[Senate Hearing 108-271]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-271
MISCELLANEOUS WATER AND HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT BILLS
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 943 S. 1355
S. 1027 S. 1577
S. 1058 H.R. 1284
S. 1071 H.R. 2040
S. 1307 S. Res. 183
S. 1308
__________
OCTOBER 15, 2003
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
91-317 WASHINGTON : 2004
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800, DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Vice Chairman
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JON KYL, Arizona BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Shelly Randel, Counsel
Patty Beneke, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from Colorado................... 3
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 12
Broderick, Jim, General Manager, Southeastern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, Pueblo, CO............................... 33
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado........ 2
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 2
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota............ 12
Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator from Oregon......................... 20
Keys, John W., III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior on:
S. 943....................................................... 13
S. 1027...................................................... 21
S. 1058...................................................... 16
S. 1071...................................................... 22
S. 1307...................................................... 24
S. 1308...................................................... 26
S. 1355...................................................... 29
H.R. 1284.................................................... 30
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska................... 1
Musgrave, Hon. Marilyn, U.S. Representative from Colorado........ 8
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon..................... 10
Wood, Pat, III, Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission... 31
APPENDIX
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 39
MISCELLANEOUS WATER AND HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT BILLS
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
Murkowski presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. I'm calling to order the Subcommittee on
Water and Power. Welcome to all who are with us this afternoon.
Special welcome to you, Senator Allard. I understand we're also
going to be expecting Congresswoman Musgrave in about 20
minutes or so.
We have nine bills and one resolution before the
subcommittee today. We have S. 943, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to enter into one or more contracts
with the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, for the storage of water in
the Kendrick Project. We have S. 1027 and H.R. 2040, which are
bills to amend the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of
1998 to extend certain contracts between the Bureau of
Reclamation and certain irrigation water contractors in Wyoming
and Nebraska. We have S. 1058, a bill to provide a cost-sharing
requirement for the construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit
in Colorado. We have S. 1071, a bill to authorize the Secretary
of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct
a feasibility study on a water conservation project within the
Arch Hurley Conservancy District in New Mexico; S. 1307, a bill
to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau
of Reclamation, to assist in the implementation of fish passage
and screening facilities at non-Federal water projects.
We have S. 1308, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to pursue and complete actions related to the
implementation of a U.S. District Court Consent Decree; S.
1355, a bill to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to
participate in the rehabilitation of the Wallowa Lake Dam in
Oregon; and S. 1577, a bill to extend the deadline for
commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in
Wyoming; H.R. 1284, a bill to amend the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to increase the
Federal share of the cost of the San Gabriel Basin
demonstration project; and S. Res. 183, a resolution
commemorating 50 years of adjudication under the McCarran
Amendment of rights to the use of water.
Just reading the titles probably will take as long as some
of the testimony we may hear this afternoon. I know many of the
bill proponents have submitted written testimony, and I will
look forward to reading that, as well as hearing from the
administration and other witnesses.
[The prepared statements of Senators Domenici and Campbell
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Pete V. Domenici, U.S. Senator
From New Mexico
Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this subcommittee hearing
today and for including S. 1071, authorization for a feasibility study
on a water conservation project within the Arch Hurley Conservancy
District in New Mexico including cost sharing options and debt relief.
I also want to commend Senator Bingaman for introducing this
legislation.
Arch Hurley is a small conservancy district on the eastern side of
New Mexico. The District historically receives little or no water
supply and has consistently had trouble meeting its repayment
obligation to the Bureau of Reclamation. Additionally, as a result of
receiving so little water, the system has lacked adequate maintenance
and substantial parts of the system have fallen into disrepair.
As you know, Madam Chairman, New Mexico, along with other western
states, is facing a severe drought. While authorizing this study to
determine the feasibility of a water conservation project does not seem
like a huge undertaking, it will make a big difference to the members
of this district who are already feeling the effects of this worsening
drought. Conserving water, no matter how vast or small, is a worthy
goal.
Last year, I began helping the Arch Hurley Conservancy district get
a start on some of their conservation objectives by providing funds
through the energy and water appropriations bill. I believe this bill
is the next step in helping them move forward.
I'm not certain where the results of this study will lead. I don't
know if some of the ideas being proposed, specifically taking water
saved from the Arch Hurley Conservancy District and conveying it to the
Pecos River Basin, will work. However, I know that the Pecos River
Basin is very water short and yet, has so many competing demands--
including agriculture, endangered species and compact delivery
obligations. The drought has created some extreme circumstances and in
these desperate times, we ought to give every option a good hard look.
Madam Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing. I look
forward to hearing the testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
U.S. Senator From Colorado
Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly talk about my Resolution
commemorating 50 years of adjudicating water rights under the McCarran
Amendment and commending Western states' management of water.
In the West, water is as precious and scarce a resource today as
ever. As the primary limiting resource for communities, industry, and
agriculture in our region, water must be managed in a way that takes
into account their diverse interests.
Correspondingly, water law out West is as distinct from the East as
are the histories of these two great regions of our nation. In the
West, water is a rare commodity, and is therefore regarded under the
law as a property right sold apart from the land.
Traditionally, each state managed water based on its particular
resources, geography, population, and municipal and industrial needs.
Western states all recognized and favored water adjudication systems
according to the doctrines of prior appropriation and beneficial use.
However, during the New Deal's expansive programs, the federal
government sought to limit established states' jurisdiction over water
and rode roughshod over State interests, often completely ignoring
private property rights and resisting cooperative agreements to manage
water. The States fought federal arm-twisting, but couldn't do much
against the U.S. as sovereign. The federal bullying got so bad that in
1951, a Reader's Digest article criticized the U.S.'s strongarm tactics
in the famous Santa Margarita water conflict stating, ``the lack of
moral sensitivity in our Government has put into jeopardy thousands of
our small landowners; their property, homes, savings and their
future.''
Thankfully, Senator Patrick McCarran of Nevada and other like-
minded Senators, successfully defended States' interests and got a very
simple provision passed into law. In short, the law that we are
celebrating today waives the United States' sovereign immunity that it
can be joined in general state adjudications of rights to use water.
Although a simple concept, the McCarran Amendment effectively
leveled the playing field, requiring Uncle Sam to work within the State
system he implicitly helped to establish.
The breadth of the McCarran Amendment has been defined by several
U.S. Supreme Court cases. The Court concluded that though the amendment
itself might be short in length, its effect was far-reaching. The High
Court stated that McCarran was ``an all-inclusive statute concerning
the adjudication of `the rights to the use of water of a river system'
'' which ``has no exceptions'' and ``includes appropriat[ive] rights,
riparian rights, and reserved rights.''
It is undeniable that the history of the West is linked to the
federal government. Since the federal government maintains vast
landholdings, the future of the West will continue to be linked to
Uncle Sam. Similarly, the management of property and natural resources,
of which water is both, has been and shall remain a state function.
The purpose of the McCarran Amendment was to prevent federal
bullying of private and state interests in managing water, and to
recognize water as a state resource. McCarran encourages the federal
government to work together with the States.
My resolution comes at a time when much of the West continues to
experience record drought conditions. Recognizing this, the federal
government must remember the history of the McCarran amendment and look
to the states in adjudicating water.
Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Since there are no Senators present to
make any opening statements, I would invite you, Senator
Allard, if you would like to make your remarks at this time.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Allard. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for
convening this hearing on the Arkansas Valley Conduit. I also
want to thank the many people from Colorado who are here this
morning and who have helped make this moment possible. It is an
important day for an important bill. It's not always easy for
them to get away from their daily duties, as you're well aware
of, when we're from the western part of the United States and
you're in the extreme far western part.
If you will excuse a little demonstration here as we pan
the committee, I thought it was only appropriate that we start
with this visual aid, Madam Chair, because when we're talking
about the Arkansas Fryingpan project, which is a project that
came into being some 50 years ago, this was one of the
fundraising mechanisms. They had to create the project. And in
Colorado, we have--I will just use kind of a pointer here--we
have the western part of the State, and the eastern plains that
start over here. And the Fryingpan project actually started
right in there, and brings water clear down here, and then over
into Kansas. So these are pretty large projects. And Colorado
has been known worldwide for the way it manages its water, and
we do live in a semi-arid area, and water is a very valuable
resource to us.
I will now go ahead and talk a little bit about the bill
after just giving you this brief outline, and I will refer to
the chart a little bit later on in my testimony. But, first of
all, I would like to thank the Governor of Colorado, Bill
Owens, for his support of the conduit, and I would like to
introduce our witnesses. In addition to Congresswoman Musgrave,
when she shows up, Jim Broderick, general manager of the
Southeastern Water District, is here. You should be hearing
from him, and he will provide the primary testimony on behalf
of the conduit. And then he is accompanied by Kevin Kearney,
Ohio County Commissioner, and Chuck Hannigan, trustee for the
town of Swink. So they're all here, and we appreciate your
being here.
I want to welcome the Commissioner, also, and thank him for
taking the time to meet with me several weeks ago. And your
commitment to working with me on the bill is much appreciated,
and I'm confident we can work through any outstanding issues in
order to reach an agreeable solution.
Madam Chairman, a historian and poet, once penned that the
history of Colorado would be written in water. In southeastern
Colorado, home of the Arkansas River, our history tells a story
of an economically depressed area struggling to find clean,
inexpensive water that meets ever-increasing Federal water
standards.
It is for this reason that Senator Campbell and I have
introduced S. 1058, and that Congresswoman Musgrave and
Congressman McInnis introduced an identical version in the
House of Representatives. S. 1058 will ensure the construction
of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, which is a pipeline that will
provide the small, financially-strapped towns and water
agencies along the lower Arkansas River with safe, clean,
affordable water by creating a 75 Federal, 25 local, cost-share
formula for them to help offset the construction costs of the
conduit. This legislation will protect the future of
southeastern Colorado's drinking-water supplies and prevent
further economic hardship.
It is extremely important to note that the Arkansas Valley
Conduit was originally authorized by Congress over 40 years
ago, in 1962, as a part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. The
original Fry-Ark Project--we've shortened it down--authorizing
legislation, which is Public Law 87-50 and House Document
number 187, Project Plan Report, grants the Secretary of the
Interior the authority to construct the Arkansas Valley
Conduit.
Because of the authorizing statute's lack of a cost-share
provision and Southeastern Colorado's depressed economic
status, this conduit was never built. Until recently, there was
no need for it. The region was fortunate enough to enjoy an
economical and safe alternative to pipeline transportation of
the project water, the Arkansas River. Unfortunately, this is
no longer the case. As far back as 1950, the Bureau of
Reclamation determined that the quality of local drinking-water
supplies were unacceptable, and this can be found in House
Document number 187 in the 83rd Congress in response to a
number of water providers falling out of compliance with
existing EPA water quality standards.
The local communities formed a committee to evaluate
alternative approaches to solving this problem. The committee
ultimately hired an independent engineering firm to evaluate
two competing options, constructing a series of treatment
facilities and constructing the Arkansas Valley Conduit. The
engineers concluded that local communities are unable to fund
either solution.
Under existing circumstances, the long-term cost of water
treatment, including potential new Federal standards and the
cost of disposal of treatment facility waste, removed treatment
as a viable long-term solution. The fixed long-term cost of the
pipeline contributed to the engineers recommending this conduit
as the most viable solution. The communities cannot afford to
construct the pipeline alone, nor can they afford to build
individual treatment plants, and yet they have these onerous
regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency there to
not only maintain good quality water, but safe water.
The report found that the full financial capabilities of
the counties, cities, and water agencies in the project area
could finance approximately 25 percent of the projected cost.
You will see that reflected in the bill that we have before
you. In other words, the communities may be too poor not to
spend the 176 million on the conduit, in partnership with the
Federal Government. When you weigh the promise of the conduit
versus the fate of building new individual water treatment
facilities, it is clear that the conduit is the best choice of
action.
The Arkansas Valley Conduit will deliver fresh, clean water
to dozens of valley communities and tens of thousands of people
along the river. To be exact, the conduit will supply 16 cities
and 25 water agencies in Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, Prowers, Pueblo,
and Otero Counties with water when completed. The largest city
served by the conduit is La Junta, Colorado, which has a
population of around 12,000.
At this time, if the members of the committee will direct
their attention to the map, they will see exactly where the
conduit's beneficiaries are situated. You will see it outlined
here on the map. That area is about the size of the State of
New Hampshire if you want to draw some sort of comparison. And
after we've transferred the water over here from Pitkin County
down to Pueblo, then we have the Pueblo Reservoir, and they
actually have constructed in that area, right there, a conduit
out. There's no conduit, because they couldn't afford it. And
the communities that are poor and struggling along the Arkansas
River is right down here. This is all an agricultural area.
And like I said, the largest community we have in there is
12,000. And it is just impossible, without having the cost-
share, that they're ever going to meet the EPA requirement. So
this is very viable to an area of Colorado that is suffering
from the very severe drought that we had last year, and one
that over the years whose economy has changed to the point
where it's just not possible for the communities to go back to
the residents and realistically expect them to pay a full cost
of the project. And so we have put in the bill the 75/25
percent match, the consultants feeling that the 25 percent
match, although a challenge, is something that is doable for
the area.
As I mentioned, the local sponsors of the project have
completed an independently funded feasibility study of the
conduit and have developed a coalition of support from water
users in southeastern Colorado. I'm also pleased that the State
of Colorado has contributed a great deal of funding for the
study through the Colorado Water Conservation Board. These
local stakeholders continue to explore options for financing
their share of the costs and are working hard to complete the
final details surrounding the organization that will oversee
the conduit project.
At this time, I would ask that a letter of support from the
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the entity
responsible for the Fry-Ark Project, be entered into the
record.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The referenced material has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Murkowski. Without objection.
Senator Allard. I also would like to point out a letter
written last year by the Bureau of Reclamation that applauded
the effort made to introduce the legislation and stated, and I
quote, ``Reclamation has a long demonstrated capability of
designing and constructing projects like the conduit,'' and
that the Bureau looked forward to working with the local
stakeholders on the project. With the help of my colleagues,
the promise made by Congress 40 years ago to the people of
Southeastern Colorado will finally become a reality.
Before I conclude my remarks, I ask that my extended
remarks be printed in the record, and the extended remarks
contain additional points regarding additional concerns and
justifications.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Those remarks will be
included in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Allard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Wayne Allard, U.S. Senator From Colorado
Madam Chairman, a historian and poet once penned that the history
of Colorado would be written in water. Today, in the midst of the third
year of unprecedented drought, this prediction has proven an accurate
account of life in the headwater state. The drought is also a strong
reminder that water is indeed our most precious natural resource. In
Southwestern Colorado, home of the Arkansas River, it is difficult to
find clean, inexpensive water that meets the ever increasing scrutiny
of federal water standards.
It is for this reason that Senator Campbell and I introduced S.
1058, and that Congresswoman Musgrave introduced an identical version
in the House of Representatives. S. 1058 will ensure the construction
of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, which is a pipeline that will provide
the small, financially strapped towns and water agencies along the
lower Arkansas River with safe, clean, affordable water. By creating a
75 federal/25 local cost share formula to help offset the construction
costs of the Conduit, this legislation will protect the future of
Southeastern Colorado's drinking water supplies, and prevent further
economic hardship.
It is extremely important to note that the Arkansas Valley Conduit
was originally authorized by Congress over forty years ago, in 1962, as
a part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. The original Fry-Ark Project
authorizing legislation (Public Law 87-50 and House Document No. 187--
Project Plan Report) grants the Secretary of the Interior the authority
to construct the Arkansas Valley Conduit. Our legislation simply adds a
cost-share to the already-existing provision. Due to the authorizing
statute's lack of a cost share provision and Southeastern Colorado's
depressed economic status, the Conduit was never built. Until recently,
there was no need for it--the region was fortunate to enjoy an
economical and safe alternative to pipeline-transportation of Project
Water: the Arkansas River. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case.
While the federal government has continued to strengthen its unfunded
water quality standards, these communities have fallen further and
further behind in attaining them. As far back as 1950, the Bureau of
Reclamation determined that the quality of local drinking water
supplies were ``unacceptable'' (House Document Numbered 187, Eighty-
third Congress).
In response to a number of water providers falling out of
compliance with existing EPA water quality standards, the local
communities formed a committee to evaluate alternative approaches to
solving this problem. The committee ultimately hired an independent
engineering firm to evaluate two competing options: constructing a
series of treatment facilities and constructing the Arkansas Valley
Conduit. Under the treatment facility scenario, individual
municipalities would face construction costs of $20 million to $40
million each. This so-called ``no action'' alternative could cost
communities as much as $187 million in total. Estimates on the cost of
the Conduit hover around $176 million for the federal government share
(this figure may be inflated because it is based on a $235 million net-
present value over 50 years, and includes operation and maintenance
costs that we have assured the Bureau are not to be included in their
match requirement).
The engineers concluded that local communities are unable to fund
either solution under existing circumstances. The long-term costs of
water treatment, including potential new federal standards and the cost
of disposal of treatment facility waste, remove treatment as a viable
long-term solution. The fixed long-term costs of the Conduit
contributed to the engineers recommending this solution. The report
found that the ``full financial capabilities of the counties, cities,
and water agencies in the project area could finance approximately 25
percent of the project cost'' for the Conduit. In other words, the
communities may be too poor not to spend the $235 million in
partnership with the federal government. When you weigh the promise of
the conduit versus the fate of building new individual water treatment
facilities, it is clear that the conduit is the best choice of action.
S. 1058 is essential if we are to bring local water providers into
compliance with federal water quality standards and it will finally
provide a long term solution to the region's water quality concerns.
The Arkansas Valley Conduit will deliver fresh, clean water to
dozens of valley communities and thousands of people along the river.
To be exact, the Conduit will supply 16 cities and 25 water agencies in
Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, Prowers, Pueblo and Otero counties, with water
when completed. The largest city served by the Conduit is La Junta,
Colorado (population nearly 12,000). At this time, if the members would
direct their attention to the maps, they will see exactly where the
Conduit's beneficiaries are situated. One of the most stunning facts
that I would like to point out--the Conduit will serve an area slightly
larger than the state of New Hampshire.
As I mentioned, the local sponsors of the project have completed an
independently funded feasibility study of the Conduit, and have
developed a coalition of support from water users in Southeastern
Colorado. I am also pleased that the State of Colorado has contributed
a great deal of funding for the study through the Colorado Water
Conservation Board. These local stakeholders continue to explore
options for financing their share of the costs, and are working hard to
complete the final details surrounding the organization that will
oversee the Conduit project.
At this time, I would ask that a letter of support from the
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the entity
responsible for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, be entered into the
record, along with the list of potential beneficiaries of the Conduit.
I would also like to point out a letter written last year by the Bureau
of Reclamation that applauded the effort made to introduce the
legislation, and stated that ``Reclamation has a long demonstrated
capability of designing and constructing projects like the Conduit,''
and that the Bureau looked forward to working with the local
stakeholders on the project. In addition, I ask that an editorial from
the Denver Post be entered into the record as well.
Now I would like to turn my attention to the Bureau of Reclamation
and some of the questions they have raised pertaining to the
legislation. I first want to make it clear that the purpose of the
legislation is to provide a 75 federal/25 local cost share formula for
the costs of construction. The local beneficiaries are to be 100
percent responsible for operation and maintenance. If the Bureau of
Reclamation believes that the language of S. 1058 does not reflect this
commitment, I am prepared to make such changes as are necessary to
ensure local payment of O&M. I also want to make it clear that the
current language of S. 1058 will be modified so that it clearly states
the local share will be 25 percent, no more, no less, and that the
federal share shall be 75 percent of construction costs, no more, no
less.
I also understand that the Bureau of Reclamation may be concerned
about the cost of the project. As a member of the United States Senate,
you have my full commitment that, if the cost-share language is
approved, I will work tirelessly on behalf of this project to make sure
that it does not impact other important Reclamation projects. This
project was authorized 40 years ago. If the money is not spent now, it
will be spent later as communities seek federal grants to fund their
projects individually instead of using a system-wide conduit approach.
I have also received a revised copy of the legislation from Senate
Legislative Counsel. The new draft includes provisions for an overall
cost-ceiling on the construction costs of the conduit. Should the
Bureau of Reclamation prefer a bill with a cost-share, I have no doubt
that an agreeable cost-ceiling mechanism can be incorporated into the
bill.
I would also like to note that it has been 23 years since the last
feasibility study was performed. However, the local sponsors have
completed a feasibility study that examined alternatives to
construction of the Conduit. Its conclusion is that the alternative
(i.e., to build a system of regional water treatment facilities) is too
expensive for the communities involved. In addition, the Bureau of
Reclamation, when presented with the question of whether a
Reconnaissance Study was necessary, informed the beneficiaries that a
Re-Evaluation Statement of the conduit was the proper course of action.
