[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1946 and H.R. 4129
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
April 24, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-107
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-895 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
ADAM SMITH, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
Richard W. Pombo, California George Miller, California
George Radanovich, California Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Greg Walden, Oregon, Calvin M. Dooley, California
Vice Chairman Grace F. Napolitano, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Hilda L. Solis, California
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 24, 2002................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Calvert. Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 1946 and H.R. 4129............ 2
Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah, Prepared statement on H.R. 4129............. 11
Rehberg, Hon. Dennis R., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Montana....................................... 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 1946.......................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Brailsford, Hon. Randy A., Mayor, City of Salem, Utah........ 16
Prepared statement on H.R. 4129.......................... 18
Christiansen, Don A., General Manager, Central Utah Water
Conservancy District....................................... 13
Prepared statement on H.R. 4129.......................... 15
Howarth, William Boyd, Chairman, Juab County Commission...... 30
Prepared statement on H.R. 4129.......................... 31
James, Leslie, Executive Director, Colorado River Energy
Distributors Association................................... 22
Prepared statement on H.R. 4129.......................... 23
Keil, Daniel, Chairman North Central Montana Regional Water
Authority.................................................. 38
Prepared statement on H.R. 1946.......................... 39
Keys, John W. III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 7
Prepared statement on H.R. 1946.......................... 9
McMullin, Robert W., President, Strawberry Water Users
Association................................................ 26
Prepared statement on H.R. 4129.......................... 28
Peterson, Margaret, Council Member, West Valley City Council,
Utah....................................................... 19
Prepared statement on H.R. 4129.......................... 21
Raley, Bennett W., Assistant Secretary, Water and Science,
U.S. Department of the Interior............................ 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 4129.......................... 6
Sunchild, Bruce, Sr., Vice-Chairman, Chippewa Cree Tribe of
the Rocky Boy's Reservation................................ 34
Prepared statement on H.R. 1946.......................... 35
Tubbs, John E., Chief, Resource Development Bureau, Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation........... 45
Prepared statement on H.R. 1946.......................... 47
H.R. 4129, To amend the Central Utah Project Completion Act to clarify
the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to
the Central Utah Project, to redirect unexpended budget authority for
the Central Utah Project for wastewater treatment and reuse and other
purposes, to provide for prepayment of repayment contracts for
municipal and industrial water delivery facilities, and to eliminate a
deadline for such prepayment; and H.R. 1946, To require the Secretary
of the Interior to construct the Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana
Regional Water System in the State of Montana, to offer to enter into
an agreement with the Chippewa Cree Tribe to plan, design, construct,
operate, maintain and replace the Rocky Boy's Rural Water System, and
to provide assistance to the North Central Montana Regional Water
Authority for the planning, design, and construction of the noncore
system, and for other purposes.
----------
Wednesday, April 24, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will come
to order. The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on
two bills, H.R. 4129, to amend the Central Utah Project
Completion Act, and H.R. 1946, to require the Secretary of
Interior to construct the Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana
Rural Water System and to provide assistance to the North
Central Montana Regional Water Authority for the planning,
design, and construction of the noncore system, and for other
purposes.
Under Rule 4(b) of the Committee Rules, any oral opening
statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member. If other members have statements, they can be
included in the record under unanimous consent.
Nearly 50 years ago the Colorado River Storage Project Act
of 1956 initiated the comprehensive development of the Colorado
River water in Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah. It
provided authority to construct storage facilities and
conveyance systems to allow these States to utilize their
apportionments of the mighty Colorado River. Projects have been
completed in California, Nevada, and Arizona, and many are
still being completed in the upper basin States.
It has been almost 10 years since the Central Utah Project
Completion Act of 1992 was enacted. There have been many
changes in western water policy that require considerable
flexibility. This act will provide changes to the project which
will allow prepayment and shifting of existing budget
authority, providing the means for the State of Utah to meet
the growing water demands on the Rocky Mountains' western
slope. This legislation is an important building block to
preserve the quality of life in Utah while also accommodating
the continued growth.
Mr. Calvert. Second, we will hear from witnesses who will
discuss H.R. 1946, to require the Secretary of the Interior to
construct the Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water
System. No one questions the need for a family to have safe
drinking water in their homes. There are several locations in
the heart of this great Nation that do not have that luxury.
This act seeks to find solutions on how to provide clean, safe
drinking water to many homes in Central Montana.
Mr. Calvert. Before we hear our witnesses, I would now like
to recognize Mr. Cannon, who is not here yet, so we will
recognize him a little bit later.
And so in the meantime we will go to the next bill which we
will work on presently. Mr. Rehberg, the sponsor of H.R. 1946,
you are recognized to further discuss the bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water
and Power
Today we will hold a legislative hearing on two bills, H.R. 4129,
amending the Central Utah Project Completion Act, and H.R. 1946, the
Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System, and to provide
assistance to the North Central Montana Regional Water Authority for
the planning, design, and construction of the non-core system, and for
other purposes.
First, H.R. 4129, to amend the Central Utah Project Completion Act.
Nearly 50 years ago, the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956
initiated the comprehensive development of Colorado River water in
Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah. It provided the authority to
construct storage facilities and conveyance systems to allow these
states to utilize their apportionments of the mighty Colorado River.
Projects have been completed in California, Nevada and Arizona; and
many are still being completed in the upper basin states.
It has been almost 10 years since the Central Utah Project
Completion Act of 1992 was enacted. There have been many changes in
western water policy that require considerable flexibility. This act
will provide changes to the project which will allow prepayment, and
shifting of existing budget authority, providing the means for the
State of Utah to meet the growing water demands on the Rocky Mountains'
western slope. This legislation is an important building block to
preserve the quality of life in Utah, while also accommodating the
continued growth.
Secondly, we will hear from witnesses who will discuss H.R. 1946,
to require the Secretary of the Interior to construct the Rocky Boy's/
North Central Montana Regional Water System.
No one questions the need for a family to have safe drinking water
in their homes. There are several locations in the heart of this great
nation that do not have that luxury. This act seeks to find solutions
on how to provide clean, safe drinking water to many homes in central
Montana.
Before we hear from our witnesses, I now recognize the gentleman
from Utah, Mr. Cannon, the sponsor of H.R. 4129, and Mr. Rehberg the
sponsor of H.R. 1946 to further discuss these bills.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS R. REHBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
other members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here
today to support and urge the passage of H.R. 1946, the Rocky
Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System Act of 2001.
I have introduced this bill to authorize the construction
of a rural municipal and industrial water system for residents
on and near the Rocky Boy's Reservation in North Central
Montana. The reservation and the neighboring communities have
an acute need for a safe and reliable water source. Much of the
area suffers from both poor quality water and limited water
availability.
The current water system on the reservation is designed to
deliver water at rates well below the average usage rates in
the surrounding area, the State of Montana, and the United
States in general. The quality of the groundwater on the
reservation and throughout north central Montana is generally
unacceptable for domestic use, and according to the Indian
Health Service, has contributed to health problems on the
reservation.
Many small communities, both on and off the reservation,
are faced with increasingly strict Federal regulations
requiring new and updated water treatment systems. Communities
which have relied on groundwater, which is now classified as
groundwater under direct influence of surface water, are faced
with the need to begin treating their water source, and the
communities just don't have the resources to meet the current
and future requirements of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
The Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System
addresses this problem by authorizing the construction of a
central water treatment plant to provide the area with a safe
and dependable water supply. The area needs safe drinking water
to improve the health of its current residents and to stimulate
economic development on the reservation and in the neighboring
communities.
I look forward to the testimony of my constituents who have
traveled all the way from Montana, and if I might divert for
just a minute, you know, I see it as a real cruel hoax that our
government many years ago set aside land under the reservation
system but then gave them land where the water does not qualify
or does not meet the strict standards that the Federal
Government has established. It is good that the Federal
Government established the standards, but at the same time it
is an unfunded mandate if we don't provide the opportunity for
those that live on the reservation to create the economic
development necessary to provide the revenue to build the
system.
There will be those that perhaps will be opposed to this
because of the dollar figure, but I would submit to you that if
any of these people in the audience turned on their tap and did
not have water, they would find that unacceptable. If anybody
in the audience or anybody that is going to oppose this
legislation had to drink water that was not safe, they would be
upset, as we are.
I personally, on my own ranch, this is the third year I
have had to haul water for domestic use, to drink, to do our
clothes, to shower. Last year I had to go in for emergency
water assistance to get the water to my cattle.
There are areas in this country that are so sparsely
populated, but we can't change that fact. We can't move
Montana, or we can't move north central Montana to southern
California or New York or Los Angeles where they have domestic
supplies of municipal water that are safe and meet the
standards. We can't do that, we the least we can do as a
Federal Government, if we are going to establish the standards,
if we want to support clean drinking water in this country,
then we have to have an opportunity, to create an opportunity
for people to afford it, and this bill does that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rehberg follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Dennis R. Rehberg, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Montana
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here today to support and urge the passage of H.R. 1946, the Rocky
Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System Act of 2001. I have
introduced this bill to authorize the construction of a rural,
municipal and industrial water system for residents on and near the
Rocky Boy's Reservation in north central Montana.
The Rocky Boy's Reservation and the neighboring communities have an
acute need for a safe and reliable water source. Much of the area
suffers from both poor quality water and limited water availability.
The current water system on the Reservation is designed to deliver
water at rates well below the average usage rates in the surrounding
area, the state of Montana, and the United States in general. The
quality of the groundwater on the Reservation and throughout north
central Montana is generally unacceptable for domestic use, and
according to the Indian Health Service has contributed to health
problems on the Reservation.
Many small communities, both on and off the Reservation, are faced
with increasingly strict Federal regulations requiring new or updated
water treatment systems. Communities which have relied on groundwater,
which is now classified as groundwater under the direct influence of
surface water, are faced with the need to begin treating their water
source--and the communities just don't have the resources to meet the
current and future requirements of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
The Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System
addresses this problem by authorizing the construction of a central
water treatment plant to provide the area with a safe and dependable
water supply. The area needs safe drinking water to improve the health
of its current residents and to stimulate economic development on the
Reservation and in the neighboring communities.
I look forward to the testimony of my constituents, who have
traveled from Montana, to testify concerning the great need for this
regional water system.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
On our first panel we have Bennett Raley, the Assistant
Secretary of Water and Science, Department of Interior, and
John W. Keys, III, the Commissioner of Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior.
And before we start our testimony, it is the habit of this
Chairman to try to go through the testimony prior to a hearing.
It is impossible, Mr. Raley, to do that if we don't have the
testimony to read. We apparently have just received your
testimony 2 hours ago, and this is the second time in which I
have asked you to please get this testimony in 2 days prior to
the hearing date so I and the minority would have the
opportunity to read that testimony.
It doesn't matter which administration might be in power,
or which party. That is irrelevant. We need to have that
testimony to review. So I would hope in the future that we can
have that testimony in a timely manner.
Mr. Keys, you got yours in yesterday. That is a little
better, but 2 days is the time in which it gives us sufficient
time to review that, where we can put together the right
questions and be able to treat this hearing with all the
seriousness it deserves.
Mr. Raley. Mr. Chairman, your comments are more gracious
and more gentle that we deserve.
Mr. Calvert. I appreciate you taking that seriously, and
hopefully we won't have to have this discussion again. Thank
you.
With that, I will introduce Mr. Raley. Of course you know
the rules, the 5-minute rule, and you may begin any time you
would like.
STATEMENT OF BENNETT RALEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, WATER AND
SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Raley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. My name is Bennett Raley. I am the Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science of the Department of the
Interior, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today
to provide the views of the Department on H.R. 4129, regarding
amendments to the Central Utah Project Completion Act.
I would like to first note that I have felt a deep sense of
connection to the Central Utah Project for a number of years. I
toured the project in the 1980's with a gentleman by the name
of Mr. Sayer, who was later to become the Assistant Secretary
and had a role in this project in the Department of the
Interior. At the time, I had no idea that I would some day have
responsibility for the Central Utah Project. I also was on the
floor of the Senate with my Senator when the 1992 act passed.
So I feel like I am here as a minor part in a very rich and
long and important history. I don't understand all that
history, but I understand the importance of this act to the
future of Utah and the fulfillment of obligations of the United
States to those that it has dealt with under reclamation laws
that have been in place since 1902.
I also understand, as is the case throughout the West, that
there are a number of complex issues. There have been events in
the past which, in retrospect, I think everyone would like to
avoid. And I want to pledge to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the
members of the Committee and the delegation in particular from
Utah, that we will do our best to meet with all of our citizens
to work through issues. And while we can't promise that we will
provide the answer they seek, we will meet with them and try to
fully understand their issues.
With that, Mr. Chairman, may I ask that my comments, my
written testimony, albeit late, be submitted for the record?
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, any comments and additional
information will be entered into the record.
Mr. Raley. And with that I will just simply move to what I
am assuming will be the point of what I promised to the Chair
and to the delegation from Utah to be my personal attention to
this legislation, and to working out issues that the
Administration believes need to be addressed as this
legislation moves forward.
I will highlight three that are actually mentioned on the
second and third pages of my testimony, namely the
modifications to Section 202(c) of the act and the
Administration's position regarding the limitation of the
amount available under Section 202(c) to a specific amount;
deauthorization of the balance of the unexpended budget
authority provided for in the other units of the Central Utah
Project; and deletion of the authorization for the Hatchtown
Dam in Garfield County.
We understand and expect that there is a need for further
dialog on this, and I again pledge to the Subcommittee, the
Chair and the members of the Committee, that you will have my
personal attention so that we can resolve these issues and move
forward with serving the people of the West.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Raley follows:]
Statement of Bennett Raley, Assistant Secretary, Water and Science,
U.S. Department of the Interior
My name is Bennett Raley. I serve as the Assistant Secretary--Water
and Science in the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you to provide views of the Department on
H.R. 4129 which would amend the Central Utah Project Completion Act.
The proposed legislation attempts to clarify the responsibilities of
the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the Central Utah Project,
to redirect unexpended budget authority for the Central Utah Project
for wastewater treatment and reuse and other purposes, to provide for
prepayment of the repayment contract for municipal and industrial water
delivery facilities, and to eliminate a deadline for such prepayment.
The Central Utah Project Completion Act, Titles II-VI of P.L. 102-
575, provides for the completion of the construction of the Central
Utah Project (CUP) by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The
Act also authorizes funding for fish, wildlife, and recreation
mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in the Treasury for
deposit of these funds and other contributions; establishes the Utah
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to coordinate
mitigation and conservation activities; and provides for the Ute Indian
Water Rights Settlement.
The Administration has concerns over the legislation, and would
like to work with the Chairman and the Committee to modify the language
to include several important amendments.
Section 201(b) of Public Law 102-575 (Act) essentially deauthorized
several of the project features without clarifying how the amounts
previously expended in investigating and planning those projects and
features should be dealt with. H.R. 4129 would clarify that these costs
are non-reimbursable and non-returnable, which could result in a paygo
impact.
In addition, amendments to Section 201(e) of H.R. 4129 provide the
Secretary with sufficient flexibility to continue to utilize the
expertise and capability within the Bureau of Reclamation to fulfill
her responsibilities under the Act. These provisions authorize a pilot
management program within the Bureau of Reclamation. The pilot
management program will provide a mechanism for the Secretary and the
District to create a mutually acceptable management program within the
Bureau of Reclamation to assist the Secretary in her responsibilities
for the long term management of the Bonneville Unit. It is important
that the Secretary be given the flexibility to extend the pilot
management program indefinitely. It is also important to clarify that
the amendments to this section of the Act, which expand the designation
of authorities which are specifically reserved to the Secretary and may
not be delegated to the Bureau, to include aspects of the Colorado
River Storage Project Act (CRSP), are limited to the Bonneville Unit
and do not affect other aspects of the CRSP. Further, the amendments do
not affect the Bureau of Reclamation's and Western Area Power
Administration's responsibilities regarding all matters relating to all
CRSP power functions including power revenues, power rates, and
ratemaking. Therefore, the Administration supports the amendments to
Section 201(e) of the Act.
Over the past several decades the population along the Wasatch
front in Utah has grown dramatically which has resulted in an increased
demand for municipal and industrial water. The last paragraph of
Section 202(a)(1)(B) of the Act only provides for features to deliver
irrigation water. H.R. 4129 includes an amendment to this section of
the Act to provide the flexibility to construct features that also
deliver municipal and industrial water. The Administration supports
this amendment; however, the amendment as worded specifies only to
insert the words ``and municipal.'' We suggest it may be better to
specify, ``and municipal and industrial.''
