,000 miles of roads in our national forests. The Forest Service has $10.8 billion of deferred maintenance backlog. 55% Of which is due to dilapidated roads. One of the main reasons the roadless rule was created was because these roads are so expensive to maintain.

Look, I can go on and on about the roadless rule, what it means to my state and my constituents, but I just have to go on record with my disappointment on how Republicans are pushing this poison pill in what is a tremendous bipartisan opportunity. And, um, I'm proud to co-sponsor this amendment with Senator Wyden, Senator Cantwell, and I thank them for their leadership. Let's, uh, it's— we need to vote on that. Do you have a point? We need to proceed to a vote on this amendment.

You need to speak to—. Absolutely. Can we vote first and then talk? And then would you be willing to take the vote first and speak after? That's not much of a debate, but we've heard 3 members.

All right. I'll keep it to 10 seconds. I'm just really disappointed that I want to commend Senator Barasa for working in a very partisan way, bipartisan way, on dealing with the wildfire threats that we're all struggling with. And I think putting the roadless rule repeal into this legislation just blows that up. Let's proceed.

To vote on the second degree amendment. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Lee. No. No.

Mr. Barrasso. No. Mr. Risch. No. Mr. Daines.

Mr. Cotton. No. Mr. McCormick. Mr. Justice. Mr. Cassidy.

Ms. Hyde-Smith. Yes. Ms. Murkowski. Mr. Hoeven. Mr. Heinrich.

Yes. Mr. Widen. Yes. Miss Canwell.

Miss Hirono. Yes, by proxy. Mr. King. Yes, by proxy. Miss Cortez Masto.

Mr. Hickenlooper. Mr. Padilla. Aye. Mr. Gallego. Yes, by proxy.

On this vote, the nays are 11 and the yeas are 9.

Before we proceed to a vote on the measure, If there are any other second-degree members— Mr. Senator Padilla. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bring up my amendment number S140. It's a second-degree amendment. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My second-degree amendment to the Wildfire Prevention Act is actually pretty simple. It would add back into the bill the important workforce provisions that were negotiated and passed by this committee last year by voice vote. These provisions provide critical benefits to our federal firefighting workforce just as we enter peak wildfire season. These heroes protect our communities, and I find it incredibly disheartening to see that my colleagues, many of whom say they support our federal firefighters and thank them when they respond to incidents, strip out these provisions that they voted to support last Congress.

Specifically, this amendment would provide direct hire authority, correct a bureaucratic error regarding federal firefighters' specialized retirements, and ensure a federal firefighter's rent never exceeds 30% of their base and locality pay. I appreciate the work that we did last year negotiating these provisions and again approving them on a unanimous bipartisan basis. I hope my colleagues will support these same critically important provisions today. Chairman, just a question. Yes.

I want to ask the sponsor of this amendment. This strikes me as extraordinarily important because in the West, we are going to be faced with an urgency with respect to enough firefighters. And I think your amendment also applies to housing as well. Is that true? That is correct.

I urge my colleagues to support the Padilla amendment. Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman. There are many members on our side who may be willing to support the amendment. We've been unable to determine the exact cost of this without knowing the budgetary impact of the amendment or a CBO score.

Which I believe is going to be significant. I just can't support it at this time. So I'd urge my colleagues to vote no. Mr. Chairman, I did it last year. Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Senator McCauskey. Mr. Chairman, I have a question, and perhaps this goes to committee counsel here, but this is obviously a very important issue. But you're talking about, about not only housing, but, but pension retirement benefits as well. So my question is whether or not this actually falls within the jurisdiction of this committee. It's— I'm not disagreeing that we need to address this, but I'm just curious as to whether or not within ENR we actually have jurisdiction over this.

Galvin, for amendments, there's no general requirement for germaneness. However, if this were offered, um, as an individual standalone bill, it would go to the Senate parliamentarian and she would look at the preponderance test and make an assessment about whether this bill should be referred to this committee. But as an amendment, there's no germaneness requirement. And respectfully, that wasn't a concern last time when we voice voted it out. And in addition, I might add that if Senator Padilla had actually introduced this as an amendment on the Senate floor, it would have been referred to the committee as a trailing amendment to S.

140, Which the parliamentarian has already referred to the committee. And there is, of course, a provision in the rules that prevent any committee from reporting an amendment that's not within the committee's jurisdiction. But I think because of the fact that it is a, in a sense, a trailing amendment, it is appropriate for the committee to consider it. Okay. We need to proceed to question on this.

The clerk will call the roll on the second degree amendment. Mr. Lee. No. Mr. Barrasso. No.

Mr. Risch. Out. Mr. Daines. No. Mr. Cotton.

No. Mr. McCormick. No. Mr. Justice. No.

Mr. Cassidy. No. Ms. Hyde-Smith. Yes. Ms. Murkowski.

Mr. Hoeven. No. Mr. Heinrich. Aye. Mr. Wyden.

Aye. Ms. Cantwell. Aye. Ms. Hirono. Yes by proxy.

Mr. King. Yes by proxy. Ms. Cortez Masto. Mr. Hickenlooper. Mr. Padilla.

Mr. Gallego. Yes, by proxy. On this vote, the nays are 11, the yeas are 9. We'll now turn to the question on Senator Barrasso's legislation.

To the Barrasso first degree amendment. Clerk will call. Mr. Chairman, go ahead. Mr. Chairman, before we go to the vote, at some point in time, and I can do it after the vote, but I would like to speak to, to the roadless rule. I deferred because of time, but I would like to speak to that.

You've got it. You got it. Clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Lee. Aye. Mr. Barrasso.

Mr. Risch. Aye. Mr. Daines. Aye. Mr. Cotton.

Aye. Mr. McCormick. Mr. Justice. Mr. Cassidy. Ms. Hyde-Smith.

Ms. Murkowski. Mr. Hoeven. Mr. Heinrich. No. Mr. Wyden.

No. Ms. Cantwell. No. Ms. Hirono. No by proxy.

Mr. King. No by proxy. Ms. Cortez Masto. Mr. Hickenlooper. Mr. Padilla.

Mr. Gallego. No by proxy. On this vote, the yeas are 11, the nays are 9. We'll now proceed to the question on the legislation, S.140, the Barrasso bill. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Lee. Aye. Mr. Barrasso. Mr. Risch. Mr. Daines.

Mr. Cotton. Mr. McCormick. Mr. Justice. Mr. Cassidy. Aye.

Ms. Hyde-Smith. Aye. Ms. Murkowski. Aye. Mr. Hovind.

Aye. Mr. Heinrich. No. Mr. Wyden. No.

Ms. Cantwell. Ms. Hirono. No by proxy. Mr. King. No by proxy.

Ms. Cortez Masto. Yes. Mr. Hickenlooper. Mr. Padilla. Mr. Gallego.

No by proxy. On this vote, the yeas are 11, the nays are 9. We'll now proceed to the question on agenda item number 27. Clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Lee. Aye. Mr. Barrasso. Aye. Mr. Risch.

Aye. Mr. Daines. Aye. Mr. Cotton. Aye.

Mr. McCormick. Aye. Mr. Justice. Aye. Mr. Cassidy.

Aye. Ms. Hyde-Smith. Aye. Ms. Murkowski. Aye.

Mr. Hoven. Aye. Mr. Heinrich. No. Mr. Wyden.

No. Ms. Cantwell. No. Ms. Hirono. No by proxy.

Mr. King. No by proxy. Ms. Cortez Masto. Can I clarify which item you're on? We're on the underlying bill.

Just want to clarify. As—. Or no, sorry, we're on the—. 27. We haven't even debated that.

Okay. Proceed. Chairman, I'm not sure we adopted the voice— the amendment by voice vote. Can we? We did.

Okay. Yeah, yeah, we did. I apologize. Thank you for the clarification.

Um, Miss Cortez Masto. Okay, so just so I know, it's the underlying bill, the length of the canyon and the voice vote of the amendment passed? Yes. No. Thank you.

Mr. Higginlooper. Mr. Padilla. Mr. Gallego. Nope. No by proxy.

On this vote, the yeas are 11, the nays are 9. We'll now proceed to agenda item number 32. Are there— does anyone have any secondary amendments to agenda item number 32?

This is your time.

I have an amendment.

Amendment to offer, Mr. Chair. Yes, Senator Heitkamp, proceed. I appreciate the improvements made in this—. Hold on.

I have an amendment number 32A that I'd like to call up and I understand that H.R. 3872 Is intended to allow hard rock mineral development on acquired lands where there's no current authority to lease hard rock minerals for development: military installations, Corps of Engineers projects, or DOE lands. The bill doesn't affect public domain lands, which are most of the public lands in the West, and doesn't affect acquired national forests in the East, which are governed by a separate statute. I'm not opposed to developing hard rock minerals on military or Corps of Engineers lands as long as the mineral development does not interfere with the main mission of those lands, whether national defense or, for that matter, flood control. I am concerned, however, that this bill also opens up hard rock mining on lands that were acquired with funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or from the, uh, from FLITFA, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act.

These funds acquire public lands for conservation and for recreational use, but because they are acquired lands, minerals on them are governed by the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, the law this underlying, uh, bill amends today. Now, while the MLA for acquired lands excludes areas within national parks National Monuments. That exclusion does not cover many LWCF acquisitions, especially those targeting recreational access to public lands, which open up new trailheads or new stream access, new access for hunters and fishermen. And we want to be able to protect those acquisitions and maintain that access. Many LWCF rec access projects are just effectively regular BLM or Forest Service land,, but they facilitate those access points.

My amendment simply ensures that lands acquired for the public with Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars or FLIPFA funds, lands acquired for the purpose of recreation, conservation, and wildlife habitat, are not unintentionally open to hard rock mining by this bill. I know that was not the sponsor's intent, but if we can adopt this amendment, it will close a potential loophole., and I would be happy to vote for the underlying bill. I'd love to respond to Heinrich Amendment 32A. I'm going to defer my comments until afterwards. I'd like the clerk to call the roll on Heinrich Amendment 32A.

Mr. Lee? No. Mr. Barrasso? No. Mr. Risch?

No. Mr. Daines? No. Mr. Cotton? No.

Mr. McCormick? No. Mr. Justice? No. Mr. Cassidy?

No by proxy. No by proxy? Ms. Hyde-Smith. Yes. Ms. Murkowski.

No. Mr. Hoven. No. Mr. Heinrich. Aye.

Mr. Wyden. Aye. Ms. Cantwell. Aye. Ms. Hirono.

Aye by proxy. Mr. King. Aye by proxy. Ms. Cortez Masto. Aye.

Mr. Hickenlooper. Aye. Mr. Padilla. Aye. Mr. Gallego.

Aye by proxy. On this vote, the yeas are 11, the nays are 9. Okay. Senator Heinrich, you have another amendment. 32.

Mr. Chair, the— I have an additional amendment to H.R. 3872 That is titled Amendment 32B. The mineral development enabled by H.R. 3872 Will pay a royalty, uh, just like all minerals produced under federal mineral leases.

For budget purposes, that revenue is new revenue. My amendment would take that revenue from this newly authorized hard rock mining, and it would dedicate it to the Abandoned Hard Rock Mine Reclamation Program that this committee created in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. That program, which Senator Daines and I worked together to create provides funding to clean up old abandoned hard rock mines. These mines are in almost every state in the nation. They are particularly numerous in New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Idaho, and they continue to leak pollution into our streams and rivers, poisoning fish habitat, contaminating farm fields in some cases, These are mines that have not operated in decades, and any previous owner of them no longer exists.

The estimated cleanup costs for all of them nationwide is roughly $50 billion— billion with a B— dollars. And currently there is no dedicated funding source for the reclamation program that all of us created in 2021. My amendment would make— would take the new royalties that will be generated by H.R. 3872 And dedicate them to cleaning up these abandoned mines so that they can no longer pollute our waterways. These are revenues that mining companies will be paying anyway, and I hope we can direct them towards fixing this problem that has plagued Western states and communities for decades.

Thank you. We will now proceed to the question on Amendment 32B. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Lee. Nope.

Mr. Barrasso. Mr. Risch. Mr. Daines. Sisk. Mr. Cotton.

