[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


          ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2001

                      ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

                        APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2001

_______________________________________________________________________

                                HEARINGS

                                BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
                             SECOND SESSION
                                ________

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

                    RON PACKARD, California, Chairman

 HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky              PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
 JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan            CHET EDWARDS, Texas
 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey  ED PASTOR, Arizona
 SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama              MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York
 TOM LATHAM, Iowa
 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi       

 NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full 
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full 
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.

          Robert Schmidt and Jeanne L. Wilson, Staff Assistants
                                ________

                                 PART 3
                                                                   Page
 Bureau of Reclamation............................................    1
 Testimony of the Secretary of the Interior.......................    2
 Appalachian Regional Commission..................................  724

                              

                                ________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
 64-295                     WASHINGTON : 2000

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                   C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman

 RALPH REGULA, Ohio                      DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
 JERRY LEWIS, California                 JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
 JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois            NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
 HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky                 MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
 JOE SKEEN, New Mexico                   JULIAN C. DIXON, California
 FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia                 STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
 TOM DeLAY, Texas                        ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
 JIM KOLBE, Arizona                      MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
 RON PACKARD, California                 NANCY PELOSI, California
 SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama                 PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
 JAMES T. WALSH, New York                NITA M. LOWEY, New York
 CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina       JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
 DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio                   ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
 ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma         JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
 HENRY BONILLA, Texas                    JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
 JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan               ED PASTOR, Arizona
 DAN MILLER, Florida                     CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
 JAY DICKEY, Arkansas                    DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
 JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                  MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York
 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey     CHET EDWARDS, Texas
 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi            ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr., 
 GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,              Alabama
Washington                               MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
 RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,              LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
California                               SAM FARR, California
 TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                     JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
 ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                    CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
 TOM LATHAM, Iowa                        ALLEN BOYD, Florida
 ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky               
 ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama             
 JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri                
 JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire           
 KAY GRANGER, Texas                      
 JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania          
 VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia          
                                    

                 James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

                                  (ii)

 
          ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2001

                              ----------                              

                                            Tuesday, April 4, 2000.

                         BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

                               WITNESSES

BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
ELUID L. MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
JOHN D. TREZISE, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
J. RONALD JOHNSTON, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, CUP COMPLETION ACT OFFICE
LARRY L. TODD, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
ROBERT W. WOLF, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM, BUDGET AND LIAISON GROUP, BUREAU OF 
    RECLAMATION

                    MR. PACKARD'S OPENING STATEMENT

    Mr. Packard. Ladies and gentlemen, we would like to call 
this hearing to order. We would like to apologize for the 
change of schedule. We were supposed to have this hearing last 
week, but because of unforeseen circumstances, it was necessary 
for us to make the change. We apologize for any inconvenience, 
Mr. Secretary, and to you, Mr. Martinez, or anyone else that 
had planned to attend. We are grateful, however, this morning 
to have the opportunity to meet with the Secretary and the 
Commissioner, and we are looking forward to your testimony.
    Each of us have received your written testimonies, and they 
will be entered into the official record. If you would like to 
summarize as we proceed with your testimonies, we would welcome 
that.
    Mr. Visclosky is detained for a short time, but I think 
will be here shortly.
    We welcome of course, Mr. Edwards, whose presence will 
allow us to go ahead and start on time.
    The witnesses will be referring to the fiscal year 2001 
budget of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah 
Project completion account. This work is critical to the 
survival of my State of California and, of course, to all of 
the Western States.
    There has been concern raised around the country in the 
past few months about the price of oil and the possibility that 
it would return us to the days of gasoline shortages. But I am 
here to tell you that water is even more valuable in the West 
than oil is. So your work as the agency that helps to provide 
water, and control and manage water is absolutely crucial to 
the West. We deeply appreciate the work that you have been 
doing.
    It has been my pleasure to work with Secretary Babbitt for 
many years now. That has been a very good relationship, and I 
think we have done some good things, Mr. Secretary, certainly 
for the country and for the West. Before we have you testify, 
Mr. Secretary, and then the Commissioner, we would like to have 
any opening statements from Mr. Edwards from Texas.
    Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, I have no opening comments other 
than to welcome the Secretary and the Commissioner and the 
other staff here. We are thrilled to have you here.
    Mr. Packard. With that, Mr. Secretary, we would like to 
turn the time to you and let you give your oral testimony as 
you wish.


                 SECRETARY BABBITT'S OPENING STATEMENT


    Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I 
really hadn't thought before I walked in that this is kind of a 
swan song for both the Chairman and myself. It seems scarcely 
possible that I am in year 8 and you are in year 8, plus 10 or 
12 or 14 or something. At any rate, it has been an enormous 
pleasure working with you not only on the committee, but on all 
of the incredible things that we have gotten launched in 
southern California and in San Diego. I could scarcely have 
imagined how we would be able to bring those communities 
together on the southern California landscape and the work on 
these related water and land issues. I think it is something 
that we can both take some great satisfaction from as we ride 
off into the sunset.
    Well, I won't dwell on the impending collision between the 
Congress and the White House over budget issues. It is above my 
pay grade, but the budget resolution clearly does not make room 
for the President's priorities in the Interior budget at large, 
particularly the Lands Legacy program, the very important 
concerns for Native Americans, some of which are in the 
Reclamation budget, and a variety of other things. That is, as 
I said, above my pay grade. So with your acquiescence, I will 
move straight to the matter at hand, which is the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
    The President's budget proposes an increase of 
approximately $33 million, a modest increase by any standards. 
Now, the Commissioner will in his testimony march through the 
Reclamation items. I would like, if I may very briefly, to talk 
about three issues, Mr. Chairman. One is California. I would 
like to think that together we can construct a farewell package 
for California of some importance. Second, I want to talk about 
Florida because it is not only an Interior priority, it also 
relates very much to the Corps of Engineers budget which will 
be before you this year; and then lastly say a few words about 
several important Indian, Reclamation and water settlement 
issues in the West.


                          CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA


    Mr. Chairman, the budget this year has $60 million for the 
California Bay-Delta program. Now, I understand your 
reservations about the interplay between the appropriation and 
the authorization process. I will get into that to the extent 
that you want me to do so. But what I would like to say is 
simply this: The opportunity that we have in partnership with 
the State of California to deal with these water issues may not 
come again for another generation. And if we fail to bring this 
CALFED process to conclusion in June with a programmatic 
environmental statement, everyone in California is going to 
lose, because what that process is about in part is a reliable 
urban water supply for the Metropolitan Water District service 
area, the San Diego County Water Authority and all of southern 
California.
    The water users in the San Francisco Bay area are at the 
threshold of an opportunity that I don't think will come again 
for a generation to build expanded storage either at the Los 
Vaqueros site or elsewhere south of the Delta and begin to 
integrate the water supply reliability and quality for Silicon 
Valley, San Jose, Oakland, the East Bay, San Francisco and the 
entire area.
    There is an impending water reliability and water quality 
problem of extraordinary magnitude in the Bay area. They didn't 
realize it until recently. They have not gone through the 
experience of San Diego and the Los Angeles metropolitan areas. 
These things are all linked together in terms of reliability, 
water quality, solving the fish problem in the Delta, and 
attempting to give some predictability to the agricultural 
water supply. It is a vast undertaking. It will extend across 
an entire generation, approximately 30 years. Over that period 
California is going to require capital investment of somewhere 
in the neighborhood of $6 to $8 billion to assure its water 
future with 30 plus million people, headed to 50 million by 
probably 2030 or 2040.
    Now, the crucial piece of this is that these water problems 
can no longer be solved in isolation. Every single water user 
in the State of California from the Oregon border to the 
Mexican border is mortgaged to the future with everybody else 
because we have now reached the point at which no water user in 
the entire State of California can get better without everybody 
else being impacted and getting better together. There is no 
longer any marginal local water supply available for San Diego, 
Los Angeles, Orange County, Santa Barbara, the Central Valley, 
the Bay Area, Sacramento, or northern California.
    We worked this through the entire Wilson administration in 
a series of negotiations which yielded a lot of productive 
effort. It has now continued into the Davis administration. We 
are meeting on a bi-weekly basis now. I think we have a chance. 
I think this is within reach.
    To get to the point, this entire process throughout both 
the Wilson and Davis administrations has been premised upon our 
ability to bring together every agency in the State of 
California--Fish and Game, Water Resources, Agriculture, the 
flood control agencies--to match them up with all of the 
Federal agencies--Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, 
Fish and Wildlife Service--and to put together a program that 
says we are going to share this 50-50 over time. Not in 
mathematical exactitude and program accounts, but we are 
committed to a 50-50 partnership.
    The State of California has voted twice now about their 
opinion of the urgency of this. In 1994, they did it with a 
bond issue in Proposition 204. They put up a billion plus 
dollars, about half of which goes directly to the Bay-Delta 
effort. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, Proposition 13, the 
Governor's 2000 water bond issue, passed with 65 percent of the 
vote. It is a $2 billion bond issue. Something less than $300 
million of that is directly committed to the cost-sharing 
provisions of the CALFED process. The recommendations that are 
coming out of this process will be ready for consideration by 
the Congress and the California Legislature sometime this 
summer.
    The reason I go through all of that background is to plead 
with this committee not to let this appropriation cycle drop 
between the cracks. It is going to send a bad message to 
California at the very time when these negotiations are within 
striking distance of conclusion.
    Recognizing your concerns, Mr. Chairman, about the process, 
we chose to come back with the $60 million figure from last 
year. We have got to send that signal. We are ready and willing 
to work with the staff in terms of this interface and how we 
put this together, but I think it is absolutely essential not 
only for your district, but the entire State.

                        EVERGLADES/FLORIDA WATER

    I want to say a word about Florida, Mr. Chairman, because 
interestingly enough, we have the same set of issues in 
Florida, and the reason is nearly identical to California. The 
days when we had water development projects which came up 
through the Corps or the Bureau for one community or one area 
within a State are disappearing. The problem in Florida is 
exactly the same as in California. It rains a lot in Florida, 
but Florida is flat, and the water is all dumped out in the 
ocean. The landscape has been chopped up again and again and 
again. Greater Miami incredibly is looking at a water shortage. 
Tampa Bay is now building the first large-scale urban 
desalination plant that has ever gone up in the United States. 
Santa Barbara did a small one. Tampa Bay is going big time on 
their funding.
    The entire State has a water deficit. And the problem is, 
given the environmental laws of this country, the operation of 
the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act, and the 
passion of the Floridians for restoring the Everglades, you 
can't go out and just get your own water supply. Everybody is 
mortgaged to the success of restoring the Everglades.
    So why am I here talking about a $200 million item in the 
Corps of Engineers budget? Mr. Chairman, because it is a 
Florida-wide issue. On the other side of the Interior budget, 
we are spending between $50 and $100 million a year to keep our 
part of this commitment. Again, it adds up on a large basis to 
about a 50-50 cost-share over time. To implement the 
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan we are looking at a 
commitment of $7.8 billion up through 2020.
    These two efforts in California and Florida are the largest 
water supply projects that have ever been undertaken in this 
country. The Governor of Florida has made it quite clear that 
he is committed to finding the 50-50 cost-share, that Florida 
is in this all of the way. As in California, that commitment 
has gone from--in this case a Democratic Governor, Lawton 
Chiles, to a Republican, Jeb Bush. That is the opposite in 
California; where it has gone from Pete Wilson to Gray Davis.
    That is, I believe, Mr. Chairman, where the unfolding 
future of this committee as it relates to water supply is being 
laid out. There will be other States moving in this direction. 
It is inevitable. It is the only way we can deal with these 
large water supply issues.