The amendments to Section 202(c) of the Act, as proposed in H.R.
4129, section 1(d), do not designate a specific amount that would be
available for these expanded activities, but rather authorizes the
entire amount of available ceiling under the other units of the Central
Utah Project to be made available. H.R. 4129 should be modified to: (1)
limit the amount available under Section 202(c) to a specific amount;
(2) deauthorize the balance of the unexpended budget authority provided
for in the other units of the Central Utah Project; and (3) delete the
authorization for Hatchtown Dam in Garfield County. The Administration
does not support the amendments to Section 202(c) of the Act unless
these changes can be incorporated into the amendments. We would
appreciate the opportunity to work with the sponsors of the
legislation, the Utah delegation, and the Congressional committees to
modify the amendments to Section 202(c) such that they would be
acceptable to all parties.
The Administration supports the amendments to Section 210 of the
Act as proposed in H.R. 4129.
Again Mr. Chairman, with the changes recommended above, the
Administration would support H.R. 4129. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Keys, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF JOHN W. KEYS, III, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, I am John Keys, Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation. It is a pleasure to be here today and
provide the Administration's views on H.R. 1946, legislation
that would require the Secretary of the Interior to construct
the Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water Supply
System in the State of Montana. I would ask that my entire
written statement be made part of the record.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, in considering H.R. 1946, we need
to look back at Public Law 106-163, the Chippewa Cree Tribe of
the Rocky Boy's Reservation Indian Reserve Water Rights
Settlement and Water Supply Enhancement Act of 1999, called the
Settlement Act. The Settlement Act was supposed to provide a
fair, equitable, and final settlement of all water right claims
in Montana by the Chippewa Cree Tribe. Interior strongly
supports that act and its implementation.
Reclamation is funding $29 million and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs is funding $21 million, for a total of $50 million, as
part of that settlement. These dollars are for multiple
economic and water development activities on the reservation,
including $15 million for municipal, rural, and industrial
water needs of the tribe.
The Administration supports the goal of assuring a safe and
reliable water supply for the reservation and other communities
in north central Montana. We recognize this area is
historically water short, with water quality and water
infrastructure concerns. We understand that some of these
communities are facing safe drinking water standard violations.
However, we cannot support H.R. 1946 as introduced. We have
several concerns with that proposed legislation.
First, Section 2(a)(2) states that the United States has a
trust responsibility to ensure that adequate and safe drinking
water supplies are available to meet the needs of the
reservation. Such provision would cause large problems with
respect to Federal liability. It would make the United States
responsible for providing domestic water systems on the
reservation, something that has not been envisioned prior to
now.
Second, the proposed bill would provide an inequitable cost
share requirement for parties to the construction. It would
call for perpetual Federal financial and management obligations
for both construction and operation and maintenance of this
system. And it would be in conflict with the 1944 Flood Control
Act in allowing the use of project use power from the Pick
Sloan Missouri Basin program for nonirrigation purposes.
Third, H.R. 1946 contains provisions that would replicate
activities already required and underway under the Settlement
Act.
Section 203 of the Settlement Act authorized a regional
feasibility study for north central Montana. That study is
underway to evaluate water and related resources in north
central Montana. It is a comprehensive study that is looking at
water supply needs by the agricultural, municipal, rural, and
industrial water users in the area. The appraisal level scoping
document is scheduled for completion in May of this year, with
the final planning report and NEPA document to be ready the
winter of 2004.
Section 202 of the Settlement Act authorized a municipal,
rural, and industrial feasibility study to evaluate
alternatives for water supply for the Rocky Boy's Reservation.
The tribe released a draft report of that study in July of
2001, and we are currently working with the tribe to complete
the study.
Fourth, several other provisions of H.R. 1946 are
inconsistent with the Settlement Act. These involve the water
source for the tribal and nontribal communities; financial
arrangements for the nontribal organizations; and other
provisions of Reclamation law.
And, finally, we are concerned about the strain on
Reclamation's budget. H.R. 1946 would authorize $180 million to
be spent on the project. Many times over the last 15 years,
Reclamation has been put in the awkward position of opposing
projects that try to solve an untenable situation, that
millions of Americans still live without safe drinking water.
Congress has authorized us to develop nearly a dozen
single-purpose MR&I water supply projects for rural communities
throughout the West. These projects would cost more than $2
billion to build, and most were developed from feasibility
studies with little or no input from Reclamation. In other
words, we just pass the money along to those organizations.
While each is different in its terms, many share common problem
areas: inequitable Federal cost share provisions, and
responsibility for operation and maintenance.
We need to work together--the Administration, Congress, the
States and the stakeholders, to identify these elements of
minimum requirements which can shape future rural water
projects into a more viable form. This is a priority for this
administration, and I look forward to working with the
Committee and Subcommittee to formulate such a programmatic
approach.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the Administration believes
that H.R. 1946 is premature. I would like to reiterate
Interior's support for implementing the Rocky Boy's Water
Rights Settlement Act, and our support for finding a way to
meet domestic water needs in north central Montana.
That concludes my statement, and I would certainly stand
for any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keys follows:]
Statement of John W. Keys III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior
My name is John Keys. I am Commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. I appreciate the opportunity to provide the
Administration's views on H.R. 1946, legislation to require the
Secretary of the Interior to construct the Rocky Boy's/North Central
Montana Regional Water System, in the State of Montana.
The Administration supports the goal of assuring a safe and
reliable water supply for both the reservation and the non-reservation
communities in north-central Montana. We recognize that north-central
Montana is an historically water-short basin, with water quality and
water infrastructure concerns. We understand some of these communities
may be facing Safe Drinking Water standard violations. However, the
Administration cannot support H.R. 1946, as introduced, because it
imposes new responsibilities to provide domestic water both to the
Rocky Boy's Reservation, inconsistent with the recent settlement, and
to non-Indian communities under provisions that are inconsistent with
Administration policy.
In considering H.R. 1946, it is necessary to revisit briefly Public
Law 106-163, the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation
Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement and Water Supply Enhancement
Act (Settlement Act). The purposes of the Settlement Act are to achieve
a ``fair, equitable and final settlement of all claims to water rights
in the State of Montana for the Chippewa Cree Tribe.'' The Department
has been strong in its support of the Settlement Act and its
implementation; Reclamation is authorized to fund $29 million and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs is authorized to fund $21 million for a total
settlement of $50 million. These monies are for multiple economic and
water development activities on the reservation, and include $15
million for municipal, rural and industrial water needs of the Tribe.
We have numerous concerns with H.R. 1946: first, the ``Finding'' of
section 2(a)(2)-- which states that the United States has a trust
responsibility to ensure that adequate and safe water supplies are
available to meet the needs of the Reservation. As written, H.R. 1946
indicates that Congress intends to make the United States responsible
for providing domestic water systems on the Reservation, including
potential liability for money damages if such duty is not met. This
commitment could have serious adverse legal consequences with respect
to Federal liability.
The Administration also has concerns about (1) the strain on
Reclamation's current budget; (2) the inequitable cost share
requirement; (3) the potentially perpetual Federal financial and
management obligation for both construction and for operating and
maintaining the system; and (4) the proposed use of project use power
from the Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program (PSMBP) for non-irrigation
purposes. I will submit separately a more detailed analysis of these
and related technical issues.
Several provisions in H.R. 1946 are inconsistent with the
Settlement Act and Reclamation policy. For example, the Settlement Act
recognized a Tribal right to a 10,000 acre-feet per year permanent
allocation from Reclamation's Tiber Reservoir (Lake Elwell), without
cost to the Tribe. Thus, under the Settlement Act, costs incurred by
the Federal Government for the design and construction of the reservoir
are not passed on to the Tribe, nor is an annual operations and
maintenance charge assessed, which is otherwise standard procedure
under Reclamation Law (via water service and repayment contracts). H.R.
1946 is not clear what the water source would be for the pipeline. Any
authorization should provide that the tribal supply will be the 10,000
acre-feet Tiber allocation already held by the Tribe. If future
supplies for the non-tribal communities are to come from Tiber water,
the beneficiaries should pay their proportionate capital costs for the
reservoir and the pipeline, as well as operation and maintenance costs.
Across the 17 western states, current municipal & industrial (M&I)
beneficiaries at Reclamation reservoirs pay these costs, and with
interest.
Two other examples of how H.R. 1946 is inconsistent with the
Settlement Act pertain to the extent of Federal financial
responsibility. Section 201(d) of the Settlement Act states explicitly
that ``The United States shall have no responsibility or obligation to
provide any facility for the transport of water allocated by this
section to the Rocky Boy's Reservation or to any other location. Except
for the contribution set forth in section 105(a)(3), the cost of
developing and delivering the water allocated by this title or any
other supplemental water to the Rocky Boy's Reservation shall not be
borne by the United States'' (emphasis added). In contrast, H.R. 1946
places the total cost of the tribal portion of the system on the United
States, including the upsizing necessary to serve the North Central
Montana Water Authority.
With regard to the Rocky Boy's Reservation needs, the Settlement
Act authorizes $15 million for the planning, design, construction,
operation, maintenance, and replacement of a future water supply system
for the Reservation. Sec. 105(a)(3) of the Act states that these funds
are ``for the total Federal contribution'' (emphasis added) to such a
system. In contrast, H.R. 1946 would authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to assist the Chippewa Cree Tribe on the Rocky Boy's Indian
Reservation to plan, design, construct, operate, maintain, and replace
the Rocky Boy's Rural Water System. In addition, it would authorize
Federal assistance to the North Central Montana Regional Water
Authority for the planning, design, and construction of the non-core
rural water system off the reservation. The bill would authorize
appropriations of at least $120 million for the core system on the
Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation (not including the Federal obligation
for operations, maintenance and replacement (OM&R)). Further, H.R. 1946
would authorize at least $60 million for the non-core system that
provides water deliveries to areas that are not on the
reservation.Finally, H.R. 1946 contains provisions that replicate
activities already required--and underway--under the Settlement Act.
Section 203 of the Settlement Act authorizes a regional feasibility
study for North Central Montana. Since the rural water project proposed
by H.R. 1946 is a smaller portion of the region encompassed by the
study, we believe that consideration of H.R. 1946 is premature until
the regional feasibility study is final. Further, other Indian water
rights settlements in the basin are being negotiated. Until those
settlements are concluded, it is not clear what the relative demands
and needs of the basin will be. The regional feasibility study to be
conducted under section 203 of the Settlement Act will produce a
comprehensive analysis of the region's water needs, and will provide
Congress with an informed context as it considers legislation on
further rural water development in north-central Montana.
Also, Section 202 of the Settlement Act authorized a municipal,
rural, and industrial study requiring that multiple alternatives be
brought forward at the feasibility level, so all parties to the
settlement could make informed decisions. To implement section 202 of
the Act, the Tribe released a draft feasibility study in July 2001, and
Reclamation is working with the Tribe to complete the study.
Reclamation emphasizes that the intent of Section 202--a thorough
evaluation of the feasibility of multiple alternatives--must first be
met, so decision makers can make informed decisions.
Previous efforts to address the water needs of rural communities
have taken a piecemeal approach, without a programmatic basis. This has
resulted in a number of common problems. The authorized Federal cost-
shares have been inequitable, and the authorized Federal obligations
for facility operations and maintenance are unsustainable.
Additionally, expectations on the part of communities with authorized
projects become frustrated because of delays due to inadequate
available resources. I suggest a more comprehensive approach. We need
to work together--the Administration, the Congress, the States, and the
stakeholders--to provide safe drinking water for rural America. We need
to identify the appropriate Federal and non-Federal roles in providing
this water, to evaluate the appropriate role to be played by the
numerous Federal and non-Federal agencies involved with developing
municipal, residential, and industrial water in rural and small-town
America. This is a priority for me and this Administration. I look
forward to working with the Committee and Subcommittee to formulate a
programmatic approach to rural water issues.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Administration believes that H.R.
1946 is premature. However, I would like to reiterate the Department's
support for implementing the Rocky Boy's Water Rights Settlement Act as
well as our support for finding a way to meet the domestic water supply
needs of north-central Montana. As such, we would like to work with Mr.
Rehberg and the rest of the Montana delegation, the Committee, the
Tribe, and the project sponsors to work through these difficult issues
in a manner that addresses the needs of Montana and the interests and
concerns of the Department.
This concludes my statement, I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Before we start our questions, Mr. Cannon wanted to have an
opening comment regarding his legislation. Mr. Cannon, you are
recognized.
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman, if I could just submit my opening
statement for the record, I would appreciate that, and I do
have a couple of questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Utah
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I am grateful
for the opportunity to discuss the future of water in my home state. I
also want to thank the witnesses that are here today for their
willingness to testify on this important issue. It is my hope that
today's hearing will serve as a forum to discuss how water will be
managed in central Utah.
In Utah, as in most western states, water is a valuable and rare
resource. It is a constant challenge for the state to determine how and
where our limited supply of water should be used. Indeed, some of the
most difficult and important decisions we make today are how water
should be allocated. H.R. 4129 will help move us in the right direction
by providing CUP with the necessary flexibility to meet the existing
and future water needs of the state.
This bill modifies reimbursement costs for investigation of certain
power features in the Bonneville unit. It also modifies the repayment
schedule for CUP projects. This bill will give CUP the opportunity to
fund projects that have been promised but not yet constructed.
It is important to note that this bill does not add any additional
authorization to the Central Utah Project. Rather, it enables the CUP
to take money granted under previous Central Utah Project Completion
Act (CUPCA) authorizations and to redirect it to other needed water
projects.
I want all my constituents to know that I am more than willing to
work with them to craft satisfactory language on these technical and
difficult water bills.
I thank you Mr. Chairman and I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses. I yield back the balance of my time.
______
Mr. Calvert. Certainly we are going to have questions, so
we will go ahead and recognize Mr. Rehberg first, and then we
will be recognizing Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A question for you, Mr. Keys, and that is, in your
testimony you talk about a multi-agency approach, and that we
should work together and we will formulate an approach. That is
all good and fine, but the EPA has established that a least two
of communities, Hill County and the reservation themselves, are
out of compliance and they are in like deep doo-doo at the end
of this year.
What are we going to do? Is your multi-agency approach
going to be such that the Bush administration is going to be
willing to back the EPA off of their standards for the period
of time while we all get together and come up with this multi-
agency approach?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rehberg, I don't know anything
we can do by the end of this year to help them be in
compliance. The studies that we are calling for here take
several years to get done, and a deadline of the end of this
year is not realistic for any of us right now.
Mr. Rehberg. Well, if it is not realistic, then I would
assume that the Bush Administration would be willing to go on
record today saying that they would support legislation to back
the EPA off of their noncompliance requirements?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rehberg, that is much beyond
the Commissioner of Reclamation to make that decision.
Mr. Rehberg. Well, see, that is the problem, Mr. Keys. You
know, we have people up there that do not have clean drinking
water according to the standards. They don't even have the
supply.
So if the Administration is going to come in and oppose
legislation that is trying to solve the problem, where do we
go? What do we tell these people? Or can we just start shutting
other people's water off to show them what it is like to live
without water.
And I don't know if you have seen this water, but they have
competitions as to who has got the worst up there. That is not
a very good competition for the U.S. Government to want to
endorse.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rehberg, as I said in my
testimony, we have about $2 billion worth of rural water supply
projects already authorized, that are probably in front of
these even if it is authorized. And certainly my annual budget
does not allow immediate response to those. Now, we put them in
line and we deal with them as we can.
Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Chairman, I just go back to my earlier
statement, then. If we are going to have a multi-agency
approach and we are going to work together and we are going to
formulate things together, it seems like one Federal agency
ought to talk to the other one and tell EPA that we cannot meet
the standards. And if we can't meet the standards, what are we
going to do?
Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman
Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It feels like home here. I look over the audience. We have
got City Council, we have got people from the Central Utah
Project, we have got people from the Strawberry Water Users
Association, we have got mayors from the towns in the area.
First of all, we would like to welcome you all out here, and
thank you for coming.
I just wanted to say at this point, Mr. Raley, we
appreciate your commitment for your personal attention on this
matter. This is an important matter that we need to push very
quickly, and as problems come up, we appreciate your
willingness to work with us on that.