It is my understanding that Reclamation intends to use the
beneficiaries' feasibility study.
The Bureau of Reclamation is also concerned that the cost-share
legislation will create a new precedent and that it opposes changes to
the Bureau's standard 100 percent repayment policy. I realize that my
legislation is a change to standard policy--indeed that is the very
purpose of the legislation. However, there are at least 9 other
authorized projects that legislatively change the standard repayment
policy. Therefore, the Arkansas Valley Conduit cost-share would not set
a precedent--the precedent has already been made.
I also note the speculation regarding the introduction of a
comprehensive rural water bill. While I may be supportive of such
legislation, it should not undermine the effort of the Arkansas Valley
Conduit, a project authorized by Congress over 40 years ago. The
economic reality that spurred introduction of the Conduit legislation
in the first place will not change upon the introduction of a new
policy. Nor can the communities wait.
With the help of my colleagues, the promise made by Congress forty
years ago to the people of Southeastern Colorado, will finally become a
reality.
Madam Chairman, thank you for your leadership and for holding this
hearing today.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you,
Commissioner Keys, for working with my office on the
legislation and for the dedicated work of your staff. And, as
always, thank you, Madam Chairman, for your leadership and for
holding this hearing today.
And now, Madam Chairman, it gives me a great deal of
pleasure to introduce to you our new Congressperson from
Colorado for the 4th District--which is the District that I
represented before I was elected to the U.S. Senate,
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Welcome to the subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARILYN MUSGRAVE,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO
Ms. Musgrave. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for holding this important hearing and
for allowing me to come before you today and talk about one my
highest legislative priorities, building the Arkansas Valley
Conduit.
First, let me begin by commending Senator Allard for
introducing S. 1058 and for continually fighting to secure
quality drinking water for the people of southeastern Colorado.
My colleague, Mr. McInnis, and I have introduced a companion
measure in the House, H.R. 2102, which has been cosponsored by
Representative Chris Cannon, chairman of the House Western
Caucus. H.R. 2102 would provide the much-needed 75-percent-
Federal/25-percent-local cost-share requirement to ensure that
residents of the economically depressed Arkansas Valley will
not face even more years of poor water quality. As you may
know, the Arkansas Valley Conduit was first authorized in 1962
as part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. However, lawmakers
recognized the poor water quality found in the Arkansas Valley
as early as 1950, when the Secretary of the Interior in the
Bureau of Reclamation called for improved municipal water in
every town in the valley, except for Colorado Springs. Today,
residents of southeastern Colorado are still waiting for the
clean, safe, and affordable drinking water they were promised
over 40 years ago. It is crucial that we pass this legislation,
because the conduit is even needed more today than it was in
1962.
In its February 2002 report, the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment stated that, quote, ``Lower
Arkansas River in Colorado is the most saline stream of its
size in the United States. The average salinity levels
increased from 300 parts per million, TDS, east of Pueblo, to
over 4,000 parts per million near the Kansas State line,'' end
of quote. Treating the water for saline and other water-quality
constituents such as iron and manganese is a major expense,
which places a tremendous financial burden on these small
communities.
Instead of forcing these local communities to continually
reinvest in treatment facilities that will no doubt have to be
updated to fit ever-changing environmental regulations, we
should carry out the plans Congress envisioned 40 years ago and
build a conduit. These communities cannot afford to pay the
entire expense of constructing the conduit or the cost of
continually updating expensive treatment facilities. But, even
more important is that these communities cannot afford to
continue drinking the water flowing through the lower Arkansas
Valley.
As time has passed, the cost of construction has gone up,
while the water quality has gone down. This year, we have an
opportunity to end this cycle by building the conduit through
the financially feasible cost-share requirement. Without this
cost-share, the families of Southeastern Colorado will never be
able to afford the clean water they need or be able to meet the
long-term Federal mandates and costly environmental standards
we impose on them.
However, water quality is not the only issue at stake here.
Water availability is equally important to the agricultural
economy of the Arkansas Valley, which has been plagued for 5
years of disastrous drought. Building the conduit would not
only protect the water quality, but it also would prevent
excess moisture from seeping into the ground or being absorbed
by tamarisks, a water-wasting plant meant to prevent erosion.
Building the Arkansas Valley Conduit is the best alternative
for the water quality problems in southeastern Colorado. The
cost to the Federal Government is worth the benefits of
providing these small economically depressed communities with
clean, safe, affordable drinking water.
Thank you so much, Madam Chairman, for allowing me to
testify. And thank you, Senator Allard. Building the Arkansas
Valley Conduit is the right thing to do, and I respectfully ask
you and your committee to move this legislation forward.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much. Senator Allard, if
you would like to join us up here.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Madam Chairman, I would be
pleased to join you for awhile.
Senator Murkowski. Before we move to Commissioner Keys, I
would ask any of the committee members if they would like to
make opening statements.
Senator Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I have a rather
lengthy opening statement, so I would just ask that it be
included in the record.
Senator Murkowski. Without objection.
Senator Smith. I would summarize by simply noting the three
Oregon bills you have included in today's hearing. S. 1355,
which I have cosponsored with Senator Wyden. It involves a
rehabilitation of the Wallowa Lake and Dam, and it's important
that this happen. It has widespread local support, I tell you
up front. It is not a Federal dam, but it achieves enormous
Federal purposes, from the tribal trust and in recovering
endangered species.
And I would ask that statements from Jeff Obeson of the
Grand Ronde Watershed Council, and from Anthony Dean Johnson,
chairman of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, be
included in the record.
Also, Madam Chairman, a second bill, which is S. 1308,
again which Senator Wyden and I have introduced--or Senator
Wyden introduced and I have cosponsored. It allows the Federal
Government to undertake Federal implementation of a district
court consent decree involving the Savage Rapids Dam. Again,
this would, in summation, allow a dam to be removed, pumps to
be provided. So we would leave the agricultural community
whole, but allow tremendous additional salmon spawning grounds
to be added to the Grand Ronde River of Oregon.
Finally, the last bill that involves my State is S. 1307,
which allows the Bureau of Reclamation to assist in the
implementation of fish passage and fish screening facilities at
a non-Federal water project in the Columbia River Basin. This
is very critical to hydropower operations, along with meeting
endangered species obligations, and will go a long way to help
closing the chasm between farmers, people who use electricity,
and creating a more fish-friendly environment in that part of
my State.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith Follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon Smith, U.S. Senator From Oregon
Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate your convening this legislative
hearing today to take testimony on several water bills pending before
the subcommittee. I know that these bills are important to many of our
colleagues and to a number of communities throughout the western United
States. Three of these bills would affect water users in Oregon, and I
want to thank you for considering those bills today. I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses.
The first bill I have introduced, S. 1355, which is cosponsored by
my colleague from Oregon, would authorize the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to
participate in both the rehabilitation of Wallowa Lake Dam and in the
Wallowa Valley Water Management Plan. Identical legislation passed the
Senate last Congress, but was not enacted into law.
The actions authorized by S. 1355 enjoy widespread local support--
including water users, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the local watershed
council--and will improve water management and salmon habitat in the
watershed. The local entities have developed these two projects in
consultation with numerous state and federal agencies. The projects
provide a positive approach to resolving the water challenges facing
the basin. I am proud of all of the work done to date by the project
proponents to ensure broad-based support for their efforts.
I would like to ask unanimous consent to include statements from
Jeff Oveson of the Grand Ronde Model Watershed Council and from Anthony
D. Johnson, Chairman of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, in
the record. I would also like to submit for the hearing record an
updated version of the Wallowa Lake Dam Rehabilitation Program,* dated
December 27, 2002, which details the extensive assessments and design
that have already gone into this dam rehabilitation effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Wallowa Lake Dam is not a federal facility, I view the
projects authorized in this bill as critical to meeting the federal
government's tribal trust obligations in the basin, as well as helping
to recover federally listed endangered species. It even achieves the
objectives--on a site-specific basis--of the authority for off-site
mitigation being sought by Reclamation under the terms of the December
2000 biological opinion for Columbia River hydropower operations.
The second Oregon-specific bill to be heard today is S. 1308, which
Senator Wyden introduced and I have cosponsored. This bill authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of
Reclamation, to undertake activities for federal implementation
(including construction) in accordance with U.S. District Court Consent
Decree ``United States, et al., v. Grants Pass Irrigation District,
Civil No. 98-3034-HO,'' entered into on August 27, 2001.
The consent decree ended years of litigation about the impact of
Savage Rapids Dam on salmon runs in the Rogue River. Under the terms of
the decree, the District is to install pumps to deliver its irrigation
water supplies. Following the installation and testing of those pumps,
the dam will be removed.
This consent decree stipulates that the Grants Pass Irrigation
District may no longer operate the Savage Rapids Dam after November 1,
2005, although the court may grant a one-year extension. However, in
order to ensure that the District's patrons continue to receive
irrigation water, it is crucial that the new pumps be designed, built
and tested before the district is required to stop using the dam.
The Bureau of Reclamation has been working with the District for
several decades, having completed a study on fish passage improvements
in 1995. Reclamation is operating under existing authority to design
the pumps, but additional authority is needed to build and install
them.
Early on, I made a commitment to help the Grants Pass Irrigation
District resolve the controversies surrounding the dam in a manner
acceptable to the District and its patrons, and in a way that left the
District economically viable. This bill achieves both those goals.
I recognize that dam removal proposals can be controversial. This
facility, however, is not a large multi-purpose dam. It does not
generate electricity, does not provide flood control, and does not
affect commercial navigation. It is owned by the Grants Pass Irrigation
District, whose patrons and board have voted to accept the terms of the
consent decree.
The District has agreed to give up its use of the dam and to allow
for its removal in order to benefit fisheries, not because the dam is
no longer usable for irrigation purposes.
Because of this benefit, neither the consent decree nor the
legislation includes any requirement for the District to repay the
federal government for the costs associated with the installation of
the pumps or the removal of the dam. If Reclamation is going to seek
repayment, we will clarify our intent that no repayment by the District
is required by amending the legislation to stipulate that the funds
made available are non-reimbursable and non-returnable.
I look forward to working with the Grants Pass Irrigation District
and the other stakeholders to complete this effort. This is an
opportunity to restore salmon runs while maintaining an agricultural
way of life for the patrons of the District.
Finally, Madam Chairwoman, the Subcommittee will take testimony on
S. 1307, legislation which I sponsored to enable the Bureau of
Reclamation to assist in the implementation of fish passage and fish
screening facilities at non-federal water projects in much of the
Columbia River basin. This bill is similar to legislation submitted to
the Congress by the Administration during the 107th Congress.
The bill is necessary to ensure that the Bureau of Reclamation can
fulfill its obligations under the December 2000 biological opinion for
Columbia River hydropower operations. It is my understanding that this
authority is still needed, even though the biological opinion itself is
being modified as a result of a federal court ruling.
Before introducing this bill, I circulated the Administration's
draft legislation to numerous stakeholders throughout the basin. To the
extent possible, I have incorporated changes to address issues and
concerns raised at that time.
In closing, Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate your leadership on these
water issues of importance to so many Oregonians. I look forward to
working with you to move these bills through the process in an
expeditious manner.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. And your extended comments
will be included in the record.
Senator Bingaman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski,
for conducting the hearing today; both to you and to Senator
Dorgan, thanks for doing this.
Let me mention just one of the bills that does relate to my
State and which I sponsored, and am very appreciative at being
included as one of the bills to be considered. This is S. 1071.
It concerns possible water conservation project involving the
Arch Hurley Water Conservation District in eastern New Mexico.
It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
feasibility study on the proposed water conservation project in
consultation with the Arch Hurley Conservation District and
with the New Mexico State Engineer.
The project concept that was involved here was developed by
the conservation district. It could play a very significant
role in addressing the chronic water supply issues that are
faced by some communities there in the eastern part of our
State. Clearly, we do need to do more investigation as to the
feasibility of the project.
I would note that enactment of the bill and completion of
the feasibility study will be timely if we can pass this in the
near future. The State of New Mexico is currently developing a
State water plan. S. 1071 is consistent with that State water
plan, and would contribute to it. I've had a chance to review
the testimony by Commissioner Keys, and my understanding is
that the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of
Reclamation will support S. 1071, with some modifications. I
very much appreciate Commissioner Keys' willingness to do that,
and I certainly have no problem with the modifications that
he's going to be suggesting here.
So, again, thank you. And thank you for including us in
today's hearing.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. Thank
you for holding the hearing. I was a bit late, but the agenda
for this hearing is an agenda with some legislation that is
very important, and I am supportive and will be happy to work
with you to advance these pieces of legislation we're having
hearings on today.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
With that, I would like to recognize Commissioner John
Keys, Bureau of Reclamation, to present the administration's
testimony on the bills we have before us. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JOHN W. KEYS, III, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to be here,
certainly. Let me ask you, before we start, how you would like
to do this. Would you like me to do the testimony on all eight
of the bills and then answer questions, or would you like to go
one at a time. And if you want to go one at a time, what order
would you like to go in?
Senator Murkowski. Well, you can go in whatever order you
have there. Who knows, it might even be consistent with the
order I have up here. But since you're giving the testimony,
you can certainly go in order. It would probably be helpful if,
after you have given your summary on the legislation, if you
wanted to just pause and ask if there's any questions at that
moment, then we can move forward.
Mr. Keys. That sounds good. Certainly I would ask that all
of the written statements be included as a part of the record.
Senator Murkowski. They shall be.
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, S. 943 would authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to enter into one or more contracts
with the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, for the storage of water in
the Kendrick Project. Madam Chairman, the Department could
support S. 943 if our recommended modifications are made. S.
943 would authorize the Secretary to enter long-term contracts
with the State of Wyoming to store water in Seminoe Reservoir
for industrial and residential purposes. Our reason for our
changes is the current language is vague regarding whose water
is to be stored in Seminoe and the disposition of revenues
received for that storage. We have included the recommended
changes and a copy of the entire bill with those additions and
deletions noted in a written statement. With these changes, the
Department of the Interior would support S. 943, and we would
certainly be willing to sit down with the subcommittee and Mr.
Enzi and other sponsors of the bill to discuss the details of
those changes and to see if they're acceptable. That's our
testimony on S. 943.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keys follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Keys, III, Commissioner,
Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, on S. 943
My name is John Keys, and I am the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation. I appreciate the opportunity to provide the
Administration's views on S. 943, legislation to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to enter into one or more contracts with the
City of Cheyenne, Wyoming, for the storage of water in the Kendrick
Project in the State of Wyoming.
Madam Chairman, the Department could support S. 943 subject to
modifications recommended in this statement.
The Bureau of Reclamation has several dams and reservoirs located
on the North Platte River in Wyoming. The North Platte River System is
operated to optimize irrigation and power benefits. To accomplish these
activities, vacant space becomes available in Seminoe Reservoir as
water is released to other downstream Reclamation reservoirs.
By enacting S. 943, the Secretary of the Interior would be
authorized to enter into long-term contracts with the City of Cheyenne
to store water in Seminoe Reservoir for municipal and industrial use.
The Department does not support S. 943 as drafted because it is
vague regarding whose water is to be stored in Seminoe Reservoir and
the disposition of revenues received. To provide clarity, the
Department recommends the amendment attached to my statement be adopted
by the Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. To assist
the Subcommittee in understanding the modifications offered here today,
I am including a copy of the entire bill with the additions and
deletions. Again, Madam Chairman, with the above modifications, the
Department could support this legislation.
Attachment: Proposed Revisions
1. Modify the Introduction to read: ``To authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to contract with the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, for the
storage of the City's water in the Kendrick Project, Wyoming.''
2. Modify Section 1(a)(2) to read:
(2) KENDRICK PROJECT--The term ``Kendrick Project'' shall
mean the Bureau of Reclamation project on the North Platte
River, authorized by a finding of feasibility approved by the
President on August 30, 1935, constructed for irrigation and
electric power generation whose major features include Seminoe
Dam, Reservoir, and Powerplant; and Alcova Dam, and Powerplant.
3. Modify Section 1(b) and (c) to read:
(b) CONTRACTS--The Secretary is authorized to enter into one
or more contracts with the City for annual storage of the
City's water for municipal and industrial use in Seminoe Dam
and Reservoir of the Kendrick Project.
(c) CONDITIONS--
(1) TERM; RENEWAL--Any contract under subsection (b)
shall--
(A) have a term of not to exceed 40 years;
and
(B) may be renewed upon terms mutually
agreeable to the Secretary and the City, for
successive periods not to exceed 40 years each.
(2) REVENUES--Without regard to the Act of May 9,
1938, (52 Stat. 322; U.S.C. Sec. 392a), the revenues
received under any contract executed pursuant to this
section shall be credited as follows: All operation and
maintenance charges shall be credited against
applicable operation and maintenance costs of the
Kendrick Project; all remaining revenues shall be
credited to the Reclamation Fund as a credit to the
construction costs of the Kendrick Project.
(3) IMPACTS TO EXISTING CONTRACTORS--Contracts under
subsection (c) shall not negatively impact the Kendrick
Project, any existing Kendrick Project contractor, or
any existing Reclamation contractor on the North Platte
River System.
Senator Murkowski. I have no questions of Commissioner
Keys. Do any of the committee members?
[No response.]
Senator Murkowski. With that, thank you.
Mr. Keys. S. 1058 would provide a cost-sharing requirement
for the construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit in the
State of Colorado. Madam Chairman, S. 1058, as introduced,
states that the non-Federal share of the total cost of
construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit shall be no more
than 25 percent. This language would allow the Federal share to
be up to 100 percent.
The legislation further authorizes to be appropriated such
funds as necessary to pay the Federal share of the construction
cost and directs that the Federal share be non-reimbursable.
These provisions are contrary to the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
Act, and current Reclamation law and policy. Existing
Reclamation law includes the Fryinpan-Arkansas Project Act of
1962, which has already authorized the Arkansas Valley Conduit
and requires municipal and industrial project beneficiaries to
repay 100 percent of appropriated project costs. Madam
Chairman, with these differences the administration cannot
support S. 1058, as introduced.
I would digress for just a second here and say that we have
sat down with Mr. Allard and talked about these cost-share
provisions, and certainly offer our services to him to try to
come up with a way, another way, to try to, you might say,
finance or work with them on developing a project that would
produce the benefits there.
Another area of concern is the cost-share and appropriation
language in the bill. It's implied that the sponsor's
contributions would be provided at dates and times that would
support the project's funding requirements. However, it appears
that the intent of the bill is that the sponsors enter into a
contract with Reclamation for repayment of 25 percent of the
total project cost, and this payment be treated like other
Reclamation repayment processes. If such is the case, the
project would be funded 100 percent from appropriations, with
the sponsor's 25 percent share to be repaid over many years
following completion of construction.
Let me emphasize that this bill is precedent-setting for
Reclamation. Current municipal and industrial water
beneficiaries across the 17 Western States pay 100 percent of
the cost for that allocated portion to municipal and industrial
purposes, and they pay interest on that money. Across the
Western United States, there are currently about 287 districts
that have M&I contracts, and there is in excess of 300 of them.
All of them pay 100 percent, with interest.
Now, I do understand that Senator Allard is working to
change some of this language that clarifies the 25 percent and
when it would be paid. Madam Chairman, I would note that the
Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee recognized
the danger of such a precedent by including the following
language in the fiscal year 2004 committee report language. The
committee has included an additional $200,000 to continue the
reevaluation report. The committee supports these efforts, but
believes that the project needs appropriate review by the
authorizing committee. In particular, the committee notes that
``The project should follow the standard Reclamation policy of
an M&I project of the beneficiaries paying 100 percent of the
allocated costs.'' Additionally, S. 1058 does not address the
repayment for operation maintenance and replacement of the
conduit. It is Reclamation's position that such costs should be
paid by the project beneficiaries.
One last point. Should any legislation proceed, it should
be clarified to assure that the cost ceiling for the Fryingpan-
Arkansas Project is increased to accommodate the Arkansas
Valley Conduit construction cost.
In conclusion, Madam Chairman, the administration cannot
support S. 1058 with the Federal cost-share that is contrary to
existing Reclamation law. I would like to emphasize that the
existing Fryingpan-Arkansas Project authorization appropriately
addresses the responsibility of the beneficiaries to pay for
the project benefits they would receive, as in the case of all
Reclamation projects across the Western United States. The
administration does recognize the water quality and water
supply issues facing the Arkansas River Valley, and we look
forward to working with the project sponsors, with your
subcommittee, with Mr. Allard, with members of the committee to
address the concerns that we have raised about S. 1058 and to
explore other legislative alternatives.
That's my testimony on S. 1058.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keys follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior, on S. 1058
My name is John Keys and I am Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation. I appreciate the opportunity to provide the
Administration's views on S. 1058, legislation to provide a cost
sharing requirement for the construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit
(Conduit) in the State of Colorado.