Mr. McCormick. Mr. Justice. Mr. Cassidy. No, by proxy. Ms. Hyde-Smith.

Yes. Ms. Murkowski. Mr. Hoeven. Mr. Heinrich. Aye.

Mr. Wyden. Aye. Ms. Cantwell. Aye. Ms. Hirono.

Aye, by proxy. Mr. King. Aye, by proxy. Ms. Cortez Masto. Aye.

Mr. Hickenlooper. Aye. Mr. Padilla. Aye. Mr. Gallego.

Aye by proxy. On this vote, the nays are 11 and the yeas are 9. Now we have the bill, H.R. 3872. The clerk will call the roll on the bill.

Mr. Lee. Aye. Mr. Barrasso. Mr. Risch. Aye.

Mr. Daines. Mr. Cotton. Aye. Mr. McCormick. Aye.

Mr. Justice. No. Mr. Cassidy.

I got proxy. Ms. Hudsmith. Aye. Ms. Murkowski. Aye.

Mr. Hoven. Mr. Heinrich. No. Mr. Wyden. No.

Ms. Cantwell. No. Ms. Hirono. No by proxy. Mr. King.

No by proxy. Ms. Cortez Masto. Mr. Hickenlooper. Mr. Padilla. Mr. Gallego.

No by proxy. On this vote, the yeas are 11, the nays are 9. Now we'll go to agenda item number 33. Does anyone have any amendments on 33? Mr.

Chair, I have one. Go ahead. I have an amendment number 33A that I would like to call up, and this amendment is pretty simple. Usually when Congress passes legislation to sell small parcels of national forest land, it directs the money received from the sale to a special fund in the Treasury. That fund was created by the Sisk Act, and it was used to acquire replacement national forest land in the state where land sale produced— or where the land sale produced those revenues.

So in this case, because H.R. 3937 Sells national forest land in Wisconsin, The Sisk Act would ensure that the proceeds of that sale are used to acquire replacement land in the state of Wisconsin. This ensures that small, reasonable land sales like this one do not reduce the amount of public access to public lands for all Americans and keeps the funding in the state where the revenues were created. And you're asking for a roll call vote on this amendment? Mm-hmm.

Clerk will call the roll on the amendment. Mr. Lee. Nope. Mr. Barrasso. Mr. Risch.

Mr. Daines. Mr. Cotton. Mr. McCormick. Mr. Justice. Mr. Cassidy.

No by proxy. Ms. Hyde-Smith. Ms. Murkowski. Mr. Hoeven. Mr. Heinrich.

Aye. Mr. Wyden. Aye. Ms. Cantwell. Aye.

Ms. Hirono. Aye by proxy. Mr. King. Aye by proxy. Ms. Cortez Masto.

Mr. Hickenlooper. Mr. Padilla. Mr. Gallego. Aye by proxy. On this vote, the nays are 11, the yeas are 9.

Any additional amendments on agenda item number 33? Seeing none, we'll proceed to a roll call vote on agenda item 33, H.R. 3937. Clerk will call the roll. Mr. Lee.

Aye. Mr. Barrasso. Mr. Risch. Mr. Daines. Mr. Cotton.

Aye. Mr. McCormick. Aye. Mr. Justice. Aye.

Mr. Cassidy. Abstain. Ms. Hyde-Smith. Aye. Ms. Murkowski.

Mr. Hoeven. Mr. Heinrich. No. Mr. Wyden. No.

Ms. Cantwell. No. Ms. Hirono. No by proxy. Mr. King.

Yes by proxy. Ms. Cortez Masto. No. Mr. Hickenlooper. No.

Mr. Padilla. No. Mr. Gallego. No by proxy. On this vote, the yeas are 12, the nays are 8.

Committee will now vote on 13 bills by voice vote, which the chair presents to the committee to consider en bloc. They are S.332, S.779, S.1288, S.2437 with H.R. 3857, S.2753, S.3500 with H.R. 3657, S.3518, S.3693, S.73723, S.3736, S.3792, S.3878, and S.4040. The clerk— all those in favor?

Aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. These bills will be reported favorably to the Senate.

Now, at this time, I wish to recognize any senator who wants to be heard on any of the bills that we voted on today. And again, uh, uh, yeah, go ahead. Yes, Senator Risch. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I, you know, anybody— I want to talk about the one that has the roadless rule because I have a particular interest in that, but anybody watching this from the outside would think that the two sides here are deeply, deeply divided on these issues. And we really aren't.

I have found every time we've worked on these, there's very little daylight between us and almost always there's some middle ground that you can get to. Now, we haven't done that on the votes we have this morning, but obviously I think as we're going forward, we ought to re-double our efforts to try to get these things through to where we can get everybody behind it. I want to talk for just a minute about the the roadless rule. And I want to explain the way I voted on this. Idaho doesn't have a dog in the fight on the roadless rule.

And the reason is we've resolved this in Idaho. In 2006, the President at that time invited every state to take up the question of the roadless rule and see if they could develop their own rule because the federal government had dealt with this since the wilderness pieces were put on the books, and these were pieces that were left over that they couldn't agree on and said, well, we'll take it up later. And as a result of that, when the Republicans were in, they'd pass a rule where it could be used more. When the Democrats were in, they passed a rule that said it would be used less. And in the meantime, there were hundreds of lawsuits filed over this, none of which were actually resolved because the new administration would come in before the suits were resolved.

In any event, In 2006, the President said states see if you can do it. Idaho was one and Colorado was the other who took this up. In Idaho, we had a governor who had a vision at the time and even more wisdom and brought together at the table a collaborative group that represented the entire spectrum. Well, it's history— history will record that. History will record that.

Record that. Jim Risch. In any event, we sat at the table and hammered the thing out. We had 200 parcels that we assigned 5 different themes to. We voted on them.

We all agreed we'd stick together on the thing. Everybody got something. We walked away from the table with a rule that went to the district court. It was affirmed. Went to the Ninth Circuit.

It was affirmed. Went to the Supreme Court. They They declined to take jurisdiction, so it is the law in Idaho. And every time now a roadless rule comes up, Idaho's always excluded. The president, when he did his— he did an executive order on this, as we all know.

He excluded the Idaho rule. And in this particular bill, the Idaho rule was also excluded. This can be done, but it takes real hard work and it takes a collaborative effort. And I would urge that everyone, every state that has roadless in it, you get a collaborative movement going and get a deal done. And so we stop these lawsuits and we stop wasting our time on this as we fight back and forth.

And again, as I said, when you sit down at the table and talk about this, you find that there's very little—. Will the senator yield for a question? Senator Will. Senator Risch, isn't the essence of this trying to figure out the best strategy for our, our lands and to be efficient? And isn't, isn't that discussion in Idaho— wasn't it about there are some areas where you just really— it was inefficient to build roads?

It just was. And you made those decisions. That's true. And what we found with the 200 and some parcels and with the 5 themes that we set out, that they felt that each parcel fell pretty naturally into one of those. There were some that were very close to general forest, and they should be general forest and should be able to harvest trees on it.

There were other ones that nobody's going to build a road in there, and almost no one would want to see the land develop because it was prime wilderness kind of ground. And we actually got through this, and it was Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives. And we reached an agreement to where we could all live with, and most importantly, this is 9 million acres we're talking about that we wrestled away from the federal government, wrote our own rule for it, and it is managed today by a committee of Idahoans that is appointed by the governor. Title remains with the United States government on the ground, but we manage it. And you know what?

Since this happened, not one one lawsuit regarding our roadless area in Idaho. This can be done, and it would save a lot of time. And like I said, all of us want the same thing for the public lands. We love our public lands. We want to use them, we want to protect them, and each piece is different, and it should be treated differently.

This can be done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before we conclude the business portion of our meeting and proceed to the hearing, I want to make sure we allow anybody who wants to to speak to do so. Senator Murkowski, thanks for your patience. I know you wanted to speak, and anyone else could speak afterwards before we proceed to the hearing.

Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I, I really appreciate the comments from Senator Risch, because for us in Alaska, the roadless rule has been, has been a real challenge for us for decades. Most Alaskans maintain that the roadless rule should never have applied to Alaska. We didn't ask for it, we consistently opposed it.

It's never been a good fit for us. When you think about particularly in the Tongass, because this is, this is where most of the attention is directed, but with or without the Roadless Rule, the forest areas within the Tongass remain fully fully protected through existing laws and through other regulations. So you can have a roadless rule come in, but in terms of the areas that have been protected, and it's what, some 9.2 million acres that just off the top are not subject to application of the roadless rule. And I think there are some who believe that if you If you remove the roadless rule, that somehow or other, then everything in our forests is available for access, and that's simply not the case. In our situation, in the Tongass, the concern has been with an overlay of the roadless rule It makes it near impossible to be able to provide for what we would determine to be necessary projects.

And that's when you're trying to allow for a transmission, a hydro transmission to connect two small islanded areas so that they can receive power. Pretty basic stuff. We're not asking for permission to to clear-cut an area. We're not asking— it's not about harvesting. It's basically being able to access for whether it's energy, um, uh, or renewable energy resources.

It just makes it more expensive. They say, well, yeah, you can do it, but it's all helicopter logging. You tell me how you're going to put in a transmission line when you're literally taking one tree at a time by helicopter logging. And, and then to Senator Risch's point, this is something that I think should be left to the individual states. If you want a roadless rule, go for it.

If you don't, you should be able to say no or you should be able to work the deals, and they are hard because every acre is important. Certainly I know in the Tongas every acre is precious. So we have been battling this for years. And in fairness, what happens is we see this, this, this kind of a ping-pong effect between administrations in terms of what can happen within the Tongas and then what is taken off the table in the Congress— in the Tongas. And that stalls out any level of economic activity, whether it is limited timber harvest or whether it is opportunity for, for more renewable power to proceed or for tourism.

And speaking of renewable power to proceed, and I will be very quick, Mr. Chairman, but I want to thank you and the ranking member for bringing the FLOWZ Act before the committee today. I want to thank Senator King for his help on this, his partnership. For us in Alaska, it's hydropower in Southeast. This is what makes it happen. But so often our operators face these unnecessary and oftentimes just really ridiculous delays when they're trying to maintain or to upgrade existing facilities.

We've got short construction season, we've got project sites that are remote. You can lose a full season with a simple permitting delay. So there's real consequences there. So what we do is we preserve FERC's authority over major project modifications and dam safety, but we provide greater certainty that routine maintenance, uh, the repairs, the replacements, the temporary operational adjustments can move forward without unnecessary delay. And, and this is helping us really unlock this next generation of water power technologies.

So what we have is a licensing pathway that is better suited for these smaller, innovative projects. And I know Senator Cortez Masto has been working on some of these other hydro initiatives. We appreciate that as well. I think this is an area, this is a space where we can continue to do more, whether it's in Alaska or in other parts of the country. And I thank the committee for advancing it out this morning.

Mr. Chairman? Yes. Just if I could make one quick comment. I think that what Senator Risch said is so prescient, which is to listen to the people in that state. And I think a roadless rule is a public process, and you do hear from people in your state, and you do take that information, and you figure out how to make the best decisions.

And so I'm not saying Risch for governor of Alaska, but anyway, I am definitely— But I am saying—. But I, but I am saying it is proof that the process can work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, it's got a nice ring to it. We got to admit.

All right, let's see. So on the, on the order right now, we've got Senator Hickenlooper, then Senator Padilla, then Senator Heinrich. Now, Senator Daines sought recognition. Were you making a point in response to this, or do you want to get in the speaking order to this here? Yes, it's current.

All right. If it's okay, we'll hear from Daines and then we'll go to you, gentlemen. Just briefly.

Thank you for your words of common sense and reason. I would hope that the Idaho model will continue to spread throughout the West, and I sure don't want to spoil the broth here that we've had in this committee of really making great bipartisan progress as it relates to forest management reform, to be better stewards of our public lands. So I think this is one of these difficult moments in the committee today on the roadless rule. And I think there's frustration. We have over 300 million board feet of timber tied up in litigation as we speak in Montana.