And having said that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
We have one vote, so I would suggest we recess, vote, and
we will come back and invite our other panels. Our first panel,
thank you for your testimony and for answering our questions.
You are excused, and we will look forward to the other panels
when we return. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Calvert. The hearing will come to order.
First I want to apologize. That is the way business is in
this town. I believe that was the last vote of the day, so we
shouldn't have any other interruptions.
I would like to introduce our second panel: Don
Christiansen, the General Manager of the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District; Randy A. Brailsford, Mayor of Salem City,
State of Utah; Margaret Peterson, Council Member, West Valley
City Council; Leslie James, Executive Director, Colorado River
Energy Distributors Association, Bob McMullin, President of the
Strawberry Water Users Association; and William Boyd Howarth,
Chairman of the Juab County Commission.
So, welcome, and again I am going to apologize because I am
going to leave, but I am going to hand the gavel over to Mr.
Rehberg who is going to do a very good job at handling this. I
have to go back to a meeting in my office. So I apologize and
look forward to reading your testimony later.
Mr. Rehberg?
Mr. Rehberg. [Presiding.] All right. Mr. Christiansen?
STATEMENT OF DON A. CHRISTIANSEN, GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL UTAH
WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
Mr. Christiansen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today. I am Don Christiansen. I am the
General Manager of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District,
and it is a good opportunity for me to be here to testify today
on a bill to amend the Central Utah Completion Act that
originally passed Congress as part of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act in 1992. During the 10 years
since CUPCA became law, the Central Water Conservancy District
has exercised the unique opportunity to step into the shoes of
the Bureau of Reclamation and complete the planning, design and
construction of the Central Utah Project.
This one-of-a-kind experiment has forced the State of Utah
and the water users within the 10 counties served by the
district to examine very closely what kind of a project that
they needed. After all, under the reforms of the CUPCA, Utah
taxpayers are paying 35 percent of the construction costs up
front to complete the project. We have learned much. We have
tried to be creative and innovative in how we planned the
features to complete the transbasin diversion of Utah's share
of the Colorado River water to the populous Wasatch Front.
While we have made progress, we are not yet complete. Simply
put, the bill before you provides some fine tuning to the
original CUPCA authorization to reflect the contemporaneous
changes to CUP reflecting the current needs of Utah water
users.
Chairman Hansen once commented to me that the Central Utah
Project is the closest thing to eternal life here on earth.
Well, we hope, Mr. Chairman, that the amendments that we are
proposing will enable us to complete a project which not only
creates more supply but, very importantly, which places great
emphasis on water conservation, water reuse, conjunctive use of
surface supplies with groundwater resources, and improved
quality through desalination and reverse osmosis technologies.
H.R. 4129 amends CUPCA to provide flexibility, allowing for
the transfer of unused spending authority between CUPCA
programs. The CUPCA originally authorized the expenditure of
over $900 million to complete the Central Utah Project. This
authorization was broken down into numerous feature- or
program-specific authorizations. These feature- or program-
specific authorization levels were based upon original
estimates from the Bureau of Reclamation, some of which were
made in the first draft 1964 Definite Plan Report.
And I am sure it will come as no surprise that the project
we are building has changed substantially from the one planned
by Reclamation in 1964. In fact, CUPCA itself deauthorized a
list of certain project features. However, the act did nothing
to dispose of Reclamation's investigation costs for those
deauthorized projects. H.R. 4129 will clean up the books, so to
speak, by making them nonreimbursable.
Since 1992, the district has reformulated the CUP in a
number of significant ways. Several project features, including
the irrigation and drainage system, have been eliminated, and
other programs have been redesigned to be more cost-effective.
In addition, CUPCA's water conservation program has met with
tremendous acceptance and is expected to fully utilize its
program-specific authorization very soon.
The district's program to purchase water rights to meet
minimum stream flows is also in need of additional funding.
Further, certain water delivery features such as the Diamond
Fork System have been redesigned to eliminate a controversial
Monks Hollow Dam. But because of underground tunnel
construction problems, this redesign has increased the overall
cost of the Diamond Fork System beyond the authorization limit
contained in the CUPCA.
H.R. 4129 amends the authority given to the Secretary of
Interior in Section 202(c) of the CUPCA to redirect unexpended
budget authority to water conservation projects, water rights
acquisition, and other specifically authorized project features
in Title II of the CUPCA. But I want to emphasize now that H.R.
4129 does not increase the total authorization for the Central
Utah Project.
H.R. 4129 eliminates type-of-use limitations in the CUPCA
which restrict the district's planning of project features. And
I want to emphasize that the district still intends to work
with water users from all 10 counties to develop projects which
will deliver to them the benefits of an enhanced water supply.
As I indicated previously, CUPCA also transferred
construction responsibility for CUP from the Bureau of
Reclamation to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District,
which is the State sponsoring agency for the project. Oversight
of the district's planning and construction activities is
provided by the Department of Interior.
The legislation would clarify the responsibilities of the
Secretary of Interior with respect to the Central Utah Project.
This language would ensure that the highly effective
administrative arrangement now in place would be allowed to
continue. In addition, because from time to time the district
has over the past 10 years asked for assistance from the Bureau
of Reclamation, the legislation would authorize a pilot program
to be developed between Reclamation and the district to enable
an increased opportunity for Reclamation to assist the district
and the Assistant Secretary in carrying out completion of the
project.
Finally, H.R. 4129 would provide for prepayment of
repayment contracts with municipal and industrial water
delivery facilities, and eliminate a 2002 deadline for such
prepayment. This small change would allow the districts to pay
off their contracts more quickly.
That completes my statement, and I would be more than happy
to address any questions that the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Christiansen follows:]
Statement of Don A. Christiansen, General Manager, Central Utah Water
Conservancy District, on H.R. 4129
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on a
bill to amend the Central Utah Project Completion Act, (CUPCA) which
originally passed Congress as part of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization And Adjustment Act of 1992, (P.L. 102-575). During the
ten years since CUPCA became law, the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District has exercised the unique opportunity to step into the shoes of
the Bureau of Reclamation and complete the planning, design and
construction of the Central Utah Project (CUP).
This one-of-a-kind experiment has forced the State of Utah and the
water users within the ten counties served by the District to examine
very closely exactly what type of project we needed. After all, under
the reforms of CUPCA, the Utah taxpayers are paying 35% of the
construction costs to complete the project. We have learned much. We
have tried to be creative and innovative in how we planned the features
to complete the transbasin diversion of Utah's share of Colorado River
water to the populous Wasatch front. While we have made progress, we
are not yet complete. Simply put, the bill you have before you provides
some fine tuning to the original CUPCA authorization to reflect the
contemporaneous changes to CUP reflecting the current needs of Utah's
water users.
Chairman Hansen once told me that the Central Utah Project is the
closest thing to eternal life on earth. Well, we hope Mr. Chairman, the
amendments we are proposing will enable us to complete a project which
not only creates more supply, but one which also places greater
emphasis on water conservation, wastewater reuse, conjunctive use of
surface water supplies with groundwater resources and improved water
quality through desalination and reverse osmosis technologies.
H.R. 4129 amends CUPCA to provide flexibility allowing for the
transfer of unused spending authority between CUPCA programs. CUPCA
originally authorized the expenditure of over $900 million to complete
the Central Utah Project (CUP). This authorization was broken down into
numerous feature or program specific authorizations. These features or
program specific authorization levels were based upon original
estimates from the Bureau of Reclamation, some of which were first made
in the draft 1964 Definite Plan Report. I am sure it will come as no
surprise that the project we are building has changed substantially
from the one planned by Reclamation in 1964. In fact, CUPCA itself de-
authorized a list of certain project features; however, the Act did
nothing to dispose of Reclamation's investigation costs for those de-
authorized projects. H.R. will clean up the books, so-to-speak, by
making them non-reimbursable.
Since 1992, the District has reformulated the CUP in a number of
significant ways. Several project features including the irrigation and
drainage system have been eliminated and other programs have been
redesigned to be more cost effective. In addition, CUPCA's water
conservation program has met with great acceptance and is expected to
fully utilize its program specific authorization. The District's
program to purchase water rights to meet minimum stream flow needs is
also in need of additional funding. Further, certain water delivery
features such as the Diamond Fork System have been redesigned to
eliminate the controversial Monks Hollow dam. Because of underground
tunnel construction problems, this redesign has increased the overall
cost of the Diamond Fork System beyond the authorization limit
contained in CUPCA.
H.R. 4129 amends the authority given to the Secretary of the
Interior in Section 202 (c) of CUPCA to redirect unexpended budget
authority for water conservation projects, water rights acquisition,
and other specifically authorized project features in title II of
CUPCA. I want to emphasize that H.R. 4129 does not increase the total
authorization for the Central Utah Project.
H.R. 4129 also eliminates geographic and type-of-use limitations in
CUPCA which restrict the District's planning of project features to the
delivery of water to only Utah and Juab Counties. I want to emphasize
that notwithstanding this change in the law, the District still intends
to work with the water users from those two counties to develop a
project which will deliver to them the benefits of an enhanced water
supply.
As I indicated previously, CUPCA also transferred construction
responsibility for CUP from the Bureau of Reclamation to the Central
Utah Water Conservancy District, the state sponsoring agency for the
project. Oversight of the District's planning and construction
activities is provided by the Department of the Interior.
The legislation would clarify the responsibilities of the Secretary
of the Interior with respect to the Central Utah Project. This language
would ensure that the highly effective administrative arrangement now
in place would be allowed to continue. In addition, because from time
to time the District has, over the past ten years, asked for assistance
from the Bureau of Reclamation, the legislation would authorize a pilot
program to be developed between Reclamation and the District to enable
increased opportunity for Reclamation to assist the District and the
Assistant Secretary in carrying out completion of the project.
Finally, H.R. 4129 would provide for prepayment of repayment
contracts for municipal and industrial water delivery facilities, and
eliminate a 2002 deadline for such prepayment. This small change would
allow the water districts to pay off their contracts more quickly.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you very much. As a result of my
butchering your name, I let you go over the limit. I apologize
for that. He had even spelled out the pronunciation and I still
got it wrong.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rehberg. If the witnesses will notice, there is a
timepiece on your table. If you could kind of follow that, that
would be helpful. We have a gentleman on the next panel who has
a plane to catch, and I will be sensitive to his time as well.
So next would be Mr. Brailsford, Mayor of Salem City, State
of Utah.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RANDY A. BRAILSFORD, MAYOR, SALEM
CITY, UTAH
Mr. Brailsford. Thank you. You got that right.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you.
Mr. Brailsford. So I can't go over?
Mr. Rehberg. You cannot go over.
Mr. Brailsford. My name is Randy Brailsford. I am the Mayor
of Salem City, and also the Chairman of the South County Mayors
Group which represents 10 communities in south Utah County.
South Utah County is about 60 miles south of Salt Lake City.
And we are here today to talk on this bill and to ask for maybe
just a little bit more.
We respect our constituents at the grass level. Therefore,
our solemn obligation is to see to the future needs of our
children and our grandchildren. Quoting from Parley R. Neeley
from June 1948, ``It will not be possible, when traveling from
Salt Lake City to Nephi, to tell where one city ends and
another begins.'' These are dreams of our old mean and the
visions of our young men who may actually behold them.
Our community covers about 200 square miles. We are one of
the fastest growing communities in Utah. Six percent is the
lowest figure, and some cities within our 10 mayors group have
grown at 12, 12.5 percent over the last 6 years.
Our 10 communities have been trying to plan for the future
of our residents well into the future. We have organized an
interlocal association called the South Valley Municipal Water
Agency, or SUVMWA, to organize and plan for the future water
needs of our communities.
This group has been very much involved with the Department
of the Interior and the Central Utah Conservancy District,
trying to contract for our future water needs. We have
negotiated a contract for 1,500 acre feet of Central Utah
Project water, and we were very close to signing a contract for
an additional 9,610 acre feet of water. The contract got
backtracked, though, and has not been completed to this date.
We recently received a letter from Governor Leavitt asking
all citizens in the State to start conserving water. We have
actually got one of our cities that has a well that has gone
dry. I have had a moratorium in my city, in Spanish Fork, since
last year for no more new subdivisions due to water shortage as
it is in the summer months.
It is critical to our residents that water be available to
south Utah Valley. Attached is a map of the earlier SFN project
showing the pipeline that was expected and planned for. Future
water for both indoor and outdoor use is dependent on this
project and the water it would provide.
The city is very concerned with how much underground water
can be used in our area. There are a lot of wetlands in our
area and there are ponds, and we are very concerned that by
using so much of the ground surface water, that wetlands will
be going dry, the habitat will be dying, as well as ponds will
be reduced in level. So there is much concern of using that
versus this other.
Having the pipelines from Strawberry Reservoir to our area
will give us the pressure we need for water in our pressurized
irrigation systems. We have saved considerable power
consumption in not having to pump the system. We firmly believe
that CUP will be vital to the well-being of our environment.
We can't see, where we planned on for over 50 years now to
generate pipelines and introduce water into the Utah Valley,
put generators on to generate power, and now they are saying,
well, maybe we ought to start using power to pump. It don't
make sense. But we are trying to utilize both, as the plan was
years ago.
We are much in favor of the Bonneville Unit of the Central
Utah Project. In fact, we have been looking forward to the
project and the water it would provide our area for almost 50
years. Much of our area has already been agriculture and has
been in need of additional agricultural water. We were
anticipating that as the agricultural use changed to municipal
use, so the water could be used for both. Our long term plans
have been based on the ability to have access to the CUP water.
We are in favor of the amendment, H.R. 4129, introduced on
March 20, 2002, with one exception. We would request Section
202(a)(1)(B) of the Central Utah Project Completion Act (106
Stat. 4611) be revised to read ``deliver irrigation water to
lands in the Utah Lake drainage basin and municipal water
within the Utah Lake drainage basin, exclusive of the features
identified in Section 201(b).''
We need to have the facilities to deliver the water once we
have a contract in place for the water. Pipelines need to be
completed down to the mouth of the Spanish Fork Canyon and then
to the south and north with lines serving the 10 cities. Lines
were originally planned to be installed throughout south Utah
County to east Juab County.
These pipelines are part of what we have been planning on
for a long period of time. Many of the cities have already got
pressurized irrigation pipes sitting in our cities empty,
because for 50 years that we have been paying taxes on this and
the 50 years that we have been promised to get this pipeline
down the canyon, we have worked with the plans of Interior to
get this project completed so we can fill those pipelines, and
now they are saying there may not be a pipeline there. This is
a big concern.
Our south Utah cities, like I say, have been paying taxes
for 50 years on this. And, gentlemen, in 50 years south Utah
County has not got one damn dime of anything, and now they are
trying to take the only thing we have hoped to get for 50
years, that pipeline down that canyon. That is the only source
where we can get water to provide industry for the children, to
provide agriculture, to keep the orchards, the fields, active,
for homes, for growth, to keep our kids in the area, our
grandchildren in the area to work and build a home.
And we have planned this also for 50 years, all the
communities, to build, to work that way, and now, because there
are some problems with another agency, they are wanting to pull
this. So we are here to say to you, we will support this bill
with those changes, but please, if we could get some kind of a
tax so not all the money leaves there, to help us in those 10
cities with that pipeline.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brailsford follows:]
Statement of Randy Brailsford, Mayor, Salem, Utah
My name is Randy Brailsford. I am the Mayor of the city of Salem,
Utah. I am also chairman of the South County Mayors Group in Utah
County. We represent all ten communities in the south half of Utah
County, located approximately 50 miles south of Salt Lake City. We
represent our constituents at the grass roots level. It is, therefore,
our solemn obligation to see to the future needs of our children and
grandchildren. Quoting from Parley R. Neeley from June 1948 `` It will
not be possible, when traveling from Salt Lake City to Nephi, to tell
where one city ends and another begins.'' These are dreams of our old
men and the visions our young men may actually behold.'' Our
communities cover an area of about 200 square miles. We are in one of
the fastest growing areas in the state. We have experienced
approximately 6% growth per year during the last 6 years. We anticipate
a population of over 600,000 by 2070. The Bonneville Unit of the
Central Utah Project is our last chance for additional water to meet
these projected needs.