S. 1058, as introduced, states that the non-Federal share of the
total costs of construction shall not be more than 25 percent. This
language would allow the Federal share to be up to 100 percent. The
legislation further authorizes to be appropriated such sums as
necessary to pay the Federal share of the Conduit construction costs,
and directs the Federal share to be non-reimbursable. This is contrary
to the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Act and current Reclamation law and
policy. Therefore, the Administration cannot support S. 1058, as
introduced, because it is contrary to existing Reclamation law which
calls for inclusion of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Act of August 16,
1962 (which already authorizes the Conduit) requiring municipal and
industrial project beneficiaries to repay 100 percent of appropriate
project costs.
The Administration is aware of the interest Arkansas River Valley
residents have in seeking alternative means of obtaining safe and clean
water supplies. We understand that the beneficiaries are looking for
Federal financing for the Conduit, given that some of the communities
in the Arkansas River Valley may be facing considerable expense to
comply with federally-mandated water quality standards. The need for a
pipeline was recognized back in 1962 when Congress authorized the
Conduit.
The Conduit is an authorized, but never built, feature of the
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project (Project). The 1962 Fryingpan-Arkansas
Project (Fry-Ark) Act, which authorized the Project, required that
municipal water supply works either be constructed by communities
themselves, or, if that is infeasible, by the Secretary, with repayment
of actual costs and interest within 50 years.
During development of the Project, Reclamation found the Conduit to
be economically feasible, but the beneficiaries lacked the bonding
capability to construct the works themselves. The beneficiaries of the
Conduit found that it also was financially infeasible to repay
Reclamation within 50 years if Reclamation were to construct the
Conduit. It was agreed at that time to reconsider construction of the
Conduit in the future if proposals with viable support were
forthcoming.
Increased water treatment costs, due to the poor quality of locally
available groundwater, and requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act
have renewed local interest in the Conduit. The Conduit would transport
water from Pueblo Dam, a feature of the Fry-Ark Project, to communities
along the Arkansas River, extending about 110 miles to near Lamar,
Colorado. The Lower Arkansas River Basin is comprised of rural
communities, with the largest town, Lamar, having an estimated
population of 8,600.
The legislation permits inclusion of Fiscal Year 2002 and
subsequent year's costs related to constructing the Conduit. However,
the definition of ``construction'' is not clear and would need to
include all project activities including planning activities, if 2002
and 2003 costs are to qualify.
Additionally, the cost share and appropriations language in the
bill imply that the sponsor's contributions will be provided at rates
and times that support the project's funding requirements, much like
activities funded under a cooperative agreement. However, apparently
the intent of the legislation is that the sponsors enter into a
contract with Reclamation for repayment of 25 percent of total project
costs and that this repayment be treated like other Reclamation
repayment processes. If this is the case then the project would be
funded 100 percent from appropriations and the sponsor's 25 percent
share repaid over many years following completion of construction. We
emphasize again, that this bill is precedent setting for Reclamation in
that current beneficiaries across the 17 Western States projects pay
100 percent. We note that the Senate Energy and Water Appropriation
Subcommittee recognized this by inclusion of the following in the
Fiscal Year 2004 Committee report language (S. RPT. 108-105): ``The
Committee has included an additional $200,000 to continue the
reevaluation report. The committee supports these efforts but believes
that the project needs appropriate review by the authorizing committee,
in particular, the Committee notes that the project, if authorized,
should follow the standard Reclamation policy of an M&I project of the
beneficiaries paying 100 percent of the allocated costs.''
In addition, this legislation does not address the payment for
operation, maintenance and replacement of the Conduit. It is
Reclamation's position that such costs should be paid by the Conduit
beneficiaries. Also, should any legislation proceed, it should be
clarified to assure that the cost ceiling for the Fryingpan-Arkansas
Project is increased to accommodate Conduit construction costs.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Administration can not support S.
1058 with a Federal cost share that is contrary to existing Reclamation
law. I would like to emphasize that the existing Fry-Ark Project
authorization appropriately addresses the responsibility of the
beneficiaries to pay for the direct benefits they would receive, as is
the case at all Reclamation projects across the west.
The Administration recognizes the water quality issues facing the
Arkansas River Valley and is open to working with the project sponsors,
Senator Allard, and members of the Committee to address the concerns we
have raised with S. 1058 or to explore other legislative alternatives.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
Senator Murkowski. A very quick question for you. You
mentioned the operation and maintenance and replacement costs.
Does the Bureau have any estimate on what the these costs would
be annually if this project were to go forward?
Senator Allard. Madam Chairman, may I interject at this
point with a question? In meeting with Mr. Keys, we have
indicated that it's not the desire of the communities or the
area to saddle the Federal Government with operation and
maintenance costs. And so your question almost becomes moot
because we're willing to take that out of the bill and not make
that a part of the requirement on the Federal Government. And I
think that they understand their obligations and have no
intention of saddling the Federal Government with that
obligation.
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, I would add we don't know yet
what the OM&R costs are, because we would do the reevaluation
and certainly the feasibility work and decide what that is.
Senator Murkowski. Question, Senator Allard?
Senator Allard. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I appreciate the testimony of Mr. Keys. Now, the written
statement that has been submitted to the committee had rather
strong language in opposition to the legislation. Since then,
Mr. Keys and I have sat down and visited a little bit, and I
just want to have him confirm that you will be willing to work
with us. There are some differences there that you've
expressed. One of them is the operation and maintenance costs.
We've talked about that. We're willing to take that out of the
bill. And you said that potentially the Federal Government
could be saddled with 100 percent of the cost. That's certainly
possible, I guess, with the language that you point out. That
wasn't the intent of this sponsor, because the communities had
indicated to me that they feel they have the capability, based
on an independent survey by an engineering firm that looked at
the cost and everything, that they feel that they could pay for
25 percent, and they're more than willing to saddle themselves
with that obligation. And if we need language within the bill
that is necessary to make that clear, again, we would be
willing to work with Mr. Keys and the Department. And all I
would hope from Mr. Keys and my question at this point is, will
you continue to work with us in trying to get some of these
objections resolved within the bill?
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, Mr. Allard, certainly we would be
more than willing to work with you through that authorization,
through the original Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Act, or any
other legislative solution that may be available to us at the
time.
Senator Allard. Madam Chairman, one other. My staff asked
me a question to put to you, and I'm not sure I understand the
basis for this question, but it may need clarification, and if
you need clarification, I would be glad to provide it. The
committee report is not entirely accurate, they say, and the
committee is reviewing it, and it has been authorized. Do you
agree?
Mr. Keys. Do I agree the project has already been
authorized? If that is the question----
Senator Allard. We're talking about the energy and water
development report language that says that it's not authorized.
But, in reality, the project has been authorized. What we're
discussing here is the match. Do you agree?
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, Mr. Allard, I do agree that their
language says ``if authorized.'' I would say that they are
talking about this legislation and not the project itself. I
would never be a person to point out that one of our committees
was wrong, but the language is not quite right.
Senator Allard. Thank you. And that is one thing I wanted
to clarify, Madam Chairman, for the record.
Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Dorgan, did you have questions?
Senator Dorgan. Madam Chairman, thank you very much.
First of all, thanks for your testimony on the legislation
we're having a hearing on today. I want to take the
opportunity, however, to ask you, Mr. Keys, about another
issue.
You know that we've had substantial concerns about the
water studies that are necessary as a part of the Dakota Water
Resources Act. The Bureau is undertaking those studies that
deal with the water needs and how those needs might be solved
or resolved with respect to the Red River Valley. I had a
hearing in Fargo, North Dakota, and your office was represented
at that hearing. And at that hearing, we learned that the
Bureau will miss the deadline in the underlying law by about 4
years. You indicated that the study should be completed in the
year 2005, and that misses the deadline by about 4 years. I've
written you letters expressing as much angst as a Lutheran
Norwegian could express to a Federal agency, and you've
responded to them, but let me ask you where you are in this
process.
I have, from those letters, your response about what the
targets are and what the way points might be. One of them is
finalize water needs in the Red River Valley, North Dakota,
September 2003. Can you tell me if that's been done?
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, Mr. Dorgan, I was in North Dakota
in August, sat down with my folks, and got a briefing on the
study. At that time, the studies were on schedule. I have not
seen the interim report on those water requirements yet, but I
understand they're on schedule. I know that our overall
schedule is still the dates that we are going to meet.
Senator Dorgan. Could you provide for me the September 2003
target date information, which would be finalized water needs
in Red River Valley? If that is done on time, then I will be
more satisfied, but I would like to see what has been done in
order to satisfy that particular target date which you've
provided with me.
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, Mr. Dorgan, I'd be happy to do
that.
Senator Dorgan. And that's--the next major target date
would be October 2004, which is complete hydrology modeling.
But I'm especially interested in the September 2003 target
date, because that's the first one following a number of public
input opportunities. It's the first one where something is
supposed to have been done, and I would like to see what was
done or even if it's done.
Commissioner Keys, we had the Secretary testify here. We're
going to have a hearing on rural water issues in the future,
and I will not go into this in great depth, but I have real
difficulties with what's happened with respect to the budget
dealing with rural water issues. You are well familiar with the
rural water projects that were zeroed out of the President's
budget. North Dakota had a project called the NAWS Project. The
project is underway. Groundbreaking has been held. And the
project is being built. It's desperately needed by the
communities for fresh water, good quality water, and we were
told that all these projects were zeroed out. And then I
discovered later that was not the case.
In fact, money was restored, and I was told it was restored
because the President gave a speech in South Dakota, and I
said, ``Show me the speech,'' and it turns out they restored
money for two water projects. He gave a speech in South Dakota
saying he supported one. These are identical projects to the
North Dakota Project.
As you know, they are part of the same generic area of
rural water projects that we have been told by the Secretary
had been zeroed out because OMB has been evaluating them with a
PART, P-A-R-T, program. And so I believe that we were told by
OMB the things that were not true, and I let the Secretary know
it wasn't true.
It turns out the testimony was not accurate, and I want to
work with you when we have the next hearing. I'll go into this
in greater depth, because I understand even if one makes a
mistake, if you make a mistake consistently, that's fine, but
if there are politics here with respect to water funding
because a deal was made someplace, and we're told that all
projects are treated the same, and then we discover, quite by
accident, that was not the case, that is difficult. And your
job is not to be the politician here.
You're running the Bureau, and I appreciate the work you
do, and you're not going to be--answer this today, but I did
want to tell you, I'm meeting with OMB about this. I will meet
with the Secretary, as well. But when we have the rural water
hearing, I will want to plumb the depths of this just a bit
with you, because, as you know, rural water projects are very,
very important.
The NAWS Project, which, in fact, you're well familiar with
the NAWS Project and have been helpful on that project, and you
understand its importance, so you understand my anxiety when we
see a zeroing out of the funding for it and are told something
that I believe now is not necessarily the case.
Commissioner, thank you. You will provide for me, then, the
finalized water needs, and then I will look forward to our next
gathering, when we talk about rural water in some greater
depth. And, again, let me also say thanks for your testimony on
the array of bills today. And thanks for your past help, as
well, on the NAWS Project and related issues that you've been
involved with. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Wyden, we have made opening statements from the
committee members. If you would care to make one at this point
in time, or reserve it for when you ask Commissioner Keys
questions, what he is doing at this point in time is going down
through the bills giving his brief summary. And then if we have
questions on these specific bills, we are taking that time to
ask them.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Madam Chair, if I could just very briefly
touch on a couple of points, and I really appreciate your
thoughtfulness. You have to almost have a juggling act these
days as we move to the end of the session to get done, and I
appreciate your thoughtfulness.
I just want to highlight for the Commissioner some of my
concerns, as my friend has mentioned, particularly with respect
to the Savage Rapids Dam issue. Madam Chair, I would ask first
that testimony from some Oregon stakeholders--there are an
array of environmental groups, industry groups, and, if I could
just ask that they be submitted for the record. They're all in
support of the Smith-Wyden legislation.
Senator Murkowski. You can submit those for the record.
Senator Wyden. Madam Chair, it's our understanding the
administration is going to testify that the costs associated
with this project should be reimbursed to the Federal
Government from the Grants Pass Irrigation District. The point
of this landmark compromise is to benefit fisheries--not the
irrigation district--which has agreed to give up its use of the
dam and to allow for its removal: not because the dam is no
longer usable for irrigation purposes, but just to benefit the
fish. It's because of this that the consent decree in the
legislation doesn't include any requirement with the district
to repay the Federal Government for the cost associated with
the pumping a dam removal plan, nor have we ever intended for
such costs to be repaid.
And, Commissioner, again, my apologies for the bad manners,
but the committee is aware of the fiscal situation. You've
indicated that the Bureau's priority is to complete existing
obligations prior to initiating new projects. But we feel, our
State and our two Senators, that the Bureau is certainly well
along the way in terms of working on the process. It has been
studied since 1971. The R&D was completed in 1995, and so it is
an ongoing project. And given the urgency of getting the pumps
installed and operational by November 2005, and assuming we
give you the new authority so you can comply with the consent
decree, I'm very hopeful that you will be able to give the
committee, and particularly Oregon's two Senators, greater
assurances that you would budget appropriately for the project
in 2005.
If it were not for the frenzied nature of my afternoon, I
would stay and get into this in greater detail, Madam Chair,
but you are nice to let me make this short statement,
particularly with the concern I have today.
Commissioner, you may want to take some additional time to
get back to us for the record on that, but it's certainly the
concern of myself and Senator Smith. We very much want
assurances with respect to budgeting so that it would be
appropriate for the project, and particularly with that 2005
date in mind.
Madam Chair, thank you again for your thoughtfulness.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. And I should note for the
record that we have received submitted written statements and
supporting materials from Senator Nelson and Congresswoman
Napolitano on S. 1027 and H.R. 1284, respectively.
So, with that, Commissioner Keys, if you want to proceed to
the next on your list?
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, S. 1027 would amend the
Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1998 to extend
certain contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and certain
irrigation water contractors in the States of Wyoming and
Nebraska. Madam Chairman, the Department supports the language
of S. 1027, as written. S. 1027 would allow Reclamation to
extend each of the water service and repayment contracts for
the Glendo unit of the Missouri River Basin Project for a
period of two years, until December 31, 2005, or the term of
the cooperative agreement entered into by the States of
Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska and the Secretary of the
Interior.
That agreement covers an ongoing research study and
Endangered Species Act consultations for the entire Platte
River Basin that are not scheduled for completion until late
2004. S. 1027 will allow Reclamation to proceed with completing
the renewal of the Glendo contracts following the record of
decision that would result from that Platte River process. In
summary, the Department supports the legislation for extension
of the Glendo contracts provided by S. 1027.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keyes follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior, on S. 1027
Madam Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is John
Keys and I am the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you
for the opportunity to appear today to provide the Administration's
views on S. 1027.
S. 1027 would amend the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act
of 1998 to require the Secretary of the Interior to extend each of the
water service or repayment contracts for the Glendo Unit of the
Missouri River Basin Project for a period of 2 years until December 31,
2005, or for the term of the cooperative agreement entered into by the
states of Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado and the Secretary of the
Interior.
Madam Chairman, the Department supports the S. 1027 language as
written.
On July 1, 1997, the States of Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado
entered into a cooperative agreement for Platte River research and
other efforts relating to endangered species habitats along the Central
Platte River in Nebraska with the United States Department of the
Interior. The purpose of the cooperative agreement is to jointly
undertake a basin-wide effort to improve the habitat of four threatened
and endangered species that use the Platte River. Successful completion
of the cooperative study will lead to development of a basin-wide
program that will serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative to
offset the effects of existing and new water related activities in the
Platte River Basin.
Glendo Dam and Reservoir is one of several Bureau of Reclamation
dams and reservoirs on the North Platte River that operate as an
integrated system. The Bureau of Reclamation has been proceeding with a
process to consult under the Endangered Species Act on the entire
reservoir system operations.
To successfully renew long-term contracts for Glendo Reservoir
water will require the completion of Endangered Species Act
consultation on the Bureau of Reclamation's North Platte River system
operations. Such consultation will not be completed until after the
study and final programmatic environmental impact statement have been
completed. The final programmatic environmental impact statement is
scheduled to be completed by November 2004, with the record of decision
to follow in December 2004. S. 1027 will allow Reclamation to proceed
with completing the renewal of the Glendo contracts following the
record of decision.
Madam Chairman, in summary, the Department supports the legislation
for extension of the Glendo contracts provided by S. 1027. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. The Chair has no questions.
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, S. 1071 would authorize a
feasibility study on water conservation within the Arch Hurley
Conservancy District in Texas--or in New Mexico. The
feasibility study would also identify options for using saved
water and cost-sharing options, including debt relief for the
district. We could support S. 1071 with modifications to
section 2(a), the authorization of appropriations. The district
is currently suffering from severe drought. I personally
visited the district about 3 weeks ago, and in walking the
district with those people, they've not had water since the
middle of June 2002. In other words, no water for a year and a
half. The low water supplies had significant impacts on the
irrigation system. Primarily, maintenance has been deferred and
portions of the system are in disrepair.
If the feasibility study identifies debt relief as a
benefit for the district, the funds once used for debt payments
will be available for maintenance of the irrigation system.
Furthermore, the feasibility study will consider making some of
the saved water available to the district resulting in an
increased water supply.
We believe that a feasibility study is appropriate to
consider whether conveying saved water to the Pecos River, if
possible. Importation of the saved water into the Pecos River
Basin will reduce impacts from the Endangered Species Act to
Pecos Valley farmers. The Department is primarily concerned
with the amount of $500,000 authorized in section 2(a) to
complete the study. Our total cost estimate for the feasibility
study is $2\1/2\ million. Reclamation recommends up to two and
a half million dollars be authorized for the feasibility study
for Arch Hurley Conservancy District.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keys follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior, on S. 1071
Madam Chairman, my name is John Keys III and I am the Commissioner
of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to be here
today to present the views of the Department of the Interior
(Department) regarding S. 1071, which would authorize a feasibility
study on water conservation within the Arch Hurley Conservancy District
(District). The feasibility study will also identify options for using
saved water and cost sharing options, including debt relief for the
District. We could support S. 1071 with modifications to Section 2(a),
authorization of appropriations.
The District is currently suffering from a severe drought. In 2002
the District members received 3 inches of water per acre, only 17% of
their maximum allotment. The water was delivered in a period of six-
weeks. In 2003, no water was delivered to any of the District members.
The District has a history of low water supply and has experienced
trouble meeting repayment obligations. Deferrals of the annual
repayment were made in 1975, 1976, 2002, and 2003.
The low water supply has had significant impacts on the irrigation
system. Primarily, maintenance has been deferred and portions of the
system are in disrepair. If the feasibility study identifies debt
relief as a benefit for the District, the funds once used for debt
payments will be available for maintenance of the irrigation system.
Furthermore, the feasibility study will consider making some of the
saved water available to the District, resulting in an increased water
supply.
We believe that a feasibility study is appropriate to consider
whether conveying saved water to the Pecos River is practicable.
Conveying the water to the Pecos River has many benefits. Like many
other western rivers, the Pecos River is over allocated, contains a
threatened species, and is in danger of violating an interstate
compact. This year the state of New Mexico delivery shortfall to Texas
may reach 6,000 acre-feet. Under no circumstances is the state of New
Mexico allowed to provide less than required by the compact.
Additionally, the Pecos River has target flows to prevent jeopardy of
the threatened Pecos Bluntnose Shiner. Conserved water from the
District will provide flexibility when meeting the identified target
flows. Importation of the saved water into the Pecos River Basin will
reduce impacts from the Endangered Species Act to Pecos Valley farmers.
With respect to S. 1071, the Department is primarily concerned with
the amount of $500,000 authorized in Section 2(a) to complete the
study. Our total cost estimate for the feasibility study is $2,500,000.
Reclamation recommends up to $2,500,000 be authorized.
Madam Chairman that concludes my remarks and I would be happy to
respond to any questions the Committee may have.
Senator Murkowski. Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, S. 1307 would authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to assist in the implementation of
fish passage and screening facilities at non-Federal water
projects. The Department supports passage of S. 1307 with some
suggested modifications. The Congress has provided significant
support to efforts currently underway in the Pacific Northwest
to address the needs of many salmon and steelhead species
listed on the threatened and endangered species list. By
providing the authority and the funding to necessary Federal
agencies to address the needs of the various life stages of
these species, we think we can help solve the problem there.
Among these efforts is a biological opinion issued by the
National Marine Fisheries Service in December 2000 concerning
the operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System.
The three action agencies--the Bureau of Reclamation, the
Corps of Engineers, and the Bonneville Power Administration--
have consulted with National Marine Fisheries Service on the
operation of the power system. As required by section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act in 2000, National Marine Fisheries found
the operation and configuration of the hydropower system could
not be modified enough to prevent jeopardy to eight of the 12
listed anadromous species affected by the system.