And I think there's just this— the pendulum swings kind of back and forth too far at times. And the chairman and the ranking member, I do hope we can continue the spirit of dialogue and cooperation. And maybe Governor Risch could insert himself and help help us see the better path forward as it relates to being better stewards here and better outcomes on policy. Great. Senator Hickenlooper.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm grateful to you and to Ranking Member Heinrich for including several priorities that benefit Colorado in today's markup. Helping us manage water in the face of the severe drought that we're dealing with is— comes from building capacity of water managers to develop projects that make the most of the supplies we have.

Making sure that we stay at the cutting edge of water forecasting by understanding our snowpack. A year like this one, we have to make the most of every drop. As just one example, the Ute Mountain Tribe in southwestern corner of Colorado is expected to receive less than 14% of its typical water allocation or supply this year. That's a dramatic cut that we see play out on the fields of the tribe's farms and ripples across the state's and the region's economy. We see the severity of this crisis in farms and the communities across the Colorado River Basin, which I'm glad we'll get a chance to discuss later this morning.

In, in the basin, we're breaking records for how low we can go. Projected inflows into Lake Powell will be roughly 35% of normal for this water year. So I want to thank Senator Lee for giving us a chance to address this drought by working with us on water management tools through the Water Project Navigators Act and the Stillwater supply forecasting reauthorization. I would hope that the bipartisan work we've done on our water bills can translate into work on other issues we face. I care deeply about our response to wildfire, not just because of the decades-long drought in the Colorado River Basin, because of the way that the fire has negatively affected communities, water quality, and even insurance costs in Colorado.

As I know, we can work on wildfire in a bipartisan way because we've done it. With our Fix Our Forests Act. One of the bills on the agenda today addresses wildfire, and I voted for that bill in a previous form. Unfortunately, the amendment in the process that was added late in the process would add that full-on repeal of the roadless rule on that bill. When I first came in as governor of Colorado, we were going through our process of the roadless rule and what Senator Risch described, the collaboration between Republicans and Democrats, between various industries and citizens, outdoor recreationists, that effort.

We had hundreds of thousands of people participate in that. And like Idaho, we have a roadless rule. So this doesn't affect us. But the, the, the, the random cancellation of that is, is not a a constructive idea that I would support, a rule that 75% of the voters supported in a poll earlier this year. I mean, 75% rarely support anything.

They support the roadless rule. I know how important the protections of the roadless rule are for ecosystems, for watersheds, for Western lands we all love. I stand with my colleagues who will vote to try to strip this poison pill out, to do something that should help us respond to wildfire. I am also co-leading an amendment with my colleague Senator Padilla here to use the approach we took in our Fix Our Forests Act for several sections of this bill. We'll be able to find a bipartisan path on several elements that appear in both bills.

We won't be asking for a vote on our amendment today, but we will be laying— we're laying out a marker. We're ready to reject partisan point scoring. And let's collaborate and work constructively on real solutions. I yield back to the chair. Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to echo some of the sentiments of my colleague, Senator Hickenlooper from Colorado, and I'm moved by Senator Risch's comments earlier. For folks watching at home, this committee may not be as divided as it appears to be today. And I think Exhibit A of that is the work that Senator Hickenlooper and I did together with Senator Sheehy, Senator Curtis, and others as we crafted the Senate version of the Fix Our Forests Act. Act.

True bipartisan, substantive, meaningful legislation. And I think that's why I'm so despaired with today's committee hearing, because that goodwill is being undermined by what we saw happen and how it happened. Couldn't agree more in terms of bringing stakeholders together on some of these, uh, natural resource and land use decisions. It's how California has approached our proposals for national monument designations, for example, all to hear that that's potentially being revisited by the administration for no good reason. It's how we have improved air quality in California through the previously held Clean Air Act waivers authorities that the state of California had, which the Republican majority stripped from California on a bipartisan basis.

So I clearly am registering my frustration with the way the committee has operated today regarding several forestry provisions, including the amendment in the nature of a substitute to S.140. Not only does it include a poison pill in the form of codifying the roadless rule repeal, but clearly it makes a partisan change to the provisions that many of which are included in the Fix Our Forests Act that Senator Hickenlooper just highlighted. We worked hard on that, and the edits adopted today actually moves backwards in the goodwill and the progress made in the Senate version of the Fix Our Forests Act. And I'll remind us, 3 Republican members of this committee sit on the Agriculture Committee and voted for the Senate version of the Fix Our Forests Act after extensive discussion and debate, and their actions here today undermine the progress and the momentum of that bill.

We, um, had an amendment offered today to fix some of that language and realign with the Fix Our Forests Act Senator Hickenlooper and I did, and we chose not to bring it up. But we are waiting for that good faith to reappear with our Republican colleagues to bring the measure adopted today back to its true bipartisan form, to remind ourselves, to remind folks watching, remind the general public that bipartisan legislative packages are indeed still possible. They're seemingly increasingly rare today. But if we can channel that goodwill, channel that spirit, I think we can reengage in good faith to move along the Senate version of our Fix Our Forests Act and other previously bipartisan, many unanimous measures put through by this committee in the past. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. I want to reinforce the comments of my colleagues. We had a very bipartisan wildfire-focused bill here, and now we have a very partisan bill.

In part, we do need to make sure that this is consistent with Fix Our Forests, which an enormous amount of very positive bipartisan effort has gone into that legislation, and I want to commend my colleagues for their work on it. The workforce provisions were seemingly completely uncontroversial in the previous Congress. And if you don't think we have workforce problems with our firefighting readiness on the ground across the West, then you haven't sat down at your local district ranger office and talked to people, 'cause it's concerning. But the biggest issue here, I think the elephant in the room, is the fact that the wildfire legislation became a Trojan horse for repealing the roadless rule. That's the tail wagging the dog.

That is a huge change for our country. And in my state, at least, I went to those hearings. They were overwhelmingly positive. I engage across the board with my sportsmen, recreational interests, grazing interests, you name it in New Mexico, and we've— it's not broken, New Mexico. So don't let D.C. Come tell me that, that we have a problem in New Mexico when our biggest problem is just getting enough resources and enough staff to get into our forest to do treatments, because we do treatments, hazardous fuel treatments, in roadless areas, and we should.

So we took a previously largely bipartisan constructive wildfire effort And now it has become a partisan pitched battle over repealing the roadless area. That is a poster child example for how not to get successful legislation done, and I am disappointed. All right, before we wrap this up, I just said, look, the roadless rule was a bad idea in 2001, and it remains a bad idea today, a quarter of a century later. The rule restricts access for multiple use in— on nearly 59 million acres of Forest Service lands, uh, in ways that in different respects have a tendency to increase wildfire risk, endanger communities, and limit economic activity. And there's no explicit statutory authority directing the Forest Service to do this, to create inventoried roadless areas.

The rule has wreaked havoc on a lot of Western communities, including a lot of communities in my state, in the state of Utah. And anyway, that's my point. With, with that, unless there's anybody else that wants to speak before we conclude our business meeting, seeing no one seeking recognition on that part, we hereby conclude the business, business meeting portion of our gathering today, and we will proceed now to the opening of the Colorado River hearing.

We'll begin that hearing, um, uh, just by observing a few things. For the Colorado River Basin, the upper basin states—Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming— and the lower basin states, including Arizona, California, and Nevada, continued to negotiate new water management guidelines to replace existing operating agreements, agreements that in their current form are set to expire at the end of this year, at the end of 2026. The states were expected to reach an agreement by November 11th, 2025. And to execute a final agreement by February 14th of this year. Regrettably, the states were not able to reach an agreement and did not meet either of those deadlines.

In the absence of an agreement, the Department of the Interior was expected to impose a plan for post-2026 Colorado River operations. Now, whether the states reach an agreement or alternatively Interior imposes a plan, Congress may be expected to pass legislation formalizing any necessary federal authorization— authorizations or appropriations. But next, I'll yield to Ranking Member Senator Heinrich for his opening statement on this. Thank you, Chairman Lee, and thank you for convening this hearing on the Colorado River Basin. It could not be more timely.

We're joined today by witnesses who understand how high the stakes are and what our communities stand to lose if the seven basin states fail to reach a deal on the future management of the Colorado River. The Colorado River is the backbone of water supply for millions of people, a cornerstone of Western agriculture and energy production, and a lifeline for tribal communities, fish, wildlife, and working landscapes across the basin. In New Mexico, every drop of water matters to our communities, our tribes, our pueblos, our farms and ranches, and the rivers and wildlife that are important to us. To protect this resource, we need collaboration, solutions that benefit both people and ecosystems, and long-term investment grounded in today's hydrologic reality. That means investing in both built and natural infrastructure.

As conditions across the basin become hotter and drier, investments in watershed restoration, forest resilience, and yes, wildfire risk reduction are important for sustaining durable water supplies and protecting the system as a whole. We must invest in the watersheds and landscapes that produce and deliver water in the first place, or we risk building strategies around water that never actually reach the system we're trying to protect. That reality places significant responsibility on the Department of the Interior. Interior must uphold its tribal trust responsibilities, protect critical infrastructure, and help ensure the long-term reliability of the river system so that many— that so many communities depend on. And I want to be candid here, I understand the department is working on a short-term 2-year operating plan, and that's incredibly important work.

But at times it feels like the department is so focused on managing the, the challenge right in front of us that it is also losing sight on the path towards a durable long-term agreement. The basin should not be forced to choose between stabilizing the present and negotiating the future. We need both. Everyone agrees that a 7-state consensus agreement is the preferred outcome, Yet, I'm concerned that Interior has spent a great deal of time focused on short-term operations. The department has yet to articulate a clear strategy for moving the basin towards a long-term agreement that everyone says they want.

Federal leadership alone is also not enough. The states need to make some difficult decisions and meaningful compromises to reach agreement. But the federal government also has a responsibility to create urgency maintain momentum, and provide a clear framework for getting these negotiations across the finish line. Without a 7-state agreement, the consequences are clear: more litigation, unplanned water shortages, economic disruption, and heightened risk to communities least able to absorb it. Delay carries its own consequences, and the basin can no longer afford to wait.

In 2022, then-Commissioner Tootin warned this committee that the basin needed to conserve 2 to 4 million acre-feet of water to protect the system. This warning was at a time when elevations at Lake Mead and Lake Powell were projected to reach historic lows. Today, Lake Powell sits at approximately 25% capacity, with projections showing continued vulnerability absent sustained action. For years, the Seven Basin states have been negotiating the same fundamental questions. Reductions, releases, and shared responsibility.

What we cannot afford is delay. If the states cannot act together, decisions will increasingly be made through crisis, the courts, or federal intervention. These outcomes bring additional uncertainty rather than stability and make it harder to achieve the consensus solution that all of us should prefer. As Ben Franklin warned, when the well is dry, we learn the the worth of water. The responsibility before us now is to act before that lesson becomes irreversible.

The basin needs compromise, shared sacrifice, investment, and leadership, and it needs them now. And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. Thanks so much, Senator Heinrich, uh, for your comments on that. And we're going to hear today now from our witnesses to better understand those issues. Our first panel.

Our witnesses include the Honorable Andrea Travnik. Welcome, Ms. Travnik, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science of the U.S. Department of the Interior, and Mr. David Palumbo, uh, who is the Deputy Commissioner of Operations at the United States Bureau of Reclamation. And then the witnesses on our second panel, uh, will be as follows, uh, Ms. Ms. Amy Haas, the executive director of— Haas, rather than Haas, sorry. The avocados are one thing, this name is another. Executive director of the Colorado River Authority of Utah.

Sorry for the mispronunciation. I hope I got it right the second time. Mr. Mike Vickery, the rancher from the Green Valley River— the Green River Valley Cattlemen's Association, who will be introduced by our colleague Senator Barrasso. And then Mr. Tom Kierman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the nonprofit organization known as American Rivers. And finally, Mr. Bill Hazenkamp, the manager of Colorado River Resources at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

With that, I'll note that the, the Colorado River is one of the most important water systems in the United States. It provides water to roughly 40 million people across Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Nevada. It irrigates more than 5 million acres of farmland. Hydropower generated by the river supports cities, ranches, industries, tribes, and local economies across the American West. But the river is currently facing enormous pressure, and it's under significant strain.