Our ten communities have been trying to plan for the future of our
residents well into the future. We have organized an interlocal
association called the South Utah Valley Municipal Water Association
(SUVMWA) to organize and plan for the future water needs of our
communities. This group has been very involved with the Department of
Interior and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District in trying to
contract for our future water needs. We have negotiated a contract for
1590 acre feet of Central Utah Project (CUP) water and we were very
close to signing a contract for an additional 9610 acre feet of CUP
water. That contract got side-tracked and has not been completed to
date. We recently received a letter from our Governor dealing with the
water shortage and how critical conservation will be. This project is
the only future source of water we have for our area. It is critical to
our residents that this water be available to south Utah Valley.
Attached is a map of the earlier SFN project showing the piping that we
have expected and planned around. Future water for both indoor and
outdoor use is dependant on this project and the water it would
provide.
SUVMWA is very concerned with how much underground water can be
used in our area and at what point will that development start to
interfere with the environmental issues such as wet lands and in stream
flows needed for wildlife and fish. We recently had one of our
communities well go dry. Other cities have had to drop well pumps much
deeper to find the water. Other cities have building moratoriums in
place because of water restrictions.
Having the pipe lines from Strawberry Reservoir to our area will
give us the pressure we need for water in our pressure irrigation
systems and save considerable power consumption in not having to pump
water into these systems. We very firmly believe the CUP water will be
vital to the well being of our area environment.
We are very much in favor of the Bonneville Unit of the Central
Utah Project. In fact we have been looking forward to the project and
the water it would provide for our area for almost fifty years. Much of
our area has been agriculture and has been in need of additional
agricultural water. We were anticipating that as the agriculture use
changed to municipal use, so would the use of the water change. All of
our long term plans have be based on the ability to have access to the
CUP water.
We are in favor of the amendments proposed in H. R. 4129 introduced
on March 20, 2002 with one exception. We would request Section
202(a)(1)(B) of the Central Utah Project Completion Act (106 Stat.
4611) be revised to read ``deliver irrigation water to lands in the
Utah Lake drainage basin and municipal water within the Utah Lake
drainage basin, exclusive of the features identified in section 201
(b)''. We need to have facilities to deliver the water once we have the
contracts in place for the water. Pipe lines need to be completed down
to the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon and then to the south and north
with lines serving the ten cities. Lines were originally planned to be
installed through south Utah County to east Juab County. These pipe
lines are part what we have been planning on for a long period of time
and several of the communities have already install pressurized
irrigation pipe lines within their area anticipating delivery from the
CUP pipe lines. Several million dollars have already been spent on
these systems.
We appreciate the committee members time and efforts on this very
vital project to our constituents. We ask for your consideration in
helping to get this project finally completed.
______
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you.
Ms. Peterson?
STATEMENT OF MARGARET PETERSON, COUNCIL MEMBER, WEST VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL
Ms. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today in support of Representative
Cannon's bill, which has been cosponsored by the entire Utah
congressional delegation. I am a senior member of the West
Valley City Council. West Valley is the second largest city in
Utah. I also serve as Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees of
the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, which provides
water to West Valley City and other entities in Salt Lake
County.
The Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District's service area
contains over half of the fastest growing cities in Utah.
Jordan Valley serves the fast growing cities of West Jordan,
South Jordan, Riverton, Bluffdale, Draper, Herriman, and
others. Most of the growth is coming from natural increase.
These people are largely the children and grandchildren of the
residents of the more established cities in Salt Lake Valley.
Our service area is expected to double in population and in
water deliveries over the next 20 years.
Jordan Valley District has several requests on file with
the Central Utah District, requesting assistance in meeting its
future water needs. We are hoping that the scoping activities
of the Central Utah Water District's Utah Lake Studies Project
will show that some central Utah water may be made available
for Jordan Valley District, which can be delivered to West
Valley City and other cities in Salt Lake County. We believe
that the provisions of H.R. 4129 provide much-needed
flexibility in the Central Utah Project Completion Act to
enable the Central Utah District to meet its responsibilities
for completing features which will help meet the water supply
needs of the future of Salt Lake County.
Specifically, we endorse the provisions of the bill which
redirect existing authorizations to meet contemporary and
immediate water needs. The Jordan Valley District is interested
in additional water conservation projects, conjunctive use of
groundwater and surface water, wastewater recycling, and
possibly the use of reverse osmosis membrane technologies to
treat highly saline water sources such as Utah Lake.
With extremely dry soil conditions and low reservoir levels
this fall, the prospects of a normal water supply for next year
are very low. Most of the winter's snow may never make it to
the streams this spring. For these reasons, the Governor has
called for measures to reduce water consumption immediately.
The need for conservation of water is very real. We may be
facing mandatory water restrictions in the coming year.
With regard to the long term, the time has now come to
embrace conservation with open arms. We cannot continue to
sustain growth and economic development without more efficient
water use. As the second driest State in the Nation, Utah must
become a model of water conservation, an example to the entire
Nation of what can be done. Governor Leavitt has called for a
25 percent reduction in per capita water use throughout the
State. If we had an hour, I would love to tell you about the
exciting projects that we are working on.
We appreciate the willingness of the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District and the delegation to help us meet this
goal by providing additional funding which recognizes that
there may be new and better ways to meet our water supply
needs. Even with major advances in water conservation, we will
need to continue developing water and building facilities.
Because the service area of the Jordan Valley District is
projected to double in water demand over the next 20 years, we
will also need new infrastructure.
As a natural consequence of growth, water will become more
expensive. The cheap water has already been developed. New
projects will involve reclamation of contaminated groundwater,
conversion of low quality agricultural water, and importation
of water from outside the county.
Also, new Federal and State water quality standards and
regulations intended to ensure the quality of water delivered
through public water systems are adding to the ever-increasing
cost of water. Environmental mitigations associated with new
water projects and efforts to sustain endangered species are
adding new dimensions to the cost of water. Also, as systems
age, infrastructure must be renewed and replaced to keep
distribution systems viable. It is estimated that the cost of
water will increase over 50 percent in the next 10 years.
I have attached to my testimony the Jordan Valley requests
for CUP water in comparison to the requests from other areas of
the district. As you can see, Salt Lake County's need for water
occurs much earlier than anywhere else in Utah.
For all these reasons, we strongly support H.R. 4129 as an
important and vital step to move us forward in our goal to meet
the water needs of the future. Thank you
[The prepared statement of Ms. Peterson follows:]
Statement of Margaret Peterson, Councilwoman, West Valley City, Utah
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in
support of Representative Cannon's bill which has been cosponsored by
the entire Utah Congressional delegation. My name is Margaret Peterson.
I am a member of the West Valley City Council. West Valley is the
second largest city in Utah. I also serve as Vice Chair of the Board of
Trustees of the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, which
provides water to West Valley City and other water entities in Salt
Lake County. The Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District's service
area contains over half of the fastest growing cities in Utah. Jordan
Valley serves the fast-growing cities of West Jordan, South Jordan,
Riverton, Bluffdale, Draper and Herriman, among others. Most of the
growth is coming from natural increase. These people are largely the
children and grandchildren of the residents of more established cities
in the Salt Lake Valley. Our service area is expected to double in
population and water deliveries over the next 20 years.
Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District has several requests on
file with the Central Utah Water Conservancy District requesting
assistance in meeting its future water needs. We are hoping that the
scoping activities of Central Utah Water Conservancy District's Utah
Lake Studies Project will show that some Central Utah water may be made
available for Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District which could be
delivered to West Valley City and other cities in Salt Lake County. We
believe that the provisions of H.R. 4129 provide much needed
flexibility to the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA) to
enable the Central Utah District to meet its responsibilities to
complete features which can help meet the water supply needs of the
future of Salt Lake County.
Specifically, we endorse the provisions of the bill which redirect
existing authorizations to meet contemporary and immediate water needs.
The Jordan Valley District is interested in additional water
conservation projects, conjunctive use of groundwater and surface
water, wastewater recycling and possibly the use of reverse osmosis
membrane technologies to treat highly saline water sources such as Utah
Lake.
With extremely dry soil conditions and low reservoir levels this
fall, the prospects of a normal water supply for next year are very
low. Most of this winter's snow may never make it to the streams this
spring. For these reasons, the Governor has called for measures to
reduce water consumption immediately. The need for conservation of
water is very real. We may be facing mandatory water restrictions in
the coming year.
With regard to the long term, the time has now come to embrace
conservation with open arms. We cannot continue to sustain growth and
economic development without more efficient water use. As the second
driest state in the nation, Utah must become a model of water
conservation, an example to the entire nation of what can be done.
Governor Leavitt has called for a 25 percent reduction in per-capita
water use throughout the state.
We appreciate the willingness of the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District and the delegation to help us meet this goal by providing
additional funding which recognizes that there may be new and better
ways to meet our water supply needs.
Even with major advances in water conservation, we will need to
continue developing water and building facilities. Because the service
area of the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District is projected to
double in water demand over the next 20 years we will need new
infrastructure. As a natural consequence of growth, water will become
more expensive. The cheap water has already been developed. New
projects will involve reclamation of contaminated groundwater,
conversion of low-quality agricultural water, and importation of water
from outside the county. Also, new Federal and state water quality
standards and regulations intended to insure the quality of water
delivered through public water systems are adding to the ever-
increasing costs of water. Environmental mitigations associated with
new water projects and efforts to sustain endangered species are adding
new dimensions to the cost of water. Also, as systems age,
infrastructure must be renewed and replaced to keep distribution
systems viable. It is estimated that the cost of water will increase
over 50 percent over the next 10 years. I have attached to my testimony
the Jordan Valley requests for CUP water in comparison to the requests
from other areas of the District. As you can see, Salt Lake County's
need for water occurs much earlier than anywhere else in Utah. For all
these reasons we strongly support H.R. 4129 as an important and vital
step to move us forward in our goal to meet the water needs of the
future. Thank you.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Ms. Peterson.
Ms. James?
STATEMENT OF LESLIE JAMES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLORADO RIVER
ENERGY DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION
Ms. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee. I am Leslie James, Executive Director of the
Colorado River Energy Distributors Association, or CREDA. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today in
support of H.R. 4129, and ask that my entire written statement
be made part of the record.
Mr. Rehberg. Without objection.
Ms. James. CREDA is a nonprofit organization representing
155 consumer-owned electric systems that all purchase Federal
hydropower and resources of the Colorado River Storage Project.
We represent our members in dealing with the Bureau of
Reclamation, as the generating agency of the CRSP, and the
Western Area Power Administration, as the marketing agency of
the CRSP. CREDA members are all nonprofit organizations serving
nearly 3 million electric consumers in the six western States
of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
Our interest in this legislation stems from the fact that,
as Mr. Cannon mentioned, the Central Utah project is a
participating project of the CRSP. Repayment of the Federal
investment of the CRSP has been the responsibility of the CRSP
power contractors for 30 years. The rates charged to our
members repay all of the Federal investment in generation and
transmission facilities, with interest; all related operation
and maintenance expenses; environmental costs.
In addition, the CRSP customers are paying over 95 percent
of the cost of the irrigation features of the CRSP. In fact, in
the current CRSP rate, approximately 35 percent of the total
annual revenue requirement is due to irrigation assistance.
These contracts are not fixed costs. They allow for rate
adjustments in order to ensure repayment of the Federal
investment in the CRSP.
In fact, we are currently in the midst of a rate adjustment
process which could result in an increase of 30 percent to the
CRSP rate. As the Subcommittee is aware, the western
electricity market has been extremely volatile over the recent
past couple of years. As a result, CREDA and our members are
scrutinizing every expenditure to keep costs as low as possible
for their consumers. CREDA, representing our members, works
with the Bureau and with Western through a 1992 contractual
arrangement in an attempt to mitigate rate increases.
Our support of H.R. 4129 focuses on two provisions of the
bill. The first regards treatment of costs that have been
expended by the Bureau for studies of features of the CUP that
will not be constructed by the Federal Government. CREDA
believes costs such as these should be nonreimbursable and
nonreturnable, meaning that they would not be paid by CRSP
power customers. Section 1(a) of H.R. 4129 provides that
assurance.
Second, CREDA understands the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District's desire to continue its relationship with
the Secretary. Likewise, CREDA has existing working and
contractual arrangements with the Bureau, and we believe that
it is important to ensure that those relationships are
maintained. The language of Section 1(b)(6) of H.R. 4129
provides that assurance.
In summary, CREDA's specific interests in H.R. 4129 relate
to the CRSP from a financial and ongoing implementation
standpoint. We encourage timely passage of this bill. We thank
the Subcommittee for the opportunity of appearing today in
support of this important legislation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. James follows:]
Statement of Leslie James, Executive Director, Colorado River Energy
Distributors Association (CREDA)
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am Leslie James,
Executive Director of the Colorado River Energy Distributors
Association (CREDA). I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today in support of H.R. 4129.
Our interest in this legislation stems from the fact that the
Central Utah Project is a participating project--an irrigation
project--of the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP). The CRSP was
authorized in the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 485,
84th Cong., 70 Stat. 50), as a multi-purpose Federal project that
provides flood control; water storage for irrigation, municipal and
industrial purposes; recreation and environmental mitigation and
protection, in addition to the generation of electricity. I would first
like to provide a description of CREDA and its members.
CREDA is a non-profit organization representing 155 consumer-owned
electric systems (CRSP power contractors) that purchase Federal
hydropower and resources of the CRSP. CREDA was established in 1978,
and serves as the ``voice'' of its members in dealing with CRSP
resource availability and affordability issues. CREDA represents its
members in dealing with the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), as the
generating agency of the CRSP, and Western Area Power Administration
(WAPA), as the marketing agency of the CRSP. CREDA members are all non-
profit organizations, serving nearly 3 million electric consumers in
the six western states of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah
and Wyoming. CREDA members purchase over 85% of the CRSP power
resource. Attached is a listing of current CREDA members.
Repayment of the Federal investment of the CRSP has been the
responsibility of CRSP power contractors for 30 years. This repayment
is ensured by long-term contracts providing for the purchase of CRSP
resources. The rates charged to these power contractors repay all of
the Federal investment in generation and transmission facilities (with
interest), all power-related operation and maintenance costs, and
environmental costs. In addition, the CRSP contractors are paying over
95% of the cost of the irrigation features of the CRSP (those costs
that are beyond the ability of the irrigators to pay). In fact, in the
current CRSP rate, 35% of the total annual revenue requirement is due
to irrigation assistance. These contracts are not fixed cost; they
allow for rate adjustments in order to ensure repayment of the Federal
investment in the CRSP.
When the Federal reclamation projects were begun, they were
designed, constructed, operated, and maintained by the Bureau of
Reclamation. The Bureau also owned the transmission system and marketed
the power from the projects. When WAPA was formed under the Department
of Energy Organization Act in 1977, the design, construction,
operation, and maintenance functions remained with the Bureau and the
transmission system and marketing responsibilities were moved to WAPA.
Construction and capital projects are funded through the Federal
Treasury at the interest rate determined by Congress or at the time
construction starts. These projects go through a budgeting process
associated with the Federal budget, and money is appropriated for these
projects with Congressional approval. As revenues are collected for the
sale of Federal power, there is a priority assigned to payment of
obligations. The priority of repayment of the projects is that O&M
expenses for WAPA and the Bureau are paid first and then repayment of
the highest interest capital investment is made to the Federal
Treasury. The components associated with the power features are paid
first, including the appropriate interest, and then the power revenues
are used to pay the irrigation projects at no interest.
Each year WAPA compiles a ``power repayment study'' which estimates
expenses of both the Bureau and WAPA, and is the basis for the CRSP
rate. After WAPA has completed the power repayment study and if a rate
adjustment is necessary, a public process is begun. We are currently in
the midst of this process, which could result in a 30% rate increase.
As the Subcommittee is aware, the western electricity market has been
extremely volatile over the recent past couple of years. As a result,
CREDA members are scrutinizing every expenditure to keep costs as low
as possible for their consumers. CREDA, representing its members, works
with the Bureau and WAPA through a 1992 contractual arrangement
regarding work program and rate treatment issues, in an effort to
mitigate rate increases.
CREDA's support of H.R. 4129 focuses on two provisions of the bill.
The first regards treatment of costs that have been expended by the
Bureau for studies of features of the CUP that will not be constructed
by the Federal Government. As an example, during the 1980's, despite
opposition from the CRSP power contractors, the Bureau explored adding
a large generation component to the Diamond Fork feature of the CUP.