Consequently, to avoid jeopardy, National Marine Fisheries
identified a reasonable and prudent alternative, which included
numerous actions that could improve the survival of the
species. Among the actions recommended to Reclamation is a
habitat initiative to improve tributary spawning and rearing
conditions by working with private parties to screen diversions
and to provide fish passage at non-Federal water-diversion
structures. Screening and passage projects provide near-term
benefits by reducing fish mortality and providing access to
better tributary migration, spawning, and rearing habitat.
There is an immediate benefit to the species from these
projects.
What we have seen is that every time there is a diversion
in a stream, the percentage of water taken out by that
diversion is the same percentage of fish lost to that
diversion, and certainly the benefits to working with non-
Federal projects is what we are focusing on here.
Reclamation currently has the authority to provide
engineering, design, and environmental compliance assistance to
owners of non-Federal water diversion facilities. But we lack
the authority to fund the construction of these fish screens
and ladders at such facilities. In its findings and commitments
on the 2000 power system biological opinion, Reclamation agreed
to seek such authority from Congress. The need for this
authority has been highlighted in the ongoing litigation
concerning the Federal Columbia Power System biological
opinion.
In May of this year, the Federal District Court of Oregon
ruled that the 2000 biological opinion is flawed because some
anticipated future actions by Federal agencies are not
reasonably certain to occur. Reclamation's lack of authority to
fund the construction and needed screen and migration barrier
projects on non-Federal facilities is one of the problems. This
deficiency would be eliminated by the passage of S. 1307. S.
1307 also provides Reclamation with the authority to address
similar projects, should they be necessary, to comply with the
Endangered Species Act related to our other non-power-system
projects. In the States of Washington and Oregon, at the
request of the State of Idaho, Reclamation projects in the
Snake River Basin would not be included under this authority.
A further provision of S. 1307 specifies that the authority
would only be utilized when Reclamation determined it would
enable Reclamation to meet its obligations under section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act. The administration supports these
provisions. S. 1307 confirms that the ownership of the project
features and land operation and maintenance responsibilities
for those features and their affiliated water rights, as
defined by State water laws, shall remain with the private
owner. Also, section 5 specifies that these screen and fish
passage projects are not Reclamation projects subject to
Federal Reclamation law. We support these limitations, as well.
Owners of the non-Federal water diversions to which
screening and passage would be added receive certain benefits
associated with bringing these facilities into compliance with
the Endangered Species Act. The administration believes that
some level of cost-share should be expected from those
individuals in return for the benefits that they're likely to
receive.
We would suggest that the subcommittee consider a cost-
share requirement of 35 percent, including the value of in-kind
services.
S. 1307, if enacted, would allow Reclamation much-needed
authority and flexibility in avoiding jeopardy to endangered
and threatened salmon species in compliance with the Endangered
Species Act. Subject to making provision for an appropriate
cost-share, we urge the Committee to act expeditiously on this
bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keys follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior, on S. 1307
Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, I am John Keys,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased
to be here today to present the Department of the Interior's
(Department) views on S. 1307, which would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to assist in
the implementation of fish passage and screening facilities at non-
federal water projects. As discussed more fully below, the
Administration could support passage of this bill with the suggested
modifications.
Let me begin by saying that the Subcommittee is aware of the
tremendous effort currently underway in the Pacific Northwest to
address the needs of the many salmon and steelhead species listed as
threatened and endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Congress has provided significant support to these efforts by providing
authority and funding to numerous federal agencies to address the needs
of the various life stages of these species.
Among these efforts is a Biological Opinion issued by the National
Marine Fisheries Service (now NOAA Fisheries) in December 2000
concerning the operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System
(FCRPS) of the Columbia River. The FCRPS includes 14 major dams on the
Columbia and Snake Rivers operated as an integrated system by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and Reclamation for flood control and
hydropower generation. The Bonneville Power Administration transports
and markets the power generated by the system. As required by section 7
of the ESA, these three action agencies have consulted with NOAA
Fisheries on the operation of the FCRPS.
In 2000, NOAA Fisheries found that the operation and configuration
of the hydropower system could not be modified enough to prevent
jeopardy to 8 of the 12 listed anadromous species affected by the
system. Consequently, to avoid jeopardy, NOAA Fisheries identified a
reasonable and prudent alternative which included numerous actions that
could improve the survival of those species in what are known as the
other ``H's'' harvest, hatcheries and habitat. Among the actions
recommended to Reclamation is a habitat initiative to improve tributary
spawning and rearing conditions by working with private parties to
screen diversions and to provide fish passage at non-federal water
diversion structures. Screen and passage projects provide near-term
benefits. There is an immediate benefit to the species by reducing fish
mortality and providing access to better tributary migration, spawning,
and rearing habitat. Improved adult access to tributary habitat
produces more juveniles, and juveniles enjoy generally higher survival
rates in the first spawning season in which these projects are in
place.
Reclamation currently has the authority to provide engineering
design and environmental compliance assistance to the owners of non-
federal water diversion facilities, but lacks the authority to fund the
construction of fish screens and passage at such facilities. In its
Findings and Commitments on the 2000 FCRPS Biological Opinion,
Reclamation agreed to seek such authority from the Congress. The
Administration requested this authority last year in a proposal that
was provided to Congress. Although S. 1307 would not provide habitat
restoration authority as requested in the Administration's proposal, it
does provide much of the same authority as that proposed bill.
The need for this authority has been highlighted in the ongoing
litigation concerning the FCRPS Biological Opinion. In May of this
year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled that the
2000 Biological Opinion is flawed because some anticipated future
actions by federal agencies are not reasonably certain to occur.
Reclamation's lack of authority to fund the construction of needed
screen and migration barrier projects on non-federal facilities falls
within this category. This deficiency would be eliminated by the
passage of S. 1307.
S. 1307 would also provide Reclamation with the authority to fund
such screening and passage projects should they be necessary in order
for the non-FCRPS Reclamation projects within the Columbia River Basin
in the States of Washington and Oregon to comply with section 7(a)(2)
of the ESA. At the request of Reclamation water users in Idaho,
Reclamation projects in the Snake River Basin would not be included
under this authority. A further provision of S. 1307 specifies that the
authority would only be utilized when Reclamation determines that it
would enable the agency to meet its obligations under section 7 of the
ESA. The Administration supports these provisions.
The legislation would also confirm that the ownership of non-
federal projects and land, operation and maintenance responsibilities
for those projects, and their affiliated water rights as defined by
state water law, shall remain with the private owner. Moreover, section
5 of the bill specifies that these screen and fish passage projects are
not Reclamation projects subject to federal reclamation law. We support
these limitations as well.
We note that owners of the non-federal projects receiving
assistance under this legislation will benefit from bringing their
facilities into compliance with the ESA. It is appropriate to require
some degree of cost sharing from those individuals who may
substantially benefit from these actions. We strongly encourage the
Subcommittee to consider a cost-share requirement of 35 percent,
including the value of in-kind services.
In conclusion, if enacted, S. 1307 would provide Reclamation with
much needed authority and flexibility in helping us comply with the ESA
by avoiding jeopardy to endangered and threatened salmon species. We
urge the Subcommittee to act expeditiously on this bill and to include
an appropriate cost share provision. We stand ready to work with the
Subcommittee in that regard.
Madam Chair, this concludes my testimony. I welcome any questions
that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, S. 1308 would authorize the
Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, in cooperation with
the affected State and local entities, to implement the terms
of the August 27, 2001, U.S. District Court Consent Decree
addressing permanent resolution of fish passage problems at
Savage Rapids Dam near Grant's Pass on Oregon's Rogue River. We
commend the efforts the parties have made to resolve the
problems in a cooperative spirit to help protect Rogue River
Basin salmon and steelhead. Savage Rapids Dam is owned and
operated by the Grant's Pass Irrigation District. It is not a
Federal facility. Lawsuits filed by the State of Oregon and the
United States on behalf of the National Marine Fisheries
Service resulted in the previously mentioned consent decree.
The bottom line of the decree is that Grant's Pass
irrigation district must cease irrigation diversions with
Savage Rapids Dam, using the dam no later than November 1,
2006. The consent decree is general and open-ended with respect
to how the financing would work and whether there is any
repayment obligation for the work performed by Grant's Pass
Irrigation District. Reclamation's 1995 planning report and
environmental statement on improving fish passage at the dam
focuses on construction of pumping facilities, followed by dam
removal, combined with natural erosion of the sediment trapped
behind the dam as the preferred alternative.
The baseline Federal costs for the plan have been
estimated, in 2003, to be approximately $15 million to build
the new pumping station and $6 million to remove the existing
dam. Additional National Environmental Policy Act funding would
be required in this effort, and those costs are included in
these estimates.
It is important to note that this project was not included
in the administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request. The
Department of the Interior reserves the right to comment on the
appropriateness of any appropriations, based on the current
facts and the latest analysis. Reclamation is facing
obligations for many previously authorized Federal projects.
While we recognize that completion of this project would
permanently eliminate the impacts that operation of the dam
currently have on coho salmon, which are listed under the
Endangered Species Act, as well as other anadromous fish, we
believe completing our existing obligations should have a
higher priority over work on non-Federal facilities.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keys follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior, on S. 1308
I am John Keys, and I am the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 1308.
This legislation authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior and
Commerce, in cooperation with affected State and local entities, to
implement the terms of the August 27, 2001 U.S. District Court Consent
Decree addressing permanent resolution of fish passage problems at
Savage Rapids Dam (Dam) near Grants Pass on Oregon's Rogue River. We
commend the efforts the parties have made to resolve the problems in a
cooperative spirit to help protect Rogue River basin salmon and
steelhead.
Savage Rapids Dam is owned and operated by the Grants Pass
Irrigation District (GPID).
In 1971, Congress authorized Reclamation to conduct a feasibility
study of the Grants Pass Division of the Rogue River Basin Project.
Shortly thereafter, a feasibility study was started to identify
solutions to fish passage problems at the Dam and ways to improve
GPID's distribution system. This study was eventually stopped because
of a lack of local consensus over the alternatives. In 1988,
Reclamation initiated the Josephine County Water Management Improvement
Study in response to requests by Josephine County and GPID. The main
objectives of this study were to (1) help resolve conflicts over water
uses in Josephine County, and (2) identify a permanent solution to
salmon and steelhead passage problems as Savage Rapids Dam. Because of
a number of factors, the study focus narrowed to fish issues at the
Dam. Reclamation's planning report/final environmental statement was
filed on August 30, 1995 followed by a Record of Decision.
Lawsuits filed by the State of Oregon, and the United States (on
behalf of the National Marine Fisheries Service), resulted in the
previously mentioned Consent Decree. The bottom line of the Decree is
that GPID must cease irrigation diversions using the dam no later than
November 1, 2006.
The Consent Decree is general and open ended with respect to how
the financing will work and whether there is any repayment obligation
for the work performed for GPID. In addition, it presents two possible
plans. The first plan focuses on construction of pumping facilities
followed by dam removal combined with natural erosion of the sediment
trapped behind the dam. This is the preferred alternative from
Reclamation's 1995 planning report/final environmental statement on
improving fish passage at the Dam. The second plan, which was
previously considered by Congress, would add to the first plan by
providing a subsidy for pumping power and funding for as yet
unidentified riparian, fishery habitat, and recreation habitat, and
recreation enhancements.
The baseline Federal costs for this first plan has been estimated
in 2003 to be approximately $15 million for the pumping facilities and
over $6 million for dam removal. Additional NEPA analysis will be
required in this effort and those costs are included in these
estimates. The Federal costs for the additional elements in the second
plan are unclear. The cost for pumping power is currently estimated at
$250,000 per year. The cost of the remaining plan elements are open
ended and would depend on what limitations Congress chooses to place on
them.
It is important to note that this project was not included in the
Administration's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request. Reclamation is
currently preparing its submittal to the FY 2006 budget, which is the
earliest that the project could be considered in the President's
request. The Department of the Interior reserves the right to comment
on the appropriateness of appropriations based on the current facts and
latest analysis. In summary, Reclamation is facing obligations for many
previously authorized federal projects. While we recognize that
completion of this project would permanently eliminate the impacts that
operation of the Dam currently has on coho salmon (which are listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act) as well as on other
anadromous fish, we believe completing our existing obligations should
have a higher priority over work on non-federal facilities.
This concludes my statement. I will be glad to answer any
questions.
Senator Murkowski. Commissioner, on S. 1308, we understand
that Reclamation completed a final environmental statement in
1995, on improving fish passage at the dam. Does Reclamation
support the proposal outlined in that report?
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, the report is a good report. It
is one that we had a lot of local input on. We worked very
closely with the State in producing that report. And the
solution is a good solution. We're saying that it's a good
report, it's a good project, but that it should not be a Bureau
of Reclamation responsibility to fund it.
Senator Murkowski. So I think you support it, but you just
aren't in agreement with the funding?
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, it's a good report. We just don't
think the Bureau of Reclamation should pay for it.
Senator Murkowski. All right, that's fair.
Okay, if you want to move to the next one, then.
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, S. 1355 would authorize
Reclamation to participate in implementation of the Wallowa
Lake Rehabilitation Program and the Wallowa Valley Water
Management Plan in Oregon. Reclamation believes the Wallowa
Lake Dam Rehabilitation Program and Water Management Plan are
potentially worthwhile, with numerous benefits.
While we believe that there may be merit to this proposed
project, the Department does not support S. 1355, as currently
drafted. Wallowa Lake Dam is privately owned and operated by
the Associated Ditch Companies. Dam safety deficiencies have
been identified by the Army Corps of Engineers and Army Water--
the Oregon Water Resources Department. The Ditch Companies, in
conjunction with the Grand Ronde Model Watershed and
Reclamation and other local, State, and Federal agencies, have
developed the Wallowa Lake Dam Rehabilitation Program to
address dam safety deficiencies and develop the Wallowa Valley
Management Plan to tie correction of these deficiencies to
larger environmental issues in the Wallowa River Basin. The dam
rehabilitation program and water management plan is a 6-year
proposal with an estimated cost of $38.8 million.
S. 1355 sets an 80/20 cost-share for these estimates for
these efforts under which the Federal Government would pay $32
million, funded through the Bureau of Reclamation. While the
programs developed by the districts and the Model Watershed
provide a concept, they do not meet Federal standards
established in the principles and guidelines for planning water
development programs. Furthermore, the project involves species
listed under the Endangered Species Act. Should Reclamation be
authorized to fund this project, it would constitute a major
Federal action subject to consultation under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act. It would also likely require compliance
with NEPA.
The bill, as currently drafted, excludes Reclamation's
participation in the planning stages of the project.
Consequently, it would be difficult for Reclamation to meet the
environmental compliance requirements for the Endangered
Species and the National Environmental Policy Act. Until
adequate planning can be completed, the administration cannot
support funding of this project.
I would emphasize, again, that Wallowa Dam is another non-
Federal facility for which large amounts of Federal money is
being requested to work on in the same category as Savage
Rapids. The proposed bill currently would authorize Reclamation
to provide funding for dam rehabilitation activities. However,
it does not provide administrative authority to transfer those
funds. The legislation would need revision to provide
Reclamation authority to issue grants. We would be ready to
work with the committee in developing the appropriate language
to do these if you decided to go ahead with the bill.
We're also concerned that Reclamation's participation in
the program would adversely affect ongoing projects and
operations. S. 1355 would authorize the use of $32 million of
Reclamation funds for a non-Federal purpose. Reclamation funds
are limited and are targeted to perform essential functions at
our projects, such as security, operations, maintenance,
resource management, dam safety, and construction.
In addition, despite the very high Federal cost-share for
the project under S. 1355, there is no provision for repayment
by project beneficiaries, in accordance with Reclamation law.
Funding for this project was not included in the
President's budget, and we cannot support activities which
might detract from high-priority work on current Bureau of
Reclamation facilities. The Department cannot, therefore,
support S. 1355.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keys follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior, on S. 1355
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee I am John Keys,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I appreciate the opportunity
to present the Department's views on S. 1355, a bill that would
authorize Reclamation to participate in implementation of the Wallowa
Lake Dam Rehabilitation Program and Wallowa Valley Water Management
Plan in Oregon. Reclamation believes the Wallowa Lake Dam
Rehabilitation Program and Wallowa Valley Water Management Plan are
potentially worthwhile, with numerous benefits. While we believe there
may be merit to this proposed project, the Department does not support
S. 1355, as currently drafted.
Wallowa Lake Dam is a privately-owned dam constructed in 1918 and
raised in 1929, and is owned and operated by the Associated Ditch
Companies, Inc. (ADC). Dam safety deficiencies have been identified by
the United States Army Corps of Engineers and Oregon Water Resources
Department. ADC, in conjunction with the Grande Ronde Model Watershed,
Reclamation, and other local, state, and Federal agencies, developed
the Wallowa Lake Dam Rehabilitation Program to address dam safety
deficiencies and developed the Wallowa Valley Water Management Plan to
tie correction of those deficiencies to larger environmental issues in
the Wallowa River Basin. The Dam Rehabilitation Program and Water
Management Plan is a six year proposal with an estimated total cost of
$38,800,000. S. 1355 sets out an 80/20 cost share for these efforts,
under which the Federal government would pay $32 million funded through
the Bureau of Reclamation.
While the programs developed by the ACD and the Model Watershed
provide a concept, they do not meet Federal standards established in
the Principals and Guidelines for planning water development programs.
Furthermore, the project may affect species listed under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). Should Reclamation be authorized to fund this
project, a funding decision may constitute a major Federal action
subject to consultation under Section 7 of the ESA. It would also
require environmental analysis in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The bill, as currently drafted, does
not provide for Reclamation's participation in the planning stages of
the dam rehabilitation aspects of the project and separates dam
rehabilitation from implementation of the water management plan.
Consequently, it would be difficult for Reclamation to meet the
environmental compliance requirements for the ESA and NEPA. Until
adequate planning can be completed, the Administration can not support
funding this project.
The proposed bill would authorize Reclamation to provide funding to
the ADC for dam rehabilitation activities, [nit] however, it does not
provide administrative authority to transfer those funds. The
legislation would need revision to provide Reclamation authority to
issue grants. We would be pleased to work with the Committee in
developing appropriate language.
Finally, we are concerned that Reclamation's participation in this
program would adversely impact ongoing projects and operations. S. 1355
would authorize the use of Reclamation funds for a non-Federal purpose.
Reclamation funds are limited and are targeted to perform essential
functions at our projects, such as security, operations and maintenance
(O&M), resource management, dam safety, and construction. In addition,
despite the very high Federal cost share for the project under S. 1355,
there is no provision for repayment by project beneficiaries in
accordance with Reclamation law. Funding for this project was not
included in the President's budget, and we can not support activities
which detract from high priority work on current Bureau of Reclamation
facilities. The Department cannot, therefore, support S. 1355.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide the Administration's
position on S. 1355. I would be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
Senator Murkowski. If there were the funds for repayment,
would that change the Administration's position, or are there
other issues surrounding it that continue to make it
complicated?
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, there are a number of other
issues there in this bill that would require attention, even if
there were cost-share. First, it is not a Federal facility.
There are certain, I would say, quality--engineering quality
things that are not there that we would require. The current
authorization doesn't allow us to get in and do the proper
planning. That would include the NEPA work and the ESA,
Endangered Species Act, work. There are a number of changes
that would need to be made.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, H.R. 1284 amends the Reclamation
Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to increase
the Federal share of the cost of San Gabriel Basin
Demonstration Project located in California. Based on our
investigation of this project, we do not believe a cost-ceiling
increase is warranted at this time. As we stated in testimony
before the House Resource Committee on this bill, the
administration cannot support H. R. 1284, as written. We
believe there is sufficient funding available to provide the
Federal cost-share for all projects that are contemplated for
the San Gabriel Basin cleanup program.
We believe that the dual funding ceiling provided by title
XVI authority and the restoration fund, which may also be
available for these projects, is sufficient to provide the
Federal cost-share for all projects that are contemplated for
the San Gabriel Basin cleanup program. This title XVI project
has more than $8 million remaining under its ceiling after full
funding of all current project obligations. The restoration
fund has $25 million remaining under its ceiling after fully
funding all current project obligations.
We believe that this will adequately cover future projects
being contemplated; therefore, the cost ceiling for the San
Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project authorized by title XVI
does not need currently to be increased beyond its authorized
limit. And, thus, the Administration cannot support H.R. 1284.
I would like to note that we have had an excellent working
relationship with the San Gabriel Demonstration Project and
Congressman Napolitano there, and look forward to working with
them to complete this important project.