As of Sunday, just a few days ago, the Colorado River system stood at approximately 34% of total system capacity, slightly over one-third of capacity. This is truly, truly staggering. Lake Powell and Lake Mead are at 23.5% and 29.3% capacity, respectively. Over the last year, Lake Powell has fallen 100 to 172 feet below full pool, and it now sits at only about 37 feet above the minimum power pool needed to generate hydropower. This is one that I've got a lot of personal experience with.

I've been visiting Lake Powell since I was a child. And I remember as a child sometimes seeing the high water mark at Lake Powell. It was sometimes 10, 15, 20 feet, uh, above where we, uh, saw the surface of the water at the time. But now we're pushing close to 200 feet, uh, below its high water mark. But this latter figure, about 37 feet above minimum power pool, is truly staggering.

It's very, very difficult Once you get to that point, you dip below minimum power pool, all kinds of things go wrong, uh, from power interruptions to our ability to maintain and preserve the dam, the generating capacity, and so forth. And that, needless to say, would be very, very bad to dip below the minimum power pool elevation. Now, it's important to remember that not every state experiences the hydrology of the Colorado River in the same way. The Upper Basin lives with hydrologic shortages every single year. We cannot order more water when nature provides less.

We cannot draw water that does not exist. We can't will it or legislate it into existence. It's a lot more complicated than that. We take, of course, what the river gives. As a result, the Upper Basin states have absorbed reductions imposed by nature.

Consistently using less than their full compact apportionments. And yet, despite already bearing those realities, upper basin states continue to face demands from the lower basin states for additional cuts. That brings us to where we are today. For years, the basin states were given the opportunity to negotiate a path forward. Senator Heinrich and I have both urged the states to reach a 7-state agreement because we believe the most durable solution would be one developed by the states themselves.

The same can be said, in fact, of all the basin states' Senate delegations. We've met repeatedly in recent months, and we all share, to a very significant degree, that same overall objective. Congress gave the states room to negotiate. The department gave the states room to negotiate. When the states asked for more time, they received it.

But deadline after deadline has passed. The late May and early June target slipped, then November, then February. And here we are today, still without an agreement. Instead, we're seeing increasingly unhelpful rhetoric from some of the states. We have lower basin state commissioners taking out ads in local newspapers attacking the Upper Basin.

We're reading reports that, uh, some of these states are preparing actively for litigation. We're seeing negotiating positions that seem more designed to further future court filings than for good faith efforts to reach a compromise. States that choose to sue their fellow basin states over Colorado River operations should not expect Congress to reward that decision with additional federal funding. Federal taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize litigation among states. And now, as the department develops a post-2026 operating framework, there is a fact that should focus everyone's attention.

Congress will not be a bystander in this process. The Constitution's Compact Clause in Article I, Section 10 gives Congress approval authority and the responsibility to approve interstate compacts, any long-term framework for the Colorado River will inevitably face congressional scrutiny because our Compact Clause authority is triggered anytime the states enter into an interstate compact that alters the balance between the states and the federal sovereign. That scrutiny will include whether the Department has fully accounted for the realities that are facing the Upper Basin.

Now, any proposal that ignores those realities or asks the Upper Basin to shoulder even greater burdens without regard to the governing legal framework will face a difficult path forward. The current guidelines expire on October 1st, 2026. Time's running short. The river and those who rely on it cannot afford any more delays. Whatever happens next must remain grounded by hydrological realities, the law of the river, and respect for our neighbors.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Senator Heinrich, before we go to them, I recognize you. I think I already gave mine. Yeah, so I'm good. Okay, I'm now going to go to our, our witnesses on our first panel to give their opening statements.

Your full written statements will of course be made part of the Not part of the river. That would be fun too, but part of the record. And we'll begin today with Assistant Secretary Travnik. We're grateful to have you here. Assistant Secretary Travnik is, as I mentioned briefly earlier, the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the U.S. Department of the Interior, a position to which she was confirmed by the Senate in September of 2025.

She has a decorated, distinguished record of public service. In the water and natural resources space, previously serving in various roles in the North Dakota state government. Assistant Secretary Travick, you're now recognized. Great. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on drought conditions in the Colorado River Basin, the Department of the Interior's actions this year to address them, and our approach to operating and protecting the Colorado River system over the next 10 years. The Colorado River Basin is now in its 27th year of historic drought. Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the nation's two largest reservoirs, are approaching record lows, with Powell at 25% and Mead at 29% of capacity. Long-term drought has reduced total system storage to roughly 35%.

The basin has been exceptionally dry in 2026, with one of the lowest April-July inflow forecasts into Lake Powell on record at approximately 950,000 acre-feet, or 15% of normal. Combined with record-breaking spring heat and the lowest snowpack ever recorded, these conditions have created significant operational challenges and heightened risk to essential water and power infrastructure. In April, the department took two major actions to stabilize the system, authorizing releases from Flaming Gorge Dam of 660,000 up to 1 million acre-feet through April 27th, and reducing annual releases from Glen Canyon Dam by 1.4 48 million acre-feet down to 6 million acre-feet through— down to 6 million acre-feet through September. Together, these actions are expected to raise Lake Powell's elevation by roughly 54 feet to at least 3,500 elevation feet by April 2027, thus helping to protect critical infrastructure, maintaining water deliveries, and preserving operational flexibility. These challenges coincide with the expiration, as mentioned, at the end of this year of the key operating agreements that have guided the river management for the past two decades.

Hence, the administration has spent the past 14 months working to develop a consensus-based proposal for post-2026 operations, facilitating multi-party discussions, offering proposals, and pressing basin states towards agreement while ensuring timelines allowed sufficient incorporation of feedback into the NEPA process. In addition, Secretary Burgum has met twice with the basin state governors in the past year to help reach consensus. Despite these efforts, a 7-state agreement has not yet emerged. In January, the department released the draft EIS for post-2026 operations. The 5 alternatives provided broad NEPA coverage and flexibility for the department and the 7 states to establish a preferred alternative.

While we continue to believe this— a 7-state consensus offers the most durable path forward, the new water year begins October 1st. Since March, the department has been reviewing and responding to submissions participating in government-to-government tribal consultations, updating analyses, and developing the preliminary preferred alternative. Our focus remains on protecting the system and ensuring the long-term stability— sustainability of the basin. Our proposed approach right now is a 10-year framework. We would love a longer framework as well, but right now, being we don't have consensus, that's where we're focused on this 10-year framework.

So this 10-year framework would allow operational guidelines to be issued at regular 2-year, or other intervals, thus guided by a set of principles, sideboards, and defined processes. The goal is to produce an alternative that balances the need for certainty and stability with the flexibility to adjust to evolving hydrologic conditions in the absence of consensus. The preferred alternative incorporates hydrology-responsive operations, managing conservatively under low inflow conditions, and transitioning to recovery measures when hydrology improves. This approach still preserves space for incorporating consensus recommendations. Over the past month, we have solicited and integrated feedback from basin partners on the 2027-2028 operational guidelines, and based on this feedback, the department has provided adjustments for continued discussion regarding the 2027-2028 operations.

The department will publish the final EIS this summer and adopt a record of decision thereafter. These guidelines will aim to protect the Colorado River system consistent with the century-long body of laws —regulations and agreements that govern it, and we recognize the real impacts on water users throughout the basin. We will continue gathering feedback to understand these impacts and identify ways to address them. Effective management of the Colorado River requires collaboration to confront the basin's real and worsening water shortage while respecting established water rights. Over the last 5 years, the basin states have received over $9 billion in supplemental spending, including hundreds of millions of dollars that this administration recently approved to support water conservation in the basin and facilitate a 7-state consensus, in addition to the substantial annual appropriations that the basin receives.

Ultimately, if consensus is not reached, Reclamation retains independent operating authorities through various acts and Supreme Court decrees, including the Secretary's established Water Master role. The Trump administration remains committed to the Colorado River Basin and will continue working closely with states and tribes to address the critical challenges facing the 40 million people who depend on this system. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I know that we're looking forward to the discussion, so thanks for having us. Thanks so much.

Next, we'll hear from Mr. David Palumbo, who again serves as the Deputy Commissioner of Operations at the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Mr. Palumbo, go ahead.

Chairman Lee, I was mistaken in that regard. All right, so, um, Questions. Thanks so much to both of you for being here, and, and sorry for the redundant recognition there. Now, I want to, I want to know, I was wondering if you could tell us, so we'll start with you, Assistant Secretary Travnik, tell us what this means. Like, this is, these are abnormal numbers.

We're going to be in a significant period of, of drought. We are in one. And in the meantime, we've got difficulty having agreement among these states. The Colorado River Basin is subject to a 1922 interstate compact that made some assumptions about water flows. Tell us how current realities depart from those expectations established in 1922?

Thank you, Senator Lee, for the question. Yes, we're— as we're looking at the basin today, as we're looking at the situation that we're in, we know that we have the 1922 compact. We have the various acts that are in place that continue to guide what everybody is trying to make decisions on. And you're exactly right. So the reality is you have hydrology that has changed since then.

And, and right, that's why you had folks coming together recently too for the drought contingency planning, right, as early as 2019, and then changes that had to take place in 2007. So that's what's led to here, where you've had modeling and modeling looking at forecasts, but now the reality is here is what the hydrology is telling us. So that's where it's extremely important to try to make some sound decisions, get to consensus, so we don't have to get in front of litigation.

No, um, there have been some wish lists submitted by the states, uh, to the department, um, for various projects to try to deal with this. Um, and while I'm sure that this is just a wish list in some respects, it does end up topping $50 billion. I want you to help us sort of square that up with reality. How much does the department have left currently to fund Colorado River Basin projects? Senator Lee, as I mentioned in my testimony, right, the, the Seven Basin states as a whole so far have received $9 billion within the last, the last 5 years.

So in working with Secretary Burgum, we were looking to have the governors and the representatives work together so that we can start to understand what are some of the other opportunities in the basin into the future. So looking at what our short-term progress opportunities, what are longer-term progress opportunities, uh, but we still have yet to go through and refine that a little bit more. So I would say that that list is in the very early stages, um, as we're looking at what dollars are left. You saw that we recently put out $454 million for the IRA funding to help with conservation right off the bat, knowing that we need to work to prop up Lake Mead some more, give the opportunities in the upper basin for conservation as well. Also looking at where we've put out $150 million and then another $140 million related to drought.

So for close to $700 million just within the last month. So that's where, as you're looking ahead to that $50 billion, we're not here looking to ask on anything at this point. We really just want to see what is a longer-term strategy, what are some of the infrastructure projects that this basin might need to have moving forward. To what degree does it make sense to discuss federal funding when the states have yet to reach, or as far as I can tell, even come close to reaching a consensus on the post-2026 operating guidelines? And in fact, some states appear to be focused far more on threatening and preparing for litigation, perhaps to the exclusion or resulting in the neglect of their negotiating posture.

And I think that's why we have to be thoughtful on what those dollars may or may not be moving forward, and also the responsibility of our partners also coming to the table with funding as well. So it can't just be solely the federal government's responsibility. The drought is not our fault, right? Mother Nature is here. She's showing us where the water is or is not, and we're going to have to work together, right?

Now, releases from Flaming Gorge, um, to help Lake Powell's elevation and to help protect hydropower generation so we don't dip below minimum power pool, which, you know, would have all kinds of spillover consequences. Those have begun. These are expected to total anywhere from 600,000 or 660,000 acre-feet to perhaps a maximum of 1 million acre-feet. Will the, uh, will the department commit to restoring the water that's released from Fleming Gorge and other upstream reservoirs, and consulting and coordinating with the upper basin states with respect to these actions? So, Senator, I think what you're seeing right now with the use and the discussion of using those upper initial units in these type of scenarios, it shows how thoughtful how the system was set up previously, right?

So you've got the Lake Mead, you've got the Lake Powell, the larger reservoirs, but now also these other storage areas that can be utilized in these type of situations. Right. Recovery is going to be extremely important. We want to make sure that we do get recovery back into Flaming Gorge. We know how important that is to the system.

We want to make sure that we're not just continuing to use those and bring them down to the mud. I think they're one of those tools in the toolbox that should be used when we are in a situation like this, but it is not something that should be regularly used at any time. So we do want to make sure that recovery is a priority. Right. And then one follow-up question to that.