Subsequently, the Bureau determined the Federal Government would not
construct the feature. CREDA believes costs such as these should be
non-reimbursable and non-returnable, meaning they would not be paid by
the CRSP power contractors. Section 1(a) of H.R. 4129 provides that
assurance.
Secondly, CREDA understands the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District's desire to continue its relationship with the Secretary.
Likewise, CREDA has existing working and contractual relationships with
the Bureau, specifically regarding construction, operation and
maintenance and rate treatment for the CRSP facilities. CREDA felt it
necessary to ensure that relationship is maintained. The language of
Section 1(b)(3) of H.R. 4129 provides that assurance.
In summary, CREDA's specific interests in H.R. 4129 relate to the
CRSP from a financial and ongoing implementation standpoint. We
encourage timely passage of H.R. 4129. We thank the Subcommittee for
the opportunity of appearing today in support of this important
legislation.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you.
Mr. McMullin?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. McMULLIN, PRESIDENT, STRAWBERRY WATER
USERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. McMullin. Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Robert McMullin. I serve as the
President of the Strawberry Water Users Association. I
appreciate the opportunity to address you regarding a topic
which is very important to the Strawberry Water Users and its
shareholders.
I am a third generation farmer, full time farmer. My home,
my friends, my family, my orchards, and my heart are in south
Utah County.
Strawberry is a nonprofit corporation, organized in 1922,
primarily for the purpose of contracting with the United States
Bureau of Reclamation to repay the United States the remaining
unpaid construction costs of the Strawberry Valley Project and
to provide a water supply to approximately 2,800 Strawberry
shareholders, including the south Utah County, Utah cities of
Springville, Mapleton, Genola, Spanish Fork, Salem, an Payson.
Strawberry repaid to the United States all of the costs of
construction of the Strawberry Project in 1974.
The Strawberry Project is a Federal reclamation project
constructed between 1906 and 1915. The Strawberry provides
approximately 70,000 acre feet of water to approximately 41,000
acres of land in south Utah County, Utah. Most lands served by
the Strawberry have insufficient water.
Soon after the Central Utah Water Conservancy District
(District) was formed in 1964 as the local entity that would
repay the local share of the Central Utah Project, south Utah
County residents began paying property taxes to support the
Central Utah Project. Strawberry shareholders, many of them
struggling family farmers, have been paying those taxes ever
since. They have yet to see significant CUP benefits.
Prior to the enactment of the 1992 Central Utah Project
Completion Act, it was anticipated that Strawberry, the
district, and the United States would be required to enter into
an agreement for the operation and maintenance of CUP
facilities for the benefit of both Strawberry and CUP. Such an
agreement was signed by the United States, the District, and
Strawberry in 1991, 1 year before the agreement was mandated by
Congress. In that contract, Strawberry is first in right for
61,000 acre feet of water from the reservoir.
From the beginning of the CUP, it was anticipated that
south Utah County and east Juab County irrigators would be
provided CUP water and water infrastructure. Section 202 of the
CUPCA Act, the section that the District seeks to amend,
authorized $150 million for the construction of the irrigation
and drainage system, or in the alternative $125 million for the
construction of alternate features to deliver irrigation water
to lands in the Utah Lake drainage basin.
Central now has said that it will take most of the CUP
water promised to south Utah and east Juab Counties to Salt
Lake County, outside the Utah Lake drainage basin. Frankly,
Strawberry could and would swallow a bitter pill and quietly
accept the loss of the promised irrigation water, if the
majority of the authorized $125 million were used to provide
water conservation and efficiency infrastructure to help south
Utah County and east Juab County make their very short water
supply go further. In the process, water quality, safety, and
environmental concerns could be addressed as well.
CUWCD is instead before Congress seeking authorization to
use all of the $125 million originally intended ``for the
construction of alternate features to deliver irrigation water
to lands in the Utah Lake drainage basin'' to deliver municipal
water to Salt Lake County, outside the Utah Lake drainage
basin. There are essentially two changes to Section
202(a)(1)(b) of the CUPCA Act which accomplish this.
First, the words ``to lands in the Utah Lake drainage
basin'' would be removed from Section 202 to make it clear that
the authorized funds could be used to deliver water outside the
Utah Lake drainage basin. Second, the proposed amendment would
add the word ``municipal'' in front of the word ``irrigation''
to make it clear that the authorized funds would be spent on
municipal irrigation, not agriculture irrigation. These changes
would completely exclude irrigators, and would in addition give
Central the discretion to exclude the Utah Lake drainage basin,
that is, south Utah and east Juab Counties, completely.
There are four principal reasons that you should reject
Central's efforts to deny south Utah and east Juab Counties
Central water and CUP water infrastructure.
First, solemn promises should be kept. We respectfully
submit that men and women of character require no further
discussion of this point.
Second, section 206 of the CUPCA Act contains a clear
principle of equity that was intended to protect against unfair
distributions of CUP benefits. Unfortunately, Congress was so
certain that south Utah County would be provided CUP benefits,
that south Utah County falls through a crack in Section 206.
While the technical language of Section 206 does not apply to
South Utah County, the principles of equity embodied there
should be applied in South Utah County.
Third, a key part of the CUP is the Strawberry/Jordanelle
exchange. Imported water must be released from the enlarged
Strawberry Reservoir to Utah Lake to satisfy priority water
right holders who would otherwise be entitled to waters of the
Provo River. This makes it possible for Central to lawfully
store waters of the Provo River in Jordanelle Reservoir. Most
of the Central water used in the Utah Lake drainage basin will
not be consumed, but rather will flow to Utah Lake, where it
can be counted as satisfying a portion of the required
Strawberry/Jordanelle exchange. This conserves an equal amount
of water in the enlarged Strawberry Reservoir.
Last, much of Salt Lake County is dense urban or suburban
sprawl. What is not already developed on that model appears to
be largely planned on that model. More water means more of the
same and greater endless densities. South Utah and east Juab
Counties have only begun to plan and grow. With CUP water, both
municipal and agricultural, south Utah and east Juab Counties
have the opportunity to create small cities near preserved
agricultural lands.
We want a place for our children to grow and prosper here,
not in a larger, more dense Salt Lake Valley metropolis. We
want to support and save some of the Utah County agricultural
heritage as well. With improved infrastructure, the Strawberry
can serve the interest of all south Utah and east Juab County
residents, farmer and city dweller alike. We ask for that
opportunity.
Above all else, we respectfully ask that you keep the
promises made to those who have supported the Bonneville Unit
of the CUP, and waited for its benefits for so many decades. We
thank you very much for your time and careful consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McMullin follows:]
Statement of Robert W. McMullin, President, Strawberry Water Users
Association, Payson, Utah
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Robert
McMullin, I serve as the President of the Strawberry Water Users
Association (SWUA). I appreciate the opportunity to address you
regarding a topic which is very important to SWUA and its shareholders.
Attached is a copy of my resume. My home, my friends and family, my
orchards and my heart are in south Utah County, Utah.
SWUA is a nonprofit corporation organized in 1922 primarily for the
purpose of contracting with the United States Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) to repay to the United States the remaining unpaid
construction costs of the Strawberry Valley Project (SVP), and to
provide a water supply to approximately 2,800 SWUA shareholders,
including the south Utah County, Utah cities of Springville, Mapleton,
Genola, Spanish Fork, Salem, and Payson. SWUA repaid to the United
States all of the costs of construction of the SVP in 1974.
The SVP is a Federal reclamation project constructed between 1906
and 1915. The SVP provides approximately 70,000 acre-feet (AF) of water
to approximately 41,000 acres of land in south Utah County, Utah. Most
lands served by the SVP have insufficient water.
Because south Utah County has always been a dry spot in a desert
state, SWUA and its shareholders have been among the very first, and
the very strongest, supporters of the Central Utah Project (CUP). The
following quotes come from pages 16 to 19 of the history of the CUP
found in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Bonneville
Unit of the CUP (BUEIS):
Investigation work on the Central Utah Project began soon
after the turn of the century under the Reclamation Act of
1902. The Strawberry Valley Project, with Strawberry Reservoir
as its key feature, was a forerunner of a larger central Utah
development soon to be envisioned. Strawberry Reservoir was
completed in 1913, and as early as 1919 local municipal and
agricultural water users and other leaders who recognized
future water requirements in central Utah began considering the
possibility of expanding the existing Strawberry Valley
Project.
Investigations on obtaining additional water for the
Strawberry Valley Project were begun in the spring of 1945.
During the course of these studies, the plan was expanded to
cover essentially the same area that was considered in the
Colorado River-Great Basin Project, and the name Central Utah
Project was given to the Proposal.
The Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) was formed in
1964 as the local entity that would repay the local share of the CUP.
Since the mid 1960s, south Utah County residents began paying property
taxes to CUWCD to support the CUP. SWUA shareholders, many of them
struggling family farmers, have been paying those taxes ever since.
They have yet to see significant CUP benefits.
From the conception of the CUP it was intended that CUP facilities
would replace certain SVP facilities. The SVP's Strawberry Dam was
replaced by the CUP's Soldier Creek Dam. The SVP's Strawberry Reservoir
was replaced by the CUP's Enlarged Strawberry Reservoir. The SVP's
collection system was replaced by the CUP's Strawberry Collection
System. The SVP's Strawberry Tunnel was replaced in part by the CUP's
Syar Tunnel.
From the very beginning it was clear that without the cooperation
and support of SWUA and its shareholders there could be no CUP. Again,
I quote from page 549 of the BUEIS:
If the necessary operating agreements for storage, exchange,
and use of some existing facilities to convey the water to
points of use could not be obtained, development of the
Bonneville Unit would be terminated at the enlarged Strawberry
Reservoir, with no water being exported to the Wasatch Front.
SWUA gave its support to the CUP, and allowed SVP facilities to be
replaced by CUP facilities.
Prior to the enactment of the 1992 Central Utah Project Completion
Act (CUPCA) it was anticipated that SWUA, CUWCD and the United States
would be required to enter into an agreement for the operation and
maintenance of CUP facilities for the benefit of both the SVP and the
CUP. Such an agreement was signed by the United States, CUWCD and SWUA
in 1991, one year before the agreement was mandated by Congress. I
refer you to section 209 of CUPCA.
From the beginning of the CUP it was anticipated that south Utah
County and east Juab County irrigators would be provided CUP water and
water infrastructure. Section 202 of CUPCA, the section CUWCD seeks to
amend, authorized $150 Million for the construction of the ``Irrigation
and Drainage System,'' or in the alternative $125 Million ``for the
construction of alternate features to deliver irrigation water to lands
in the Utah Lake Drainage basin.''
During the construction of Jordanelle Reservoir as part of the
``M&I System,'' a feature of the Bonneville Unit of the CUP, south Utah
and east Juab County residents were asked to agree to wait to receive
CUP Bonneville Unit benefits dead last. A solemn promise was made by
all levels of Federal, state and local officials and leaders that the
patience, cooperation, support and sacrifice of the south Utah County
and east Juab County people would never be betrayed. They would never
be left out of the CUP.
CUWCD has now said that it will take most of the CUP water promised
to south Utah and east Juab Counties to Salt Lake County, outside the
Utah Lake Drainage Basin. Frankly, SWUA could and would swallow a
bitter pill and quietly accept the loss of the promised irrigation
water if the majority of the authorized $125 Million were used to
provide water conservation and efficiency infrastructure to help south
Utah and east Juab Counties make their very short water supply go
farther. In the process, water quality, safety and environmental
concerns could be addressed as well.
CUWCD is instead before Congress seeking authorization to use all
of the $125 Million originally intended ``for the construction of
alternate features to deliver irrigation water to lands in the Utah
Lake Drainage basin'' to deliver municipal water to Salt Lake County,
outside the Utah Lake Drainage Basin. Subsection (c) of H.R. 4129
contains two changes to section 202(a)(1)(B) of CUPCA which accomplish
this. First, the words ``to lands in the Utah Lake Drainage basin''
would be removed from section 202(a)(1)(B) to make it clear that the
authorized funds could be used to deliver water outside the Utah Lake
Drainage basin. Second, the proposed amendment would add the word
``municipal'' in front of the word ``irrigation'' to make it clear that
the authorized funds would be spent on ``municipal irrigation,'' not
agricultural irrigation. These changes would completely exclude
irrigators, and would in addition give CUWCD the discretion to exclude
the Utah Lake Drainage basin, that is, south Utah and east Juab
Counties, completely.
There are four principal reasons why you should reject CUWCD's
efforts to deny south Utah and east Juab Counties CUP water and CUP
water infrastructure:
First, Solemn promises should be kept. We respectfully submit that
men and women of character require no further discussion of this point.
Second, section 206 of CUPCA contains a clear principal of equity
that was intended to protect against unfair distributions of CUP
benefits. Unfortunately, Congress was so certain that south Utah County
would be provided CUP benefits that south Utah County falls through a
crack in section 206. While the technical language of section 206 does
not apply to south Utah County, the principals of equity embodied there
should be applied to south Utah County.
Third, a key part of the CUP is the Strawberry/Jordanelle Exchange.
Imported water must be released from the Enlarged Strawberry Reservoir
to Utah Lake to satisfy priority water right holders who would
otherwise be entitled to the waters of the Provo River. This makes it
possible for CUWCD to lawfully store waters of the Provo River in
Jordanelle Reservoir. Most of the CUP water used in the Utah Lake
Drainage Basin will not be consumed, but rather will flow to Utah Lake,
where it can be counted as satisfying a portion of the required
Strawberry/Jordanelle exchange. This conserves an equal amount of water
in the Enlarged Strawberry Reservoir which would otherwise have to be
released to Utah Lake for the exchange. Literally, the CUP water used
in the Utah Lake Drainage Basin can be used at least twice. By
contrast, if that same water is instead used in Salt Lake County,
outside the Utah Lake Drainage Basin, no portion of it returns to Utah
Lake. It can be used only once. Use of the unallocated CUP water in the
Utah Lake Drainage Basin is literally more than twice as efficient and
productive, and results in a considerably greater CUP yield. We know of
no better water reuse and conservation program.
Lastly, much of Salt Lake County is dense, urban or suburban
sprawl. What is not already developed on that model appears to be
largely planned on that model. More water means more of the same and
greater endless densities. South Utah and east Juab Counties have only
begun to plan and grow. With CUP water, both municipal and
agricultural, south Utah and east Juab Counties have the opportunity to
create small cities near preserved agricultural lands. We want a place
for our children to grow and prosper here, not in a larger, more dense,
Salt Lake Valley metropolis. We want to support and save some of south
Utah County's agricultural heritage as well. With improved
infrastructure, the CUP can serve the interests of all south Utah and
east Juab County residents, farmer and city dweller alike. We ask for
that opportunity.
Above all else, we respectfully ask that you keep the promises made
to those who have supported the Bonneville Unit of the CUP, and waited
for its benefits, for so many decades.
We thank you very much for your time and careful consideration.
______
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you.
And Mr. Howarth.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BOYD HOWARTH, CHAIRMAN, JUAB COUNTY
COMMISSION
Mr. Howarth. Mr. Chairman and Committee members, on behalf
of Juab County I would like to express our thanks to
Representative Cannon for his introduction of H.R. 4129, and
our appreciation to Representative Jim Hansen for his
unyielding support of Juab County and its residents during his
many years as our Congressman. Particularly on this issue, the
Central Utah Water Project, his support has been unwavering and
constant. We will miss his presence here, since Juab County, at
least politically speaking, is a 98-pound weakling, and we have
benefitted from the fact that all these years the strong kid on
the playground has protected us and taken care of us well.
From a Juab County perspective, H.R. 4129 makes sense for
the vast majority of the taxpayers who make up the Central Utah
Water Conservancy District. However, it has the potential to
severely damage--that is probably an understatement--it has the
potential to devastate Juab County's ability to receive water
from the Central Utah Water Project.
That notwithstanding, I speak today in favor of H.R. 4129.
The basis for that support demands, however, an explanation
which I am happy to give.
Juab County became a founding member county of the Central
Utah Water Conservancy District when the district was created
by judicial decree in March 1964. Juab County joined the
district because of a representation that it would receive
much-needed water from the district and from the Federal
Government, who contracted with each other a year later in 1965
to bring water to Juab County and the other member counties.