Madam Chairman, that concludes all of my statements.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keys follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1284
Madam Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I am John Keys,
the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here
today to comment on H.R. 1284, which amends the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, to increase the Federal share
of the costs of the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project.
Based on our investigation of this project, we do not believe a
cost ceiling increase is warranted at this time and, as we stated in
testimony before the House Resources Committee on this bill, the
Administration cannot support H.R. 1284 as written. We believe that
there is sufficient funding available to provide the Federal cost share
for all projects that are contemplated for the San Gabriel Basin
cleanup program.
Title XVI of P.L. 102-575, enacted in 1992, authorizes Reclamation
to participate in the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project. There
are three components of the project: the Rio Hondo Water Recycling
Program, the Central Basin Municipal Water District; the San Gabriel
Valley Water Reclamation Project with the Upper San Gabriel Valley
Municipal Water District; and the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration
Project being done by the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority.
Reclamation is authorized to provide up to 25 percent of the cost of
planning, design, and construction of the project components for a
Federal contribution of no more than $38,090,000.
Congress provided the initial appropriation for the project in
Fiscal Year 1994, and through Fiscal Year 2003, a total of $28,852,000
has been made available for the three components. Of that amount, all
but $6,000 has been obligated to existing agreements. With the
exception of Rio Hondo and San Gabriel Valley Reclamation components,
all existing agreements have been fully funded. The Rio Hondo and San
Gabriel Valley Reclamation components, which are water recycling
projects, should be completed within the next two years, and are within
$700,000 of being fully funded for the 25 percent Federal share. This
leaves a net available amount of $8.6 million before the ceiling is
reached.
The primary component of the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration is the
groundwater cleanup program that will result in the Basin being used as
a conjunctive use water resource for the region. Reclamation, working
closely with the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority since 1994,
has executed 9 funding agreements with the Authority to fund specific
portions of the cleanup work. All agreements have been fully funded for
the 25 percent Federal share.
Over the last ten years that the project has received funding, the
schedules for all three components have slipped significantly. In light
of this, the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project has consistently
carried over significant amounts of unexpended funds every year as a
result of the extended schedules. Due to these delays, the construction
schedule is not firm. In addition, smaller agreements to cover cleanup
projects in the El Monte, South El Monte and Puente Valley Operable
Units are being implemented. An agreement has been executed with the
Water Quality Authority to fund design activities for these Operable
Units. We have executed an agreement for the Monterey Park Treatment
Facility, which is in the South El Monte Unit. To date we have
obligated $2.425 million for the project, and spent approximately
$1,114,000 of that amount.
We believe that the total funding ceiling provided by the Title XVI
authority and the Restoration Fund, which may also be available for
these projects, is sufficient to provide the Federal cost share for all
projects that are contemplated for the San Gabriel Basin cleanup
program. This Title XVI project has more than $8 million remaining
under its ceiling after fully funding all current project obligations.
The Restoration Fund has $25 million remaining under its ceiling after
fully funding all current project obligations. We believe that this
will adequately cover future projects being contemplated. Therefore,
the cost ceiling for the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project
authorized by Title XVI does not need currently to be increased beyond
its authorized limit and thus the Administration cannot support H.R.
1284
In conclusion, Madam Chairman, I want to add that we have had an
excellent working relationship with the San Gabriel Demonstration
Project partners and look forward to working with them to complete this
important project. This concludes my remarks. I would be happy to
answer any questions at this time.
Senator Murkowski. Did we do S. 1577?
Mr. Keys. I'm sorry?
Senator Murkowski. I was just asking for clarification, if
we had gotten anything on S. 1577, but I'm told that FERC had
submitted something for the record.
So, great. So, if--well, thank you. I appreciate your
summations and your testimony on the record this afternoon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Woods follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pat Wood, III, Chairman,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to comment on S. 1577, a bill to extend the deadline for
commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of
Wyoming.
Section 13 of the Federal Power Act requires that construction of a
licensed project be commenced within two years of issuance of the
license. Section 13 authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
to extend this deadline once, for a maximum additional two years. If
project construction has not commenced by this deadline, the Commission
is required to terminate the license. Section 13 also authorizes the
Commission to extend the deadline for completion of construction when
not incompatible with the public interest.
the project
On December 19, 1997, the Commission issued a license to Swift
Creek Power Company to rehabilitate, operate, and maintain the 1.5-
megawatt Swift Creek Project No. 1651, in Lincoln County, Wyoming. The
project occupies 20 acres of federal land within the Bridger-Teton
National Forest. The original deadline in the license for the
commencement of construction, December 18, 1999, was, at the licensee's
request, extended by the Commission to December 18, 2001, four years
after license issuance. The request cited the lack of a power purchase
contract. The licensee did not ask the Commission for any further
extensions of the deadline. On November 29, 2002, Swift Creek Power
Company and the Town of Afton, Wyoming, filed a joint application to
transfer the project license from the company to the town. In response
to notice of the application, the U.S. Forest Service filed on February
28, 2003, a motion to intervene in the transfer proceeding, and
commented that it supported the transfer if it facilitated either
placing the project back into operation or removing the project works
from and restoring National Forest System lands. Action on the
application remains pending.
Rehabilitation of the upper development of Project No. 1651 entails
modifying the upper dam to add one-foot stoplogs, replacing a 36-inch-
diameter penstock with one 48 inches in diameter, dredging around the
intake structures, refurbishing the powerhouse, and installing two
generators. Rehabilitation of the project's upper development entails
dredging behind the lower dam, installing a 2,000-foot-long hurled
penstock, building a powerhouse, installing two generating units, and
burying a short new transmission line.
the legislation
S. 1577 would authorize the Commission, at the request of the
licensee for the project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance
with the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of
that section and the Commission's procedures under that section, to
extend the time period during which the licensee is required to
commence the construction of the project for three consecutive two-year
periods from the date of the expiration of the extension originally
issued by the Commission.
The Commission interprets the deadlines in Section 13 as applying
only to the initial construction of a project. Project No. 1651 was in
existence when the project was issued a new license in 1997, although
refurbishment of the damaged project entails significant new
construction. But while Section 13 is not an impediment to the Project
No. 1651 licensee, the Commission has rarely given a licensee more than
ten years to commence new construction at an existing project.
As a general matter, enactment of bills authorizing or requiring
commencement-of-construction extensions for individual projects delays
utilization in the public interest of an important energy resource and
therefore is not recommended. In cases where project specific
extensions are authorized by the Congress, it has been the position of
prior Commission chairmen that such extensions should not go beyond ten
years from the date the project was licensed. I have no reason to
depart from this extension policy.
S. 1577 would permit the licensee for Project No. 1651 to extend
the deadline for commencement of construction for three consecutive 2-
year periods from the date of the expiration of the extension
originally issued by the Commission. Accordingly, construction could
commence no later than ten years from the date the license was issued.
This time frame is therefore consistent with the Commission's policy,
and I have no objection to the bill.
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, we'll look forward to working
with you on all of these. We have worked with a number--the
fact is, most of the sponsors of these bills, and certainly we
would continue to work with them, certainly some of them we
like better than others, but we will work on all of them with
you.
Senator Murkowski. We appreciate that cooperation. Thank
you.
All right. Our final panelist is Mr. Jim Broderick, general
manager of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy
District. And Mr. Broderick will be presenting testimony in
support of S. 1058.
Welcome. Good afternoon.
STATEMENT OF JIM BRODERICK, GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHEASTERN
COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, PUEBLO, CO
Mr. Broderick. Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
My name is Jim Broderick, and I'm the general manager of
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. I thank you,
Madam Chairman, for this opportunity to present testimony on S.
1058. I also would like to thank Senators Allard and Campbell
and Congressman Musgrave for their assistance in sponsoring
this legislation. I also would like to ask Madam Chairman to
include my written testimony to be included in the record.
Senator Murkowski. It will be included. Thank you.
Mr. Broderick. I would like to go over a little bit of the
history of this project. The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project was
enacted in 1962. The statute requires 100 percent reimbursement
of Federal costs and construction of facilities. The Arkansas
Valley Conduit was authorized in the original Fryingpan-Ark
Project. The standard Bureau policy of 100 percent
reimbursement has prevented the conduit construction since
1962. The needs of the area, in 1950, the Bureau reported,
identified local water supplies as unacceptable.
In February 2002, the Colorado Department of Public Health
and the Environmental Department identified the lower Arkansas
River as the most saline stream of its size in the United
States. The local water suppliers are struggling to comply with
the unfunded Federal water quality mandates. Too many local
drinking-water suppliers are currently under enforcement orders
from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
The public health and the economy is at risk.
Searchers for solutions that we've looked at as the local
water suppliers cannot and will not continue to operate under
enforcement orders. They need a new source of water to replace
or blend with local supplies. The local communities formed
committees in 2000 to search for solutions. The Water Works
Committee founded a feasibility study to examine the conduits
and its alternatives.
The alternatives that were looked at and brought forward
from the feasibility study identified two alternative
solutions--treatment facilities or source replacement by
conduit. A series of treatment facilities, if we looked at
that, the costs are uncertain and variable. The operation and
maintenance of those would be approximately 6.62 million per
year, which is too expensive for the communities. The treatment
wastes approximately 15 to 20 percent of the water on average,
and in some cases up to 50 percent. Treatment waste disposal is
expensive, and, pending new State regulations, could become
even more so. And local suppliers can't afford the treatment.
On the conduit side of the alternative, under the status
quo, costs are certain. The initial construction of $187
million is too expensive. The local suppliers can't afford the
conduit under the status quo.
Under S. 1058, if it is amended, the existing authorization
to create a 75-Federal/25-local share--cost-sharing requirement
would be included. The conduit would transport water to 16
municipalities and 25 water agencies from Pueblo to the Kansas
border. The costs are acceptable. Local suppliers can afford
this amount, and the benefits of public health and the economy
are great.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you, Madam Chair, for
allowing me to testify. The existing Bureau policy is the only
reason the conduit has never been built. The existing Bureau
policy is the reason one-fifth of our water suppliers are out
of compliance with the Federal drinking-water standards. Unless
existing Bureau policy is amended to recognize our unique
circumstances, our economically depressed region will continue
to suffer from poor drinking-water supplies. Treatment will be
saddled with our economy and depressed communities with
operation and maintenance obligations that we simply can't
afford.
The conduit is the only possibility--with the enactment of
S. 1058--is the only viable option we have to provide safe,
clean, and affordable water for our communities.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Broderick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Broderick, General Manager,
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Pueblo, CO
introduction
My name is Jim Broderick, General Manager of the Southeastern
Colorado Water Conservancy District (the District), and I am testifying
today in support of S. 1058, a bill to provide a cost-sharing
requirement for the construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit (the
Conduit) in the State of Colorado. I would like to thank the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. I also thank
Senators Allard and Campbell and Congresswoman Musgrave for their
leadership in introducing this legislation and the Subcommittee for
holding this hearing today.
Like many other regions in the Western United States, Southeastern
Colorado is growing. The Lower Arkansas Valley is economically
disadvantaged and faces projected population growth. It also has a
historically unsatisfactory quality of drinking water, and faces
increasingly costly, unfunded federal water quality mandates. The
District's smaller communities, especially those east of Pueblo who
rely on groundwater for their main water supply, need to develop a
higher quality drinking water supply for their residents. The Conduit,
if constructed, would provide safe, clean, affordable drinking water to
the communities of Southeastern Colorado's Lower Arkansas Valley.
secwcd
The District is the local sponsor of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
(the Fry-Ark Project), a multipurpose project authorized by Congress
and enacted into law in 1962 and amended in 1978. The completed aspects
of the project constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)
store and deliver water for municipal and agricultural use within the
nine-county service area of the District, Arkansas River basin,
Colorado. The District, through its Water Activity Enterprise, has
agreed to manage and organize the efforts necessary to make the Conduit
a reality. The goal of the Fry-Ark Project legislation was to provide a
supplemental supply of water and storage for native agricultural and
municipal water supplies. Both the 1962 and 1978 Acts contemplated the
construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit.
local water quality
Our communities face significant challenges from our local water
supplies. The local water available from the Arkansas River alluvium
has historically been high in Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), sulfates,
and calcium, and has objectionable concentrations of iron and
manganese. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE), in their most recent report (February 2002) on the status of
water quality in Colorado, stated that that ``Lower Arkansas River in
Colorado is the most saline stream of its size in the U.S. The average
salinity levels increase from 300 parts-per-million (ppm) TDS east of
Pueblo to over 4,000 ppm near the Kansas state line. The shallow
alluvial groundwater along the River has similar salinity.''
Additionally, various water suppliers have recently reported measurable
concentrations of radionuclides in their water.
This is not a new problem. As early as 1950, the Secretary of the
Interior acknowledged that additional quantity and better quality of
domestic and municipal water was critically needed for the Arkansas
Valley, and in particular for those towns and cities east of Pueblo. In
a 1950 report on the project, the Bureau stated, ``All towns in the
valley except Colorado Springs need an improved quality of municipal
water.'' In describing the specific aspects of the Fry-Ark Project's
municipal water system, the 1950 report anticipated entirely replacing
``existing unsatisfactory supplies'' for the valley towns East of
Pueblo. Specifically, the report recommended the construction of a 130-
mile pipeline to supply this replacement water.
As a result of the poor water quality, many of the water providers
do not satisfy, or only marginally satisfy, existing drinking water
standards. Too many of our local water suppliers operate under
enforcement orders from the CDPHE for carcinogens in the water.
Generally, all drinking water systems in the Lower Arkansas River
Basin, from St. Charles Mesa in eastern Pueblo County to Lamar in
Prowers County, are concerned with the poor water quality in this
region.
All communities must meet the state and federal primary drinking
water standards through treatment or source replacement. Less
documented, however, is the potential burden placed upon communities by
high raw water concentrations of various unregulated water quality
constituents such as iron, manganese and hardness. These constituents
can cause accelerated infrastructure decay and loss of tax base and
economic impacts associated with factories and businesses locating
elsewhere.
the conduit and its alternatives
House Document 187, 83d Congress, 1st Session, and the Fryingpan-
Arkansas Final Environmental Statement dated April 16, 1975, both of
which have been incorporated by reference into the Fry-Ark Project Act,
recognized that the Conduit would be an effective way to address these
needs.
As much as 50 years later, representatives of local and county
governments, water districts and other interested citizens of the Lower
Arkansas River Basin formed a committee in 2000 to consider a
feasibility study of the Conduit. The interested parties formed the
WaterWorks! Committee and, through a grant from the Colorado Water
Conservation Board and support of the District, commissioned a two-
phase feasibility study of the proposed Conduit. As part of the study,
the Committee sought alternatives to constructing the Conduit.
Treatment
The extremely poor groundwater quality, combined with increasingly
stringent water quality regulations of the Safe Drinking Water Act, has
caused two local water suppliers to invest in expensive water treatment
facilities to assure a reliable water supply for their customers.
The feasibility report on the Conduit identified a ``No Action''
alternative that anticipated costs of satisfying future drinking water
regulations while utilizing existing sources of supply. This option
included construction of a series of treatment facilities, similar to
those currently in use. The costs associated with treatment are
significant.
While initial capital costs are lower than construction of the
Conduit, annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for this option,
assuming only that current practices would be allowed to continue into
the future, were $6.62 million per year. This figure is likely to be a
low estimate. CDPHE is currently reviewing its policy and regulations
concerning reverse osmosis treatment reject with respect to disposal.
It is likely that CDPHE will not allow future disposal of waste
directly into surface waters, which would significantly increase the
cost of treatment. Additionally, if the EPA issues additional unfunded
water quality mandates, the cost of treatment will increase with
necessary retrofits to facilities and heightened O&M costs.
Status Quo
The status quo includes an authorization for the Bureau to
construct the Conduit. In fact, Reclamation has been authorized to
construct the Conduit for more than 40 years. We believe this would
solve our water quality problems. However, the status quo also requires
the local beneficiaries to reimburse the Bureau for 100 percent of its
costs. The feasibility report examined local government borrowing
capacity and determined that ``Even if all of the jurisdictions used
all of their debt capacity for this one project, only a fraction of the
total pipeline costs could be funded by local government borrowings.''
A study of the Conduit was prepared for the District, the Four
Corners Regional Commission and Reclamation in 1972. The report's
recommendations for construction of a water treatment plant, pumping
station and the Conduit to serve 16 communities and 25 water
associations east of Pueblo were not implemented at that time due to
the authorizing statutes' requirement for local reimbursement of 100
percent of the construction costs.
Evaluations on the quantity of water needed to satisfy long-range
objectives for water users in the Southeastern District area were
prepared in 1998. Additionally, an update of the estimated construction
costs of the Conduit presented in the 1972 was updated in 1998. Each
time that construction of the Conduit has been attempted since its
authorization, the Bureau's standard policy of requiring 100 percent
reimbursement of construction costs has prevented the local communities
from participating.
S. 1058
The feasibility report estimated the financial capabilities of the
participating agencies to be inadequate to fund either the construction
of the proposed Arkansas Valley Conduit or the operation of the No
Action alternative. It also estimated that the full financial
capabilities of counties, cities, and water agencies in the project
area could finance approximately 25 percent of the project cost to
satisfy safe drinking water regulations.
Recognizing our unique need, Senator Allard introduced legislation,
S. 1058, to eliminate the one obstacle that has prevented the Conduit's
construction for the past 40 years: the standard Bureau policy
requiring 100 percent reimbursement for the project. In it place, S.
1058 would create a cost-share mechanism similar to those found in
other municipal water projects constructed by the Bureau and authorized
by this Committee. The local share would be 25 percent of the
construction costs of the Conduit. Senator Campbell cosponsored the
bill in the Senate, and Congresswoman Musgrave introduced a companion
bill in the House with the cosponsorship of Congressman McInnis.
The Conduit project, as recommended by the feasibility report,
would include a welded, all-steel pipeline, land acquisition for
easements, necessary pipeline appurtenances, and 16 million gallons of
reinforced concrete water storage tanks located along a preferred
alignment. The estimated project cost for construction along the
preferred pipeline alignment, an alignment that does not require
pumping, is $175 million.
The estimated Net Present Value of the proposed Arkansas Valley
Conduit project, including construction and O&M costs, is approximately
$235 million. The $235 million Net Present Value compares favorably
with the estimated Net Present Value of the No Action alternative ($187
million) when O&M costs and the potential for new, unfunded federal
water standards are taken into account.
conclusion
The citizens and communities of the Lower Arkansas River Basin have
waited 30 to 50 years for this project that will improve their water
quality and supply. The need for this project has been well established
for more than 50 years. S. 1058 fulfills the promise of the Arkansas
Valley Conduit made 40 years ago with the passage of the Fry-Ark Act by
providing the one thing that has been missing for all of these years: a
realistic acknowledgement of these communities' ability to pay and a
partnership to allow this much-needed project to move forward.
I urge this Subcommittee to act quickly to move this legislation
towards enactment. I would be happy to answer any questions the Chair
or Committee members may have on this legislation.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Broderick.
The feasibility study you mentioned, did you consider a
full range of the potential funding sources for the project,
beyond the cost-sharing proposal that we see in the
legislation?
Mr. Broderick. Madam Chairman, the answer to that is yes.
The financial evaluation considered the ability of likely
participating local government's ability to issue and to pay
back debt. The State funding sources and a number of
established funding sources at the Federal level tapped fees
and user charge fees and other customers' contributions. The
conclusion was that the financial and rate-paying capabilities
of the participating agencies are estimated to be inadequate to
fund either the construction of the conduit or the operation of
the no-action alternative.
And the full financial capabilities of the counties,
cities, and water agencies in the project area could finance
approximately 25 percent of the cost of the projects for the
feasibility--for the facilities to satisfactorily take care of
the safe drinking water regulations.
Senator Murkowski. A question that I had asked of
Commissioner Keys that was actually answered by Senator Allard
with regards to the operating maintenance and replacement,
Senator Allard indicated that that would be picked up, if you
will, within the communities. I'm assuming you have some kind
of a framework or a structure in place for the establishing the
rates and the fees for this end of the project?
Mr. Broderick. That is correct. We do.
Senator Murkowski. And was there anything in the
feasibility report itself that revealed any significant
environmental problems or any other issues that would preclude
or argue against this legislation moving forward?
Mr. Broderick. The final report on the feasibility
evaluation of the Arkansas Valley Conduit did not identify any
apparent environmental fatal flaws and would prohibit the
implementation of the Arkansas Valley Conduit.
Senator Murkowski. And would not?
Mr. Broderick. Would not. The conduit has been discussed
regularly in public hearings and public meetings for the past
four years, and the environmental interest groups and others
have raised no objection within that time period.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. I appreciate your coming and
joining us in Washington to provide the testimony this
afternoon.
Mr. Broderick. Thank you very much. It's my pleasure.