Can you tell me a little bit more about what you mean when you talk about considering, quote, actual hydrology and basin-wide conditions before initiating recovery actions? Tell me a little bit more about that. Yeah, so we're in the reality where instead of the modeling, you're going to have to look at what the real conditions are. Are the real conditions showing that we can recover it or not. Right.

In other words, because we're that close to the margins on everything. Correct. We can't just rely on the projections because the margins are so close. You stick with those without watching what's happening from one day to the next, we could end up below minimum power pool or worse. Exactly.

Thank you. Senator Heinrich. Um, Assistant Secretary, uh, Travnik, I understand that the Bureau of Reclamation has developed a preferred preliminary alternative for post-2026 operations that, at least as I understand it, has been shared with the basin states, but not with the public or the Congress yet. Can you kind of walk us through what some of the major components of that alternative are, and how it's going to fit into the department's broader strategy for long-term management? Thank you, Senator, for the question.

So as we're looking at what the Department of Reclamation has provided to the 7 basin states, as well as to the tribal nations, and we've also walked through it with Mexico. So we've shared it in a broader— you're right, it has not been shared directly with you at this point. But what we're looking at is a 10-year framework that lays out various bookends as relates to the shortage guidelines. So what are the shortage guidelines that we need to see within that lower basin And so giving a framework of up to that 3 million acre-feet. Also, what do the coordinated reservoir operations look like?

So what is that Lake Powell, right? Today we're at that 6 million acre-feet. We know that we're gonna need—. Let me ask you about that real quick. It seems like Lake Powell, because of the way the actual infrastructure was designed, is now sort of the thing that is defining the actions taken across the system.

So the drawdown at Flaming Gorge, There are obviously limitations in terms of the way water can move through Glen Canyon that, you know, can lead to cavitation and other challenges that are causing us to manage for that reservoir. Do we need to look at the infrastructure there and consider alternative infrastructure? Thank you for the follow-up question on that as well. So, right, I also think there's been some false narratives out there as it relates to some of the infrastructure. So, right, you can use some of those river outlet works.

They have been tested. They will be able to be used. However, as we're trying to make sure we're managing water responsibly in this basin, I don't know why we would want to continue to draw it down when we have other opportunities. So at this point, I don't think you need to put in the extra dollars into that. I think we need to figure out how to manage this responsibly together first.

So then, as we're— if I could go back just to the other pieces of the preferred alternative. Absolutely. So the coordinated reservoir operations. So we need to have that range for the Lake Powell operations, which you'd mentioned. So anywhere down from 5 million acre-feet to 12 million acre-feet.

Right. So if all of a sudden we get lower, we're going to have to go shorter. If all of a sudden we get some rain, we get the snow, having that opportunity to go higher as well. Also looking at more opportunities for the ICS, what are some of the other storage? So giving an opportunity in Lake Powell for up to 3 million acre-feet, looking at Lake Mead of up to 8 million acre-feet.

We know that ICS has been extremely helpful in propping up Lake Mead because of what's been done down in the lower basin.— it's raised Lake Mead 75 feet. So then also having the opportunity to add more ICS within to the system. And then there's discussions of a tribal water pool as well. So making sure that we are meeting some of those firming responsibilities that we have, and also an opportunity for potential offsets to help the system as a whole. And finally, we're continuing to look at the upper initial units through the records of decisions that already exist.

So those are the various tools in the toolbox that lay out the 10-year framework, and knowing because we're in such a critical situation with the hydrology right now, that's where we're looking at what a 2-year operation plan might look like. Because we also can't get folks to consensus because, right, we're in an extreme right now. So that's where really trying to be thoughtful of where we are at with the elevation, what are those tools in the toolbox again that we should be looking at for '27-'28, when do we make decisions when to use those tools. Um, so that's what's being discussed for the '27-'28, and that's a lot of the dialogue that's going back and forth right now. Um, when are you able to share the details of what you just walked us through with the Congress?

Uh, Senator, I'd be glad to get those over to you. Great. Um, talk to me a little bit in your remaining time about how the department is incorporating watershed restoration, forest health, the product— wildfire resistance, the productivity side of the equation, as you're looking at the overall water management in the basin? Senator, yeah, wildfire health, ecosystem health, all extremely important to the basin, and I think that's where you have seen, right, not over— not only over the last several years, but just recently this year too, the importance of putting funding towards that, also working collaboratively on that. We know what those impacts of wildfire might do to our reservoirs.

So making sure that we are having those discussions, figuring out what those projects might look like on the ground will also be important moving forward. And at the same time, looking for those opportunities on the hard infrastructure too. So it's again, it's going to take that holistic approach. Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. And I first, let me just start off by saying thank you to your team. You've done an incredible job. Job working with the basin states and trying to negotiate this. It is a tough, tough issue we are dealing with right now.

And one of the things I want to talk about, because a lot of the work that you have done has been driven by the laws and the things that we have actually passed here in the Senate, and one of them was the Drought Response Operation Agreement passed in the Senate, and it took into consideration what we are dealing with right now is the drought and what happens And under that agreement, it stipulated a process for coordinating releases from Flaming Gorge Navajo and Blue Mesa reservoirs to Lake Powell from falling below an elevation that would no longer produce hydropower. So my question to you is, based on that agreement, does the department need the consent of any upper basin state to operate the upper initial units within their respective records of decision? No, thank you, Senator, for the question. I know that there was a lot of negotiations that went into that DROA process that came out, of course, during the DCP. And it's been very helpful to have that collaboration across, of course, the upper basin states, but also recognizing that we need to be including the lower basin states as well.

So I think as far as what we're doing is looking forward, yeah, how do we do that coordination? But to your initial question, we feel that Reclamation, the Department of the Interior, has the authorities to move forward if needed, if we cannot get to consensus. Thank you. And then in 2023, the Supreme Court held that federally recognized tribes can pursue claims to secure reserved rights beyond what is required under the treaty. This is especially relevant because my colleague Senator Kelly, as you well know, introduced the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025.

This is important legislation, and I appreciate the work of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs with a— that I sit on along with Chair Murkowski and Vice Chair Schatz for actually holding hearings on this bill. And at the hearing in the Indian Affairs Committee, the Acting Commissioner Cameron confirmed that Interior supports this piece of legislation. Can you explain how this bill would benefit the entire basin? No, thank you for the question. Yes, we— I think we all know that Indian water rights settlements are extremely important.

They, they allow for— allowed for the, the sovereignty, allowing for more certainty. So that is where the department is supportive of trying to, you know, get to where we need to go on that settlement agreement. So as we're looking at, at the basin, we do believe that that settlement— and I know that actually the Deputy Commissioner was just recently on some conversations and probably has like kind of the latest and greatest details of where we're at on that. But yes, it would help the basin as a whole. Thank you.

And then you've been asked a number of questions multiple times, I think, in meetings with the senators and then just right here about the dollars that were allocated by Congress. Right. And you talked about the $9 billion, some of it coming from the infrastructure bill and some from the Inflation Reduction Act. I think the critical piece for that legislation, why I supported it, was we need to recognize we are in a moment of drought that is not going to stop. So we have to figure out how we supplement the water along the Colorado River.

Those dollars were to help us supplement. And what I mean by supplementing that water is engaging in conservation, water recycling, smart water programs, all of the things that we should be thinking about as a whole. And every state, not just the lower basin states, but every state should be participating. In Nevada, we took up our grass, we limit fountains, we are really doing a job, we recycle almost 100% of our water, our gray water. So let me ask you this, to the extent that you have, and I think there's about almost a billion dollars still left unobligated, and maybe that's less or more, maybe you can talk a little bit about that.

How can we help you help the basin states understand that there's money available for this conservation or for this water recycling? So, Senator, thanks for the question. Yeah, this allows us to just give a little bit more clarity because I think there has been a narrative out there that there's $1 billion left and there's not. So you've seen us roll out recently in the last several months, you know, over $700 million. And so we are getting down to less than $100 million that's left in the IRA dollars.

And actually a lot of those are on some projects that, you know, we've been working not only with this basin, other basins as well. And then as it relates to the IJA dollars, $240 million that is left. But same type of thing, there's lots of discussions going on related to that. So I think as far as those dollars, we're getting to the end of— like, the goal is to get the IRA dollars done by September 30th. We know that we have to do that.

The goal is that we will get those out and be done and then continue to work towards the $240 that's left. So there is not a billion anymore. And that's where looking at this list that has been pulled forward to start to get us looking strategically across the 7 states. So that's where just trying to figure out where we want to move forward on that. But you're exactly right.

It's going to take everything. If we're looking at augmentation, water reuse, desal, storage, so improved conveyance. I mean, it is all the pieces that we're going to have to look at strategically. Yeah, and I just— I know my time is running out, but I'm glad you brought up DSAL because it is happening right now in Carlsbad. As we've heard, just an agreement was entered into, and I'm actually going to go visit the plant there in Carlsbad.

But again, I think part of the focus for us here is not also just demanding, what are you going to do and why are you doing these releases, when we've been part of that process all along. But most importantly, what do you need from us in dollars to help us supplement the water along the Colorado, Colorado River with these projects. I think that's going to be important. And I hope we hear from you as well as the money that we have allocated is being used for that process. If there is more that's needed or we can play a role in that process, I'd hope that you would let us know.

So thank you again for all the work. It's not an easy issue and I appreciate it. Yeah. No, thank you. Appreciate it.

Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Secretary Travnik, I think we've all— upper basin, lower basin— have all agreed that a negotiated settlement is better than winding up in litigation. We've been saying this for years, but today that negotiation still has not yielded results. Deadlines get pushed back and then pushed back and then pushed back. Most recently we've had ideas exchanged, proposals from the lower basin and the upper basin, and that the— even the time frames have been communicated unclearly. As deadlines have repeatedly slipped, it seems like the process itself really hasn't been helpful for getting to resolution.

What can we do to ensure that in the— let's call this final stretch, we're out of time, what can we do to make sure that you're able to make— to make sure that the right conditions are there to get a deal, to land a satisfactory deal? So, Senator, thank you for the question, and I'm going to just respectfully disagree that I do think the process that we've been going through the last 14 months still has been been helpful, right? It allows an opportunity to continue to build relationships, continue to listen to ideas, opportunities to maybe listen to ideas outside of the box, innovation. So I think working to remain, to stay at the table is extremely important. So then fast forward to where we are right now.

I think everybody's knowing that October 1st, it's here. We need to get the environmental compliance document out the door. And that's where we're working extremely hard, working with both Upper Basin, Lower Basin tribes, Mexico. And of course, as we're trying to get to the consensus, having everybody still being able to have a voice, but knowing that if they can't move their stakes to get closer, we are going to have to make the decision. And the federal government is prepared to do that.

Gotcha. Okay. I, I take that optimism as something that I will take, take to heart. Also want to thank you for the money for the Shoshone Permanency Project. That's a big deal in Colorado, as well as other bucket 2 projects.

Still, $50 million of those bucket 2 projects remain unfunded. This is— you've touched on this a little bit with the lower basin. We're fully aware that the lower basin's seen roughly 2— over $2 billion of investment so far, sometimes for shorter-term payouts. Our calculations are the upper basin has received only $200 million. So how come we're not— you aren't— why aren't the investments being made in the headwaters, in the upper basin, where in some places we can really build system-wide resilience?

I think the governors of all states have pointed out the need for future funding to support a basin-wide framework. As we develop it, and stakeholders have called for as much as $2 billion for the near-term investments. Do you think there's a way we can get more equity in future investments between upper and lower? Senator, appreciate the question. So as you're looking across the basin and trying to figure out where to infuse dollars quickly, we know that as it looks at opportunities to try to prop up Lake Mead, that looking at conservation, looking at the ICS opportunities, again, like I said, it's been able to prop that up 75 feet.

That's where, you know, the water has existed. As we look at the upper basin, right, we've consistently heard in the meetings that we've had with them that they're not able to find the significant amount of conservation, right? They have stated that there is already shortage up there. So they have stated that they might not be able to do or make sure, because 'cause they keep talking about the voluntary, which is great, but is there water there that will help the system right away? I know that there's been, right, I know that Wyoming has recently passed looking at some more of their, what their conservation program might look like, Utah as well.