In 1965 the district proposed a ballot proposition to Juab
County residents. It proposed a levy to tax property in Juab
County so that the water could be delivered to the county. The
ballot proposition received tremendous support because our
people believed that we would receive the water in exchange for
the tax. The vote was 964 in favor of that tax to just 17 in
opposition.
The residents of our county voted so overwhelmingly in
favor of the tax because they realized then, as they do now,
that new water, real wet water flowing from a pipe, not just a
water right on paper, is what is needed to help Juab County
blossom into one of Utah's great agricultural counties. Juab
County possesses wonderful rich land for growing crops.
Unfortunately, much of it must be dry farmed because there is
not enough water.
CUP water flowing through a pipe to Juab County would
revive the county economically as well as agriculturally. It
would realize what politicians in Utah have been trying to
accomplish for more than 40 years, Federally funded water in a
pipeline that contributes to the greater good.
Since the tax commenced in 1965, our people have
continuously paid the tax for water that has always been
promised, yet never delivered. For 38 years Juab County has
paid and waited patiently on promise that the water would come.
We have always believed that it would come, until recently.
With the political powers of larger communities clamoring for
CUP water, the residents of Juab County now realize that
without the benevolence of the politically strong, that the
county will not simply be a 98-pound weakling but a 98-pound
weakling whose lunch money has been taken to pay for the lunch
of another.
H.R. 4129 allows water to leave Spanish Fork Canyon and
turn north for use in municipal systems in the Salt Lake
Valley. That reality makes it very difficult for the district
to send another pipeline south to those in Juab County who have
paid these 38 years to have it and its water.
However, we trust and believe the officials of Central Utah
Water Conservancy District when they say that they will find a
way for water to arrive in our county. Our support of this bill
demonstrates that trust and reliance which we have in the
officials of the district. We take them at their word, that
they will find a way to deliver wet water, not just paper
water, in fulfillment of the district's obligation to Juab
County.
If it were not for the assurance of the district, this 98-
pound political weakling would muster the courage to fight this
bill. Instead, we ask the Committee to support H.R. 4129. Our
support of this bill, coupled with support from the southern
Utah County municipalities and Strawberry Water Users
Association, demonstrates that Utahans from diverse locations
and interests can and will work together to find solutions for
all instead of only the politically strong.
Thank you very kindly for this opportunity to testify to
the Committee on this day.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Howarth follows:]
Statement of William Boyd Howarth, Chairman, Juab County Commission,
Juab County, Utah
On behalf of Juab County I would like to express our appreciation
to Representative Jim Hansen for his unyielding support of Juab County
and its residents during his many years as our congressman.
Particularly on this issue-the Central Utah Water Project-his support
has been unwavering and constant. We will miss his presence here since
Juab County-at least politically speaking-is a 98 pound weakling and we
have benefitted from the fact that for all these years the strong kid
on the play ground as protected us and taken care of us.
From a Juab County perspective, H.R. 4129 makes sense for the vast
majority of the taxpayers who make up the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District. However, it has the potential to severely damage-
that's probably an understatement-it has the potential to devastate
Juab County's ability to receive water from the Central Utah Water
Project.
That notwithstanding, I speak today in favor of H.R. 4129. The
basis for that support demands, however, an explanation which I am
happy to give.
Juab County became a founding member county of the Central Utah
Water Conservancy District when the District was created by judicial
decree in March, 1964. Juab County joined the District because of a
representation that it would receive much needed water from the
District and from the Federal Government who contracted with each other
a year later in 1.965 to bring water to Juab County and the other
member counties.
In 1965 the District proposed a ballot proposition to Juab County
residents. It proposed to levy a tax on property in Juab County so that
water could be delivered to the county. The ballot proposition received
tremendous support because our people believed that we would receive
water in exchange for the tax. The vote was 964 in favor of the tax to
just 17 in opposition.
The residents of our county voted so overwhelmingly in favor of the
tax because they realized then as they do now that new water-real water
flowing from a pipe and not just a water right on paper-is what is
needed to help Juab County blossom into one of Utah's great
agricultural counties. Juab County possesses wonderfully rich land for
growing crops. Unfortunately, much of it must be dry farmed because
there is not enough water. C.U.P. water flowing through a pipe to Juab
County would revive the county economically as well as agriculturally.
It would realize what politicians in Utah have been trying to
accomplish for more than forty years: Federally funded water in a
pipeline that contributes to the greater good.
Since the 1965 tax commenced, our people have continuously paid a
tax for water that has always been promised, yet never delivered. For
38 years Juab County has payed and waited patiently on the promise that
water would come. We have always believed it would come-until recently.
With the political powers of larger communities clamoring for C.U.P.
water, the residents of Juab County now realize that without the
benevolence of the politically strong, that the county will not simply
be a 98 pound weakling, but a 98 pound weakling whose lunch money has
been taken to pay for the lunch of another.
H.R. 4129 will allow water to leave Spanish Fork Canyon and turn
north for use in municipal systems in the Salt Lake Valley, That
reality makes it very difficult for the District to send another
pipeline south to those in Juab County who have paid for 38 years to
have it and its water, However, we continue to trust and believe the
officials of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District when they say
that they will find a way for water to arrive in our county. Our
support of this bill demonstrates that trust and reliance which we have
in the officials of the District. We take them at their word that they
will find a way to deliver ``wet water'' and not just ``paper water''
in fulfillment of the District's obligation to Juab County, If it were
not for the assurances of the District, this 98 pound political
weakling would muster the courage to fight this bill,
Instead, we ask the committee to support H.R. 4129, Our support of
this bill, coupled with the support from the Southern Utah County
municipalities and the Strawberry Water Users Association demonstrates
that Utahns from diverse locations and interests can and will work
together to find solutions for all instead of only the politically
strong.
Thank you,
______
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Howarth, and panel members. Are
there questions? Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to first
thank our panel members for coming out, Mr. Christiansen, Mayor
Brailsford, Ms. Peterson, Ms. James, Mr. McMullin, and
Commissioner Howarth. We appreciate your comments on this.
We also have with us today the County Attorney from Juab
County, David Leavitt, and we have at least four members of the
board of the Strawberry Water Users here today. Marcus Faust is
also here with us, and I have probably missed somebody. Ron
Johnston is also here. So we have a number of people from Utah
here today. We are pleased that you could all make this.
I apologize for being in and out. I have some other
business that is going on. We are reorganizing the Immigration
and Naturalization Service tomorrow, and we are working hard on
getting that right before we get the rule out later on this
afternoon, and so I apologize for coming in a little late, Mr.
Chairman.
I really just have one question, and that is for you, Mr.
Christiansen. I know some of the witnesses today have concerns
about Section C, which deletes language related to the Utah
Lake drainage basin. Are you willing to work with these
individuals to find a way to leave the basin language in the
statute?
Mr. Christiansen. Yes, Mr. Cannon, we are.
Mr. Cannon. You may want to move the microphone over toward
you.
Mr. Christiansen. Did you get that on tape? All of these
folks trust me. We are more than willing to change that wording
in the legislation. However, it is important that we do include
in that paragraph the words ``municipal'' and ``industrial.''
If I am to build any facilities that will deliver water to my
good friend sitting next to me here, the municipal/industrial
words do need to appear in there, but the Utah Lake lands, we
are happy to work out the language that would leave that in the
bill, Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. And do you think that that, have you had enough
discussion that you think that you can meet the needs of the
people who are concerned about that language?
Mr. Christiansen. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. Great. Thank you, and I have no other questions
about this, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. If you had completed
your immigration work sooner, you would have had that other
congressional seat. You wouldn't be suing right now.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cannon. We are hoping that it is independent, but if
you are of another mind, we hope that you will keep your
opinion to yourself.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cannon. We view this as another seat for the great
State of Montana, since we think a lot alike.
Mr. Rehberg. Yes, and we are well aware of where you are
taking that seat from. We sued 10 years ago and were not
successful, so we are kind of counting on you not being
successful this time.
Mr. Cannon. Courts change over time.
Mr. Rehberg. Yes, they do. But we have given it up. We know
we are going to lose.
We thank you for traveling so far, and apologize for the
inconvenience that we created with the votes we had today. You
have convinced me, and I am one of those, you probably heard my
opening statement on the next bill, promises made that are not
kept is something that I ran against. And I just find it
bothersome that the Federal Government sometimes does not
remember the promised they made, but those of us who get to be
here for extended periods of time, we will remember and you can
count on our support.
Mr. Brailsford. We get tired of the carrot.
Mr. Cannon. We do want some wet water involved in this
process, and I might just point out that I am pleased, at least
under the current scenario, to be representing at least part of
Juab County, and look forward to--I have never thought of you
guys as a 98-pound weakling. I thought of you as a bunch of
tough guys. But I am pleased to be working with you.
I am going to have to go to a press conference here in a
few minutes with Chairman Sensenbrenner and General Ashcroft
about INS, but I have a few minutes. I am going to slip out in
the hall, and if we need to talk about some of these things, I
would be happy to meet with you for a few minutes there. Thank
you.
Mr. Rehberg. Congressman ``Cannonball'' Cannon to the
rescue. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you.
Mr. Rehberg. Next panel, please. OK, if we could get the
other panel to please sit down, we will get started. Mr.
Sunchild, we will allow you the opportunity, as you are
scheduled to go first, and please feel free to get up and leave
as you have to. You are still OK. I know that route real well.
It takes about 20 minutes, so you are probably still OK.
But why don't we begin this hearing on H.R. 1946, and we
will begin with Mr. Sunchild.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE SUNCHILD, SR., VICE CHAIRMAN, CHIPPEWA CREE
TRIBE
Mr. Sunchild. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Bruce
Sunchild, Sr. I am the Vice Chairman of the Chippewa Cree Tribe
of Rocky Boy's Reservation, and co-chair of Rocky Boy's/North
Central Montana Regional Water System.
I have a prepared statement that I have submitted for the
record. I will now summarize my remarks and relay a few key
points.
I would like to thank Chairman Calvert and the members of
the Subcommittee on Water and Power for convening this hearing,
and I would like to also thank our Montana representative,
Denny Rehberg, for his strong and continuing support of this
project. The Chippewa Cree Tribe and North Central Regional
Water Authority are jointly seeking Federal legislation
authorizing Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water
System.
The water system will provide a safe, reliable municipal,
rural, and industrial water supply for the Rocky Boy's
Reservation and our neighboring off-reservation communities.
This project is essential to our tribe's goal of establishing a
self-sustainable homeland.
The Rocky Boy's Reservation is located in an area where
water is in scarce supply, which greatly limits our economic
development and opportunities. Studies have demonstrated that
the reservation cannot sustain its current rate of growth, much
less provide for economic growth, without additional supplies
of water for drinking, agricultural, municipal, and industrial
purposes.
The unemployment rate on Rocky Boy's Reservation is
extraordinarily high. Approximately 39 percent of Rocky Boy's
population lives below the poverty level. Without an adequate
water supply, the picture will never improve.
The water rights of the Chippewa Cree Tribe are described
in Public Law 106-163. The Chippewa Cree Tribe and Rocky Boy's
Reservation Indian Reserve Water Rights Settlement--that is a
tongue-twister--Water Supply Enhancement Act of 1999 ratified
the water compact entered into by the tribe and the State of
Montana in 1997.
The Federal Settlement Act identified a need to import
water to the reservation area for long-term MR&I needs, and the
settlement authorized a study to identify a preferred plan to
meet those needs. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a
comment at that point where Mr. Keys had made comments about
studying this. This particular project has been ongoing, and
our water rights settlement package, BOR received a substantial
amount of money to complete this water study.
Mr. Chairman, the study has long been going on. It is time
for us to go to work and get some wet water to Rocky Boy's
Reservation. The past panel here talked about wet water, and
that is the same problem that we have. We need the wet water.
It is difficult for us to drink water that is sitting 50 miles
away from our reservation.
And I was bothered by the testimony of Mr. Keys when he
talks about my water rights settlement and what position that
they are taking at this point. The bill clearly states that
nothing prohibited us from coming back to seek water, to
transport those waters from 50 miles away, from Tiber Dam.
Monday, I left Monday from Rocky Boy's at 4 o'clock in the
morning to come to D.C. to prepare for these testimonies.
Monday night at 9 o'clock there was fire at my Rocky Boy's
Reservation that contained 200 acres of fire, in April. Mind
you, gentlemen. this is April, and that fire season is going to
get worse.
And in putting out that fire, the lower part of my system,
which is Box Elder, Montana, was temporarily out of water until
the next morning, to replenish that aquifer to supply that
water. Gentlemen, that is a need that we have for water that is
so drastic. At this point right now we thought was the
opportune time to do that with our settlement dollars, through
our neighboring, off-the-reservation communities, was an
opportune time to connect those, to put our projects together
and come to Congress for this authorization.
Any questions that you may have, I would like to answer as
much as I can here, but emotionally right now, if I go on any
further I think I would--you know, I feel slighted. I feel
slighted by the testimony given by Mr. Keys. I guess I should
be used to it by now, but I am sorry, sir, I cannot get used to
that. And my testimony is written and there for the record, and
I thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sunchild follows:]
Statement of Bruce Sunchild, Sr., Vice-Cchairman, Chippewa Cree Tribe
of the Rocky Boy's Reservation
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Bruce
Sunchild, Sr. I am the Vice-Chairman of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the
Rocky Boy's Reservation and Co-Chairman of the Rocky Boy North Central
Montana Regional Water System Coordinating Committee. I would like to
thank the Honorable Chairman Ken Calvert and the members of the
Subcommittee on Water and Power. I would also like to thank our Montana
Representative Denny Rehberg for his strong and continuing support for
this project.
The Chippewa Cree Tribe and the North Central Regional Water
Authority are jointly seeking Federal legislation authorizing the Rocky
Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System. The water system
will provide a safe and reliable municipal, rural, and industrial water
supply for the Rocky Boy's Reservation and our neighboring off-
reservation communities.
This project is essential to our Tribes' goal of establishing a
self-sustaining homeland. The Rocky Boy's Reservation, located in north
central Montana, consists of more than 120,000 acres, which are home to
approximately 3,500 Tribal members who reside on the reservation. We
have a rapid population growth rate that exceeds 3% annually.
Unemployment on the Rocky Boy's Reservation is extraordinarily high
and approximately 39% of Rocky Boy's population lives below the poverty
level.
The Chippewa Cree Tribe has made important strides in economic
development over the past ten years in the areas of production of
cattle, grain, timber and tourism. Although the reservation's economy
has improved in the last decade, the reservation still lacks an
adequate water source and infrastructure for any sustained municipal
and industrial growth. Recently, drought relief monies were obtained to
build new wells for the current municipal system. However, lack of
recharge to the shallow bedrock aquifers on the Reservation severely
limits water yield. Proposed expansions of our tribal college and other
enterprises cannot proceed until new firm water supplies are located.
The Rocky Boy's Reservation is located in an area of scarce water
supply, which greatly limits economic development opportunities.
Studies have demonstrated that the reservation cannot sustain its
current rate of growth, much less provide for economic growth, without
additional supplies of water for drinking, agricultural and municipal
and industrial purposes.
Tribal Water Right
The water right of the Chippewa Cree Tribe, as described in Public
Law 106-163, the ``Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation
Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement and Water Supply Enhancement
Act of 1999,'' ratified the Water Compact entered into by the Tribe and
the State of Montana. As part of the water settlement, the Tribe
received an allocation of 10,000 acre-feet per year of stored water
from the Bureau of Reclamation in Lake Elwell, also referred to as
Tiber Reservoir. In addition, the settlement provided for an
appropriation of $15 million as recognition of the need for a new
Tribal municipal water system and to begin development of a future
water supply system for the Reservation.
Need for the Water System
Groundwater is the primary source of domestic water within the
Rocky Boy's Reservation. In addition to our limited water supply, we
lack an adequate water delivery infrastructure system. Of the various
sources of groundwater on the Reservation, only the shallow alluvial
and bedrock aquifers have potential for development. The other
groundwater sources either exceed the criteria set by the Safe Drinking
Water Act, have high concentrations of chloride, sodium, and sulfate,
or are too expensive to develop. These secondary contaminates make the
water undesirable for domestic use.
Although the quality of the water in the shallow alluvial aquifer
is generally acceptable, the quantity is inadequate. Wells in this
aquifer generally have low yields, producing 10 gallon per minute or
less of water. Historically, these private wells are used for a period
of time and then abandoned due to decreasing yields. As yields
decrease, the water quality often also decreases. Furthermore, these
wells are frequently connected to the major water courses where the
potential for pollution is significant.