Senator Murkowski. With that, we have nothing else before
us this afternoon, so we are concluded for the day.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, October 15, 2003.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Murkowski and Senator Dorgan: The States of Nebraska,
Colorado and Wyoming have been engaged in negotiations with the U.S.
Department of the Interior to develop a collaborative basinwide program
for the recovery of certain endangered species which utilize the
central Platte area of Nebraska. If that program can be successfully
implemented, it will serve as compliance under the Endangered Species
Act for all water use activities in the basin which existed prior to
July 1, 1997.
Among the pre-1997 water uses that would benefit from the
establishment of a basinwide program for endangered species are uses by
Wyoming and Nebraska irrigation districts that have contracts for a
portion of the storage of the Glendo Reservoir in Wyoming. Currently,
there are four Nebraska districts that have contracts, collectively,
for all of Nebraska's 25,000 acre-feet allocation from that reservoir.
Wyoming has five irrigation district contractors that together account
for slightly less than 1/3 of Wyoming's 15,000 acre-feet allocation.
Originally, all of these contracts were set to expire at the end of
1998. However, by enacting the Irrigation Project Contract Extension
Act of 1998, as amended, Congress extended those contracts until
December 31, 2003, to coincide with then anticipated conclusion of the
negotiation process referred to above.
While I am very pleased to report that the negotiations to
establish a basinwide program are alive and well, I must also report
that they have not yet reached conclusion. However, much progress has
been made and the Department of the Interior will release its Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed program by the end of
this year. That puts the process on a track that would lead to a Record
of Decision by the Secretary of the Interior by the end of 2004 and
decisions by the governors of each of the three states by June 30,
2005.
Obviously, the Glendo contract extensions that Congress granted in
1998 have proven to be insufficient in length. Assuming that the
Department's Record of Decision is favorable and that each of the
states also support and agree to participate in the Program, the
basinwide program will be capable of providing ESA compliance for the
Glendo contractors in the latter half of 2005. It is essential that
Congress provide those contractors the time necessary for that to
occur. S. 1027 will meet that need by extending the contracts by
another two years, that is until December 31, 2005. All four of the
Nebraska districts that have Glendo contracts support the requested
extension. Copies of their letters or resolutions of support are
attached to my testimony.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The letters and resolution have been retained in subcommittee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ask for this subcommittee's prompt action on S. 1027, and its
House companion bill, H.R. 2040. Thank you for your attention to this
important matter.
Sincerely,
E. Benjamin Nelson,
U.S. Senator.
______
Northwest Power and Conservation Council,
Portland, OR, August 8, 2003.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chair, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Madame Chair: The Northwest Power and Conservation Council was
established by Congress in 1980 and created as an interstate compact by
the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. Its purpose is to
develop a 20-year regional electric power plan to assure for the
Pacific Northwest an adequate supply of power at the lowest possible
cost, and to develop a program to protect, mitigate and enhance fish
and wildlife resources affected by the hydroelectric development in the
Columbia River Basin.
The Council works closely with federal and state agencies, Indian
tribes, private landowners, and others to implement recovery strategies
for fish and wildlife recovery in the basin, including efforts to
implement NOAH Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Federal Columbia River Power System biological opinions required under
the Endangered Species Act. The legal authority for the off-site
mitigation activities included in NOAA Fisheries' 2000 FCRPS Biological
Opinion is derived from the Northwest Power Act of 1980 (PL 96-501)
through the Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.
The Council supports Senator Gordon Smith's legislation, S. 1307,
which gives the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of
Reclamation, the authority to implement fish passage and screening
facilities at non-Federal water projects in Oregon, Washington, and
portions of Idaho. It is critical that this authority be extended to
the Bureau at the earliest possible opportunity so it can meet its
habitat mitigation obligations as expressed in the 2000 FCRPS
Biological Opinion under Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 149. The
urgency of this need was further heightened by the United States
District Court of Oregon's May 7, 2003, opinion and order that remanded
the FCRPS Biological Opinion to NOAA Fisheries to address specific
flaws that violate the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative
Procedures Act.
In his remand, Judge Redden allowed NOAA Fisheries one year to
modify the biological opinion in a manner that complies with his order.
He also ordered quarterly progress reports by the federal action
agencies. The judge ordered that the first report, due October 1, 2003,
include a discussion of options to modify the hydropower system if the
off-site mitigation measures cannot be assured.
Accordingly, the Bureau needs to obtain the authority to meet its
off-site mitigation habitat obligations as required in RPA 149, as well
as be in a position to show progress on three fronts in the October 1
progress report. Those three areas are: 1) the Bureau must show
progress in obtaining the legal authority; 2) it must have evidence
that the authority can be implemented (i.e., sufficient funding is
available); and 3) a Section 7 consultation on the RPA 149 habitat
program needs to be completed during the one-year duration of the
remand.
Due to these requirements, the Council urges you to schedule action
on S. 1307 at the earliest possible date. By providing the Bureau with
the authority to construct fish passage facilities and screens at non-
Federal projects, the agency will be able to implement its portions of
the biological opinion, resulting in increased survival of listed
salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River basin.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Judi Danielson,
Chair.
______
Oregon Water Resources Congress,
Salem, OR, October 15, 2003.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
Subject: Support for S. 1308
Dear Senator Murkowski: I am writing to express the support of the
Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) for S. 1308, to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to
participate in the implementation of a U.S. District Court Consent
Decree, and for other purposes.
The OWRC represents irrigation districts and other water supply
systems serving irrigated agriculture in Oregon. The mission of OWRC is
to promote the protection and use of water rights and the wise
stewardship of water resources.
As a general policy, the OWRC does not support the removal of dams
that serve irrigated agriculture. There are exceptions to this policy
based on the benefits resulting from the removal of a particular dam.
In this case, the removal of the Savage Rapids Dam, the subject of S.
1308, is an exception to OWRC's policy. Our support for this dam
removal reflects the benefits to irrigators and fisheries from
installing new irrigation pumps and removing the dam. The new
irrigation pumps that will provide water to the Grants Pass Irrigation
District (GPID), as a replacement for the dam, are key to our decision
to support this plan.
As noted in the text of the bill, the removal of the Savage Rapids
Dam is part of a consent decree involving the GPID a member of the
OWRC. Based on the fact that GPID is a part to this consent decree and
our belief that the removal of the Savage Rapids Dam will benefit
irrigators and fisheries, the OWRC supports the authorization for
federal participation in the plan outlined in the consent decree.
On behalf of OWRC, thank you for your consideration of this bill
that will help the Grants Pass Irrigation District and the other
parties involved.
Sincerely,
Anita Winkler,
Executive Director.
______
Statement of Geoffrey M. Huntington, Executive Director,
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski and members of the committee, for
the opportunity to present testimony in support of S. 1308, the Savage
Rapids Dam Act of 2003. I especially want to thank Senator Smith and
Senator Wyden for introducing this legislation and to encourage the
committee to favorably report the bill and to see it enacted into law.
S. 1308 authorizes the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to pursue and
carry out actions to implement the U.S. District Court Consent Decree
United States, et al., v. Grants Pass Irrigation District. The Decree
represents an agreement reached among the district, community and
advocacy groups, and the state and federal agencies, that brings to a
close over 20 years of debate over removal of the dam. The challenge
now is to execute this consensus-based vision for the Rogue River that
is a nationally recognized treasure.
Few projects come along that provide such far-reaching implications
as removal of Savage Rapids Dam. The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
(OWEB) awarded $3 million in a challenge grant toward this project in
January 2002. The funds are from the State lottery revenues that are
constitutionally dedicated to watershed and salmon habitat improvement,
and are set aside for so long as the participants continue to implement
the agreed upon schedule for removing the dam and replacing it with
pumps to supply water to the irrigation district. The state's early
commitment demonstrates the project's importance and the need to act
quickly. Timely enactment of the S. 1308 and funding for its
implementation are critical if the win-win scenario offered by the
negotiated Consent Decree is to be realized.
Savage Rapids Dam was built in 1921 to provide a means to divert
water for the Grants Pass Irrigation District (District) who is the
sole owner of the facility. The structure is a 39-foot high, 500-foot
long diversion dam that spans the mainstream of the Rogue River at
river mile 107. It does not generate electricity, it provides no flood
control, and it does not affect commercial navigation. The water it
diverts by impounding the river's flow currently serves 7,700 acres of
irrigated land located in and around the town of Rogue River in Jackson
County and the City of Grants Pass in Josephine County. These same uses
will be satisfied under the Consent Decree using pumps to deliver water
instead of the existing dam.
The dam is the most significant barrier to anadromous fish on the
nationally recognized wild and scenic Rogue River. There are over 500
miles of salmon and steelhead habitat upstream of the dam, including 50
miles on the main stem that are impacted by the current facility. The
dam impedes access to adults and inhibits passage for juveniles. Dam
removal would eliminate the most significant barrier to federally
listed salmon stocks in the Rogue Basin, and return this nationally
recognized river to free flowing condition.
Years of contentious debate have been set aside as the community,
public interest groups, and state and federal agencies have arrived at
two agreements. First, the District will stop diverting water from
Savage Rapids Dam and allow for its removal by November 2005. Second,
these numerous entities have signed on to the Consent Decree in support
of accomplishing this project and the outcomes it represents. Even the
patrons of the Grants Pass Irrigation District have voted in favor of
proceeding forward. It was in this collaborative environment that in
2002, the 17-member OWEB Board voted unanimously in favor of the single
largest commitment of State funds for a voluntary habitat restoration
project--$3 million toward removal of Savage Rapids Dam. At that time,
the citizen board also committed to support efforts to obtain federal
and private funding to accomplish the goal. S. 1308 is the next step
toward accomplishing this goal.
Again, approval of S. 1308 is a critical step,in allowing our
federal partners to move forward with us to implement a consensus among
the different interests on how to proceed in a way that preserves the
integrity of the Grants Pass Irrigation District and accomplishes the
goal of reestablishing a free flowing main stem Rogue River.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of S. 1308.
______
Statement of Dan Shepard, Secretary/Manager,
Grants Pass Irrigation District
Chair Murkowski and members of the Subcommittee: My name is Dan
Shepard. For ten years I have been the Secretary/Manager of the Grants
Pass Irrigation District, located in the Rogue River Basin of Southwest
Oregon. On behalf of my Board of Directors, and on behalf of our 7,900
water patrons and the entire Southwest region of Oregon, I want to
thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify in support of S.
1308.
grants pass irrigation district
The Grants Pass Irrigation District was established in January 1917
by a vote of the people of the region, and organized as a municipal
corporation under the laws of the State of Oregon. Almost exactly 83
years ago, in October 1920, the first concrete for the Savage Rapids
Dam, built as an irrigation diversion dam spanning the main stem of the
Rogue River five miles east of the City of Grants Pass, was poured. The
dam was dedicated on November 5, 1921, and water began flowing through
the pumps, turbines and irrigation ditches shortly thereafter. It was
improved and rehabilitated in 1949-1955 by the Bureau of Reclamation.
The dam's sole purpose is to divert water from the river for
irrigation. It serves no flood control, storage, navigation or
hydropower function.
The dam is approximately 456 feet long and 39 feet high, and
consists of a 16-bay spillway section and a hydraulic-driven pumping
plant. A network of 160 miles of canals, laterals, and pipes distribute
water to 7,900 water patrons. Fishways and ladder facilities have been
repaired and improved over the years, but despite these efforts fish
passage is a serious issue. The Rogue River was one of the first
nationally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers, and five runs of salmon
and steelhead call this river home. For years, NOAA Fisheries, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Oregon Departments of Fish and
Wildlife and Water Resources have supported dam removal as the only
real solution that works for these endangered runs.
Since the Dam became operational, it has delivered water to its
patrons through the Great Depression, World War II, and an era of
economic and cultural change. The District's operation, and the water
it delivers, are essential to the well-being of our community. What has
been true all along is still true today--our patrons need the water
that the District provides. Water use within our irrigation district
varies greatly over the 7,700 acres. For example, we provide irrigation
water to family farms, for pasture lands, hayfields, forage crops,
vineyards, along with farm-direct produce to the public. These folks
depend on the water we deliver and realize what a wonderful resource
they have. It is the very reason why the people began talking back at
the turn of the previous century about forming an irrigation district;
they needed water during the summer months.
we strongly support s. 1308
This legislation is vital to the future of our irrigation district.
It needs to be enacted as soon as possible, hopefully this year. On
behalf of all the District's patrons and the economy of our region, I
want to thank Senators Wyden and Smith for introducing the legislation.
We are just so appreciative of their assistance and to you Madam
Chairman for having scheduled this hearing.
Without this legislation, we face a very real threat that in just
two short years we will not be allowed to use the dam to provide water.
Why is this so?
Starting way back in the 60's, the Oregon Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife determined that our dam was the single biggest fish killer in
the Rogue River. They studied this for something like twenty years. In
the early 80's, the U.S. government reached a similar conclusion. In
1971, Congress authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate a study
of fish passage at the dam and improvements to the irrigation system.
In 1990, the District commissioned an engineering study to look at the
problems of the dam, and in 1994 that study concluded that removal of
the dam and installation of pumps was the best option for the District.
In 1995, the Bureau of Reclamation filed a Record of Decision on its
Planning Report/Final Environmental Statement (PR/FES) on improvements
at Savage Rapids Dam. Its conclusion and its recommended Preferred
Alternative chose dam removal and installation of pumps as the most
cost effective solution with the greatest benefit. In a curious twist
of history, the official who signed that Record of Decision was the
Bureau's Pacific Northwest Regional Director, Mr. John Keys. Of course,
Mr. Keys is now the Commissioner of the Bureau and we have been
delighted to have his support for our efforts. In 1997, the Rogue's
coho salmon were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). This forced the District to start working with the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to receive permission to operate the
dam. Finally, in 1998, all heck broke loose with the District fighting
lawsuits on several fronts--the State, the Federal government, and a
bunch of conservation and fishing groups.
Over three years ago, in an attempt to end years of legal battles
over the District's water right and fish passage issues, the District
negotiated a plan to install new pumping facilities in the river and to
then allow for removal of the dam. The District's patrons voted
overwhelmingly (63%) in favor of this plan.
Two years ago, the District made one of the most important
decisions in its history. We decided to end years of controversy and
rancorous debate over the Savage Rapids Dam's damage to important
anadrymous fish runs by signing on to a compromise that is good for the
District, for the river, and for endangered salmon. We joined the
Federal government, the State of Oregon and the conservation and
fishing communities in a legal consent decree filed in U.S. District
Court (``U.S. District Court Consent Decree,'' United States, et al.,
v. Grants Pass Irrigation District, Civil No. 98-3034-HO--August 27,
2001).
This Consent Decree ended the many years of lawsuits on the State
and Federal levels. It stipulates that the District will continue to
receive its supplemental water right while all parties work to
implement a plan to replace the dam with electric irrigation pumps,
implement conservation and riparian enhancements, and then remove the
dam. It also stipulates that we shall cease operating the dam as a
diversion facility by November 1, 2005, and that we must allow the dam
to be removed after that date.
Given the ongoing threats of legal battles on the State and Federal
level, we decided three years ago, and still believe today, that the
only way to ensure that our patrons will continue to receive the water
they need is to give up the dam in exchange for an extension of our
water right from the State and new electric irrigation pumps and other
conservation and restoration measures.
As you can imagine, still today there is some local controversy
over the District's decision. But the overwhelming majority of our
patrons and the citizens of our region support our effort. You might be
interested to know that one of our current Board of Directors is a
gentleman named Phil Kudlac. His grandfather was a charter member on
the first board of directors of the Grants Pass Irrigation District.
That three-man board worked very hard to hire the contractors to build
the dam and to build the many miles of main canals. A brass plaque at
the dam honors those three men. Even with his personal history and that
connection to the dam, Mr. Kudlac recognizes and strongly supports the
plan to install pumps and remove the dam. I think that's quite a
testament to how far we have come--from years and years of fighting
removal of the dam--to a new and innovative strategy to find a win-win
on what had seemed like a no-win situation. The plan is relatively
straight-forward--new, modern, efficient irrigation pumps go in, and
the dam comes out. Our patrons get water at a reasonable cost, the
District survives, and numerous benefits to the river and to fish are
realized.
We have very much appreciated funding provided by Congress to the
Bureau in 2002 and 2003 to do as much work as possible under existing
authority (P.L. 92-199) to advance the plans for the pumping plant
design and installation. Work on the pumping plant design and
engineering has been underway for over two years with a combination of
federal, state, private, and District funds. In order to accelerate
work on getting pumps designed, the irrigation district and the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Screen Task Force, working with
the Bureau, provided early funding in excess of $200,000 to begin the
design work. In addition, the State of Oregon has committed $3,000,000
toward the overall project. That $3 million is the largest grant award
of its kind ever made by Oregon's Watershed Enhancement Board. Private
interests have contributed in excess of $75,000 toward the engineering.
But now we have that November 2005 deadline staring us in the face
and as the District's manager I am very nervous. The Bureau has said
that they can go no further on this project without additional
authority from Congress. The statutory stuff is kind of complicated to
us, but we do understand that without the authority there cannot be
further funding, and the Bureau must get both authority and funding
this year if there is going to be any chance at all to build and
install the pumping plant facilities so that they are operational by
November 2005.
With all the problems related to water supply, irrigation, and
endangered species in Southwest Oregon that this Committee has heard so
much about, I particularly want you to know that these issues on the
Rogue River have a solution. A solution that is supported by the people
who need water for irrigation and the people that want more fish
protected. Now we need your help in authorizing the activities and the
funding necessary to implement the terms of the Consent Decree. S. 1308
authorizes the federal government to deliver on fundamental pieces of
the compromise set out in the consent decree.
I hope you will approve this legislation as soon as possible. It is
vitally important to me as the Manager of this irrigation District, it
is vitally important to our water patrons, it is vitally important to
conservation and fishing interests, and it is necessary to comply with
State and Federal policies and laws.
It took us a very long time to get to your Committee on an issue
that's been considered and debated since 1960. We are grateful to be
here today, and we will be even more grateful if you can work with
Senators Smith and Wyden to get S. 1308 enacted into law this year so
that we can continue to operate and serve our water patrons.
Thank you or giving me this opportunity to testify today.
______
Statement of Robert G. Hunter, Staff Attorney, Waterwatch of Oregon
Chair Murkowski and Members of the Committee: We urge you to
support passage of S. 1308. This important legislation gives needed
authority to the Bureau of Reclamation to implement a settlement
agreement filed as a Consent Decree in the United States District Court
of Oregon. The settlement provides for the replacement of the Grants
Pass Irrigation District's 80-year-old irrigation diversion structure,
Savage Rapids Dam, with new pumping facilities thereby modernizing the
irrigation district's diversion system, while at the same time
eliminating the most harmful fish passage barrier to salmon and
steelhead in the Rogue River Basin in southwestern Oregon. Enactment of
S. 1308 will be good for the Grants Pass Irrigation District, good for
the Rogue River and its fishery resources, good for the local
community, good for coastal communities in Oregon and California, and
good for people across the country, who treasure healthy rivers and
fisheries.
This legislation is the culmination of years of study and
negotiation by and between several state and federal agencies, the
Grants Pass Irrigation District, and many local, regional, and national
conservation, sport fishing, and commercial fishing organizations. The
State of Oregon has carried out its responsibilities under the Consent
Decree and in addition has committed $3,000,000 toward this project.
(See a copy of a letter from Governor Ted Kulongoski of Oregon
summarizing the state's activities and urging passage of this bill,
attached as Attachment A).*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The attachments have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is essential that the legislation is enacted this year as the
Grants Pass Irrigation District will only be allowed to operate with
pumps after the 2005 irrigation season, and if pumps are not installed
before that time, the irrigation district will not be able to deliver
water to its patrons. This bill will ensure the survival and economic
viability of an irrigation district serving over 7,000 patrons and
provide tremendous benefits to the internationally renowned Rogue River
and its salmon and steelhead fisheries.
the rogue river and its fishery
Oregon's Rogue River is nationally and internationally known for
its scenic beauty, white water recreation, and salmon and steelhead
fisheries. The Rogue River was designated as one of the country's first
wild and scenic rivers in 1968. It originates near Crater Lake and
dances westward for 215 miles, cutting its way through the Cascade,
Siskiyou, and Coast ranges before meeting the sea at Gold Beach,
Oregon. Because of its abundant fish and wildlife and incredible scenic
beauty, the Rogue River has become a major vacation destination and
over the years has drawn such celebrities as Zane Grey, Clark Gable,
and Ginger Rogers. The river is the cornerstone of the region's
recreation and tourism industries, one of the fastest growing economic
sectors in the basin.