So I think as that continues to get those programs in place, and as they continue to identify where those conservation opportunities are, I think that's where you'll see that there might be more of that opportunity into the future, as we're having those holistic discussions, looking at both short and long-term. Great. Also, just quickly, we know that you've alluded to already how significant the tribes are in the basin, and how important the water is to them. Hold roughly almost a quarter of the water rights in the basin. What's the consultation plan?

In other words, how do you try to work out those priorities? Senator, thank you for the question. So consultation, extremely important. I know that the Department of Reclamation has been working on this since day one within the basin, right? So years.

This administration takes it very seriously. Having Secretary Burgum been a governor, right, how important the priority of working with the tribes was. So making sure that that remains consistent here while he's sitting in his role as secretary. So I think working with those tribes, getting the thoughtful ideas from them as well, that's where the tribal pool has come from. And then also looking at, yeah, is it an Indian water rights settlement?

Is some of this other infrastructure that's being worked on with other tribes? Is there opportunities for exchanges? And and being able to maximize working with other partners to utilize that water. So I think, no, they're very important to the basin as well, part of the solution moving forward. Great.

Thank you very much. I yield back to the chair. Thank you very much. We will go now to Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me begin by talking about Lake Mead. Now, in order to prepare for the shortages like the one that we're experiencing right now, California water users have banked more than 1.6 million acre-feet of water in Lake Mead. I see you nodding in, in concurrence. We've done this through intentionally created surplus, the results of significant conservation investments as well as voluntary reductions over the past 15 years. Didn't just happen overnight.

15 Years of commitment here. The ability to access this resource down to elevation 1,000 in Lake Mead is a must-have provision for California to agree to any Colorado River proposal. You've heard it from the negotiators. It's on the table. I need to reinforce it here today.

And I use these strong words like must-have because this intentionally created surplus water in many years is essential for the 20 million Californians that rely on the Colorado River. And just for a benchmark here, 20 million Californians— the 6 other states' population combined is 23 million, so it's nearly half. Assistant Secretary, um, is the department willing to work with California on provisions that ensure access to this intentionally created storage water banked in Lake Mead after 2026, when it will be needed for municipal and industrial water supply? Thank you, Senator, for the question. And definitely agree with you on, you know, how important that ICS has been to the system.

As mentioned earlier, right, the 75 feet that it's been able to prop up Lake Mead, right? Otherwise, we would be in a much different situation right now. So looking for those opportunities to be able to continue to utilize that and to potentially have more is something that the department is also in favor of. So as you're looking at what the requests are that we have in front of us, as we're looking at this 10-year framework and the 2-year operation, is yeah, how it can it be accessed between, you know, that 1025 and 1000. And that's where we wanna make sure, again, not just going by modeling, but what is the real hydrology telling us within the basin?

What does that type of decision do to the system as a whole. So that's where we've also said, yes, we're willing to be able to have a look and see what that looks like from 10/25/2000. But we also want to make sure there's a consultation opportunity for the Secretary to engage as well, so that we really understand what's being asked, what are some of the emergencies that they're pointing to of why they might need that. But we really do appreciate them, um, and also what they've said, what they're willing to do for the 2 years, because they could be taking out a lot more out of their ICS. And they've come to us and said that they don't want to do that, but they just want to be able to have the opportunity to access it if needed in an emergency.

Exactly. We're negotiating in good faith, right? Trying to be fair, but also trying to not be punished for good behavior. Good behavior ought to be rewarded. In my time remaining, let me I want to come back to the topic of funding.

I know you heard this some from Senator Hickenlooper and others, and I appreciate Reclamation's stated intention to use not just the remaining IRA dollars but other pots of funding to enable additional drought response activities across the Colorado River Basin over the next few years. You mentioned less than $100 million now in IRA, but you made reference to a different $240 million amount. I guess two-part question. Number one, can we get a list of projects that have either recently been funded or on the verge of seeing their funding awarded? That would be very, very helpful, not just for California but for all the states.

And then second, uh, can you at least shed some light here if Reclamation expects to use this funding exclusively for projects that produce measurable savings in Lake Mead and Lake Powell or other Reclamation reservoirs, or are there other types of projects that are in the mix? Senator, we can definitely get you a list of those projects that have been recently awarded so that, you know, that everybody has that. And as we're looking ahead, the remaining dollars, like I've mentioned, so the Colorado River Basin remains to be extremely important. But we also have other basins across the West that are also feeling the drought. So as we're looking at the rest of those dollars that are in IRA and IJA dollars, and the IJA ones are also tied to various programs that are limiting where those dollars could go.

So we are remaining to be thoughtful and looking at the Colorado Basin, but also looking at those other basins. Okay, last one I'll make in closing, not an additional question, just I know some of these funds are due at the end of the current fiscal year. We are talking 100-some-odd days until September 30th. Whatever we can do to help move projects along and ensure that the funding is not put in jeopardy, please let us know. Appreciate that.

Senator Gallego. Thank you, Chair Millian, Ranking Member Heinrich, and to our witnesses. It is no secret the future of the Colorado River remains highly uncertain. Last year, hydrology was just horrible. Um, although each state and basin has its own interests and priorities, I represent Arizona, so I have my interests.

And so we share a need for creative solutions and certainty for our water future. And like, uh, Dr. Travnik said in her testimony, I still see, uh, 7-state consensus as the most durable solution. We must find ways to mitigate supply uncertainty. To that end, the lower basin states, including Arizona, submitted a proposal last month for near-term operations, to deal with near-term operations. And this would stabilize the Colorado River alongside significant commitments to conservation from lower basin users.

So I'm grateful to these states for the leadership and hope to see that plan adapted. I also appreciate my colleague from Nevada's question regarding the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. I'm very proud to co-lead that. I echo her sentiment that it's time to reach a fair resolution so that tribes that have lacked water for far too long can have them certainty they deserve. With that, my questions.

Number 1, Dr., the Colorado River is a lifeline for Arizona. The water fuels the most advanced manufacturing in the Western Hemisphere now, produces 90% of the country's winter leafy greens, hydropower from Glen Canyon and Hoover Dam helps keep the lights on all over the Southwest. And technological advancements such as domestic food supply and energy affordability are all key priorities for the United States, including the President's agenda. So as you consider adopting the Lower Basin's proposal and considering the post-2020 2026 alternatives. How are you weighing these administrations' priorities?

Uh, Senator, thank you for the question. So to just circle back a little bit, yes, we appreciate what the Lower Basin has provided before us, uh, as they've reached consensus. And I think, as stated previously, right, we've had also a lot of back and forth related to it, uh, knowing that we're not able to accept that on its face value. So, uh, looking at what that level of risk is, we also appreciate what the Upper Basin has sent too, as their thoughts and ideas Knowing that yes, you have a lot of economic development, it's great the amount of opportunities down there in Arizona with the different economies and agriculture. And so of course, as we're looking into the future, as how the Colorado River will be managed, the Colorado River will continue to be managed based on the compact, based on the laws, based on the water rights that are in place.

So I think that's why your lower base's consensus and what that looks like on how they can work to share the water will be extremely important. Have you coordinated with other cabinet members such as Secretary of Energy or Agriculture in this decision-making process? So, Senator, um, so our water sub-cabinet, uh, is, is, is, is together. We actually have a meeting tomorrow where that brings together all those other departments. So yes, we are doing that cross-collaboration, trying to see where opportunities are, because we know that those departments are seeing some of the same concerns, and is there a way for us to maximize, you know, the different authorities that we each have?

And the reason I'm asking this is because clearly, you know, yes, we have water laws, water— and have water— prior water settlements, but those were made a long time ago, and the world has changed, and hydrology has changed, and the demands of the country have changed. The demands of what the president wants to see coming forward are definitely going to be met more by lower basin, uh, I would say lower basin resources. And so I hope that there'll be some alignment, I think, in the president's goals as well as the potential outcome, what the Reclamation wants to do. Um, so as you know, Arizona continues to find ways to do even more with less, uh, and have for quite a while. Our industries and food benefit the whole country.

It would be a mistake not to include that, obviously, at the end while making these decisions. As much as we can also hope for it, the basin cannot wait for perfect consensus, and what we need to understand today is how the The department will act to stabilize the system, share risk fairly, and deploy resources at the scale and speed this moment demands. So how will the department incorporate the Lower Basin proposal as it prepares to exercise its authorities to prevent the system from reaching critical elevations at Powell and Lake Mead? And when will those plans be made public? Yep.

No, thank you for the question. So, so yes, that's where I've mentioned that we continue to work with the Lower Basin, what they have submitted to us. Where we have some concerns and where we think that there should be adjustments, because again, we don't just have a lower basin, we have an upper basin as well. So that's where we will continue to have to work with everybody, 7 basin states, tribes, and also working with Mexico and also recognizing the impacts, right? We also get phone calls from landowners, from ranchers, and all the different impacts.

So again, any and all ideas, we're welcoming it. Fast forward to yes, We know that we will be needing to make a decision. We are working towards trying to see if we could still get to that consensus. The tools in the toolbox remain what we have, right? So funding, that's where the funding has gone out the door, trying to still get to that 7-basin state consensus and then recognizing what are those tools in the toolbox.

So can we be doing more ICS? Can we be doing more conservation in the upper basin? Can we be looking at— we're still going to have to use the tools that we have, looking up to the upper initial units, also looking at what those releases are out of Lake Powell and then the tribal pool. So it's going to be all those things. But we are on a tight timeline, right?

The goal is still to get the environmental document out the door end of July, the record of decision shortly thereafter, and then we're going to have to have the operating agreement in place ready to go October 1st. And there's going to be some decisions made related to that in August. I yield back.

I want to thank both Assistant Secretary Trapnick and Mr. Palumbo for their testimony. Thank you for being here today. That concludes this panel. We will now invite the second panel to come to the table.

So Barasa was going to introduce the second witness, Mr. Vikram. He can't be here, so could you read his remarks for him?

All right. Good to have the second panel here today. Let me just briefly introduce the second panel before we hear from you. We'll begin with Ms. Haas. Ms. Haas, serves as the executive director of the Colorado River Authority of Utah, a role that she has held for about 5 years since 2021.

Previously, she served as executive director and secretary of the Upper Colorado River Commission from 2017 to 2021, becoming the first woman to hold the position in the organization's 73-year history. She's also a, a former Upper Colorado River Commissioner for the State of New Mexico and former Acting Director of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. Let's see, why don't we go— let's hear from you and then I'll introduce the other witnesses as they begin. Go ahead, Ms. Haas. Certainly.

Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to hear my testimony today. My name is Amy Haas. I am the executive director of the Colorado River Authority of Utah, and I have spent almost two decades working on Colorado River issues. I have worked across the table from every basin state.

I have negotiated directly with Mexico, and I'm here this morning to tell you that the window to solve this without lawyers, judges, and generational damage to basin relationships is shrinking faster than Lake Powell. 60% Of Utah's population depends on water from the Colorado River system. The communities along the Wasatch Front, the farms and ranches of eastern and southeastern Utah, the tribal nations who have called this river home for centuries, all of them are watching. They are watching and hoping that it's not too late. Utah has almost 3.5 million people and a growing economy.

We cannot afford to get this wrong. And frankly, neither can anyone else in the basin. I say this during one of the worst years on record with the lowest spring inflow into Lake Powell since the reservoir began filling in the 1960s, and with some of the oldest water rights in Utah being naturally curtailed this year. Todaí, I want to share with you what Utah is doing, what the federal government should stop doing, and what needs to change. First, Utah asks that you fund solutions, not lawsuits.

Some states in this basin are preparing to sue their sister states. Some have made a public display over hiring high-dollar law firms. Litigation funds are being set aside. Positions are being taken that, if brought to court, could tie up this river in legal battles for years to come. What does this have to do with Congress?

You have a choice about whether and what you fund. Utah's position is straightforward. Federal dollars should go toward infrastructure improvements, storage, and conservation. Dollars should go to real, on-the-ground solutions that move the needle on supply, not to enrich lawyers. Compact litigation on the Colorado River will be unprecedented, will involve all 7 basin states, and will be orders of magnitude larger than any interstate water case ever brought.