                    INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS

    Lastly, I want to point to the significance of two water 
rights settlements that affect the Bureau of Reclamation. We 
have worked very hard over the last 8 years on Indian water 
rights settlements. They are absolutely essential to the 
future, not just to the Indian tribes, but to the West. We 
recently completed, for example, the water settlement for the 
San Luis Rey Tribe, which are located a little north of your 
district, but not much.
    We have included in the budget the funding for a Montana 
water rights settlement known as the Rocky Boy's Water Rights 
Settlement. It is important. It is in the Reclamation budget of 
for $16 million. I enthusiastically support that.
    There is also, I believe, a $23 million item for the 
building of a water supply system for the Gila River Indian 
Community in Arizona. We are within 5 yards of the largest, 
most comprehensive Indian water rights settlement in the 
history of the West, which will result in essentially quieting 
title to land and water throughout southern Arizona. The amount 
of the water budget for the settlement is pushing a million 
acre feet. That is, I would guess, an amount ofwater which 
probably approaches twice the amount of water consumed in San Diego 
County, at least on the urban side. The $22 million is, again, part of 
a bridge investment moving across to the finalization of this water 
rights settlement.
    Well, I think I have preached long enough, Mr. Chairman. I 
hope I didn't take too much liberty in trying to characterize 
these at the expense of a more detailed factual presentation. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We 
appreciate your testimony.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Babbitt follows:]



    Mr. Packard. We welcome to the committee Mr. Visclosky and 
Mr. Knollenberg.
    We are looking forward to your testimony, Commissioner 
Martinez, if you would like to proceed.

               OPENING STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ

    Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, I extend my appreciation to you 
and the members of the subcommittee for the support you have 
provided to me in my tenure as the Commissioner of Reclamation. 
I, like you, look forward to returning to my home State and 
enjoying my retirement. I appreciate the support of Reclamation 
in general.
    The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the 
Bureau of Reclamation represents an approximate 4.3 percent 
increase over the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, including 
$741 million for Reclamation's programs and $60 million for the 
California Bay-Delta restoration activities.
    Reclamation's budget request adheres to our 2000 to 2005 
Strategic Plan, which identifies three mission goals for the 
Bureau of Reclamation. These are to manage, develop and protect 
water and related resources to help meet the needs of current 
and future generations; to operate, maintain and rehabilitate 
our facilities to provide project benefits; and to ensure 
Reclamation's organizational effectiveness. Accordingly, the 
total request for projects and programs associated with water 
and related resources account is $674 million. This request 
would provide a total of $289 million for facility operation, 
maintenance, and rehabilitation, an increase of $30 million 
over fiscal year 2000.
    You might say that during my tenure as Commissioner of 
Reclamation I have tried to make sure that we continue with 
programs to ensure that our facilities are adequately 
maintained, operated and rehabilitated. Reclamation's 
facilities, to be quite frank, are nearing an age of about 50 
years old. It is important that we maintain these facilities to 
make sure that the project benefits flow from them. Providing 
adequate funding for these activities is one of Reclamation's 
highest priorities, and the Reclamation staff is working 
closely with the water users and our stakeholders to ensure 
that available funds are used effectively.

                           DAM SAFETY PROGRAM

    Mr. Chairman, our request includes $77 million for the Dam 
Safety Program to protect the downstream public by ensuring the 
safety and reliability of Reclamation dams. The request 
reflects an increase of $15 million over the fiscal year 2000 
appropriation. Reclamation plans to initiate safety and dam 
modifications at several facilities in the near future.
    Mr. Chairman, the Administration has sent legislation, H.R. 
3595, to Congress seeking to increase by $380 million the 
authorized cost ceiling for the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act. 
Current projections indicate that there is sufficient authority 
to support the fiscal year 2001 budget request, but additional 
authority will be needed in fiscal year 2002 and beyond in 
order to carry out our Dam Safety Program.

                          RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

    Reclamation's request also includes a total of $385 million 
for resource management and development activities. Requested 
is funding for projects currently under construction, including 
the Central Arizona Project, the Mni Wiconi project in South 
Dakota, and the Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota, as 
well as the recently enacted Rocky Boy's Indian Water Rights 
Settlement in Montana.
    In the area of environmental compliance, funds are being 
requested for endangered species recovery efforts in the 
Columbia/Snake River system, the Rio Grande and other river 
basins throughout the West, and the construction of a 
temperature control device at Glen Canyon Dam.

                CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

    Mr. Chairman, Reclamation's budget request includes a $38 
million request for the Central Valley Project Restoration 
Fund, which is the estimated level of collections from project 
beneficiaries. The budget contains a proposal for fiscal year 
2001 and each year thereafter, that the full amount of these 
additional charges will be collected, and that all revenues 
deposited in the Restoration Fund from this and other sources 
would be directly available for expenditure.

                     BAY-DELTA RESTORATION PROGRAM

    As stated, the budget also includes a request for $60 
million for the Bay-Delta Restoration Program. The budget 
contains a proposal to extend the availability of funding 
authorized by the California Bay-Delta Environmental 
Enhancement Act through fiscal year 2003. This proposed 
extension would support continued Federal participation in the 
California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration activity.
    Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summary statement other 
than to say that Reclamation continues to place emphasis on 
maintaining its infrastructure, addressing the environmental 
laws in order to provide benefits from the projects as they 
were originally contemplated, and to make sure that our 
efficiency of operations is the best that we can provide the 
American public. I would be happy to answer any questions that 
you might have.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, Mr. Martinez.
    [The prepared statement of Commissioner Martinez follows:]



    Mr. Packard. At this point, we'll put the budget 
justification material for the Bureau of Reclamation and the 
Central Utah Project Completion Act in the record, without 
objection.
    [The information follows:]



    Mr. Packard. We appreciate your testimony, both of you. We 
will now enter the question-and-answer phase of our hearing.

                     SNAKE AND COLUMBIA RIVER DAMS

    Let me first just bring up one thing. I would like to 
concentrate mostly on the CALFED Project. But I did read the 
article over the weekend from the New York Times, Saving the 
Snake River Salmon. You may have read it, Mr. Secretary. It 
starts out by saying, ``The Clinton Administration has been 
willing to challenge 70 years of accepted public policy that 
hydroelectric dams are, by definition, a good thing. Led by 
Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt, it has pushed the 
contrarian notion that dams are doing more harm than good to 
fish stocks, to watersheds, to the environment generally, and 
that they ought to come down, the dams ought to come down.''
    I was born and raised around the Snake River in Idaho. I 
have found over the decades that that river and the dams that 
provide water to that very fertile part of the country are 
considered to be as essential to the economy and to the well-
being of the people that live and thrive off of water diversion 
and the power that comes from hydroelectric plants on those 
dams as the Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams are to the people of 
Arizona and California.
    I am interested to hear your response about what your 
intentions are and your desires are relative to the dams along 
the Snake and Columbia Rivers.
    Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, the jury, I think, is 
still out on the Snake River dams. I have obviously spent an 
enormous amount of time on these issues, both under the 
Endangered Species Act, involving the upstream water issues in 
Idaho and those dams. I think there are two sets of issues. We 
are going to need a decision, which in my judgment, is not 
going to be made on my watch.
    The first one is the salmon stocks. That is, would the 
removal of one or two or three or four of those dams have a 
demonstrable effect on the protection and restoration of the 
Columbia River salmon stocks. There are, as you know, alternate 
explanations for the decline of those salmon runs: the ocean 
issues, in terms of the changes in the North Pacific; fishing; 
and the land management issues. There are just a lot of issues.
    Then if you get past that decision, you come to the 
political decision, and that is--is it the judgment of this 
society and this Congress that the benefits of restoring the 
fish, assuming it could be done, outweigh other benefits to the 
Northwest of those dams. That would ultimately, in my judgment, 
be a congressional decision.
    Now, lest I sound too conciliatory, these dams are not 
Hoover Dam. The principal economic function of these dams is 
for the barge transit on the Columbia River. They don't produce 
that much hydropower. I think anybody that knows the Colorado 
River goes up there and says, ``These are big dams?'' They 
really aren't. The hydro power is not insignificant, but it 
ain't Hoover Dam. The water supply functions are not large. The 
irrigation functions could be taken care of in a variety of 
ways.
    I think the real economic issue is what are the 
implications of that barge traffic for the shipping of grain 
from Idaho and Montana and the grain-growing areas of the 
Northern Rockies.
    Mr. Packard. I would hope that in any consideration--again, 
I think you are right, it is a long-term process making a 
decision of this type; it won't happen in the near time--but 
there are water agreements, there are contractual agreements in 
water distribution systems. I remember when I was young up in 
the Boise Valley, and I would drive over to eastern Idaho and 
southern Idaho, all around the Snake River Basin. There was 
desert. It was all desert land. Then I watched in less than a 
decade when all of that became very fertile agricultural land 
because of the water and the availability of water, and the 
State of Idaho became one of the most agricultural States in 
the country in terms of production. And so it is the 
distribution of water that is crucial, as it is in most of the 
West.
    I would hope that in any discussion they would not push 
aside those economic values to an area as it relates to a dam, 
a specific dam, and simply look only at the salmon. The salmon, 
of course, it is important that we preserve and protect them, 
but at the same time I think the water is also the life blood 
of that area, as it is to southern California.
    I didn't intend to even dwell on that, but I wanted to get 
your views. I appreciate that very much.
    Let me go to Mr. Visclosky, and I will come back to CALFED.

                    Mr. Visclosky's Opening Remarks

    Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary, and Mr. 
Martinez, I apologize for my tardy appearance, but this morning 
is my day to take the two boys to school, so I think everybody 
here understands that.
    Also, because this is Chairman Packard's last hearing, I, 
on behalf of myself as well as the Democratic members of the 
subcommittee, would want to say that I have--and hope for the 
rest of the year to continue to enjoy working with you, Ron.
    Chairman Packard is, first of all, a decent human being. He 
is a very dedicated public servant, who has served in the 
military as well as at the local and Federal level. He has 
already chaired three different subcommittees on 
appropriations. Despite the fact that this has been for many 
years a very stable subcommittee, Mr. Packard is now the fourth 
subcommittee Chair in four Congresses. The bipartisan nature, 
the factual approach to situations that we faced, has certainly 
continued. And so, Ron, on behalf of myself, Mr. Edwards, and 
the other Members, we will miss you. We still have about 6 
months to go and do think that you have served your family and 
your God and your country very, very well.
    Mr. Packard. You will miss me for about 3 days, and then 
things will go right on. Thank you very much.

          FACILITY OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION

    Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Commissioner, on your facility 
operations and facility maintenance and rehabilitation, you 
have asked for more than 100 percent increases as far as funds. 
Would you care to address the justifications for that, please?
    Mr. Martinez. For facility operations/maintenance, and 
rehabilitation there is an increase of about $30 million.
    Mr. Visclosky. I am sorry. You had a $9.7 million, I guess, 
for facilities, operation and----
    Mr. Martinez. Rehabilitation. It shows a request of an 
increase of $20 million over the 2000 appropriation. Basically, 
most of that increase comes from a requested $12 million 
increase out of the nearly $20 million for increase in our Dam 
Safety Program. We show an almost $20 million increase for 2001 
over the 2000 appropriated level, of which $12 million is for 
the Dam Safety Program. This budget reflects a significant 
increase in our activity dealing with dam safety and trying to 
correct some of the dam safety problems across the West. That 
is where most of that increase comes from.

                       TITLE TRANSFER INITIATIVES

    Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Commissioner, are you continuing to 
pursue initiatives that transfer ownership of Reclamation 
projects to beneficiaries?
    Mr. Martinez. Yes, I can give you an update on that. we 
have approximately 17 projects across the West that are 
undergoing some form of activity on title transfer, and 10 of 
those title transfer initiatives are now before Congress. Seven 
of them are into the discussion stages between the water users, 
the project water users, and the Bureau of Reclamation. There 
are a couple--Welton-Mohawk comes to mind, and the Carlsbad 
Irrigation District--Federal transfers that are passed by the 
Senate and now sit in the House for final action by the House. 
There are approximately five bills that have worked their way 
through the House subcommittees and are now under consideration 
of the House as a whole. So I think we have made significant 
progress from a Reclamation standpoint.
    We are still waiting for 10 of those Federal transfer 
initiatives to pass the Congress. I might say that the one 
title transfer bill that was enacted by Congress last year was 
the Burley Irrigation District in Idaho. We have conveyed title 
to that project in advance of our projected timetable.
    Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, Mr. Visclosky.
    Mr. Knollenberg, if you would like to proceed.