The Rogue River is home to one of the most productive salmon and
steelhead fisheries on the west coast. It contains five runs of salmon
and steelhead: spring and fall chinook salmon, coho salmon, and summer
and winter steelhead. The river's spring chinook salmon are considered
some of the tastiest anywhere and people come from all over the world
to fish the Rogue's summer steelhead because of the tremendous
flyfishing opportunity they present. Guides, outfitters, lodges,
motels, restaurants, and other service industries rely on the Rogue's
fish as a major part of their business. The Rogue's fish are also an
important component of the sport and commercial salmon fishery off the
coast of southern Oregon and northern California.
the grants pass irrigation district
The Grants Pass Irrigation District, hereinafter ``District'', was
formed in 1916 to provide irrigation water to lands along the Rogue
River in southern Oregon. The District serves over 7,000 patrons. The
District gets its water by diverting it from the Rogue River under a
water right issued by the State of Oregon. Because its diversion
operations harm coho salmon, listed under the Endangered Species Act,
the District also needs an incidental take permit to continue its
operations. To remain viable the District needs to be able to continue
to divert adequate amounts of water from the Rogue River, and to
deliver it to its patrons at an affordable price. The passage of this
bill will allow the District to continue its operations and remain
economically viable.
savage rapids dam
Savage Rapids Dam does not serve any storage, flood control,
navigation, or hydropower purpose. The District is the owner of the dam
and has agreed to allow its removal. The District built Savage Rapids
Dam in 1921 solely to divert water from the Rogue River into the
irrigation canals of the District. The dam's diversion system is over
80 years old. There have been multiple breakdowns of the system over
the last three years that have interrupted service for extended periods
and cost the District over $300,000 in repairs. Savage Rapids Dam can
be safely removed and new pumps can be installed to better serve the
District's water delivery needs.
savage rapids dam's impacts on the rogue river fishery
The dam is a 39-foot-high, 500-foot-long diversion dam that spans
the mainstem of Oregon's Rogue River at river mile 107. It is the first
man-made barrier on the Rogue River that salmon and steelhead encounter
on their upstream migration from the ocean. There are over 500 miles of
salmon and steelhead spawning habitat upstream of Savage Rapids Dam,
including 50 miles on the mainstem of the Rogue River. All spring
chinook salmon spawn upstream of the dam, and the dam impedes passage
of significant portions of the four other runs of salmon and steelhead
in the Rogue, including coho salmon listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act.
The dam's fish ladders and screens do not meet current standards.
The north ladder only operates during the irrigation season, has poor
attraction flows, and is generally inadequate. The south ladder has
poor attraction flows and it is difficult to regulate flows within the
ladder. During the spring and fall, when dam operations are starting up
and shutting down, upstream fish passage can be totally blocked. Adult
fish are delayed, injured, and sometimes killed while trying to
navigate the dam in their upstream spawning migration, thereby reducing
overall spawning success. Downstream traveling juvenile fish are
impinged on and entrained through the screens over the dam's diversion
and pump-turbine systems. There is increased predation of juveniles in
the seasonal reservoir pool created by the dam, and when juveniles pass
through the dam's bypass systems. There is a loss of 3.5 miles of fall
chinook salmon spawning habitat that could be reclaimed from the
elimination of the seasonal reservoir pool when the dam is removed.
(See Attachment B-2 Summary)
The dam has long been considered the biggest fish killer on the
Rogue. NOAA Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife all support dam removal as the best,
most viable, and only permanent solution to the fish passage problems
at Savage Rapids Dam.
benefits of removing savage rapids dam
According to a 1995 Bureau of Reclamation Planning Report and
Environmental Statement (PRES), removal of the dam would increase fish
escapement at the site by 22%. This translates into approximately
114,000 more salmon and steelhead each year (87,900 that would be
available for sport and commercial harvest and 26,700 that would escape
to spawn), valued in 1994 at approximately $5,000,000 annually. (See
Attachment B-3, 4--selected pages from the PRES that document these
benefits.) Reclamation's PRES also found removing the dam and replacing
it with pumps to be more cost effective than trying to fix the ladders
and screens.
benefits of pump installation
Before removal of the dam, pumping plants with screens meeting all
federal and state regulations will be installed near the current
location of the dam. The pumps will be capable of diverting the
District's full water needs. It is essential that the District be on
pumps by the end of the 2005 irrigation season in order to stay in
business. Once the District is on pumps it will be able to get an
incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act to continue its
operations, and will be in compliance with state conditions on its
water rights and with the settlement agreement filed as a Consent
Decree in federal court.
In addition, conversion to pumps will:
a. eliminate shutoffs due to problems with the pump turbine
system at the dam;
b. allow the District to operate at lower river flows;
c. allow the District to start its irrigation season a month
earlier;
d. allow the District more control over the amount of water
going into its canals;
e. make it easier and safer for the District to start up and
shut down its irrigation system;
f. eliminate OSHA problems with operating the dam; and
g. give the District more flexibility in the future to
respond to changing land use patterns in the area.
important studies support the pumping/dam removal plan
By the mid-1960's, and after 19 years of investigation, the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife became convinced that Savage Rapids Dam
caused more fish passage damage than any other single factor on the
Rogue River. Fish counting data showed that fish runs using the river
above Savage Rapids Dam declined, while runs below the dam increased.
In 1981, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that
elimination of all fish passage losses at Savage Rapids Dam would
result in a 22 percent increase in fish escapement at the site.
In 1990, the District agreed to look at different alternatives for
solving the fish passage problems caused by Savage Rapids Dam. An
engineering study commissioned by the District was completed in 1994,
which recommended removal of the dam and its replacement with pumps as
the best alternative for the District. (Grants Pass Irrigation District
Water Management Study, dated March, 1994)
The Bureau of Reclamation did a parallel study on fish passage at
the dam. It selected dam removal and replacement with pumps as its
preferred alternative, because it found removing the dam and replacing
it with pumps was cheaper than trying to fix it and provided greater
benefits. (Fish Passage Improvement at Savage Rapids Dam; Planning
Report and Final Environmental Statement filed August 30, 1995)
The District recently hired CH2MHill, an engineering firm, to
review the economic feasibility of the pumping plan for the District.
In addition conservation interests hired PWA, another engineering firm,
to review the feasibility of removing the dam. These engineering
reviews confirmed the feasibility of the pumping/dam removal plan.
sediment is not a problem
In February 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation completed a
comprehensive study of the sediment behind the dam and concluded that
if the dam were removed the sediment could be safely managed by natural
transport. (Savage Rapids Dam Sediment Evaluation Study, Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, February 2001) The study found
that the sediment was not contaminated, that there was much less
sediment than was originally believed, and that a large percentage of
the sediment was gravel and cobble, which is good for downstream salmon
spawning habitat. This resolved a major concern for many who had
previously opposed removing the dam.
patron vote supports the pumping/dam removal plan
In January 2000, the patrons of the District voted overwhelmingly
in support of removing Savage Rapids Dam and replacing it with pumps
(63% of the ballots cast voted in favor of the dam removal/pumping
plan).
bipartisan support for the pumping/dam removal plan
Senator Smith and Senator Wyden from Oregon co-introduced this bill
and have been working with all interested parties since 2000 to
authorize and fund the installation of pumps and removal of the dam.
Local Oregon state legislators in a letter to the two Oregon Senators
also expressed bipartisan support for federal legislation to authorize
and fund the pumping/dam removal plan. (See Attachment C--Letter from
several Oregon lawmakers to Senators Smith and Wyden requesting
reintroduction of a bill to install pumps and remove the dam)
settlement agreement/consent decree
Based on the District's own study recommending the District convert
to pumps and allow dam removal, the State of Oregon required the
District to exercise due diligence toward implementing the pumping/dam
removal plan as a condition of a temporary water right issued to the
District in 1994.
In 1997, the Rogue River's coho salmon were listed as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act, and the District began negotiations
with the National Marine Fisheries Service for obtaining an incidental
take permit for its diversion operations based on converting to pumps
and the ultimate removal of Savage Rapids Dam.
In 1998, the District became entangled in litigation with the State
of Oregon, the United States, and numerous concerned conservation and
fishing industry organizations over water right issues and fish passage
problems at the dam.
On August 27, 2001, parties to the litigation recognized all
interests would be better served by working together in a cooperative
manner, and the parties settled their differences in the form of a
consent decree that was filed in the United States District Court of
Oregon on August 27, 2001. The settlement was commemorated on October
12, 2001 in a ceremony with the former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber.
(A copy of the Commemorative Declaration signed at the ceremony is
attached as Attachment D.)
The settlement agreement secures for the District the water right
and federal permits it needs to continue to operate. In exchange the
District has agreed to convert to a pumping system, stop water
diversions at Savage Rapids Dam, and allow for the dam's removal by
November 2005. To insure that the settlement agreement is a success and
a win/win solution for all parties, it is necessary to pass this bill
to authorize and fund the federal activities anticipated in the Consent
Decree.
Important steps have already been taken to implement the Consent
Decree. The State of Oregon has completed what was required of it under
the Consent Decree, has contributed $100,000 toward fish screens at the
pumps, and in addition has committed $3,000,000 toward dam removal, the
largest single grant made by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board.
The District and conservation and sportfishing interests have
contributed over $75,000 toward advanced engineering on the pumps and
dam removal, while the federal government has already contributed
$500,000 toward planning work on the pumping plants. Federal
legislation is now needed to get the authority and funding to complete
implementation of the pumping/dam removal plan outlined in the Consent
Decree. This legislation guarantees that the parties will be able to
implement the Consent Decree and will reward the cooperative efforts of
the parties in resolving the long standing issues regarding fish
passage at Savage Rapids Dam. (See Attachment E, F and G--editorials
from the regional paper supporting the pumping/dam removal plan and
Congressional funding)
time is of the essence--please enact s. 1308 this year
Passage of this legislation will provide tremendous benefits to one
of the nation's great natural treasures, the Rogue River and its salmon
and steelhead fisheries. At the same time it will ensure the survival
and continued operation of the Grants Pass Irrigation District, will
facilitate the implementation of a federal court decree, and will
reward cooperative efforts to solve difficult resource issues. In order
to meet the strict timelines in the Consent Decree, it is essential to
pass S. 1308 this year, or the patrons of the irrigation district will
no longer have the ability to meet there water needs in two years. For
these reasons the organizations named below urge you to vote for S.
1308 and to seek its immediate passage.
______
City of South El Monte,
South El Monte, CA, March 28, 2003.
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano,
Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Water and Power, Longworth House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Napolitano: In June 1999, the City of South El
Monte together with the cities of El Monte and Industry asked you to
introduce legislation for a modest expansion of the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project, which was
established in 1993. We asked you to raise the budget cap of $38.05
million imposed on Title XVI in 1996 by $12.5 million. The purpose of
our request was to assure that the Title XVI had sufficient funds for
groundwater cleanup and conjunctive use projects throughout the San
Gabriel Basin, including projects in the cities of El Monte, South El
Monte and Industry.
As the mayor of South El Monte, I write to reaffirm the City of
South El Monte's support for this increased budget authorization. We
appreciate your efforts to raise the cap through your current bill,
H.R. 1284, which is co-sponsored by Chairman Dreier and Ranking Member
Solis, and support the bill's enactment for the current fiscal year.
As you know, reliable and clean water supply is crucial for many
Hispanic and minority-owned businesses as well as low-income households
in the City of South El Monte. My community is physically dominated by
small industrial businesses with several abandoned warehouses as the
City is composed of 29% residential and 71% commercial property. South
El Monte currently represents the lowest income area in the San Gabriel
Valley within Los Angeles County as unemployment in my City is
approximately 8.5% and 21.2% of the population is currently living at
or below the poverty level. Securing reliable and clean water supply
for my City is essential for me and my colleagues serving on the City
Council as we work to restore and revitalize our economy for our
working-class residents.
Since the three cities wrote you in 1999, planning for groundwater
cleanup projects throughout the southern part of San Gabriel Basin has
moved into the final design stages, and some cleanup facilities have
been constructed. While most of the Title XVI funds have gone to the
larger cleanup projects in the northern part of the basin, the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation and its local partner, the San Gabriel Basin
Water Quality Authority, have responded to the needs of our cities by
directing or reserving sonic Title XVI funds to or for projects in
South El Monte, El Monte and Industry.
At this point, Title XVI dollars already spent on or earmarked for
specific projects exhaust the $29.5 previously appropriated for the
program. Several recent applications pending before the Water Quality
Authority will take up most of the remaining amount authorized for the
program. Therefore, little or nothing will remain for new project that
we anticipate will be proposed over the next few years.
Once again, we at the City of South El Monte appreciate your
efforts to secure funds for important groundwater cleanup and supply
projects throughout the San Gabriel Basin. We arc pleased to reaffirm
the City's support for H.R. 1284.
Warm Regards,
Blanca Figueroa,
Mayor.
______
Cardinal Industrial Finishes,
South El Monte, CA, October 9, 2003.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington
DC.
Hon. Byron Dorgan,
Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington DC.
Re: H.R. 1284--to amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and
Adjustment Act of 1992 to increase the Federal share of the costs of
the San Gabriel Basin demonstration project (H.R. 1284).
Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Dorgan: This letter is
on behalf of the thirteen businesses and property owners \1\ who have
cooperated to fund the cleanup of groundwater in the South El Monte
Operable Unit (``SEMOU'') of the San Gabriel Valley Sugerfund Site
(``Site''). These Cooperating Parties write this letter in support of
H.R. 1284 presently before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the
Committee on House Resources: As discussed in more detail below, the
funding provided by H.R. 1284 is essential to bring to fruition the
landmark cooperative effort to cleanup the groundwater of the SEMOU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Andruss Family Trust; and 1987 Survivors Trust under terms of
Trust; APW North America Inc., formerly known as Zero Corporation and
Electronic Solutions; Artistic Polishing & Plating, Inc., and Art 1991
Revocable Living Marital Deduction Trust and Art 1981 Revocable Living
Exemption Trust; Cardinal Industrial Finishes, and Cardco; Durham
Transportation, Inc., Durham School Services Inc. and Durham Family
Limited Partnership; Eemus Manufacturing Corp.; International
Medication Systems, Ltd.; Norf James Jebbia Testamentary Trust; J.A.B.
Holdings, Inc., formerly known as J.A. Bozung Company; Roc-Aire Corp.;
Janneberg Trusts, formerly known as Servex Corp.; Smittybilt, Inc.;
Southern California Edison Co. (collectively, the ``Cooperating
Parties'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By way of background, H.R. 1284 will increase the Federal share of
funding to the San Gabriel Basin demonstration project (``Project'')
(42 U.S.C.S. Section 390h-12). The Project is a comprehensive solution
that addresses the water supply and groundwater contamination problems
of the Site and to thus adequately protect the groundwater resources of
the San Gabriel Basin. The Project implements conjunctive use projects
that will enhance both the groundwater quality and the local and
regional water supply of the San Gabriel Basin. Such treatment projects
will remove volatile organic compounds (``VOC'') and other emerging
contaminants such as perchlorate from the groundwater, and then deliver
the water for beneficial use. Federal Project funds contribute twenty-
five percent of the total capital cost of a project, but such funds
cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of such projects. (42
U.S.C.S. Section 390h-12(b).) Additionally, the Federal funds
contribution toward share of the funding of the Project cannot exceed
the amount specified as the ``total Federal obligation'' for the
Project made by the Bureau of Reclamation for fiscal year 1997 as set
forth in report of the March 27, 1996 hearing before the Subcommittee
on Energy and Water Development. (43 U.S.C.S. Section 390h-14(d)(2).)
Although the spending restrictions would remain in place, H.R. 1284
allows that the Federal share of the Project may be increased by an
additional $12,500,000.
It is vitally important that H.R. 1284 become law. Perhaps the
significance of H.R. 1284 can be emphasized by examination of the
importance of the initial outlay of federal funds which H.R. 1284 seeks
to increase. Approximately seventy private parties have been identified
for the SEMOU; most have been identified since at least the early to
mid-1990's. Organizing these parties into a cohesive responsive group
has proved to be an impossible task. However, certain of these private
parties chose to work with the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (``EPA's, the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority
(``WQA'') and certain water purveyors to reach an agreement to clean
the SEMOU groundwater resources. These parties sought to avoid
litigation and transactions costs and instead focus on targeting
resources upon the remediation of the SEMOU groundwater.
However, given the economic status of these parties, such an
agreement was difficult to reach. That is, parties interested in
contributing funding for the treatment projects could not gather enough
money to fund these important projects. After years of negotiations,
the logjam was broken as the private parties sought to access federal
funds such as funds from the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Project
(i.e., Restoration Fund) and the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration
Project (i.e., Title XVI). Even then, only the thirteen Cooperating
Parties entered into an agreement with the WQA and water purveyors to
provide funding toward projects to implement the cleanup of the
groundwater of the SEMOU (``Agreement'').
There is no question that the Agreement would not have been reached
but for the ability to include federal funds toward implementation of
the cleanup. This is perhaps best evidenced by the fact that after
years of negotiations, the Agreement was entered into after round the
clock talks culminating on July 1, 2002. Not coincidentally, this was
also the last day such an agreement could he reached in order to access
certain federal funds. In a letter dated July 15, 2002, the EPA wrote
the Cooperating Parties and informed them that it considered work
described in or performed pursuant to this Agreement that supports the
SEMOU Interim Record of Decision of the SEMOU RD/RA Statement of Work
the equivalent of remedy implementation. In short, the access of
federal funds allowed an agreement to be reached that focused resources
on addressing the contamination of the SEMOU rather than litigation and
transactional matters.
Our Congressional representatives should be heartily commended for
their wisdom in providing funds that set the stage for remedy
implementation to take place. Without such, it is likely that
significant resources would not be devoted toward remedy implementation
and instead would be squandered in litigation. Nonetheless, the SEMOU
remedy does not remain fully implemented due in part to two factors;
both of which could potentially be alleviated by H.R. 1284.
The first reason is the discovery of perchlorate and other
``emerging chemicals'' in the SEMOU. Although the Cooperating Parties
are not responsible for the rocket fuel perchlorate groundwater
contamination, the SEMOU remedy to address VOC's cannot be implemented
unless the perchlorate is also addressed. H.R. 1284 can provide the
funding to assist in addressing the perchlorate contamination and thus
allow the full VOC remedy implementation to proceed.
The second reason is that besides the Cooperating Parties' best
efforts, there remain numerous recalcitrant parties who have not
contributed their resources toward remedy implementation. Several of
these recalcitrants are presently embroiled in litigation with the WQA
and water purveyors. Further, the Cooperating Parties believe that EPA
will shortly be expending significant resources on enforcement against
these recalcitrants. Several of these recalcitrants regret failing to
exercise the initiative and foresight of the Cooperating Parties in
entering into the Agreement that recognized the availability of federal
funds. Based upon the Cooperating Parties' experiences, it is likely
that H.R. 1284 could provide the incentive that allows these
recalcitrants to enter into a similar agreement and thus devote their
resources toward the Project implementation.
For these reasons, the Cooperating Parties urge that H.R. 1284
become law, and the funds authorized therein be devoted to addressing
the perchlorate and emerging chemicals contamination in the SEMOU. This
would allow the full VOC remedy implementation to proceed and would
encourage further settlement from recalcitrants. In furtherance of
these goals, if you or other Congressmen and/or Congresswomen have any
questions regarding the Cooperating Parties' experiences, we would be
happy to assist.
Very truly yours,
Lawrence C. Felix,
Vice President.
______
City of El Monte,
City Council's Office,
El Monte, CA, October 9, 2003.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Senate Water and Power Subcommittee, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Byron Dorgan,
Ranking Member, Senate Water and Power Subcommittee, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Murkowski and Senator Dorgan: As an El Monte City
Councilwoman, I write to reaffirm the City of El Monte's support for
H.R. 1284, bill to increase the cost ceiling on the San Gabriel Basin
Demonstration Project. I appreciate the bill's efforts to raise the cap
by $12.5 million, which is cosponsored by Chairman David Dreier and
Ranking Member Solis, and I also support the bill's enactment in the
near future.
In June 1999, the City of El Monte together with the cities of
South El Monte and Industry asked Congresswoman Grace Napolitano to
introduce legislation for a modest expansion of the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project, which was
established in 1993. We asked the Congresswoman to raise the budget cap
of $38 million imposed on Title XVI in 1996 by $12.5 million. The
purpose of our request was to assure that the Title XVI program had
sufficient funds for groundwater cleanup and conjunctive use projects
throughout the San Gabriel Basin, including projects in the cities of
South El Monte and Industry.
Reliable and clean water supply is crucial for the City of El
Monte. El Monte currently has one of the lowest household incomes
within Los Angeles County and very high unemployment. Securing reliable
and clean water supply for my city is essential for me and my
colleagues serving on the City Council as we work to restore and
revitalize our economy for our working class residents.