It will potentially take multiple decades to resolve. Utah is calling for a legal détente now, before the first briefs are filed, before positions harden that make compromise impossible. We urge Congress to send a clear signal: states that choose courtrooms over cooperation should not expect Washington to bankroll it. States that sue other states should not be rewarded. Second, we ask that the upper division states be given credit for water we contribute.

Utah is doing the hard work. In 2025, we launched a program using state dollars to pay farmers to voluntarily forego irrigation tracking every acre-foot as it moves downstream to Lake Powell, and building the framework and the infrastructure to account for that conservation. To those that contend that Utah and the other upper division states are unwilling to put anything on the table, that is simply untrue. I'm here today to say that Utah is willing to secure commitments to conserve up to 23,000 acre-feet in 2027 and 2028, through our state conservation program. Will we get 23,000 acre-feet?

That depends on federal support in the form of dollars dedicated to conservation and recognition for our contributions. It will also depend on Mother Nature. Third, upstream releases will not save the system. The Bureau of Reclamation is taking unprecedented measures to protect Lake Powell from falling below critical elevations as the Assistant Secretary mentioned. To do that, Reclamation is relying in part on releases from Flaming Gorge Reservoir in Utah and Wyoming.

Flaming Gorge will not save the system. It is good for one, maybe two major releases. Reclamation is currently drawing that reservoir down by more than a third of its capacity over the next year to rescue Powell. We are proposing that releases from Flaming Gorge and other facilities upstream are capped, fully recovered, and effective in protecting Glen Canyon Dam, not simply used to increase downstream releases. This prevents the reservoir from being treated as an unlimited emergency backstop every time Powell drops and guarantees a supply in Flaming Gorge for future use.

And finally, I'll end with this: Utah is still at the table, and we call on others to join us. We cautiously supported the release of water from Flaming Gorge to protect Powell, We funded conservation programs out of our own state budget. We've showed up to every negotiation willing to deal, and we're still here. We still want to strike a 7-state agreement. We ask that Congress fund the solutions and defund the fights.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I welcome your questions. Thanks so much, Ms. Haas. Appreciate your remarks and your insights and all the work you, you do. For our state. Uh, next I'll be introducing Mr. Vic— Mr. Vickrey.

Now, he was going to be introduced by Senator Barrasso. Senator Barrasso has been unavoidably detained at the last minute. He was summoned to a meeting across town. I'm not going to tell you everything about where he is, but I will tell you he is in a— in a white building. That building serves a dual purpose.

It is at once a residence and also a public meeting, and it has an office in it that is sort of oval-shaped. I'm not going to tell you any more than that, but it's an important meeting. So I will deliver the introduction that he left for us, as he knows Mr. Vickrey. Mike Vickrey is a fifth-generation rancher from Pinedale, Wyoming. He's a member of the Green Valley— the Green River Valley Cattlemen's executive committee, and he also serves on the governor's Colorado River Advisory Committee for Wyoming.

He runs a cow-calf and yearling operation with his parents, his daughter, and his son-in-law. The Vickreys operate on sagebrush pastures and irrigated hay fields west of the Wind River Mountains. The chief tributary of the Colorado River is the Green River Basin.. It begins in the Wind River Range of Wyoming. Their ranch is at the headwaters of the Green River in Sublette County.

The ranch supports numerous wildlife and blue ribbon fisheries. I'm excited to welcome him here, uh, this morning to hear about his perspective as someone, yeah, who was actively engaged in agriculture from Wyoming. Thanks for joining us today, Mr. Vickrey. You're now recognized for your opening statement. Thank you.

I'm a 5th generation rancher from the headwaters of the Green River in Sublette County, Wyoming. In the late 1800s, ranchers started developing irrigation in our area. With irrigation came the ability to produce harvestable feedstuffs that could make our ranches sustainable year-round. We've been able to grow mostly grass hay in an environment that gives us a growing season of, get this, 45 to 60 days. Animal agriculture is the backbone of every community in my part of Wyoming and others along the Colorado River system.

It is the stability and foundation in an ever-changing demographic of our Western way of life. Decades of flood irrigation in the Upper Basin have allowed our ranches to produce some of the country's best source of protein on ground and and in climate not suitable for production of other crops. With the ability to flood irrigate large areas of land came some other benefits not considered in the 1800s. Large herds of elk, deer, and antelope now use those same riparian areas that were created and sustained by our ranching industry. Streams that once dried up midsummer are now, now able to withstand drought and continue to run year-round.

In turn, the fishing and tourism that goes along with these fisheries has become a boon to the economic base of our small communities. While our water in the Upper and Lower Basin is shared water, the best management, management of each area is vastly different. In the Upper Basin, we have relatively small lakes with only a few that have structures capable of storing water. The main stem of the Green River on our ranch has no dam on it and is a free river through Sublette County. I've heard the Lower Basin talk about the need to have some security in the allotment of water they expect to get over time.

They have in fact experienced that security for many years because of Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Those of us in the very Upper Basin don't have that luxury. Each year, our expectations of how much water we'll have to irrigate with are based on Mother Nature. We wait each winter in hopes of getting enough snowfall to sustain us for the next summer. No certainty, no promises, just hope weather patterns will take care of us.

When the water is short in Wyoming, mandatory regulation goes into effect. Mandatory by state law and mandatory by the environment. Flood irrigation, once seen as a waste of water, does something that state and federal governments cannot do. Some 275,000 acres in the Upper Green are flood irrigated. As we fill up the ground like a large sponge, we help to replenish and build a huge reservoir underneath the surface.

Little cost to build, little to maintain, and very little government intervention. It's stored in a cool, dark environment with little loss to evaporation. One study on the New Fork near Pinedale suggested that as much as 70% of the water applied to the ground returned to the river somewhere downstream. Other studies in different drainages have shown similar but still significant return flows of 25 to 40%. Because of geography and climate, our portion of our water right is used as consumptive use to grow crops.

A portion is used for beneficial use to maintain those riparian areas for livestock, wildlife, and fisheries. Water not used by the plants becomes part of the underground storage. Then comes back to the river system. It then goes downhill to our lower basin neighbors. I often hear the lower basin talk about the amount of salad they produce to feed the nation, and I've heard that today.

I applaud that fact. Well, here in the upper basin, on ground not suitable for other crops, we're able to produce enough protein in the form of beef and lamb in Sublette County and the surrounding area to feed our share of the country. In our part of Wyoming alone, in that small southwest corner, we produce enough beef to feed 1.3 million people each year. The question comes from the lower basin: What are you doing for conservation? All upper basin states have participated in system conservation pilot programs.

For example, in Wyoming, 64 projects in 2023 conserved about 38,000 acre-feet of water. In 2024, 110 projects were funded with an estimated conserved consumptive use of 63,000 acre-feet. We will participate. We in the Upper Basin know all too well that poor hydrology makes for tough decisions. We deal with that on a yearly basis.

In order to survive, we must adapt. Our insurance policy for water is a term policy. It runs year to year with no guarantees for the future. The lower basin, however, has had the luxury of a long-term policy, thanks to storage from Lake Mead and Lake Powell. They are now looking at further upstream units for more protection.

The only way forward is a shared pain as hydrology worsens. From my perspective, a supply-driven model of the river is imperative. As conditions continue to change, we must adapt to the actual amount of available water and continue to search for new sources of usable water. Thank you, Chairman Lee. Thanks so much, Mr. McCreary.

We'll hear next from Mr. Tom from Mr. Tom Kiernan. He's the president and CEO of American Rivers. This is a role that he's held since 2021. He's also a former CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, president of the National Parks Conservation Association, and president of the Audubon Society of New Hampshire. You may proceed, Mr. Kiernan, with your opening statement.

Thank you very much, Chairman Lee and Ranking Member Heinrich and other members of the committee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on the Colorado River Basin. As the chairman said, my name is Tom Kiernan, currently president and CEO of American Rivers, and yes, served in similar roles with other energy and conservation organizations, and also, by the way, served as a senior official with President George Herbert Walker Bush in his Environmental Protection Agency. American Rivers, as you mentioned, is a national conservation organization working to ensure that every river is clean and healthy for people and for wildlife. For more than 50 years, our staff and partners have moved forward with a common belief that life depends on rivers.

To ensure a future for the Colorado River in the face of the current crisis, both Congress and the administration must act quickly and boldly.

American Rivers urges this Congress the following 4 things to do. First, Encourage the Bureau of Reclamation to finalize durable operating guidelines grounded in the hydrologic reality of the basin. Second, affirm the importance of the voluntary transactions, the flexible management and conservation programs that the new framework will depend on. Third, authorize and appropriate significant federal investment to bridge the transition to a durable and more resilient future. And fourth, maintain environmental principles and maximize the use of natural infrastructure.

As the Department of Interior knows well, and the Assistant Secretary commented, the expiring— expiring operating agreements without a path forward will lead the basin into a period of profound economic, environmental,— and operational uncertainty that no emergency measures can bridge. The path forward must not only avoid near-term system failure, but also reduce the basin's long-term structural deficit while improving resilience. With this in mind, American Rivers urges the department to ensure that this successor framework they're working on first recognizes and responds to the Colorado River as a single interconnected system, with management decisions reflecting the conditions and impacts across the basin. Two, that it provides sufficient flexibility to respond to changing hydrologic conditions without relying on recurring emergency negotiations. Third, that ensures meaningful tribal participation so that tribal nations are integral partners in future basin decision-making, and fourth, incorporates environmental and ecological needs, not needs as a core component of basin management, rather than a secondary consideration.

Regarding our recommendation that Congress authorize additional funding, both the Congress and the department must recognize that the Colorado River Basin cannot transition to a resilient, secure future without significant additional federal investment. Funding is not a temporary solution, it is a bridge to a long-term durable solution. Many of the tensions that emerge within the basin stem not only from water scarcity, but also from the uncertainty regarding how communities, agricultural producers, tribal nations, and water users will adapt to reduced supplies. Hence, strategic federal investment can help stakeholders move beyond the uncertainty and then create the conditions necessary for a durable agreement. As well, federal funding should not be limited to protecting reservoir elevations alone.

It should strengthen the natural and built systems that support long-term water security throughout the basin, because that is the most cost-effective the most effective thing to do. Specifically, funding the restoration of natural infrastructure doesn't just mitigate the risk against catastrophic wildfire or drought. It makes economic sense. For example, wetlands, floodplains, and riparian corridors capture and slowly release snowmelt. Healthy forests stabilize soils and maintain vegetative cover that prevents erosion and reduces evaporation.

Wildfire risk is mitigated by maintaining moisture in the watersheds, and existing federal dollars are already at work with great programs like the WaterSMART program. In closing, Congress has a generational opportunity at the 250th anniversary of this nation to be remembered for saving the Colorado River Basin, which is the economic and cultural lifeblood of the Southwest of the United States. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to questions. Thank you so much, Mr. Kiernan.

We'll hear next from Mr. Bill Hazenkamp. Mr. Hazenkamp is the manager of Colorado River Resources for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, where he develops and implements water supply and storage programs to manage metropolitan Colorado River supplies. Mr. Hazenkamp, you may begin. Thank you, Chair Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the committee. Metropolitan is the largest provider of drinking water in the country.

We provide water to 19 million people in Southern California. We get about half of our imported water from the Bay Delta in Northern California and half from the Colorado River. Our supplies from Northern California have been marred with litigation, making effective planning difficult. On the other hand, the Colorado River has been known for our collaboration, consensus, and it's an example in California of what 7 states can do when we all work together. Given the history of collaboration on the Colorado River, Metropolitan was confident we'd have a 7-state agreement this summer.

We stepped up and supported California's contribution of 440,000 acre-feet year, plus more when needed, as part of a long-term 7-state deal, even though we are the senior priority state in, in the Lower Basin. It was not easy to accept that. We had to. But the reason why we put that on the table and supported that was because we recognize we need to compromise. We recognize that if all states and all sectors participate, the cuts to any one state can be smaller.

