WATER SUPPLY

This project will supply two areas, the Marine Corps Base at Camp Pendleton and the community of Fallbrook served by the Fallbrook Public Utility District. Camp Pendleton has relied on ground water and reclaimed sewage water but will need additional supplies by 1986 to meet Base growth. Fallbrook is 100% dependent upon water imported by Metropolitan Water District and is presently using four times its legal entitlement of that water. As southern California growth continues, Fallbrook water supply could be cut back. The water yield from the project is intended primarily to replace existing imported water which provides for only limited new growth.

Southern California's new water demands must be met primarily from the State Water Project. Wastewater reclamation and reuse, conservation and purchased water from Imperial Irrigation District and others can only supply a part of the total needed. Developing local water supplies in southern California also provides additional benefits including the increased reliability in case a major earthquake would disrupt service from one of the major aqueducts.

Based on riverflow data, it is projected that two reservoirs would retain and deliver an average of 18,500 acre-feet per year, which would be divided between Camp Pendleton and the District. Camp Pendleton has historically captured 4,000 acre-feet per year through ground water recharge; consequently, the average project yield would be 14,500 acre-feet per vear. Distribution would be as follows:

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The economic analysis of the proposed action indicates that National Economic Development benefits derived from the project exceed costs by a ratio of 1.26 to 1.00. The benefits accrue from the development and storage of water supplies for irrigation and municipal and industrial use, flood control for Camp Pendleton, and development of recreation opportunities at the reservoirs created by the project.

PROJECT COST AND REPAYMENT

The $218 million project cost will be jointly funded by the Department of Navy, Department of the Interior, and Fallbrook Public Utility District. A cost allocation analysis indicates that approximately $110 million of the Project's cost will be borne by the Department of Navy, $48 million will be nonreimbursable Interior Department costs, and $60 million will be the responsibility of Fallbrook Public Utility District. Approximately $12.85 million of Fallbrook's cost will be funded by up-front contributions, with the remaining costs fully repaid over a 32-year period.

SANTA MARGARITA RIVER

The Santa Margarita River is a widely fluctuating river ranging from a dry streambed to heavy floods. Heavy flows occur every four years on the average and have caused major destruction at Camp Pendleton. The dams are designed to capture these day flows for water supply and protect the Base. The river in its current state is seldom capable of providing water surface recreation such as canoeing because of these wide variations.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Beach Sand Replenishment

The City of Oceanside has some concerns that the project would reduce beach sand replenishment. Professional opinion is divided on this point, and an independent study by a private consultant is underway to determine whether the project would have an affect.

The interim results of this special study were recently completed. The preliminary conclusions provide an understanding of the overall impact that the proposed project would have on the Oceanside beaches. Generally, the Santa Margarita River is a relatively insigificant contributor (less than 10 percent) to the total beach sand budget. During the past 100 years the River's contribution to beach sand replenishment has not changed substantially. The major cause of bach sand erosion in the Oceanside area is directly attributable to interception of the longshore drift by the Del Mar Basin (Oceanside Harbor).

Wildlife Habitats

A variety of birds and small mammals inabit the area. Those which depend upon riparian habitat for nesting are found primarily below either dam site in the area where Camp Pendleton maintains its ground water basins with reclaimed water. These areas will continue to be maintained and the impact of the project will not only be limited but can be assisted by controlled releases from the dams.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) conducted studies and established an excellent inventory data base of the fish and wildlife resources of the project area. However, because there would be a net loss in habitat the FWS has recommended the no-action alternative. The FWS also provided mitigation recommendations which have been incorporated into the project mitigation plan.

The Endangered Species Office of the FWS issued a "jeopardy" opinion on the California least tern. The least Bell's vireo may be proposed for listing as an endangered species in the near future and, if so, a "jeopardy" opinion would be anticipated for this species. The project mitigation addresses both species and the Marine Corps is committed to continued protection and management of the endangered species. It is noteworthy that the Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton has an exellent record of natural resource management for these species and other wildlife.

Mr. PACKARD. This actually is the last of the reports to be submitted by the different agencies involved, and so the argument that all the reports are not done is simply not true.

Mr. FAZIO. This is a draft. There will be one final report after this, won't there?

Mr. PACKARD. No. The final report, we have been told, will only be a matter of printing. It will not change the text of the report. It was mentioned that Camp Pendleton does have an excellent reclamation process and that they don't need the water. Well, they do need the water. The growth potential and the necessity of maintaining Camp Pendleton as a readiness station for our military defense program is absolutely essential. It is the largest Marine Corps base in the western U.S. and performs critical activities for our preparedness and national defense program. They have determined in their own studies that this water resource for them is absolutely critical for their long range future. They would not be able to provide for their water needs with the growth that they anticipate.

In the case of war, there is absolutely no question. We would definitely be hampered in our defense posture if Camp Pendleton had to depend on their reclamation process for their sole source of water. What they have been doing has saved water for the rest of the county.

So whatever water they would use from the aqueduct would simply subtract that amount of water from the local communities in San Diego County and for the rest of the state and southern California. That is not the alternative really to have Camp Pendleton go on the pipeline and use water that they may be entitled to but now they do not need to use. We think that this is a far better alternative.

The benefit-cost ratio was mentioned. Mr. Bates simply is changing the rules of the game and, in essence, is measuring this whole equation with a 27-inch yardstick.

If you change the rules for this project, you can make it to look anyway you want it to look, but if you live by the same rules that every other project has to live by-and these are all developed by the Bureau of Reclamation-then obviously you have to accept the 1.26 ratio to 1 as a valid figure.

The sand issue, is important to our whole beach area. Study after study of this particular question on this particular river has shown that the project would have no significant impact on the beach replenishment issue. The most recent was an independent study that was called for after all the other studies were done. The final report indicates that this river does not produce any significant effect upon the sand replenishment issue.

In fact, the report indicates that only 8 percent of all the sand along the coastline comes from this river, and far more comes from other rivers in the immediate area.

Fish and wildlife. Obviously, any project will have some impact. Yet in this same report it is indicated that with the mitigation measures the project will be able to serve well what it is designed to do.

The endangered species. I think it is clear in the report that mitigation measures will be made to protect endangered species. Often in the arguments opponents fail to bring up the point that is