There is simply not enough good quality groundwater to meet the
Tribe's current needs, much less our future needs. Surface water
sources are also limited in quantity and cannot provide a reliable
source of water. As a result, many Tribal members have to haul water
for their domestic use.
Employment on the Reservation is a chronic and long-standing
problem. The Tribe is faced with a young, rapidly growing population
and a corresponding need for economic development, in an area of
chronic water shortages. A dependable source of high quality water is
needed to enable Tribal members and other Reservation residents to
achieve an adequate standard of living.
A safe and reliable water supply is a cornerstone of economic
development. The assurance of an adequate supply of high quality
municipal, rural and industrial water will enable the Tribe to pursue
current and future economic development. It will also allow current and
future Reservation residents to enjoy a higher quality of life through
improved health conditions, more employment opportunities, and an
overall increased level of economic development.
Other Alternatives
There are very few alternatives for providing water to the Rocky
Boy's Reservation. Studies have shown there are simply no reliable
surface and groundwater on-reservation sources to serve the needs of
the Reservation. These studies, conducted by the Tribe, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and the Indian Heath Service, have all concluded that
there is a need for a Reservation-wide domestic water supply system.
The Project
The proposed project is an innovative and collaborative solution to
the need of both the Tribe and the north central part of Montana for an
MR&I system. Discussion of the proposed project began during the
compact negotiations between the Tribe and the State of Montana. It was
recognized as a unique opportunity for the Tribe and its off-
reservation neighbors to cooperate to the benefit of both communities.
In many areas of this country, competing uses of water would create
litigation between on and off-reservation waters users. To be
cooperating in the manner we have is unusual and something that we are
all proud of.
Lake Elwell is a Bureau of Reclamation facility located 50 miles
west of the Rocky Boy's Reservation. The availability of thousands of
acre feet of unallocated water in Tiber Reservoir provides the
opportunity to meet the water needs of the Tribe and neighboring north
central regional communities. P.L. 106-163 allocated 10,000 acre-feet
per year of water from the lake to the Tribe.
Water will be diverted from the lake into a common water quality
treatment plant. The water will be treated to meet all of the criteria
of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This centralized treatment plant will
eliminate the need for each community to build its own treatment plant.
It will also simplify the process of upgrading the plant to meet
changing requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Because all of
the water will be treated to standards, Reservation resident will
uniformly have access to safe drinking water, at acceptable levels.
A core pipeline will convey water from the treatment plant to the
Rocky Boy's Reservation. Smaller distribution lines will then convey
the water to the various communities and users on the Reservation. The
Tribe proposes to use our $15M in settlement monies to upgrade our
existing water delivery system to receive the imported water.
The estimated total cost of the project is $200 million. The tribal
related portion of the project is estimated at $120 million. All costs
of the reservation system, including operation and maintenance, will be
a Federal responsibility.
This project will dramatically enhance the health, quality of life
and economic benefits of our Reservation and region. This project will
allow the Chippewa Cree Tribal members to realize their goal of self-
determination and will provide, for the first time ever, a safe and
reliable source of drinking water on the Reservation. It will also
provide the cornerstone for the Tribe's current and future economic
development plans. I urge your support for this project.
Mr. Chairman, in the landmark 1908 decision where the Winters
Doctrine was established, the Supreme Court ruled that when the United
States established Federal Indian reservations, there had to be
sufficient water reserved for the tribes to establish those
reservations as permanent tribal homelands. Over the course of the last
quarter century, the Federal Government has also strongly urged tribes
to settle their water rights claims so as to quantify the extent of the
tribal right and create certainty for off-reservation residents who
will almost certainly have a junior water right to the tribe. Well, we
did that. We settled our water rights and the United States ratified
that settlement in P.L. 106-163, but the settlement of a water right
only benefits a tribe if there is a method of putting that water to
some beneficial use. The greening of the west bypassed Indian country,
Mr. Chairman. Additionally, for the last century, as state and local
governments established water systems, they too forgot about Indian
country--at best. At worst they endeavored to divert our water before
it reached the reservations. Now the Congress has an opportunity to do
the right thing and to assist both the Chippewa Cree Tribe and the
dozens of non-Indian communities in North Central Montana who cannot
presently comply with established drinking water standards. H.R. 1946
creates an opportunity to culminate the negotiation of our water rights
into a proverbial win-win situation. We appreciate that our friend
Denny Rehberg has introduced this bill and we hope that you will now
mark it up and move it on to the floor of the House. Thank you again
for the opportunity to testify in support of this important and
necessary project. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Sunchild, and I understand your
frustration. The United States has reserved and made available
for the Chippewa Cree Tribe 10,000 acre feet of water in the
Tiber Reservoir. Mr. Sunchild, does it make any sense to you
for the Federal Government to have that water held for your
tribe without you having the capacity to access it and use it?
Mr. Sunchild. None whatsoever. That is a paper right that
is sitting 50 miles away, and what we need is wet water.
Mr. Rehberg. Are there viable alternatives or is this the
only alternative?
Mr. Sunchild. No. The study that Mr. Keys has talked about
was a study of Milk River and the Missouri River. Milk River at
this point is overallocated, and the Missouri has arsenic
levels to a point where the State of Montana does not allow us
to degradate another stream. So that, and then the Chippewa
Cree Tribe has a resolution stating that we will not bring
arsenic-laced water into our reservation.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Sunchild. Please feel free to
leave when you need to.
Mr. Sunchild. Gentlemen, again I would like to thank you
for this opportunity, and we need your support. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you.
The next gentleman, I kiddingly say to the entire State of
Montana that I came back as a freshman for orientation the week
after the election, and the very first person I met with was
Mr. Keil on this project, and I wasn't even to be sworn in for
another month and a half. That is how much this project means
to Mr. Keil. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL KEIL, CHAIRMAN, NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA ROCKY
BOY'S REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY
Mr. Keil. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for
the opportunity to come back here. For the record, my name is
Dan Keil, that is K-E-I-L. I serve in the capacity as Chairman
of the North Central Montana Regional Water Authority. Previous
to that or in another life, I am a farmer in dry old Montana,
where we are experiencing in our area the sixth year in a row
of drought, and it is getting to some of the community water
systems that are participating in this project.
If I may draw your attention to the map that is attached to
my testimony, the size of this project, you can see that it is
approximately 10,700 square miles. On that map you will find
that there are different coded tracings. Those describe the
existing water systems that are part of the participation.
There are several water districts. Mine is the Tiber Water
District which serves portions of five counties in north
central Montana.
I have been on that Tiber Water Board since it was started
in the early 1970's, and it was started as a result of the
first SALT agreement that President Nixon went to Russia and
signed. When he did that, it stopped the construction on a
military facility just up the road from my house, and part of
that was a large water line that went across country, that was
put in for the service of a military base and for the water for
cooling for that facility.
As a result of that, when they closed it down, the
community got together and formed a water district in those
five counties, and I was elected president and served on that
board. I still serve on that board, but I was president for a
number of years.
You know, when the water came to us, before that we all had
to haul water, and some of the people in this district hauled
water 25 miles one way, you get real conservative. You know,
one of the big difficulties that we had in that water system or
the farmers had, was when the water, when we got it there, we
finally had water that we could do just about anything we
wanted to with. We could turn the tap on let her run a little
bit longer than necessary.
You know, Denny, you were talking about the problems with
having the people running water in your house. Well, the other
one was, was flushing the toilet. You know, when you don't
flush it by necessity, it becomes pretty rank. But it is nice
to have flowing water, and we are very proud of it, and the
people out in the communities that are part of these systems
are very proud of it.
When the opportunity came to try and solve additional
problems that the Federal Government has put on us with the
regulations that these small systems have to comply with, this
is what drives their participation in this regional water
system. Because it is real easy, when the Federals and the EPA
decide to justify the cost-effectiveness of some of these
programs, and they go in, and say it takes a million people and
they divide up the cost by a million, then it is affordable.
When they divide the cost up by the size of some of these
systems that are part of this thing where there is 23 families,
then it becomes real expensive to comply with.
In 1992 there was an ad hoc committee that was formed. I
served as chairman of that. And in 1999, we formed the
Authority, and we have been struggling trying to get this
passed. We were going to be here last fall, but of course the
9/11 thing kind of put a hold on that. We need to get on with
the project because a couple of the systems have some time
lines on compliance issues they have been out there struggling
with, and we need to get on with the system.
So I want to take this opportunity to thank you again. I
have a gentleman here who is representing the Hill County Water
District which has one of those compliance problems, and if you
have any questions, we would be pleased to try and answer them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keil follows:]
Statement of Dan Keil, Chairman, North Central Montana Regional Water
Authority
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Dan Keil.
I am Chairman of the North Central Montana Regional Water Authority.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee in
support of authorizing the Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional
Water System. I would also like to thank Representative Rehberg for his
strong and continuing support for this project.
The Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System will
provide a safe and dependable municipal, rural and industrial water
supply for the Rocky Boy's Reservation and the public water supply
systems that comprise the North Central Montana Regional Water
Authority. Speaking on behalf of the off-Reservation portion of the
project, I can assure you that the communities in north central Montana
strongly support both the on-Reservation and off-Reservation components
of the project.
Need for the Water System
The Rocky Boy's Reservation and north central Montana are plagued
by problems with water quality and supply. The off-Reservation public
water supply systems are unable to meet the requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. According to the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), three of the public water supply systems
which would be served by the proposed regional system are out of
compliance with the Federal Act. Of these three, DEQ has issued an
administrative order to one system requiring an alternative source of
water and expects to bring enforcement actions against the other two
systems in the near future.
The Montana DEQ prioritized the existing water systems according to
their expected difficulty in meeting future regulatory requirements
based upon current EPA proposals and the 1996 amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act. As can be seen from the attached table, almost all
of the existing systems are either out of compliance or will have
difficulty meeting future regulatory requirements unless they upgrade
their systems.
Many of the systems treat their water with chlorine which in turn
may cause problems with elevated levels of disinfection by-products.
Other systems have problems with bacterial contamination and elevated
levels of total dissolved solids, iron, manganese, lead, copper,
sulfate and sodium. Boil orders either have been or are presently in
effect for a number of the systems.
Many area residents are not served by any public water system. Due
to the limited availability and poor quality of groundwater, these
residents must haul their own water. The available water supply fails
to meet water quality standards and poses real health risks to the
area's population.
Water quality problems are exacerbated by water supply issues.
Because of the general lack of good quality groundwater, most of the
area's larger public water systems use surface water supplies,
including the Milk River. As recognized in the North Central Montana
Regional Water System Planning/Environmental Report dated May 2000, the
availability of direct flow supplies from the Milk River is limited by
the loss of active storage due to the rapid rate of sedimentation,
unused Canadian treaty rights and unquantified Indian reserved water
rights. Public water systems relying on the Milk River have had to
implement strict water rationing requirements.
The water availability problems have been aggravated by drought. In
2000 and 2001, the U.S. Department of Agriculture classified all 56
Montana counties under drought disaster status. A number of the
counties which will be served by the proposed regional water system
have received a drought disaster classification for the last five
years. As of March 14, 2002, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration predicted the drought in Montana is likely to persist.
In recognition of the continuing drought, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture has already granted Montana drought disaster status for
2002.
The poverty rate for all eight counties which will be served by the
regional water system exceeds the national average. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau, 19.8 percent of the people in Hill County and 17.4
percent in Toole County live in poverty. These are two of the counties
which will be served by the regional water system. The Montana
Department of Labor & Industry reports the unemployment rate on the
Rocky Boy's Reservation at 27 percent. According to the Department,
unemployment on the Rocky Boy's Reservation is more than twice that on
other Montana reservations and is the highest in the state. These
statistics only reflect those persons actively looking for work and do
not reflect the true situation on the Reservation where many have
become discouraged and given up hope of finding a job. In 1999, this
committee's report on the Rocky Boy's Reservation's Indian reserved
water rights settlement estimated unemployment on the Reservation at
nearly 70 percent. A reliable source of safe drinking water is
necessary to improve the low standard of living on the Reservation and
in the surrounding area.
A dependable supply of water is also essential to ongoing efforts
to attract new businesses to the area in order to provide for future
economic growth. In addition to long term benefits, the regional water
project will provide an immediate economic boost for north central
Montana and the Rocky Boy's Reservation. Assuming labor costs for the
project at 25 percent of the total construction budget, the project
will generate approximately $38.75 million in wages via 1,242
construction man hours. These construction dollars will provide a much
needed stimulus to the regional economy.
The North Central Montana Regional Water Authority, along with the
Rocky Boy's Reservation, the State of Montana, and the Bureau of
Reclamation, has studied possible alternatives to supply water to the
region. The option of updating existing public water supply systems to
comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act was rejected due to the high
cost. Another option, using Missouri River water, was rejected because
it would introduce arsenic from the Missouri into the Milk River basin,
thereby degrading the water quality of the receiving streams. Obtaining
additional water from the Milk River was also studied but rejected due
to the limited physical and legal availability of water. The use of
additional groundwater sources was also investigated. This option was
not feasible because there is very little groundwater physically
available, and the groundwater that is available is of poor quality or
is under the influence of surface water which according to the Safe
Drinking Water Act requires treatment. Of all the alternatives
reviewed, the proposed regional water project is the only one which
provides a dependable water supply while offering the lowest capital
project and life-cycle costs.
The Project
Water for the Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water
System will be diverted from Lake Elwell, a Bureau of Reclamation
reservoir on the Marias River, which is located approximately 40 miles
west of the Rocky Boy's Reservation. As part of the Rocky Boy's
reserved water rights settlement, the Chippewa Cree Tribe was allocated
10,000 acre-feet per year from storage in Lake Elwell. The off-
Reservation portion of the regional water system will contract with the
Bureau of Reclamation for purchase of stored water from Lake Elwell.
There is sufficient storage available in the reservoir to provide a
reliable supply for the project while satisfying recreational and
fishery needs.
A water treatment plant, using conventional filtration, will be
located near the intake on Lake Elwell. The water will be treated to
meet both the primary and secondary requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act standards. A core pipeline will convey water from the
treatment plant to the Rocky Boy's Reservation. A series of
transmission pipelines will also provide water to smaller distribution
lines belonging to the area's off-Reservation public water supply
systems. The regional water system will take advantage of the
infrastructure of these existing systems. When completed, the regional
water system will provide a safe and dependable water supply for a
projected 30,000 people in 2045. Water will be provided to all or parts
of eight counties including 10,700 square miles in north central
Montana.
Without the proposed centralized water treatment plant, most of the
participating systems would be required to build new or to
significantly upgrade existing conventional water treatment plants. Due
to the low population densities and limited income potential in north
central Montana, individual communities, both on and off the
Reservation, cannot afford their own treatment plants. The existing
public water supply systems are also concerned about additional
upgrades which may be necessary in the future to satisfy changing
Federal and state regulation. A central treatment plant will allow
these existing systems to economically meet both the current and any
future requirements of the Act.
The estimated total project cost is $200 million, the Rocky Boy's
Reservation portion of which is $120 million. The bill proposes the
Federal share of the off-Reservation construction to be 75 percent. The
North Central Montana Regional Water Authority has worked with the
State of Montana to secure funding for the non-federal share of the
capital costs. A portion of the approximate $20 million non-federal
share of the project has already been set aside. The Authority will
also be responsible for the cost of operating, maintaining and
repairing the off-Reservation portion of the project.
The north central Montana communities and the Tribe have been
working together on the project development since 1992, having formed
an Ad Hoc Committee in 1993. Off-Reservation and Tribal communities
worked with the 1999 Montana Legislature to enact legislation allowing
establishment of regional water authorities and creating a state
regional water system fund. This type of cooperation is needed to
benefit all Montanans. Recognizing the area's need, the State of
Montana, local entities and the Tribe agreed to seek Federal
authorization for the project. This joint commitment is evidenced in
the reserved water rights compact negotiated between the Chippewa Cree
Tribe, the State of Montana, and the Federal Government.
Sixteen rural water districts, two water users associations, and
several Hutterite colonies originally expressed an interest in the
project and paid preliminary fees to demonstrate their earnestness. I
have attached to my testimony a list of the participating off-
Reservation entities. In addition, more than 145 households not
presently served by a water system have expressed interest in receiving
water. All of the public water systems on the attached list are members
of the North Central Montana Regional Water Authority.