                               BAY-DELTA

    Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and 
welcome, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Martinez.
    The Chairman brought up the CALFED issue, and I know he 
wants to get back to that. I just want to focus on the 
appropriations side. According to the information that I have, 
in the move to improve the Bay-Delta situation a general 
understanding had come about that we want to improve the 
environment, establish reliable water supplies, and improve 
water quality. Since that time, however, I have been told--and 
you can update me on this if these numbers are not accurate--
that water users have actually lost some 300,000 acre feet of 
water from the system.
    The water quality does remain a concern based on the 
operation of this system, but my question very quickly is--and 
I know from the financing side of it that there has been $430 
million authorized and some $210 million appropriated. I have 
been told there is only $35 million being spent. That is really 
the number that I am looking at, because I want to see if there 
is a tie-in with the fact that there is a loss of 300,000 acre 
feet of water.
    If those numbers are right, how do you explain the loss of 
300,000 acre feet of water for the users who obviously rely 
upon this resource? If there is a problem, what are you doing 
to correct the problem?
    Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, there has been a dip. It 
has resulted from two things. One is the implementation of the 
Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Among other things, 
that Act mandated that we restore the flows of the Trinity 
River in northern California. The Trinity River had been 
diverted in a transmountain diversion into the Sacramento River 
Valley, and it dropped the average flow of that river by 90 
percent. The Congress in 1992 also mandated us to restore 
balance in the system to protect the fish runs in the Central 
Valley of California. That is a piece of the dip.
    The second piece of the dip comes from the so-called Bay-
Delta Accord of 1994, which was entered into to avoid 
litigation over water quality standards. That released 
additional water into the Delta system to meet the water 
quality standards both for urban use and, importantly, for fish 
restoration.
    The discussions that are going on in the CALFED process 
acknowledge the need for more water storage. There is no more 
water to be developed, but we can store seasonal flood flows, 
particularly in the Sacramento River Valley. There will be in 
the final report, in my judgment--we are not quite there--
recommendations both for extensive groundwater storage and for 
the development of surface storage in an expanded site in the 
South Delta-Bay area and for the raising of Shasta Dam, which 
is the linchpin of the existing system.
    Mr. Knollenberg. The thing that is kind of a concern is I 
would think that water availability to users would be a 
measurement that you would seek for the success in this whole 
operation. Was it a consideration? Was water available?
    Secretary Babbitt. Sure. That is the reason for these water 
storage and enhancement provisions, which are, in my judgment, 
going to be in the document which will go final in the next 2 
or 3 months.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Can we assume, then, there will be an 
improvement in the area of reaching the goals of actually 
expending the money? It is one thing to authorize and to 
appropriate, but if it doesn't get spent--I recognize what you 
are saying about why it is not--but is there some green light 
that appears to be in the distance now?
    Secretary Babbitt. I think so. There will be performance 
standards in this master agreement. The funds in the early 
years that have been expended, both on the California side and 
the Federal side, went disproportionately to restoring the 
fisheries in the river systems, because that is sort of the 
pathway. Increasing storage takes a longer planning cycle, and 
that has been the reason for the apparent disparity between the 
expenditure of these funds. I think that will now be evened up 
quite quickly.

                 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM

    Mr. Knollenberg. Let me turn to the U.S. Global Climate 
Change Research Program. I understand that there is a figure of 
some $25 million that is part of the Reclamation budget that is 
designed to provide for this program. What I want to know is--
it is not under Reclamation, but it is a part of the Interior 
Department, I should correct myself, and it is to the tune of 
$25 million. Can you explain to me as it applies to Global 
Climate Change Research, the U.S. GCRP program, what does this 
$25 million go for? What is it intended to be used for?
    Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, I would need some help for 
specific figures, but I can tell you some of the things that 
they go for, and I think they are significant and productive.
    One pathway to understanding is that the Geological Survey 
has been involved now for about 15 or 20 years in 
paleoclimates, and that one way to understand whether or not it 
is happening is to look backward at what temperatures have been 
on a global scale for the last century, the last millennium, 
the last 50- or 100,000 years. The GS has been a pioneer in 
that work. It is really remarkable the amount of information 
that is now coming up, absolutely necessary for modeling----
    Mr. Knollenberg. Modeling as it applies to----
    Secretary Babbitt. What is happening now and what will 
happen in the future.
    Mr. Knollenberg. My question, is any of this money being 
spent for the purpose of implementing the Kyoto Protocol?
    Secretary Babbitt. No.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Any emissions trading?
    Secretary Babbitt. No.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Any clean development mechanisms?
    Secretary Babbitt. No. We are not into alternative energy 
development. Emission trading is EPA.

                      CARBON SEQUESTATION PROBLEM

    Another research line that I think might be of interest is 
the so-called carbon sequestration problem, very important. 
Wherever you come out on this issue, it seems to me the facts 
are absolutely essential. There has been way too much 
ideological debate.
    Now, the Interior Department is in this in a research mode. 
There is an uncertain element in all of these carbon balance 
studies about a missing increment of carbon. And the question 
is is it being taken up and stored in terrestrial or marine 
systems? The GS has done considerable and great research on 
terrestrial carbon sequestrations; that is, how much is being 
taken up----
    Mr. Knollenberg. Let me interrupt. I appreciate the 
response you have given thus far, and in the interests of time, 
I just want to close in on a couple of final points. One of 
them goes to Mr. Martinez.

                   GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE GRANT MONEY

    My understanding is--let's say if a university, and I 
believe they can do this, or other organizations apply to get a 
part of that $25 million, they can do that through a grant 
process, right?
    Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, as I understand, there is no 
money in our budget for this initiative that you are 
discussing. There might be----
    Mr. Knollenberg. That is not my question. My question is if 
a university were, in fact, to get a portion of the money that 
is available via the participation process or grant process, is 
that not--that is not possible?
    Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, I am being a little soft on 
this. Let me make a basic point. The Bureau of Reclamation 
doesn't give grants for this sort of stuff, period.
    Mr. Knollenberg. They don't? They absolutely don't. So all 
of the money is being spent within.
    For example, Mr. Martinez, you have a Web page on the 
global climate change issue. What is that all about?
    Mr. Martinez. If we have one, I am not aware of it.
    Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, you are hunting the wrong--
--
    Mr. Knollenberg. I may be hunting in the wrong place, Mr. 
Secretary. That is what I am wanting to find out. What is the 
work being done--the question now is what work that is being 
done by you----
    Secretary Babbitt. The answer is none.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Let's let him answer.
    Mr. Martinez. My budget does not request any money for this 
activity, and I will get an answer for the record on that.
    [The information follows:]

                  RECLAMATION'S GLOBAL CHANGE WEB-PAGE

    Reclamation's web-page includes a Global Climate Change 
Response Research Project. Reclamation's participation in that 
project was completed in the mid-1990's. The web-page contained 
the research reports generated as part of that Global Change 
Response Research Project which was pre-Kyoto and does not have 
any connection to the US Global Change Research Program 
(USGCRP).

    Mr. Knollenberg. As far as you know, there is no work being 
done?
    Mr. Martinez. That is my understanding.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Knollenberg.
    Mr. Edwards.

                  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR RESEARCH

    Secretary Babbitt. Actually, I take that back. I believe--
in the nature of of pure disclosure, I think the Bureau of 
Reclamation, in fact, has participated in some of the research 
seminars that we have organized on these issues. I am very 
proud of that effort because I believe that instead of all of 
this sort of ideological rant that is out there in the world, 
that research is really important, no matter what side of this 
you are on.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Peer reviewed research, too.
    Secretary Babbitt. Absolutely, of the very best quality. 
And I think the best research in government is being done in 
the Department of the Interior. I would invite you to come and 
have a look at it. We could set up a tour out in Reston. I 
think that would really show you the value of this. Would you 
be willing to do that?
    Mr. Knollenberg. I appreciate the invitation. I would 
consider that.
    Secretary Babbitt. Good. We will set it up.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Edwards.

                      MR. EDWARD'S OPENING REMARKS

    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for your many years of public 
service, and I know that you will continue in some form after 
the end of this Administration.
    Commissioner Martinez, thank you for your work.
    I wanted to just talk about the issue of water. The 
Chairman mentioned that in parts of California, water is more 
valuable than oil. I could say ditto for many parts of Texas. 
Recently, in the last several years the Texas State Legislature 
has passed a major bill, pretty dramatic for our State, trying 
to encourage communities of all sizes to plan for our future 
water needs, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, to Maypearl and 
Goldthwaite in Mills County, trying to figure out their future 
water needs. It is a good process to encourage people to plan 
ahead.

                    ASSISTANCE TO TEXAS COMMUNITIES

    My question, though, focuses on the resources available 
through the Bureau of Reclamation--maybe two questions to the 
Commissioner first. Are there resources through the Bureau of 
Reclamation for smaller communities in rural areas that want to 
plan ahead responsibly for their water needs for decades; can 
the Bureau help them in any way, be it information or 
expertise? I know the funding for construction is virtually nil 
for those kind of projects, but what kind of resources are 
available? And then I would like to ask the Secretary a 
question.
    Mr. Martinez. Mr. Edwards, we have several programs that 
provide assistance to the folks in the State of Texas: our 
water conservation iniative; our Technical Assistance to 
States; and our Drought Program.
    Under our Drought Assistance Program, we work with Texas in 
the preparation of drought contingency plans. Under our water 
conservation initiative, we are working with several parts in 
the State of Texas along the Rio Grande putting together long-
term water planning initiatives. And under our Technical 
Assistance to States, at the request of States, subject to 
funding being made available, we can provide assistance to 
local entities.
    In our part of the budget that has funding to assistance to 
states, quite frankly, that is one area where the Congress has 
seen fit to cut back our request a little over the last few 
years. But you would see funding for each of the 17 Western 
States in our budget.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you. I may want to follow up on that 
more specifically after this hearing is over.

                          WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

    Mr. Secretary, a much broader question. The Congress in 
recent years, as you know, has made huge new investments in the 
infrastructure of our highways. That has been followed recently 
by a huge infusion and commitment to upgrading our airport 
infrastructure.
    I guess my question to you, with your broad vision from 
your position over the last 8 years or so, do we need to make a 
major new commitment in this country to building the water 
infrastructure, preparing for the water infrastructure needs 
for the future, not only this handful of major projects in 
important urban areas of our country, but throughout the 
country? We talk about 5 percent, 10 percent increases in 
budgets here and there. Do we need significant new increases? I 
know there are some areas of the country where you might want 
to tear down some dams, but looking at the overall water needs 
of the citizens of this country, what, as you leave office, do 
you think this country and Congress ought to do over the next 
several years to adequately prepare for my 2- and 4-year-old 
children's and other children's and grandchildren's future 
water needs?
    Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, we are not paying adequate 
attention to this. I don't believe we are ever going to until 
the Congress deals with the dysfunctional relation that 
involves the Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection 
Agency, and the Bureau of Reclamation. The system is simply not 
workable, and the result is that we do not have a vehicle at 
the Federal level for providing communities and States a 
rationalization in planning for water supply. It just doesn't 
work that way. The Corps of Engineers has been in the paper and 
the press recently, and appropriately so, because there has 
been no civilian oversight of the Corps of Engineers within the 
memory of this Congress, and it doesn't work. The Corps has a 
lot of talent, great people. We have managed to integrate the 
Corps and the other water supply agencies in Florida, but it 
was really tough because we had to go out and basically 
generate support from local communities in Florida, which was 
then reflected back up into the Congress in a way that brought 
everybody together. But in most of the country, that is not 
happening.
    So it will be a long and tough relationship. The Corps and 
the Bureau have historically--not so much in this 
Administration--spent all of their time with their knives out 
quarrelling. That has been particularly true in California, 
where, as a result of history, you will find a dam operated by 
the Corps of Engineers. Then go down the road, and there will 
be a dam built by the Corps operated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
    The Missouri River is a mess, and the reason is the Pick-
Sloan Act. Let me explain, and then I will quit. The Pick-Sloan 
Act came up in the 1930s or 1940s when it became clear that we 
needed to work on water resources in the Missouri River Basin. 
It turned into a huge struggle between Colonel Pick of the 
Corps of Engineers and Sloan, who was the Director of the 
Bureau of Reclamation. Congress, unable to resolve it,said, you 
guys resolve that. So Pick and Sloan found a hotel room in Omaha and 
went up there one weekend and said, we are going to have a unified plan 
in which we both will build twice as many dams. We will just stack them 
all up, and that is the plan. You can see the results of that to this 
day in the Missouri River Basin. So you want a ``big picture'' answer 
from somebody who is packing his bags, that is it.
    Mr. Edwards. I appreciate that. I would welcome before you 
leave in January if you could take the time to sit down and put 
together some of your thoughts about what we need to do in this 
area, both organizationally and financially.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                    COMPETING DEMANDS ON RECLAMATION