And a 7-state path is the only path to avoid or to minimize the risk of litigation. And Senators, Metropolitan is just as disappointed as you that we don't have a 7-state deal today. As the Assistant Secretary said, we're moving forward with a short-term deal, but the door should be kept open on a 7-state plan. California has gone through some similar difficult negotiations that I think could provide a roadmap to help in the 7-state process. Back in 2000, California had to reduce its use by 20% of water that it had been relying on for 50 years.

The states and the federal government gave us flexibility in making that reduction, but it came with a deadline to have the agreements done by date certain. California worked hard to meet that deadline, but we missed it. The federal reaction was swift and harsh. The next day, Metropolitan's Colorado River supplies were cut by 60%, and the Department of Interior went after Imperial Irrigation District over wasting water. With that federal threat over our heads, we continued to negotiate.

We brought in a mediator from Sacramento and ultimately signed the necessary agreements that allowed for transfers in California. When those agreements were signed, the federal action stopped. Unfortunately for Metropolitan, Mother Nature gave us away that flexibility that we had relied on, and we quickly had to develop plan to reduce our use. Our 60% cut became permanent. We did 3 things.

One is we ramped up our urban conservation, water recycling, which today our demand for imported water is half of what it was 25 years ago. But we recognize the urban sector can't do it alone. We partnered with some of the highest priority agricultural districts in the nation funding conservation with numerous types of programs. And the key with our agricultural partners is it's not one size fits all. Every agency had a different way of participating with different financial needs.

But ultimately, all— every single agricultural agency and tribe in California partnered in conservation to help reduce use. Finally, the state of California stepped up with infrastructure funding. To line the All-American and Coachella Canals, which provides 100 years of water savings. All this was done without any federal funding, and it, it allowed us to reduce our use, continue to thrive, and put an extra 10% on the table during these negotiations. We think there are 3 lessons learned in California that apply to the states today.

One is strong federal leadership. Perhaps with mediation either by the feds or outside mediation with meaningful deadlines. Two is creative thoughts of how to come up with programs, conservation programs, that it's not a one-size-fits-all, recognizing different states, different agencies have different ways of conserving, not dictating how conservation has to be done, finding out how it can be done that works with each agency. And then finally, federal funding to provide some longer-term savings on infrastructure projects that I think is best served when it's coupled with local funding to make dollars go even farther. Metropolitan looks forward to working with Congress on how to implement such a funding plan.

Thank you. Thanks so much. Appreciate, uh, each of your opening statements. We'll now proceed to 5-minute rounds of questions in order of seniority, subject to the early bird rule. Ms. Haase, I'd like to start with you.

Now, there are those out there who have claimed that the Upper Basin states have somehow refused to put anything on the table. Could you tell the committee why that's wrong and what the state of Utah and the Upper Basin states are offering? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm happy to dispel that notion. Just, I think, as a fundamental premise, the Upper Division states have promoted a plan that is focused on actual available supply rather than a demand-driven regime, which is currently what we've experienced since 2007. There are 3 pillars, if you will, to the Upper Division State proposal.

The first is the operation of Lake Powell. Operate the reservoir conservatively when the actual conditions on a date certain, in this case October 1, dictate reduce releases out of Lake Powell, and ratchet those releases up as the reservoir begins to recover, with an opportunity for a true-up, as it were, in the spring, right, when we can observe the runoff conditions, and either increase or decrease releases from Lake Powell accordingly. So again, operating Lake Powell prudently means operating based on actual conditions and supply. The second pillar is the use of the upstream initial units. We've heard a lot of testimony about that today.

Both Assistant Secretary Travnik and I have testified to it. We will continue to support future releases from Flaming Gorge and these other upstream reservoirs on 3 conditions. Number 1, that they be capped. There's some limit. There isn't— the sky isn't the limit, in other words.

Secondly, that they be recovered. In our case, we are going to require or demand full recovery, and I think I heard the Assistant Secretary today commit to recovery of any water released from these upstream facilities. And the third is that they must be effective for their intended purpose, which is to protect elevations at Lake Powell, not simply to pad or provide extra water for downstream release purposes. The third and final pillar of the Upper Division State Plan is Upper Division State contributions. Now, the Upper Division States have committed to conserving 100,000 acre-feet in the first 2 years of operations of the river post-2026, so that would be '27 and '28.

Utah is willing to play our part with a commitment of 23,000 acre-feet. So those are essentially the 3 elements of the upper division state plan. And I'd also like to note that the upper division states have really been outgunned in terms of the messaging, right? We are not making headlines in terms of what we've put on the table, but that doesn't mean we don't have a plan, which is what I've articulated to you today. Thank you.

Thank you. No, that's helpful. Now, Mr. Hazenkamp, The upper and lower basin states have gone back and forth on a number of proposals over the last few years. Obviously, no agreement's been reached yet, and that's one of the reasons for our discussion today. Was there anything in the upper basin proposals that you felt the lower basin could negotiate around?

Well, I can't speak for the lower basin. I can speak for Metropolitan and We did have meetings both with the Colorado River Board of California and individually with all of the 7 states, including all the Upper Basin states. And we found that what Amy's describing is something that we think is, is, is worth looking into. We were disappointed in 2019 that the Upper Basin was given storage that they haven't yet filled. But what the Upper Basin asked was, give us a chance, give us benchmarks to meet goals.

And if we meet those goals, then the agreement stays in place. And if we don't meet those benchmarks, then you can say we failed. So from our perspective, giving them a chance to meet those benchmarks makes sense. We know that the hardest part is starting. And once, once we start, just like in California, it was very difficult.

But once we started, The next step was much easier. Thank you. No, that's helpful. Um, Mr. Vickery, the, some of the lower basin compared agricultural production in the lower basin to that in the upper basin is kind of an argument in favor of their desired outcome in these negotiations. Can you explain or describe the, the economic value that the upper basin particularly the, the upper Green River Basin provides?

Sure, thank you, Senator. As I said before, just our small area in Wyoming— and Wyoming controls about 14% of the river basin, and I'm not including what Little Snake River is now because I don't have their numbers— but again, 1.3 million people are fed with beef raised in our country. Besides that, one of the nice things we have with byproducts in beef is we provide about 2 million shoes out of that same amount of cattle to the country. Multiple and multiples of medicines, adhesives, everything you do, eat, and touch has a byproduct of beef in it somewhere. Okay, it's all over the place.

So to, to put a value on those is probably a little tough. But it's a huge thing from the beef industry. The Trona Mines in southwest Wyoming near Green River have a value placed on them contributing to the economy of about $2 billion. And I'm, I'm representing Upper Basin agriculture, but serving on this committee, I've got a chance to get out a little more and see what else is going on. And that comes through thousands of jobs.

Paychecks, taxes that go into the state of Wyoming, into the federal government. The Trona in Southwest Wyoming, 90% of all Trona comes from our area, and they require some use of water, and their water rights are all junior water rights. So it's going to take some real flexibility to try to keep them up and going. This also includes power units that we have in 2 or 3 different places. The value on those Shut your lights off, we'll figure out the value real quick.

And so those things are big. And then tourism has become a huge thing in our area. And what people come to Pinedale, Wyoming for— they used to go through Pinedale, Wyoming to get to Jackson Hole, we're about 60 miles away. Now they stop in Pinedale, and they stop to go fishing and experience the outdoors. And one of the things people always will tell you, always will tell you, is how beautiful it is here with the green meadows, the riparian areas, the wildlife that we've created there.

It's all been done through agriculture. It's— I don't think it was meant to be when my great-grandparents helped settle that part of the world, but that's what's happened. And so our small towns thrive on, you know, we're 2,500 people. We have 6, 6 great big motels in Sublette County, okay, just to handle the tourists that go back and forth, and most of them are there to experience the outdoors and the fishing. So it's, you know, just in our area, it's a big thing for sure.

Thank you. Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Kiernan, water users, tribes, recreationists, agricultural producers, conservation groups don't always agree on Colorado River priorities. But I was struck by a letter that you sent the chairman, that a number of groups sent the chairman and myself and the chair and ranking member over in the House, just because of how broad the signers on this are.

We get a lot of these kind of letters, as you can imagine, in this committee, but we don't usually get the diversity of interest calling on the Congress to fund roughly $2 billion a year in additional federal funding to address drought in the basin. I would ask unanimous consent to enter it into the record. Without objection. And ask you, how significant is this? And if we're able to produce this kind of funding in the Congress, how should we think about how to focus it, how to deal with the trade-offs measure the efficiencies, and still recognize that, you know, Utah's approach to conservation, California's approach to conservation, are going to be different.

Well, let me start with the letter. I think it's an exciting moment where the breadth of stakeholders throughout the basin, as you mentioned, whether it's from cattlemen to conservationists, water utility to ag, and everybody in between came together, found common ground, built some trust, and is making to Congress and the administration a proposal. I think it's setting the stage for a coming together, and the proposal is for near-term drought mitigation of $2 billion. As you well know, and everybody has spoken to this, there is deep anxiety, uncertainty, stress in the watershed. $1.4 Trillion economy, 40 million people counting on the Colorado River.

That uncertainty is causing some of the challenge in reaching a durable long-term agreement that everybody says we need. So the $2 billion for near-term drought mitigation is to help bridge across this uncertainty while everybody's as anxious to be able to meet some of the near-term needs so that we can create an environment to create a durable agreement. Now, this would go to a suite of activities, whether it's active forest management, forest restoration, floodplain connection, conservation efficiency measures, a breadth of efforts so that we can make some progress towards a, a more durable, resilient future. I think historically it's been fairly intuitive for a lot of members, the investments in hard infrastructure and plumbing effectively in the basin, but talk a little bit about the importance and role of the forest watersheds, floodplains in managing the current hydrology that we see. First, let me say the built infrastructure, obviously extraordinarily important.

The natural infrastructure is also extraordinarily important, It is allowing, if you will, nature to work for us. And Mike alluded to this when you've got wetlands or floodplains that are able to— I'll use a floodplain as an example adjacent to river, the lowland that during higher water, the water spreads out, slows down, sinks in, and is held there and is then released throughout the summer in a very predictable way. So it's a natural storage system. So the natural systems work for us, help us in both retaining that water, releasing it in a measured way over time. They also, by being in the soil and obviously feeding some plant life, reduce just the straight-out evaporation.

Some of the water also seeps down into the groundwater and comes back up lower in the basin. So again, these natural— this natural infrastructure is extraordinarily important. Important tool in the toolbox, if you will. It's allowing nature to work for us. And so we would hope that the $2 billion, part of it very much goes to this natural infrastructure that's so important, along with the built infrastructure.

But the natural infrastructure is so important throughout the basin. So, uh, I wrote down a few things that I heard several times today to try and come up with some, some principles. You know, we heard about the need for strong federal leadership and a willingness to make tough decisions. But for the basin states themselves, shared sacrifice, live within the actual hydrology of the basin today. And for us here, don't fund litigation, do fund conservation, and try to have some transparency so we make good investments in that conservation.

Is there anything in that sort of list that any of you disagree with?

That's a good start. All right, I want to thank you all. Sir, can I speak? Yes, go ahead, Mike. One of the things I think we need to really recognize is that the upper basin, and even parts of the upper basin, are completely different than the lower basin, and they can't be managed the same.

Right. And when we try to put on a one-size-fits-all, it is not going to work and it will crush both systems fairly quickly. So I would encourage you as we look forward, and I, I think that Andrea has done a great job of pushing that out there. I enjoy listening to her talk and she's a strong leader there. So I really would encourage that.

Point well taken. And I want to thank all of you for your testimony today. We really appreciate it.

I want to thank each of you for your testimony. It's been a great hearing. Your input has been remarkably helpful. We've learned a lot today. Senator Heinrich and I have to go vote, otherwise they're going to send people after us with big sticks that they'll use.

That's a little-known tradition we have in the Senate. Anyway, so this will conclude today's hearing. I want to thank my colleagues for their contributions. For being here and for their patience. Any senator wishing to submit additional questions for the record may do so.

The deadline for submitting those questions will be 6 PM tomorrow, Thursday, June 11th. Senators also will have until 6 PM this coming— this next Wednesday, June 17th, to add additional statements for the record for today's hearing. So thanks again to my colleagues for their participation and for our witnesses, uh, for your, uh, testimony and for answering our questions today. The hearing stands adjourned.