Since the three cities wrote Congresswoman Napolitano in 1999,
planning for groundwater cleanup projects throughout the southern part
of the San Gabriel Basin has moved into the final design stages, and
some cleanup facilities have been constructed. While most of the Title
XVI funds have gone to larger cleanup projects in the northern part of
the basin, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and its local partner, the
San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, have responded to the needs
of our cities by directing or reserving some Title XVI funds to or for
projects in South El Monte, El Monte and Industry.
At this point, Title XVI dollars already spent on or earmarked for
specific projects exhaust the $29.5 million previously appropriated for
the program. Several recent applications pending before the Water
Quality Authority will take up most of the remaining amount authorized
for the program. Therefore, little or nothing will remain for new
projects that we anticipate will be proposed over the next few years.
Once again, we at the City of El Monte appreciate your efforts to
secure funds for important groundwater cleanup and supply projects
throughout the San Gabriel Basin. We are pleased to reaffirm the city's
support for H.R. 1284.
Warm regards,
Patricia Wallach,
Councilwoman.
______
City of Industry,
City of Industry, CA, October 14, 2003.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairwoman, Senate Water and Power Subcommittee, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Byron Dorgan,
Ranking Member, Senate Water and Power Subcommittee, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: H.R. 1284--Increased Budget Authorization for the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project Program
Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Dorgan: In June 1999,
the City of Industry, together with the cities of El Monte and South El
Monte, asked Congresswoman Grace Napolitano to introduce legislation
for a modest expansion of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's San Gabriel
Basin Demonstration Project, which was established in 1993. We asked
that the budget cap of $38 million imposed on Title XVI in 1996 be
raised by $12.5 million. The purpose of our request was to assure that
Title XV1 had sufficient funds for groundwater cleanup and conjunctive
use projects throughout the San Gabriel Basin, including projects in
the cities of El Monte, South El Monte and Industry.
I write today to reaffirm the City of Industry's support for this
increased budget authorization. We appreciate Congresswoman
Napolitano's efforts to raise the cap through her current bill, H.R
1284, which is co-sponsored by Congressman Dreier and Congresswoman
Solis, and support the bill's enactment in the near future.
The City of Industry is home to almost 2,000 businesses, and is a
major job center in our region. Reliable supplies of clean water are
critical to keep and grow the large employment base in the City of
Industry and other San Gabriel Valley communities. Local groundwater
sources are an increasingly important part of our region's water
supplies, especially with the recent redirection of Colorado River
water that formerly came to southern California.
Since we first wrote Congresswoman Napolitano in 1999, planning for
groundwater cleanup projects throughout the southern part of the San
Gabriel Basin has moved into the final design stages, and some cleanup
facilities have been constructed. While most of the Title XVI funds
have gone to the largest cleanup projects in the northern part of the
basin, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and its local partner, the San
Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, have responded to the needs of
our cities by directing or reserving some Tile XVI funds to or for
projects in El Monte, South El Monte and the City of Industry.
At this point, Title XVI dollars already spent on or earmarked for
specific projects exhaust the $29.5 million previously appropriated for
the program. Several recent applications pending before the Water
Quality Authority will take up most of the remaining amount authorized
for the program. Therefore, little or nothing would remain for new
projects that we anticipate will be proposed over the next few years.
Again, I am pleased to reaffirm the City's support for H.R. 1284.
Very truly yours,
Philip L. Iriarte,
City Manager.
______
Statement of Michael Whitehead, Member, Board of Directors,
San Gabriel Water Quality Authority
My name is Michael Whitehead and I am a member of the Board of
Directors of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority. I
appreciate the Committee allowing me the opportunity to submit my
written testimony for the record. Let me also express my appreciation
to Congresswoman Grace Napolitano for introducing H.R. 1284 and to
Senator Feinstein for being a champion of water issues throughout the
state.
The Title XVI program has provided the San Gabriel Basin with the
ability to provide much needed wellhead treatment, stem the flow of
contaminants, stabilize water rates and most importantly deliver safe
and reliable drinking water to the residents of the San Gabriel Basin.
By increasing the authorization for the San Gabriel Basin
Demonstration Project, H.R. 1284 will allow us to continue the
incredible progress that has been made over the last few years in
cleaning up and utilizing the groundwater in the San Gabriel Basin.
Title XVI has allowed us to maximize local dollars as we attempt to
remediate groundwater contamination that threatens the drinking water
supply of over 1 million residents of the San Gabriel Basin.
In the time period since the Title XVI program was made available
to the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, 10 projects have been
allocated funding. Seven projects have been built and another three
will begin construction in the near future.
Without the funding for the treatment facilities local water
producers would have been forced to shut down water wells due to
migrating contamination. The closures would have forced local water
purveyors to become reliant on Colorado River water at a time that the
state's allotment is being cut back. This would have severely impaired
our ability to provide water for users in the basin and forced us to
rely on imported water.
It is vital that we restore the basin's aquifer. Once we are able
to remediate the contamination it is our belief that Valley will be
able to use the aquifer to meet all of basin's water needs. Removing
harmful contaminants from our communities groundwater supply will allow
local water producers to better meet the needs of local residents at
affordable rates. Lifting the ceiling on Title XVI makes certain that
the basin is able to meet the water supply needs of future generations.
We urge the Committee and their fellow members of Congress to lift
the ceiling on the Title XVI program to allow us to carry out our
mission of facilitating groundwater cleanup and providing a clean,
reliable drinking water supply for the 1 million residents of the San
Gabriel Basin.
Again, I appreciate the Subcommittee considering my testimony on
H.R. 1284.
______
Statement of Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, U.S. Representative
From California
Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Dorgan, thank you for
allowing the Senate Water and Power Subcommittee to conduct a hearing
on H.R. 1284, a bill that is vital for my constituents in San Gabriel
Valley located in Southeast Los Angeles County. I am pleased to have
the support of Chairman David Dreier and Congresswoman Hilda Solis as
co-sponsors of this bill that aims to provide an opportunity for the
continuation of a highly successful Bureau of Reclamation project.
If enacted, H.R. 1284 will simply allow the cities of Industry, El
Monte and South El Monte in and near my Congressional District to have
the ability to request funding for assistance from the Bureau of
Reclamation's San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project for cleanup of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) once they are able to secure 75%
matching fund.
The San Gabriel Basin is home to one of the country's largest and
most complex Superfund sites. The site spans over 170 square miles. The
groundwater beneath the Basin supplies drinking water to over 1.5
million people in the San Gabriel Valley. Unfortunately, the
groundwater has been contaminated by a number of substances over the
past five decades as a result of manufacturing and agricultural
activities.
Local and state governments together with the business community
have worked long and hard to develop solutions to clean up groundwater
contamination from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and perchlorate in
order to ultimately revitalize the economy of the San Gabriel Basin.
One important piece of the solution has been a U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project authorized by
Congress in 1992 which provides 25% federal matching funds for projects
which combine groundwater cleanup of (VOCs). Among the many benefits of
the San Gabriel Demonstration Projects are:
Relieving demand for water from the Colorado River and
Northern California, home to the fragile Bay-Delta estuary;
Providing additional groundwater storage for use during
drought periods and emergencies such as earthquakes;
Protecting the drinking water supply of over 1.5 million
residents in the San Gabriel Valley by cleaning up contaminated
groundwater;
Helping to relieve the chronic unemployment in the San
Gabriel Valley caused by the recession of the early 1990s by
removing the stigma of contamination and attendant potential
liability exposure from development of redevelopment of
commercial property;
Creating significant incentives for local governments and
businesses to contribute to the cleanup costs in a cooperative,
not confrontational spirit.
When originally authorized in 1992, the Bureau of Reclamation
project was intended to benefit the entire San Gabriel Basin by
providing 25% of the costs of projects involving reclamation of
potential local water supplies.
Unfortunately, the funding level for this critical Basin program
was capped at $38 million in 1996, funding only a portion of the
project that had been designed. Most of the projects originally funded
were in the northern part of the Basin that excluded the Puente Valley
Operable Unit, the El Monte Operable Unit, and the South El Monte
Operable Unit. Since the 1996 funding cap, these operable units in the
San Gabriel Basin have developed detailed groundwater cleanup plans
under the supervision of the USEPA. These projects are conjunctive use
projects and could be funded under the existing Bureau of Reclamation's
San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project only if the 1996 budget cap is
raised.
The legislation I am introducing will simply raise the allowable
funding level for this previously authorized project by $12.5 million.
This will accommodate the conjunctive use projects that have been
designed since 1996 and which are integral components of the Basin's
efforts to clean up its groundwater and expand its local water supply
capacity. Appropriations will still need to be sought. My legislation
will simply provide that opportunity.
During the House Water and Power Subcommittee hearing on April 1,
2003, a compelling need was clearly established for the extension of
funding for this successful program on behalf of the Cities of
Industry, El Monte and South El Monte, as we can expect more
applications from municipalities for funding from the San Gabriel
Demonstration Project to exceed the current $38 million cap in the near
future.
I want to express my appreciation to Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking
Member Dorgan, Senator Feinstein and other Members of the Subcommittee
for today's hearing on H.R. 1284 and I look forward to working with the
Members on the Senate Water and Power Subcommittee towards the passage
of this important legislation.
______
Statement of Jeff Oveson, Executive Director,
Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee on Water and Power
of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, my name is Jeff
Oveson, Executive Director of the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program
(GRMWP or Model Watershed), which is a community-based organization
embedded in the county governments of Wallowa and Union Counties, the
political boundaries of which basically encompass the Grande Ronde
Basin, a tributary of the Snake River, in Northeastern Oregon. The
Model Watershed Program, since 1992, has been a collaborative
organization directed by Board Members from both counties representing
County Government, federal and state natural resource agencies, the Nez
Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation, Soil & Water Conservation Districts, environmental
interests, and private landowners.
The organization, founded with and through the support of the
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA), and the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB, now GWEB)
supports activities principally related to watershed restoration and
species recovery on both federal and private lands. It is funded
primarily through BPA's Fish and Wildlife Program, the GWEB, and
Reclamation. To date, we have facilitated the investment of over
$17,000,000 in restoration projects throughout the basin.
I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
steering committee of the Wallowa Lake Dam Rehabilitation and Water
Management Plan regarding S. 1355, the Wallowa Lake Dam Rehabilitation
and Water Management Act of 2003. This bill could appropriately be
titled ``Lostine River Salmon Restoration Plan'', or ``Fish Recovery
Plan'', or a number of other things that accurately portray the real
virtues of the plan. It really is an honor to bring to your attention a
locally developed plan that has such demonstrable environmental,
economic, and social merits.
I am going to discuss with you two drainages in Wallowa County: the
Lostine River, and the Wallowa River, in an attempt to make clear their
interconnectivity, and the reliance of each on the other in providing
water for Threatened and Endangered fish species, irrigation, urban
consumption, recreation, and overall ecosystem balance.
The Lostine River has its headwaters in the Eagle Cap Wilderness
Area, flows through a designated Scenic Area, and its lower 10 miles
through the Middle Valley of Wallowa County, the lower end of which is
its point of confluence with the Wallowa River. The middle portion of
the Lostine is home to a number of irrigation diversions that tend to
dewater the river in the late summer to the point that passage by adult
salmon migrating to their historic spawning grounds is impossible.
Hankin and Reeves Surveys in 1994 (Nez Perce Tribe and Oregon Dept.
of Fish & Wildlife), the Lostine River Instream Flow Study in 1998 (R2
Resource Consultants, Nez Perce Tribe, and Oregon Dept. of Fish &
Wildlife, Bonneville Power Administration, and Bureau of Reclamation),
and the Lostine River Salmonid Passage Enhancement Study of 2001
(Harza, GRMWP, and Natural Resources Conservation Service) were all
collaborative efforts to accurately assess conditions in the Lostine,
and were all funded and completed by partners in fish restoration.
These studies identified instream flow as the primary limiting factor
in the spawning, rearing, and migration of Chinook Salmon, summer
steelhead, and bull trout, all three of which are listed fish. This
condition is especially onerous during the months of August and
September. This condition also impacts free migration and rearing of
all life stages of all three species.
Over the past decade, irrigators on the Lostine have cooperated
with Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries and Oregon Department of Fish &
Wildlife in efforts to improve passage and rearing problems by
conserving on water diversion, coordinating flushing flows to ease
upstream migration, and providing access to tribal and agency,
personnel for management activities. Even now, they are collectively
and individually working with Natural Resources Conservation Agency and
Soil & Water Conservation District personnel designing and implementing
water quantity and quality improvement projects that will affect the
Lostine. The recently passed Farm Bill will support this effort a great
deal.
The fact remains that instream flows are still insufficient on a
regular annual basis.
Twenty-odd river miles upstream of the Lostine River-Wallowa River
confluence is Wallowa Lake, a natural holding facility for water whose
capacity was augmented by the construction of a dam in 1918, later to
be increased in size in 1929 when hydropower capabilities were added.
The lake behind the dam serves a wide range of purposes, among
them:
water for irrigation of over 15,000 acres of the county's
prime agricultural lands (management of the dam directly
affects over 40,000 irrigated acres);
drinking water for the city of Joseph;
recreational use by over 800,000 users per year for fishing,
boating, water skiing, and sightseeing;
flood control-active storage that is managed to provide
flood protection to the downstream cities of Joseph,
Enterprise, and Oregon; and
stable base flows for the Wallowa and Grande Ronde Rivers,
preserving and enhancing riparian habitat, fish stocks, water
fowl, and water quality.
In 1996, Oregon Water Resources Department Division of Dam Safety
listed the Wallowa Lake Dam as a ``high hazard'' structure, recognizing
that a sudden failure of the dam would likely result in loss of life as
well as millions of dollars worth of property, and would have a
devastating long-term negative impact on the downstream ecology.
Associated Ditch Company (ADC), builders and owners of the dam,
began the planning and design of improvements. This assessment fostered
the realization that they were not the only ones reliant on the
integrity of the structure, nor were they the only ones who had needs
that could be addressed by the rehabilitation of the dam. This
recognition of need and opportunity led ADC to invite input from a wide
variety of agencies, interests, and the Nez Perce Tribe (41 such
entities attended the first organizational meeting), with hopes of
designing a project that would address these needs and opportunities
and be a lasting positive landmark in Wallowa County environmentally,
economically, and socially. With that in mind, a mission statement was
developed:
``To rehabilitate Wallowa Lake Dam and implement a water
management program for the Wallowa Valley serving the needs of
agriculture, salmon recovery, fish and wildlife enhancement,
recreation, flood control, municipal water supply, and
hydropower generation.''
To ensure that this mission statement comes to fruition, the
irrigators of the ADC have agreed to:
cooperate with Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries in providing fish
passage above the dam to allow for restoration of Sockeye and
Coho Salmon;
store and deliver 4,500 acre-feet of water to the Lostine to
supplant irrigation withdrawals (thereby assuring a minimum
flow of 30 cubic-feet-per-second in the Lostine); and
screen diversions to avoid luring and trapping Bull Trout in
irrigation canals.
The Endangered Species Act clearly supports this project, but
overtly threatens the livelihood of irrigators if action is not taken.
The Clean Water Act does the same. The Tribal Trust nexus is clearly
triggered by this proposed project, as are the action plans associated
with Bonneville Power Administration's Fish & Wildlife Program
Mitigation, the Wallowa County/Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery
Plan, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, the GRMWP Action Plan,
and others.
There are some clearly identified issues, and risks associated with
those issues:
consistent late season low flows in the Lostine put at risk:
irrigators (third party or regulatory intervention)
salmon, steelhead, and bull trout, as well as less prominent
species associated with them
Tribal Treaty rights
local economic structure and land values
the social fabric of small communities
the loss of maximum function of the Wallowa Lake Dam
jeopardizes:
thousands of acres of irrigated land
loss of significant income county-wide from tourism
associated with the water resources of Wallowa County
the continuing decline in populations of threatened and
endangered fish
municipal drinking water supplies
success of the Nez Perce Tribal/ODFW fish hatchery funded by
BPA, scheduled for construction beginning this year
A fully functioning dam at Wallowa Lake will address these issues
and more:
Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries will have the opportunity to
restore the historic runs of Sockeye and Coho Salmon to Wallowa
Lake;
over 40,000 acres of irrigated lands will stay in production
with little risk of harm to fish or from litigation, avoiding
situations such as in the Klamath Falls Basin;
the cities of Joseph, Enterprise, and Wallowa will be
protected from floods;
the viable population of Chinook Salmon, summer Steeihead,
and Bull Trout in the Lostine can be maintained and enhanced;
and
the city of Joseph will have a safe and reliable water
supply.
This bill is not about dam safety. It is not about restoring fish
populations. It is not about irrigation. It is about needs and
opportunities to stabilize the environmental, economic, and social
fabric of a natural resource based community that has clearly
demonstrated its willingness to preserve all three.
______
Statement of Anthony D. Johnson, Chairman, Nez Perce
Tribal Executive Committee, Nez Perce Tribe
On behalf of the Nez Perce Tribe, I would like to take this
opportunity to again express the Tribe's support for the Wallowa Lake
Dam Rehabilitation and Water Management Act. The Tribe presented
testimony in support of the important dam rehabilitation project
contemplated in this Act in June of 2002. As each year passes, the need
for the project intensifies.
Since time immemorial, the Nez Perce Tribe lived, fished, hunted
and gathered in the beautiful area of northeastern Oregon, now known as
Wallowa County. It is from this land that Chief Joseph, Ollicut and
their bands were removed in 1877 in an action that eventually resulted
in war between two sovereigns, the United States and the Nez Perce
Tribe. Despite the wounds of years past, the Tribe retained, and the
United States has upheld and protected, the treaty reserved rights to
hunt and fish in the Wallowas. And through these many years, salmon,
steelhead and other fish species returning to the Wallowas have
continued to be critically important to Nez Perce religion, culture,
subsistence and commercial endeavors.
Before 1900, approximately 24,000 to 30,000 sockeye returned to
Wallowa Lake each year. In 1890, a small dam was built at the outlet of
Wallowa Lake to divert water for irrigation. When the Wallowa Lake Dam
was constructed, it did not include fish passage facilities and no such
facilities have ever been incorporated into the structure. The dam, in
conjunction with over-harvest and other factors, resulted in the
extinction of sockeye from Wallowa Lake by 1904.
Recently, the Nez Perce Tribe and other local community supporters
of this Act, have pursued restoration of sockeye as part of a
comprehensive salmon restoration program in northeastern Oregon.
Rehabilitation of the Wallowa Lake Dam will include construction of
necessary fish passage facilities allowing sockeye access back to the
lake. The Tribe has shown it can bring back an extirpated run of coho
salmon and dramatically increase the return of listed fall chinook
salmon. The Tribe believes it can do the same for sockeye.
In addition to fish passage and sockeye salmon restoration,
rehabilitation of the dam will provide many other benefits including
enhanced flood control, improved water conservation and management of
irrigation withdrawals, and greater stability of the city of Joseph
water supply. This legislation is needed to implement the Wallowa
Valley Water Management Plan and is supported by a broad coalition of
supporters. Wallowa Lake is used by more than 800,000 recreational
users each year and provides irrigation for 15,000 acres, water for the
city of Joseph, Oregon, and flood control for Joseph, Wallowa, and
Enterprise, Oregon. These many water users have been waiting since
1996, when Oregon Water Resources Department of Dam Safety listed
Wallowa Lake Dam as a high hazard structure, for this dam to be
rehabilitated.
Very importantly, the water exchange actions proposed in the Act
will result in increased flows in the Lostine River and Bear Creek for
spring chinook salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act. The
Tribe and others have worked diligently to bolster these runs of spring
chinook through implementation of the Northeast Oregon Hatchery
program. The last few years have demonstrated the great success of the
program in returning salmon. We now need the stream flow improvements
encompassed by the Act to sustain the runs.
The efforts made in Wallowa County, to bolster the runs and to
support this Act, are tangible demonstrations of a community working to
develop a healthy ecosystem. The Tribe has carried out virtually all of
its fisheries restoration activities on private lands in cooperation
with the local landowners. These actions include conducting the
inventories necessary to improve fish passage at road culverts,
monitoring fish runs using traps and weirs, and acclimating juvenile
salmon for supplementing the runs. During the last few years, local
irrigators have cooperated with the Tribe and Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife to curtail their water withdrawals at critical low flow
periods. Passage of the Wallowa Lake Dam Act and supporting the
collaborative relationship that exists in Wallowa County will serve as
a great example of how to avoid volatile situations like that in the
Klamath Basin in recent years.
The Tribe strongly supports the Wallowa Lake Dam Rehabilitation and
Water Management Act. Passage of the Act will insure that the legal and
trust obligations of the United States, to protect and enhance treaty-
reserved fishing rights, are honored, and will demonstrate the
importance of national commitment to collaborative restoration actions
for salmon in the Pacific Northwest.