    Mr. Martinez. Mr. Edwards, let me try my hand at this. If 
you look at the Bureau of Reclamation budget, we include in our 
budget a rural water distribution system to provide rural water 
to Indian and non-Indian communities in the Dakotas. We are 
beginning to see more of an interest across the West for the 
Bureau of Reclamation to become involved in rural water 
assistance issues to meet the future needs of Municipal and 
Industrial water across the West. We are also engaged in the 
development of Indian water projects across the West, and we 
will probably have more demand by the Indian community for the 
Bureau of Reclamation to become involved in the development of 
their water facilities. We are engaged in the waste water reuse 
projects. I think there are 24 authorized projects across the 
Reclamation States, a lot of those in California. We are trying 
to maintain an aging infrastructure.
    When you weigh these activities against the fact that the 
Bureau of Reclamation's budget has not substantially increased 
over the last 10 years, plus the fact that legislation passed 
by Congress requires the Bureau of Reclamation to turn its 
resources to environmental restoration and endangered species 
issues, which are necessary to be addressed in order to provide 
project benefits, you can see that the Bureau of Reclamation's 
budget is being strained trying to finish or develop new 
projects and to comply with the laws that Congress has passed 
having to do with environmental issues. Given that competing 
scenario, I don't see that the Bureau of Reclamation in the 
future will have much of an opportunity to finish projects on a 
timely basis, much less undertake new projects.
    Mr. Edwards. If you took away a handful of maybe major 
projects, most of your budget is on maintenance of projects 
already built years ago, isn't it? Compared to what we are 
doing in highways and airports, in terms of building new 
programs necessary to provide adequate water supply for 
communities of all sizes, aren't we doing very little? Isn't it 
a very small budget relatively speaking?
    Mr. Martinez. That is correct. And the needs for 
rehabilitating and maintaining our facilities will increase in 
the future because they are aging. This is one of the reasons 
behind transferring title to facilities, because the individual 
water users that require those facilities, in my opinion, take 
off a burden from the Federal Government in the future to have 
to rehabilitate these structures. I think that is why it is 
important to move this initiative forward. But as our 
infrastructure ages, we are going to have a greater need for 
money to maintain and rehabilitate those facilities.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Commissioner and the Secretary.
    Mr. Packard. For the benefit of the members of the 
committee, the bells simply indicate the end of morning 
session. There are no votes expected for an hour and a half or 
2 hours.
    Mr. Latham, please.
    Mr. Latham. Does that mean we have to stay here for an hour 
and a half?
    Mr. Packard. You have to stay until we are done.

                           DROUGHT ASSISTANCE

    Mr. Latham. Welcome.
    Just more out of curiosity, I guess. As you well know, we 
are having some real drought conditions in the Midwest, and I 
wonder how the current conditions are going to affect any 
activities? Do you expect any changes in the funding or 
increase in the spending due to the potential drought in the 
Midwest?
    Mr. Martinez. The Bureau of Reclamation's budget does 
contain a request for money for assistance in cases of drought. 
The Bureau of Reclamation, as it turns out, is the only Federal 
agency specifically authorized to respond to drought issues in 
the Reclamation States. Under the drought authority, we have 
authority to help communities and States across the entire 
United States in doing drought contingency plans. We are 
limited to the Reclamation States in terms of actual assistance 
during the time of drought. So our budget request is for 
$500,000. Congress has historically over the last few years 
increased that amount and made money available to Reclamation 
to assist the States across the West.
    There is a separate activity that is taking place right 
now. Congress passed legislation which set up a National 
Drought Policy Commission. I represent the Secretary on that 
Commission. The Commission's report will be transmitted to 
Congress in late May of this year, and we will have 
recommendations as a Commission to Congress and the 
Administration of what initiatives ought to be undertaken short 
term and long term to address drought conditions.
    My understanding is the drought situation could be severe 
in southern California, southern Arizona, some of New Mexico, 
and some parts of Texas.
    Mr. Latham. It appears that--and if you talk to the NOAA 
folks, which is another subcommittee that I am on--that they 
are anticipating through the Midwest there being some problems 
this year.
    Mr. Martinez. I think the report will shed some light as a 
Federal family providing assistance to folks in times of 
drought and what can be done to improve that process.

                        LANDS LEGACY INITIATIVE

    Mr. Latham. Secretary Babbitt, in the testimony, you 
mention the request for $320 million for the President's Lands 
Legacy Initiative. What is the backlog? And is there--and what 
is the backlog of acquisition proposals?
    Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, that is very difficult to 
answer because what we have done is try to prioritize the 
important acquisitions to fill out the land management systems, 
the Park system and the Fish and Wildlife refuge system and so 
forth. The President's proposal of a $1.4 billion dedicated 
fund has its roots, of course, in the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. To be specific, this year's request for the 
Interior Department of $735 million, about half of that would 
be for Federal land acquisition. It would be in the 
neighborhood of $320million.
    I would say the large items at this time are finishing the 
in-holdings acquisition in the California desert. I believe 
there is a lot going on in the New York-New Jersey harbor that 
is now inching its way up on the priority list. There are a lot 
of refuge acquisitions in there. I could get you the priority 
list for refuge and Park Service acquisition. They have a 
scoring system, and I could provide you that if it would be 
helpful.
    Mr. Latham. Yes, that would be helpful.
    [The information follows:]

                       LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAMS

    The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service 
maintain lists of needed acquisitions in the future for refuges 
and park units.
    [The information follows:]



                              LOESS HILLS

    Mr. Latham. I don't see Patricia Beneke here today. Last 
year we talked about the Loess Hills in northwest Iowa, and I 
thank you for your efforts in the study that is going on. Just 
more or less as a statement, because about 97 percent of the 
land is privately owned, I will tell you we are beginning to 
see opposition, I guess, to the project. We are getting letters 
and some fear about the Federal Government's role of taking it 
over.
    I think you are doing a good job on the study. I would just 
make sure that as we continue with this, that the public is 
very much involved, because we are hearing a lot about it now, 
more than we did a year ago, from people who are very concerned 
about their property rights.
    Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, if I may, I think some of 
that opposition is understandable, if misplaced. It comes from 
sort of a traditional national park model in the West, where 
land is acquired with the expectation that it all becomes 
Federal. It seems to me that the success of the study really 
depends on saying, no, this is a different model; it is not the 
intention of the Congress to authorize land purchases or 
perhaps to deal with the conservation easement issue to the 
extent that that is appropriate; to explicitly say right up 
front, this is a different kind of model. I know that we have 
had those suggestions.
    Mr. Latham. You are exactly right. The model they are 
saying is that you are coming in to take over the whole area. 
Just to make you aware, there is more concern than a year ago 
in that regard.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you.
    I failed to welcome to the committee Mr. Latham and Mr. 
Pastor.
    We will turn to Mr. Pastor.

                     MR. PASTOR'S OPENING STATEMENT

    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, let me apologize to you and the subcommittee 
and Secretary and Commissioner for being late. I was at another 
hearing. We are trying to make Yuma Crossing designated as a 
national heritage area. I know the Bureau of Reclamation has 
been active down there, and I am judging Yuma is one of the 
favorite towns for former Governor Babbitt. You used to love 
going down there.
    In response to Congressman Edwards when he asked the 
Secretary, and congratulated him for 25 or 26 years of service, 
and asked him to come back in January to talk about water 
management, I am sure sometime in March or April we will be 
asking for a book signing. I am sure it would be a best-seller.
    Welcome, and thank you.
    Secretary Babbitt. Congressman Knollenberg, how would that 
be for a nightmare? Bruce Babbitt is back at this table next 
year?
    Mr. Knollenberg. I wouldn't respond to that, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Pastor. That is fine. When we were talking about 
drought, I look over at our peers, and we talk about global 
warming and the effects of the drought in the United States.

                          CAP-CAWCD SETTLEMENT

    Anyway, Mr. Secretary, I am sorry I was late, and I didn't 
hear your opening remarks, but I was told that you talked about 
the settlement of the CAP with the CAWCD and the Bureau of 
Reclamation, and you used the analogy that we are at the 5-yard 
line. I know sometimes when you are that close to score a 
touchdown, it gets pretty hard in terms of one of the teams 
really wants to not allow us to score. How close are we to 
settling that long-term dispute?
    Secondly, could you give us more detail on the needs of the 
various Indian Nations and their need for appropriations and 
for the water settlement?
    Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, I think the football 
analogy is correct. We are on the 5-yard line. The problem is 
if you see me as a quarterback, I can't throw a pass. I don't 
have the capacity to end it that way. So we are running smack 
into the line, a yard, a foot at a time. We will know, I think, 
within the next 90 days.
    Now, it is my sense that increasingly the Arizona parties 
are seeing the benefits of a settlement. The Central Arizona 
Water Conservation District is now actively pushing for a 
settlement because they have analyzed their position and said 
yes. The Upper Gila Valley, Judge Nelson is leading a 
settlement process up there that I think is looking pretty 
good.
    The implications of this, if we get it settled, for this 
committee and the Reclamation budget, I think, are manageable. 
What it will require is a larger investment to finish up the 
infrastructure for the Gila River Indian Community, possibly to 
make improvements in the San Carlos Irrigation District. That 
project is old. It is badly in need of repair, and there will 
be bits and pieces like that. I don't think it has massive 
implications, but there will be those kinds of things.
    The Gila River tribe is primarily affected. The San Carlos 
Apaches will be a part of this settlement. They have an 
infrastructure development fund, which was appropriated through 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs some years ago. There will be a 
request by the irrigation districts for the forgiveness of some 
of their Section 9 indebtedness, the loans that they made to 
build their distribution systems. Those are the ones that come 
to mind.
    There is also, I think of importance to you, an ongoing 
effort to see if we can settle the Tohono O'odham claims in 
southern Arizona as well in a follow-uppiece of legislation.
    Mr. Pastor. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions dealing 
with the San Carlos Irrigation Project. I will submit those for 
the record because there are a number of them.
    [The information follows:]



                               TRES RIOS

    Mr. Pastor. But I would like to turn to the Commissioner 
and ask him a couple of things that deal with some of the 
projects that he is involved in or the Bureau is involved in. 
One of them deals with Tres Rios. I know that the President's 
budget supports the project with $300,000, and I know the 
Bureau has been very active in using this demonstration project 
in terms of what can be done in the arid Southwest to reclaim 
some of the wetlands.
    I just have a question for the Commissioner. How do you 
envision the results of this project to be used in other areas? 
I know in the Southwest they are now looking to reclaim 
wetlands. Also, do you see yourself continuing or the Bureau 
continuing in the future to do this demonstration project?
    Mr. Martinez. Congressman Pastor, the Bureau is working 
with Phoenix is to build a demonstration wetlands in order to 
remove whatever is in the water, and then instead of doing 
mechanical or chemical treatment of the water, have the 
wetlands treat the water, and then discharge it. The project 
that is taking place at Tres Rios is estimated to be twelve and 
a half million dollar project, 50 percent Federal cost-share 
and 50 percent local cost-share. The Federal funding to date is 
about $4.6 million. It needs about $1.6 million to complete. 
Once the project is completed, we hope to take what has been 
learned from that project and apply it to the larger waste 
water reuse Phoenix project which has been authorized.
    Some of the information that we are gaining from this 
demonstration project is being applied across the West. We have 
a wetlands project in Idaho. We are looking at some in 
Albuquerque. There are some in California. Really, what it does 
is use the natural vegetation of the wetland to extract from 
these waters the chemicals or constituents that need to be 
taken out before you can discharge the water.