The people of north central Montana and the Rocky Boy's Reservation
presently do not have a reliable source of water. The proposed regional
water system will provide water to an area historically afflicted by
water supply and quality problems. We ask this subcommittee's support
in passing this important legislation to protect the social and
economic future of our region.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify in support of the
Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System. I would be
pleased to answer any questions.
______
[Attachments to Mr. Keil's statement follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Keil. Normally we wait until
after everyone on the panel has spoken to ask questions, but
since I am the Chairman, I can do anything I want. So I would
like to ask you the question, approximately how much would it
cost per household to comply, if you were required to?
Mr. Keil. Well, you know, for the Hill County system?
Mr. Rehberg. Any system. You could use the worst case
scenario or--
Mr. Keil. It depends upon the type of water that they have
available, as to what the technology that they would have to
use would be. My water system has technology right now that
they are in compliance, but some of the new proposed
regulations coming down the line, we haven't had an opportunity
to analyze those costs of what it is going to be to comply with
those issues, such as the disinfection byproducts. There are
several of those type of things that are coming down the line
right now.
The water systems, like with Hill County, it is hundreds of
dollars per month, you know, with a small system. Right now our
water rates for some of these systems are in excess of $135 a
month, without any additional cost.
Mr. Rehberg. Do you have professional water hauling
businesses in your area? In Billings I get charged--I am
literally 10 minutes from downtown Billings, so I am as close
as you can get but I still have to haul water to my home--it
costs me about $30 for 2,000 gallons. Do you have a business
that you can call to deliver that 25 miles, or--
Mr. Keil. You know, in rural country all the farmers have
got trucks that we are hauling the water, and they would slip a
tank on the back and would haul their own. And of course, like
a good farmer, our time, we are not worth anything. So I don't
know of anybody in my immediate area that makes a living out of
hauling water, you know.
Mr. Rehberg. I used to haul my own until I needed do get
another job. It took me 8 hours a day, 8,000 gallons a day.
Mr. Keil. Well, yes. You know, that is--before the
introduction of these rural systems, that controlled our life,
hauling water. And it is always a lot of fun to haul water when
your cistern runs empty and it is 20 below zero.
Mr. Rehberg. That is right. OK, thank you, Mr. Keil.
And finally, Mr. Tubbs, you just can't seem to get away
from me, can you? We have worked together for a long time. It
is nice to see you in your new capacity. Welcome to Washington,
and if you please.
STATEMENT OF JOHN E. TUBBS, CHIEF, RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT BUREAU,
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION
Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Chairman, it is nice to see you in your new
capacity. It is great to be here. It is truly an honor to
testify before the House and this Committee from the State of
Montana. I want to thank you for that opportunity, and strongly
support the Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water
Supply System.
I want also to relay Governor Martz's strong support for
this regional water system. She is fully aware of the
importance of a safe drinking water supply to this region of
Montana. It is a cornerstone of life and economic life, and I
know that Governor Martz's strong support will not end, and she
is going to pursue this project.
The Chippewa Cree tribal government of the Rocky Boy's
Reservation has been trying to address a serious need for safe
drinking water for over a decade now. This driving need for a
reliable and high quality source of water supply presented an
opportunity to work with a regional water system, where both
the tribal government and the nontribal communities in the area
for one of the first times are working cooperatively to solve a
common need. Everybody needs a safe source of drinking water.
And it should not be missed by this Committee and Congress,
this relationship building between tribal and nontribal
governments in the State. Oftentimes they don't work together
and work at cross purposes. This is not one of those times, and
we really need to honor that relationship that they are
building on this drinking water system.
Montana is also suffering, as Dan mentioned in his area, 6
years of drought State-wide. It is 4 years of long-term
drought. Initially our surface water supplies were the first
hit, but now groundwater supplies are suffering because of the
lack of recharge over years. That is not going to recover for a
long time. The moisture loss to the soil and the groundwater
continues now with, as Vice Chairman Sunchild mentioned, a fire
in April on the Rocky Boy's is not a good sign for the future
of this summer.
We considered a number of alternatives. Hill County Water
District, made reference to, uses water out of the Milk River.
Today if you went out to one of the major reservoirs you could
walk across it, because it is empty. It is literally empty--
Havre had to restrict their water use 2 weeks ago because of
the lack of any stored water in the Milk River drainage. That
is just not an option for this region, to go back to the Milk
River.
The Missouri River, as mentioned, does have arsenic in it
that is naturally occurring from Yellowstone Park. It comes out
of the Firehole River and goes down the river system all the
way to New Orleans. The State does not want to see arsenic
introduced into the Milk River system, which does not have
arsenic. And so from a water quality standpoint, as you know,
Representative Rehberg, in Montana degradation of high quality
water just isn't allowed. I mean, you just can't move that over
into another drainage, so that isn't an option.
The only other option that is really available is to go on
the way we are going with the regional water system. Which is
to have 20 independent, very small water systems, that right
now have no adequate water, and systems on the reservation. And
the problem from the State's perspective is that we have to
regulate all 20 of those systems, and none of them are having
an easy time staying in compliance.
And as Dan mentioned, with the few number of customers each
one of them has, they don't have the capacity to deal with
changes that are promulgated through rulemaking under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. The change comes, and where do they get the
money? I mean, how do they react to it? How do they meet that
need?
Well, with a central treatment plant we are going to be
able to regulate one point within the region that is going to
be built to standard to begin with, and anticipate future
standards. It will have a greater number of users on it, so any
change can be borne by a larger population.
And we really, strongly feel that this is the way we can
develop the capacity in Montana to both provide safe drinking
water and also have an adequate source, because Tiber Reservoir
is one of the few places in the whole region where we can get
drought relief for these communities. It is a very good, firm
source of water supply out there. There is plenty of water in
Tiber Reservoir to contract. It isn't going to run out.
So we strongly support this regional system. We encourage
the Congress to pass H.R. 1946 now, to get it authorized.
Authorization is going to let us engage the Bureau of
Reclamation and get this project done. We have got to pass this
bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tubbs follows:]
Statement of John Tubbs, Chief, Resource Development Bureau, Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the record my name
is John Tubbs. I am Chief of the Resource Development Bureau of the
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. As a
representative of the State of Montana, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony in support of House of Representatives
Bill 1946 authorizing the `Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional
Water System Act of 2001'.
Governor Martz has asked me to relay her strong support of the
proposed regional water project in North Central Montana. Governor
Martz is very interested in seeing this project authorized because of
the tremendous need for safe drinking water in this area of Montana and
the benefits the regional water system can provide to the water users,
the state and the nation. As my testimony will demonstrate, the support
of the State of Montana for this project is strong and comes with a
significant financial commitment for funding.
The Chippewa Cree Tribal Government of the Rocky Boy's Reservation
has been trying to address a serious need for safe drinking water. This
driving need for a reliable, high quality water supply presented the
opportunity for a regional water system to serve tribal members and
non-tribal communities. Working with local and state representatives,
tribal leaders have taken this opportunity to work with their neighbors
to achieve a common goal, adequate and safe drinking water for our
communities. It is so important to note this positive action of both
the tribal and non-tribal communities working together. When the tribal
leaders reached out to their neighbors and extended this opportunity
and vision, they bridged a gap in relationships that had existed for
decades. The proposed Rocky Boy's / North Central Montana Regional
Water System is a shared vision based on a common need.
In the early 1990's, representatives from the tribal and non-tribal
governments met to begin the planning for this project. The
opportunities that a regional water supply presented were
unquestionable, but the very size and cost of the proposal led to many
questions about economic feasibility. An interagency team was assembled
to coordinate a state review of the proposed regional water system. The
team is composed of representatives for the Departments of Natural
Resources and Conservation, Environmental Quality, and Commerce. This
state coordinating committee is still actively evaluating the proposal.
Two state grants have been awarded to provide funding for preliminary
engineering for the system so everyone can base their support for this
project on factual information. This process continues.
What has been shown is that water quality is poor in some areas of
the region, and inadequate water quantity is often an issue.
Communities and water districts in the region have tried to attack this
problem through several methods. Some are not treating water from a
number of surface sources beyond chlorination. As a result, at least
three systems are currently out of compliance with Federal safe
drinking water standards. Up to 13 of the remaining systems are
expected to have difficulty meeting future regulatory requirements
based upon current U.S. EPA regulatory proposals or other requirements
of the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Compliance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act is
difficult in large part because there are 20 individual public water
supplies serving the rural communities of the area. The small number of
users served by each of the individual systems must bear the full cost
of running a drinking water system. By joining together on a regional
basis, future costs will be associated with one intake and treatment
facility, and they will spread against a larger user base. From the
state's perspective, a regional system will be able to demonstrate that
they have the capacity to operate, manage, and finance future
operations.
Insufficient water quantity is an everyday issue to many of the
residents of the area. Montana is in the fourth year of a severe
drought. To bring this into perspective, precipitation has been so far
below normal that it is estimated we have lost an entire years worth of
normal precipitation over the four-year period. Initially, surface
water sources were the hardest hit by the drought. However, due to the
length of the drought, groundwater supplies are now threatened. The
proposed source of supply from Tiber Reservoir would provide both a
high quality source of drinking water for the region and a firm supply
of water that ``drought proofs'' the communities in this region. There
is no other source that has sufficient quantity and quality to meet the
combined needs of all the communities in this region.
A key question is what would a regional system cost in comparison
to the alternatives that these community water supplies may have. The
total estimated cost of the regional system is approximately $200
million. The state, as a condition of support, asked for an alternative
analysis of the costs to communities and individuals of providing safe
drinking water without a regional system. Based on engineering
estimates, the cost of maintaining and operating 20 individual water
systems within the region is about 10 percent lower than the $200
million cost of constructing the regional system. However, the benefits
of a regional system greatly exceed the 10 percent increase in total
cost for the regional project. First, the quality of water provided
from the regional system will be a great improvement to many of the
individual systems. If you have bad groundwater to start with,
treatment doesn't improve it's quality. It only makes it safe to drink.
Second, maintaining the individual systems does not address the
benefits of providing a firm water supply that protects the communities
against future drought.
From a regulatory aspect a regional water system has significant
benefits. At the present time, there are 20 different regulated systems
within the region that wish to be a part of the authority. Meeting
regulatory requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act must be
demonstrated by each system. When a rule changes, all those systems
must react to the change. Also, because many of the systems are for
small municipalities or county water districts, some with fewer than
200 connections, there is a reduced capacity on the part of most of
these smaller systems to maintain and operate a water system, not to
mention the problems that the long-established communities are having.
That means that the Montana Department of Environmental Quality is
perennially facing problems with compliance. A regional water system
would provide one point of regulation for the all of the member
systems. If a rule were changed, it would only affect one treatment
plant. Due to economies of scale, a regional system can be operated
with a higher level of oversight and management than individual
municipal water supply systems. Therefore, an increased degree of
compliance can be expected.
The state also supports this regional water system because of its
potential to yield strong economic benefits. Unemployment on the
reservation is high. Construction will employ many people that have few
other job opportunities. The construction period is estimated to be in
excess of a decade. Once constructed, there will be numerous long-term
jobs created as the tribe and the non-tribal water users operate and
maintain the facilities. These types of jobs are highly sought after in
this area of Montana. Finally, the regional pipeline will provide one
of the key resources that enterprising businesses look for when they
locate in an area--a safe water supply. Ranch/farm operations will
benefit from the stock water available through the system. This will
immediately improve their bottom line, as increased weight gain can be
achieved with higher quality water. This project will not resolve all
of the economic problems that North Central Montana faces; however, it
will serve as a cornerstone to future success upon which the people in
the area can build.
The state supports the Rocky Boy's / North Central Montana Regional
Water System because it provides the Rocky Boy's Reservation with a
safe and reliable drinking water system. The Rocky Boy's Reservation is
the home of the Chippewa and Cree Tribes in Montana. Since the
establishment of the Rocky Boy Reservation in 1916, tribal members have
been limited to developing poor quality groundwater sources and limited
surface water sources for their drinking water systems. The existing
systems on the reservation are inadequate today and will not be able to
provide safe drinking water for the future. The state of Montana
supports every effort to provide the tribal members living on the Rocky
Boy Reservation a reliable, high quality drinking water system. We are
all Montanan's and all of us must have the opportunity to prosper
whether we live on an Indian Reservation or not. It is an absolute; the
tribal members of the Rocky Boy's Reservation must have a safe and
reliable drinking water system. The regional system will provide the
required water supply for the reservation.
Finally, I would like to tell the Committee about the legislation
that Montana has passed to support this regional water system proposal.
Clearly, considering the price tag of this project, a partnership among
local, state and Federal Governments needs to be forged. Montana has
made a commitment to this partnership. The Montana State Legislature
established a funding mechanism in 1999 specifically to provide state
cost share dollars for regional water systems. This fund has now grown
to over $8 million and will continue to receive $4 million a year until
2016. Earning from this fund will be used to match Federal expenditures
along with local cost share. The Treasure State Regional Water Fund
Legislation enjoyed strong support from the State of Montana. In the
Senate, SB 220 received 50 of 50 votes. In the House, SB 220 received
97 of 100 votes for passage.
I respectfully request that the committee, after due consideration,
pass HR. 1946 authorizing the Rocky Boy's / North Central Water System.
This is so important to the people in North Central Montana that I ask
on behalf of the State of Montana that you give this bill your
approval, so that the planning and engineering can proceed on this
system.
Thank you for your time today. It was an honor to speak before the
committee.
______
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Tubbs. Has the Administration,
the Martz Administration, looked into the opportunities of
appealing to the EPA if we are not successful in getting this
project funded, to lessen the standards or give us additional
time to try and figure out another solution, as Mr. Keys
indicated in his testimony, that he would desire to create a
multi-agency coordinating effort? Is there any possibility, or
is that beyond the Governor's authority and abilities?
Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Chairman, I don't know that the Governor has
the ability to change the Safe Drinking Water Act rules. But
through the DEQ, our Department of Environmental Quality, which
is the primacy agency for EPA in the State of Montana, they
have indicated that, one, they want to see this bill moved
forward or, two, the Hill County Water System needs to build a
water treatment plant.
They are willing to work with us if Congress authorizes
this legislation, because they know full well this is a better
solution than Hill County going on their own with the resources
they have independently. And so, I mean, the bottom line is,
DEQ has said, ``We'll give you until the end of the year to get
this authorized. Otherwise, we have to move forward.''
And it is not just an issue of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Hill County does not have a surface water treatment plant. They
divert the water into two large reservoirs and then chlorinate
it for distribution. So it is more than just the regulatory
requirement. We are delivering water to a series of communities
on the high line that is at risk, and the State and EPA can't
stand by for too much longer without essentially assuming that
risk for our agencies. We need Hill County to deliver safe
drinking water.
And frankly, I am more than willing to work with
Commissioner Keys on a joint funding, but I would like to kind
of shift that to the appropriations side of the issue as
opposed to the authorization side of the issue.
Mr. Rehberg. Has the State of Montana made a financial
commitment on their share of the cost?
Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Chairman, the State of Montana has funded
for now, nearly a decade, the planning of this project. We have
established a coal service tax trust fund, where a quarter of
our coal taxes in Montana that are deposited into the permanent
trust are dedicated to this. We have built it up now to greater
than $8 million. It is going to ultimately provide a tremendous
amount of revenue through the earnings on that trust, and it
was established specifically for this project and one other in
northeastern Montana. And, by the way, we only lost 2 votes out
of 150 votes in the State legislature, so--
Mr. Rehberg. This is a fund that was established from the
coal tax revenue, from the principal, not the interest?
Mr. Tubbs. From the principal. There is a kind of internal
fund that is being built up, whose revenues, earnings, are
dedicated for a regional water system non-Federal match. The
State is strongly behind this project.
Mr. Rehberg. Strictly for this project, or any water
project?
Mr. Tubbs. Two projects were authorized, this one and the
Dry Prairie Water Project.
Mr. Rehberg. All right. Officially, I am supposed to say
the members of the Subcommittee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
these in writing. The hearing record will be held open for
these responses until March 21st of 2002. It says March. Until
May 21 of 2002.
If there is no further business, the Chairman again thanks
the members of the Subcommittee and our witnesses. Without
objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-