                 PHOENIX RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT

    Mr. Pastor. The second question I have for you deals with 
the Phoenix Metropolitan Reclamation and Reuse Project. Last 
year we received $200,000 in initial funds to do a program 
through Title 16. The question is--well, it was not included in 
this year's budget request. The question is what amount would 
the Bureau need to complete the planning for the Agua Fria 
groundwater research? That is the other local name for this 
project.
    Mr. Martinez. I will get you an answer for the record.
    Mr. Pastor. My understanding is for the Phoenix project we 
didn't request any money this year because it was not needed.
    [The information follows:]

           PHOENIX METROPOLITAN RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT

    In FY 2000, $200,000 was allocated to this project from the 
Title XVI line item. We believe this level of funding will be 
adequate for the City of Phoenix to revise their feasibility 
report and get through FY 2001 with the funds that are 
currently available.
    We will use the funds to help revise their report and to 
perform National Environmental Policy Act compliance work with 
the necessary public involvement. We expect these processes 
alone will take much of the next 15-18 months. Currently, we 
are in process of completing a cost share agreement with the 
City.

    Mr. Pastor. Mr. Commissioner, we always have a need for 
money.
    Mr. Martinez. As a side comment, I don't know if you want 
to recharge water into the Agua Fria aquifer. It might get agua 
caliente.
    Mr. Pastor. We might.
    Mr. Martinez. ``Agua fria'' translates to cold water. 
Recharge that, and you might get hot water. But I will look 
into that. My understanding is we didn't need the money for 
this year. The stage of the project doesn't require additional 
money this year.
    Mr. Pastor. In case we do, make sure that we know early so 
we can approach the Chairman about our request.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                   BAY-DELTA FUNDING--REAUTHORIZATION

    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Pastor.
    I would like to get now to CALFED and the Bay-Delta project 
and discuss that for a little while, if I may. As you perhaps 
know, I support the project. I have--we funded it last year to 
the extent that we were financially able, and I do support the 
project. I have made commitments, and it is probably not a 
necessary commitment that I would not fund without 
reauthorization. We have a fairly reliable andacceptable policy 
on both sides of the aisle here in the House that we will not do the 
authorizing committee's job through the appropriating process. And 
technically if I did do an authorization, it would be probably thrown 
out on the floor of the House on a point of order because it violates 
the rules of the House. So I have made it clear, not just recently, but 
as much as a year and a half ago, that I support CALFED, but I will not 
reauthorize on appropriations, at least not on my committee.
    I know that presents a concern for you, but it does mean 
that you have to work with the authorizing committee to see if 
we can get that done. If it is authorized, I believe that you 
can rely on this committee to do some level of funding.
    With that in mind, I think you also realize, Mr. Secretary, 
that last year the bill that we passed and was signed into law, 
the 2000 year budget from this subcommittee, reflected a 
concern that I had. And there was language put into the bill 
that would require us to move the Bay-Delta restoration project 
to a 50-50 split between--you have alluded to that already--
between environmental restoration projects and water 
management, water storage, water production projects.
    In your testimony, on page 5 of your testimony, it 
indicates that within the last 3 years, this subcommittee has 
supported an appropriated level of $220 million for the 
California Bay-Delta Restoration Project, and that includes 
$190 million that has gone to ecosystem restoration. That is 
about 86 percent. To me that is unacceptable. That is why we 
put language that would move us to a 50-50 split. Water is of 
such crucial importance to California that we cannot, in my 
judgment, allow water production, water storage, and water 
management issues to be subservient to the ecosystem 
restoration project. I can certainly live with a 50-50 split, 
and I would hope that those pushing for an ecosystem 
restoration project could live with that same formula. I 
believe that you have alluded to the fact that we are moving in 
that direction.
    Just to comment on that, if you would, and then I would 
want to go onto other questions.
    Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, conceptually I am okay, 
because as I said once before, once the infrastructure piece of 
this comes in, the curve will go up. The cost of raising Shasta 
Dam, for example, will dwarf the amount of money that we have 
put into ecosystem restoration. The difference is we could 
actually get busy restoring the Sacramento River on day one.
    We have had a long march toward these infrastructure 
issues, which I think we will now have in the report. I think 
that will even it out and probably tip it the other way. But in 
the meantime, I understand your concerns. I think I can live 
with your division personally.
    Mr. Packard. Your proposal of $36 million--of the $60 
million, you are asking for $36 million for ecosystem 
restoration and $24 million for water pprojects and water 
planning. It doesn't give me a great deal of concern. I 
recognize that it takes time to move to that 50-50 split, and I 
recognize this is a definite movement in that direction, but I 
don't want that to be interpreted that we are accepting less 
than the 50-50.
    Secretary Babbitt. I understand. I understand.

                     CALFED AS A STATEWIDE PROJECT

    Mr. Packard. This is something I haven't brought up before, 
but it has become an issue a little bit in my State. I am from 
southern California, and my southern California water people 
are supportive of the CALFED project, which is a statewide 
project and supported statewide by tax money from the State of 
California. Of course, the Federal portion comes from all 
segments of California taxpayers as well as the rest of the 
country.
    I have been thinking, because I am getting some concerns 
from some of my water people and ecosystem people in southern 
California, that the split is also very much weighted toward 
northern California and the Bay-Delta area. I recognize that 
was the whole idea, but at the same time they feel they need to 
be able to get some fair portion of the money that is funded 
for CALFED to benefit southern California water users and water 
providers as much as than in northern California. I am not 
asking, nor will I suggest, that we put language in our bill to 
split the money on a north/south basis, but I would hope that 
those that are involved in the planning of the projects that 
are funded by this money would recognize that it is a statewide 
project and not just a Bay-Delta area project. Response?
    Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, yes, very much so. The 
signal achievement of the last year has been completing of a 
water transfer from Imperial and Coachella to San Diego and the 
Metropolitan Water District. There are going to be some not 
inconsiderable costs associated with that, many of which will 
be borne by the Metropolitan Water District, which shouldn't 
cause any pain to your constituents. The next step in this 
process is going to be to revise the operating rules in the 
Colorado River Basin in order to stabilize the water supply in 
southern California. That is a statewide commitment that 
everyone has to deliver on.
    So I guess what I would say--I think we need to look at the 
end result, which is water, and then apportion the money 
appropriately. But the issue is not money. The issue is water. 
I believe what southern California is getting out of this in 
terms of water supply from the Colorado River is the most 
important thing that has happened on that river in the last 
quarter century. The water quality benefits, I think, are 
equally important. To the extent that we can fix the water 
quality problems for the Bay-Delta by moving more water through 
the State aqueduct, I think that is an important issue as well.

                     WASTEWATER REUSE AND RECYCLING

    Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, there is a part of our budget 
that addresses this water need in southern California. While it 
is not specifically tied to CALFED, it has to do with 
wastewater reuse and recycling. Since 1992, our budget has 
appropriated for these projects in southern California almost 
$200 million. There is an additional $200 million still needed 
to finish those projects, but the funding has been coming 
through the wastewater reuse allocation rather than CALFED. As 
I understand, CALFED anticipates Federal and State funding for, 
wastewater reuse. So there has been some activity on the part 
of Bureau of Reclamation in trying to develop water reuse in 
southern California, including the Mission Bay project that you 
are interested in.

                        REAUTHORIZATION LANGUAGE

    Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner.
    What you are proposing in your language for reauthorization 
is to provide that section such and such of public law is 
amended in the first sentence by striking, ``For each of the 
fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, there are authorized to be 
appropriated an additional $143 million,'' and insert, ``For 
fiscal year 1998 through the fiscal year 2003 there is 
authorization to be appropriated an additional total of $429 
million.''.
    That is reauthorization for an additional 3 years. That is 
what I am telling you I can't do either procedurally or 
personally. I am not willing to offend the men and women that 
serve on the authorizing committee by doing what they would 
very much and vigorously resist. I have to work with the 
authorizing committee to get the work done that we want to do 
in water production, water management and water issues, and 
certainly in Bureau of Reclamation issues. I have made it very 
clear that I will not accept that kind of language in my bill 
this year. So your work with the authorizing committee is 
absolutely crucial for this to be funded. That is the message I 
am conveying.

                   CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT AGREEMENT

    On the Central Arizona Project--and I know that Mr. Pastor 
is perhaps much more concerned about this than I am, but it is 
of importance to the committee--I understand that earlier this 
month the Federal Government and the State of Arizona reached a 
tentative agreement on how much the State owes the Federal 
Government for construction of the Central Arizona Project. Can 
you summarize the terms of that agreement? When will it be 
finalized, and will it require congressional approval? Details 
on that agreement?
    Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, it will require 
congressional approval. The roots of this dispute go back a 
long way. They relate to some ambiguities in the original 
legislation and in the implementing agreements for the 
construction of the Central Arizona Project. They relate to 
liability for cost overruns for the so-called siphon 
replacement issue.
    This was no small project. As it was built out over a long 
period of time, there were cost overruns, none of them 
egregious, but their cumulative effect was substantial. We went 
through the cost cap in the repayment contract because of the 
time that the construction took and inflation factors and all 
of that. There was a continuing dispute about whether or not 
Arizona's liability was capped in the legislation and the 
implementing agreements, notwithstanding inflation and cost 
overruns.
    We made an attempt to settle it in 1993, I believe, and 
came close. It all fell apart. We then litigated for 3 or 4 
years. The Federal judge issued a ruling which reduced the 
State's liability by, I think, about $200 million. Don't hold 
me to that literally, but it is in that neighborhood. We have 
been negotiating ever since, and the outlines of the agreements 
that we are looking at now would reduce the judge's ruling--it 
would bring it down by, I think, on the order of another $100 
million. It is sort of a long work out of--nearly a 40-year 
construction history now.
    Are my figures okay? Okay. My figures are okay so far.
    The importance of settling with the Central Arizona Project 
and the governing district relates to everything else in the 
basin. First, it relates to these Indian water settlements. 
Secondly, it relates to the willingness of Arizona to engage in 
water transfers with Las Vegas. Las Vegas is in a dead end in 
terms of its Colorado River water supply. We have managed to 
move down the pathway toward a very intricate arrangement in 
which Arizona takes water off surplus flows, stores the water 
in Arizona for the account of Nevada, which then can take some 
of the flow using credits from the storage that it paid for in 
Arizona. It is a really elegant but extremely complex solution 
that effectively couldn't go forward until these other issues 
are settled.
    Then we turn to California where, in order to implement 
these water transfers in California's obligations under the 
Colorado River Compact, it becomes necessary to revise the 
storage regulations in Lake Meade. California, in order to get 
that done, needs Arizona's cooperation. So Arizona ultimately 
holds everything hostage to everything else.
    That is what we are picking our way through. My judgment is 
if we get this settlement, that it will be seen as favorable by 
Nevada; that California will see how it relates to its future, 
and it will, in fact, be a quite reasonable amount of long-term 
repayment reduction in exchange for peace, progress, and water 
in not just one State, but all three.
    Mr. Packard. When you were Governor of Arizona, you made a 
good job of making us hostage.
    Secretary Babbitt. I have come to rue that fact from time 
to time.
    Mr. Packard. Oh, Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am sorry, I didn't 
recognize you, nor see you come in. I apologize.
    Let me recognize Mr. Freinghuysen for any questions that he 
may have before we go to the second round.

                 MR. FRELINGHUYSEN'S OPENING STATEMENT

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry to be 
late. Another committee kept me from being here.
    Good morning, Secretary Babbitt. I would like to ask you 
some questions about projects that are important to New Jersey. 
I know these have nothing to do with the Bureau of Reclamation, 
but I think you know over the years no holds barred here.
    Secretary Babbitt. My motto is ``Rising for 
Frelinghuysen.''
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
    Just a historical perspective, 1844. First I like to thank 
you for including in the Fish and Wildlife Service's budget $1 
million for land acquisition of the Great Swamp Wildlife 
Refuge. You have been very supportive of what we are doing. It 
is the first time there has been any money in the budget from 
the Administration since I have been here, but I salute the 
fact it is in there this time.

               NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM

    I would like to focus for a few minutes--and I understand 
that reference has been already made to this--to talk a little 
bit about the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, which 
you are also supportive of. I understand from local 
environmental groups, the Sierra Club, the NRDC, that you have 
made mention of the estuary in your budget document and the 
need to protect the watershed. Unfortunately, though, you did 
not include a specific dollar amount to begin the acquisition 
program. I am told that you have indicated a sum; that these 
funds would come from your discretionary account under the 
State side of the Land and Water Conservation Program. Your 
budget includes $75 million for this effort. How does this $75 
million break down, since in your budget you mention four 
important watersheds in the New York-New Jersey area, and how 
much is anticipated for the harbor estuary?
    Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, I believe you are referring 
to the State side of the proposed Land and Water Conservation 
Fund; is that correct?
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am.
    Secretary Babbitt. The $150 million for the State side, I 
believe about half of that, $72 million, would go directly to 
the States, and that it would be allocated on a formula basis 
with $58 million allocated equally among the States and then 
the remaining $15 million allocated on a population basis. Now, 
what that means in terms of New Jersey I am not exactly 
certain.
    Now, the other half of this fund in the President'sproposal 
would be available at the national level to be allocated for priority 
State projects. So presumably there would be funding out of both halves 
of that fund potentially available.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Why didn't you include specific funds or 
earmark funds for this important effort like you have for the 
Everglades? I know people can get their hands around the 
Everglades. Everybody knows they are important, but I was just 
wondering why we couldn't get more specifics?
    Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, the simple answer is there 
are no specific proposals in this State side conservation 
grant.

                               EVERGLADES

    Now, if I may, let me see if I can answer at a larger level 
what I take to be your real question, and that is why has there 
been this enormous national commitment to the Everglades and, 
for that matter, to California, and in comparison virtually 
nothing to the New York-New Jersey harbor estuary? Is that an 
appropriate question?
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. That is an important question, but I 
want the focus to be less on the Everglades and more on the New 
York-New Jersey area.
    Secretary Babbitt. Here we come. In my judgment, the reason 
we have not generated that kind of support, which we should, 
for the harbor estuary is because we are tangled up in an 
impasse between New Jersey and New York over harbor 
development. And I believe the pathway--actually I called you 
about this once, and you returned my call, and I regret not 
having followed up--I believe the pathway is as follows: I 
believe this Congress should create a commission with the 
Governor of New York and the Governor of New Jersey and a 
Federal representative and give them 2 years to come back with 
a plan to present to this Congress to solve the economic side 
of the equation in the New York and New Jersey ports and to 
dedicate----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. We can protect the estuary. There is a 
battle between the two Governors relative to what to do with 
the port. But in reality the estuary can be protected now. That 
is what I am talking about.
    Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, I would only argue that I 
think protecting the estuary is going to cost somewhere between 
$500 million and $1 billion, and if it were hooked to port 
development, this thing could be funded at the level of the 
Everglades.

                    LAND ACQUISITION FOR THE ESTUARY

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. The Governors have got to get their act 
together, but it doesn't mean that we can't start purchasing 
and acquiring land. And so I would like to know whether you 
have a plan for managing the land, and for the record, would 
you anticipate when land is acquired that it would be included 
as part of the Fish and Wildlife Refuge System?
    Secretary Babbitt. Okay. I hear you. I believe that some 
funds should be allocated. We have not reached a decision as to 
whether land acquisitions in the Meadowlands area should be 
part of a national wildlife refuge or not. That decision has 
not been reached. We should allocate and prioritize money for 
acquisition. I agree with that.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Is there a potential for a new refuge?
    Secretary Babbitt. It is not on the priorities list of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service at this time.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. You don't work alone, the Army Corps of 
Engineers is also doing work in this harbor estuary. They are 
performing studies. Is your Department coordinating its efforts 
with the Corps?
    Secretary Babbitt. We are.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Who will be the lead agency of all 
activities, you or the Army Corps?
    Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, that goes back to the point 
I was making earlier. The answer is under existing law, there 
is no such thing as a lead agency because both agencies respond 
to their separate appropriations subcommittees and their 
separate statutory authorities. That is why it is my honest 
belief that the future of this estuary depends upon escalating 
the approach to a vastly larger level than the one we are 
currently dealing with.

                             HATFIELD SWAMP

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Lastly, I would like to ask the 
question, Mr. Secretary, about what is called the Hatfield 
Swamp in Essex County. Currently that swamp is part of the 
Essex County Park Commission. There is a desire to have the 
swamp included as part of the Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge 
System. I understand there is a proposal that is on its way to 
you. Are you aware of that likelihood?
    Secretary Babbitt. I have heard some discussion. What I am 
not certain is that there has been any decision by the Fish and 
Wildlife Service with respect to the designation of a wildlife 
refuge.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Can you get back to me and provide me 
for the record an update?
    Secretary Babbitt. Certainly.
    [The information follows:]

                     HATFIELD SWAMP IN ESSEX COUNTY

    The Essex County Environmental Commission is currently 
preparing a proposal to have Hatfield Swamp considered for 
inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Once the 
Department of the Interior receives the proposal, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service region will begin its review. If the proposal 
receives regional endorsement, it will be forwarded to the 
Washington Office for final review and decision.

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
    Mr. Visclosky.

                   CORPS OF ENGINEERS VS. RECLAMATION

    Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, earlier Mr. Edwards pursued a line of 
questioning about generic water policy, and if I understood or 
heard you correctly, you had mentioned that the Corps doesn't 
work. You had also mentioned the failure of the lack of 
civilian oversight. Most recently, in response to the gentleman 
from New Jersey, the Corps was again alluded to because they 
are participating in the estuary program along with the 
Department. But you also mentioned each agency having to be 
responsive to their separate appropriation subcommittees. In 
this case the Corps was here last week, and you are here this 
week.
    Could I ask for to you elaborate on that? I am not looking 
to create a disagreement here. Obviously there was an 
announcement by the Administration last Friday as far as 
restructuring of the Corps, and because both agencies fall 
within our jurisdiction, I would like to have your comments.
    Secretary Babbitt. I would be happy to.
    First of all, I don't mean to be critical of the Corps of 
Engineers. We have done a lot of great work together. This is a 
systemic issue. I could lay much of the same thing on the 
Bureau of Reclamation. The problem is you have got twoagencies 
with no common direction responding in two different, totally 
different, tracks, whose missions overlap and are in conflict. We are 
not going to have good water policy in this country until we deal with 
it.
    Now, just off the top of my head, one way this committee 
could deal with it without changing authorizing legislation is 
to invite the head of the Corps to come up here and sit at this 
table and testify on my budget and really put it to him in 
terms of what he has got to say about what Mr. Martinez is 
doing, and why the Corps shouldn't be doing it, and what they 
ought to be doing together. Let me give you one example: The 
Corps of Engineers is not an active player in the CALFED 
process. This is an enormous oversight. This committee could 
correct that in 10 minutes.
    Conversely, invite me up with the commanding officer of the 
Corps of Engineers to do a little commentary on his budget. Set 
up some conflict for resolution by this committee rather than 
simply letting us go our separate historic pathways, as if we 
didn't even know each other in this same town.
    The point I want to make is not directed to the Corps, but 
both of us, a systemic problem.
    Mr. Visclosky. I am still trying----
    Secretary Babbitt. Do a crosscut budget. Could the 
committee do a crosscut budget? It would be interesting.
    Mr. Visclosky. I am still trying to come to grips with this 
water policy out West. For the first time in my life, I was in 
the State of Washington. I was impressed that the West has been 
reclaimed, if you will.
    I would assume that the problem we have here is not so much 
the agencies themselves, but the politics. The gentleman from 
Arizona would have parochial interests. I have parochial 
interests with the Corps projects. My sense is a lot of this is 
driven not so much by overarching national vision on behalf of 
either of the agencies, but we are all here to represent our 
interests in our specific geographical areas, and nobody wants 
to give that up, because whether they have been dealing with 
Reclamation or the Corps, you don't want to lose the person 
that you have that relationship with and whose attention you 
have focused through this process on your problem.
    Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, sure, I accept that. There 
is nothing wrong with parochial interest.
    Mr. Visclosky. I love it. That is why I am here.
    Secretary Babbitt. Democracies and this Congress all work 
on parochial interest. The problem is this is just one 
historical example of where it has run wildly out of control, 
because we have two agencies passing each other in the night. I 
mean, we could have efficient parochialism, which I would be 
for. You can't sanitize the process. I understand the 
skepticism of giant national plans and all of that. That is 
fair. But I have two agencies sort of passing in the night, and 
then passing through this committee--it is not good.
    Mr. Visclosky. I appreciate your response. Thank you, Mr. 
Secretary.
    Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

                    RECLAMATION AND CORPS' MISSIONS

    Mr. Martinez. If it is appropriate, I might say what I 
envision. This is what I see in the future for the Corps of 
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation--and I say this because 
of my tenure and the fact that in 9 months I will be gone. In 
the past it looked like the Corps and the Bureau were seeing 
who would be first at the plate building projects. What I began 
to see evolving is who is going to be first at the plate in 
environmental restoration and in dealing with Indian water 
issues and rural water distribution systems. So as you begin to 
look at the Bureau and the Corps' budgets, in the future these 
are the overlapped areas.
    I think this is where an opportunity exists to straighten 
out their missions and who is going to get funded for what. You 
will begin to see they are competing in a different arena for 
the same dollars.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you.
    Mr. Knollenberg.

                             CALFED FUNDING

    Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, you had mentioned in our last round, 
regarding the CALFED financing, you had said you expected the 
expenditure of funds for CALFED to rapidly catch up to the 
appropriations. Did you mean by the end of the year 2000, or 
was this over a period of time?
    The reason I bring it up is we typically here like to 
appropriate with the idea that it will be spent within a year. 
So just very quickly, I don't want to get into it too deeply, 
but what is your expectation?
    Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, the money has been 
appropriated, has been obligated. The reason for the apparent 
lag time is because the way this appropriation has been laid 
out and works is the money comes to Reclamation, which 
distributes it out on the basis of specific project proposals. 
Reclamation does not expend this money until the work is done 
and bills are submitted.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Really, the answer is you are not sure? 
That is okay. I am not trying to nail you down, but I want to 
know what you expect----
    Secretary Babbitt. I am not sure--if your question is this, 
how much of the distributed money has actually been expended by 
the agencies that we grant it to, I would have to respond to 
you in writing because I don't know.
    Mr. Knollenberg. If you would do that, because that is as 
close as I want to go in that.
    [The information follows:]

                          CALFED Expenditures

    For the record, Reclamation has prepared a table providing 
allocations, obligations, and expenditures through March 31, 
2000.

                   FEDERAL BAY-DELTA ACT ECOSYSTEM FUNDING--CUMULATIVE THROUGH MARCH 31, 2000
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Agency                                  Allocated       Obligated       Expended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation......................................        $110,919         $54,997         $20,382
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service..................................          57,592          48,266          17,137
U.S. Geological Survey..........................................           6,869           4,115           2,517
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers....................................           4,115           4,112           1,911
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency............................           4,855           2,070             434
Natural Resources Conservation Service..........................           2,767           2,400              24
U.S. Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture)............             409             409             160
U.S. Bureau of Land Management..................................           2,240               1               1
Unallocated.....................................................             234               0               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................         190,000         116,370          42,566
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             CLIMATE CHANGE

    Mr. Knollenberg. Let me go on to a follow-up question to 
your last communication. Mr. Martinez, did you say you did not 
have a Web page?
    Mr. Martinez. We do have a Web page.
    Mr. Knollenberg. A Web page with respect to what? I asked a 
question, and you denied having any knowledge of anything 
relative to global climate issues.
    Mr. Martinez. Not that I am aware of. If it is, you will 
bring it to my attention.
    Mr. Knollenberg. This is your Web page, so you can read it, 
and it will be yours. I think there is a note on here, one 
item, one bullet, is the global climate change response that is 
incorporated into your Web page, which asks people to respond 
on that particular subject. And one of the things we picked up, 
too, in the meantime is your Web page, Mr. Secretary, which 
also does include information on the global climate situation.
    What is kind of frustrating to me is that there is a page 
in here that talks about meeting Kyoto, meeting standards. The 
reason that I bring this up is in the last month and a half of 
hearings, I have talked to the EPA; to Foreign Operations; to 
Commerce-State-Justice; to obviously Energy and Water, and I am 
trying to find out where people are spending this money that is 
incorporated into some of these accounts. For example, EPA has 
crossed the line 16 different times. And various agencies are 
expending dollars for implementation of the Kyoto Protocol 
through the back door. They are spending the money. We can do 
something about that, but I am trying to find out what you are 
doing to spend money in that regard.
    I look at this statement, the suggestion is--the headline 
is ``Meeting Kyoto, Empty Containers and a Full Commitment.'' 
as you read into it, you find out this is talking about trading 
emissions, credits, CDMs. That is Kyoto. That is not UNFCCC. If 
you want to ratify this treaty, send it to the Senate, and they 
will tell you one way or the other.
    I just point that out, and you are welcome to have any of 
this information to correlate with your own record of what took 
place, but there is some activity going on. We will find out 
later how much of that goes across the line, because there is a 
prohibition on funding. It even says ``preparation of.'' This 
is preparation and spending goes along with it.

                  WATER ADJUDICATION FEE FAIRNESS ACT

    Let me go to another item. Perhaps you could help me here, 
too, a little bit. It is the Water Adjudication Fee Fairness 
Act. It is my understanding--and you can correct me if I am 
wrong--that to establish rights to water--this act goes back to 
1952--it recognizes the necessity and the benefit of requiring 
the U.S. Claims to be adjudicated in the State proceedings by 
adopting that so-called McCarran amendment. It apparently 
waives the sovereign immunity of this country. It requires the 
Federal Government to submit to State court jurisdiction and to 
file water rights claims in State general adjudication 
proceedings.
    When the U.S. does not pay a proportionate share of the 
cost associated with those adjudications, the burden of funding 
the proceeds unfairly shifts to the consumers, to the water 
users, and often delays the completion of the adjudications 
themselves. Additionally, because the Federal Government is not 
subject to any kind of fees or court costs like other users in 
the adjudication, Federal agencies can file questionable claims 
without facing court costs. It is kind of like an unfunded 
mandate, as I see it, which inflates the number of their claims 
for future negotiation processes.
    Now, the question I have for you is what--because this does 
create an uneven, unlevel playing field. It favors, I believe, 
the Federal agencies. What do you consider--this is my 
question: What do you consider the amount necessary to pay the 
Federal share of the adjudications cases to be?

                   FEDERAL SHARE OF ADJUDICATION COST

    Secretary Babbitt. I think the Federal--bear in mind that 
is a congressional statute. This is one horrendous sin that you 
cannot lay at my doorstep.
    Mr. Knollenberg. It is not a sin that I am putting at your 
doorstep.
    Secretary Babbitt. Good.
    Does the Federal Government carry an equitable share in the 
adjudications? Oh, yes, without any question. The reason is in 
these adjudications, the Geological Survey and the Bureau of 
Reclamation produce enormous amount of data for the benefit of 
the States and for everybody involved. There is not a trace of 
inequity in this. On the other hand, if Congress wants to 
change the policy, that is--far be it from me to be critical if 
it is your desire to change it. But there is no inequity here, 
no.
    Mr. Knollenberg. The fact is you don't have any figure in 
mind as to what that--first of all, you say there is no 
inequity?
    Secretary Babbitt. Right.
    Mr. Knollenberg. That the Federal Government isn't getting 
a bye?
    Secretary Babbitt. The amount of data that we produce for 
all of the parties, including the States, in these 
adjudications is something you ought to be very proud of. 
Again, I can show you that at the Geological Survey.
    Mr. Knollenberg. The reason I bring that up is there is 
probably going to be legislation promoted to actually look at 
and in some fashion affix a fee because of the unfunded mandate 
perception, if you will. So I think there may be something down 
the road to expect.
    If there is no inequity here, I think that is your opinion, 
but some others have a different opinion. That will come about. 
I don't have an answer either. But I think there is an 
inequity, and I think that has to be----
    Secretary Babbitt. I will respectfully disagree with that.

                     NEW MEXICO ADJUDICATION COSTS

    Mr. Martinez. Let me try to answer that and put on my 
little hat as a former State engineer of the State of New 
Mexico in charge of adjudications in the State of New Mexico. 
This varies by State, so you need to look at the respective 
State and how adjudications take place. But in New Mexico the 
individual water user does not pay for the adjudication effort. 
He pays for the cost of his attorney to defend his right if he 
wishes. The State of New Mexico pays for the surveys and the 
cost associated with the special master and the court, and the 
Federal Government also shares in that expense.

                  TECHNICAL INFORMATION A CONTRIBUTION

    Mr. Knollenberg. We do share in that expense?
    Mr. Martinez. Yes.
    I think what the Secretary is saying is that in order for 
the adjudication to take place, you have legal issues that are 
involved. As far as technical issues, what the Secretary is 
trying to say is that the Federal Government, through all of 
the studies that it funds to provide technical information, is 
providing resources to the adjudication process that would 
assist the court and all water users toget their water rights 
adjudicated. So all of this money that goes into the USGS and Bureau of 
Reclamation to do studies on water uses and water resources is data 
that is necessary and useful to the water user.
    In some States water users in the adjudication process have 
to pay a fee. That is how the State generates a fee from the 
water users. What the water user is saying is the Federal 
Government should be paying a fee. That is what the issue is. 
It is not coming from the western United States.

               LEGISLATION ON FUNDING ADJUDICATION COSTS

    Mr. Knollenberg. Do you think that any legislation that 
might be promoted would be unnecessary?
    Mr. Martinez. That is a decision Congress has to make.
    Mr. Knollenberg. I understand, but I am asking for your 
opinion. You don't have to even say if you don't want to. I 
know Mr. Secretary has said he doesn't see the inequities. 
Perhaps he is saying that he is making a decision about where 
he would be on this legislation. I just wonder if you have any 
similar view. If you feel that is unfair, you don't have to 
respond.
    Mr. Martinez. It is just a question of how much the 
Congress believes it should be funding the adjudication of 
water rights out West, whether there should be any costs on the 
part of the water user, the owner of the water right, the user 
of the water right, or whether the Federal Government should be 
paying a disproportionate cost. That is what the issue is.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Pastor, any further questions?
    Mr. Visclosky?

                 MAPPING EFFORT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

    I am through, too, with the questions. Just to make one 
final comment. It has been a pleasure to work with you over the 
many years, Mr. Secretary. You and I started a process in 
southern California that I am pleased has moved along since we 
initiated the process, the NNCP process of actually mapping 
three--now it is up to six or seven counties in southern 
California. And we are very close to certifying some of those 
maps, and that, I think, hopefully will streamline the approval 
processes, as long as there is conformance to the certified 
maps, of protecting wetlands and these species. And all in all, 
I think it is going to work out to be a positive effort. I want 
to congratulate you for spearheading and moving that forward. 
You have made a great contribution to the country, and I 
appreciate that very much over the last 7\1/2\ years.
    Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, I can only say on the 
southern California issues that you refer to, they would not 
have happened without your direct and personal involvement in 
those communities.
    Mr. Packard. I take credit for the idea, but I give you the 
credit for moving it and staying with it. That is to both of 
our credits, I believe, I hope.
    Again, it has been a pleasure to meet with you, and I 
appreciate not only your testimonies, but your responses to the 
questions. There are other questions that we haven't asked, and 
if we choose as a committee to submit them for the record, we 
would appreciate you or your staff responding to them.
    [The information follows:]



    Mr. Packard. If there is nothing further----
    Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank 
you.
    Mr. Packard [continuing]. The hearing is adjourned.
    [Clerk's note: Following are the fiscal year 2001 budget 
justifications for the Appalachian Regional Commission.]





                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              

                         BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

                                                                   Page
 Acquisitions, Priority List for Refuge and Park Service........623-630
Agua Fria........................................................   637
Americans with Disabilities Act..................................   679
American River...................................................   711
Anadromous Fish Restoration Program..............................   687
Animas La-Plata Project..........................................   653
Arrowrock Dam....................................................   655
Assistance to Texas Communities..................................   618
Auburn Dam.......................................................   711
Babbitt, Secretary Bruce, Opening Remarks........................     2
Babbitt, Secretary Bruce, Prepared Statement.....................  6-11
Banks Lake Resource Management Plan..............................   665
Bay-Delta.......................................................13, 614
Bay-Delta Accord and the CALFED................................615, 713
Bay-Delta Reauthorization........................................   638
Biochemical Cycling..............................................   692
Boise Project's Information Network and Decisions Support System.   665
Bonneville Dam and Reservoir Enlargement.........................   659
Bonneville Power Administration Up-Front Financing...............   656
Bonytail Chub....................................................   676
Bradbury Dam.....................................................   655
Bureau of Reclamation Budget, FY 2001............................     9
Burley Irrigation District................................614, 655, 697
CALFED............................................2, 612, 614, 645, 717
CALFED and the Bay-Delta Accord..................................   713
CALFED Expenditures..............................................   647
CALFED Funding.................................................646, 714
CALFED as a Statwide Project...................................639, 715
California Bay-Delta Restoration Project................2, 17, 638, 708
California Independent Systems Operator..........................   688
Canadian River Pipeline........................................656, 697
Cantua Creek.....................................................   670
CAP-CAWCD Settlement.............................................   632
Carbon Sequestration Problem.....................................   616
Carlsbad Irrigation District...................................614, 698
Casitas Dam......................................................   655
Central Arizona Project...............................16, 640, 651, 671
Central Arizona Water Conservancy District.................632-636, 651
Central Utah Project Budget, FY 2001.............................    11
Central Valley Comprehensive Assessment and Monitoring program...   687
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.....................13, 16, 686
Central Valley Project, Delta Division.........................667, 686
Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Program............   668
Central Valley Project, RAX Program............................655, 668
Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division................   615
Central Valley Project, Trinity River Division............615, 711, 721
Central Valley Project, Water and Power Operations...............   669
Central Valley Project Improvement Act...............615, 668, 687, 721
China Island Unit................................................   669
Clean Water Act................................................673, 676
Clear Creek Unit................................................16, 698
Clear Lake Dam.................................................655, 697
Climate Change...................................................   647
Climate and Land Use History.....................................   692
Colorado-Big Thompson Project..................................655, 681
Colorado River Basin.............................................   639
Colorado River Compact...........................................   641
Colorado River Dam Fund..........................................    18
Colorado River Indian Project....................................   662
Colorado River Salinity Control..................................   677
Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program.................   673
Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act..................   653
Columbia Basin Project.........................................664, 686
Columbia and Snake River Dams...................................16, 612
Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Program.................   664
Competing Demands on Reclamation.................................   620
Cost Increases, Estimated........................................   660
Corps of Engineers vs. Reclamation...............................   644
Cottonwood Road Lateral..........................................   669
Current Water Supply Impacts.....................................   720
Dam Safety Program....................................12, 614, 655, 681
Decision (``Good Science''--Who Is Making Project Operations 
  Decisions?)....................................................   721
Deer Creek Dam.............................................16, 655, 681
Delta Division, CVP..............................................   667
Demands on Reclamation, Competing................................   620
Department of the Interior Research..............................   617
Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program.........................   682
Desalination.....................................................   694
Deschutes Project.........................................655, 666, 681
Direct Funding Agreement.........................................   656
Drought Assistance Program.....................................618, 621
Drought Emergency Relief Act.....................................   663
Duchesne River Instream Flow.....................................   684
East Canyon Reservoir............................................   684
Edwards, Honorable Chet, Opening Remarks.........................   618
Electricity Reliability in California............................   688
Endangered Species Act...........................................   674
Endangered Species in Lower Colorado.............................   676
Endangered Species, Possible.....................................   660
Endangered Species Recovery Implementation.......................   678
Environmental Interagency Coordination Activities................   683
Environmental Program Administration Program.....................   685
Environmental Water Account in the CALFED ``Solutions''..........   717
Everglades.......................................................4, 643
Facility Operations and Facility Maintenance and Rehabilit613, 654, 669
Federal Building Seismic Safety Program..........................   685
Federal Land Ownership...........................................   688
Federal Power Act................................................   690
Federal Share of Adjudication Cost...............................   648
Florida Water/Everglades.........................................   643
Folsom Dam Temperature Control Device............................   668
Fremond Madison Irrigation District..............................   698
Frelinghuysen, Honorable Rodney, Opening Statement...............   642
Fresno Reservoir.................................................   679
Garrison Diversion Unit.........................................16, 655
Gila River Indian Community........................5, 632-636, 671, 697
Gila River Indian Community Settlement...........................   652
Glen Canyon Dam............................................16, 612, 677
Global Climate Chance............................................   617
Global Climate Change Research Program.........................616, 694
Global Climate Change Web-Page.................................617, 647
``Good Science''--Who Is Making Project Operations Decisions?....   721
Grand Valley Unit................................................   678
Grassy Lake Dam............................................16, 655, 681
Great Swamp Wildlife Refuge....................................642, 697
Hatfield Swamp in Essex County.................................644, 697
Highlights of the Department's 2001 Budget.......................     6
Historical Thematic Study of Reservoirs, Upper Colorado Region...   686
Hoover Dam.......................................................   612
Horsetooth Dam.............................................16, 655, 681
Hydroclimatology.................................................   693
Hydroelectric Licensing Process Improvement Act of 1999..........   690
Hydroelectric Power..............................................   669
Indian Distribution System.....................................652, 671
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act...........   659
Indian Water Rights Settlements..................................     5
Justification, Budget for FY 2001................................20-611
Keechelus Dam..............................................16, 655, 681
Kingsley Dam and Reservoir Environmental Account.................   680
Klamath Project............................................16, 655, 671
Knollenberg, Honorable Joseph....................................   713
Kyoto..........................................................647, 694
Lake Mead........................................................   673
Land Acquisition for the Estuary.................................   643
Land Acquisition Programs........................................   622
Land and Water Conservation Fund...........................623-630, 642
Lands Legacy Initiative..........................................7, 621
Land Resources Management Program................................   686
Land Surface Characterization....................................   693
Las Vegas Wash...................................................   673
Legislation of Funding Adjudication Costs........................   649
Loan Program.....................................................    18
Loess Hills......................................................   631
Lower Colorado Endangered Species................................   676
Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund......................   652
Lower Colorado River Operations Program (Multi Species 
  Conservation Program).........................................16, 674
Mapping Effort in Southern California............................   650
Martinez, Commissioner Eluid, Opening Remarks....................    12
Martinez, Commissioner Eluid, Prepared Statement.................    14
McCarran Amendment...............................................   691
Metropolitan Water District...............................639, 672, 686
Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project...................................   679
Milk River Project, Increase in Costs............................   679
Minidoka Project..........................................655, 681, 697
Miscellaneous Project Programs, CVP..............................   668
Mission, Bureau of Reclamation...................................    14
Mississippi Basin Carbon Project.................................   693
Mni Wiconi Project.........................................16, 655, 679
Multi Species Conservation Program, Lower Colorado River 
  Operations Program.............................................   674
Municipal and Industrial.........................................   620
Near-Term Increases in Water Supplies Taken From Water Users.....   720
Nelson Reservoir.................................................   679
Newman Canal.....................................................   669
New Mexico Adjudication Costs....................................   649
New York and New Jersey Estuary................................642, 697
North Grasslands Wildlife Area...................................   669
Ogden River Project............................................655, 681
Okanogan Project, Salmon Lake Dam, Operation and Maintenance...678, 688
Other Accounts...................................................    18
Packard, Honorable Ron, Opening Remarks..........................     1
Palo Verde irrigation District...................................   673
Parker Dam Camp..................................................   686
Parker-Davis Project.......................................633-635, 704
Pastor, Honorable Ed, Opening Statement..........................   631
Pathfinder Modification Project..................................   680
Permanent Appropriations.........................................    18
Phoenix Metropolitan Reclamation and Reuse Project...............   637
Pick-Sloan Act...................................................   619
Pineview Dam...............................................16, 655, 681
Placer County Water Agency.......................................   711
Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.....................   680
Policy and Administration........................................    18
Possible Endangered Species......................................   660
Project Operations, Who is Making Decisions? ``Good Science''....   721
Provo River Project............................................655, 681
Razorback Sucker.................................................   676
RAX Program, CVP...............................................655, 668
Reauthorization Language.........................................   640
Reclamation and Corps' Missions..................................   646
Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act..................   663
Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978..........................16, 690
Reclamation's Trust Funds........................................    18
Resource Management..............................................    13
Rocky Boy's Indian Water Rights Settlement......................16, 659
Sacramento River Division, CVP...................................   615
Sacramento and Trinity River Tradeoffs...........................   711
Safety of Dams Act...............................................   690
Safety of Dams Modifications.....................................   655
Salton Sea Research Project......................................   676
Salmon Lake Dam..................................................    16
San Carlos Apaches...............................................   632
San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District......................   633
San Carlos Irrigation Project...................................632-636
San Carlos Irrigation Project Power..............................   704
San Joaquin Basin Action Plan....................................   669
San Joaquin Valley...............................................   670
San Juan Water District..........................................   663
San Luis Canal Cross Drainage Management Inventory...............   670
San Luis Spillway Ditch Headworks Structure......................   669
Satellite Data Management and Dissemination......................   693
Scattered Tracts Resource Management Plant.......................   665
Shasta Dam.....................................................615, 639
Sherburne Dam Outlet Works.......................................   679
Sly Park Unit....................................................   697
Snake and Columbia River Dams....................................   612
Solar Hydro Integration investigation............................   673
South Side Pumping Division....................................656, 697
Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act.....................   672
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher.................................671, 676
State/Fed ``Negotiations''.......................................   715
Swiftcurrent Creek Stream Stabilization..........................   679
Tamarack Project.................................................   680
Technical Assistance to States...................................   618
Technical Information Contribution...............................   649
Terrestrial and Coastal Ecosystems, Coastal Wetlands, and Fish 
  and Wildlife...................................................   693
Terrestrial Earth Surface Processes..............................   693
Texas Communities, Assistance....................................   618
The First Americans: Stewardship, Investment, Hope...............     6
Theodore Roosevelt Dam...........................................   671
Title Transfers................................................655, 697
Title Transfer Initiatives.......................................   614
Title XVI Construction Program Project Status....................   658
Title XVI......................................................637, 657
Tohono O'odham...................................................   632
Total Estimated Cost Increases...................................   660
Towe Ponds Enlargement...........................................   659
Tracy Fish Loss Replacement Protection and Mitigation Program....   667
Tres Rios........................................................   637
Trinity River Division, CVP...............................615, 711, 721
Trust Funds, Reclamation's.......................................    18
Tucson Reliability Program.......................................   672
Umatilla Project.................................................   666
Up-Front Financing, Bonneville Power Administration..............   656
Upper Colorado Region, Historical Thematic Study of Reservoirs...   686
Upper Colorado River Basin.......................................   678
Upper Grand Coulee...............................................   665
Upper Snake River................................................   698
U.S. Global Change Research Program............................616, 692
Vale Project.....................................................   681
Visclosky, Honorable Peter J., Opening Remarks...................   644
Warm Springs Dam................................................16, 681
Wastewater Reuse and Recycling...................................   640
Wastewater.......................................................   657
Water Adjudication Fee Fairness Act............................648, 691
Water and Power Operations, CVP..................................   669
Water and Related Resources......................................    16
Water Conservation Field Services Program........................   662
Water Infrastructure.............................................   619
Water Resource Initiative........................................   671
Water Supplies Taken From Water Users, Near-Term Increases.......   720
Water Supply Impact, Current.....................................   720
Weber Basin Water Conservancy District...........................   684
Wellton-Mohawk.................................................614, 697
Western Area Power Administration..............................633, 688
Wickiup Dam................................................16, 655, 681
Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Captive Broodstock Program...........669, 687
Yakima Project.................................................655, 681
Youth Conservation Corps.........................................   663
Yuma Area Projects...............................................   677
Yuma Desalting Plant.............................................   672

            APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION FY 2001 PROGRAM

Access Roads.....................................................   735
Administrative and Other Costs............................728, 735, 750
Allocation Procedures............................................   729
Appalachian Community Learning Project Region-wide...............   768
Appalachian Regional Commission, Administrative Expenses.........   754
Appalachian Regional Commission, Budget Summary by Program.......   727
Appalachian Regional Commission, Development Programs............   731
Appalachian Regional Commission, Partnership Model...............   727
Appalachian Regional Commission, Entrepreneurship Initiative...738, 740
Appalachian Regional Commission, Operating Expenses..............   753
Appalachia's Manufacturing Base, Restructuring...................   760
Appalachia's Socioeconomic Needs..........................737, 755, 759
Area Development Program.........................................   736
Belmont County Fox Commerce Park, OH.............................   768
Budget and Program Comparative Data..............................   734
Center for Economic Options, Charleston, WV......................   770
Commission Technical Assistance..................................   748
Cytemp Rehabilitation Project, Crawford County, PA...............   767
Developing Entrepreneurial Networks..............................   739
Distressed Counties.......................................742, 744, 757
Economic Opportunity through Entrepreneurial Economics, Creating.   740
Education and Training.........................................738, 762
FY 2001 Budget Request, Summary..................................   726
Gary Water System Upgrade, McDowell County, WV...................   768
General Statement and Summary....................................   727
Government Performance and Results Act....................729, 735, 743
Guiding Principles...............................................   729
Highway Program................................................727, 731
Implication for Development......................................   763
Improve Access to Health Care for Working Poor Adults, NC........   771
Income..........................................................761,772
Indian Creek Water, Wide County, VA..............................   768
Jettie Baker Rural Distance Learning Training Center, Dickinson 
  County, VA.....................................................   767
Local Development Districts......................................   746
Net Migration of the Appalachian Region..........................   775
New River/American Heritage Initiative, Ashe, Alleghany and 
  Watauga Counties, NC...........................................   769
Non-Highway Program..............................................   727
Owsley County Action Place, Owsley County, KY....................   769
Poverty........................................................762, 773
Project Examples.................................................   767
Regional Changes and Challenges..................................   756
Request by Program Type........................................728, 737
Revman Sewer Project, Gaffney, Cherokee County, SC...............   768
Schoharie County Education and Training Project, NY..............   767
Sector-Based Entrepreneurial Development.........................   765
Strategic Capital Fund, Mountain Association for Community 
  Economic Development...........................................   769
Strategies for Development.......................................   764
Table of Contents................................................   725
Team Pennsylvania Entrepreneurial Education Program, Appalachian 
  PA.............................................................   770
Technical and Managerial Assistance..............................   739
Unemployment Rates of the Appalachian Region.....................   774
West Virginia Rural Health Network, WV...........................   771

                                
